| Home | Featured Stories | Did You Know? | Readers' Blog-Eds | Background Information | News On the Web |
|
UNILATERAL ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM GAZA WILL REWARD TERRORISTS
AND LEAD TO INCREASE OF TERRORISM
Posted by Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), February 29, 2004. |
|
To: ZOA Executive Directors
ZOA Regional Leaders Friends of Israel Around the U.S. From: Morton A. Klein - National President
The proposal for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has raised a number of urgent questions. Leading Israeli military experts are warning that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal would lead to an increase in Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israelis. It would send a clear message that murdering Jews brings results, without the Palestinian Authority even being required to promise to fight terror, much less actually doing it. Moreover, an Israeli withdrawal would include the forced mass expulsion of Jews from their homes and communities for no other reason than that they are Jews an action that would be deemed immoral and racist if it were applied to any other minority group in any other country. Please e-mail your concerns to Prime Minister Sharon and Members of Knesset: Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: pm_heb@pmo.gov.il Likud Knesset Members:
* Israeli Military Experts Oppose Unilateral Withdrawal: Senior Israeli Army officials have warned Prime Minister Sharon that "If the Palestinians are able to operate a sea port or airport from the Gaza Strip after the Israeli retreat, the Palestinians would be able to import weapons that would threaten Israel's security." Major-General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on February 10 that a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza "will be seen as surrender to terrorism" and "might motivate further terrorism." (Ma'ariv, Feb. 10, 2004) Shlomo Gazit, former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, wrote: "Our exit from Gaza will transform it into a big armed camp into which weapons of all kinds will stream via land, sea and maybe even air. It will also become an arsenal for independent development and production of arms. Moreover, this capitulation will be rightly viewed as an unambivalent victory for the Palestinian armed struggle." (Ma'ariv, Feb. 9, 2004) * U.S. Joint Chiefs: Israel should keep Gaza On June 29, 1967, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in a report to the Secretary of Defense that Israel needed to keep Gaza: "By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it is, the strip serves as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism, and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage." * An Israeli withdrawal means creating a terrorist state in Gaza: The Palestinian Authority regime currently administers parts of Gaza, but does not have sovereignty because of the presence of the Israeli Army. The PA does not control the borders, does not control sea access to Gaza, and does not have a full-fledged army. If Israel withdraws from the area, the PA will be able to establish a sovereign state, which would certainly be a terrorist state, to judge by how the PA has treated terrorists until now. It has not disarmed or outlawed terrorist groups; it has not shut down their bomb factories; it has not closed down the terrorists' training camps. It has rewarded terrorists with jobs in the PA police force. In short, the PA has actively collaborated with and sheltered the terrorists. Moreover, the PA itself has sponsored thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel. The PA has also created an entire culture of glorification of terrorism and anti-Jewish hatred in its official media, schools, summer camps, sermons by PA-appointed clergy, and speeches by PA representatives. PA school textbooks teach that Jews are "evil racists." * Rewarding terrorists is wrong and dangerous: During the past three years, Palestinian Arab terrorists have carried out tens of thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel, murdering nearly 1,000 Israelis and maiming many more. The terrorists demand, among other things, that Israel withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents. Terrorists, like all criminals, deserve to be punished for the crimes, not rewarded. For Israel to withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents would be to reward the terrorists. It would also encourage more terrorism, by demonstrating to the terrorists that additional violence may bring about additional Israeli concessions. Three and a half years of Palestinian Arab terrorism has proven that appeasement and concessions have failed. * Creating a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza would not lead to peace: Establishing a state in Gaza would not satisfy the Palestinian Arabs' goals. The aim of a Palestinian Arab state would not be to live in peace next to Israel, but to serve as a spring board for terrorism and invasions aimed at annihilating the Jewish State. The PA makes no secret of its goal; the official maps on PA letterhead, in PA schoolbooks and atlases, and even on the patch worn on the uniforms of PA policemen show all of Israel not just the disputed territories labeled "Palestine." * A Gaza state would be an anti-American dictatorship: The last thing the world needs now is yet another totalitarian, anti-American terrorist state. Yet that is exactly what a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza would be, to judge by the behavior of the PA during the ten years since it was created. The PA is a brutal Muslim dictatorship which tortures dissidents, silences newspaper that deviate from the PA line, and persecutes Christians. The official PA media actively incites hatred against America, and the PA maintains warm relations with the most anti-American regimes in the world, including Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. * The Jewish presence in Gaza dates back to biblical times: Gaza has been a part of the Land of Israel since biblical times.
The borders of Israel specified in Genesis 15 clearly include Gaza,
and it is described in Joshua 15:47 and Judges 1:18 as part of the
inheritance of the tribe of Judah, and in Kings it is included in the
areas ruled by King Solomon. Throughout the centuries, there was a
large Jewish presence in Gaza in fact, it was the largest Jewish
community in the country at the time of the Muslim invasion (7th
century CE). The Jews of Gaza were forced to leave the area when
Napoleon's army marched through in 1799, but they later returned. The
Jewish community in Gaza was destroyed during the British bombardment
in 1917, but later it was rebuilt again. When Palestinian Arabs
threatened to slaughter the Jews of Gaza during the 1929 pogroms, the
British ruling authorities forced the Jews to leave. But in 1946, the
Jews returned, establishing the town of Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip,
which lasted until 1948, when Egypt occupied the area.
Zionist Organization of America
The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the
oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works
to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public
and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats
anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past
presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and
Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.
The Zionist Organization of America is a tax-exempt organization
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") and all
contributions to it are deductible as charitable contributions as
provided in IRC section 170.
|
|
FENCING OUT THE BARBARIANS
Posted by Diana Muir, February 29, 2004. |
|
This was published in the Providence Journal (http://www.projo.com),
February 24, 2004.
IN A.D. 122, the Roman Emperor Hadrian ordered construction of a wall that would run 73 miles across the width of England, from the River Tyne to Solway Firth. The idea was to keep barbarians from making trouble for the civilized people of Roman Britain. In the Third Century BCE, the Chin Emperor ordered that a series of walls erected by sundry border states be linked into a Great Wall that ran from the Gulf of Chihli to the edge of Tibet, about 22 times the length of Hadrian's barrier. The wall succeeded in repelling many barbarians. We no longer have barbarians. We have terrorists. It is hardly surprising that a nation whose citizens are being murdered should decide to construct a fence to stop the entry of terrorists, even though building such a fence requires demolishing homes, separating farmers from their fields, moving whole villages, and considerable hardship for the individuals affected. India, therefore, is building a security fence, with all deliberate speed. Yes, India. While the attention of the world focuses on the West Bank, India is surrounding Bangladesh with a fence about 2,500 miles long, similar in construction and purpose to that being built by Israel to try to protect itself from Palestinian terrorists. India's seven northeastern provinces are wracked by violence as tribal insurgencies struggle for independence. The resentment that some members of these ethnic groups feel is exacerbated by the inundation of their homelands by waves of illegal Muslim immigrants. In recent years an estimated 20 million Muslims have illegally crossed the border from Bangladesh. Several dozen militant groups exist in these seven provinces. Some are said to be little better than brigands, but others are substantial armed insurgencies seeking national independence for tribes that predate Hinduism. Their methods include bombing government officials and the murderous "cleansing" of villages of the "wrong" ethnicity. The violence is facilitated by the ease with which these terrorists have been able to withdraw across the border to bases in Bangladesh. The key fact about security fences is that they are highly effective in keeping barbarians out. The Great Wall of China gave excellent protection against raiders. That meant that generations of Chinese could lead secure and prosperous lives in the shadow of the wall. In England, meanwhile, life in the border counties was violent and impoverished. Hadrian's Wall was abandoned when the Romans left England, but in the late Middle Ages the island of Britain was again divided into a civilized south and a barbarian north. Well into the 1600s, Scottish border tribes raided northern England, looting and kidnapping. In 1745 Scottish Highlanders launched an invasion of England aimed at putting a Stuart on the throne. England defended itself from the risk of further invasion by pacifying the Highland tribes. The process eventually brought prosperity to the Scottish Lowlands, which blossomed into an Enlightenment that lit the world -- but the price was horrific. England had purchased security by driving nine-tenths of the Highland Scots off their land, in the brutal "Highland clearances." Starving and bludgeoning an unruly population until its people die or emigrate are one method of pacifying a region. I prefer walls. Obviously, the best solution for the Mideast would be for the Palestinians to create a government that would abandon the goal of conquering Israel, and that would quash the armed terrorists in its midst. Israel could negotiate peace with such a government. Failing that, building a fence is the most civilized way in which nations can defend themselves from the threat faced, throughout history, by civilized people who share a border with armed attackers who lack an effective government. Diana Muir is a historian, book reviewer and winner of the 2001-02 Massachusetts Book Award for "Reflections in Bullough's Pond: Economy and Ecosystem in New England" (University Press of New England). |
|
PROBLEM
Posted by Anthony and Ruth Rose, February 29, 2004. |
|
Maybe the problem is that too many Jews are thinking Israel in between
their comfortable lives outside of Israel, instead of living in
Israel. Zionism does not mean writing articles about Israel,
holidaying in Israel, sending money to Israel. We don't need Jews that
have a guilt complex, we needs Jews that are willing to come and join
in the struggle for Eretz Yisroel.
Aliya Tova |
|
JUDGMENT DAY
Posted by Yocheved Golani, February 29, 2004. |
|
Here's a pop quiz for history buffs and students of modern
headlines: Has the world ever experienced indiscriminate warfare upon
unarmed innocents at home and abroad? If yes, when, where and why? How
did society respond to the phenomenon? Were double standards involved?
What, if any action, did the government take? What was the net result
of that action?
After one day of intense terrorist activity and a few months of colorful alerts on domestic soil, the United States remains engaged in its War on Terrorism (you can change the name to Operation Iraqi Freedom or to something else, but the goals are the same). Meanwhile, The Hague sits in judgment of Israel and what remains of its bus-bombed population after the past three extremely violent years. Red Herrings World Court jurists are pondering the legalities of the Security Fence built between Gaza and Israel to prevent Human Bombs of Mass Destruction from infiltrating into disputed and non-disputed Israeli real estate. The very persons Israel hopes to keep out have raised grievances against the Security Fence: potential Suicide/Homicide Bombers. Their complaints range from the superficially plausible to more mundane ploys. Accusations fall into two categories. One, that the Security Fence constitutes an illegal land grab upon Palestinian territory. Secondly, that the inconvenient commutes to and from work, relatives and errands mandate the removal and/or rerouting of the Security Fence. Since the Security Fence doesn't follow the precise 1948 Armistice (a.k.a. Green Line) it's being used as a convenient peg upon which to hang the excuses for dismantling it. This, despite Israel's security concerns about explosive Arab neighbors. The inconveniences for commuters heading to work, family events and other activities distract attention from the core issue. The red herrings distract from and camouflage the pressing issue of Israel's effort to protect its citizens from wanton premeditated murder. Obfuscating the real issue is a timeworn technique for malicious success. Think of the mythical fellow who made it past the foreman with his sand-filled wheelbarrows each night. "I don't care if he removes our sand," the foreman chuckled to his bosses. "This is a rock quarry and he ain't stealing the rocks!" When the foreman opened the gates one morning for another day's labor, his crew complained that not a wheelbarrow was to be found anywhere in the quarry. But the sand thief did not complain. He was long gone, purloined wheelbarrows in tow. Sand was not the issue. Wheelbarrows were, but the clever thief had successfully undermined and concealed the truth by displaying it under the eyes and nose of his supervisor in the guise of a lesser matter. Contrived Arab grievances in the World Court are today's version of sand in a wheelbarrow, another urban myth. The deliberations sure to fill future headlines need not happen. Precedent exists for dispensing with the topic of the day (Israel's desire to prevent terrorism from harming its citizens), hidden as it is beneath carefully stated lies from "Concerned Commuters." A Brief History of Indiscriminate Warfare Upon Unarmed Innocents Legal precedents being the stuff of subsequent legislation, The Hague and the World Court can find a perfect legal precedent for the 20th and 21st-Century war on in 19th Century European law. Governments of that period dealt with terrorism and decisively so because jurists of the period saw terrorism for the anarchy it is and they succeeded in ending reigns of terror without becoming oblivious to pressing realities. Anarchists are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the current governing power(s). Their gripe is with the mere existence of the State depriving individuals of their liberties. Anarchists have a fundamental belief in violent revolution as the only rational and possible response to the allegedly "untenable" conditions of life because ruling classes never voluntarily surrender power. As such, they throw bombs into crowds in order to attempt the destruction of the State, sabotaging the fundamental interactions of society. As Russia, France and other 19th Century countries were overrun by cutthroat fighters who did not spare defenseless innocents along the way to the castle, the situation was not at all unlike what the world has suffers from global terrorism today. Pushkin depicted a baby carriage tumbling down governmental steps to illustrate the insanity of the point. Double Standards Against the Jews Unarmed innocents then and now have been unjustly slaughtered for causes, morally bankrupt though the causes may be. Indiscriminate warfare does not negotiate, does not capitulate and does not advocate reasoned thought in the manner of a just society. The take-no-prisoners approach of today's Muslim extremists makes them the anarchical terrorists of yesterday. Their global network distinguishes them, however, from historical have-nots. There are vast tracts of Arab-owned and operated lands and societies. Unlike the revolutionaries of old, Islamic terrorists have tremendous resources (land, oil, education, and wealth). It's just that their have-much brethren conned the rest of the have-nots of the tribe into the mob psychology of goading Israel and the world into witnessing the acted-out delusion that a smidgen of rocky, oil-less land in a neighborhood of Arab behemoths is limiting their happiness. Nineteenth-century jurists applied one legal standard to their terrorists, but The Hague apparently intends to apply two. Israel can be brought up on charges for even attempting to protect its citizens, let alone for succeeding. Thus far, the Security Fence has reduced the number of terrorists infiltrating into Israel's minimal real estate. Apparently, the International World Court believes that only bullies should thrive when the Middle East suffers disputes. This, despite Israel's innovation in finding a fourth, non-lethal method of dealing with such anarchy: A Security Fence that keeps out the terrorists. Another salient point is that Islamic terrorists, like the rabble intimidating the European bourgeoisie before them, are conducting Tribal rather than Class Warfare against a specific class of people. Instead of opposing royalty or capitalists and industrialists, they have clearly declared their opposition to non-Muslims. Islamists have served murderous notice that they hate democracy, Christianity, Buddhism, and anything else that isn't culturally theirs. They accuse non-Muslim, democratic Israel (predicated upon Judaism, Jews and Zionism) of depriving them of liberty! Like sand covering treasure upon a watery shore, Muslim lies give way to valuable truths revealed by powerful forces. It's not the borders or the fence that disturb them; it's the difficulty of creating new fatalities. Society's Response to Indiscriminate Warfare/Anarchy in the Past In the past, European governments exiled, imprisoned or executed their enemies, effectively ending reigns of terror and the destruction of society. America has not ceased its war on terrorism because it is also committed to preventing further terrorist acts and the destruction of its society. A Double Standard Imposed on Jews and Israel The World Court, however, dispenses with precedent as it considers imposing a double standard on beleaguered Israel striving to prevent new crimes against its humanity. Apparently statecraft doesn't apply to Israel in the estimation of the World Court. Intrastate diplomacy with its dialectics of rigorous logic is apparently irrelevant to the nations in the eyes of the law when Israel is concerned. It shouldn't be, if society is to remain an ethical containment force. If The Hague cannot fathom the fatal flaw in Anarchist Theory or any form of terrorism, it dooms any given population, especially Israel, to the forces of immoral caprice. The crux of the matter presently escaping the World Court's attention is this: Terrorists in any form and in any era make no consideration about how to bring disparate groups together. As Donald Rumsfeld has noted, Israel lacks a viable peace partner. At least, that's what he says when he's not battling Osama bin Laden's call to undermine the anti-terror war effort with unprovoked waves of violence that kill Muslims and anyone else in the detonation area. Israel Requires Intrastate Versus Interstate Statecraft Israel's lawyers need to realize something before the World Court announces its Judgment Day: The statecraft of our Toraitic foundation and prophetic tradition is Justice as intrastate diplomacy. Justice can build a great Jewish nation. Israel and the Jews cannot afford to practice interstate diplomacy, also known as war. We don't have millions of Jews available for cannon fodder and even if we did, it's not within our value system to fight in that manner. The dispirited few who remain alive today can only continue to live with G'D's blessing and without the rhetoric of a kangaroo court. After stating this to the World Court, Israel's lawyers can focus on working for a Jewish country that appreciates its sovereignty. Yocheved Golani is the the author of two novels: "Legacy" and "Legacy 2006:Integrity." "Yocheved's Bookshelf" is on his website, http://www.yochevedgolani.com. |
|
NORWAY
Posted by Janet Lehr, February 29, 2004. |
|
This was sent to me by a friend who wrote, "I must admit I had no
idea." She continued, "Please share this e mail with all you
know. The image of Norway living in the aura created by the "Song of
Norway" is a total fiction. They enjoy a reputation of civility and
fair mindedness that comes more from always staying out of the
limelight than from what is actually. What they really are and what
they really practice should be distributed and publicized wherever
posssible. I never knew, and doubtless very few know, that only 30
Jews survived the Nazi occupation and that their Jewish population all
went to Auschwitz.
I agree with the writer. I too will never travel on
Norwegian Lines.
IN THIS TIME OF THE YEAR WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING OPTIONS FOR SUMMER TRAVEL, CONSIDER NOT CONSIDERING NORWAY - CONSIDER ISRAEL - EVERYTHING INDOORS IS AIR CONDITIONED, CARS ARE AIR CONDITIONED AND THE LAND IS BEAUTIFUL AND IT'S A MITZVAH. These are the two articles. Why I Won't Be Seeing The Fjords This Summer
On the heels of Mr. Roed-Larsen's now infamous remark that Israel "ceded all "moral ground" in Jenin, comes word from his home country of Norway that some supermarket chains have decided to place special identification stickers on products from Israel. Other Scandinavian countries may follow suit. The Norwegians say the stickers do not constitute a "boycott" of Israel; they just want their customers, who are overwhelmingly pro Palestinian, to pay attention to where these products are produced. Maybe the rest of us should run down to our local supermarkets with a pad of yellow "post-it" notes so that consumers of Norwegian salmon or Jarlsberg cheese can also pay attention to where those are produced. Stick them on the packages with a note: these products come from a place with a shameful past that continues to operate as a European free zone for Neo-Nazis and other right wing extremists. Those asking the question of whether ! Europeans are anti-Israel because of Israel's actions in fighting terror, or because of their own latent anti-Semitism, should study the example of Norway. Behind the current disclaimer of a boycott you will find that Norwegians are quite experienced at boycotting Israel. Norwegian labour unions have recently refused to off-load Israeli farm produce.. Last year, a Norwegian "labor youth movement" organized a campaign to ban Israeli singers from the Eurovision song contest. Another Norwegian group has been boycotting Israeli oranges since the early 90s. This group, "Boikott Israel l," rejuvenated by the latest "Intifada" to include a boycott of all Israeli commerce, denies on its website that it is anti-Semitic but states its goal is the end Israel's "50 year occupation" of, and the return of refugees to a "free Palestine." Not anti-Semitic? In 1941, the graffiti on Jewish businesses in Oslo read: "Jews, go to Palestine." To campaign now in Norway to get the Jews out of "Palestine" seems anti-Semitic to me, if only by process of elimination. Indeed, the roots Norwegian boycotts of Israel run deep.Anti-Semitism has held a unique place in Norwegian politics since the 1930s when Vidkun Quisling, later the leader of a Nazi puppet government in Norway, formed the National Union Party. While many Norwegians fought with the Resistance, many became eager collaborators of the Nazis, including some 60,000 members of the National Union. Under its auspices, Norway formed its own branch of the SS and established academies sending hundreds of officers the rings of like-minded groups from Sweden and with little fear of official interference. More significantly, according to a report published by the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel Aviv University, the extreme right wing Progress Party is [today] the second largest party in Norway with 25 out of 160 seats in the Parliament Among other racist and anti-immigration views, this party advocates banning male circumcision. Schechita, kosher sticker! s on Israeli goods are the modern-day equivalent of painting "Joden" on the Jewish-owned businesses of Oslo and Trondheim in1941. [Editors Note: That is so if all Israeli products are Kosher - That might not be true. Janet Lehr] We needn't be reminded that after that, all of Norway's remaining Jews were deported to Auschwitz. Fewer than 30 survived the Holocaust. I'm not the sort that usually pays attention to boycotts and counter-boycotts, because often you don't know who you are really hurting. But there is a good reason why I won't be buying Norwegian products any time soon, or cruising on the Norwegian Line. Their stickers have caught my attention. Bennett M. Epstein is a criminal defense lawyer practicing in New York City. He is a former prosecutor and professor of criminal justice. How Leading Norwegian Politicians Who Pushed Forward the Peace
Process Had Strong Anti-Semitic Past
Many individuals are surprised at the strong anti-Israel bias displayed by leading Norwegian politicians and Norwegian diplomat Terje Larsen, the supposed friends who in 1993 helped architect the Oslo Agreement to bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. However, a recently undusted report of The Middle East Intelligence Digest (Vol.7, No. 5, May, 1996) shows that the Norwegians' intentions were sinister from the beginning. Here is the stunning report in full: "Twenty five years ago he committed himself to wiping Israel from the face of the Middle East. On May 13, Norwegian Foreign Minister Bjorn Tere Godal arrived to see the deployment of Norwegian 'peacekeeping' troops in Hebron - to oversee the beginning of the end Jewish rule over the first Jewish city. "On May 4, the Norwegian newspaper Dagen exposed a 25 year old commitment by leading figures in Norway's ruling Labor Party to support and facilitate the demise of a sovereign Jewish Israel, and to establish in its place a secular, liberal Palestinian state. "The report showed that Norwegian Labor Party leaders agree with Arafat's ultimate aim: the removal of the Jewish state in the Middle East. "Twenty five years ago, the man who is today's Minister of Foreign Affairs committed the Labor Party Youth wing to removing Israel from the Middle East, thus paving the way for the Oslo Accords. By giving Norway the 'honor' of hosting the secret talks with the PLO, Israel in its thirst for peace, played into the hands of those committed to its dissolution. "Dagen centered its report on revelations in a book by Haaken Lie, a former secretary-general of Norway's Labor Party and a strong friend of Israel. "Lie revealed that in the 1971 Labor Youth Organization (AUF) convention, chairman Bjorn Tere Godal approved the following resolution: 'The AUF will support the forces which struggle for the national and social liberation of the Palestinian people. The qualification for lasting peace must be that Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, and that a progressive Palestinian state is established where all ethnic groups can live side by side in complete equality.' "Godal is today, Norway's minister of foreign affairs and a strong advocate of a Palestinian state. When confronted with his words, he told Dagen, 'It is irrelevant what I meant at that point because the situation has changed.' "Dagen traced the first resolution by the AUP and how it was pursued it in the ensuing years by Various Labor Party politicians such as Thorvald Stoltenberg, Knut Frydenlund and (then) Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. "Stoltenberg was foreign minister when the secret Israel-PLO talks began in January 1993. He was also the brother-in-law of the late Johan Joergen Holst, foreign minister when the Oslo Agreement was signed. Ten years before, he and then foreign minister Frydenlund visited Arafat in Tunisia, returning to persuade their Labor colleagues that, 'there is no reason to doubt Arafat's willingness to sit at the negotiating table.' "Frydenlund had wanted Arafat to visit Oslo but Prime Minister Olaf Palme changed the plan. So the chairmen of the Scandinavian Labor Parties met Arafat in Stockholm in 1983, after which Brundtland told the press, 'Arafat is a knowledgable and interesting person. I have not met with an extremist. [This last sentence will be better appreciated by turning to Red Horizons, a book written by Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former head of Rumanian Intelligence under the Ceausescu regime. Pacepa records this statement about Arafat: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man." He then mentions an intelligence report which speaks of Arafat's "incredible fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss bank accounts, and of homosexual relationships when he was a teenager and ending with his current bodyguards." Pacepa then concludes: After reading that report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaking his hand."] "Dagen recalled that the conclusion reached by Palme and by Denmark's Prime Minister Anker Jorgensen was equally clear: 'Israel was the problem preventing peace in the Middle East.' "Thus, writes Dagen, twelve years after meeting Arafat, Norway watched as Prime Minister Burndtlend 'leads Arafat by the hand on the red carpet when he comes to receive the Nobel Prize For Peace.' "Leif Wellerap, a Norwegian journalist, believes the Dagen report answers all those who have wondered why Norway involved itself so heavily in the past years in making Arafat and the PLO so politically palatable. "'For those aware of the traditionally good and friendly relationship between Israel and Norway, and specifically between Israel and the Norwegian Labor Party,' says Wellerap, 'it has been hard to understand what lay behind the efforts to clean up the Middle East's chief terrorist and turn him into a main player in what is known around the world as the Oslo process.' "'Lie makes it easier to understand what has led the Norwegian government to act as a locomotive in the process that is about to place Israel in its greatest danger since its birth. My hope is that this report will open eyes to the misery Israel is heading towards if it stays on the track, regrettably named after my country's capital.'" While Israel's citizens may have been ignorant of the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bias of the Norwegians, can we believe that of Shimon Peres and Yitzxhak Rabin, the high-ranking Israeli politicians who pushed the Oslo Agreement through? Could it be they didn't know of the Norwegians' official agenda to bring about Israel's dissolution? |
|
MOSHE SHARON'S ARTICLE ON ISLAM'S AGENDA
Posted by Jock Falkson, February 29, 2004. |
|
Many Christians have been influenced by anti-Semitic demonization into
believing that "the Jews" plan to rule the world. This
monstrous invention was initiated by publication of the notorious
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - a roundly exposed
forgery - first issued in Russian 99 years ago.
The calumny that Jews plan world domination is idiotic nonsense. It will be more sensible for the Christian world to heed the deeply embedded religious teachings of Islam whose unashamed purpose is to dominate all world religions. Professor Moshe Sharon, who teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, is fluent in Arabic. His profound knowledge of Islam and the Koran reveals the unvarnished truth about the religion of Islam - one which cannot abide the existence of any other. In his recently published article THE AGENDA OF ISLAM - A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS, Prof. Sharon outlines the authentic Islamic vision of a religion that does not hide its Allah-driven need to dominate all other religions. It is a Koranic imperative which holds a horribly unpleasant threat for Jews and Christians everywhere. I encourage everyone to read Professor Sharon's important essay. It is in this issue of Think-Israel. Here are some quotes from Professor Sharon's groundbreaking article: "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net. |
|
BOYCOTTS WORK BOTH WAYS
Posted by Linda Olmert, February 29, 2004. |
|
Several weeks ago, Germany announced its decision to stop all arms
sales to Israel. Since then, other countries have followed suit. In
response, Israel has canceled its annual multimillion dollar contract
for its nationwide DAN buses which were manufactured in Germany, and
is looking at other bus suppliers in the U.S., and Japan.
The Europeans and their Muslim allies should understand that boycotts works both ways. When we said NEVER AGAIN, we meant it. Europe is stuck in the mentality of 1933 and conditioned to thinking of Jews as defenseless entities. The reality is very different. As long as Europe adheres to and supports its primitive Middle Ages death cult, European products must be off limits. We continue to call for a complete boycott of travel and products from the following countries - France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, and China - due to their support, sponsorship, and/or participation in global Islamic terror. The voting record of the above countries at the U.N. openly endorses Muslim terror. Remember, every time you buy a bottle of Evian, a Carlsberg product, a Spanish melon, a Godiva chocolate, a Dior lipstick, a Gucci bag, or a German kitchen appliance, you are financing the next Muslim mass murderer. The European Union gives over $10 million per month to the Palestinian Authority, knowing full well that the money is funneled to buy, import, and train Muslim terrorists and their weapons of mass murder. We strongly encourage everyone to buy Canadian, American and Israeli products instead. Buy Estee Lauder or Ahava instead of Chanel, Dior, and YSL. Tell the salespeople why. Educate the public when you shop. Europe is underwriting the Arab war to exterminate the Jewish state. We cannot sit idly by while this happens. Make your voice heard and let them feel the sting in their pocketbooks. Let the Europeans know that supporting terror does not pay. Please send this to at least 10 like minded people. |
|
LAMENTATIONS: THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH AND NOT TWO TRUTHS
Posted by Talya Lapidot, February 29, 2004. |
"There Is Only One Truth And Not Two Truths - The Same As There Are Not Two Jerusalems." - Uri Tzvi GrinbergThis poem was written by Jacob Gurewich, who is author of "The Enemy Within", "a series of essays describing the author's first-hand experiences as a founding member of the Israeli IRGUN (IZL), the underground Organization founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky." His website address is http://www.jackgur.com How are innocents being murdered in the Land of Israel by Arabs
How do religious leaders in the Diaspora urge their Congregations:
there shall never be a falastinian state in the Land of Israel!
|
|
EUROPE'S ISLAMIST WAKE-UP CALL
Posted by Israela Goldstein, February 29, 2004. |
|
This was written by Val MacQueen and appeared on Front Page Magazine,
where it is archived at
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12372
After 40 years or more of blowing feckless multi cultural soap bubbles, the governments of some European countries have suddenly become alive to the dangers of being too tolerant towards Islamism, an ideology that is intolerant and crusading. Two years after the brave and flamboyant homosexual Pym Fortuyn sounded the alarm in Holland regarding the threat of fundamentalist Islam to his relaxed and liberal homeland, the Dutch establishment, that had previously condemned him as a bigot, has suddenly done an about face and adopted his agenda. It was Fortuyn who first noted in public what the Dutch had been noting in private for several years: that Holland's Islamic population not only refused to assimilate into the host country but, indeed displayed a bitter intolerance for Dutch laissez-faire. He was so alarmed at the rising radical threat to Holland's tradition of tolerance that he started a new political party, The List. The List demanded an end to Islamic immigration and demanded that the immigrant children be taught in Dutch. Within three months of its formation, The List had captured something like 20 per cent of Dutch constituencies.His opponents, Holland's traditional politicians, were robbed of the traditional weapon of the thought police, the charge of racism. Fortuyn's present and former amours came in a wide range of colors and he had chosen as his deputy an articulate black immigrant. Accusations of racism would have been met by the electorate with dismissive laughter. Had he lived, Fortuyn would have been prime minister of Holland today, but he was assassinated as he left a radio station after an interview two years ago. For an outpouring of a public sense of loss, his funeral was second only to Princess Diana's, four years previously. On the surface, Dutch politics returned to normal, but the seed had been planted, and all those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who had intended to vote for him did not forget his agenda. Now, after years of pandering to the multi culti ethic, the Dutch government has suddenly admitted that the immigrant Muslims top the "no" list: they have the highest incidence of unemployment, domestic violence, disability payments, truancy and crime. And, after three generations in Holland, at least 30 per cent of them return to their "home country" to marry and bring back a spouse. Dutch patience with fundamentalists on endless state benefits and allowances has snapped. Earlier this month, they hauled up the drawbridge and declared a four year moratorium on immigration, including so-called asylum seeking, to allow for assimilation. If the immigrant population still refuses to assimilate, I suspect the moratorium will be extended indefinitely. At the same time, they are repatriating over 26,000 "asylum seekers" whose claims for asylum were rejected years ago but who failed to leave the country. These are now demanding their "human rights" to continue to be supported on the generous Dutch welfare system, in Holland. Notoriously, south of Holland, the French government has just let it be known that their patience with the zealotry, arrogance and imperialistic streak demonstrated by its own large unassimilated Muslim population has just run out. In a jaw dropping statement, Chirac said that the wearing of the hijab by schoolgirls was "an aggressive act against the host nation". And he is correct. It is not the wardrobe choice of little girls, but of their fathers and brothers who impose it on them because they don't want men and boys "looking at" their females. France has come to the end of its tether with the tournantes - gang rapes as punishment for girls - both Muslim and indigenous - who dare to venture out of their homes in the projects without wearing a Muslim hijab. In many of the projects and nearby schools, Muslims constitute 50% or more of the population. At the end of 2002, the movie The Squaw on this subject shocked not just French theater goers, but Jacques Chirac and French education minister Jack Lang. That was the genesis of the long and winding road to the headscarf ban. The film, although intended to highlight a grave and unacknowledged social problem, at the same time struck a killer blow to the governing elite's multicultural dreams of European countries and immigrants from their former colonies living in happy accord. Both France and Holland had now recognized that the immigrants were not the eager middle classes who come to the United States for their educations, or to settle. These are groups with an imperialistic, intolerant, colonizing mentality of their own. While the liberal press and political multicultural proselytizers were still expressing shock at the Dutch and the French, who had decided at last to abandon constant appeasement and take control of Islamic zealotry and aggression in their countries, the dominant party in the German state of Hesse proposed a ban on headscarves on all civil servants. This goes further than other German states, which have proposed a ban on school teachers swathed in the hijab. Despite criticisms from the usual human rights suspects, the Germans say that the veil is a political, rather than a religious, statement and is a symbol of repression. Americans, in a nation of successful immigrants, find it hard to understand indigenous peoples who have occupied their land since time immemorial, and whose ancestors, and their ancestors before them, established their countries' boundaries through millennia of war, whose customs became encoded in law, and whose arts have developed uniquely to that culture. There has always been movement of people between European countries, but before, there was a common agreement on religion and, broadly, social behaviour. And never on this scale. During my lifetime, 12m people from a more primitive, intolerant culture have moved into Western Europe. It is to the Europeans' credit that they tried peacefully to accommodate such a large indigestible clump of alien matter for over 40 years. What is not so clear is, why mass immigration was forced on democratic peoples by the parties in power. And paid for out of their taxes. Whether it was a Native American marrying into another tribe, the vast movements of peoples from Europe to America over the last two hundred years or so, or the 40,000 Jewish displaced persons Britain took in after WWII, or the 45,000 East African Indians ejected from Uganda by Idi Amin and also taken by Britain, immigrants throughout human history have set their minds to integrating and embedding themselves in their new lives. Not so with Islamic immigrants to European countries (unlike most Muslim immigrants to the US, it must be said) who arrived with a grudge and have held themselves apart for generations preaching disapproval, divisiveness and violence against their host societies - encouraged to do so by liberal pandering special interest groups. Ever-greater concessions from the host societies are demanded, all the while preaching their destruction. They are using the tolerance of the West to try to impose their own theocracy. In Britain now, in some municipalities, Muslims have demanded that municipal swimming pools have special times for women-only swimming and men-only swimming. Such an alien notion will, in these politically correct times, be imposed on the historically tolerant British, at one more cost to their own national identity. Yet, as British conservative columnist Melanie Phillips wrote recently, "in Britain, the corrosive idea which seethes beneath the whole immigration controversy is the belief in fashionable circles that such a national identity is somehow illegitimate and that to defend it is 'xenophobic'." Heaven forefend anyone in Europe would dare, for fear of being so-labeled, tell the fundamentalists in their midst to put a sock in it. Until now.Chirac, who has never been known to say an unpleasant word about a North African in his life, referring to all these yards of hijabs in schools with a high percentage of Muslim students, referred to wearing the veil "an act of aggression". And indeed, it is worn as a badge of superiority. A senior member of his party said, "You give [these people] a bit of a finger and they eat your arm all the way up to the elbow." A Dutch minister has said the immigrants top the "no" list. Close on the heels of the Germans, the other day, mild, laid-back Denmark announced it's had enough of fundamentalists preaching the destruction of the West and has put a lid on them. And the Danes aren't even splitting hairs. It's right up front. Although the target of the legislation is "restrictions on foreign missionaries", Peter Skaarup, spokesman for the nationalist Danish People's Party, which originally called for legislation, said, "It is aimed at imams." Henceforth, they'll have to prove they've had an education and that they're financially independent. Once kicked into action, the Danes move fast. The bill is expected to be made law within two weeks. To have any hope of being allowed into Denmark to settle, imams henceforth will have to prove that they have a good knowledge of Danish affairs and practices, a rudimentary knowledge of Danish and an understanding of the country's democratic traditions. In other words, not a hope. They are also going to have to prove that neither they nor their families will be a burden to the Danish taxpayer. (Unlike, say, Abu Hamza, the blind, steel-hook handed fundamentalist imam in Britain's Finsbury Park mosque who receives around $500 a week in state handouts.) According to The Daily Telegraph, the bill also calls for imams already in Denmark and who are found to have incited to racism or other forms of illegal acts, to lose their permits. First to go will be an imam who publicly stated in Jutland that female genital mutilation was "good for women", and another who preached anti-Semitism. Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen also said the legislation would stop the practice of Muslim parents sending teenage sons back to countries of origin for longer periods to become familiar with the traditions of their parents' homelands. So, after 40 years of bending the knee to the aggressive multiculturalists, four European countries are finally fighting back to defend their Christian heritage and enlightened civilization. Will the British follow in the continentals' footsteps? Can we even look forward to reading of the deportation of claw-hooked radical hate-preaching bigamist, the Shriek of Araby? Pigs might fly. |
|
ISRAEL'S ANTI-TERROR FENCE: THE WORLD COURT CASE
Posted by Laurence E. Rothenberg and Abraham Bell, February 28, 2004. |
The International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) is currently considering the legality of the Israeli security fence under construction to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel and into Israeli towns from Arab areas in the West Bank.[1] The case was initiated by a request to the court from the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA), the political body that includes all the member-states of the UN.[2] The GA asked the court to address the following question: What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem...considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? The court ordered legal briefs to be submitted by January 30, 2004, and scheduled oral arguments for February 23, 2004. It did not set a date for a decision, but the GA requested an answer to the question "urgently," so a decision can be expected by the second quarter of 2004. Although the ICJ proceeding is, in reality, a political attack on Israel's right to self-defense, this essay addresses the legal issues involved. As will be demonstrated below, the security fence comports with international law because it is a necessary and proportional response to a campaign of terror against Israeli civilians, does not violate any provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (if the convention can even be said to apply to the situation) or relevant UN resolutions, and is in accord with signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since the early twentieth century, the Jewish community in what is now Israel has been subjected to terrorist attacks by Palestinian Arabs, attacks that continued after the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Terrorist attacks increased markedly in 1994, upon the entry of armed forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) into the West Bank and Gaza, as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Palestinian terrorism then surged in 2000 with the outbreak of the current armed conflict, labeled the "al-Aksa intifada" by the Palestinians. The violence began in the aftermath of Yassir Arafat's rejection of an offer for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at Camp David in the summer of 2000. After a subsequent trip through Europe and Russia to rally support for a declaration of a Palestinian state failed, Arafat used the pretext of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 to launch a sustained campaign of terror against Israelis. Since September 2000, Israel has suffered 19,000 terrorist attacks, with 900 Israeli citizens killed and thousands wounded. Terrorist groups responsible for these attacks include the Fatah organization and its Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Hamas. Throughout the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Israel proper, these organizations have sent suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians in buses, cafes, and places of worship; they have used snipers to shoot at Israeli civilians in their homes and vehicles and even in baby carriages; and they have invaded homes and seminaries in order to carry out shooting sprees. These attacks have been fomented through propaganda disseminated in the Palestinian media, including in speeches by religious leaders broadcast on official Palestinian television. Israel has taken various measures to deter and prevent such attacks, including full-scale re-deployment into areas previously evacuated as part of peace negotiations. For example, following a wave of Palestinian terror attacks that killed 120 people in March 2002, Israel initiated Operation Defensive Shield, which resulted in counter-terror operations in Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkarm, Bethlehem, and Kalkilya. Construction of a security fence began shortly thereafter. The fence currently covers most of the northern and one-third of the western West Bank. According to figures supplied by the Israeli government, the fence has undoubtedly saved lives. For example, between August 2001 and August 2002, 58 people were killed or wounded in the Israeli towns of Afula and Hadera, near the West Bank Arab towns of Jenin and Tulkarm. Since the fence went up in that area, only three Israelis have been killed. Similarly, there was a drop from 17 successful terror attacks launched from the northern West Bank into Israel from April to December 2002 down to only five attacks from the area during all of 2003, following construction of the fence. Furthermore, a fence has proved its utility in Gaza, where one has existed since 1996, resulting in few Gaza residents participating in terrorist attacks within Israel. The security fence, therefore, plays a crucial role in Israel's fight against the genocidal terror campaign against its citizens.
The security fence has been challenged through the mechanism of the ICJ's advisory jurisdiction, which grants it the authority to issue opinions even though there is no actual case or controversy at hand.[3] The court is empowered under its statute and the UN Charter to issue opinions "on any legal question" referred to it by the Security Council, the General Assembly, or various UN agencies.[4] Such an opinion of the court is not binding on any states in a strict sense because it does not apply to a particular dispute, but nevertheless carries weight as an authoritative articulation of international law. However, the advisory jurisdiction in this case has not been properly invoked, since the GA resolution purporting to request an advisory opinion is not really a request for a legal opinion at all, but, rather, a request for an endorsement of an already-stated political opinion of the GA. The very first paragraph of the resolution "reaffirm[s]" a resolution of six weeks earlier which stated that "construction of the wall...is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law" and demanded that Israel stop and reverse construction.[5] While the ICJ is authorized to issue advisory opinions, it is not authorized to make endorsements of the GA's political opinions dressed in legal garb. Moreover, even if the court has jurisdiction, it can decline to address a case. Under its own understanding of its authority, for example, the court can refuse to take jurisdiction for "compelling reasons."[6] A number of factors raise compelling reasons for declining to address the legality of the security fence.
For all these reasons, the court should find that it lacks jurisdiction and decline to accept jurisdiction even if available.[8] Nevertheless, should the court accept jurisdiction, it should find that the fence does not violate international law, for the reasons described below.
All states possess an inherent right to self-defense in international law, as expressly recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Actions taken in self-defense must nevertheless conform to customary international law principles of military necessity; that is, they must be directed at achieving a concrete military advantage over an enemy, and they must be in proportion to the threat.[9] Given the nature of the terrorist campaign against Israel, the fence definitely meets these requirements. The terrorist campaign against Israeli civilians constitutes genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. As stated in the Genocide Convention and in the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), genocide consists, in pertinent part, of murder or causing serious bodily or mental harm "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."[10] The extensive and on-going suicide bombings and other terrorist acts are committed with the requisite intent, as demonstrated in the exhortations to kill all Israelis and Jews broadcast on Palestinian television, and by public statements by key Palestinian figures. Crimes against humanity are similar acts "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack."[11] Again, the terrorist acts committed by Palestinian forces are part of a continuous, organized campaign against Israeli non-combatants.[12] Finally, the attacks constitute war crimes, defined as intentional attacks against civilians during an armed conflict.[13] The legal status of Israel's "occupation" or of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza does not change this analysis. As Human Rights Watch has stated, "The illegal status [sic] of settlements under international humanitarian law does not negate the rights of the civilians living there. The fact that a person lives in a settlement, whether legal or not, does not make him or her a legitimate military target."[14] In the face of the crimes described above, the security fence is clearly a necessary and proportionate use of force. First, the only effect of the fence is to control and, in some cases, limit the movement of the civilian population, both necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. Palestinian terrorists routinely disguise themselves as civilians, including pregnant women, hide bombs in ambulances, feign injuries, and sequence bombs to kill rescue workers responding to an initial attack. The fence and associated checkpoints are therefore crucial to deterring and detecting terrorists among the civilian population. Second, no less-intrusive construction, such as building the fence along the 1949 armistice line, can achieve Israel's legitimate military goals. A barrier along the armistice line would expose motorists along the main Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway to Palestinian sniper fire near the Latrun salient and would recreate the division of Jerusalem that existed from 1949 to 1967, when Israeli civilians were repeatedly attacked by snipers from the Jordanian-controlled side of the line. Additionally, this would expose Israeli civilian aircraft landing and taking off from Israel's international airport in Lod to shoulder-launched missile attacks from Palestinian terrorists in the Benjamin region of the West Bank. Third, the Palestinian claim that military necessity would be better served by expelling 320,000 Israeli civilians from their homes in east Jerusalem and the West Bank is not credible. Even if the Palestinians were correct that it is illegal for Israel to permit Jews to move to the West Bank and Gaza, nothing in international law imposes a death penalty upon settlers or requires evacuation of civilian targets of terrorists in preference to limiting the movement of suspected terrorists themselves. Fourth, the fence as currently constructed already represents a substantial concession of Israel's security goals. As admitted by the UN Secretary-General, the planned fence places the vast majority - more than 80 percent - of West Bank and east Jerusalem territory on the "Palestinian side" of the fence.[15] In fact, numerous Israeli civilian residents of the West Bank, as well as Israeli civilian motorists in transit on West Bank roads, will remain exposed to Palestinian terror attacks. Since 2000, dozens of Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian terrorists in these areas on the "Palestinian side" of the line along where the fence is being built. Finally, the fence is far less intrusive than security barriers used by other states in disputed and occupied territories. In order to block terrorist infiltrations, India is now building a barrier longer than Israel's security fence along the line of control separating Indian and Pakistani forces within disputed Kashmir. Importantly, this barrier is entirely within the disputed territory.[16] Smaller barriers to prevent movement of potential terrorists and irregular combatants have been employed by allied forces occupying Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, often entirely surrounding and cutting off towns and cities from the rest of the occupied territory. In sum, the fence is the least restrictive way to accomplish Israel's legitimate military goals and is in fact far less intrusive than other measures Israel could legitimately adopt to combat terror. Legal Status of the West Bank and Inapplicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention Both the GA resolution and the question accepted by the court for advisory adjudication make tendentious reference to the West Bank as "occupied Palestinian territory." On this basis, the Palestinians claim that the Fourth Geneva Convention's rules of occupation forbid Israel to erect the security fence, and, further, that erecting it constitutes an illegal annexation of Palestinians' territorial sovereignty. In fact, however, neither the General Assembly's characterization nor the Palestinian assertions have any basis in international law. Israel Has the Strongest Claim of Sovereign Rights in the West Bank Sovereignty over the West Bank must be traced from the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area encompassing territory now governed by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, as well as parts of the Arabian peninsula until the end of the First World War. The Ottoman Empire and its successor, the Republic of Turkey, yielded these territories to League of Nations mandates supervised by Britain and France. The Mandate of Palestine, under British trusteeship, was a single territorial unit encompassing the territory now held by Israel and Jordan, including the West Bank and Gaza. The Mandate explicitly recognized that Palestine was to be the "national home" of the Jewish people and did not recognize political or sovereign rights of any other peoples in the territory.[17] The Mandate permitted abridgement of Jewish rights only in parts of Palestine east of the Jordan River, and, indeed, in 1922, Britain set up this eastern territory under separate administration as the Transjordan and cooperated with the Hashemite tribe of the Arabian peninsula in setting up Hashemite rule. After the Second World War, Britain sought to terminate the Mandate, which, by terms of the Mandate itself, would lead to the sovereignty of the now-established Jewish homeland in the territory west of the Jordan River. Given strenuous Arab objections to the creation of any Jewish state, however, Britain asked the GA to resolve the situation. In GA Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, the GA recommended that Britain and other states adopt and implement a partition plan, under which the western territory of the Mandate would be further divided into two states - one Jewish and one Arab - as well as a small international zone.[18] Jewish authorities in Palestine announced their acceptance of the plan and sought to implement it. Palestinian Arabs, however, rejected the plan and began attacks on Jewish civilian and military targets in mandatory territory. Rather than implementing the partition, Britain simply withdrew its forces on May 15, 1948. Jewish authorities declared the creation of the new State of Israel, but no similar declaration of a state of Palestinian Arabs was announced. A coalition of Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Transjordanian, and Iraqi troops invaded the territory of the former British Mandate with the declared intent of eliminating the Jewish state. At the war's conclusion in 1949, Syria remained in occupation of a small strip of territory of the former Mandate of Palestine on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Egypt occupied Gaza. Transjordan seized most of the Judean Desert, Samaria, and parts of Jerusalem, renaming these territories the "West Bank," annexed them (an act recognized only by Britain and Pakistan), and finally renamed itself the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. A series of armistice agreements between Israel and the invading Arab states in 1949 then created ceasefire lines that left the Arab aggressors with their territorial gains intact. The agreements did not, however, grant sovereignty to the Arab states. Quite the contrary, at the insistence of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, each of the armistice agreements specified that the ceasefire lines were not borders and that neither side relinquished its territorial claims.[19] No new Arab state arose in Palestine, and the Palestinian Arab leadership continued to reject both the partition proposal embodied in Resolution 181 and the very existence of the new Jewish state. When the PLO was eventually formed in 1964, its charter called for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Arab state of Palestine, while specifically disavowing "any territorial sovereignty over the West-Bank (region) of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Gaza Strip, or the Himmah area."[20] Israel took control of the West Bank in June 1967 as a result of the Six-Day War, which had been prompted by Egypt's expulsion of UN peacekeepers, mobilization of troops for an invasion of Israel, blockade of Israeli ports, and threats to destroy Israel by force of arms. During the war, Israeli counter-offensives placed the entirety of the West Bank in Israeli hands, as well as Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan. No new formal armistice agreement emerged; however, a new ceasefire line along the old administrative Palestine-Transjordan boundary replaced the 1949 armistice line. In 1994, a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel established the international border between Israel and Jordan, in relevant part, along the Jordan River, thus restoring the administrative boundary of the British mandatory era, and leaving the ultimate fate of the West Bank to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. While the treaty specified that the new boundary was "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967,"[21] Jordan separately disavowed any claim of sovereignty over the West Bank. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, adopted in the wake of the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, respectively, do not purport to change this situation. While 242 asserts the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," it makes no statement about how this principle applies to the West Bank or any other specific territory.[22] It neither affirms nor denies Israeli or Jordanian sovereignty. It does call for a negotiated peace that would include "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and respect for the right of concerned states to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries," but it defines neither which boundaries nor which territories. This is particularly significant since some of the territories captured in 1967 were clearly outside the mandatory boundaries (such as Sinai) and therefore beyond an Israeli claim of sovereignty, while others (such as the West Bank) were within the boundaries of the Mandate and therefore within the scope of Israel's claimed sovereign rights. Indeed, the only definite implication of the resolution is a Security Council endorsement of Israel's right to remain in possession of territories occupied in 1967 until the achievement of a negotiated peace. The 1993-2000 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, though creating a self-governing Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, did not recognize any Palestinian sovereignty and specifically preserved the claimed rights of each of the parties.[23] Thus, no international agreement has ever granted the "green line" (the 1949 armistice line demarcating the boundary of the West Bank) the status of an international border between sovereigns. Indeed, every Israeli peace treaty with a neighboring state, while basing itself on Resolution 242, has adopted the mandatory boundaries as the boundaries of Israel, rather than the 1949 armistice lines.[24] The "green line" bounding the West Bank is solely a defunct military line demarcating the extent of the Transjordanian invasion of Israel in 1948. Additionally, Israel has the strongest claim to sovereignty over the West Bank of all possible claimants. Other than Jordan, Israel is the only existing successor to the British Mandate of Palestine established to facilitate the creation of a Jewish homeland, and Jordan, as an aggressor, never legally possessed the West Bank. Additionally, Jordan relinquished its claim of sovereignty. Israel, by contrast, came into possession of the West Bank in a war of defense, making its possession legal, and it has never waived its claim of sovereignty. Indeed, other than Israel, no recognized state claims sovereignty in the West Bank. The Fourth Geneva Convention Does Not Apply to the West Bank As the state with the strongest claim to sovereignty in the West Bank, Israel cannot be held to be an occupying power obliged to follow the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It would be a logical absurdity, and without textual foundation, to call a state an occupying power when it has taken territory over which no other state had recognized sovereign rights.[25] Moreover, even if Israel were not considered sovereign of the West Bank, the West Bank is not automatically to be considered occupied territory within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 2 of the Convention specifies that it applies in the cases of armed conflict between High Contracting Parties, or in the case of occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party. While Israel is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the nonexistent state of Palestine is not. In fact, in 1989, when the Palestine Liberation Organization informed the Swiss Federal Council (official registrar of the Convention) that it would adhere to the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions and their protocols, the Council refused to recognize the act as an accession to the treaty "due to the uncertainty...as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine."[26] This conclusion is further amplified by Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention, which is the basis for the modern law of occupation. The article recognizes an occupation when "authority of the legitimate power" passes in fact "into the hands of the occupant." Thus, an occupation only arises where a legitimate power is dispossessed. Since Jordan was not the "legitimate power" in the West Bank, Israel cannot be considered an occupant. Israel has declared itself willing to be bound to humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the West Bank and Gaza as a matter of good will, as part of a larger Israeli willingness to withhold application of its full sovereign rights in order to hold the territory open for a negotiated peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, this merely underscores the inapplicability of any provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that are designed to protect the sovereign rights of the true sovereign party whose territory is being occupied. Since "Palestine" is not sovereign, it has no sovereignty to defend, and it cannot claim the benefit of such provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that are designed to benefit the party whose sovereign territory is occupied.
Building Security Barriers Does Not Violate the Convention Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were applicable to the West Bank, nothing in Israel's actions would violate it. Other than the reiteration of the familiar prohibition upon "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" in Article 147, no provision in the Convention limits the occupying power's ability to create barriers, requisition property for security purposes, or take other necessary security measures. Indeed, Article [27] of the Convention explicitly permits occupying powers to "take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war." As noted previously, the security fence is fully justified by the military necessity of reducing the exposure of Israeli civilians to the Palestinian terrorist campaign. Building Security Barriers Does Not Constitute Annexation Annexation under international law requires that the annexing state extend its power over the territory to be annexed with the intent of extending its sovereignty over that territory. As noted previously, Israel is the state with the best claim of sovereignty to the West Bank; as such, it cannot be held to be illegally annexing territory. However, even if Israel is considered a mere occupier unable to annex the disputed territory, building a security barrier does not constitute annexation of any territory on the "Israeli side." First, Israel has repeatedly stated that it has no intention to alter the legal or political status of any territory with the barrier. Thus, Israel plainly lacks the intention necessary for an annexation to take place. Second, construction of a barrier does not in and of itself extend Israeli rule over any of the territory to a greater extent than Israel already controls those territories. Israel is not undertaking any other actions to manifest its power, such as implementing Israeli law in those territories. Thus, there is no new manifestation of power to constitute an annexation. Palestinian Terrorism Should Not Be Rewarded One of the foremost principles of international law is ex inuria ius non oritur - one may not profit from one's lawbreaking. The Palestinian Authority, an instrument of the PLO, has violated its obligations under international law by collaborating with terrorist crimes against humanity. Both Israel and independent foreign media have reported that Yassir Arafat, chairman of the Palestinian Authority (as well as of the PLO and Fatah), has used Palestinian Authority funds to pay for terrorists' acquisition of materiel used in terror attacks, as well as to pay bounties for terror attacks. The Palestinian Authority has openly paid salaries to militants in the terrorist organizations and joined them to Palestinian police forces, while steadfastly refusing to prosecute Palestinians, including Palestinian police, for terror attacks on Israelis. Officials of the Palestinian Authority, and official Palestinian Authority media, including television and press, have called upon Palestinians to carry out terrorist attacks on Israelis. A number of the component organizations of the PLO, including Fatah, have carried out terrorist attacks and proudly taken responsibility for terror attacks. Fatah terrorists have acknowledged to foreign and domestic media that they respond to the commands of Yassir Arafat. This Palestinian terror, in which the PLO is intimately involved, has created the necessity for a security barrier to block Palestinian terrorist infiltrations. In claiming that Israel may only build such a barrier outside of the West Bank, the PLO is essentially arguing that Israel must de facto cede all disputed territory to the PLO before it may combat terror. Thus, the PLO seeks to make territorial gains as a result of its campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
From 1993 to 2000, Israel and the PLO signed a series of peace agreements known collectively as the Oslo Accords, under which Israel agreed to a partial and staged withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the establishment of a Palestinian Authority with some forms of jurisdiction over the Palestinian population of these territories, and an undertaking to engage in further negotiations in order to determine the final status of these territories. For its part, the PLO agreed to end terror and all other forms of violence, to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and to resolve all further disagreements with Israel through peaceful negotiations. The security fence does not breach Israel's responsibilities in the Oslo Accords and, in fact, helps implement them. First, as noted above, none of the Oslo Accords yielded any Israeli claim of sovereignty to, nor established any Palestinian sovereignty over, the West Bank. Rather, the Oslo Accords explicitly make Israel responsible for the security of Israelis, and acknowledge that Israel has "all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility."27 Importantly, Oslo makes explicit that Israel's security responsibilities include West Bank and Gaza settlements as well as Israelis in Israel proper.[28] Thus, the agreements solemnize Palestinian acknowledgment of the Israeli right to undertake security measures in the West Bank and Gaza. Second, while Israel is required to preserve smooth movement of people, vehicles, and goods within the West Bank, this obligation is specifically subject to Israel's "security powers and responsibilities."[29] Third, even if Israel had yielded its authority to defend itself using barriers on the West Bank, it is not clear that the PLO could invoke such provisions of the peace agreements in light of its gross violations of nearly all its fundamental obligations under the Oslo Accords. Finally, the resort to the ICJ by the PLO is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, any disputes arising out of application or interpretation of the agreements must be resolved by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, by agreed-upon conciliation, or agreed-upon arbitration.[30] There is no provision for unilateral resort to the General Assembly, the ICJ, or other parties.
Despite the fact that Israel has the better arguments regarding both the jurisdiction and merits, the World Court will most likely accept jurisdiction and declare that the fence - at least in its current route - is a violation of international law. The arguments outlined above will likely have little impact on the court, especially since it has previously stated that the political context or implications of an opinion would not affect its decision-making.[31] All signs point in the direction that the court is as politicized and as hostile to Israel as the GA itself. For example, in a departure from all other previous practice, the court has allowed "Palestine," a state that does not exist and that is not a UN member-state but only an observer,[32] to submit comments to the court. Furthermore, two of the judges on the court have repeatedly demonstrated their anti-Israel bias. The Egyptian, Nabil Elaraby, has called for Arab states to sue Israel for genocide, and the Jordanian was a special rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Commission who concluded that the settlements are illegal. They have already decided key issues in the case and cannot be expected to examine impartially the evidence presented to the court and to apply the law fairly. Unless it reverses course and declines jurisdiction or, indeed, affirmatively upholds Israel's right to self-defense against genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the court will undermine its legitimacy and become yet another international institution that has sacrificed its commitment to international law to an anti-Israel agenda.
1. See "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (Request for Advisory Opinion).
Laurence E. Rothenberg is a fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, D.C. The former editor-in-chief
of the "Harvard International Law Journal", he is the author
of numerous articles, studies, and book chapters on international law,
globalization, and U.S. military strategy.
Abraham Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan
University, Ramat Gan, Israel, where he specializes in international,
property, and administrative law. He has taught as a visiting
professor at Fordham University Law School, and delivered lectures on
legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict at Harvard, Columbia, NYU,
the University of Chicago, and numerous other universities.
The Jerusalem Letter and Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints are published
by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (jcpa) in Jerusalem,
Israel. This article is No. 513. It was published February 15, 2004.
|
|
THE FENCE IS ON WHOSE LAND?
Posted by David Singer, February 28, 2004. |
|
The construction of Israel's security fence on land within the West
Bank has aroused the ire of 90 of the 191 members of the General
Assembly of the United Nations, who claim such land is "Occupied
Palestinian Territory".
Is this true or is this land in fact "Jewish National Home Territory" in international law? Are those 90 members of the United Nations and their legal advisors aware of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which confer on Israel the right to construct the fence on its present location? Why has the Secretary General, Kofi Annan submitted to the International Court of Justice a dossier purporting to set out the relevant documents relating to the case, yet has excluded the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which is the definitive legal document on who is entitled to build on West Bank land? The West Bank is an area of land comprising about 5% of the territory once called Palestine administered by Great Britain from 1920 to 1948 pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine created by the League of Nations. The West Bank was called Judea and Samaria in the Bible and had been continuously so described since then right up to the British War Maps of the 1940's and in the Mandate documents themselves. The change of name from Judea and Samaria to the West Bank in 1950 was an attempt by Jordan to blot out the Jewish connection with this land, matching that of the Romans who changed the name of the country from its Hebrew name "Eretz Yisrael" (the land of Israel) to "Palestina" about 2000 years earlier so as to erase any recognition of Jewish sovereignty, which had finally succumbed to the might of the invading Roman Legions. This semantic obsession is mirrored once again in the description of the land as "Occupied Palestinian Territory" in the brief presented to the International Court of Justice by the 90 United Nations members and their front man, Kofi Annan. Again as in the past, this pathetic attempt to propagandise the status of this area will backfire on those who rely on it to assert land rights to the total exclusion of the principal beneficiary recognized in international law - the Jewish people. I will however use the term "West Bank" to describe the area so as not to be accused of necessarily favoring the use of a name with obvious Jewish connotations and connections to advance Jewish rights in that area. This is not necessary since international law has expressly recognized that Jewish rights do exist and still remain unfulfilled in the West Bank, irrespective of what name that area is given. The Mandate for Palestine was the legally binding expression of the International Community of Nations - the League of Nations. The Mandate document:
All this might have been ancient history but for the occurrence of six subsequent events between 1945-1967, which together form the legal basis for Israel's construction of its present security fence in the West Bank. The six events were the birth of the United Nations in 1945, the demise of the League of Nations in 1946, the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, Israel's War of Independence in 1948, the decision of the International Court of Justice in 1950 in the South West Africa case, and the Six Day War in 1967. Jordan (then called Transjordan), which had comprised 75% of the Mandate for Palestine, was granted its independence in 1946 at the last session before the League of Nations was dissolved. Although originally designated as part of the proposed site for the Jewish National Home, not one Jew then or until today has been allowed to live in this part of former Palestine. The Arab inhabitants of Palestine were thus granted a sovereign State in 75% of Palestine, without a shot having to be fired in anger. Not a bad result, considering the Arabs had initially been granted no political rights there in 1920. Arab political rights had been secured in other vast tracts of the former Ottoman Empire that today bear such names as Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq - areas hundreds of times larger and far richer than the pitiful area designated as the site for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. The remaining 25% of Palestine, however, still remained under the League of Nations Mandates System, as did a number of other territories around the world, where the terms of those Mandates were yet to be completed at the time of the demise of the League of Nations. To deal with these continuing Mandates, Article 80 was introduced into the United Nations Charter. Article 80 provided that nothing in the International Trusteeship System set up under the United Nations Charter should be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing International Instruments to which members of the United Nations might respectively be parties. The importance and relevance of this clause for the West Bank was not to become fully evident until 1950. A lot was to happen within the next three years to bring Article 80 into play in the West Bank. The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 had attempted to resolve the issue of sovereignty in that part of Palestine then still subject to the Mandate. The proposal was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. Had the Arabs accepted that proposal, Article 80 of the UN Charter would not need to be discussed today, and the proceedings before the International Court of Justice would not be happening. After rejecting that proposal, six invading Arab armies marched into Palestine in May 1948 in a war to wipe out the newly declared State of Israel and replace it with Arab sovereignty in the entire 25% of the remaining Mandate. The Arabs failed in this attempt, leaving Israel in sovereign control of the entire area with the exception of the West Bank, which came under the control of Jordan, and Gaza, which came under Egyptian control. Israel was then recognized by the United Nations as the sovereign authority in 19% of the original Mandate for Palestine, whilst Transjordan continued to enjoy sovereignty in 75% of the original Mandate granted to it in 1946 and additionally it had gained control of another 5% - the West Bank - at the conclusion of the 1948 war. There was no recognized international border between Israel and the West Bank, only an armistice line delineating the positions of the warring parties at the time of cessation of hostilities. This position still exists today. The West Bank and Gaza - in total just 6% of Palestine - then remained the only territories of the Mandate in which sovereignty was unallocated between Arabs and Jews. In 1950, when Transjordan changed its name to Jordan, it attempted to annex the West Bank but only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. In the same year the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on South West Africa (1950 I.C.J.Reports 128) decided that the substantive obligations of the Mandate over that territory continued in force despite the dissolution of the League of Nations. The Court affirmed that these obligations remained the essence of "the sacred trust of civilization" despite the dissolution of the League of Nations. The ramifications of this case as applied to the mandated area of the West Bank, are, of course, highly significant This case confirmed that Israel's right to closely settle and reconstitute the Jewish National Home on land within the West Bank was not extinguished by the demise of the League of Nations. The Mandate continues to have important legal significance until this very day, because of the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - something that has been consistently overlooked and ignored by the world body and those of its members who have taken their case to the International Court of Justice this week. Jordan continued to occupy and administer the West Bank from 1948 until 1967 when Israel then gained control as a result of the 6-Day War. No mention was ever made during those 19 years of this land being "Occupied Palestinian Territory", nor was Palestinian Statehood in the area, with Jerusalem as its capitol, ever raised or demanded. When control of the West Bank came back into Jewish hands in 1967 for the first time since its loss to the Roman Legions almost 2000 years before, Jews then began returning and settling in these areas as they were permitted and encouraged to do under Article 6 of the Mandate, in some cases returning to places from where they had been driven out in the 1948 War. These six events and the Mandate itself have now become of the utmost importance in 2004 because they establish that:
The Arab States have never accepted the legality of the Mandate for Palestine or anything subsequently flowing from it. They seem to have convinced Kofi Annan, that he can ignore it as well. They have now run off to the International Court asking it to set aside a considerable volume of international law, as though it never existed, and have sought to make their own prejudgment as to who is entitled to build and what can be built on the land in the West Bank where the security fence is located. International law clearly supports Israel's right to build that security fence in the West Bank providing it is either State land, waste lands not required for public purposes, or privately owned land if agreed with the owner of that land. This situation will continue until sovereignty of the West Bank is determined between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The United Nations endorsement of the Road Map can be seen as a positive step by the United Nations to bring the Mandate to a final resolution. But it does not and cannot stop Israel's construction of its security fence until the provisions of the Road Map have been fully implemented and a Peace Treaty signed. David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International whose aim is to promote direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to determine sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. |
|
A BELLYFUL OF PAIN
Posted by IsrAlert, February 28, 2004. |
|
This was written by
Daniel Ben Simon and is archived at
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/398891.html
Defeated, despairing and hungry - the residents of Ofakim. Did their new mayor return from Jerusalem with handouts from the government this week? No way. Ofakim, a southern development town steeped in suffering and devoid of illusions, held its breath on Monday ahead of the return of its mayor, Avi Asraf, from Jerusalem. The municipality's employees, who haven't been paid for two months, hoped that the money would be found in the wake of the mayor's meetings with senior officials in the capital. Some, unable to cope with the tension generated by the trip, turned to rabbis and kabbalists in the hope that they would be able to soften the hearts of the officials. A few of the residents were rendered dysfunctional by the waiting. Would he come back with money or without money - that was the question that overshadowed all else among Ofakim's inhabitants last weekend. Without money there would be no municipal services; without money, there would be a foul mood in the town. And, without money even a hot meal would begin to be thought of as a luxury. Eitan Azati, a municipal inspector who did not get his salary, related that he had recently been a guest in an Eilat hotel as part of a course for municipal employees from across the country. In previous years he never gave a thought to the food that was left over on the table. This time, though, he found it difficult to watch the waiters throwing out large amounts of it. "My heart started pounding," he said, still upset. "I have six children, and I couldn't bring myself to look. In front of my eyes they were throwing out huge amounts of food. It's no shame to be poor, but when you see food being thrown into the garbage can, you have to ask: Lord, where's the justice?" On Monday of this week Asraf left Jerusalem for Ofakim. The municipal employees, who returned to work two weeks ago after a lengthy strike, were plainly overwrought. Some of them prowled the corridors of city hall restlessly. Others badgered Asraf's bureau chief, wanting to know whether the mayor had called. "I spoke to him half an hour ago, and there's nothing to tell yet." "But how did he sound?" "The same as always." Money was the universal subject of conversation. "My wife is killing me," one employee complained to Jimi Abukasis, chairman of the local branch of the Histadrut labor federation, who was at the municipality building to cheer up the employees. "She said that if the money doesn't go into the bank today I might as well not come home." The pessimists were convinced that the mayor would come back empty-handed. "I'll bet you there won't be any money," Azati whispered to Abukasis, who replied: "I also say there's not going to be any money, but why make everyone despair? Let them live with illusions another while." Knowing what was in store, Abukasis was busy making preparations for another strike by the municipal employees. In another few hours the mayor would be back with the news. "Until we know what's happening in connection with the money, everyone works normally," he told his colleagues, "as though you're getting paid." Two weeks ago, when they were compelled to return to work, Ofakim's city workers did so with a divided heart. The Interior Ministry promised to pay overdue salaries immediately after the authorization of the reform plan submitted by Asraf. Since taking over as mayor four months ago, he hasn't known a day of happiness. The employees accused the government of maltreating them because they were disadvantaged and far from the heart of the country. Some, though, blamed the situation on the corruption of former mayors. They recalled the millions of shekels that were wasted in efforts to create a fleeting aura of glory and government showmanship. Immediately after being elected, the town's new masters would appoint their confidants to unnecessary posts, approve large salaries for unneeded advisers and spend vast sums on showcase projects. The frustrated municipality employees were especially incensed at Yair Hazan, the previous mayor, who did what he pleased with the city treasury to realize what they saw as megalomaniac fantasies. One of the first things Hazan, a Likud activist who promised to foment a revolution in the town, decided to do was to purchase a luxury car and expand and renovate his office. He then decided to decorate it with the finest of accessories, and planned to install a shower, Jacuzzi and dressing room adjacent to his office. His dream evaporated after it was exposed and the townspeople protested. "The only thing that made Hazan cancel the Jacuzzi was that people threatened to complain to the state comptroller and to the Interior Ministry," one of the employees said. "The worst thing about this affair of wasted money, which cost millions, was that the members of the municipal council approved the expenditure without asking questions. They all depended on him for their jobs and salaries, and voted almost automatically for every motion he placed on the agenda." Reflections on the past gave way to concerns about the new troubles. "What is going to happen?" a worried employee asked Abukasis as he passed by her office. "If he comes without money, we'll shut down the town and create mayhem," he promised. Flight of the young In the meantime, Ofakim's social welfare staff is worried about how the distress and lack of funding will affect the lives of local children and their studies, about what it will do to family life and relationships, about the impact on welfare recipients. Not to mention the town's image and future. The difficulties made people nostalgic for the past, which was no bed of roses, either. Still, Abukasis says, "Ofakim was a town where it was a pleasure to live. A small, pleasant town. We were like one big family, with a sense of brotherhood. But that's all gone now. Today you have the new immigrants and the Haredim [ultra-Orthodox]. And if you add the two groups together, we don't exist. They have swallowed us up mentally." Ami Cohen, too, recalls those years fondly. "That was a different time," he agreed. "Schoolchildren had day camps and outings and three meals a day and went to movies. Even before the official long-day scheme, school here ended in the late afternoon, and the kids had all kinds of afternoon activities and there was a youth club that was open all day. Things were good, even if people didn't have money." And then something changed. Cohen, an editor of local papers, remembers the sudden eruption of a warped culture of government that changed the way things had been done in a community that was known for its modest mien. "Suddenly there were these young people who went into politics and were elected to positions in the municipality," he recalls. "You could see their arrogance and that they were looking for status symbols. They drove big cars and traveled abroad all the time. They wanted to be like the elite in the center of the country." Since its inception, Ofakim has found it difficult to stop the flight of its young people. After doing their army service, the town's young generation leaves and the university graduates don't return. Abukasis' children no longer live in Ofakim. Six of Cohen's eight siblings have left, and nearly all the mayors went off in search of greener pastures after serving their term of office. "On the one hand, Ofakim would look different if the young people stayed here," Cohen noted. "On the other hand, I tell the young people who ask me: Don't stay here. You'll be successful elsewhere." Mordechai Rosen is another person without promises to make to young people who want to stay in the town. During 31 years as a school principal, he has watched the migration of the thousands of graduates. "The graduates didn't come back to Ofakim," he said. "They have no work and no future here." In the past three years, only 25 percent of the students have succeeded in obtaining high-school matriculation diplomas. "The problem is with the other 75 percent," Rosen added. "What are you going to do with them? Where are they going to go without a diploma? They are fated to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. It's inconceivable for there to be such a low rate of success in high school. Lord of the universe, after all, we are all born equal." For years he tried everything to reduce the failure rates of his students. But nothing helped. He replaced teachers, changed teaching methods, switched classes, brought in different tutors, organized new advisers - but the results remained gloomy. One teacher advised him not to waste so much effort on students from Ofakim. "That's their level," she said bluntly. The already distressful situation was only aggravated with the arrival of the new immigrants from Caucasus and Ethiopia. As a result of this influx, Ofakim's population has doubled in the past decade, to about 26,000. "I discovered that the new students were suffering from serious problems of concentration, hyperactivity and learning disabilities," Rosen said. "The moment you mix good students with problematic ones, everything goes haywire. We have no possibility of isolating the problematic ones, and unfortunately that affected the general level of the students." Culture of dependence When Edna Bitan returned to work after the end of the municipality employees' strike, she discovered that the problems were worse than ever. Bitan, who heads a team of social workers who deal mainly with the elderly, youth at risk and families in distress, was drawn to this line of work because she identified with its contribution to the weak population groups. She always believed in empowerment and in helping those in need to achieve self-realization. She always rejected the idea of donations and grants, believing that they paralyze action and create dependence on the establishment. She herself grew up in harsh conditions, but overcame them with motivation and great willpower. If she did it, there is no reason others can't, too, she told herself. As a social worker, she tried to translate her credo into deeds. As head of the team, she urged her staff to embark on the same path of empowering and motivating those in need. "Provide tools, not welfare" was her motto. Over the years she reiterated to her team the importance of the "pyramid of needs" developed by Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), an American psychologist. According to Maslow, each person has a hierarchy of needs that must be satisfied and that leads to self-actualization. Every student of sociology and of social work becomes acquainted with the pyramid. Its base consists of the basic physiological needs, such as food and shelter, above which are esteem, education and inculcation of values, all of which lead to the final and critical stage of self-actualization. In other words, an individual will realize himself and achieve his desires only if the other four needs are supplied. The past few years have seen a revolution in the working methods of Bitan and her colleagues. The growing distress has upset the order of the needs and in fact has inverted Maslow's hierarchy. The collapse of the welfare state has generated a rise in the basic existential needs and a decline in the possibility of self-actualization. "How can I talk to people about self-actualization when they don't have enough to eat," she lamented this week. "I always told the staff that they had to empower the victim, but now the victim doesn't have food every day and sometimes he goes to bed hungry. I am encountering very complicated situations, because families are coming to us and saying they don't have food to eat. The children come with the parents and see the spectacle, andfrom an early age they learn to receive instead of learning how to cope. "In this state of affairs I can't get into social theory. If a child doesn't have enough to eat, can I talk to him about self-actualization? We have gone back in time to the stage of the basic needs, such as food and a roof over one's head. That used to be taken for granted, but these days, instead of being a social worker, I have become a mediator between victims and authorities - the police, the bailiff's office, the welfare bureau or the National Insurance Institute. "You have to understand that in the past year people lost 30 percent of the allowances they received from the state. I succeeded in becoming something in life because I felt that the state was behind me and would help me to help myself. But today it's different. What will today's young people feel when they see that their parents aren't able to support them? We are creating a new generation of children, a new form of distress. These children know that every Thursday a crate of food from the soup kitchen arrives, and they are internalizing values of dependence on others." A few weeks ago Bitan received a heart-rending letter. A new immigrant had approached the teacher of her son, a fourth-grader, and the teacher forwarded the letter to Bitan. "My boy was late for school because I didn't have bread to give him," the mother wrote the teacher, imploring her not to punish the child for being late. "I had to go to one of the neighbors, and she gave me four slices of bread for my son. I ask you not to be angry at him, and I want you to understand my economic situation, that sometimes my son is late only because of slices of bread. I don't have anything to give him. I wouldn't like you to say anything to him because he will be ashamed ... My husband can't find a job. Every morning he looks for work, but comes back home, because there is no work. I hope you will understand the situation and not get angry at him, because he's not to blame for anything." With great effort, Bitan managed to extract a check for NIS 500 from the budget of the Welfare Department, and intends to send it on to the family in the days ahead. Another letter she received, from Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva, is about a patient who threatened to commit suicide because of economic distress. "How am I supposed to help that woman when she returns to Ofakim?" Bitan sighs. "I am not organized to deal with this cruel situation. No one prepared us for situations like this." Avraham Ivgi, director of the Ofakim Munipality's welfare department, said that a few days ago he was told that his already minuscule budget for families in distress was about to be cut. Last year the budget stood at NIS 142,000; this year it was trimmed to NIS 85,000. "It's appalling," he said angrily. "How am I supposed to divide this money? To those who don't have medicines? To those who don't have a bed? To those who don't have a refrigerator? How am I going to decide which distress is the harshest?" As he spoke about the distress of others, a thought flashed through his mind that made him smile. "After not getting a salary for three months, I'm in distress now, too," he said. Just then an employee entered the office and asked whether there was any news from Jerusalem yet. "Nothing so far," he replied. With empty hands That evening, the employees of the Ofakim Municipality went on full alert, as though a war were about to break out. The rumor spread that the mayor was on his way home. People who couldn't take the tension any longer called him directly to get the news. By 7:30 P.M., every boy and girl in Ofakim knew that the mayor had come back empty-handed. The next day, Tuesday morning, the employees assembled in the auditorium of the music conservatory, not far from the town hall. Asraf was greeted with looks of rage and frustration. It turned out that the Interior Ministry had decided not to make do with the NIS 10 million slash in the municipality's budget to which it had committed itself, but was now demanding a cut of NIS 20 million. The mayor had replied that a cut on that scale would lead to people dying from want. The talks broke down and the mayor returned home without anything. At the conclusion of the meeting the employees declared a strike and went out to block the main street. Within minutes they were brandishing posters, burning tires and shouting, "Bread and work!" A column of thick black smoke rose over the town, like a metaphor for the psychological atmosphere. Not far from there, in the commercial center, a few dozen jobless people were following the vociferous melee with a sense of helplessness. "There's one thing I don't understand," Ivgi said, "which is why the young people in this country don't organize to protest and to lead a revolution. I simply do not understand why that hasn't happened yet." General information: Ofakim was established in 1955. Population, 2003: 26,000. New immigrants: About 50% of the population, most of them elderly or single-parent families. Ultra-Orthodox: 25% of the population. Public housing residents: 40% of the population. Socioeconomic data: Recipients of unemployment insurance: 2.2 times the national average. Recipients of guaranteed income: three times the national average. Per capita income: 0.59% of the average. Proportion of salaried workers earning less than the minimum wage: 50%. Number of people in the care of social welfare bureaus: twice the national average. The number of job seekers has increased by 37% in the past three years. Unskilled job seekers: 70%. Official unemployment rate: 9.4%. Unofficial rate: above 30%. Proportion of those who pay municipal tax: 25%. Households being looked after by welfare bureaus: 2,491. Of them, 1,219 are new-immigrant households. Ofakim is first place in poverty in the Jewish sector. Education data: Number of university students: 0.5% of the population. National average: 1.4%. Proportion of students going for a second degree: 0.1%.
IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To
subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com
|
|
WHY THE DEEP HATRED OF AMERICA BY MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS?
Posted by Mordechai Kedar, February 28, 2004. |
|
The hostility of Islam to the West is deeply imbedded and of long
standing. Sometimes it simmers, sometimes it erupts flamboyantly. This
article was written in October 3, 2001, occasioned by the September 11
2001 attack on the United States, which occurred exactly seven years
after the cultural attack of the Cairo Population Conference of
September 1994.
The attack on the US was planned to commemorate the seventh anniversary (the number seven is highly significant in Islam) of what is perceived in the Islamic world as the most dangerous cultural attack against the Islamic world of values. In September 1994 the international population conference was convened in Cairo by the United Nations for the purpose of reducing the rate of population-growth in the world. This "roving" conference, which meets once every few years, each time in a densely populated country, is aimed at bringing the "gospel" of low birth-rate of western culture to the Third World. This is presented as a means for development and stability, since over-population is a heavy burden on the economies of these countries. The 1994 conference aimed at bringing this idea to the Egyptian people, as well as to the Arab and Islamic peoples, bearing in UN stamp of approval. The conference in Cairo dealt with a variety of topics which promote the lowering of birth-rate: legitimizing abortions; raising the age of marriage; promoting "safe" sex between teenagers by the use contraceptives and sex education; monogamy; official recognition of the right of homosexuals and lesbians to establish families; and women's autonomy over their bodies. All these values, which in Islamic eyes characterize western civilization of this generation, are fundamentally opposed to the Islamic values of modesty, family stability and sexual morality. Therefore, the dissemination of these Western values in Islamic countries was nothing less than an attack against Islam. As part of the media coverage on the issue of women's rights during the conference CNN broadcast the famous report which showed the circumcision of a ten-year-old Egyptian girl. This report caused wide anti-American resentment in Egypt and in the Arab and Islamic world. The repercussions of this broadcast were felt during the entire conference. The Islamic press in Egypt, and especially the Moslem Brotherhood's al-Sha'b, published a spate of articles against the conference, before it convened, during and after it. The al-Sha'b articles reflected the attitude of Islamic fundamentalists towards western culture and several examples, mainly headlines, will be quoted here. "An update from the UN on the population conference: Propagation of sex among adolescents and providing them with contraceptives". The article mentioned that "all the issues of sexual permissiveness, circulating sex culture and promoting of legislation permitting abortions were agreed upon ahead of time and given top priority on the conference agenda." The paper accompanies this article with a photo of crowded street in Cairo with the ironic caption: "They should all be exterminated" (August 26, 1994). Homosexuality was one of the values which the conference promoted, since homosexual marriages produce no children. On the same page, Muhammad al-Ghazzali, one of the most prominent Islamic propagandists today, regards to homosexuality under the headline: "Stone the perverts and don't fall into the "trap" of the UN." He stated: "The human race and the animal kingdom have never seen anything like what the West stands for. He called on all the forces to rise against this questionable conference which was convened especially to fight against us in our faith (muharabatuna fi 'aqidatina), and we therefore have to rise against them because of the war which was declared on us ... Even if their imperialistic governments permitted them (homosexuals, M. K.) to establish organizations in their countries, they have no right to defile the streets of Cairo with their perversions." To emphasize al-Gazzali's statements, the paper published photos of male couples kissing in public. Sheikh 'Ikrima Sabri, the Mufti of the Palestinian Authority and al-Aqsa mosque, attended this conference. On September 9, 1994, under the title "Al-Aqsa preacher warns: the conference' closing statement will provoke the emotions of the Moslems" he is quoted: "The superpowers are planning to destroy of the Third World after sucking its blood." Some other headlines which reflect the attitude of the Islamic fundamentalists towards the conference are: "Everything in the closing document of the conference which deals with development and the freedom of woman is in contradiction with Islam" (Aug. 26, 1994); "An international organization strives to turn the family-planning centers into centers of promoting adultery" (Aug. 30, 1994); "Extermination of human beings (i.e. abortions, M. K.) is the official and public policy of the international system" (Sept. 6, 1994); "Taking exception to the resolutions of the population conference, which contradict our religion and traditions, is not enough" (Aug. 30, 1994); "American officials admit: stopping the population growth in the Islamic world is one of the primary considerations for American national security" (Sept. 2, 1994); "Moral corruption and abortions are dominating the discussions of the conference" (Sept. 9, 1994); "In the conference publications: pamphlets mocking Allah and blaming Moslems for beggary and backwardness" (Sept. 9, 1994); "America stands behind the conference and is the wicked force that drives it" (Sept. 9, 1994); "The adoption of the document is a success of 'the world government' under the leadership of America and Zionism" (Sept. 16, 1994); The American role in the conference was clear: the closing document was formed in May 1994 in a preparatory conference which convened in New York. The leitmotif of this outpouring of news-items and articles published about the conference is that Islam and its traditions are under a vicious attack of western-American culture, which aimed at secularization of Moslem peoples, and to bring to them, through the Cairo conference, the 'gospel of progress' of the West, which is anti-Islamic in its spirit, its essence and its methods. Globalization - as Islam sees it - has less to do with economy or environment issues than with the global spread of western-American social and cultural values which pose a threat not only to the Islamic states as political and national frameworks, but primarily upon the whole set of values of every individual, family and group in the Islamic world. Dr. Muhammad 'Amara, one of the regular contributors to al-Sha'b, analyzes in the August 2001 issue of the Egyptian monthly "al-Hilal" the disingenuous language of the 1994 conference resolutions which threaten to destroy the value system of Islamic families in our day. It has been asserted that the clash between Bin-Laden and America is the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Israel, according to the Islamic fundamentalists, is only "The Small Satan", since it poses a threat to its close environment: the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese, while America is "The Big Satan" threatening as it does the whole value system of the entire Islamic world, from Indonesia in the East to Morocco in the west. The Egyptian context of Bin-Laden is well known: his deputy and close friend is Ayman al-Zawahiri, who headed the Egyptian Jihad terror organization which had planned the destruction of the Egyptian regime, which it considered to be "an agent of the imperialistic West", which blindly followed the American permissive and corrupt culture. The contemporary American imperialism - as Islamic fundamentalists see it - is not territorial occupation or economic hegemony, but cultural dictatorship since current Western values are fundamentally opposed to all that is sacred in the eyes of every Moslem who is committed to his tradition. Therefore Islam has no other choice but to wage a Jihad of defense against those who threaten the values of personal modesty and family stability, basic values in Islam. The clash of cultures between the West and Islam did not erupt in September 2001 but much earlier; however, the population conference of September 1994 in Cairo was an important milestone in the western campaign against the Islamic culture and tradition. The writing on the wall had been there for a long time, but unfortunately it was written in Arabic. Mordechai Kedar, Ph.D., is Lecturer in the Department of Arabic, Bar-Ilan University, and at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. |
|
ISRAEL SHOULD TREAT THE WORLD LIKE WOMEN TREAT MEN
Posted by Arlene Peck, February 28, 2004. |
|
Recently, while unpacking some old boxes, I came across some
treasures that had been bundled away for more decades than I care to
remember. I had saved many old appointment books and love letters
from many more men than I should recall. The reason I mention this
now is because, until then, I had never realized what a terrible
person I was.
After sitting down and reading these postscripts to my past, I noticed something. It seemed the more I was unkind to these guys, the more they wanted me. Truly. I thought what a bitch I was. Yet, no one in all those little stacks of envelopes seemed to mind that I gave them a hard time. Most in fact, seemed to love it. So, it got me to thinking. Israel has been too needy. The same goes for the woman who sits in a bar with the expectant look of "pick me! pick me!". She is never going to have a date for the prom. I think the same holds true for Israel. They want to be loved! They need to be appreciated! Folks, there is another thing I learned a long time ago. There are four words that should be removed from the English language. They are, "ought" "should" "fair" and "equitable". 'Because, folks, life ain't always the way it ought to be, should be, and for sure it's not fair or equitable. It's not "fair" that a gaggle of anti-Semites from all those wonderful bastions of democracy around the globe such as Cuba, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the Organization of Islamic States, the League of Arab states etc., meet in a world court in The Hague. Gawd, who cares? The Jews are concerned that the Catholic Pope will give a good review for the Mel Gibson passion play? At this moment the Pope might be too busy worrying about another problem in his church, i.e., the pedophiles crisis. At the rate they're going, soon the lawsuits will be a billion dollars. Wouldn't those funds have been better used in charitable endeavors than paying out lawsuits? Maybe Mel Gibson ought to choose that as the topic for his next "religious" epic. How his own church ought to go about cleaning up its act. How much energy has been wasted in down playing Israel's aid to even their enemies so as not to antagonize the Arab World? Israel doesn't need to be loved that much. Why should Israel give a diddly-squat that those very same folks who gave us the Holocaust decide to meet in the Hague to sit in judgement of Israel? Israel has the power, but seem to have forgotten that fact. Maybe it's time to remember. My momma used to tell me, "Darlin, the best defense is a powerful offence!" Some people aren't going to like the Jews "no matter what. The Jews gave a conscience to the world. The Ten Commandments were a stunner! Until then, everyone was happy in their hedonistic ways. Hey, they could sleep with sheep and who would care" Moses had to do his "thing" and it's been downhill ever since. The fact that the Jews are just tiny spot on the planet and the major recipients of the Noble Prizes doesn't help either Here's an apt analogy. I think I have no problem with my identity. Until some young tall skinny blond wearing implants and hip-huggers walks past me. Do I like her? No! I think "bitch". She could have the personality of Lady Di. Or, the goodness of Mother Theresa. It wouldn't matter. She's hated by me and most of the other women in the room. The same goes for Israel. As far as their immediate neighbors, most of which have the educational skills of an eggplant, they hate the Jewish State. It's a shame. It's tragic. But, folks, that's just the way it is. Their school books teach math, "If Abdul kills three Israeli's and Mohammed bombs ten, how many are left"? This is not a mentality you can reason with. The rest of the world? Well, to my thinking, it's pretty much the same thing. Israel tries too hard to be respected, loved or appreciated for all the truly wonderful things that they are. So what? Treat the European Union like a scorned man and they'll come groveling . I grew up in Georgia. It saddens me to say it but, the state was filled with men who, I seriously suspect slept with their cousins. That's just the way it was. But, do you think that they would have cared for a moment or reacted by changing their ways if the general population of California decided to violate their "states rights" by interfering in the habits of the local natives? Lo-d, it almost caused a war when the State legislature decided to take down the Civil War flag from the courthouse. Yet, just as soon as George Bush or any of our State dept. civil servants who, have been on the payroll of the Saudis for many years snap their fingers, the wayward, hungry leaders of the State of Israel, say, "How high" Which brings me back to how Israel ought to treat her detractors like a successful woman treats her men. Jealousy, in moderation, never hurt either. The United States doesn't want to give that needed 2.2 billion dollars foreign aid to Israel? Hey, call Michael Eisner! He's a nice Jewish boy who has money to burn and just turned down FIFTY-ONE BILLION dollars for a transfer of Disney to Comcast Cable Company. So the motto ought to be "it's a can't have, want world." The detractors of the Jews can't be the chosen people. The more they are rejected, the more they want it. My mother used to tell me, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free." Israel has to remember to make their so-called friends buy more cows. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
CHUTZPAH...ARAB STYLE
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 28, 2004. |
|
Dr. Aaron Klieman's book, Foundations of British Policy In The Arab
World: The Cairo Conference of 1921 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1970),
should be "must reading" for those who truly want to make sense out of
the conflict between Arab and Jew in the Middle East today. It's one
of those references that other scholars used to cite in their own
works. Nowadays, however, with much of this field being hijacked by a
blatantly anti-American and anti-Israel fraternity, things have
changed.
The chief tenured prof who teaches this subject at Ohio State, for instance, Carter Findley, managed to teach an entire graduate course (I know...I was there) on the Mandatory period without ever bothering to mention either Klieman's book or the facts which you'll read below. And that was over two decades ago. And woe unto thee if you dared bring such things up. Again...I know. Things have gotten even worse today. The Associated Press report headlined in my local Florida paper on February 25, 2004 read as follows: "Jordan Joins Chorus Against Israeli Wall." It was Jordan's turn to lay it on the Jews. Prince Zeid al Hussein complained that the barrier might send Palestinian Arabs fleeing into his own kingdom. He also justified the suicide bombings by blaming them on the four decades' old Israeli occupation. Now for a reality check...Indeed, the Hashemites would do themselves a favor by not addressing this issue to anyone with a knowledge of the actual facts and history involved. Since many do not possess this, they feel free to rant, as the late King Hussein's widow has also done in her recently published book. To appreciate what comes next, first find a map of the Middle East. One of the world will do, but everything will be much smaller. Find Jordan and then find Israel to its west. And now hold onto your seats... In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill, to reward Arab allies in World War I (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia?), chopped off roughly 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate issued to Great Britain on April 25, 1920 - all the land east of the Jordan River - and created the purely Arab "Emirate of Transjordan" - today's Jordan. This was engineered by Churchill a year earlier at the Cairo Conference. Emir Abdullah, who received the land on behalf of the Hashemites of Arabia, attributed this gift to an "act of Allah" in his memoirs. Sir Alec Kirkbride, Britain's East Bank representative, had much to say about this separation of the lion's share of the Palestinian Mandate as well. Let's listen: "In due course the remarkable discovery was made that the clauses of the mandate relating to the establishment of a National Home for the Jews had never been intended to apply to the mandated territory east of the river ( A Crackle of Thorns, page 27)." So, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was awarded the bulk of the Palestinian Mandate. While it too officially remained tied to the whole, Jordan, nonetheless, became a virtually separate entity. From 1922 onwards - after already receiving most of the territory - Arabs would next point to what was left of "Palestine" to make yet further claims. Arabs answer by citing geographical and other differences between some Arabs and others. Using this logic, since there are Jews in Israel from over a hundred different countries (including one half who were refugees from "Arab" lands and some whose families never left Israel since the days of the Roman conquest), then Jews are therefore entitled to multiple states as well. Think of it... Less than one half million Arabs were entitled to a Kuwait. Over two million Jews can stake a claim to parts of Morocco, Iraq, etc. Arab and pro-Arab professors typically ignore all of this when teaching this topic. The main starting date for them is not 1920, but 1947...the proposed partition of "Palestine." Of course they conveniently omit telling their students that this was the second partition of the land (which the Arabs rejected) and pretend that Jordan was always a separate state. And the students take it all in. The Jordan-Palestine connection is just one of many well-documented facts (not "Zionist propaganda") completely ignored or distorted by Arab spokesmen and, unfortunately, little known by the rest of the world. Arabs typically claim Jews got 78% of all of the land, and leading newspapers typically prepare segments on the Middle East ignoring this crucial Jordan-Palestine connection as well. While discussion now revolves around a "two state" or even a "one state" solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs, the reality is that Jordan is historically and demographically Palestinian. So there is a third solution...though it's kept hushed up these days. Jordan has been a reasonable neighbor of late...relatively speaking at least...so Israel hasn't made an issue of this. Indeed, it was Israel which saved the Hashemites' collective derrieres in 1970 when the PLO decided to cash in on this third alternative. I say all of this not as a Likudnik (while I agree with many of their positions), but simply to set the record straight. Palestinian Arabs "fleeing into Jordan" a la Prince Zeid's remarks would, in reality, be moving simply to another part of Palestine. And did anyone ask why Israel is obliged to provide work for the butchers of its innocents? That supposedly would be one of the main reasons for the Arab flight into Jordan. Arab workers have killed their Jewish employers. Yet Israel has taken pains to create passage ways for these people through the fence. When Egypt's Nasser decided it was time to drive the Jews into the sea, he contacted Jordan's King Hussein - his calls were intercepted and taped - and convinced His late Majesty to join in the massacre. Israel, through the United Nations, begged Hussein to distance himself from Nasser's plans. The King didn't listen and instead launched an attack on the Jewish half of Jerusalem instead. The rest, as they say, is history. And that's how Jordan lost the West Bank - which it seized in the 1948 fighting - in the first place. Transjordan - led by British officers - joined other Arab countries in attacking a reborn Israel, trying to nip it in the bud. So the Prince would be better off not bringing this subject up...at least not to those with any sense of fair play. When you launch a war and lose, there's a price to pay...especially if the land you launched your attack from was not yours in the first place. Whatever will or won't become of the land in question, it must be noted that this is disputed territory, not "Arab" land, as those testifying before the court in Geneva now claim. Jews lived and owned property there until their slaughter in the 1920s. Judea and Samaria, only in this century known as the "West Bank" (largely as a result of British imperialism and Transjordan's later annexation), were unapportioned parts of the Mandate, and leading authorities such as Eugene Rostow, William O'Brien, and others have stressed that these areas were open to settlement by Jew, Arab, and other residents of the mandate alike. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Arabs poured into the area from all over the Middle East. The League Of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission documented scores of thousands of Arabs entering into Palestine from just Syria alone. Hamas' "patron saint", Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam, was from Aleppo. It's estimated that many more Arabs entered the Mandate, to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews, under cover of darkness and were never recorded...more Arab settlers setting up more Arab settlements. Why are these "legal" and those of the Jews not? While it's been said many times, it's worth repeating. The good cop/bad cop team of Arafat and Hamas/Islamic Jihad created the security fence now on trial in Geneva. And until those leopards change their spots, Israel must do what any other nation would do to protect its citizens from Arab barbarity. Indeed, many other nations have constructed such fences for far less compelling reasons. As for the route of the fence, in the wake of the June '67 War, UN Resolution #242 expressly did not call for Israel to return to the status quo ante bellum and the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it at the close of hostilities in 1949. Among other things, those lines made it a mere 9-miles wide at its waist. What #242 did call for was the creation of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those vulnerable lines. Adding a few more miles of buffer in strategically important areas on the West Bank, etc., is precisely what the Resolution had in mind. The architects of the final draft of the resolution (Rostow, Goldberg, etc.) have stated this themselves. Israel does not seek to rule over millions of Arabs' lives. What it does want is a reasonable compromise over these disputed lands...not the unilateral, Munich style solution too many of the folks in Geneva now have in mind. Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress magazine (http://www.jewishxpress.com), a monthly publication based in southern Florida. His background is in Middle Eastern Affairs. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. |
|
TAKING THE PASSIVE ROAD
Posted by Paula R. Stern, February 28, 2004. |
|
It is a quest of mine. I want people who live outside of the Middle East to understand what it is like to live in a country where you know that mortars will fall every day, stones will be thrown, bullets will be shot, buses will be attacked, cafes will be targeted, and worst of all, people will be murdered. Clarity often comes from distance. Back away from something and somehow it becomes more clear. Two years ago, one of my cyberspace friends asked me the simplest of questions, "How can one group of mothers anguish over the thought that their children might be killed, while another group applauds their children for doing the killing?" I was amazed that someone outside of Israel was baffled by the same mystery that continues to plague our society today. Most days, something hits somewhere. Some days, too much hits anywhere and on the worst of days, a suicide bomber makes it through. Every day, I listen to the news, click around to see what is happening. Today, as the bus that my son often rides was stoned, something clicked and I sent a note to one of my email groups detailing what had transpired in Israel in a 24 hour period. A passenger on a bus was lightly injured. Soldiers in Balata were targeted. Several border policepersons were injured. IDF troops were targeted by terrorist gunfire. Gunfire was directed at an IDF position. An explosive device was discovered... and on it went. I posted the list of these attacks because I thought they summed up our lives here. Another Israeli added that we were lucky, as this "short" list meant that it had been a relatively quiet day. Then, someone sent a message that surprised me. "Virtually all of these reports were written in the passive... I find it interesting because it appears as though there's a consistent effort to avoid assigning blame." Interesting, he thought. Interesting, I agree. "They were all written in the passive voice. For example, 'Soldiers...were targeted in a shooting attack' as opposed to (what would likely appear in American media) 'Terrorists targeted soldiers in a shooting attack'," he wrote. Why do Israeli journalists write in the passive tense? Worse, why do we Israelis think that way? We know who is to blame. After more than three years of violence, it is clear to anyone willing to see. A few years ago, when it was clear that the Palestinians had Kassem2 rockets, a leading Member of Knesset said that if the Arabs dared to fire them at Israel, it would mean war. Today, almost daily, we are attacked by rockets fired at Israelis. They fall in our cities, in our open fields, and even near our schools. Our buses are attacked, and we bulldoze empty buildings. We have lost more than 950 Israelis in the last three years, roughly the equivalent of 55,000 Americans. On September 11, almost 3000 people were murdered, and America declared war. Israel has never been a nation of cowards, and yet we cannot even write the news properly. It is wrong to say that we were attacked, stoned, bombed, shot. We must place the blame where it belongs, on those who attack, those who stone and bomb and shoot. Today, as happens almost every day, Palestinians stoned a bus. Palestinians shot at troops. Palestinians planted a bomb. The sooner we understand that the world does not understand our hesitation, our passivity, the sooner, perhaps, the world will force it to end. Palestinians grab the world attention. They scream to all that can hear, that the security fence is preventing them from reaching 70% of their land. Lies, lies, lies. At least 80% of the West Bank will remain in Palestinian hands if the fence is built according to the current plan. A bomb on a Jerusalem bus kills eight Israelis. The government is passive. In less than three hours, the street has been cleaned, the bus removed. Families of the victims are in a race to find their loved ones, frantically searching, but the majority of Israelis have already begun to internalize what has happened. Beyond those first horrible moments, while we imagine the worst for our loved ones and quickly telephone everyone who we think might have been anywhere near the explosion, normalcy creeps back into our lives. Passivity returns. Not even a military response. Nothing but a few words. The news reports that a bus was attacked. A bus was destroyed. Dozens were injured, eight were killed. A Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a bus. A terrorist destroyed a bus. A Palestinian member of Arafat's al-Aqsa Brigade murdered eight and wounded dozens. It is time for us to stop being passive, time to place the blame where it belongs. Time to stop accepting that mortars will fall each day, stones will be thrown, bullets will be shot. It is time to act and time to stop the actions of others. Paula Stern is founder and documentation manager of WritePoint, a small technical writing company. She is on the RoboHelp Community Advisory Board and is Moderator of the Tech-Shoret E-mail List. |
|
"SUPER MONDAY" IN WASHINGTON
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 28, 2004. |
|
This is a DEBKAfile Special Analysis and is archived at
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=646
Monday, March 1, several hives of activity will focus on the Middle East's most intractable conflict and the next stage of the Bush design to remake the region. Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's two senior aides, Dov Weisglass and his new national security council director Giora Eiland, will be in Washington, officially to present the essentials of the prime minister's initiative for Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians by means of the partial evacuation of Israeli dwellers from the Gaza Strip and from isolated locations in the West Bank and the construction of a fence - both for protection against terrorists and as a divider. To ease acceptance, the fence was shortened by 80 km and underwent major surgery to straighten out loops curving into the West Bank. The biggest sacrifice is the section that was supposed to guard Israel's international Ben Gurion airport, the densely populated Modi'in-Re'ut-Maccabim region, and highways linking it to Jerusalem, from terrorist attack. These vital areas will be denied the protection of a defense barrier separating next-door Palestinian areas. The European Union's foreign affairs executive Javier Solana will land in Washington on the same day as the Israeli delegation. He will be coming to hear arguments from secretary of state Colin Powell and the president's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in favor of Europe joining forces with the United States in the execution of a regional strategy and the Sharon plan. All parties are aware that Israel will be at the receiving end of demands for further "adjustments" to make the Bush strategy attractive to the European Union. Therefore, the fate of the Weisglass-Eiland presentation depends largely on the outcome of Solana's talks with US leaders. Not entirely by chance, Friday, February 27, Irish foreign minister Brian Cowan handed visiting foreign minister Silvan Shalom in Dublin with a plan that Solana will also discuss with his American hosts. Ireland is the present EU president. The plan centers on the deployment of NATO forces in areas evacuated by Israel, NATO being a euphemism for European troops. Long dreamed of by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and embodied in the Geneva proposals developed by Israeli dove Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Yasser Abd Rabbo, every Israeli government has rejected the notion in the past. Shalom explained to the Irish minister that the presence of foreign troops would hold Israel back from pursuing terrorists and prejudice its national security. As he spoke, the subject was being thoroughly explored in the White House, according to DEBKAfile's Washington sources, by President George W. Bush and German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder when they met to bury their pre-Iraq War hatchet. Solana will almost certainly take up the American offer. He will not miss the opportunity to gradually forced Israel back, step by step, into a comprehensive withdrawal - not only from the Gaza Strip but also from the West Bank under the US-European aegis. Every peace proposal he ever initiated always hinged heavily on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians. The erosion has begun. Sharon's proposed removal of 17 of the 19 Gaza Strip Jewish settlements has morphed in diplomatic parlance to total withdrawal of settlers and troops alike. The most unobtrusive casualty of this projected stampede is the security strip along the Israel-Egyptian frontier that was enshrined in the 1979 peace treaty signed by the late Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, for which they shared a Nobel Prize and which holds up to the present day. Eliminating the border crossing at the southern tip of Rafah would push the Israeli frontier 70 km north almost up to the Mediterranean town of Ashkelon. And that is just for starters. Powell, Rice and Solana are both old hands at the negotiating table. Concessions made at the outset are likely to snowball. The European official will not miss the chance of building on the Gaza withdrawal and partial removal of West Bank settlements. He will get his chance when Washington asks to hear what concessions Europe requires from Israel to get the Europeans behind the United States on other issues like Iraq and Syria. Both sides will be keen to accommodate one another and increase Bush's Middle East momentum. The mission that takes Weisglass and Eiland to Washington is therefore not the presentation of the Sharon plan but rather to hear what further concessions are demanded before the Israeli prime minister is invited for his oft-postponed visit to the White House. The Bush administration faces a far tougher challenge to its plans for the region on the Arab side of the Middle East. Monday, too Mark Grossman, the state department's Number Three, heads out for Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Bahrain and Turkey, to sell the president's democratic reforms program to key Arab leaders as well as Ankara. His trip follows a little-noticed declaration delivered in unison last week by two moderate Arab leaders, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Together, they flatly rejected the Western model of democracy that "does not suit a region largely driven by Islamic teachings." They affirmed that the US "Greater Middle East Initiative" is not compatible with the "its specificities and Arab identity." Bahrain has since endorsed this declaration. To make sure the message is audible in Washington, 22 Arab League foreign ministers meet in Cairo this same "Super Monday" to draft a common stand against "the controversial American plan to spread democracy in the region." It will be tabled at the Tunis Arab summit on March 29-30. |
|
SEPARATION ANXIETY
Posted by Bryna Berch, February 28, 2004. |
|
I respect Jinsa and its clear-headed analysis. But this time, I think
it missed the mark. The argument that American diplomats continue to
believe someday peace will come through negotiations is true enough.
But why should the 'Palestinians' get anxious because Israel
leaves Gaza unilaterally - and then starts to ethnically cleanse
Samaria and Judea of Jews? They get some of the Land of Israel for
free. It saves them bullets and bombs, equipment they will later use
against the Jews within the Green Line.
This is JINSA Report #391
A recurrent theme in US policy toward the Israel-Palestinian issue is that a negotiated settlement is required at whatever time the Palestinians can be induced to accept one. We have been saving a seat at the table for them in theory since 1947 and in practice since 1967. No, it was never so clearly spelled out, but this is the conclusion to be drawn from American policy regarding "settlements," the security fence and even Israel's proposed "unilateral withdrawal" from Gaza. The State Department does not call "settlements" illegal, only an "obstacle to peace." Why? As nearly as we can tell, in case one day the Palestinians decide to accept the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty, land east of the 1949 armistice line won't be filled with "settlers" (i.e., "Jews"). The rejections of 1947 (Partition), 1948 (end of the British Mandate), and 1949 (armistice), 1993 (Oslo), and 2000 (Camp David II) - all of which provided mechanisms for legitimating Palestinian claims to roughly the West Bank and Gaza - are irrelevant. If the Palestinians pull a chair up to the table tomorrow, they should find the land waiting for them, as empty of Jews as possible. The security fence is accepted by the US as a defensive measure to protect Israelis from infiltration by Palestinian terrorists. However, both Secretary Powell and NSC Advisor Rice have firmly rejected the fence as a political border because of its encroachment into land east of the 1949 armistice line. Again, holding space for the Palestinians in case they decide to exercise their option. And while welcoming Israel's intention to withdraw from Gaza, spokesman Richard Boucher said, "Unilateral steps, even positive ones, don't resolve the issue, don't constitute a settlement. A settlement can only be reached by negotiations between the parties." So apparently, even when Israel does what we said we want it to do, it should only do it when the Palestinians want to participate in the decision-making. The whole philosophy is backward - the Palestinians are more likely to be induced to negotiate seriously if they believe there may be NOTHING left for them at some point than if they believe they have all the time in the world. So it is interesting that PM Sharon offered no program for the withdrawal. In fact, some have castigated him for what appears to be only a half-formed suggestion. But he asked the US administration for input - and from input it is a short hop to discussions about whether/how/when to implement the idea. While denying any US-Israel negotiations, the administration did send three high-level diplomats to Israel, certainly making it look as if negotiations were taking place WITHOUT ANY PALESTINIANS. Is this a ruse to bring the Palestinians to the table for more unproductive blather? Is it a real change in US policy? Early returns indicate that, either way, Palestinians other than Arafat are worried, finally, that if they miss this opportunity all the serious decisions may be made WITHOUT THEM. This separation anxiety should be strongly encouraged by both Israel and the United States. The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org |
|
VICTIMS OF FRIDAY'S SHOOTING ATTACK
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 28, 2004. |
|
This was written by Nir Hasson, Haaretz correspondent and appeared
on the Haaretz website today.
Eitan Kukoi and Rima Novikov were killed in a shooting attack along the Green Line border, between Israel and the West Bank on Friday night. The two are survived by their 2-year-old daughter, Michelle. Kukoi immigrated to Israel 13 years ago, and Rima immigrated to Israel seven years ago. The two met in Be'er Sheva, and married two years ago. "They were charming people who loved one another," Tasya Levin, Eitan's sister, said about the two. Shortly after their wedding, the couple moved in with Kukoi's mother in the West Bank settlement of Livneh, south of Mount Hebron. "They planned to leave Livneh and move to Be'er Sheva," Levin said. Kukoi was an industrial engineer and worked at the Nir-Lat factory, on Kibbutz Nir Oz. Novikov was completing her bachelor's degree in Public Policy and Administration at Sapir Collge. At the time of the shooting, the two were on their way to a friend's birthday party in Ashdod. They left their house at 7:30 P.M., and their car was ambushed shortly before 8 P.M. "At 8:30 we saw a news flash on a shooting south of Mount Hebron, and I immediately thought of them. We called the police and they said it had been a white car. We didn't want to believe that it was them; we tried calling, and they didn't pick up. We thought maybe they didn't hear the phone because of the noise from the party. Only when I arrived at the scene of the attack and saw the car did we realize that it was them," said Yigal Levin, Kukoi's brother-in-law. The car was identified by Ivan Alexeitzov, a Channel One cameraman who arrived at the scene. Alexeitzov's wife is Novikov's cousin. "We never thought that something like this could happen. We drove on that road all the time, even late at night," Tasya Levin said. "Next week everything will be forgotten, everything will go back to normal, and we will be left, not knowing how to continue." Yigal and Tasya Levin said that they would adopt Michelle. A time for the couple's funeral has not yet been set. |
|
COUNTDOWN TO HOCHNOSSIS SEFER TORAH PARTY IN GIVAT NOF HARIM
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 28, 2004. |
|
Moshe Burt's efforts to help communities to acquire Kosher SEFREY
TORAH is an amazing example of what one person can accomplish. I have
no idea as to how many communities, especially in Yeshah, he has
helped but I suspect that it is in the hundreds. Anyone in the
neighborhood should drop by and join in this great Simchah. If you
can't come, send a letter or email of encouragement or a donation to
help him provide more SEFREY TORAH to communities.
I'm pleased to announce that the Sofer working on the repairs to the Sefer Torah for Givat Nof Harim has indicated to me that he expects to complete his work on the Sefer Torah by 24 March. Therefore, the Hochnossis Sefer Torah will take place between the 25th and 31st of March so that the community will have use of the Sefer during Pesach. The exact date of the event should be known within a couple of weeks. Please watch The Sefer Torah Recycling Network website The Sefer Torah Recycling Network expresses it's great appreciation to the Goldstein family for their kindness in providing a Sefer Torah and seeing to it's repairs for a needy location in EretzYisrael. To view pictures from both the small Transfer Ceremony of January, 2004 and from my recent Shabbos in Givat nof Harim, click this URL; For Beit Shemesh and Ramat Beit Shemesh residents, I hope that we are
able to bring buses to transport those seeking to attend the
festivities.
I hope to see many of you at the Hochnossis Sefer Torah celebration, including those currently living in Chutz L'Aretz who happen to be visiting Israel at the time of the celebration.
Moshe Burt, an Oleh, is a commentator on news and events in Israel
and Founder and Director of the Sefer Torah Recycling
Network 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.
|
|
AN AXIS RESURGENT
Posted by Elizabeth Greene, February 28, 2004. |
|
This was written by Amir Taheri
and appeared on the New York Post. It is archived at
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19159.htm
February 28, 2004 - IN a reversal of its policy not to enter into military alliance with any foreign power, the Islamic Republic of Iran has just concluded a defense pact with Syria. Signed in Damascus yesterday, the pact commits Iran to Syria's defense against "the Zionist entity," which in the Iranian lexicon means Israel. The idea of a pact was first raised by Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Iraq last April. The Syrian leader paid three visits to Tehran, pressing the Iranian leadership to come to the help of his beleaguered regime. Sources in Tehran say the Iranians were at first reluctant to commit to a course that could make war with Israel almost inevitable. All changed sometime last November when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian "Supreme Guide," decided that the only way to deal with the perceived threat from America was to raise the cost of any attempt by Washington to implement further "regime changes" in the Middle East. According to our sources, Iran's decision to strengthen its commitment to Syria is one of several factors behind President Assad's recent decision to adopt a tougher stance against both the United States and Israel. Iran's defense minister, Rear Adm. Ali Shamkhani (who signed the pact with his Syrian counterpart, Lt.-Gen. Mustafa Tlas), told reporters in Damascus yesterday that its "arrangements" also extend to Lebanon, where Syria maintains an army of 30,000 and Iran supports the Hezbollah (Party of God). From Damascus, Shamkhani went to Beirut, where he presided over a war council attended by the entire political and military leadership of the Hezbollah. Top of the agenda was closer coordination between Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which are supported by Iran. The pact has three sections. One spells out the strategic partnership of the two nations on "military and intelligence" issues, including a framework for joint staff conversations, exchange of information, joint planning and exercises, and reciprocal access to segments of each nation's weapons systems. The second section provides mechanisms whereby Iran and Syria will assist one another against aggression by a third party. The full text of the section has not been released, but Shamkhani and Tlas made it clear that "mutual defense" includes the commitment of troops and materiel to deal with any clear and present danger against either nation. The third section is a memorandum on technical and scientific cooperation that commits Iran to build a national defense industry for Syria. The text also commits Iran to supply Syria with a wide range of weapons, including fighter-bombers and theater-range missiles, on a lend-lease basis. Iran has also agreed to train an undisclosed number of Syrian officers and military technicians, especially in the use of a wide range of missiles. In a Thursday speech in Damascus, Shamkhani explained that Iran and Syria felt threatened by U.S. and Israeli "aggression." "In the existing strategic configuration in our region, Syria represents Iran's first line of defense," Shamkhani said. "Iran, in turn, must be regarded as Syria's geo-strategic depth." Iran already has a military presence in both Syria and Lebanon. The Iranian military mission in Damascus consists of over 500 officers and experts in weaponry and military intelligence. The Corps of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has a contingent of 1,200 men in Lebanon on missions including training, deployment and maintenance of certain categories of weapons, and military intelligence. Each year Iran also trains an unspecified number of Syrian officers and military technicians, plus hundreds of Hezbollah fighters and cadres. The new pact is presented by the state-controlled media in Iran and Syria as a response to the close military ties between Israel and Turkey. Iranian and Syrian analysts believe that Washington plans a new regional military alliance to include Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, seven regional countries are scheduled to sign an association accord with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) later this year. The leaders of the countries concerned (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan) have been invited to a NATO summit to be held in Istanbul in May. As the only regional countries left out (along with Lebanon, which is de facto a Syrian dominion), Iran and Syria fear that their isolation could render them vulnerable to attack by either Israel or the United States. The Irano-Syrian pact is scheduled to last for a period of five years but could be renewed with mutual consent. To come into effect, the text must be approved by the Iranian and Syrian parliaments, which should happen early this summer. Syria's parliament, controlled by the ruling Arab Socialist Ba'ath (Renaissance) Party was never a problem. The new Iranian Majlis (parliament) is not expected to be a problem either since it will be controlled by groups loyal to the "Supreme Guide" and opposed to concessions to the United States. The recent defeat of the so-called "reformist" camp in Iran is certain to concentrate control of foreign policy in the hands of Khamenei and his special foreign policy adviser, Ali-Akbar Velayati. In a series of speeches and articles last year, Velayati urged the leadership to adopt "a position of strength" vis-a-vis the United States and Israel. His argument is that the Bush administration is committed to the overthrow of the Khomeinist regime and that the only way to counter its "conspiracies" is to raise the stakes to a point that would be unacceptable to American public opinion. The Iran-Syria pact is only part of Velayati's grand vision. A more important part is Iran's decision to acquire a credible nuclear deterrent, probably within the next two to three years, thus raising the stakes even higher. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the new Iranian tough line has been encouraged by the reaction of both the United States and the European Union to the recent election in Iran, in which only handpicked pro-regime candidates were allowed to stand. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed his "sadness" but insists that rapprochement with Tehran would continue regardless. The European Union has gone further by suggesting that the controversial election represented nothing but a dark patch in an otherwise serene sky. As for Washington, the announcement by CIA chief George Tenet that the Iranian regime is "secure" is seen by the hard-line Khomeinists as an admission of American despair. Just three months ago, the Iranian and Syrian regimes had their backs to the wall. Now, however, they manifest a new self-confidence. And that could lead either to a serious dialogue with Washington or, more likely, a sharpening of the conflict with it, especially in Iraq, Lebanon, and the occupied territories. Amir Taheri can be reached by E-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
|
|
HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY IS APRIL 19
Posted by Jules Helzner, February 28, 2004. |
|
Dear family and friends,
Please do this one small act to remember the six million (6,000,000) Jewish lives that were lost during the Holocaust. Send this Remembrance message to everyone you know who is Jewish. If we reach the goal of reaching six million before the Holocaust Remembrance Day, we will fulfill and give back to G-d what He gave to us: 6 Million Jews who are alive today who remember those who perished. Please send this message to as many Jews as you know. Ask them to send it to others. |
|
THE STATUS OF WOMEN TAKEN PRISONERS DURING JIHAD
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 28, 2004. |
|
Yesterday we read about the Ford Foundation and the
U.S. State Dept.'s promotion of Islam and a mythical "Palestinian
People". [See "USAID. Taxes For Terrorists", February Blog-Ed.] The
woefully misnamed "Constitutional Rights Foundation " (CRF) is even
suggesting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit
blasphemy against Allah. [See "Ford Has A Better Idea: One Nation
Under Allah", this issue.]
Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com) has provided us with a lesson in Muslim Law (Sharia) today, answering one of the questions that we have been losing sleep worrying about. Mufti Ebrahim Desai answers a young Muslim's pressing question: when is it OK to rape a jihad slave woman? A question on the status of women taken as prisoners during Jihad. In the "Jihads" (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her. It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy Quraan: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge." Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom. Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be "possessed", bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a "marriage ceremony" in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through "possession" which substitutes for the slaughtering. Don't you feel a lot better about that whole jihad thing now, knowing it's all legal? |
|
WHAT'S TO BE DONE?
Posted by Joe Hersh, February 28, 2004. |
|
Dear Bernice,
I've been "THINKING ISRAEL" way before I made my first aliyah (1970-1977). I wanted to come to Israel when I was discharged from the US Army in 1946, but things didn't work out that way. I started school, got married, got my degree, and had three kids. However, I never stopped "THINKING ISRAEL." In Israel, I was a manager in two large electronics companies. On the side, I was involved in many areas; in some I was successful. Nevertheless, I call those years my "seven lean years" except for the fact that I remarried in 1973 to an Israeli who came from Morocco in 1962. We have two Sabra children, now 28 and 27. I retired from work in 1994 and made my second aliyah in 1999. One of my greatest disappointments during the "seven lean years" was the relative lack of response by the Israeli government to suggestions and to questions. Today, it is almost impossible to get a response from any ministry. This, in my opinion, detracts from the democratic form of government that Israel claims to have. This also sours the outlook of olim from the United States where there is a representative form of government. NOW, TO THE POINT OF THIS LETTER. The topics that you list in your letter [announcing the January-February issue of Think-Israel] are truly interesting - and fascinating - and worthy of reading. However, what can I do with the information? The information that I glean is as useful as the story that I might read in a novel. About two years ago, I wrote to The Jerusalem Post and said: I am frustrated by the news, but, after reading the news, I am more frustrated when I don't get replies to relevant questions from the government ministries. So, why should I read the news? I asked that an article be written on this subject. The response was: We'll think about it. They must still be thinking, and I'm still frustrated. NOW, FOR THE ICING ON THE CAKE: I am involved in hasbara. On several occasions, when responding to letters that were critical of some Israeli actions or policies, I contacted various Israeli ministries for backup. Not one reply! Lately, I've started to "THINK USA." I'll end this letter with one from a young Israeli with whom I have been corresponding for approximately a year and a half. He is on an intellectual level far above most members of the Knesset or in any ministry. He is a rare individual. "From: XXXX Bernice, WHAT DO YOU THINK? Bernice's Response: You and your friend are obviously depressed and discouraged. But observant Jews do not have the choice of abandonning Israel. Your shoulders share the burden of the future of the Jewish people. Besides, there is no place to hide. If Israel goes down, then the rest of the Diaspora will sooner or later follow. Joseph S. Hersh lives in Arad, Israel. |
|
MY CHAIM SEIDLER-FELLER STORY
Posted by Alan Rockman, February 27, 2004. |
|
I must confess to being very tempted to call the UCLA Hillel offices
and contacting Mr. (no Rabbi in my book) Seidler-Feller after reading
Sharon Hes' insightful piece on this man's anger towards Jews who
stick up for Israel. [See "What's Going On AT UCLA's Hillel?", this
issue.]
You see, I have a Chaim Seidler-Feller story and it goes back almost 30 years ago. I was a student at UCLA, and since I was also a reporter for the DAILY BRUIN, and for the Jewish Student paper HA'AM, I had a bit of reputation of sticking up for Israel, so much that some months later the ASUCLA Communications Board initially refused to offer me the position of HA'AM editor because they thought I might not be objective (they later did offer me the editorship but I turned it down). Anyway, to make a long story short, the then-Palestinian representative to the United Nations, a chap by the name of Hussein (forgive me, but his full name escapes me, and I long ago discarded the tearsheet with the story about him on it), was to speak at an Assembly held in Kerckhoff Hall. I decided to attend this assembly and listen to what this representative of Arafat's murderous PLO had to say to American students at a prestigious California university. As you can imagine, most of the students in attendance were on the one side Arabs and Leftists from the various pre-ANSWER kook groups, including the Socialist (Trotskyite) Workers Party and the Revolutionary Student (Maoist-Stalinoid) Party, and concerned Jewish students on the other side. I found myself with a number of fellow Jews directly confronting a group of very belligerent Arab students. At this time a young man, older than us, but still quite young (maybe late 20s or early 30s) wearing a Kippah interposed himself between us and them, and politely began to ask them questions. If I recall the questions, while not stringently pro-Israel were nonetheless supportive of Israel's right to exist and why the Arab nations refused to end their aggression against Israel (remember this was late 1974 or early 1975, and Sadat had never gone to Jerusalem at the time, and Arafat was continuing (as he does today) his bloody terrorism against innocents. Well, instead of responding in reasoned and rationale tones, the Arab students began menacingly moving towards this young man who was identified to us as a Rabbi, and as they moved towards him they began cursing this man. Some of them behaved as though they were going to push and perhaps punch this man when the Jewish students nearby, myself included, formed a protective cordon around him and told the Arab students (in words to the effect) that if they were to harm this Rabbi we would kick some ass. The Rabbi turned around and thank us, and identified himself as the new Hillel Director at UCLA. His name was - Chaim Seidler-Feller. Since that time, Seidler-Feller has become an apologist and stooge for the Peace Now element at UCLA. He is, as Ms. Hes pointed out, in hand and glove with Rob Eshman, the editor of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, whose pro-Peace Now proclivities and bias towards Israel is even more shocking since his wife, the noted author Naomi Levy, is also an ordained Conservative Rabbi! Chaim Seidler-Feller has conveniently forgotten this episode in his early life when his head was about to be kicked in by the very same Arabs whom he prefers to hob-nob with rather than side with Jewish women who are more of a Zionist and Pro-Israel bent than he, Eshman, Michael Lerner, Ed Asner, or Yasser Arafat's bosom buddy Stanley Sheinbaum will ever be. As for me, since I did risk limb for this pathetic guy, knowing what I know now about his animus towards those who do not share his worldview of Israel,or his PLO sympathies I kind of wish we had let them kick the crap out of him. (must be nice to shove a Jewish woman, isn't it, Seidler-Feller???) I hope that someone will show this pathetic creature and stooge of Peace Now this article if it gets printed. For maybe Seidler-Feller in his rush to shove and push Jewish women who stick up for Israel has forgotten the time when Arab students threatened to shove and push him around. But this former student has never forgotten it, nor has he forgotten what Seidler-Feller has turned into in his dotage. A craven, pathetic, apologist for Arab terror against Jewish women and children. Shame on You, Seidler-Feller! Alan Rockman was Ha'Am Assistant Editor, 1975, and is a graduate of UCLA, class of 1975. |
|
EARTH'S CHOICEMAKER
Posted by James Fletcher Baxter, February 27, 2004. |
|
Consider: The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Choose
wisely... there will be results. selah
Many problems in human experience are the result of false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies. Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason cannot fully function in such a void, thus, the intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures values. Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However, as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands. Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or transcendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship. The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has: 1.Transcendent Criteria and 2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation. The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival equipment for today and the future. Man is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his environments, institutions, and respectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the universe. At the sub-atomic level of the physical universe modern physics indicates a multifarious gap or division in the causal chain; particles to which position cannot be assigned at all times, systems that pass from one energy state to another without manifestation in intermediate states, entities without mass, fields whose substance is as insubstantial as "a probability." Only statistical conglomerates pay tribute to deterministic forces. Singularities do not and are therefore random, unpredictable, mutant, and in this sense, uncaused. The finest contribution inanimate reality is capable of making toward choice, without its own selective agencies, is this continuing manifestation of opportunity as the pre-condition to choice it defers to the natural action of living forms. Biological science affirms that each level of life, single-cell to man himself, possesses attributes of sensitivity, discrimination, and selectivity, and in the exclusive and unique nature of each diversified life form. The survival and progression of life forms has all too often been totally dependent upon the ever-present mutative potential and undeterminative appearance of one unique individual organism within the whole spectrum of a given species. Only the uniquely equipped individual organism is, like The Golden Wedge of Ophir, capable of traversing the causal gap to survival and progression. Mere reproductive determinacy would have rendered life forms incapable of such potential. Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables the present reality. Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly developed, and sensitive perception of diversity. Thus aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enacting internal mental and external physical selectivity. Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence. Man is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes his definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall that his other features are but vehicles of experience intent on the development of perceptive awareness and the following acts of decision. Note that the products of man cannot define him for they are the fruit of the discerning choice-making process and include the cognition of self, the utility of experience, the development of value-measuring systems and language, and the acculturation of civilization. The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits, customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity is a choice-making process. His articles, constructs, and commodities, however marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idolatry, for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own highest expression of the creative process. Man is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the forces of cause and effect to an elected level of quality and diversity. Further, it orients him toward a natural environmental opportunity, freedom, and bestows earth's title, The Choicemaker, on his singular and plural brow. Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker, inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the selective creative process, they are self-relegated to a passive and circular regression. Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete by denying the tools of diversity, individuality, perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress. Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker. Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator, The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures values. Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to decision-making for survival and progression. He is left, instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hindsight, including human institutions characterized by averages, mediocrity, and regression. Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires, appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justification. The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the point of contention standards are perceived as alien, restrictive, and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our physical nature itself depends upon a maintained sovereignty of the mind and of the spirit. It remained, therefore, to the initiative of a personal and living Creator to traverse the human horizon and fill the vast void of human ignorance with an intelligent and definitive faith. Man is thus afforded the prime tool of the intellect - a Transcendent Standard by which he may measure values in experience, anticipate results, and make enlightened and visionary choices. Only the unique and superior God-man Person can deservedly displace the ego-person from his predicament and free the individual to measure values and choose in a more excellent way. That sublime Person was indicated in the words of the prophet Amos, "...said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel." Y'shua Mashiyach Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto myself." As long as some choose to abdicate their personal reality and submit to the delusions of humanism, determinism, and collectivism, just so long will they be subject and reacting only, to be tossed by every impulse emanating from others. Those who abdicate such reality may, in perfect justice, find themselves weighed in the balances of their own choosing. That human institution which is structured on the principle, "...all men are endowed by their Creator with ...Liberty...," is a system with its roots in the natural Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and nature's God. Biblical principles are still today the foundation under Western Civilization and the American way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the present generation and the "multitudes in the valley of decision." Let us proclaim it. Behold! The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV Essays by Jim Baxter can be read on his website: http://www.choicemaker.net |
|
THE DAVID HAIVRI CASE
Posted by Professor Louis Beres, February 27, 2004. |
|
Were it not for the evident seriousness of its implications, the
David Haivri case would represent little more than the reduction to
absurdity of a democratic country`s legal system. Known popularly as
the "T-Shirt Trial," the current court proceedings in Israel are based
on an incident in which the defendant was charged with possession and
distribution of a "publication" intended to incite racism. The
"publication" at issue was a T- shirt imprinted with a picture of
Rabbi Meir Kahane on the front, and the Hebrew words "Ein Aravim - Ein
Piguim" ("No Arabs, No Terror Attacks") on the back.
The section of the penal law under which Mr. Haivri was indicted states, inter alia, that "...it does not matter if the publication led to racism or not, and if it contained truth or not." From the standpoint of even the most minimal standards of liberty in civilized societies, codification of a rule that truth is immaterial to guilt - that truth is not exculpatory - is both rare and indefensible. Moreover, as every country`s domestic legal system must conform to certain elementary worldwide human rights standards, the Israeli prosecution here is in clear violation of overriding international law. The defendant`s "published" statement in this case - "No Arabs, No Terror Attacks" - is obviously true on its face. No one could conceivably argue that Israel now faces relentless terror from any other group on the face of the earth. The Haivri statement does not purport to explain terrorist attacks in other countries, where of course the offending groups might well be different, nor does it suggest in any way that all Arabs or even a determinable number of Arabs are terrorists. Without any explicit proposal or discernible message about what should now be done to limit Arab terrorism, the adjudicated T-shirt merely makes an absolutely incontestable observation, without any plausible evidence of bias and most certainly without any hint of identifiable "racism." To blithely deduce from the picture of Rabbi Kahane that the wearer and distributor automatically advocate harm to Arabs is not only jurisprudentially unacceptable, it is factually unwarranted. Many Arab citizens of Israel remain loyal to the state and ought not to be identified with terrorists as a group. There is no ascertainable reason for the defendant in this case to be accused of suggesting otherwise. For the prosecution to impute a broadly generic attack upon all Arabs to Mr. Haivri on the basis of his T-shirt "publication" represents either a deliberate falsification drawn from political ideology, or a despairingly flagrant incapacity to reason correctly. Indeed, recognizing very precise errors in deductive reasoning known in formal logic as "fallacies," the prosecutorial position in this case is undeniably based on conclusions that are not properly drawn from its acknowledged premises. In short, it is altogether false for the prosecution to conclude from the defendant`s more-or-less implied statement, "All terror is caused by Arabs," that he is in any way suggesting "All Arabs are terrorists." The government`s syllogism is patently invalid. International law, which is always based on a variety of Higher Law foundations, including the Torah, forms part of the law of all nations - including the law of the State of Israel. This is true whether or not the incorporation of international law into national law is codified explicitly, as it is, for example, at Article VI of the United States Constitution. If it is to represent itself correctly as a Western-style democracy, the Government of Israel is now fully bound by authoritative rules of international law to assure basic rights of free speech to all its citizens, Jews as well as Arabs, and not to deny these rights selectively to certain Jews on the basis of political antipathies. Further, as every state is obligated under international law to provide security to its citizens, the right of these citizens to peacefully protest when certain government policies endanger their survival is not only permissible, it is indispensable. Today, when Israel`s government has undertaken repeated and persistently-failed policies of concession and capitulation to Arab states and Palestinian "authorities" that openly seek Israel`s liquidation, the right of civil disobedience in that country can hardly be questioned. In this connection, the wearing and printing of a T-shirt with the message depicted by David Haivri is even substantially more protected than fully peaceable acts of civil disobedience. Every government surely has a legal right to prosecute "racism," but that right must never be allowed to impair the most basic standards of free speech, nor can it ever lawfully declare the irrelevance of truth. This prosecutorial right is also contingent upon equality and consistency of application. For the Government of Israel to prosecute Jews on the basis of allegedly offending T-shirts while simultaneously ignoring overt calls by Arab citizens for another Jewish genocide is intolerable by any measure of democratic law-enforcement. When the indictment of Jewish citizens for "racism" takes place at a time when hundreds of aspiring Arab terrorists and suicide-bombers are released from Israeli jails as an expression of "good will," the government`s case for prosecution becomes reduced to a paradigm for national self-defilement. The fact that the released Arab prisoners were not citizens of Israel has no legal bearing on this particular observation concerning wrongful prosecution of Mr. Haivri. Speaking of Arab citizens, an important question comes to mind: If these citizens were now to print and display T-shirts with the inscription, "No Jews, No Occupation," would the Israeli authorities prosecute under the same "racism" statute? Almost certainly the government would choose to ignore such activity, although - in marked contrast to the contrived case mounted against David Haivri - the charge here would almost certainly be true. Ironically, the presumed decision not to prosecute, a decision in essence now made daily by the government when it looks fearfully away from genocidal publications by elements of its Arab population, would be based on a pitiable wish not to appear "undemocratic" before the tribunal of world public opinion. It is bad enough that Israel`s legal system is now being abused for blatantly political purposes; it is far worse that the law is now also beig applied selectively, in a fashion that literally makes this system complicit in future terror attacks against Jews. Much as they might wish to deny it, the Israeli government prosecutors of David Haivri writhe within an agonizingly twisted jurisprudence that has far more to do with national surrender and capitulation to terrorism than with any measured considerations of justice. Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D, Princeton, 1971) is Professor of International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of many books and articles on international criminal law, and is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press. This article appeared on the Jewish Press website and is archived as (http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3437) February 25, 2004. |
|
NABLUS MAYOR QUITS OVER PA FAILURE TO CRACK DOWN ON MILITANTS
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 27, 2004. |
|
If Arafat wanted to crack down on terrorists, his security services
could do the job. Just ask the mayor of Nablus.
This is an Associated Press news item in Haaretz.
The mayor of Nablus, the West Bank's largest city, and a close ally of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat announced Friday that he is quitting to protest the Palestinian Authority's failure to crack down on militants. The announcement came as a major blow to Arafat as he was trying to stem a growing rebellion within his Fatah movement. The Palestinian leader agreed Friday to hold Fatah elections within a year, responding to demands by disgruntled younger activists. However many believe it's an empty promise. Ghassan Shaka'a told The Associated Press that he has submitted his resignation to Arafat to protest inaction by Palestinian leaders and security forces to stop the chaos. Palestinian police forces have been hobbled during more than three years of fighting with Israel. With no real authority on the streets, gangs wage deadly gun battles, members of rival clans fight out deadly feuds and militants have kidnapped and beaten government officials. "I have submitted my resignation to President Arafat because I see my city collapsing and I don't want to stand idly by and watch this collapse," Shaka'a said. "My resignation is a warning bell to the Palestinian Authority and the residents of Nablus, because both of them are doing nothing for this city." In November, Palestinian gunmen shot and killed Shaka'a's brother. The mayor, who had been locked in a power struggle with armed gangs, named suspects, but security forces have been unwilling to arrest them. He said Friday that his brother's slaying and the failure to apprehend the killers were not the reasons behind his resignation. Still, he said, the security forces under the control of Arafat's Palestinian Authority could do more to bring order to the city. "It can enforce the law," he said. "But it is not enforcing the law. And our people can do a lot, but they are doing nothing except spreading disorder." Shakaa said he would stay on as head of the city until May 1 because he is involved in several development projects he wants to finish, including the construction of a shopping mall. |
|
TRANSFERRING ARABS IS 'RACIST' - BUT TRANSFERING JEWS ISN'T?
Posted by Henry Moscovic, February 27, 2004. |
|
Why is the Israeli government so petrified of a Rabbi murdered 13
years ago, that it mobilized hundreds of soldiers and police in the
midst of a 41 month war with Arab terrorists to repeatedly destroy a
tiny synagogue dedicated to his memory?
The prescient recommendation in the 1970s by Rabbi Meir Kahane zt"l to separate the Jewish and Arab populations of the Holy Land, in order to avoid horrible bloodshed, was condemned as racist and fascist. The Rabbi was demonized and vilified by the Jewish establishments in the United States and Israel and barred from re-election to the Knesset in 1988 primarily because of his compensated transfer offer to hostile Arabs. His followers have been politically persecuted and branded as terrorists by the American and Israeli governments. Today, the Israeli government itself espouses separation, albeit a suicidal one! It plans to forcefully 'relocate' tens of thousands of peaceful Jewish citizens via unilateral withdrawal from the heartland of the tiny country. A Judaic cleansing of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria to create a "Judenrein" Palestine per demand by the new Fuhrer - Adolf Arafat. Yet, the self-righteous Jews, who so denounced Rabbi Kahane, now not only do not protest such an evil plan, but gleefully advocate this proposed immoral expulsion of their brethren from Biblical communities. Consequently, is it not belatedly time for the Jewish people to demand an end to the mad 'piece' policies of Israeli governments before they inevitably lead to G-d forbid the dissolution of the Third Jewish Commonwealth? Enough 'painful' concessions, enough already!! Never Again? |
|
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 101
Posted by Tel Belman, February 27, 2004. |
|
Gordon Liddy, a former "plumber" caught up in the
Watergate Scandal, when describing what International Relations was
like, said "When you get out in the Mid-Atlantic, its not Charlie the
Tuna you meet, but Jaws."
Israel, to be sure, is caught up in those jaws. It is a truism to say that International Relations are governed by interests and not by laws or morality. In fact, the latter are often distorted or even inverted in the service of interests. In trying to understand what is otherwise not understandable, this must be kept in mind. The interests of all nations lie with the Muslims both because there are over one billion of them compared to 12 million Jews and because they produce the lion's share of the worlds' oil. Very few of those nations also have interests that lead them to align in part with Israel. These include India, Turkey and the US. But even they only support Israel to a limited degree because they have overriding interest in good relations with the Muslims. The importance of oil and the large number of Arab or Muslim states has been the bottom line for all policy decisions since the British Mandate. Britain did its utmost to support the Arabs during its mandate and had to be fought by the Jews to bring the Mandate to an end. Even after the Holocaust, the UN would not have voted for the Partition Act but for the Communist countries, which voted in favour. They also supplied arms to Israel. They saw Israel as a communist or at least socialist outpost. But their support was short lived. The same for France who at one time thought that supporting Israel would help them regain the Suez Canal, but they too abandoned Israel just prior to the Six-day War. In fact The US, France, Great Britain and Russia all abandoned Israel just prior to this war by not honouring their guarantee of international waters (Straits of Tiran) after Nasser closed these waters to Israel. Israel's best friend, the US has always played a double game. Her core interest was oil. She kept Israel strong enough to make the Arabs come to her for help in curbing Israel or getting the return of land and yet she also kept Israel weak enough that it too would be in constant need of the US. Restraining Israel or forcing Israel to make concessions allowed the US to gain headway with the Arabs. But for President Truman, the State Department would have voted against the Partition Act, which gave rise to the creation of Israel. The State Department has remained the enemy of Israel and is always looking for ways to reduce its strength and limit its victories. John Loftus in The Secret War Against The Jews, described this war as a war in which the World was trying to undo Israel. This war has gone on since WWII and continues to this day. After the Six Day War, UN quickly passed Resolution 242, which mandated the land for peace formula. It also recited "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security." This muddied the waters because it ignored that this principle only applies to aggressive wars and not defensive wars. So in effect it was saying that Israel, even though the victor in a defensive war, could not acquire territory as a result thereof. It went on to recommend the application of the following principles in reaching a just and lasting peace (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in
the recent conflict;
Over the years the World Community has manoeuvred to end the conflict by forcing Israel to return to the pre '67 armistice lines. The US forced Israel to disgorge "every inch" of the Sinai to Egypt as the price to be paid to get Egypt to switch from the USSR to the US. Then came the Madrid Conference where Israel under great pressure made great concessions such as putting Jerusalem on the negotiating table. Oslo, which largely was an initiative of the then government of Israel, proved to be a huge mistake. It resulted in adding to the pressure of the world, the pressure from terrorist attacks emanating from Yesha. At least with Oslo, Israel was in a strong position and negotiated a strong deal. So strong in fact that the Arabs wouldn't honour its terms. The Arabs insisted on their rights acquired by the Accords but reneged on their obligations. The World, including Israel, did nothing. So Israel continued to follow Oslo with nothing in return. When Arafat refused Barak's offer of 97% of Yesha and started the terror campaign in earnest, the World looked for ways to give the Arabs even more rather then to hold Arafat's feet to the fire for returning to violence. Compare the efforts of the World to get Israel to stop building the fence, to stop targeted killings of terrorists, to stop humiliating the Arabs, to stop building the settlements, to release money to them, to make good will gestures and to release terrorists etc with its attempts to get the Palestinians to stop the terrorist atrocities. In short, there is no comparison. To the contrary, the World supports Palestinian terrorism by protecting Hamas and Hezbollah, by funding Arafat without financial accountability and by supporting Arafat politically. It does so as a means to force further concessions from Israel. And don't kid yourself; the US is totally complicit in this. The US, too, wants Israel to return to the pre '67 armistice lines and has, since day one. Prime Minister Sharon has decided that the chances of Israel standing up to all this pressure which has gone on for 60 years and will not change any time soon, are virtually nil and that Israel's best course is to get what it can through negotiating with the US and by taking the initiative. Whereas Barak, with Clinton's approval, kept 3% back, Sharon is trying to double or triple this. And it's an uphill battle even with Bush in the Whitehouse. Israel has now trimmed its sails by shortening the fence and making it less objectionable to Washington in the hope of getting its approval. Evidently the US is also negotiating with the EU to get it to accept Sharon's plans. The EU is expected to demand that Israel retreat even further as the price of cooperating with the US on Iraq and Syria. Guess where the US will stand? What chance does Israel have when it has no allies. For Israel to resist, it must throw off the shackles of World opinion, of American aid and of all agreements to date. It must pursue its own agenda. But first, it must destroy the terrorist infrastructure and expel all terrorists. Will the world stand by? Hardly. Will there be boycotts and sanctions and mandatory resolutions and perhaps even UN forces coming to the territories without Israel's consent? Certainly. Can Israel stand up to all this? Is the game worth the candle? Israel will still have four million Arabs to contend with. Better to cut the best deal possible rather that to take the risks outlined with little apparent benefit. Ted Belman is a major contributor to IsraPundit (http://IsraPundit.com), a pro-Israel activist website. This article is archived at http://israpundit.com/archives/005037.html |
|
NEW PR EFFORT IS AIMED AT REPORTERS
Posted by IsrAlert, February 27, 2004. |
|
This was written by Joe Berkofsky and appeared on the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency website (http://www.jta.org).
NEW YORK, Feb. 24 (JTA) - One year ago, Mark Bianu stood in a Haifa cemetery reserved for terror victims.As a reporter for a local cable TV show, "News of the Day," Bianu, 29, already had covered three terrorist attacks. He remarked to a colleague at the rapidly growing cemetery, "Who knows - maybe tomorrow you or I could be buried under this mound," his mother, Florence, recalled in a recent telephone interview. Last October, Bianu and his wife Naomi were having Shabbat lunch at Haifa's Maxim restaurant when a Palestinian woman from Jenin blew herself up nearby, killing the couple and 19 others. Now Bianu and his wife are buried in that Haifa cemetery. "I am trying to carry on his work," Florence Bianu said of her son. "People may be tired of looking at the news, but we are living here and we are suffering. To lose a son, the pain is almost impossible," she said. Nowadays Bianu is part of a new effort to make the case for Israel's security barrier in painfully human terms, by telling stories of ordinary Israelis to Americans and media opinion leaders. The move by the Israel Project, a nonprofit firm that advocates for Israel, joins several new campaigns to inform the U.S. media, and by extension public perceptions, about Israeli life behind the headlines. Donna Rosenthal, an award-winning former Israel Radio and TV correspondent, said she wrote her new book, "The Israelis," an in-depth look at the many faces of Israeli society during the Palestinian intifada, as a "bible for journalists." "It is meant to be used as a kind of desk reference about the Jewish state.While touring to promote "The Israelis," Rosenthal says she is "shocked" by how deep illiteracy about Israel runs among many U.S. broadcast journalists, including some Jews at major network and cable news stations. "There is enormous curiosity" about Israel "and enormous ignorance" in the media, Rosenthal said. The book updates the last similar nonfiction view from Israel's street, the 1986 "Heroes, Hustlers, Hard Hats and Holy Men" by Zev Chafets, which offered rarely seen colorful slices of Israeli life.Whether portraying Russians working in high-tech firms, gays in Tel Aviv or Christian Arabs who publish a "Cosmopolitan"-style magazine, Rosenthal said, "I am trying to smash stereotypes." At the same time, Linda Scherzer, a former CNN correspondent in Israel, now is consulting for a new Internet venture to give newspaper editorial writers access to analysis and opinion pieces about Israel from some 400 news outlets worldwide.Launched by Los Angeles TV producer Merv Adelson, Access Middle East, at www.AccessMiddleEast.org, "has been a good way to advance the story" about Israel to editorial writers from Minneapolis to Sacramento to Wichita, Scherzer said. Already the site is increasing its audience and influencing coverage, Scherzer said. Recent conference calls with Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, produced a New York Times editorial, and a call with a human-rights lawyer led to pieces in the Dallas Morning News and the New York Sun, she said. Yet all of these efforts face some serious challenges, and their proponents don't expect to change overnight the face of news coverage of Israel. In part that's because TV news long has been governed not by any anti-Israel bias, as some press watchdog groups maintain, but by the "if it bleeds, it leads" newscast mentality, said Samuel Freedman, an author and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. "If a network newscast gives something 45 seconds, that's a tremendous amount of time, which hardly allows for nuance," Freedman said. Indeed, Rosenthal said, many TV producers told her they would love to feature her book but wonder where the controversy lies. Meanwhile, the mothers of suicide-bombing victims found that telling their tales required a hard sell. Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president of the Israel Project, said she attempted to contact more than 100 print and TV figures, but most turned them down. "They were here five days, and 80 reporters couldn't find 10 minutes to meet with them?" Laszlo Mizrahi asked. So last week, the Israel Project launched a media campaign with ads on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC outlets in Washington featuring Bianu and other mothers of terror victims. The ads hit the airwaves just before the International Court of Justice at The Hague convened its hearings on Israel's fence. The campaign aimed to reinforce what the Israel Project says is overall public support for the barrier. A survey of 800 registered U.S. voters Jan. 21-22 by pollster Neil Newhouse found that 74 percent of Americans support the fence as a barrier to terrorists. Yet few may be aware of a small fact that one of the mothers, Lea Zur, whose son Assaf, 17, was among 17 killed in a suicide bus bombing in Haifa, disclosed in a letter of regret to journalists who could not meet her. Zur noted that the security barrier, which is a chain-link fence for most of its proposed 450-mile route, succeeded two months ago in blocking a suicide bomber from reaching a local high school where her nephew is a student."We are trying to reach out to reporters before they write their stories," Laszlo Mizrahi said. |
|
THE WASHINGTON POST: 'Violent Protest Against Israeli Security Fence' Story
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 27, 2004. |
|
LETTER TO DAVID HOFFMAN OF THE WASHINGTON POST
If further evidence were needed that the Post has two pro-Palestinian reporters in Jerusalem whose copy is passed on to readers without adequate scrutiny by Washington editors, the Feb. 27 piece by Anderson and Moore offers another telling exhibit. In addition to the two examples cited in the attached letter, there are several other conspicuous instances of pro-Palestinian bias. Let me enumerate: 1. As background context for the protest, the article cites criticism in the annual State Department Human Rights report about Israel's use of excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators. Fair enough. But since the article deals with an attempt by Israel to enhance the security of its citizens, why not mention a few other passages in the same report - I.e. that members of Palestinian security forces have joined terrorist groups in carrying out deadly attacks, that the Palestinian Authority has a "poor" human rights record, replete with "numerous, serious abuses," that Arafat's security forces use "excessive force" against Palestinian demonstrators, that they "arbitrarily" arrest and detain Palestinians, that they deprive them of fair trials, that they restrict Palestinian freedom of speech and press, that Palestinian abuses include discrimination against women and the disabled, along with child-labor practises. As long as the Post delves into Israel's shortcoming on human rights, shouldn't the Post also mention deprivation of human rights on the Palestinian side? 2. In speculating that the Palestinians may be opening a new phase of the intifada with direct attacks on the fence, the article describes the intifada as a "Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza." Anderson and Moore are smart enough to know that this is not true. Since the PA regularly condemns terrorist attacks against Israel, the "uprising" evidently is carried out by others - Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigages, etc. But these groups repeatedly have declared in public pronouncements that their goal is not to kick Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza. Their objective is to destroy Israel. They make no bones about it. So why prettify their real aims? And even if you want to take Arafat at his word (and overlook his habitual lying), he also has made no bones about the fact that, whether his weapons are diplomatic, political or military, he will never abandon a Palestinian "right of return" because he wants to erase what he calls the "great catastrophe" - not Israel's capture of the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel's creation. 3. The story says the barrier will be 450 miles in length. Your reporters obviously forgot that only in the last few days Israel decided to shorten the fence to keep it from intruding too far into the West Bank. As a result, the barrier will be about 10 percent shorter. 4. The story tries to bolster Palestinian claims of an "impenetrable" barrier by citing anonymous human rights activists. It also mentions that Israeli and international "human rights activists" joined in the violent anti-fence protest. These folks obviously are pro-Palestinian sympathizers. But "human rights activists"? I don't think so. While they claim to care about Palestinian human rights, they don't seem to be concerned about the "human rights" of Israelis not to be slaughtered by terrorists. When have they protested against the PA's sorry record on human rights? So why not identify them properly? Words matter. 5. Put all these biased journalistic commissions and omissions together and you have an article worthy of a PA press release. What I cannot understand is that someone as bright and intelligent a journalist as you are can at one and the same time pump such stories into the paper and then defend the coverage as fair, honest journalism. And, David, protesting that criticism of your failure to properly edit such coverage amounts to an "ad hominem" attack doesn't cut it. LETTER TO THE EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON POST The Post's account of a violent protest against Israel's security fence ("Two Palestinians Shot Dead, 20 Wounded in Fence Protest" Feb. 27) failed to mention, either in the headline or in the article, that stone-throwing Palestinians injured 10 Israeli border police, including some who had to be taken to a Jerusalem hospital for treatment of their wounds. Yet, the Post went into great detail about the wounds sustained by Palestinian demonstrators. In covering this conflict, does the Post consider Palestinian lives more valuable than Israeli lives? Also, in describing Palestinian anger about the fence, the Post cited criticism by Palestinians and unnamed "human rights activists" who contend that it would totally isolate a Palestinian village, turning it into a "prison" in the words of its mayor. There is no mention that the security barrier will include gates wide enough for passage of people and vehicles, thus affording ample opportunity for civilian movement through the fence. Terrorists bent on killing innocent Israelis, however, might be inconvenienced. |
|
PASS AND FEDERMAN STILL IN JAIL WITHOUT A TRIAL
Posted by News From Hebron, February 27, 2004. |
|
[Ed Note: Yitzhak Pass and Noam Federman are still in jail - 'on
adminstrative detention' - but have never been charged with a crime or
given a trial. They are activists who were leaders protesting the
Government's ill-conceived plan to evacuate the settlers of Biblical
Israel.]
Rivka Zarbiv, mother-in-law of Itzik Pass, sent an urgent letter to Minister of Internal Security Tzachi HaNegbi, concerning Itzik. "On the 29th of Adar (22.03.04) the annual memorial service for my granddaughter Shalhevet, will take place. Shalhevet was murdered three years ago at the age of 10 months by an Arab sniper who shot and killed her in cold blood. On Thursday afternoon, 'the fast of Esther' a protest will take place outside the Supreme Court building, demanding Noam Federman's release from prison. Federman has been in jail for almost six months, due to an administrative command, ordering his incarceration. He was not indicted or tried and has not been charged with any crime. Shortly, the six month detention order will expire, making necessary issuance of another such order. The protest will demand that the administrative detention order not be renewed and the Federman be immediately released. Earlier this week the Prime Minister and other legal and security officials decided not to administratively detain Mordechai Vanunu, the jailed Israeli traitor who publicized Israel's atomic weapon's secrets, and has been in jail for 18 years and is due to be released in two months. This despite Vanunu's threats to continue revealing Israeli military secrets. If an Israeli traitor of the first degree is due such consideration, why not Noam Federman? The demonstration will take place at 4:00 at the Supreme Court building. Following afternoon and evening prayers, refreshments will be served. News From Hebron is published by the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm. Or contact The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com, 718-677-6886. |
|
WHEN THE IDF WITHDREW FROM BETHLEHEM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 27, 2004. |
|
What happened when Israeli forces withdrew from Bethlehem last year? Two things happened.
First, there was a flurry of arrests of terrorists by the P.A.. Many of those arrested were set free after a brief period, with or without interrogation and under comfortable conditions (that the P.A. is not known for accommodating its victims with). Sometimes the arrest is given over to a relative to perform. One purpose of such arrests was to impress Israel and the US, and to appear anti-terrorist, without being anti-terrorist. Another purpose was recruitment, for some detainees enroll in P.A. security forces. A third is to give shelter to terrorists fleeing from Israeli forces. Bethlehem became known as a haven for terrorists. Besides publicizing the arrests, the P.A. claimed to have confiscated explosives. Some of the same explosives were displayed on the occasion of two different discoveries of explosives. Others were not genuine explosives. What other raids the P.A. staged, and whether they served a legitimate purpose, is not known, because the P.A. does not let Israeli forces examine the explosives allegedly found. Thus the discoveries of explosives were as phony as the arrests. Second, numerous terrorist attacks, formerly blocked by the presence of the IDF, were sprung from Bethlehem (IMRA, 2/22). (That gives you an idea of the efficacy if not the sincerity of Sec. Powell's periodic admonitions to the P.A. to crack down on terrorism. He may as well ask a lion to become a vegetarian.) It has become routine for foreign powers, most tellingly the US, to demand that Israel make the lives of the Arabs easier by withdrawing its forces from P.A. cities. Israel does as asked. Those cities then become centers for terrorism, again. That makes the lives of Israelis perilous. About that, one does not hear the US offering a realistic remedy. It offers pie in the sky. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
HUMANE OR INSANE?
Posted by Moshe Saperstein, February 27, 2004. |
|
20 February
An unexpectedly boring Shabbat. "Unexpectedly" because we had gone to Jerusalem's Hyatt Hotel as part of a group of Ulpana employees and their spouses and thought the change of scenery would be invigorating. Instead the weather kept us indoors and the intense conversations with our co-vacationers were continuations of what we talk about all week. Don't misunderstand. We enjoyed it. It's just that we were operating on automatic pilot. Of interest was an article that appeared in the Friday edition of Ha'aretz, Israel's premiere Hebrew-language anti-Semitic paper. Our equivalent of the NYTimes. It's motto: The paper for people who think. More accurately, The paper for people who think they think. Even that is giving them too much credit. I prefer, The paper for people who stink. Anyway, the article was written by a woman who tagged along with Fox News when they came to the house. As they left I asked her whom she represented and she said Ha'aretz, to which I, always anxious to create good will, said "Ah, `Die Sturmer' (the Gestapo newspaper) in Hebrew". The article included a picture of me, with the caption quote: (referring to Sharon's reputation as a bulldozer) The bulldozer hasn't been built that can move me. Not my usual genteel understatement, but a pretty clear message. 22.2 Are we humane or insane? After today's bus bombing in Jerusalem there probably won't even be a virtual response so as not to dilute the perceived positive effects on the International Court of Injustice in the Hague. Of course there was nary a virtual response to the Jerusalem bus bombing three weeks ago, probably for some similar transitory or wholly illusory public relations gain. In the endless unspoken struggle over the best method to keep Jews safe, advocates of gaining the world's pity through suffering hold the upper hand over advocates of gaining the world's respect through power. Retaining the world's pity requires a continuous flow of Jewish blood. Even the Holocaust kept the lid on Jew-hatred for only three or four decades. Fortunately we in Israel are surrounded by willing and increasingly able bloodletters. And with a population the majority of whom are apparently prepared, sheep-like, to passively and resignedly be slaughtered, we may once again be able to regain our position at the head of the world's Parade of Unfortunates. For flowing Jewish juices.../ If enough Israelis bleed/ There'll no longer be a need/ To hide those yarmulkes in Brussels, Budapest and Broadway/ Or that Star of David in Miami, Moscow and Marseilles. [to be sung to the tune of The Funeral March by Chopin (now there was a quality anti-Semite)] [[aren't you glad I prefer prose to poetry?]] At the risk of making your collective eyeballs roll upwards in boredom I must repeat that the greatest danger to us lies in the Jews rather than the non-Jews. The Almighty will protect us from our Muslim enemies and their non-Jewish allies. Who will protect us from our so-called co-religionists? The sense of being stabbed in the back by those who owe us the most support was heightened by a photo exhibit of graffiti-covered bus stops near the various kibbutzim that are geographically closest to us. Following are four examples: "Death to the Residents of Gush Katif"
Keep in mind that we are all that separates these kibbutzim from the anarchistic terror that besets us. So when we talk to these people and ask if they believe our destruction will be their salvation, it is chilling to see intelligent and personable people put their brains on hold. Not one says yes. Instead, "We can't permit hope to die" is their mantra, along with "Give peace a chance". Another group of brain-dead Jews are visiting Israel at the moment: The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Anti-Semites believe Jews will sell their mothers for money. So what will moneyed Jews sell their mothers for? For public acclaim. For "honor". These unelected spokescreatures for American Jewry had a so-called private meeting with the Prime Minister during which he supposedly revealed to them all the details of his dismemberment plan - details he hasn't shared with his Cabinet - and enlisted their support to lobby the US President to support him. These pyrite-plated nonentities came to nearby Sderot yesterday [24.2] to show solidarity with a community that is hit with Kassem rockets from time to time. But when a delegation of Jews from Gush Katif asked for a few minutes it was turned away for "lack of time". Had Hamas' Sheikh Yassin agreed to urinate on them before the cameras they would have consented with alacrity. Not, heaven forbid/perish the thought, for the publicity, but to encourage dialogue. But for the Jews of Gush Katif, rocketed all the time, nary a minute for a photo-op. What happened to `solidarity'? What happened to `dialogue'? Why do all those communal buzzwords - `solidarity', `dialogue', `outreach', `good cholesterol', `bad cholesterol' `unity' - apply to Jew-haters of every race, religion, creed and screed, but not to religious, nationalist Jews? Two of our reps jumped on the bus and handed out information packets about Gush Katif. I had been asked to write a short presentation. Keeping in mind President Eisenhower's injunction to his staffers to limit all memos to one page, I did so. I'll try and send it to you separately. 23.2 Oshri was due in from London this morning at 4am, and I went to meet his plane. He had gotten a week's leave from the army to work on his doctorate, examining documents at the Government Record Office in Kew. I had hoped to sleep in the afternoon and evening to be rested for a 2am departure from Neve Dekalim. Unfortunately rest, much less sleep, was impossible as we were inundated with calls and visitors. Despite Rachel's heroic efforts to keep me isolated, by the time the alarm clock went off at midnight I was bleary-eyed from exhaustion. Still, I enjoyed the trip. The road was clear, my cigars burned smoothly, and the film score for MOBY DICK by the undeservedly little-known British composer Philip Sainton reverberated in the car so loudly that the fleas were washed out of my ears on a wave of melting wax. His flight landed half an hour after my arrival and he emerged half an hour after that. Though acknowledging he was tired he was still bursting with energy and enthusiasm. On the drive to his home in a settlement north of Jerusalem he regaled me with tales that went in and out of my empty head. If the details are lost, his affection for those of our friends who hosted him on Shabbat was clear. [The feeling is mutual. This excerpt from an e-mail I have since received: "What a lovely man. If only all Israelis were like him."] We arrived just in time for sunrise and while Oshri and Tamar fell into each other's arms I went outside and recharged my batteries watching the glowing red ball rise behind the eastern desert. Knowing I would pass out if I accepted their invitation to "rest awhile" I made a hurried exit and set off for Jerusalem. On Friday, before going to the Hyatt, Rachel and I had done some shopping. One key item we had failed to find where jeans in my size. Now I was determined to buy a pair. Arriving in Jerusalem at 7 I had two hours to kill before several stores rumored to carry tent-sized pants opened. I needn't belabor you with how dismal the earthly Jerusalem is. The sole change from previous visits is that a turf war seems to be in progress between the long-resident Sephardi beggars and increasing numbers of Russian-accented newcomers. By 9:15 neither of the stores I wanted was open and my legs were starting to buckle. I had decided to give it up and go home when my mobile phone rang. Seeing on the screen that the call was from Rachel, I answered: "I hear, and I obey". This never fails to delight her and I am often rewarded when I get home. When I told her my condition she assumed - she's usually right - that I was malingering. "Don't come home without two pairs of jeans", delivered in her best no-nonsense voice. I hear, and I obey. My last hope was the store which had tailored a suit for me for Ari's wedding some thirteen years ago. The shop is on a narrow street with the entrance through an alleyway. As I got to the alleyway I saw several people staring down at a huge body, almost seven feet tall, lying spread-eagled, face up, eyes closed. The features were very coarse, the face seemed shaped in clay. Remember "You Are There" with Walter Cronkite? They did a program on The Piltdown Man. This was their model. Before I could ask a question two police cars arrived, and two motorcycles with black clad, black helmeted, machinegun-toting police. They pushed the onlookers aside then walked back to their vehicles. "He's just sleeping it off" said one of the police. And then I noticed six empty bottles of "Old Embalming Fluid" brand vodka. What to do? I wasn't about to step over or around Mr. Piltdown. Yet Piltdown would be easier to face down than La Passionara were I to come home without the jeans. Just then He-Who-Protects-Idiots had a passerby jostle me into a position where I saw, not a hundred feet away, a sign: BIG MEN. The shop - "for the well-shmaltz'd male" - had opened just a year ago, and within ten minutes I was on my way home with the vital two pairs of genes. La P. was pleased. 24.2 Early this morning I downloaded a comic e-mail describing eleven prominent newspapers in the States. Four get one-line descriptions, six get two-lines. Only one gets five: "The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country... or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from any country or galaxy." Shortly after we were asked if we would talk to a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. With some trepidation we agreed. The person who showed up was named Reese Ehrlich, and he seemed one of the pleasantest journalists we've had in the house. We even showed him the e-mail. He laughed and said "It's true". During the time he spent with us he also said he works for National Public Radio. "No disrespect intended to you personally" I said, "but between the Chronicle and NPR, we'd get a fairer shake from Al Jazeera." He smiled. I tremble at the written and spoken result. I was supposed to go to the Beersheba Tooth Fairy this afternoon, but am still wiped out from yesterday. Rescheduled for Friday. 25.2 In summer the sun sets in the sea in plain view from our living room picture window. In winter, because of the earth's rotation, the sun sets behind sand dunes to the southwest. To see the sun set in the water I have taken to climbing the dunes that begin at the end of our very short street, huffing and puffing as I drag my carcass up steeper and steeper inclines, til I reach the highest spot on the dunes where I listen to my heart pounding while my soul takes flight at the 360 degree panoramic view. When Jerusalem recently had its snowstorm we had a sandstorm. I watched, rapt, as layer after layer of sand lifted into the air with each gust, a porous magic carpet dissolving into the yellow sand-filled sky. The bird tracks were the first to disappear, then the tracks of small animals, then my own, then those of tractors and all-terrain vehicles. I remember photographs of the dust belt in the 1920's and 1930's, the strained, weary faces in Agee's "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men", even the kitsch of Peter O'Toole in drag dancing on the dunes in "Lawrence of Arabia". I was back on the dunes this evening, hoping the orange disc setting in the sea would calm me, or at least give me some perspective. When Rachel came home from work she said "You owe me one". She explained that seeing how physically and mentally exhausted I was when she left this morning, she had spared me an interview with a Swedish Radio reporter. Instead of bringing him home she spoke with him at the Ulpana. Gratitude is an inadequate word. I had spent most of the morning alternately dozing and weeping until I was able to snap out of it by losing myself in laundry. Then she described how, when asked what she would do if forced to leave at gunpoint, she said she would walk out "carrying my silver Sabbath candlesticks in one hand and my husband's Sabbath Kiddush cup in the other, marching behind our rabbis carrying the Torahs from the Ark..." All that was lacking was a chorus singing "Anatevka, Anatevka". Some others present were actually weeping. What the Swede thought I can only imagine. He was probably wondering what he was doing among these insane people and longing to get back to his hotel room and chug-a-lug several six-packs of Tuborg. Rachel does this brilliantly, and I don't doubt it's very effective. What infuriates me is that we came to live in Israel, at least in my case, because being the pathetic Diaspora Jew was intolerable to me. Like Blanche Dubois we were always dependent on the kindness of strangers because we were too feeble to depend on ourselves. And like Blanche Dubois we were always getting screwed. Israel was supposed to change all that. But it hasn't. We have tanks but we don't have self-respect. We have planes but we don't have pride. So we remain Diaspora Jews, wheedling and whining and sucking up in hopes that others will feel sorry for us. My fellow settlers fill me with admiration. Most other Jews fill me with loathing. Rachel and I have been arguing over this lately, she criticizing my joking approach to these interviews. It was in this frame of mind that I climbed the dunes this evening, and it was the darkening sky that made me realize my criticism of her approach is, to put it mildly, hypocritical.. What am I doing, flaunting my empty right sleeve and displaying my left claw, if not asking for sympathy? Photographers crowd close during interviews, focusing on my scars, my claw. If I had any of the pride and self-respect I talk about I would throw the vultures out of the house. But I'm weak. And as egotistical as the Self-Appointed Self-Annointed Jewish Presidents I was denigrating earlier. I suspect that just as the generation that left Egypt had to die in the desert, being unworthy to enter the Promised Land, so this generation of Diaspora Sheep pretending to be Israeli Lions will have to die out before the real thing, the Unafraid Jew, can emerge. 26.2 Just past midnight we had a blackout. I pressed the `save' button so as not to lose any of these deathless words, lit two 24-hour memorial candles in case our two-hour emergency lights fail and covered all bases by placing one in the kitchen and one in a toilet, lit a cigar and stepped outside in hopes of being bedazzled by a starlit sky unhindered by ground lights. Alas... there was a heavy fog and the few stars visible flickered like afterthoughts. Here and there lights were visible in homes. Emergency lights like ours, candles, and one generator-powered house lit up like something out of Disneyland. Machine gun fire penetrated the murk and I understood soldiers are firing into the dark to deter infiltrators. Flares were smothered in the gloom, glowing no brighter than the tip of my cigar, illuminating only themselves. I loved it! The air of artificial menace let me pace and pose and preen like the fearless fat man I've always dreamt of being, with the actual risk limited to catching a cold rather than a bullet. much later Close to midnight again. I've just been out. There is a half moon which, through some atmospheric peculiarity, seems to be grinning like a toothpaste ad. I couldn't help grinning back at it, wondering all the while if it is grinning with me or at me. 27.2 Minutes after returning from the Beersheba Tooth Fairy - `The Never Ending Story' - Rachel and I were shopping when a huge explosion rocked the settlement. An anti-tank rocket had struck a house belonging to friends. Thank God there were no injuries, but damage is extensive. And the stink of cordite hangs over everything. Tamar, Oshri and the Wrecking Crew are due shortly for Shabbat, and next week is going to be very busy. Tuesday Rachel's niece and two of her children arrive from the States for a visit. Wednesday Ari and Efrat's Doriah has her bat mitzvah in Jerusalem. Then all descend on us for Purim. Then I enter a geriatric nursing home. Shabbat Shalom, people. [The number of things on which I agreed with the late Abba Eban
could be listed on my remaining fingers, with a finger or two left
over. One of these was his supposedly humorous comment to a group of
American Jewish `leaders': "I was told I would be meeting the `upper
crust' of American Jewry. Being unfamiliar with the term `upper crust'
I consulted a dictionary and learned it means `a lot of crumbs held
together by dough'".]
Moshe Saperstein is one of the group of Israelis
who are recording what it is like living today in Israel.
"Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen) by Judy Lash
Balint is available for purchase from http://www.israelbooks.com
|
|
RELENTLESS PA HATE INCITEMENT AGAINST THE US AND THE WEST
Posted by Itamar Marcus, February 27, 2004. |
|
Despite continuing United States and Western European support for
Palestinian political aspirations, the tightly-controlled official
Palestinian Authority (PA) media relentlessly incites hatred and
violence against the US and the West.
A principle of PA ideology is to present the various conflicts around the world involving Muslims and Arabs as part of a war between civilizations that the West led by the United States is fighting against Islam and the Arab world. They incite their people to support violence because the US "runs a dirty war against all that is Arab and Muslim." As victims they, the Palestinians, will lead the war against the West. The editor of the official PA daily, echoing Bin Laden ideology, insists there exists a "American -European- Russian alliance", promoting Muslim-Arab subjugation, and that the Palestinians are at the forefront of the war that will "shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo-imperialists, the thieves of natural resources murderers of nations." [See full texts below.] President Bush, in this global war context, is depicted not merely as a leader of the "enemy United States", but is the enemy of all civilization, the "Fuhrer of the globalization era," a greater danger than Hitler, leading the world to destruction: "The new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the Stone Age," while Hitler only left "tens of millions of dead." Given this Palestinian ideological hatred against the US it is not surprising to find active opposition to tracking down the terrorists who murderered 3 Americans diplomats in Gaza in October. Both Arafat advisor Jibril Rajoub, and the Union of Palestinian Journalists called the American pressure on the PA to find the killers "extortion." The Journalists Union even condemned a PA daily for publishing a US State Department ad offering a reward for help in finding the terrorists. The ad was likewise called "extortion." [See below] As mentioned above, this anti American hatred continues at the very time that the US continues to give political and financial support to the PA. Indeed, the Palestinian editor had no trouble [or possibly it was intentional] placing the news item [cited above] rejecting PA co-operation in finding the murderers of the three Americans on the very same page as a large ad by USAID offering scholarships to Palestinian students. The great irony is that those three Americans murdered by Palestinians were in Gaza to grant USAID scholarships to Palestinians. It is significant that the PA doesn't limit its hatred of the US to attacks on current US policy and leaders, but teaches as a recurring theme that America is rotten at the essence. The PA often delegitimizes America's founding years as the theft of land, and this week attacked the killing of "Indian children" by the early American settlers. The total message the PA continues to send to its people is that the US and the West are paramount enemies of the Palestinians and the Arab world, and must be fought. The following are selections from articles that incite hatred and violence against the US and the West that have appeared in recent weeks in the PA media. 1. Bush is "Fuhrer of the globalization era" "The world stands today at the edge of a dangerous slope which threatens the destiny of all humanity. The President of the most powerful nation in the world suffers from megalomania and thinks he's a prophet. He uses military force to rearrange the world as he likes... No doubt that the personality of President Bush will be juicy material for tens of psychology books, for he has many characteristics of historical figures that left a negative impact on course of global history lead by the Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, and his Nazi and racist proclamations... The Cuban President, Fidel Castro who has deep knowledge of President Bush's history already called him "Fuhrer of the globalization era or the new world order." But he forgot that the Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, ruled [only] one state, with limited options at the stage where humanity hadn't reached its current level of frightening scientific and technological development. While [Bush] the 'Fuhrer of the new world order' received the reins of an American empire with more than half the world's weapons of mass destruction, with frightening economic, financial, and technological potential. And while the German Fuhrer's adventure ended with tens of millions of dead and wounded, and partial destruction of several countries this adventure of the new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the Stone Age." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 16, 2004] 2. Union of Palestinian Journalists and Jibril Rajoub: US pressure to find murderers of Americans is "extortion." "The Union of Palestinian Journalists announced that it views with severity the steps of the Palestinian newspapers, who published paid advertisement on the fifth of this month, from the US State Department, announcing the reward of $5 million to anyone who will bring information leading to the arrest of those responsible for the attack [killing 3 Americans]... The [Journalists] Union emphasized, that the advertisement is an affront to national sovereignty, and contributed to the state of extortion and the pressure that the US is applying against on the Palestinian Authority in this matter." [Al-Ayyam, Feb. 9, 2004] "The security advisor of President Yasser Arafat, Jibril Rajoub... blamed Washington for extortion in the affair of the killing of the three Americans in Gaza last October...[he said]: "Count Bernadot was murdered in 1948 and to this day his murderers were not arrested and not brought to trial. Many Americans were murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan, without locating the murderers. Israel attacked an American ship in 1967 and those responsible were not brought to trial. Why do the Americans insist on extorting us...?" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 5, 2004] 3. The Palestinians will shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo-imperialists"- the "American European Russian alliance" "...The right wing lobby, [which] controls Washington and runs a dirty war against all that is Arab and Muslim. It is a Fascist right that formed an alliance with the Fascist Israeli Colonialists... The American European Russian alliance is acting to empty the International institutions, both the UN and the High Court of Justice, of their content... It may be that the Europeans think that the submission of the Arab regimes turned the Arab land to wasteland and that the subdued nations won't act against the neo-imperialism, but they are wrong. This is because the torch of struggle, which accompanies our nation for nearly a century against all types of imperialism, will not be extinguished, but [the Palestinian nation] will continue to lead the Arab nation and will continue to awaken the Arab nation to shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo- imperialists, the thieves of natural resources and murderers of nations." [Editor in Chief, Hafez Al-Barghouti, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 6, 2004] "... [Regarding fighting ] the American enemy... the Arab land, in Palestine and Iraq in particular, will ignite under the feet of the intruders... The political and military balance of power is not completely against the Arabs... There are very vulnerable spots and internal crises that the Bush Sharon alliance suffer, and the Arab resistance is able on the various burning fronts... to force this alliance to pay a dear price..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 9, 2004] 4. "Destruction that the Americans did to Indian children" "[Regarding] the destruction that the Americans did to Indian children... we read from time to time testimonies and documents, among them an article by a writer from Atlantic Monthly that exposes the colonialists invasion, that committed the white man against the children... On the return from the mission to destroy the Indians in the year 1637 under the command of John Endicott an eyewitness describes: "When they [the Indians] saw us on their beaches they hurried to approach us in blessing and called to us, "Hello". When we reached the river the Indians soon figured out, that we came to burn their fields and destroy them." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 6, 2004] Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). To subscribe to PMW's reports, send an empty e-mail to reports-subscribe@pmw.org.il |
|
SOCIALIST PERES JUST DOESN'T LIKE BEING A JEW!
Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, February 27, 2004. |
|
Peres is a stereotype. A vain Israeli, without religion or faith,
ironically, living,in the Promised Holy Land which has given birth to
the Jewish Religion. Many years ago, Moshe Sharett, who later became
Israel's Prime Minister, correctly envisioned that Peres lacked
character, and represented a danger and threat to the existence of a
Jewish State. Unfortunately, his predictions were on target, and Peres
today remains disloyal to his People, and by his actions, represents a
threat to Israel's existence.
The author and initiator of the Oslo Process, to this day he will never admit to the grave mistake he made. He has caused many deaths and maimings of Jews because of the policies he deceptively maneuvered. He is just incapable of admitting having made a mistake, but instead continues to rationalize his past serious wrong doings. Typical of his vanity is his unwillingness to see any evil in Arafat whom he persists in calling a man of peace. After Arafat has been proven to be directly linked to terror and responsible for many Jewish and American deaths, Peres still insists, even today, that Arafat was justified in receiving the Noble Peace Prize. His latest statements made in Washington, D.C. which he no doubt repeated in his meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Powell, and Condelezza Rice, incredulously was that Israel has no "moral" claim to Gaza or to Judea and Samaria, and must give up these "territories." History has no meaning for Peres. He does not believe in G_d or the Bible. That is why he is capable of claiming that Jews have no moral right to Gaza or Judea and Samaria, which is a vital part of Jewish history, religion and its traditions. No one seems to be bothered by the fact that this man who has no position in our present government, nevertheless meets with Powell and Rice. Such behavior on his part may satisfy his inflated ego, but is tantamount to disloyalty, and leads to divisiveness and confusion at a time when unity of the People of Israel is required. Peres is busy with his own vanity and private machinations rather than acting in behalf of the Jewish State of Israel and its needs, during these critical times. An example of his callousness was demonstrated when his ego initiated an expensive and extensive celebration of his 80th birthday at a time when Israel's economy was sorely in distress. Peres admittedly is a non-believer, and thinks the Jewish People have no "destiny." His Oslo proposals have proven disastrous. It is fortunate however, that the God of Israel is the factor in determining Jewish Destiny. Thanks to the Almighty, the Jewish People have survived many perilous periods in its long and ancient history. They are here and are alive today despite their many enemies. They will continue to survive, despite the efforts of an aged and barking secularist and socialist, Shimon Peres. 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 |
|
USAID. Taxes For Terrorists
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 27, 2004. |
|
The State Department Promotes Palestinian
Peoplehood. In addition to endorsing Islamist
organizations, the Department of State promotes on its website "the
world of the Palestinians" to an English-speaking public ("a world
vaster, and far richer, than the one portrayed on evening news
broadcasts"). It does so in something called Asalah Magazine, four
issues of which have been published since August 2002, the most recent
of them this month. While Asalah's topics tend to be innocuous
(appreciations of embroidery and olive trees), its underlying purpose
is obvious: to establish that there is something known as "the
Palestinian people." It hardly needs pointing out that the State
Department's mission does not include promoting Palestinian
nationalism. This magazine needs to be closed down, and its prior
pages pulled down. (February 26, 2004)
http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/asalah.htm
The State Department Promotes Islamist Organizations. Not only does the U.S. government build mosques but it posts official pages on the Department of State website celebrating "Muslim Life in America" - something no other religion in the United States benefits from. In addition to the predictable feel-good writing and photography, the website also has a bibliography with select readings, Internet sites, and nongovernmental organizations. All of the sections hold interest, but the organizational one does most of all. A close look finds that the State Department provides links to and thereby endorses groups that the federal government has either effectively shut down (the American Muslim Council), is currently investigating (Islamic Society of North America), or has arrested multiple employees of (Council on American-Islamic Relations). Additionally, other organizations on the list (Council on Islamic Education, Islamic Institute, Muslim Public Affairs Council) were long ago exposed as sympathetic to militant Islam. It's hard to win a war, you know, when one's foreign ministry publicly endorses the enemy's friends and agents. It's dispiriting and confusing. So, how about it, State Department, and take down the offending web pages? (February 25, 2004) The U.S. Government Builds a Mosque. An Agence France-Presse dispatch, dated today, reads "Matachina: The Madrassa of Martyrs Rebuilt by the USA Remains Empty." It describes a mosque complex in a town near Khost in Afghanistan's southeast. The unnamed reporter tells of finding a stone stele by the side of the road announcing (I am translating here from French) the "Matachina Mosque, rebuilt in 2002 with the assistance of the American people." The U.S. government has helped pay for a mosque!? Apparently so. The news report explains that at least 34 persons - combatants, religious students, women, and children - were killed in the U.S. bombardment of the mosque and its adjoining Koranic school on November 16, 2001, in the midst of the American offensive against the Taliban. The new building, paid for by the U.S. Army, is said to be "practically identical" with the previous one, including a wooden door decorated with arabesques out of bronze. If this report is true, it is a scandal, and an important one. Yet again, it appears, American governmental agencies are giving special treatment to Islam, whether endorsing of the faith or cutting breaks for it by selling land at less than 10 percent of its market price when the purpose is mosque construction. Such privileged treatment is simply not permissible and must come to an immediate end. As an ironic post-script, the AFP report quotes a nearby soldier in Matachina saying that "Nobody ever comes to this mosque." The journalist elaborates: "Not a resident steps foot in it. Barely rebuilt, the mosque is already abandoned. The faithful prefer to pray elsewhere." So, not only did the U.S. Army illegally build a mosque, but the money it spent on cultivating good was wasted. (February 24, 2004) |
|
THE COURAGE OF MUSLIM MODERATES
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 26, 2004. |
|
Jeff Jacoby, who wrote this article, is a columnist at the
"Boston Globe". It appeared in the Globe February 22, 2004
and was reprinted as a Isranet Daily Briefing item of the Canadian
Institute for JewishResearch (http://www.isranet.org) today.
It is a sad irony that the world's freest Muslims - those who live in liberty in the West - are so unwilling to publicly condemn the world's worst Muslims - the militant Islamist fascists who believe in violent jihad, intolerant theocracy, subjugated women, and hatred of Jews and Americans. If anyone should be raising their voices against the totalitarians and terrorists who promote such evil in the name of Islam, it is the millions of moderate Muslims in America, Canada, and Europe... But the vast majority are reluctant to do so. Some say nothing out of a misplaced sense of loyalty; others are afraid of being ostracized if they rock the communal boat. All the more reason, then, to applaud those outspoken moderate Muslims who do lift their voices against the hatred and violence of the extremists. I have devoted several columns to the importance of supporting and listening to these moderates. They are key allies in the war against terrorism... In a column that ran nearly two years ago, I quoted Irshad Manji, a Canadian TV personality who had recently published an essay titled "A Muslim plea for introspection." That essay has now grown into a best-selling book, The Trouble With Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith, and Manji, who calls herself a "Muslim refusenik," has received a good deal of well-deserved publicity. She has also received hate mail, vitriolic insults, and death threats serious enough to require her to have a bodyguard. Muslims who insist on talking bluntly about contemporary Islam and its failings don't have it easy. That is another reason there are so few of them. "We've got to end Islam's totalitarianism, particularly the gross human-rights violations against women and religious minorities," Manji writes. She is appalled by "the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes" and by "the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in." Islam desperately needs to undergo a reformation, much as Christianity did, she argues, and it is Muslims in the West who should be spearheading it. Why? "Because it is here that we already enjoy the precious freedom to think, express, challenge, and be challenged, all without fear of state reprisal." Another courageous Muslim moderate is Ahmed al-Rahim, who co-founded the American Islamic Congress following the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001. It is an explicit purpose of AIC to stop being silent "in the face of Muslim extremism" and to "actively censure hate speech made in the name of Islam." In a recent address, he noted that anti-American "hate speech and incitement" has too often been "promoted by many American Muslim organizations... This hate speech against America, against Christians, against Hindus, against Jews... has somehow been accommodated, not denounced," Al-Rahim said. "I believe it is a priority for the American Muslim community to hold its leadership accountable for what they say..." It isn't always easy to distinguish between militant Islamism and genuine Islamic moderation. Some Muslim leaders and institutions claim to oppose intolerance, yet attack those who expose extremism as bigots and "Islamophobes." Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum says that often the only way to tell the real moderates from the fakes is by asking questions - not vague queries ("Do you condemn terrorism?"), but specific ones... Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name such terrorist groups as Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda? Should Muslim women have equal rights with men?... Ultimately, only Muslims can decide whether Islam's future lies with the militants or with the moderates. But those of us who are not Muslim can help the cause of reform and moderation by promoting and encouraging the moderates, and by repudiating the extremists they are brave enough to challenge. |
|
RETURN OF THE OLD HATRED
Posted by IsrAlert, February 26, 2004. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips, columnist for the "Daily
Mail"; it appeared in the "Observer" Sunday, February
22, 2004. It is archived at
observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1153419,00.html
Let us all agree on one thing at least. The more Jews warn that anti-Semitism has come roaring out of the closet, the more people don't like the Jews. Which is a bit of a problem if you believe, as I do, that the oldest hatred has indeed alarmingly resurfaced but is hiding under the respectable skirts of hostility to Israel. This week, the European Union finally admitted there was a problem with rising Jew-hatred. While there was no comparison with the Holocaust, said European Commission President Romano Prodi, some criticism of Israel was 'inspired by what amounts to anti-Semitic sentiments and prejudice'. Yesterday, the Community Security Trust, a Jewish charity, reported the second largest rise in 20 years in attacks on synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish people in Britain. Yet there were immediate moans in the press of 'grossly exaggerated' warnings about rising anti-Semitism. In an Economist debate at London's Institute of Contemporary Arts last week, those issuing such warnings were accused of being the 'new McCarthyites', waving the shroud of the Holocaust to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. So when a woman said to me one evening, 'I hate the Jews', I should have dismissed my shock as a 'grossly exaggerated' response. When I was listed in a newspaper as one of the Jews exercising sinister control over public debate in Britain, I should have said I brought this on myself by writing anything at all. When I heard claims by a radio reporter that the Jews might have 'poisoned the water wells of Egypt' in 1947, I should not have wondered why one of the stock libels of medieval Jew-hatred was being broadcast as if it were true, since my concern was obviously shroud-waving. And when in the ICA debate Tory MP Robert Jackson accused British Jews of dual loyalty, saying their Britishness was conditional on their explicit repudiation of the policies of Sharon, it was obvious the reason he was singling out the Jews as second-class citizens in this startling way was because they are McCarthyites. Let's all agree on something else. Some Jews grossly over-react to perceived anti-Semitic bias. Their campaign of insults is as bad as the kind of insults which wing their way with monotonous regularity to me. Nevertheless, as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks told the EU conference, an unholy alliance between the Left, the far-Right and the Islamic street means millions are being told that alone among nations, Israel has no right to exist and that all the troubles of the world are the work of the Jews. At the heart of this bitter disagreement is the conflation of the issue of Israel with the issue of Jew-hatred. The latter claim maddens people who feel they can't criticise Israel without risking being accused of anti-Jewish prejudice. The two, they say, are not connected. In theory, that's true. In practice, one issue often morphs into the other, both implicitly in the way Israel is described and explicitly in overt Jew-hatred. Criticism of Israel is certainly legitimate, as is criticism of any country. I am myself critical of its policies. But a line has been crossed into something else - the demonisation and dehumanisation of Israel based on systematic lies, libels and distortions. As a result, a lot of decent people have been unwittingly caught up in a narrative of hatred. Former Sunday Times editor Sir Harold Evans tried to show where that line should be drawn. It was not anti-Semitic, he said, to report Israeli ill-treatment of Palestinians or Sharon's past, or to deplore the long occupation of the territories. It was anti-Semitic to present Israel as diabolical, to invent malignant outrages, to condemn actions by Israel while not condemning worse elsewhere, and to vilify Jews so as to incite violence. In all four categories, that line has been crossed. Diabolical? Israel is routinely described falsely as an apartheid or, worse, Nazi state. While its society is far from perfect, Arab Israelis not only have the vote but serve in the Knesset, supreme court and army. To label it 'Nazi' is to delegitimise it. Malevolent outrages? Look at the so-called 'massacre' of Jenin, which has become an accepted fact even though there was no massacre: 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 mostly armed Palestinians died in that incident. There are some appalling and inexcusable incidents in Israel. But that doesn't explain why Israeli self-defence is systematically and falsely represented as malevolent aggression. Double standards? British academics try to impose boycotts on Israeli universities. Yet they organised no boycotts against Kuwait, which expelled 350,000 Palestinians in 1991; or Jordan, which murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians; or Syria, which has occupied Lebanon. And increasingly, people are saying Israel should not exist at all, thus singling it out alone for destruction. Inciting violence? People such as Lib Dem MP Jenny Tonge have come close to excusing the mass murder of Israelis in a manner they would never apply to the mass murder of other peoples. Coverage of Israel is obsessive and disproportionate, and marked by a hysteria and malice not applied to any other conflict. And it cannot be divorced from the overt Jew-hatred that has now surfaced in Britain and Europe, particularly the give-away calumny of world Jewish power. The claim that Jews conspire to dominate the world is one of the oldest tropes of classic Jew-hatred. Astonishingly, claims made by the European Left are not far removed. It repeats claims that the 'powerful Jewish lobby' is now running American foreign policy. When Labour MP Tam Dalyell observed that a 'cabal' of Jewish power was behind Blair, he was thought a loveable eccentric. In the House of Lords, a meeting heard that Jews control the British media. One peer told a Jewish colleague: 'We've finished off Saddam. Your lot are next.' The outcome is that an astonishing axis has developed between Islamic Jew-haters and the Left, marching behind the banners of 'human rights' on demonstrations in Europe producing chants of 'Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas'. Why? The main reason is ignorance of both the Middle East's history and its present. Next, the Left's hatred of Sharon is so great, along with its prejudice that America/the West is the oppressor and therefore the Islamic/Third World the victim, that it can't see what is happening. Then there's the Left's deconstruction of the very concepts of objectivity and truth, so that it has become a conduit instead for propaganda and lies; and finally, its own history of Jew-hatred from Marx onwards. The final twist is that there are some Jews on the Left who subscribe to all the above too. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu said people were scared to say the Jewish lobby in America was powerful. So what? he asked. 'The apartheid government was very powerful but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.' So Jews not only have vast power, according to Tutu, but are on a par with those tyrants. Yet it was Tutu who could publish this calumny about the Jewish people, and thus incite yet more to hate them. But of course, any Jews who call this by its proper name are the new McCarthyites. IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
WHOSE LAND GRAB?
Posted by Ruth Matar, February 26, 2004. |
|
Dear Friends,
A Letter to the Editor published in the Jerusalem Post of February 23, upset me sufficiently to rouse me from my preoccupation with all the medical procedures involved in the recovery from injuries sustained at the beginning of this month. The following is the complete letter to the Jerusalem Post from a pro-Israel advocate: Sir, - I read with a knot in my stomach your report that the Knesset Finance Committee had approved a "transfer of NIS96m to settlements" (February 17). As a committed pro-Israel activist I am frequently out there on the hustings, explaining to San Francisco Bay Area Jewish and mixed audiences that Israel continues to deserve our support and that we must remain focused on the real causes of regional conflict. My letter in answer thereto: Sir, - "Plaint from a pro-Israel advocate" (Feb. 23, 2004) highlights an unfortunate attitude problem of some US Jews who try to be "persuasive pro-Israel advocates", without a comprehensive understanding of what true Zionism entails. It is impossible to be an effective pro-Israel advocate without understanding the history and causes of the regional conflict in the Middle East. We live in extraordinary, fateful and dangerous times. What can each of us do to battle the dangerous onslaught of radical Islam on Judeo-Christian civilization and values? To quote the American Civil War Battle Hymn: "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition." Our best ammunition is to continually and vigorously spread the Truth to counteract the Big Lie of the powerful Arab propaganda machine! There is no Palestinian people, just a conglomeration of Arab countries who want to eradicate Israel, as they failed to do in 1948 and 1967. There never was a state called Palestine. King David reigned over the Kingdom of "Judea" whose inhabitants were called Jews. Remind your government representatives and the media of these simple facts. Also, keep reminding them of the famous quotation from the Bible: "Those who curse Israel will be cursed and those who bless Israel will be blessed." With Love for Israel,
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 |
|
TEGART'S WALL: THE FIRST SECURITY FENCE
Posted by Hebron Today, February 26, 2004. |
|
This article, from the Palestine Post of May 31, 1938, shows how bad
ideas keep resurfacing. The Tegart's Wall scheme, designed to protect
British forces in the aftermath of the Arab rebellion of 1936, was
abandoned. Sharon's plan to destroy Israeli communities in Judea,
Samaria, and Gaza, build a fence around a designated area, and leave
the remaining territory to the Palestinian Authority, merely turns
over the abandoned areas to terrorist control, without in any way
interfering with Arab demands or stemming international pressures.
Yaakov Amidror, former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, points
out that without control of the territory from which terrorism
emanates, a military force "cannot detroy the infrastructure of
terrorism [such as laboratories, training centers and safe houses].
Without territorial control, counterterrorism operations become risky,
both in terms of physical danger and political cost." In the absence
of territorial control, writes Amidror, "Israel's real line of defense
is its own cities and towns. And because the terrorists target
civilians, their success is almost assured." [Ed note: the Amidror
article can be read in this issue of Think-Israel.]
A scheme for a barbed-wire "wall," suggested by Sir Charles Tegart, adviser to the Palestine Government on suppressing terrorism, is being undertaken at a cost of L90,000 to prevent the bands fleeing from justice, smuggling arms, or entering for terrorism and agitation across the frontiers between Palestine and Syria, Trans-Jordan, and the Lebanon, (wrote the Jerusalem correspondent in The Times yesterday). Terrorism in Palestine has been difficult to isolate and control because these frontiers, practically undefended and in un-inhabited and rough terrain, have proved easy bases for troublemakers. When pursued by police and military the bands, and especially their leaders, have been able to slip over the borders, often carrying away cattle and other booty, and have thus effectively escaped capture. Arms and other warlike equipment unprocurable in Palestine have been easily secured from among the people in Syria and Trans-Jordan and smuggled into Palestine, along with many cheaply hired gunmen. The stopping of these practices has become an essential to the restoration of order in the British Mandated territory. Efforts made by the Palestine Government to obtain the cooperation of the French Mandatory authorities in Syria in preventing the use of that country as a base have been unsuccessful. The French have given over much of the detail of government to the Syrian and Lebanese States, whose sympathy with the Palestine Arab nationalists prevents them from doing anything. Furthermore, the French point out that when they were having troubles in Syria in 1925 and 1926, the British professed inability to prevent the flight of Syrian nationalists into Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Something might be done to bludgeon the Syrians into cooperation by stopping all trade with them, but it would not improve international relations nor solve the problem of the undefended frontiers. For this reason Sir Charles Tegart advised the erection of some physical barrier on the frontier which would make guarding it more practicable. Unfortunately the Northern Frontier road, built close to the international boundary in very rugged country at no small expense, has not been very helpful as it could not be patrolled at night without marauding bands knowing from the lights of the cars just where they were and timing their passage accordingly. A stout physical barrier difficult of penetration was, therefore the last resort. Contracts for Sir Charles Tegart's scheme have been let to Solel Boneh, Limited, of Haifa. The specifications call for a barbed wire fence extending for about 50 miles from the coastal road at Ras en-Nakura eastwards to Nebi Yusha (Metullah) and curving down to the Huleh marshes. Jewish colonies at that point form a barrier, but the fence resumes at Rosh Pina and extends to Tabgha on the Sea of Galilee, which in turn will be patrolled by motor-launches. South of the Sea of Galilee a two-and-a-half miles stretch as far as the mouth of the Yarmuk River will be fenced. Plans are being made for obstructing the passage of the Jordan River between Palestine and Trans-Jordan at its 70 fords. The fence is to vary in thickness according to local conditions. The single bay type will consist of two parallel barbed wire fences some 6 ft. high and 5 ft. apart, each fence consisting of iron posts with 2 in. mesh rabbit wire at the bottom surmounted by barbed wire, and the space between the two fences not only crisscrossed with barbed wire but also filled with loose masses of tangled wire below. This in itself would form a barrier difficult to pass. But in some places there will be three parallel fences, the two outer bays being as elaborately wired as that mentioned above. The fence will be guarded from the seven police posts now placed along the frontier road, which will be made easier to defend than at present, and supplemented by pillboxes armed with Lewis guns at places where deep wadis or customary tracks cross the frontier. Searchlights on the police posts and pillboxes will be able to keep most of the defence line under observation at night. As the strength of the fence when tested by Sappers and specially equipped troops was such that they could not get through in less than 20 minutes even by daylight, the additional precaution of patrolling the fence at 10-minute intervals with police cars equipped with searchlights will doubtless be enough to protect those parts out of observation of the police posts. The 70 fords of the Jordan River by which terrorists and contraband
have crossed to and from Trans-Jordan as easily as the peasantry and
Ghor Arabs for many generations present another type of problem.
Thirty-five of the fords can be watched effectively from high ground
near by. The remainder will be rendered impassable by fences on the
banks, supplemented by submerged wiring which will serve the same
purpose as the wooden stakes used by the ancient Britons and Romans.
The erection of this formidable barrier, which is quickly becoming
known as Tegart's Wall, is unquestionably a necessity in present
conditions, just as Hadrian's Wall in the past, concludes the Times
correspondent. But if the other experiments being made in Palestine
are to be permanent, the necessity for such wartime precautions must
be removed by so just a settlement of the problems of the country that
her frontiers will be guarded by the mutual good will and confidence
of herself and her neighbours. It would be a tragedy if the future
State or States could only exist behind barbed wire entanglements.
This article appears in "Outpost" - published by Americans For a Safe
Israel (http://www.afsi.org), February 2004 Issue 164.
|
|
THE LEFT'S ANTI-SEMITIC CHIC
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 26, 2004. |
|
This was written by George Will, columnist at the
Washington Post. It appeared today.
It used to be said that anti-Catholicism was the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. Today anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. Not all intellectuals, of course. And the seepage of this ancient poison into the intelligentsia - always so militantly modern - is much more pronounced in Europe than here. But as anti-Semitism migrates across the political spectrum from right to left, it infects the intelligentsia, which has leaned left for two centuries. Here the term intellectual is used loosely, to denote not only people who think about ideas - about thinking - but also people who think they do. The term anti-Semitism is used to denote people who dislike Jews. These people include those who say: We do not dislike Jews, we only dislike Zionists - although to live in Israel is to endorse the Zionist enterprise, and all Jews are implicated, as sympathizers, in the crime that is Israel. Today's release of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" has catalyzed fears of resurgent anti-Semitism. Some critics say the movie portrays the governor of Judea - Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect responsible for the crucifixion - as more benign and less in control than he actually was, and ascribes too much power and malignity to Jerusalem's Jewish elite. Jon Meacham's deeply informed cover story "Who Killed Jesus?" in the Feb. 16 Newsweek renders this measured judgment: The movie implies more blame for the Jewish religious leaders of Judea of that time than sound scholarship suggests. However, Meacham rightly refrains from discerning disreputable intentions in Gibson's presentation of matters about which scholars, too, must speculate, and do disagree. Besides, this being a healthy nation, Americans are unlikely to be swayed by the movie's misreading, as Meacham delicately suggests, of the actions of a few Jews 2,000 years ago. Fears about the movie's exacerbating religiously motivated anti-Semitism are missing the larger menace - the upsurge of political anti-Semitism. Like traditional anti-Semitism, but with secular sources and motives, the political version, which condemns Jews as a social element, is becoming mainstream, and chic among political and cultural elites, mostly in Europe. Consider: A cartoon in a mainstream Italian newspaper depicts the infant Jesus in a manger, menaced by an Israeli tank and saying, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again." This expresses animus against Israel rather than twisted Christian zeal. The European Union has suppressed a study it commissioned, because the study blamed the upsurge in anti-Jewish acts on European Muslims - and the European left. Nineteen percent of Germans believe what a best-selling German book asserts: The CIA and Israel's Mossad organized the Sept. 11 attacks. On French television, a comedian wearing a Jewish skullcap gives a Nazi salute while yelling, "Isra-Heil!" If Israel is not the Great Satan, it is allied with him - America. European anti-American demonstrations often include Israel's blue and white flag with a swastika replacing the star of David, and signs perpetuating the myth, concocted by Palestinians and cooperative Western journalists, of an Israeli massacre in Jenin: "1943: Warsaw/2002: Jenin." Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University, writes in the New Republic that much of what Hitler said "can be found today in innumerable places: on Internet sites, propaganda brochures, political speeches, protest placards, academic publications, religious sermons, you name it." The appallingly brief eclipse of anti-Semitism after Auschwitz demonstrates how beguiling is the simplicity of pure stupidity. All of the left's prescriptions for curing what ails society - socialism, communism, psychoanalysis, "progressive" education, etc. - have been discarded, so now the left is reduced to adapting that hardy perennial of the right, anti-Semitism. This is a new twist to the left's recipe for salvation through elimination: All will be well if we eliminate capitalists, or private property, or the ruling class, or "special interests," or neuroses, or inhibitions. Now, let's try eliminating a people, starting with their nation, which is obnoxiously pro-American and insufferably Spartan. Europe's susceptibility to political lunacy, and the Arab world's addiction to it, is not news. And the paranoid style is a political constant. Those who believe a conspiracy assassinated President Kennedy say: Proof of the conspiracy's diabolical subtlety is that no evidence of it remains. Today's anti-Semites say: Proof of the Jews' potent menace is that there are so few of them - just 13 million of the planet's 6 billion people - yet they cause so many political, economic and cultural ills. Gosh. Imagine if they were, say, 1 percent of Earth's population: 63 million. |
|
SHARON, LEARN FROM TRUMAN
.
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 26, 2004. |
|
This was written by Yossi Ben-Aharon.
Sometimes there is no choice but badly hurting the enemy, including civilians, to prevent endless war. There must be a higher power that is making the U.S. go through the same torturous path as us. Like us, the U.S. is facing murderous suicide terrorism in Iraq. Like us, it is attacked and maligned by an Arab-Moslem-leftist coalition. Like us, it is seeking ways to defend itself against its enemies. In 1945 the U.S. faced a similar situation. It was on the Pacific front, when the U.S. Navy was approaching the Japanese isles. At this point the Japanese pulled out a new lethal weapon, the kamikazes, the world's first suicide bombers, who aimed their explosive-laden planes into American warships. The U.S. president at the time was Harry Truman. Not a decorated warrior, nor a former general, but an outstanding leader who had the courage to take tough decisions with historic implications for generations to come. The kamikaze assault felled many victims and there was a danger it would offset the American gains and prolong the war for a long time. Truman decided to put an end to the phenomenon. He approved the use of the atom bomb and two Japanese cities were erased. Since at the time most of the military-aged men were at the front, most of the victims were women, children and elderly people. Japan surrendered and the war ended. Truman justified his decision by saying that otherwise the war would have gone on and the scope of destruction and casualties would have exceeded what it was in the two Japanese cities. The American people accepted and justified the acts, as terrible as they were. Today Israel is facing a similar challenge and danger, with the defense measures we come up with, from security officers on buses to security fences, turning out to be like aspirin to a cancer patient. Unlike the U.S. in 1945, a warrior known for his creativity and improvisation in wartime heads the Israeli government. Now he stands helpless and the only things he can come up with are withdrawal and a fence, that he knows will only encourage the enemy to double his attacks. Sharon knows that as long as the heads of Palestinian terrorism believe there is a chance for achievements on the path they have taken we will not overcome terrorism. They will draw the right conclusion only if they pay a high price in there areas: the loss of manpower, the loss of territory and the loss of political assets. A stern Israeli action against terror centers will deepen the Palestinian Authority's bankruptcy. At the right moment there will be no choice but for the IDF to enter the area to destroy the PA. It is necessary to expel its leaders and immediately act to create a different authority in its place, comprised of Palestinians who are not identified with terrorism. It is a difficult path but the other paths that were tried, including the present one, achieve the opposite result. What we need today is an Israeli Truman to take responsibility for a bold move that puts an end to the uncertainty gnawing at Israeli |
|
ARAB COMPLAINTS AND CONDEMNATIONS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 26, 2004. |
|
The P.A. is complaining about Israel's security fence. They are like
bank robbers complaining about surveillance cameras.
An argument they brought to the court in The Hague is that this fence imperils the Road Map and other hopes for peace. The argument is irrelevant. A court, if it has jurisdiction, is supposed to decide on legality, not on the advantages and disadvantages that the parties allege. The argument is so hypocritical that it would be laughed out of the court of public opinion, if the opinion-makers had informed and clear minds of their own. In the midst of a war it started in violation of Oslo and the Road Map, the P.A. logically is in a poor position to give its opinion that the fence would impede the Map. Unfortunately, the illogic of the P.A. case eludes most of the media. Imagine how much more interesting news presentation would be if complainants' inconsistencies with past statements or actions more often were noted alongside their latest statements! This also is about P.A. hypocrisy and the media's playing along with it. P.A. standard practice for treating suicide bombing is a two-step process. First, the P.A. honors suicide bombers as martyrs and their deeds as "explosive operation" or other avoidance of negative terminology, whereas the demolition of the martyr's house by the IDF is called "barbaric" and "racist." By the way, have you notice the fondness of bigots for calling their victims "racist?" Second, the P.A. issues a pro forma condemnation, usually in the form of a press release to Western reporters, but sometimes in Arabic on P.A. Radio, that explains the act, blames it on Israel, and expresses concern only over its timing. Sometimes its brief note condemns the act but not the group and person perpetrating it. The Western media then solemnly report that the P.A. condemned the
bombing. Thus the media allows itself to be manipulated into giving
the P.A. favorable mention, as if the P.A. opposes suicide bombing.
How misleading to Western audiences! If, instead, the media explained
that the P.A. emphasizes its approval for such murder, audiences would
understand what sort of entity the P.A. is. Too bad reporting isn't
reporting any more but manipulating!
Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based
forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He
distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at
ricshulman@aol.com.
|
|
SHARON. THE DICTATOR
Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, February 26, 2004. |
|
Member of Knesset, Aryeh Eldad, pointed out in an article written in
the most circulated Hebrew newspaper, Yediot Achronot, that Prime
Minister Sharon was acting illegally, and in an anti-democratic
fashion, when he gave an order to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to
prepare for the evacuation of Jews from Biblical Gaza.
MK Eldad points out that it is not within the existing power of the Prime Minister to issue such an order to the Israel Army. Sharon has not even submitted to his Cabinet and to the Knesset his plan for their prior required approval, BEFORE issuing such an order. Existing law requires that he formally first obtains such approval before he can act in any manner with regard to his so-called plan. We call upon all present Ministers of the National Camp, along with the masses of our People, to join a DEMONSTRATION held by all Extra-Parliamentary Groups, outside Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office in Jerusalem, while his Cabinet is meeting that morning. The DEMO will be held on SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2004, at 9:30 A.M. at the ROSE GARDEN, adjacent to the PM's office. We urge all who love Israel and its Biblical Heritage, including the present Ministers of our Government, and all of our ordinary citizens, to join with those holding this demonstration, and to spread and convey this message to others. The head of Israel's Security (Shabak), the Chief of Staff (Army) and the head of Military Intelligence, and many thousands of ordinary Israelis citizens, are all opposed to the unilateral withdrawal plan. The plan which Sharon has proposed is against Israel's interests, and safety. The evacuation of entire Jewish Communities, and Jews from the homes that they built in the Gaza area is not only unfair, and senseless, but it exposes the rest of adjoining communities to great danger. Come to the Demo to raise your voices in protest! 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 |
|
DOES CONTIGUOUS EQUAL VIABLE?
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 26, 2004. |
|
This was written by Mike Levine
Let's see if I have this right. The Israelis are building a fence. About 5% of it is a concrete wall. At the very most it will dip into disputed territory in a few places, possibly expropriating 2% or less of the West Bank. Now, the argument being made today in the International Court in the Hague, goes like this; Israel's actions will prevent the establishment of a viable, contiguous state, turning this would-be-state into cantons disconnected from each other. How can a state possibly exist in such a condition you may ask? Well, a glance at a world map shows that many countries already exist quite successfully in this condition. And the prime example is the United States of America, which is united in every way but geographically! The State of Alaska is about 1500 miles north of the other states, separated by Western Canada. The State of Hawaii sits in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, some 1200 miles from the mainland. How in the world do the dis-United States manage to function, survive, and be wildly successful in this pitiful condition? Papua New Guinea is composed of dozens of disconnected islands. Indonesia is all over the map. Malaysia is composed of two separate 'cantons' separated by a large body of water. Tasmania is an Australian state although it is far removed geographically from the main body of Australia. A small part of Turkey is in Europe, the bulk of the rest of it in Asia. So it is baloney that a state must be geographically contiguous in order to be viable. Furthermore, where in the universe does it say that it is Israel's obligation to provide the perfect conditions for another Arab State, one which is already a hostile terrorist base, and which is certain to become even more so once it is able to arm itself with missiles, tanks, and other heavy weapons. The argument is specious, to say the least, untenable, unbalanced, biased, and unsupportable. Just take a look at the world map and see for yourself. |
|
CHUTZPAH - Arab Style
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 26, 2004. |
|
Dr. Aaron Klieman's book, Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), should be "must reading" for those who truly want to make sense out of the conflict between Arab and Jew in the Middle East today. It's one of those references that other scholars used to cite in their own works. Nowadays, however, with much of this field being hijacked by a blatantly anti-American and anti-Israel fraternity, things have changed. The chief tenured prof who teaches this subject at Ohio State, for instance, Carter Findley, managed to teach an entire graduate course (I know...I was there) on the Mandatory period without ever bothering to mention either Klieman's book or the facts which you'll read below. And that was over two decades ago. And woe unto thee if you dared bring such things up. Again...I know. Things have gotten even worse today.
The Associated Press report headlined in my local Florida paper on February 25, 2004 read as follows: "Jordan Joins Chorus Against Israeli Wall." It was Jordan's turn to lay it on the Jews. Prince Zeid al Hussein complained that the barrier might send Palestinian Arabs fleeing into his own kingdom. He also justified the suicide bombings by blaming them on the four decades' old Israeli occupation. Now for a reality check. Indeed, the Hashemites would do themselves a favor by not addressing this issue to anyone with a knowledge of the actual facts and history involved. Since many do not possess this, they feel free to rant, as the late King Hussein's widow has also done in her recently published book. To appreciate what comes next, first find a map of the Middle East. One of the world will do, but everything will be much smaller. Find Jordan and then find Israel to its west. And now hold onto your seats... In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill, to reward Arab allies in World War I (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia?), chopped off roughly 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate issued to Great Britain on April 25, 1920 - all the land east of the Jordan River - and created the purely Arab "Emirate of Transjordan"...today's Jordan. This was engineered by Churchill a year earlier at the Cairo Conference. Emir Abdullah, who received the land on behalf of the Hashemites of Arabia, attributed this gift to an "act of Allah" in his memoirs. Sir Alec Kirkbride, Britain's East Bank representative, had much to say about this separation of the lion's share of the Palestinian Mandate as well. Let's listen: "In due course the remarkable discovery was made that the clauses of the mandate relating to the establishment of a National Home for the Jews had never been intended to apply to the mandated territory east of the river (A Crackle of Thorns, page 27)." So, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was awarded the bulk of the Palestinian Mandate. While it too officially remained tied to the whole, Jordan, nonetheless, became a virtually separate entity. So, from 1922 onwards - after already receiving most of the territory - Arabs would next point to what was left of "Palestine" to make yet further claims. Arabs answer by citing geographical and other differences between some Arabs and others. Using this logic, since there are Jews in Israel from over a hundred different countries (including one half who were refugees from "Arab" lands and some whose families never left Israel since the days of the Roman conquest), then Jews are therefore entitled to multiple states as well. Think of it. Less than one half million Arabs were entitled to a Kuwait. Over two million Jews can stake a claim to parts of Morocco, Iraq, etc. Arab and pro-Arab professors typically ignore all of this when teaching this topic. The main starting date for them is not 1920, but 1947...the proposed partition of "Palestine." Of course they conveniently omit telling their students that this was the second partition of the land (which the Arabs rejected) and pretend that Jordan was always a separate state. And the students take it all in. The Jordan-Palestine connection is just one of many well-documented facts (not "Zionist propaganda") completely ignored or distorted by Arab spokesmen and, unfortunately, little known by the rest of the world. Arabs typically claim Jews got 78% of all of the land, and leading newspapers typically prepare segments on the Middle East ignoring this crucial Jordan-Palestine connection as well. While discussion now revolves around a "two state" or even a "one state" solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs, the reality is that Jordan is historically and demographically Palestinian. So there is a third solution...though it's kept hushed up these days. Jordan has been a reasonable neighbor of late...relatively speaking at least...so Israel hasn't made an issue of this. Indeed, it was Israel which saved the Hashemites' collective derrieres in 1970 when the PLO decided to cash in on this third alternative. I say all of this not as a Likudnik (while I agree with many of their positions), but simply to set the record straight. Palestinian Arabs "fleeing into Jordan" a la Prince Zeid's remarks would, in reality, be moving simply to another part of Palestine. And did anyone ask why Israel is obliged to provide work for the butchers of its innocents? That supposedly would be one of the main reasons for the Arab flight into Jordan. Arab workers have killed their Jewish employers. Yet Israel has taken pains to create passage ways for these people through the fence. When Egypt's Nasser decided it was time to drive the Jews into the sea, he contacted Jordan's King Hussein - his calls were intercepted and taped - and convinced His late Majesty to join in the massacre. Israel, through the United Nations, begged Hussein to distance himself from Nasser's plans. The King didn't listen and instead launched an attack on the Jewish half of Jerusalem instead. The rest, as they say, is history. And that's how Jordan lost the West Bank - which it seized in the 1948 fighting - in the first place. Transjordan - led by British officers - joined other Arab countries in attacking a reborn Israel, trying to nip it in the bud. So the Prince would be better off not bringing this subject up...at least not to those with any sense of fair play. When you launch a war and lose, there's a price to pay...especially if the land you launched your attack from was not yours in the first place. Whatever will or won't become of the land in question, it must be noted that this is disputed territory, not "Arab" land, as those testifying before the court in Geneva now claim. Jews lived and owned property there until their slaughter in the 1920s. Judea and Samaria, only in this century known as the "West Bank" (largely as a result of British imperialism and Transjordan's later annexation), were unapportioned parts of the Mandate, and leading authorities such as Eugene Rostow, William O'Brien, and others have stressed that these areas were open to settlement by Jew, Arab, and other residents of the mandate alike. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Arabs poured into the area from all over the Middle East. The League Of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission documented scores of thousands of Arabs entering into Palestine from just Syria alone. Hamas' "patron saint", Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam, was from Aleppo. It's estimated that many more Arabs entered the Mandate, to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews, under cover of darkness and were never recorded...more Arab settlers setting up more Arab settlements. Why are these "legal" and those of the Jews not? While it's been said many times, it's worth repeating. The good cop/bad cop team of Arafat and Hamas/Islamic Jihad created the security fence now on trial in Geneva. And until those leopards change their spots, Israel must do what any other nation would do to protect its citizens from Arab barbarity. Indeed, many other nations have constructed such fences for far less compelling reasons. As for the route of the fence, in the wake of the June '67 War, UN Resolution #242 expressly did not call for Israel to return to the status quo ante bellum and the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it at the close of hostilities in 1949. Among other things, those lines made it a mere 9-miles wide at its waist. What #242 did call for was the creation of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those vulnerable lines. Adding a few more miles of buffer in strategically important areas on the West Bank, etc., is precisely what the Resolution had in mind. The architects of the final draft of the resolution (Rostow, Goldberg, etc.) have stated this themselves. Israel does not seek to rule over millions of Arabs' lives. What it does want is a reasonable compromise over these disputed lands...not the unilateral, Munich style solution too many of the folks in Geneva now have in mind. Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress magazine (http://www.jewishxpress.com), a monthly publication based in southern Florida. His background is in Middle Eastern Affairs. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. |
|
OVERCOMING ISRAEL'S DEATH-IN-LIFE
Posted by Israela Goldstein, February 26, 2004. |
This was written by Louis Rene Beres, who is Professor of Political
Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is the author
of many books and articles dealing with terrorism, war and Israeli
security matters. This was a special to the National Unity Coalition
for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.com), February 24, 2003.
"All people, Jews or gentiles, who dare not defend themselves when they know they are in the right, who submit to punishment not because of what they have done but because of who they are, are already dead by their own decision; and whether or not they survive physically depends on chance. If circumstances are not favorable, they end up in gas chambers." - Bruno Bettelheim, "Freud's Vienna and Other Essays" Bettelheim, like the Greek poet Homer, understands that the force that does not kill - that does not kill just yet - can turn a human being into stone, into a thing, while it is still alive. Merely hanging ominously over the head of the vulnerable creature it can choose to kill at any moment, poised portentuously to destroy breath in what it has allowed, if only for a few more moments, to breathe, this force makes a mockery of the fragile life it intends to consume. The human being that stands helplessly before this force has effectively become a corpse before any lethal assault is even launched. Israel, now manipulated and assaulted by a steady stream of barbarous Palestinian terror, is quickly becoming this pitiable human being writ large. Called yet again by our glaringly civilized world to throw itself upon the tender mercies of ritualistic murderers and child-sacrificers, the Jewish State must soon face a very basic choice. It can cravenly accept an immutably-genocidal Palestinian state carved out of its own barely-still-living national body, or it can courageously affirm its sacred post-Holocaust obligation to endure. Should the Sharon Government continue with its announced policy of territorial surrender and national self-defilement, a policy linked to an absolutely mythical "Two-State Solution," Israel will already lie defeated and diminished. Waiting meekly for an easily imagined collective death without Jewish honor or dignified remorse, the finally ingathered Jewish exiles will more or less grudgingly offer their tacit consent to a second Final Solution. Even today, even after Oslo and the "Road Map" and the grotesquely recurrent contrivances of an authentically villainous foe, the official Palestinian Authority (PA) map of "Palestine" includes all of Israel. There are no two-states on the PA maps; only one. There is no plan for coexistence with Israel in PA doctrine; only continuation of a longstanding "phased plan" for "liberation." What sort of peace can one negotiate with a "partner" whose only question is, "How long before we can get the Jews to die?" And how shall Israel navigate such a problematic peace in a world where the traditional forms of anti-Semitism are now being ecstatically reinvigorated by the newer and increasingly popular fashions of Arab/Islamic Jew killing -fashions that call openly for the maiming and mutilation of Jewish children with nary a hint of condemnation from refined countries? Shall Israel complain? No problem, it can always find permissible jurisprudential comfort in the United Nations and its International Court of "Justice." Shall it be allowed to erect a fence to protect its children from being torn apart and burned alive? Certainly not, since the lives of Israel's Jewish children are internationally declared to be less valuable than the olive trees of a very largely pro-terror Palestinian population. Surely Israel should be grateful for the civilized protections of con! temporary international law. One should expect that Israel, after all it has already endured, would betray itself no longer. When Priam enters the tent of Achilles, stops, clasps Achilles' knees, and kisses his hands, he has already reduced himself to a hapless and unworthy victim, one to be disposed of without ceremony and in very short order. Realizing this, a gracious Achilles takes the old man's arm, pushing him away. As long as he is clasping Achilles' knees, Priam is an inert object. Only by lifting him up off his knees can Achilles restore him to a position of self-respect and to a living manhood. Here Israel and Priam part company. Israel's frenzied enemies, twisted and animated by Jihad, will never act in the honorable manner of Achilles. Their aim is not the gracious revitalization of a religiously despised adversary, but rather the "liquidation" of that inert object by means of genocide and war. It follows that the Illiad reveals certain important lessons for Jerusalem, but that these lessons must be gleaned from a fully candid appraisal of Israel's desperate predicament. For whatever reasons, Israel has now come to accept a deformed view of itself that was spawned not in Jerusalem or Hebron, but in Cairo, London, Damascus, Paris, Baghdad, Washington, Teheran, Hamburg, Jericho and Gaza. Degraded and debased, this is the view not of a strong and powerful Jewish people, determined to remain alive in its own land, but of a conspicuous corpse-in-waiting, brought home from a two-thousand year suffering only to make its widely-hoped-for slaughter easier to inflict. It goes without saying that large majorities of courageous Israelis have always fought bitterly against such an intolerable view - against the sordid vision of Israel's inexcusably loathsome "Peace Camp" - but it is currently the operative national image nonetheless. After Auschwitz, after Belsen, after Warsaw, after Lodz, there can't possibly be any more hideous expression of Jewish self-hatred than an Israel that has learned to "live with terror." To suggest otherwise, after every blow! n-up bus or lynching, that life in Israel must return to normal, is not normal. It is not normal at all. Writing several years ago about Israel under Oslo, the Israeli novelist Aharon Megged noted: "We have witnessed a phenomenon which probably has no parallel in history; an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel's intelligentsia with people openly committed to our annihilation." This identification has taken poisonous root in a succession of Israeli governments that have stubbornly refused to understand their enemies, even while the streets of Israel's cities have been transformed by primal Palestinian killers from civilian thoroughfares to sacrifical altars. Today there are even Jewish "scholars" who advocate Israel's unilateral nuclear disarmament, arguing in prestigious American journals that Israel can negotiate true peace only by agreeing to a "nuclear weapon free-zone" in the Middle East. There is a way out of this humiliating and fateful condition, but it must go far beyond the standard suggestions of policy and leadership changes. Replacing Sharon will not be enough. Israel requires a way that demands, more than anything else, an upright posture for the nation, an appropriately heroic posture that precludes clasping the enemy's knees and kissing his bloodied hands. It is a way of dignity, not of supplication. It is a way of open and full and unapologetic warfare against evil, of choosing to stay alive, of avoiding not only death, but also the shameless death-in-life that now cripples Israel in ways that are both grotesque and unforgivable. |
|
THE MAJORITY WILL NOT DECIDE
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 25, 2004. |
|
Could there be a national referendum on the question of whether to
hand over Tel Aviv as part of a territory swap? Can a referendum be
brought to bear on questions such as wearing a head covering or eating
pork in private homes? Could the question of the very existence of the
state of Israel be brought to a public referendum? So what may and
what may not be decided by an instant survey, wrought with spins and
brainwashing? It is true that many countries in the world use
referendums to decide on current affairs. But it still does legitimize
the concept, viewed by political scientists and election experts as
problematic and open to manipulations.
The discussion of referendums is problematic enough when it takes place in a fair and forthright environment. But it becomes murky in the circumstances we are in today, on the question of a transfer from Gush Katif, when the referendum is pulled out as another trick from the prime minister's bag. Government, of course, has tremendous power. It can create an agenda out of nowhere, it dramatically impacts the national mood, it can shut generals' mouths, just like it was around the Oslo accords, and as it is now with the folly of the unilateral escape, against all military reason. Of course the administration's power is particularly overbearing when the press and the academic leadership support the idea it is trying to sell. In such circumstances it is easy for the prime minister to spread threats of war and horror and tip the scales. That is exactly the same spin Ehud Barak had in store ahead of the referendum over withdrawal to Lake Kinneret. That is the move Sharon's advisors are planning. It is a devious hijacking of a national decision. The current circumstances also raise fundamental questions about behavior in a democratic state. For instance, can a prime minister who won elections on a certain platform change his colors and carry out the opposite policy without asking for a new vote of confidence? Is it legitimate for a leader to adopt the positions of the opposite camp and lead to a referendum in order to defeat most of his own voters through his opponents' votes? What is the point of the party institutions, the platforms, the faction, if you are allowed to ignore them? Since 1992 there has been a dangerous devaluation of keeping promises to the voter. Yitzhak Rabin promised not to leave the Golan Heights, to say no to a Palestinian state and to negotiations with the PLO, and did the opposite. Netanyahu promised to discuss the Hebron agreement only in final status talks, and disappointed. Barak recruited Ehud Olmert to vow he would not divide Jerusalem, and agreed to a total division at Camp David. Sharon perfected the method and turned ignoring the platform, the party, the faction and the government into ideology. All that requires a structural change to prevent a tyranny of one, through spins and sympathetic press, a Sharon-style government. But even such changes would not solve the confusion of the referendum on the expulsion of the Jews of Katif. In any case, the real referendum is the elections. If Sharon wants to have elections, and the government, his faction and his party agree, let him persuade the voters on the basis of his new platform. Anything else is a false trick that will never become legitimate. By the way, there is a limit to what can be decided even by elections. A clear majority cannot decide to liquidate the State of Israel, and it is doubtful whether it can sentence to death settlements, lifestyles and the principles of the Zionist movement. Just like a woman who gave life to a child cannot take it back. |
|
MICROSOFT'S ENCARTA MUDDIES MIDDLE EAST
Posted by Camera, February 25, 2004. |
|
Distortions about the Middle East dispensed by the mass media can
mislead news consumers of all ages, but especially worrisome is
misinformation purveyed in reference works. Microsoft's popular
Encarta Encyclopedia, available on the Internet and in expanded form
on CD, is a troubling mix of solid information, bias and error.
While a 22-page section on Israel's people, geography and history by Bernard Reich, for example, is faithful to the record, other parts are marred by distortions and inaccuracies. A number of these were "contributed by" the University of Oregon's Shaul Cohen. Among them is a section entitled "Arab-Israeli conflict." That account severely blurs Arab aggression against the Jews from the Mandate period to the present, repeatedly equating the violence by the parties. Of the years after 1922, Cohen writes: "Both Jews and Arabs conducted terrorist attacks and intermittent, low-level warfare." Evidently Cohen thinks such language adequately encompasses the anti-Jewish riots of 1929 in which Arabs, incited by wild, false claims of Jewish designs on Islamic shrines, killed 133 Jews. According to historian Martin Gilbert, of the 116 dead on the Arab side, all but six were killed by British police. The same pattern prevailed in the 1936 Arab riots, in which Jews were overwhelmingly the victims of violence, and not its perpetrators. In the first month, for example, 21 Jews were killed by Arabs, and no Arabs by Jews. The Peel Commission of 1937 observed: "It is true of course that in times of disturbance the Jews, as compared with the Arabs, are the law-abiding section of the population, and indeed, throughout the whole series of outbreaks, and under very great provocation, they have shown a notable capacity for discipline and self-restraint." Nor did Cohen mention in his review that the Peel Commission called for a division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs, which the Jews agreed to and the Arabs rejected. Cohen's equating of Jewish and Arab conduct even extends to his falsifying of such basics as the content of and response by the parties to UN Resolution 242. The writer states: "Arabs and Israelis both rejected Resolution 242. The Arab states continued to call for the destruction of Israel, while Israel for its part refused to withdraw from the territories it occupied." Israel explicitly and repeatedly accepted the resolution, as a 1974 UN report underscored. Among supportive statements cited were numerous ones by Israel's Abba Eban, including: "The Government of Israel, out of respect for the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 [UN Resolution 242] and responding affirmatively thereto, assures you of its full cooperation in your efforts with the States concerned to promote agreement and to achieve an accepted settlement for the establishment of a just and lasting peace, in accordance with your mandate under the resolution." Moreover, Cohen's equating of Arab calls to destroy Israel with Israel's failure to "withdraw from the territories it occupied" misrepresents 242's content. The Arab states were specifically required to cease "belligerency" and acknowledge the "sovereignty" and right of every state to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel was explicitly not obliged to withdraw from "the" territories it occupied. It was assumed for reasons of Israeli self-defense that not all the land could be ceded; the language was thus crafted to omit the definite article "the" which Cohen misleadingly inserts. Nor was any withdrawal required in the absence of a negotiated agreement. Cohen is no less deceptive in summing up Oslo. He writes: "Despite these accomplishments [creation of the PA, Israel's treaty with Jordan and diplomatic relations with various Arab states] some terrorism and bloodshed continued. Palestinians conducted attacks on Israeli citizens, and on a number of occasions Israeli extremists responded in kind." Cohen's insinuation of multiple "in-kind" responses to Palestinian terrorism suggests Israelis have bombed Palestinian buses, cafes and malls filled with innocent men, women and children, and done so with the involvement, funding and approval of their leadership and public. But Baruch Goldstein, acting on his own, was the sole Jewish mass killer, and was overwhelmingly repudiated by Israeli officialdom as well as by the public. Similar egregious fictions characterize the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations of 2000, which Cohen claims "foundered over expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the issue of how Israelis and Palestinians could share the city of Jerusalem." Far from entailing "expansion" of settlements, Israel was making far-reaching offers to consolidate and remove settlements. Not surprisingly, the writer's profiles of Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat are similarly biased. While the former is pejoratively cast as "controversial," "hardline," disobedient, deceptive and "reckless," Arafat is a "Nobel laureate" who is sometimes "accused" of failing to prevent terrorism. Myriad other distortions mar the Encarta commentaries which, for Microsoft's good name and the public good, should be thoroughly and speedily corrected. CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - monitors the media for anti-Israel bias. Its website address is http://www.camera.org. |
|
HRW EXPLOITS HAGUE HEARINGS, DELEGITIMIZES ISRAEL'S SECURITY CONCERNS
Posted NGO Monitor, February 25, 2004. |
|
This is a Special Report on the Human Rights Watch
(HRW) group.
The Political Agenda of HRW's Campaign on Israeli
Separation Policy
The headline of HRW's February 23 briefing paper, "Israel: West Bank Barrier Violates Human Rights: International Court of Justice Opens Hearings on Barrier Case", published to coincide with the opening of the International Court's hearings, is further evidence of this organization's direct political involvement in the conflict. It also displayed a profound insensitivity to the Israeli victims of the latest Palestinian terror bombing in Jerusalem, whose funerals were taking place on the same day. The contrast between HRW's consistent silence in response to Palestinian brutality and the concerted campaign in support of the Palestinian position speaks volumes about the motivations and strategy of this NGO. (An exception to this strategy is analyzed at http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n01/v1n01-2.htm). Furthermore, the lack of balance is palpable from HRW's moral equivalency between blanket claims regarding Palestinian inconvenience as a result of separation and the immense security benefits for Israelis, who have suffered almost 1000 deaths in terror attacks over the past three years, many of which could have been avoided by the existence of the Separation Barrier. From the point of view of universal human rights, the Palestinians also gain from a reduction in terror. Many Palestinian terrorists have inflicted immense harm on innocent Palestinian civilians by hiding bomb factories and terrorist infrastructure in densely built civilian areas. Furthermore, HRW fails to consider the positive impact on human rights resulting from the removal of checkpoints and the large-scale reduction in daily friction that will result from the construction of the separation barrier. HRW's twisted approach to human rights strips this organization of its legitimacy as an apolitical advocate of universal human rights and highlights its exploitation of these norms to pursue a political agenda. This briefing paper perpetuates the vocabulary of demonization of Israel, illustrated in HRW's role in the 2001 UN Conference on Racism held in Durban, in Jenin (April 2002), and repeatedly since then (see the analyses of HRW on www.ngo-monitor.org). The claims that Israeli policies "violate international human rights and humanitarian law", "entail indiscriminate punishment of entire communities", and constitute "arbitrary and excessive restrictions" are the result of a pro-Palestinian political ideology and not universal human rights criteria. In addition, contrary to the tone of HRW's mission statement that promises "fact-finding investigations", these simplistic conclusions are designed to further the goal of delegimation of Israel. Although this press release includes a brief ritualized reference of Israel's "right and duty to protect its civilians from attack", there is no substantive understanding of the implications of this central element of human rights. Moreover, HRW does not make any effort to raise serious analysis of alternatives, or empathy for Israeli victims of brutal terror bombings. Like HRW's other pronouncements and advocacy campaigns on the Israeli-Arab conflict, the emphasis on the legality of settlements, boundaries, and disputed territories in this press release and briefing clearly demonstrate the core political agenda for which the language of human rights is exploited and cheapened. Although this press release includes the mantra that HRW "takes no position on the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute", the adoption of the Palestinian position and vocabulary demonstrates precisely the opposite. The claim that "The route of the barrier... is designed to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel the civilian settlements" is factually incorrect. Many settlements are outside the fence and some are slated for removal, as part of the disengagement plan.) In summary, the publication of this press statement, timed to coincide with the ICJ hearing and Palestinian demonization campaign, are clear evidence that HRW is not a human rights organization, and that its agenda in this region remains primarily political and biased. NGO-Monitor monitors non-governmental organizations (NGOs) affiliated with the United Nations, groups whose "power to 'do good' is matched by their power to misrepresent." "NGO Monitor was founded to promote accountability, and advance a vigorous discussion on the reports and activities of humanitarian NGOs in the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict." Its website address is http://www.ngo-monitor.org It would be worthwhile reading this report on the NGO Monitor website, because it contains direct links to documents that amplify and enrich the report. |
|
THE IRONY OF IRAN
Posted by Barry Rubin, February 25, 2004. |
|
The Iranian regime's handling of elections is a case study of Middle
East politics second to none. Let's examine the how and why behind this
event and gain a broad picture of how this region works.
In February 2004, Iran marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Iranian revolution. Not only is this an important date for Iran but it also should show everyone what happens when radical Islamism takes over a country and whether it can deliver on its promises. The basic outcome of this experiment is clear: the great enthusiasm of the revolutionary period has given way to a massive disillusionment. The great majority of Iranians opposes the regime and is quite willing to say so. In election after election they voted overwhelmingly for moderate reform candidates. Even the president was identified with this camp. The regime's electoral support was only at about twenty percent. But two very important points should remain clear here. First, the regime stayed in power. There was never any question but that the hard line rulers (one could call them either "conservative" or "radical") got their way on every issue. The reform-minded parliament and president were unable to change a single feature of the system. This situation prevailed for several reasons. Of course, the regime retained control of the armed forces, courts, and other such institutions. In addition, it had established structures which allowed it to veto the desires of the popularly elected representatives. The Council of Guardians, appointed by the hard line spiritual guide, was the real agency controlling legislation. Another important factor should also be mentioned. The regime controlled the agenda and definition of politics. It was agreed that Iran would remain an Islamic republic following a certain general line. Like Arab regimes, it used the great scapegoats of the United States and Israel as the cause of all evils and the rationale for retaining its dictatorship. Second, the regime used the limited degree of democracy as a safety valve. Dozens of independent newspapers were created, for example, and criticized the regime. It let them print their views, then closed them down and threw the editors in jail. A little while later, they were allowed to reopen under different names. But people had more of a margin of freedom in their daily lives which made them tolerable. With some liberty, why should they launch a revolution which could lead to hundreds of thousands of dead and Iran's cities in ruins? This was also enough to let most of the worldgovernments (especially European ones), academics, mediaconclude that there was an important degree of progress in Iran. Don't press the regime too hard, they said, or this will hurt the moderates. Wait patiently and things will change. Pretend that Iran isn't developing an atomic bomb. Use trade to moderate the situation. And if sponsor terrorism more than any country and rave about wiping Israel from the map, well somehow excuses can be found. Then comes the 2004 election. The regime has tired of the game. This time, it bans 2,000 proposed parliamentary candidates, 80 of them people who are already serving in parliament. This is very regrettable says the supreme guide, but the election must go on as scheduled. Few reform supporters, or at least well-known ones, are left on the ballot. The opposition tries to fight back but it picks a very bad method: boycott. More than 130 deputies in the 290-seat parliament resign, while another 679 candidates who were permitted to run pulled out of the race. Many members of parliament write a letter to the supreme guide complaining, "You lead a system in which legitimate freedoms and the rights of the people are being trampled on in the name of Islam," Predictably, of course, the election is held and the regime wins by an overwhelming majority. Despite the fact that the turnout is low, the rulers lie in claiming it is high. The people have spoken, they insist, and the regime remains in power. But how does the regime try to justify itself to the masses at home and to the gullible part of the world? The answer is by using, albeit with less success, the same methods that work in the Arab world. And so the spiritual guide explains that reformers are traitors ("against the Iranian nation and the revolution") while the regime must act in the way it does to battle demonic foreign enemies ("The loser of this election is the United States [and] Zionism.") Each ballot cast for his supporters, he explains is "a bullet into the heart of President George Bush." The opposition thus must prove that it is not a pawn of America and Israel, not an enemy of Islamist revolution and Iran. That is a safer route but unlikely to lead anywhere, as the experience of recent years shows. Or it can challenge the whole system. Mohammed Reza Khatami, the president's younger, tougher brother, and one of the parliamentarians denied the chance to run for re-election, has now said it is time for Iran to become a secular republic. The reformists have a tough battle ahead, should they choose to fight it. Their eventual victory may seem likely but how many more decades will it take? Professor Barry Rubin is the Director of The Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) and Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal (MERIA) and Editor of Turkish Studies. |
|
WHEN IN ROME...?
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, February 25, 2004. |
|
While a resurgence of Anti-Jewish sentiment may be a dangerous
byproduct of Mel Gibson's passion, there are other deeply disturbing
aspects of the film that should be cause for alarm in both Jewish and
Christian communities.
Considering the decadence associated with Hollywood and all of its cultural trappings, is cinema the proper genre with which to view and examine the issues sacred to any religion? It's a given that the film industry thrives on the grandiose and fantastic. Its very purpose is to cater to the general public's enormous craving for a quick adrenal rush. However, today we are living and viewing rather apocalyptic and chaotic scenarios in real-time. An End-of-Days atmosphere hangs heavily over much of the world and certain subject matter, which has the potential to arouse excessive passion and zealotry, should be off limits to Hollywood and reserved for quiet contemplation, intense reflection, and prayer. Historically speaking, a failure to place theological issues in their proper perspective and context has repeatedly inspired bloodshed on a cataclysmic scale. The danger with "The Passion" is the likelihood that there are many who will draw conclusions based an actor's very intense, yet celluloid interpretation of an issue that best be addressed by responsible members of the clergy. Some subject matter is too esoteric, volatile and big for depiction on the big screen. Gibson's film poses a danger of becoming a religious abomination, because the aura surrounding the film industry is replete with an element of idolatry. A good percentage of Western society literally worships the lives and personalities of the film icons they have created. The entertainment industry has established a cult that produces animate gods and goddesses. These idols are hardly worthy of our reverence. Yet many young people (and some not so young) aspire to the "successful" hedonistic and empty lives of their favorite hollywood celebrity. This stems from an inability to separate the fantasy of the silver screen from reality. The apparent level of violence in "The Passion" borders on the obscene. One has to gird their loins, harden their heart and be a bit Roman-like to even view such a spectacle. The movie theater is today's equivalent of the ancient coliseum. This element of barbarism is a very real concern. The issue of violence in films and the impact it has had on our children and society has been on our social scientists' agendas and on the minds of parents for years. But add the ingredient of religion to the cauldron and things start to bubble-over. There are historians who feel Nazism flourished in Germany due to the component of paganism (in the form of forest worship) that was injected into Christian belief. (NOTE: Much of the traditional German folklore written by the Grimm brothers was laden with rather barbaric imagery - Hansel and Gretel being a prime example.) The transformation of Hollywood into Holywood can only be described as obscene and should offend the moral sensibilities of everyone. Thanks to Mel Gibson, we now have a clear definition of what constitutes "obscenity". The only genius that Mr. Gibson may possess is in his ability to shed light on this elusive term. Indeed, clear demarcation of what comprises obscene material has stumped the greatest secular minds. When asked to define obscenity, a United States Supreme Court Justice once remarked, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." The brutal or irresponsible treatment of subject matter of an esoteric, intimate, or sacred nature would be an appropriate definition. It used to be that obscene material was that which was offensive to one's moral sensibilities. But that's no longer applicable, because many of us have forgotten what morality is and are so desensitized that we have difficulty recognizing the obscene when directly confronted with it. I guess you could call this process the Romanization of Western civilization. Gibson's indiscreet and unbounded handling of the film's subject matter demonstrates the damage that can result when unrestrained passion and creativity unite. Zealousness tempered with wisdom is the balance needed to create masterpieces. At the unveiling of the Pieta, a young Michelangelo stood among the crowd and watched as people admired the piece. When he overheard a group of observers attributing his work to another artist, he became angry and carved his name into the sculpture. He later regretted his emotional outburst and vowed to never sign another one of his works again. Michelangelo knew that his talents were a Divine gift. When he allowed his ego and passion to get in his way, he became acutely aware that he had profaned G d's name. This profound awareness and sense of humility allowed Michelangelo to create many masterpieces that an entire world can enjoy. What has the Mel Gibson created, destroyed and profaned with his "passion"? If you're unwilling to explore this question, then you best join the other Romans at the local coliseum and enjoy the show. Ellen lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter, columnist for Israelnationalnews,com and co-founder of helpingisrael.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com |
|
FEEDING THE HUNGRY
Posted by JINSA, February 25, 2004. |
|
This is JINSA Report #390
A group of JINSA Board Members, in Israel for a conference and
meetings with Israeli government officials, spent an odd but useful
hour with an IDF official in charge of liaisons with international
NGOs ministering to Palestinians living of the disputed territories.
His job, as he explained it, was to ensure that the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), UNRWA, World Food Aid, and others
had continual and unimpeded access to the Palestinian population
despite the ongoing Palestinian war against Israel.
It occurred to the group that by ensuring the social and economic welfare of Palestinian civilians, Israel and the NGOs effectively absolved the PA of its responsibility. And further, they reassured the PA that no matter how gruesome the acts of terror committed against Israelis, or how virulent the incitement to hatred and violence that spews from official PA sources, or how much money is diverted to military or personal PA accounts, or how little the PA does to improve the lot of its own people, Israel will actively work to ease the suffering of the civilian population even as it fights the terrorist infrastructure supported by the PA. The official agreed. Shimon Peres once said that the Israeli people were NOT split 50-50 over Israeli overtures to the Palestinians; each Israeli was him/herself split 50-50. We had the same sensation. Part of each us was moved by the evident concern of the Israeli government that innocent Palestinians should suffer as little as possible from their own abominable leadership. In the face of relentlessly negative press about Israel and the "occupation," it is clear, and we are proud, that the government of Israel is unwilling to deliberately make life harder for them. Few countries hold that standard and we can think of none which holds it in the face of an existential war against a terrorist enemy. On the other hand, and there is always another hand, Israel bears some responsibility for not forcing Arafat to deal with the wellbeing of his people or the exigencies of a civilian economy. He thus had money for 17 security services, bribes, cash payments to murder bombers, and a slush fund for Suha's Paris apartment. International donors - particularly the EU, which gave hundreds of millions of Euros to Arafat - have long pronounced themselves blameless, but it will be harder after MEP Ilke Schroeder told the European Parliament last week: "It is an open secret within the European Parliament and the Commission that EU aid to the PA has not been spent correctly. Everyone knows that the PA created a black budget." Finally. When Israel acquired the territories in a defensive war 37 years ago, it found people poor and oppressed through occupation by Jordan and Egypt (Gaza was a duty-free port for the Egyptian military and a prison for the Palestinian residents). International relief was necessary. But in the decade since the PA became the presumed forerunner of an independent state, the situation for the people has gone from bad to worse, not because of Israel, but in spite of Israeli efforts to alleviate the mess the PA exploited for its own ends. The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org |
|
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE - A TRAVESTY
Posted by Morris J. Amitay, February 25, 2004. |
|
The UN General Assembly could aptly be described as multiculturalism gone wild. Anything goes - particularly if it involves Israel-bashing. The Security Council is somewhat better only because the US with its veto can provide some adult supervision. Given this tragic situation, having the International Court of Justice ruling on the legality of Israel's security fence is little more than a bad joke, or at best, irrelevant.
So we now have this august body solemnly deliberating whether Israel, a democracy (in contradistinction to its neighbors which respect neither human nor political rights) is acting "illegally" by erecting a barrier which impinges slightly on disputed territory to which it actually has the strongest claim under international law. That is the nub of what the much bally-hooed travesty taking place at The Hague is all about. The 15 member Court includes distinguished jurists who hail from such bastions of jurisprudence as China, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Jordan, and Egypt. (The Egyptian judge has already expressed his guilty verdict.) The UN General Assembly - with some 90 members in the affirmative, eight opposed, and 74 abstaining - has already castigated Israel for defending its citizens from terrorist attacks. Now it is seeking the imprimateur of the World Court to further demonize Israel. Thankfully, and admittedly for their own self-interest, most nations of the free world, including the United States and Europe have expressed their opposition to this farce by questioning the Court's jurisdiction. More than forty of these nations submitted briefs opposing the Court's consideration of the matter. Besides the Palestinian Authority, among the thirteen nations making anti-Israel oral presentations are these staunch guardians of the rule of law - Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Belize, Cuba, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Senegal, and Sudan. Another bad joke, indeed. By now we should have become numb to the double standard consistently applied to Israel by the UN as it overlooks grave violations of human rights in order to concentrate on Israel's grievous sins. The UN, by its actions has systematically denied Israel equality with its other member states. Now, for the first time it seeks to bring Israel before its bar of "justice". This latest example of UN hypocrisy must be challenged by our own country joining with a coalition of free nations who refuse to perpetuate this continuing travesty. If we fail to use our unrivaled power and influence to bring about fundamental reform of the UN, this body can only continue to become increasingly irrelevant. About twenty-five years ago there was a brave but unsuccessful attempt to create a "World Assembly of Free Peoples". This project failed because it was an effort undertaken only by individuals. Needed change will only come about if our own country takes a strong lead. But unless our goal is truly transformation, it will also be doomed. A call for the US to take the lead was recently made here in Washington by Ambassador Tom Pickering, a veteran diplomat who served as US envoy in a number of important diplomatic posts - including the UN. But can gentle persuasion bring about fundamental reform of a body composed of too many corrupt dictatorships who despise our country for our values and our democracy? It was precisely this sordid collection of venal regimes led by Israel's bitter Arab foes, and unfortunately aided and abetted by a Secretary General with no moral backbone who referred the matter of "the fence" to the World Court for an advisory opinion. There are a number of arguments that can be made regarding the fence that bear noting:
The bottom line here - to paraphrase Robert Frost - is that in this instance "Bad neighbors make good fences". While not a perfect solution, Israel's security fence is an honest and desperate attempt, supported by more than 80% of Israeli citizens, to save innocent lives and to maintain civilized standards even in the face of a cruel and barbaric enemy. Morrie Amitay is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (washingtonpac.com). |
|
GANDHI OR MOSES?
Posted by IsrAlert, February 25, 2004. |
|
This was written by Dov Greenberg, the executive
director of Chabad at Stanford University. It appeard yesterday on the
Chabad Lubavitch website: http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=111456
The Hebrew Bible shares only three incidents in Moses' life prior to G-d choosing him as a leader and prophet: 1) As a young man, Moses "goes out among his brethren" and sees an Egyptian overseer brutally beating a Hebrew. He strikes down the oppressor, burying him in the sand. (Exodus 2:11-12) 2) The next day, Moses attempts to pacify two fighting Hebrews, admonishing, "Why do you strike your fellow?!" The aggressor is indignant and says, "Who appointed you as a prince and leader over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" Realizing that his actions of the previous day had already become known, Moses escapes from Egypt and finds refuge in Midian. (ibid., verses 13-15) 3) In Midian, Moses probably wants nothing more than peace and tranquility. Instead, he finds himself embroiled in yet another conflict. He witnesses the local shepherds bullying a group of girls who came to draw water from a well. He immediately rises to their defense, driving off the offending shepherds. (ibid., v. 17) These are the only episodes the Torah explicitely relates about Moses (besides the circumstances of his birth) prior to his selection by G-d as a leader. They express a paradigm indispensable to leadership: A leader must have the courage to battle injustice wherever it exists. In all three instances, Moses is deeply committed to fighting injustice. He intervenes when a non-Jew oppresses a Jew, when two Jews fight, and when non-Jewish men oppress non-Jewish women. When it is necessary to kill, he is prepared to kill. When it is sufficient to speak, he suffices with verbal rebuke; when it is necessary to fight, he is prepared to fight. One who rejects the choice of aggression out of a sense of compassion may be a kind human being, but a wholly inadequate leader, because the long-term violence resulting from a failure to battle evil is far worse than the violence of the battle itself. In modern terms, Moses is politically incorrect. He does not lecture the Egyptian taskmaster about the cycle of violence or give him a lesson on rage management. Moses knows that by the time he will complete his lecture, the Hebrew might be dead. Moses is aware that at times, violence is a moral, though difficult, choice. It saves the lives of the innocent. Prohibiting moral killing guarantees immoral killing. It is "violence" used by police that stops violent criminals from murdering and hurting innocent people. There are many innocent men and women alive today solely because someone used violence to save their lives. If someone had killed the hijackers of 9/11 before they commandeered the planes, thousands of lives would have been saved. Gandhi's Advice Throughout history, many chose not to emulate Moses' example. During the Second World War, for example, when it appeared that Nazi Germany would attempt to capture England, Mahatma Gandhi offered the British the following advice: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have which are useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." To the Jews of Germany, Gandhi offered a similar message: "I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] adopt active non-violence. Human nature... unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him." Had Gandhi convinced the English to lay down their arms and practice non-violence, the Jewish race (sic.) would have been annihilated, democracy and human rights would have disappeared, and our world would have been plunged into a new Dark Age of unimaginable cruelty. War, while always unfortunate and painful, is not always evil; sometimes, fighting a war is the most moral thing to do. Astonishingly, the nation that Moses created has in recent years emulated Gandhi rather than Moses. With the Oslo accords, we invited our sworn enemies to take parts of our homeland in the belief that they would reciprocate with peace and good will. Instead of declaring outright war against the terrorists and their infrastructure, we chose to practice restraint and non-violent diplomacy. Many of us believed then, and some still believe, that the stoniest terrorist heart will melt in response to our peaceful advances. War, Dishonor, or Both? In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler by allowing the German Fuhrer to occupy the Sudetenland for a mere promise of peace. Chamberlain then returned to England and announced that he had brought "Peace in our time." Winston Churchill denounced him as a naive appeaser who believed that he could buy Hitler's good will by giving in to his immoral demands: "You were given a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Sadly, the same has transpired with Israel. By relinquishing parts of our homeland, Israel chose dishonor. In return, Israel received war. Today, we are in the midst of the worst bloodletting in Israeli history. The relentless terror is a direct result of the tragic policy that believes in appeasing terrorists and not destroying them. Appeasement is suicidal for the innocent and ensures victory for the evil. The terror war on Israel, like World War II, is a war against the Jews. Losing is catastrophic. Losing is not an option. This is no time for appeasement or restraint. This is a time for righteous might. The prophets of Israel were the first to conceive of peace as an ideal. Isaiah gave voice to the great words engraved in the imagination of the West: "Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation; neither shall they learn war anymore." But the way to hasten Isaiah's vision is to fight evil, not allow it to flourish. At another time, when the Jews needed to forcefully confront their enemies, the prophet Joel declared, "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears." The use of moral violence must always be the last resort. But when all other attempts fail, righteous might is the only response to immoral violence. IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
MOTIVE FOR EUROPEAN ANTI-SEMITISM AND ANTI-AMERICANISM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 25, 2004. |
|
Europeans of various nationalities are searching for a common identity. People often identify themselves in terms of NOT being like certain others. For this purpose, Europeans are differentiating themselves from other Westerners, especially Americans. Anti-Americanism, which has existed in Europe for over a century, has gotten stronger. Unlike anti-Semitism, however, it has not resulted in bloodbaths and blood libel.
Like anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism draws malcontents. It enables them psychologically to blame their own failures on the others. Americans and Jews represent the modernity at which the haters lag. (So they pretend to spurn the modernity they crave?) Modernity to them means being mercenary, urban, universalistic (so far, they are describing Europe), individualistic, mobile, rootless, and not connected to a specific location and land. They express dislike for the basic ways, symbols, and people of their scapegoats. There may be no more bases for this dislike than their own neuroses. Reversing reality, the Europeans now perceive the Arabs as victims of the Jews. Europeans further take up the Arab way of looking at things by adopting the canard that Israel manipulates the US. The Left and Right claim that the US attacked Iraq at Israel's bidding. (Like the Arabs, the Left and Right make these claims without evidence. Imagine how damning evidence would be! All they say is that certain US Jews are prominent in the Administration. They assume that those Jews advise in Israel's behalf. Assumption is not evidence. It is prejudice. This is circular reasoning, using prejudice to justify prejudice. Why don't they return to Western academic integrity?) The impotent Europeans find virtue in having become post-national, multilateral, and multicultural, in contrast with the old-fashioned Americans (who protect them). These Europeans hate the Israeli Jews, for being active and powerful. European Jews, being powerless, are more acceptable to the European Christians (Jewish Political Chronicle, 1/2004, p.8 from Manfred Gersetenfeld's interview wih Andrei S. Markovit in Jer. Center for Public Affairs, 1/2004). Thanks to their great virtue of being multicultural, they are being swamped by Muslims, who intend to make them unicultural and more backward. If Israel manipulates the US, it does not do it effectively. The US imposed an arms embargo for Israel's first 19 years, exacted high interest rates on subsequent loans, both gives and sells the Arabs more arms, withheld promised intelligence data, refuses to recognize Israel's capital or its claims to the unallocated portion of the Mandate, criticizes most Israeli efforts at defense while aiding the terrorists who war on it, demands that only Israel make concessions to the other side, reneges on guarantees to Israel, opposes conservation of energy and the use of renewable energy, and fails to attack the main centers for terrorism: S. Arabia and Iran and then Syria.
|
|
TO THE JAFFEE CENTER SCHOLARS
Posted by Louis Rene Beres, February 25, 2004. |
|
I am not an Israeli, of course, but I am mystified
that the Jaffee Center does not begin each day with audible
collective pleadings for absolution. How is it that anyone in
Israel can tolerate your continuance as an allegedly academic
institution, let alone your "scholarship"? After encouraging
and sustaining Oslo and its "Road Map" successor, one would
imagine that the entire Jaffee facility would now be drowning in
apologies and humiliations. Instead, you continue to shamelessly
put forth "proposals" that are vastly more than a mere
intellectual embarrassment: They are manifestly a continued threat
to your own nation.
I know where your brains can be found, but where are your Jewish souls? Louis Beres is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He writes on Middle Eastern security issues. |
|
THE SHARON BETRAYAL: The Next Step
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 25, 2004. |
|
This is a DEBKAfile exclusive report issued yesterday. It is archived
at the DEBKAfile website (http://www2.debka.com/article.php?aid=793)
It is entitled "Sharon under Pressure, Builds Fresh Team."
Shimon Peres: New blood at 80 What was behind the sudden White House acceptance Monday, February 23, of Israel's Europhile former prime minister and opposition Labor leader Shimon Peres for talks with secretary of state Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice? Why was Peres there and not senior prime ministerial adviser Dov Weisglass, on one of his regular White House jaunts for powwows with the US president's top advisers? And what brought the dovish Labor leader to the royal court in Amman two weeks ago to find out what message Abdullah II had for prime minister Ariel Sharon from his meeting with Syrian president Bashar Assad? Foreign minister Silvan Shalom should have undertaken that errand. He should also have been Sharon's natural emissary to Ankara at around the same time for talks with Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul. DEBKAfile's political sources in Jerusalem reveal that Peres undertook all three missions at Sharon's behest. The message he carried from the Jordanian king to the Israeli prime minister was this: Tell him there's no need to rush into negotiations with Assad, or even initial talks. Assad's intentions are serious but he is confused. Most of all he is desperate to throw off the weight of unrelenting US pressure on him. Let peace talks wait until the situation clears up. Peres carried the message to Sharon's office in Jerusalem and was promptly sent off to Ankara just after the visitor before him, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, had departed. According to DEBKAfile's sources, his task was to probe the prospects of Turkey joining a possible Egyptian-Jordan initiative for an Islamic or Arab summit in late March to accept a role in support of the diplomatic process taking shape between the United States, Europe and the Sharon government. The Israeli Labor leader left the Turkish capital with the impression that, aside from the Egyptian and Jordanian rulers, no other Arab leader - certainly not the Saudi Crown Prince or Assad - had any intention of embracing a role in this project. The Labor leader undertook the February 23 Washington trip when he met Sharon Thursday night, February 19. Three US officials, Stephen Hadley, William Burns and Elliot Abrams, had just been briefed by Sharon in Jerusalem on his evacuation proposals and were to report to President George W. Bush Saturday, February 21. This was unquestionably his most important assignment. Sharon thereby placed on the shoulders of the opposition leader and long-time antagonist the task of setting up the prime minister's next visit to the White House. Peres later admitted to reporters in Washington that he had lobbied on behalf of the Sharon initiative to withdraw from Gaza and part of the West Bank without reciprocal steps by Palestinian leaders. According to DEBKAfile's sources, Peres's high-powered diplomatic round has laid bare the quiet shakeup going forward in Sharon's top team, the possible precursor of a government reshuffle. One of the first heads to roll is expected to be that of Weisglass who, since late December, DEBKAfile is reliably informed, has been gradually removed from the short circulation list of confidential data recipients, including the outcome of top-level missions which he formerly monopolized. He is to pay the price for failing to obtain a date for his master's Washington visit and for the general cooling in US-Israel relations. His departure would produce a major upheaval in the prime minister's work and personal life given their long association and Weisglass's key position as his single closest confidant. However, our sources report that Sharon has begun interviewing replacements, including one candidate known to have recently carried out sensitive missions on his behalf. Sharon finds his informal partnership with the opposition leader, without having to go through the hassle of co-opting the entire factionalized, squabbling Labor party to his cabinet, a great convenience. Despite their long rivalry, the two veterans managed to work together harmoniously in the dying days of the national unity government two years ago. Their renewed collaboration opens up options for the prime minister to pump new blood into his cabinet lineup if his back is pinned to the wall by right wing pro-settlement parties and the centrist Change which is determined to block Labor's path into a national unity government. Peres, however, to placate articulate peaceniks in his Labor, declared in Washington after he left the White House that in his view, Israel's pullback will have to go further than Sharon's proposals and be followed by deeper withdrawals. He thus laid the groundwork for a claim that he has Sharon's ear and is acting to consummate Labor peace policies. The party therefore had no cause to object to joining a Sharon government. DEBKAfile's sources in Jerusalem have heard that Sharon has his eye on a second former Labor prime minister, Ehud Barak, whom he defeated at the polls. His presence alongside Peres would further strengthen Sharon's inner government team. The prime minister, whose popular credibility is in free fall, cannot afford to put off a leadership facelift. Monday, February 23, his government faced three no confidence Knesset motions. One, criticizing his unilateral evacuation plans, was voted down by a scant 46:45, bringing the government uncomfortably close to defeat, as a result of a revolt by members of government parties committed to fighting Israel's withdrawal, who either defected or absented themselves from the House. The prime minister's own Likud faction is half-turned against him over the issue, while opposition activists on the left are busy collecting blocks to build a corruption case against him and his sons. The general public is asking whether the government acted wisely when it decided to refrain from appearing before the Hague international court hearing the case against Israel's defense barrier this week. In the battle for public opinion outside the court, the Palestinians and their supporters are triumphantly advancing their cause for statehood, while Israeli families bereaved by Palestinian terrorists rally with photos of close to 1,000 victims. They make a strong moral case but are also grim, tragic and despairing. That is not the spectacle the Israeli voter looked for from Sharon who was elected on the high hopes of confounding Palestinian terror. |
|
ROLL OVER AND DIE: Israel and the Fence
Posted by Michael Freund, February 25, 2004. |
|
This is an article of mine from the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com) regarding the real reason behind the hearings
at the International Court of Justice at the Hague about Israel's
construction of the security fence.
South Korea has one. So does Kuwait, Lithuania, Namibia, South Africa and India, not to mention Spain, Slovakia and even the US.
What these disparate nations all have in common is that each one has built, or is in the process of building, a security fence along one of its borders, either to keep out smugglers, thwart infiltrators or simply control the flow of people and goods across its boundaries. But unlike Israel they also share another conspicuous trait: none of their barriers have been threatened with condemnation by the International Court of Justice, nor have they received round-the-clock coverage on CNN. Each of these countries erected a fence for the simple reason that that is what states tend to do when they feel their interests are being threatened. Kuwait's was put up for fairly obvious reasons thanks to a once-hostile Iraq, while South Korea's barrier is intended to stave off a possible invasion from its Communist neighbor to the north. Lithuania saw fit to draw a line in metal along its border with Belarus, just as Namibia did to neighboring Angola, India has done with Pakistan, and the US to Mexico. Slovakia and the Ukraine are similarly demarcated, while Saudi Arabia recently considered building a fence along its border with Yemen. And the list does not end there. Five years ago, Spain spent more than $35 million erecting a 10-foot tall fence around its North African enclave of Melilla, cutting it off from the rest of Morocco. It consists of two rows of barricades, hi-tech security cameras, fiber optic sensors and a road to accommodate police patrols. The Spanish government went to all this trouble to stem the tide of Moroccans seeking to cross the border illegally. Hey, now doesn't that sound familiar? Even South Africa, which so brazenly criticized Israel at Monday's opening hearing at the Hague, has invested tens of millions of Rand in recent years to reinforce its own border fence along the Limpopo river, which delineates the boundary with Zimbabwe. The reason? To keep out cattle that might be carrying foot-and-mouth disease. To which I cannot help but ask: why is it OK for South Africa to keep out the cows, but not for Israel to bar entry to suicide attackers? For goodness' sake, there is even a border fence stretching for some 10 miles between England and Scotland, and they haven't fought a war against each other for centuries. Nor can it be argued that the problem with Israel's fence is that it is not on a recognized border. Pakistan is protesting an elaborate fence erected by India in disputed Kashmir. Yet the world does not cry that India is stealing "occupied Pakistani territory." "The fence will be a permanent barrier to prevent militants from entering," the head of India's Border Security Force in Kashmir told the Washington Post last summer. "Why should we wait for them to come in and attack our people?" With so many fences going up in so many places around the world, why then is it Israel, and only Israel, which finds itself in the dock over this issue? The answer, it seems, is quite simple: the world is essentially telling the Jewish state to roll over and die. They criticize us when we actively defend ourselves through military means, and now they aim to condemn us for adopting passive measures such as putting up a lousy fence. Take, for example, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Shortly after the Palestinians launched the present terror campaign in September 2000, Annan ascended the podium at the UN Security Council and called on Israel "to use non-lethal methods" when quelling outbreaks of Palestinian unrest (BBC, November 18, 2000). And yet, when Israel proceeded to do just that by initiating construction of the security fence, Annan decided to lead the charge against it. In a report submitted to the UN General Assembly on November 24, 2003, he berated Israel for erecting the barrier, calling it "a deeply unproductive act." So if Israel's use of military means against Palestinian terror is unacceptable to Annan, and he considers non-military means such as the fence to be "unproductive", then how exactly does the Secretary-General expect the Jewish state to protect its citizens? Now don't get me wrong - I think the construction of the security fence is a pitiful substitute for an effective counter-terrorism policy on Israel's part. Indeed, rather than encircling the perpetrators of terror, the government is fencing in their intended victims. But that in no way gives the nations of the world the right to stand in judgment of the Jewish state. Were they to find themselves in a similar situation, they would no doubt act to ensure the safety and security of their citizens. In truth, it is not that the fence incorporates parts of Judea and Samaria that troubles our accusers, nor do they really care about the inconvenience it might cause to some Palestinians. What truly seems to disturb them is that it just might save some Jewish lives. And that, as far as they are concerned, is perhaps the most unforgivable crime of all. Michael Freund served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister?s Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu. |
|
ISRAELI SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS
Posted by Sergio Tezza (Hadar), February 24, 2004. |
|
This was a Freeman Center (http://www.freeman.org) broadcast
yesterday. The website of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies is
a repository of important papers for understanding the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Go to the Maccabean Online:
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). This article was distributed
through Communaute-Juive-France
(communaute-juive-france-owner@yahoogroups.fr
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can make claim to the following: An Israeli company has unveiled a blood test that via the telephone diagnoses heart attacks. The Israeli-developed Ex-Press shunt is providing relief for American glaucoma sufferers. An Israeli research team has found that the combination of electrical stimulation and chemotherapy makes cancerous metastases disappear. Israel has designed the first flight system to protect passenger and freighter aircraft against missile attack. An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U.S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes. Israel's Given Imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used the view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders. Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with congestive heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors. A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue. An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert. Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers was produced by Haim Saban, an Israeli whose family fled persecution in Egypt. Israel has the world's second highest per capita market of new books. The writer lives in Qiryath Arba/Hebron. He can be reached at http://www.HaDaR@kh4.org |
|
PALESTINIANS DEVELOPING LONG-RANGE ARTILLERY
Posted by IsrAlert, February 24, 2004. |
|
Isralert's source for this item: IMRA - Independent Media Review and
Analysis www.imra.org.il
GSS commander: Palestinians attempting to neutralize the security
barrier. Says terror organizations are trying to fabricate chemical
weapons. Arik Bender Maariv 24 February 2004
http://maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=3544
[IMRA: This information comes out a day after Deputy Defense Minister, Zeev Boim (Likud) explained that Israel was removing a fence that closed Qalqiliya off from the east. This barrier and checkpoint - until now - made it possible for Israel to try and prevent terrorists from bringing Qassam rockets, mortars and other weapons to shoot from Qalqiliya to Kfar Sava, Raanana and other Israeli cities in the Sharon region.] GSS (Shin Bet) commander Avi Dichter today (Tuesday) told the Foreign Affairs and Defense committee that the Palestinians are trying to develop artillery and other weapons systems that would render the barrier ineffective. He said Israel's planned unilateral disengagement would not have any effect on the Palestinians. "They would be developing such weapons whether we stay or leave Gaza", he said. He also said that he did not think the disengagement would change the Palestinian political map. "Hamas is not going to take over after we leave, the PA has more resources, and Hamas knows this, and will not opt for a show down." He said that Israel might be forced to invade Gaza for a limited period after the withdrawal, if the Palestinians start using any long-range weapons they would have developed. He said the barrier had proven itself, and that terror was down sharply in areas where the barrier was up, especially Samaria. "The main effort is now around Jerusalem and the Kfar Kassem area, where the barrier is still on the drawing boards. He warned of the growing Iranian threat. "Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. They have a dossier on potential Israeli and Jewish targets, and can organize and carry out attacks within a short time. In Argentina they carried out terror attacks 3 weeks after deciding on the target." Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
STATISTICS KEPT SECRET BY WESTERN MEDIA
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 24, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HERE ARE THE LATEST INTIFADA FATALITY BREAKDOWNS THAT
THE WASHINGTON POST AND OTHER MEDIA STUBBORNLY REFUSE TO PRINT.
(The figures are on the web site of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism):
WHAT DO THESE STATISTICS TELL US? Not surprisingly, given Palestinian terror tactics, nearly 4 out of every 5 Israeli fatalities are non-combatants. At the same time, however, Palestinian civilians also have suffered great losses. Nearly 1,000 have died; more than 1 out of every 3 Palestinian fatalities. Still, one needs to be reminded that when innocent Israeli civilians are killed, that's exactly what Palestinian killers want to achieve, while in the case of the great bulk of Palestinian non-combatant fatalities, Israelis were hunting down terrorist embedded in the midst of a civilian population. Now, let's reverse the picture and look at combatants killed by the other side. On the Palestinian side, they account for nearly 50 percent of the total. But that doesn't tell the story. In addition, 338 Palestinians were killed by their own side - suspected collaborators, suicide bombers, terrorist in "work accidents." They swell the Palestinian total by another 13 percent. Finally, take a look at the breakdowns by gender and age. Non-combatant females account for 3.3 percent of the total Palestinian fatality total; on the Israeli side, non-combatant females account for 31 percent of total fatalities - again a reminder of how each side is conducting itself. As for the breakdown by age, there have been endless Western media reports (in newspapers and TV) on Israelis firing on children stone-throwers. Yet, the percentage of Israeli non-combatant fatalities under the age of 12 is 4 percent, while Palestinians in the same category total 3.3 percent. When you dig into these figures, you obviously get quite a different picture from what the Washington Post and other media constantly bombard us with - namely that nearly 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed as Israelis - and never bother to break down these figures, especially on the basis of combatants and non-combatants. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FLORIDA ATLANTIC TERROR UNIVERSITY
Posted by Joe Kaufman, February 24, 2004. |
|
I published this in Front Page Magazine (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com) February 19, 2004.
[ed note: reading this on the fron page website will allow you to take
advantage of direct links to the text.>
In the summer of 2002, a flyer vilifying Jews and
Christians and threatening "confrontation and conflict" was
circulated around the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) campus. It
stated: "When we Arab-Muslim students came to America for study,
we had no idea that we would be forced to mingle with Jew students and
take instruction from Jew teachers. This is offensive to us since it
is well known that the Jews are the most corrupt and violent people on
Earth."
The flyer, which was put out by a group calling itself the
Islamic-Arab Students Defense Committee, went on to list a series of
demands addressed to the FAU administration:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which looked into the matter,
deemed the flyer a "hoax," as no one admitted to having any
knowledge of the offending group. [What's amusing (and foreboding) is
that the ADL web page that discusses the matter, instead of being
titled "Flier," was accidentally titled "Flier Found at
Florida Atlantic University a Hoax."]
According to the ADL, representatives of the FAU Muslim Student
Organization (MSO) "strongly condemned the flyer and distanced
themselves from its message" and said that "the message
[ran] counter to everything the group [had] worked toward." But
did it?
The website of the Muslim Student Organization (MSO) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) is, at the moment, barren. All that's left is one line on the bottom of the page paying tribute to a past when the school could get away with overlooking that which threatens us all. The line reads, "founded by Drs Hamza & Alhalabi as a window to an innovative world of possibilities and imagination." But this window is now shattered with shards of glass that cut into the hearts of everyone that has ever suffered the effects of terrorism. Mohammad Khalid Hamza and Bassem Abdo Alhalabi, while being the founders of FAU's MSO, also co-founded (through the MSO) the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR). Numerous reports have since come out exposing the ICBR's connection to extremism and hate, including having a website that featured links to terrorist charities and an essay that stated Jews "are known for their treachery and corruption throughout the world"... words eerily similar to the FAU hate flyer that stated "Jews are the most corrupt and violent people on Earth." (see above) The radical connections of the ICBR have not skipped over either Hamza, Alhalabi or the MSO. Recently, Khalid Hamza was one of the main speakers at the Texas Dawah Annual Conference, an event featuring "addresses broadcast from Riyadh by clerics who have praised holy war and Osama bin Laden." Khalid Hamza used a Texas A & M University internet forum to defend Sami Al Arian. Al-Arian was taken into custody by the United States government for his role as the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization, was found to have aided in the murder of Americans, and has in the past screamed "Death to Israel." Hamza wrote (complete with anti-Jewish imagery), "[sic] technology advances were used but they weren't the reason behind the poisoning of people's minds, it is the power behind the media, the power that controls the american media and had been controlling it since early 1900s. for example, what happened to Dr. Sami Alaryan just recently... is unheard of in the 3rd world, but it can only happen now in US and only to the ones who do not belong to the power line." Hamza was the author of a novel entitled The Veil, which was being heavily promoted on the FAU MSO website. The book is about a Muslim family living in Boca Raton. The first member of the family, as listed in the forward, is fittingly named Jihad. Prior to being denied tenure from FAU for "misstating his qualifications on his resume and behaving unprofessionally in the classroom," Hamza was an advisor to the MSO. He took over for FAU Professor Imadeldin "Imad" Mahgoub, who served from '93 till '99. Mahgoub, the President of Boca's Assalam Center, was featured on a panel discussion with Alhalabi and Raed Awad, the former fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas charity that was closed down by the United States government. Awad is also said to be the imam responsible for dirty bomber Jose Padilla's conversion to Islam. The video of this panel event is found at FAU. Under Khalid Hamza's "leadership and guidance," the group brought numerous radicals to speak at the university. This normally happened under the guise of an annual event called "Scholars' Night," which was originally founded by Hamza, in his words, "to help our community of learners to come together to better the world they live in." On April 21, 2001, the MSO had its second annual Scholars' Night, an affair the MSO touted as featuring "several scholars, heroes and heroines." Of this event, Hamza declared, "Let us build in solidarity a world of peace and harmony; a world of humanity! One of the speakers representing that "peace, harmony and humanity" was the Vice Chairman of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA) Rafil Dhafir, a man that now sits behind bars for raising money for terrorist organizations in the guise of an Iraqi children's charity called 'Help the Needy.' [On November 16, 2002, Dhafir was also a featured speaker at a fundraiser for the ICBR.] He is quoted as saying, "The United States and England are vicious in their war with Iraq." In a lecture entitled 'Dealing with Non-Muslims,' Dhafir unequivocally states that "Muslims must not befriend Jews and Christians." In addition, Dhafir has said, "Islam has permitted female circumcision... and none has the right to forbid that what Allah, the Creator, has permitted." He claimed that those that call female circumcision "a form of genital mutilation" are practicing "misinformation." Also speaking at this event was Kathy Kelly, the co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness, an anti-war organization that fervently denounces the U.S. government, while cavorting with the enemy (including those that America has imprisoned). She describes the war on Iraq as "unjust, illegal, and immoral." Kelly is, herself, currently serving a three-month term in federal prison for trespassing onto the Ft. Benning military base in Georgia. The contact for this event was David "Da'ud" Johnson, who at the time was the President of the FAU MSO. According to the FAU website, Johnson and Alvira Khan, the registrant and technical contact for the MSO website, make up the two highest ranking offices of the Boca Raton student government. Johnson as the Boca Raton Campus Senate Speaker, and Kahn as the Boca Raton Campus Governor. Khan caused "outrage" on the campus, when she used her position - with the help of her Chief of Staff Farid Hamidzadeh - to appoint her political friends to university positions. This included the position of associate director of the campus trained escort service, which accompanies students around campus late at night. This action took away prior input into the position from the police department. The MSO's fourth annual Scholars' Night was held on April 21, 2003. Khalid Hamza was listed as the contact for the event, and he acted as moderator for it. One of the "scholars" was Siraj Wahhaj, a man named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Wahhaj, who is the Imam of Masjid Al-Taqwa in Brookyn and an advisory board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Wahhaj has been called "the 'spiritual leader' of the Islamist Sudanese in America." (Yossef Bodansky, TERROR! The Inside Story of the Terrorist Conspiracy in America, 1994) The next "scholar" was William Baker. Described by many as a neo-Nazi, Baker was the past Chairman of the racist and antisemitic organization, the Populist Party. As Jonathan Calt Harris, in his October 2003 expose in Frontpage Magazine, explains it: "Baker has a long record of anti-Semitism; for example, his self-published 1982 diatribe, 'Theft of a Nation,' called for the dismantling of the 'Zionist State.' In a 1983 speech to the racist Christian Patriot Defense League in Missouri, Baker referred to the Reverend Jerry Falwell as 'Jerry Jewry' (for his friendliness to Jews), and his disgust at traveling to New York City, getting off the plane to meet, 'pushy, belligerent American Jews.'" Another speaker was Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan, the Executive Director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. As a Board Member of the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Khankan renounced his group's support for then Senatorial Candidate Hillary Clinton, after she refused to accept the endorsement, and sent out a press release calling her opponent, Congressman Rick Lazio, a "racist" and "bigot." Khankan has declared that "'Jihad' is known in the West as waging holy war, which is utter nonsense." Yet, at an anti-war rally held in Washington, D.C., where a previous speaker "called for the overthrow of the U.S. government," Khankan addressed the protesters by stating, "I bring you salaams and greetings from the Mujahadeen at CAIR." In Yossef Bodansky's book, BIN LADEN: THE MAN WHO DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, Mujahadeen is defined as "Those who wage the jihad; Islam's holy warriors." At another anti-war rally, Khankan was a featured speaker along with Sami Al Arian. On numerous occasions, Khankan has refused to acknowledge that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. And on a live chat hosted by ABC News, when asked the question, "What happened that these terrorists hate us so much?" Khankan answered that it was the United States' own fault. He stated, "I believe that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Look at what our government has done overseas to other countries." In the November 15, 2001 edition of The Advocate, Ghazi Khankan stated the following: "We don't support Hamas and Hezbollah just to support them. I look at the issues. The reason there is a Hamas and a Hezbollah is that the Israelis have terrorized the poor Palestinian people for the last 53 years." When discussing possible Hamas targets, Khankan is quoted as saying, "Those who are below 18 should not be attacked." Through CAIR, Khankan helped set up the Emergency Family Fund to raise finances, including legal funds, for families of possible terrorist detainees, whom the United States has taken into custody. This was done in association with other groups, including the Islamic Circle of North American (ICNA), which "openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organizations, praises terrorist attacks, issues incendiary attacks on Western values and policies, and supports the imposition of the shar'ia." (Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, 2002) The Scholars' Night events took place right inside the university, in the Barry and Florence Friedberg Lifelong Learning Center Auditorium on FAU's Boca Raton campus. [Interesting that the only building mentioned in the FAU hate flyer is the Friedberg Center.] Bassem Alhalabi, the other co-founder of the MSO, was charged with exporting a $13,000 thermal imaging camera to Syria. The Department of Commerce (DOC) restricts the export of the camera to foreign countries. The device is used to produce heat-sensitive images of buildings, landscapes and ground areas. According to the DOC report, "thermal imaging cameras are controlled for export to Syria for national security, regional stability, and anti-terrorism reasons. Alhalabi claimed his brother wanted it, so that he could search for gold. The sentence he received was a one-year denial of export privileges. Alhalabi was a colleague of Sami Al Arian's at the University of South Florida, and according to his resume, wrote various publications with Al Arian around the time that Al Arian was beginning to set the groundwork for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in America. Alhalabi gave Al Arian as a reference, when he sought employment at FAU. Another person that Bassem Alhalabi wrote publications with is Hussam Jubara. Along with Al Arian, Jubara co-founded the ICP (Islamic Committee for Palestine a.k.a. Islamic Concern Project), a think tank that solicited funds for the express purpose of assisting families of suicide bombers. Alhalabi admits to having worked for Jubara and states that he is a "close friend." Jubara was indicted by a federal grand jury on three counts of lying on immigration forms. FAU's connection to the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad should raise suspicions. The school's relationship to Hamas should raise hell. The year was 1998. A charity was set up, through the Florida Department of Corporations, using the designation Health Resource Center for Palestine (HRCP). The corporation transmittal letter was written in the name of Lamyaa M. Hashim, a well-traveled poet, journalist and all-around Islam activist who was to be the Chairman of the group. On January 14, 1999, the letter was amended as "Health Resource Center for Palestine, Inc. C/O SYED AHMAD." Syed Khawer Ahmad, prior to getting involved with the HRCP, was taking courses at FAU. He was so proud of this fact that he created (and preserved) a web page on his personal website dedicated to his school. The link to the page (www.gate.net/~sahmad/fau.htm) states, "Visit FAU - Yep, My School in South Florida." But that wasn't the only page he made for his site. Another page he created was devoted to the Islamic Society (Al Jamiya Al Islamiya) a.k.a. Islamic Association, the largest charitable foundation in the Gaza Strip. Ahmad's page (www.gate.net/~sahmad/islamic_association.htm) was, at the time, the official website to the organization. The content on the page, at first glance, looks very amiable, if not commendable. It discusses a summer youth camp run by the foundation that includes "Educational activity, Sports, Arts, Fun & Entertainment, Scout & Civil [sic] defence, Field trips and even Marine trips.." And it gives details about Islamic Society orphan sponsorship and kindergartens. There are messages on the page from the Director of the Islamic Society, Ahmad Bahar. He states that the goal of the camp "is to prepare an intellectual future generation," and the kindergartens "open for the child horizons of [sic] bright and flourishing future." The page contains things that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, warm enough to make the donations they're asking for ("We greatly appreciate your cooperation and generosity.") Then you lift the veil and find out what evil lies behind! In the beginning of 2001, the Islamic Society created two new websites, one for its main headquarters in Gaza City (www.jislamia.org), which replaced Syed Ahmad's site, and one for its Nusirat location (www.islam-society.org). On the main site, before it was shut down in June of 2002 [the Nusirat site is still up at its new location www.islamso.org], it contained on its homepage a picture of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. Yassin founded the Islamic Society in 1976. That's eleven years before he founded the Hamas terror organization, to which he is currently the spiritual leader. In a letter of request for funds, written by Yassin and found on the site, Yassin states [cleaned up English], "Islamic society in Gaza strip is a radical benevolent society," and it serves Palestinians in many fields, including "care of martyrs' families." He ends the letter by stating, "Allah is the greatest, so we in Jihad (holy war), Rebat (strength through fear) request from all sincere Moslems - in and out of Palestine - and all brothers in Islamic Ideology to help and support their brothers in Islamic society, in order to help and support our patient people in this crisis." And he signs it, "Your Brother Al sheekh / Ahmad Yasein Established The Islamic Organizational Resistance/HMAS Palestine." The current head of the Islamic Society is, as stated previously, Ahmad Bahar. Bahar is also a leader in Hamas. It is not surprising then to find out that he, "along with masked armed men affiliated with the Qassam Brigades," the military wing of Hamas, "took part in the funeral procession of Reem Saleh Al-Rayashi who blew herself up at the Erez crossing to the north of Gaza Strip," killing four and wounding ten others. The camps and kindergartens that Bahar runs are, in reality, training grounds for future suicide bombers. On the Islamic Society website, one finds various pictures of disturbing images taken from their 2001 kindergarten graduation ceremony. They include children dressed in military fatigues brandishing and aiming rifles and burning Israeli flags. One picture is of a child made to resemble Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, while reciting a speech made by the terrorist leader. And another is of a girl raising her red ink stained hands, "in imitation of the terrorist murderer who raised his bloodstained hands after the lynch of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers in Ramallah." At the graduation, the children acted out a series of plays, one of which had the children pledge their "duty to revenge the blood of the shahids (martyrs) and to continue the resistance and the Intifada." The ceremony ended with a speech made by Bahar. In the speech, he praised suicide bombers, including Mahmud Marmash, a member of Hamas who blew himself up in the Sharon Mall in Netanya, killing five and wounding 74. In Bahar's words, Marmash "blew up the conquerors in Netanya." On the Islamic Society website, you will find a link to what was then the official website of Hamas (www.palestine-info.org). You will find a photo (in the site's "Sport" section) of a soccer team posing for a team picture, holding a painting of a martyr. You will find how much money it takes for the Islamic Society to carry out "goat sacrifices." And you will find a summary of the foundation's activities, which include:
In February of 2002, Syed Ahmad removed two pages from his website. One was the Islamic Society page noted previously and one was the homepage for a non-profit organization established by the Islamic Society called Dar-ul-Qur'an Al-Karim (www.gate.net/~sahmad/daralquran/). However, one page Ahmad did not remove was the homepage for the Sanabel Asthma-Allergy Society a.k.a. Sanabel Charitable Society (www.gate.net/~sahmad/sanabel.htm). According to the page, Sanabel was established in 1992 as "the first and only allergy-asthma society in Gaza." Listed on the page as the "Representative in the USA" is Lamyaa Hashim, the Chairman of the Health Resource Center for Palestine (HRCP), and the center's name, address and e-mail is given as the "USA contact" for the Gaza charity. In a report published in October 2003, the HRCP is said to have closed down due to its ties to the terrorist organization Hamas, which probably includes the HRCP's past affiliation with the Hamas front Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). The HRCP website, which has in the past admitted to raising money for "shuhada" (martyrs), states that it was closed down for "unforeseen reasons." Of course, none of this would matter much to someone who was creating Hamas related websites. While Syed Ahmad was with the HRCP, he took on many tasks, including that of Secretary, Treasurer and Webmaster. In May of 2002, Ahmad gave up his jobs as Secretary and Treasurer to Karina "K.A." Rahim, who also was a student at FAU. On October 14, 2000, Rahim found herself at a rally in Miami where Israeli flags were burned and where "pro-jihadi slogans" were chanted, "such as 'We don't want negotiation, with jihad we'll claim our nation,' and 'With jihad we'll claim our land, Zionist blood will wet the sand.'" In addition, the Imam of the ICBR, Ibrahim Dremali, told the crowd "not to be sad for those who were martyred and to not be afraid to die for what they believe in." Rahim, herself, had what to say at the rally. She stated, "I think what the Israeli Jews are doing is a crime against humanity. They [the Israelis] need to get out of that land [Palestine]." This information is found in an article written for www.islamonline.net, a site that "publishes religious/legal opinions in support of suicide bombings" and a site that has sponsored a live internet chat with Hamas leader Ahmad Yassin. After negative press, some of the material found in the article was deleted. The piece was written by Lamyaa Hashim (under her alter ego "Um Ahmad"). Syed Ahmad was a Director for the HRCP, up until the charity's dissolution on April 18, 2003. And Syed Ahmad was also a Director for the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, from its inception in 1998 till April 30, 2002. Question: What has come of Syed Ahmad, following his departure from the HRCP and ICBR? Soon all was quiet at FAU. Talk about Professors Hamza and Alhalabi (see Florida Atlantic Terror University Part 1) had died down, and Syed Ahmad was little more than an afterthought. But something happened to change all that. On October 3, 2003, Matty Cohen, the Deputy Consul General of Israel stationed in Miami, sent out a letter conveying the fact that one of FAU's professors was tied to Hamas. It stated, "I can confirm to you that Dr. Abu Sway is known as an activist in the framework of the Hamas organization." The information reached Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, who promptly followed it up with an article exposing the professor to the public. Indeed, there was and is much to expose. In 1998, Mustafa Mahmoud Abu Sway was the co-editor of the book Islam in Focus, which is distributed by Amana Publications, a company that publishes a Koran - whose editor was raided by the FBI - that describes Jews and Christians with such incendiary terms as "arrogant," "illiterate," "cursed" and "treacherous." Abu Sway is not only an editor, but an author as well. In a recent essay he wrote, entitled "Said Nursi and the People of the Book," Abu Sway works diligently to explain and expound upon the statements made by "religious scholar" Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. Abu Sway undoubtedly holds a fondness for Said Nursi, stating in the introduction that Said Nursi's ideas are "attractive." And Abu Sway describes him as being like that of a prophet, where his ideas "hold up a light to the future." Some of Said Nursi's "attractive" and "futuristic" ideas that Abu Sway chose to highlight in his essay are as follows:
In the course of the essay, Abu Sway, who seems in agreement with everything Bediuzzaman Said Nursi states, makes his own opinions known:
In 2001, Abu Sway co-wrote a seventh-grade school textbook for the Palestinian Authority entitled "Kitab Al-Tarbiyah Al-Islamiyyah, whereby Jews are portrayed as the enemy. He writes, "The Jews adopted a position of hostility and deception towards the new religion. They called Muhammad a liar and denied him, they fought against his religion in all ways and by all means, a war that has not yet ended until today, and they conspired with the hypocrites and the idolaters against him and they are still behaving in the same way." (Kenneth R. Timmerman, PREACHERS OF HATE: Islam and the War on America, 2003) Furthermore, in the textbook, Abu Sway states a fundamental position of Hamas: "If the enemy has conquered part of its land and those fighting for it are unable to repel the enemy, then Jihad becomes the individual religious duty of every man and woman, until the attack is successfully repulsed and the land liberated from conquest..." In another passage, he writes: "These noble verses prove the virtue of jihad... and warn against evading a jihad in the path of G-d... and warn Muslims not to defy His word nor refrain from jihad." And "This religion will defeat all other religions and it will be disseminated, by Allah's will, through the Muslim Jihad fighters." And "Martyrdom is when a Muslim is killed in the path of G-d... A person who dies thus is called a 'martyr'... Martyrdom for G-d is the hope of all those who believe in G-d and have trust in His promises... The martyr rejoices in the paradise that G-d has prepared for him." In a debate concerning the motives of suicide bombers held on September 17, 2001, Abu Sway said that there are verses in the Koran which "clearly state that there is a place in heaven for... martyrs." On April 28, 2000, Abu Sway participated in a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) event, entitled 'The Evolution of Islamic Movements in the Arab World,' along with Jordanian Abdul Latif Arabiyat. Arabiyat is the president of the Shura Council (the legislative body) of the Islamic Action Front (IAF). According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the IAF is "an Islamist party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas" and "articulates support for terrorism vocally and actively." The IAF "hailed the June 1, 2001 Tel Aviv suicide bombing that killed 20 Israelis, most of them teens, as a 'heroic martyrdom operation.'" About the videotape the Bush Administration released showing Osama bin Laden gloating over the September 11th attacks, Arabiyat flippantly asks, "Do the Americans really think the world is that stupid to think that it would believe that this tape is evidence?" From 1997 till 2002, Abu Sway is documented as participating in a series of PASSIA dialogues and roundtable discussions with various terrorists, including Hamas leaders Sheikh Jamil Hamami and Sheikh Hassan Yousef (who is currently in prison). Others that Abu Sway participated with included:
On June 5, 2002, ABC News Nightline held a forum in which Abu Sway acknowledged that there is an acceptable "darker interpretation" of the term "jihad," a definition "used by militant Muslims to justify everything from the battles against the crusaders to the mujahideens' first Afghanistan war against the Soviets." Abu Sway stated, "We have to admit that at one point it is permitted for Muslims to have self-defense and this is the equivalent of a 'Just War' in Christian theology." At a 2002 interfaith conference, Abu Sway "remarked, to audible gasps from Jews in the audience, that he wished the state of Israel 'would disappear'" and that "Islamic law proscribes war against any nation in dar-el-islam, land once occupied by Moslems, including Spain and Israel." In a report published in September 2003 by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) entitled 'Healing the Holy Land,' Abu Sway is quoted as saying, "When traditional Muslims find themselves as a minority in society [in Israel or Western countries], their aspiration is to restore or establish sovereign majority status. To imagine shared sovereignty or dual sovereignty is not being faithful to Islamic tradition." The report goes on to say, "For Abu Sway, the idea of two states existing side by side is unrealistic... He advocates a single state, governed in accordance with Islamic principles..." Abu Sway calls this a "utopian position." This position is not out of the ordinary for someone like Abu Sway who, in a March 2003 interview with the Islamic Broadcasting Network, claimed that Al Jezeera, also known as "Jihad-TV," was more "fair" in its coverage of the "war on terrorism" than Fox News! In December of 2003, Abu Sway participated in a Chicago conference that was organized by the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), two organizations said to have ties to Hamas. In a July 2003 interview of Abu Sway done by the MAS - an interview where he admits that he was at the al Aqsa mosque "the first day of the new Intifada" - Abu Sway again discusses his dream of an annihilated Israel. He states that he "wishes to reclaim the holiness of the land" and that even though the Arab gambling casino in Jericho "almost exclusively destroys the lives of Jewish families," even then he "cannot accept it Islamically." He declares that it is his belief that "the future rule has to be a post-Zionist entity." In the same interview, Abu Sway described Israeli self defense as "state terrorism" and then touted the Hamas line that "ultimately, if one targets the military forces of the occupier, then I don't think that it is terrorism." In an interview with Islam Online, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, stated, "My brother, certainly we don't target women, children or the elderly in our operations. But the 'Mujahed' goes out to find a concentration of soldiers and military men, whether in civilian or military clothes and attack them. This is our first and last target..." And in the interview, Abu Sway repeated an often told lie that Arabs were driven out of Israel in 1948. He states, "What I hope for the future is to see the Palestinians going back to their homes from which they have been uprooted, from which they were driven by force in 1948." From BATTLEGROUND: FACT & FANTASY IN PALESTINE, by Samuel Katz, "The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance - that their departure would help in the war against Israel... Their victory was certain, they claimed, but it would be speeded and made easier if the local Arab population got out of the way. The refugees would come back in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and not only recover their own property but also inherit the houses and farms of the vanquished and annihilated Jews." This was certainly a big lie... but not as big as the one Abu Sway would later tell when he made the claim that he has "no connection to Hamas." As reported by Daniel Pipes and Asaf Romirowsky in January of 2004, according to Israeli sources, Abu Sway:
Florida Atlantic University has claimed that it has not ignored the
situation concerning Mustafa Abu Sway. The school insists that it has
asked the State Department to investigate the matter, and it cannot be
said enough just how serious this matter truly is. However, with all
the radicals that have either been hired by FAU or have passed through
the school, one would think that FAU itself should not be ignored.
Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against
Hate. You can visit the group's website, at
www.americansagainsthate.com. And you can view all of Joe's archived
articles, at www.joe4rep.com. |
|
DO THE JEWS REALLY NEED A COUNTRY?
Posted by David Frankfurter, February 24, 2004. |
|
Reports of presentations to the International Court of
Justice over Israel's anti-terrorist barrier remind me of the show
trials of the Spanish Inquisition. Don't mention the facts (like
terrorism), just find a way to accuse the Jews of our ills. Mel
Gibson's passion play depicting Jews as responsible for killing Jesus
is gaining momentum - with 'Passion jewellery' the latest hit, even
before the movie is released. And now a report that even before seeing
the movie, 25% of Americans think that the Jews killed Jesus - and
unbelievable 10% of Americans blame Jews living today for the death of
Jesus. Egypt is pushing an Arabic translation of the Russian forgery
of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Syria beams to Europe movies
of Rabbis preparing the blood of non-Jewish children to put in Matzoh
for Pesach. European surveys reveal that Israel is seen as 'the
greatest threat to world peace', that the majority of Britons think
that Jews have made no positive contribution to society, have too much
influence and that a Jewish Prime Minister would be 'objectionable'.
Judaism is an intolerant religion. European Jews are not loyal
citizens, and have a 'particular relationship with money', according
to these same surveys.
And you ask why Jews need a country of their own? David Frankfurter sends "Letters from Israel" emails to subscribers. Contact him at David.Frankfurter@iname.com |
|
THOMAS FRIEDMAN - THE PALESTINIANS' BEST FRIEND
Posted by Marilyn Ginsburg, February 24, 2004. |
|
Thomas Friedman, who is syndicated and whose column appears in many
publications has his own ideas about how to settle the crisis in the
Middle East. He is very verbal and even as I was writing this, he
hosted a mini series about the Middle East on the Discovery Channel.
I am concerned that people will think this agenda is unbiased. They may feel that he is representative of the majority of American Jews because he has received a great deal of exposure and he, himself, is Jewish. I have not noted any reaction to his views by his fellow Jews and I fear because he is Jewish he is not recognized as the dangerous person he is. His views are not anchored in reality. I do not know if he supports a one-state solution but he talks about the threat from this solution by the Palestinians. He places this in the fore ground of the negotiations. He warns the Israelis that if they don't solve the Middle East crisis soon, this one state solution will take hold. He seems to feel right or wrong, a solution is necessary. The option of one state may be satisfactory to all who do not care about Israelis existence and have already forgotten as to why Israel was mandated to the Jews in the first place but it should be recognized, as the threat it really is. If the Palestinians can not live with the settlements, how does he expect them to live with in peace with Jews. If that ever came about the Holocaust would be a minor event and the international community would not react any better then they did when Hitler was slaughtering the Jews of Europe. Friedman has always been an apologist for the Palestinians. They have no future. They have no jobs. They have had their dreams destroyed. One of the recent suicide bombers was a woman, a lawyer, and a mother of two. The most recent suicide bomber was a Palestinian police man. The Arab who drove his plane into the Twin Towers came from a wealthy family and was well educated. His hatred of Americans was his beacon of light. The Palestinian terrorist are driven by their hatred of Jews. The threat to the disenfranchised that he is giving his support to comes from the control of their lives by a very active totalitarian religion. The lack of separation between religion and the state. His hope that the Palestinians and the Arabs will join the main stream of society and in this way will become enlightened is unreal. Their leaders are not ready to give up control to a secular and more enlightened society. He sees what he would like to see but this does not make him a good man, an understanding man. His misdirection makes him a threat to Israel. He is saying things without creating any reaction from the main stream because he does not openly attack Israel. He just says things like the settlements are the base of the trouble. The difficulties in movement within their borders are part of the problems. The wall is now a new cause for him. When Barak and Arafat were negotiating peace, Tom Friedman was one of those who believed peace was just around the corner. He was disillusioned when Arafat walked away from the table. For a while I thought his eyes were opened by this. But even though he was wrong, he has been able to again readjust his thinking. He is back to the settlements and now the wall is his driving force for the injustice done to the Palestinians. He continues to minimize the Palestinian reactions, the refusal to control their terrorists, the suicide bombers. He continues to blind himself to the fact that the real problem is the one that started the wars in the first place. The one that made the Palestinians refuse to accept the land that was given to them in 1947. The two state solution was theirs in 1947. What makes him think that anything has changed for the better. In reality things have changed for the worse. The people in the West Bank and Gaza hate the Israelis more then they did then. There were no settlements. There were no fences. So how is he able to ignore the facts and continue to think that his solution will help the Palestinians feel less hatred, that the world will think more positively if the Israelis do everything that the Arabs say they want. He knows that their right of return which is the end of Israel is what will satisfy those supporting Palestinian rights. The European community will not think more kindly of Israel if they do what the Palestinians want. That feeling of anti-Semitism will come right back, the first time Israel doesn't comply with Palestinian wishes. Marilyn Ginsburg is a reader from Boynton Beach in Florida. |
|
PRESIDENT BUSH, BEWARE OF ARIEL THE ALBATROSS
Posted by Arutz-7 Editor, February 24, 2004. |
|
This was written by Yedidya Atlas and was on http://IsraelNationalNews.com today.
US President George W. Bush is running for reelection. What seemed a certainty just six months ago is now in serious question. Although his almost certain Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, is currently leading Mr. Bush in the latest opinion polls, this is no doubt due to his sweeping primary victories, and following the excitement generated by their respective party conventions, the polls will simply show a tight presidential race which can go either way. In such an election, key voter blocs are all the more important in swinging crucial states with their commensurate Electoral College votes to a particular candidate. For incumbent President Bush, the Evangelical Christian vote is particularly vital if he is to succeed in the Southern and Southwestern states. The Orthodox/politically conservative Jewish voters could play a far lesser, but no less decisive factor in a close election in more than one state including Florida. One of the primary issues that will influence these voter blocs, is the Bush administration's Middle East policy, and specifically if it pressures Israel, or even is perceived to pressure Israel, to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority commanded by arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. It's not that these voters will necessarily crossover to vote for the Democratic candidate, it's enough if they simply stay home on Election Day because they feel betrayed by Mr. Bush's policy behavior. These hardcore supporters of Israel oppose any Israeli territorial concessions in general, and particularly so while Israel is under fire from an aggressive and brutal terrorist enemy. Mr. Bush fully comprehends the moral and strategic ramifications of making any, and especially ill-advised, concessions to a ruthless terrorist enemy while waging a War Against Terror. The new diplomatic initiative proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to unilaterally evacuate 17 Jewish towns and villages with thousands of longtime Israeli residents from Gaza, is a political hot potato. While in reality, not a serious proposal, it could, if backed by the Bush White House, be the issue that would lose Mr. Bush the support of dedicatedly pro-Israel voters in what promises to be a singularly tight election. For those who believe the Sharon proposal is serious - either because they oppose it, or because they believe it has merit - have not examined the practicalities - or perhaps, the impracticalities - inherent in such a proposed course of action. So let's look a bit closer at this dramatic diplomatic scheme of Mr. Sharon's. Conceptually, it goes against everything Mr. Sharon has said and done for most of his life. And in fact, it is claimed that when the plan was suggested to Mr. Sharon at a meeting at his ranch, he immediately opposed it on strategic and logical grounds. So why then has the former general turned politician suddenly made an about face? It is alleged that his advisors soon convinced him that only a "dramatic diplomatic initiative" such as this would force the police investigations against his sons and himself to be placed on the back burner. Moreover, should he not adopt such a plan, the investigation would ultimately force him out of office and possibly even worse. Hence, it is alleged, Mr. Sharon decided to promote, for personal reasons, the very plan he initially opposed on national interest grounds. A prominent member of Mr. Sharon's own government has passed on what he considers to be proof of these allegations to the Attorney General for review. Whether or not the foregoing is a true reconstruction of the meeting in question will be determined by the State Attorney General's investigation. Yet the prime minister will face near-insurmountable difficulties, in several areas, should he attempt to implement his unilateral plans. The Political (Israel): Domestically, although Mr. Sharon may feel like a king, he is only the Prime Minister of his coalition government by virtue of his being the head of the Likud Party. The Likud, is Israel's largest party in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, with 40 seats (out of 120). Now, Mr. Sharon must first get a majority of his cabinet ministers to vote to support his scheme. His coalition government is comprised of five different parties - two of which openly oppose such a decision (representing 13 Knesset seats out of his 69 seat coalition). Then he has to bring it to a vote in the Knesset. In addition to the 13 Knesset seats of the National Union Party and the National Religious Party (NRP), a majority of his own 40-seat Likud Party is on record as opposing the plan to the point of splitting the party if necessary. In fact, only 4 of 11 Likud ministers have endorsed it. So for him to personally survive politically, he must also get the Likud to approve such a radical departure from its own party platform, upon which he was elected. The likelihood of all these things happening is seriously in doubt. Moreover, should he succeed somehow in browbeating a majority of his cabinet to vote in favor, his coalition government would fall because the National Union and NRP would leave the Government. Mr. Sharon's political threat to bring in the Labor Party to fill the void is a hollow threat. The odds that, one, his key Likud Ministers would agree to vacate their cabinet seats for Labor candidates, and two, that his own Likud Party would agree to so boldly betray its voters' trust, and become, in effect, a minority party in the government coalition, is between nil and none. One of his own Likud Ministers, Natan Sharansky, in a media interview stated his opposition most succinctly: "A unilateral move on this scale is not logical. I simply don't see what we gain, except for encouragement for more terrorism. The area from which we retreat will turn into a center of terrorism against us. International pressure upon us will not decrease, and no one in the world will agree to an Israeli annexation of even one square meter of Judea and Samaria... It is not healthy or correct to advance matters among United States officials before doing so in the government." The Security issue: In addition to the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt.-General Moshe Ya'alon's public statement against the wisdom of such a unilateral move in today's circumstances, IDF Intelligence Chief General Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, in testimony before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, declared that Prime Minister Sharon's statement of intent to withdraw from Gaza would instigate more terrorism and attacks against IDF Forces. "The Palestinians see [this plan] as a victory for terrorism," Farkash said. He further emphasized the likelihood that the plan will "[prove] the effectiveness of terrorism in the view of Islamist elements in Gaza. [The terrorist groups] see it as a surrender to terrorism, and this gives them motivation to perpetrate more terrorism in order to achieve more diplomatic gains." Following the Military Intelligence Commander's blunt statements, Israel's Chief of the GSS (General Security Service, or Shabak), Avi Dichter, also publicly declared his professional opposition to Prime Minister Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan. Dichter said he agrees with the assessment of IDF Intelligence Chief General Ze'evi-Farkash that the Palestinian terrorist organizations interpret Mr. Sharon's offer to retreat and destroy the Jewish settlement enterprise in Gaza as their victory and, as such, a catalyst for more terrorism. He further pointed out that the terrorist organizations, seeing this as an Israeli surrender, have begun an internal war for the "credit" for this achievement, and "this is manifest by their stepping-up of terrorism against the Jews of Gaza and IDF soldiers." The Financials: The estimated cost of such an evacuation, reconstruction- relocation, and military redeployment, is estimated at between US$10-15 billion. This kind of money simply does not exist in Israel's current and foreseeable government budgets - and if Mr. Sharon's advisors think this money is going to come from Uncle Sam, they'd better think again. Going into a really rough election year, and with the US Congress cutting budgets, it would not be Mr. Bush's smartest move to pledge $15 billion to a Prime Minister with serious political problems to blow on a scheme that has little chance of actual implementation and no chance of success. The Human Element (Gaza): Aside from significant political and public support, the thousands of longtime Jewish residents of these Gaza communities have not, nor will they (according to their own declarations), agree to just pack up and leave. So in addition to the moral dilemma of deliberately transferring three generations of Israeli pioneering families, Mr. Sharon has yet to solve the legal issues involved. Thousands of upstanding citizens with legal rights that can't be wished away - not by Mr. Sharon and his advisors, and not by his fellow travelers on Israel's liberal-left. Simply put, no actual legal solution has been conceived that can make these citizens move from their homes and property against their will. But even if all the improbable and impossible can be overcome, the planning and implementation of such a grandiose scheme would take at least five to six years to carry out. So unless the Palestinian Arabs suddenly choose to exercise remarkable restraint, way out of historical character, Mr. Sharon's political gamble will be doomed to early failure for that reason alone. Given the minefield Mr. Sharon must morally, politically, strategically, financially and legally cross, it would not be Mr. Bush's best move to invite him to The White House and declare his support for Mr. Sharon's private political initiative. If he does, Mr. Bush should not be surprised to find himself with an Israeli Albatross around his neck through the final months of the upcoming US Presidential elections. Yedidya Atlas is a senior correspondent and commentator for Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio who specializes in geostrategic and geopolitical aspects of the Arab-Israel conflict and Middle Eastern affairs. A reserve officer with the rank of Major in the Israel Defense Forces, Mr. Atlas resides in the town of Beit El north of Jerusalem with his wife Batya, a sixth generation Israeli, and their seven children. |
|
JIHAD IN WASHINGTON STATE
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 24, 2004. |
|
This was distributed by Elizabeth Greene. It was posted on
the Jihad Watch website and is archived at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000966.php
Joel Mowbray has more insight on the Ryan Anderson case. From the Jewish World Review, with thanks to Nicolei: To those who worry about the extremism that Saudi influence can foster here in the United States, the joint Muslim community at Washington State University and the University of Idaho - just nine miles apart - might provide a classic case study. It also happened to be the home of detained National Guardsman Ryan Anderson, aka Amir Talhah, when he converted to Islam five years ago. Anderson, who was nabbed while allegedly trying to pass secret information on to al Qaeda through an Internet chat room, graduated from Washington State University in 2002. Though the strength of his ties to the local Muslim community is unclear, there is no denying that it could have provided the perfect breeding ground for a radical Islamist. And perhaps not coincidentally, there is a strong Saudi influence. Last year, the FBI made several arrests while investigating alleged terror activity in Pullman, Washington (home to WSU) and Moscow, Idaho (home to UI). Because of the close proximity and the relative small numbers of Muslim residents (fewer than 200 total), the two towns have essentially a single Muslim community, according to many local Muslims. Four people total were arrested. Two were affiliated with WSU and two with UI. Three were arrested as material witnesses and have since been released. Still at large, though, is Saudi national Abdullah Aljughaiman, who was a lecturer at UI and received his religious training King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Investigators have been unable even to speak with him, however, because he is most likely in Saudi Arabia, where he's off-limits to U.S. authorities. At the probe's center was Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a graduate student and computer whiz at UI who was also seen as a leader in the local Muslim community. The Saudi national, who goes to trial this spring, is charged with visa fraud, making false statements, and providing material support of terrorism. The terrorism charge does not seem to have adversely affected al-Hussayen's popularity in the local Muslim community. Several Muslims in the Pullman-Moscow area contacted by phone spoke favorably of the alleged abettor of terrorism. One who had attended the preliminary hearings opined, "The evidence against him doesn't seem that strong." In addition to allegedly designing web sites for two radical sheikhs with direct contact with Osama bin Laden, al-Hussayen is charged with handling financial and administrative functions for supposed charities that allegedly supported terrorism. The most chilling part of the indictment, though, is a section describing an e-mail group managed and edited solely by al-Hussayen, in which an appeal was made for information from Muslims in the U.S. military that would aid terrorist attacks on American personnel, including the murder of a "specifically identified high-ranking American military official." Although the charges do not tie the Saudi national to 9/11, some evidence surrounding al-Hussayen is troubling. Reportedly found on his computer hard drive were thousands of photos of the World Trade Center, both before and after September 11. Then there's the family connection. According to court documents, al-Hussayen's uncle traveled to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and "stayed in the same hotel in the Herndon, Va., area as three of the Sept. 11 hijackers of Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon." Though northern Idaho or eastern Washington might seem like a strange destination for students from the Middle East, roughly one-half of the Muslims in Moscow, Idaho and one-fourth in Pullman, Washington are Saudis, according to estimates of several local Muslims. The Saudi ties appear to be longstanding. When the mosque at WSU was built in the late 1970's, most of the funding came from the Gulf - principally from Saudi Arabia - according to a longtime Muslim resident in the area. What remains uncertain at this point is what role the local Muslim community had in impacting Anderson's Islamic development. Several local sources claim he was a member of the Muslim Students Association, whose national organization was Saudi-created and funded. (Al-Hussayen was president of Idaho's MSA chapter.) Several members of Washington State's MSA deny that Anderson was an active member, however, including past MSA president Irshad Altheimer. Altheimer said that he accompanied Anderson to mosque services for a month during Ramadan in 2000, but that he never saw much of the now-detained National Guardsman after that. Investigators are not ruling out a connection to the local Muslim community in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Boise, Idaho said that no ties have yet been found, but quickly added, "Our investigation is still ongoing." |
|
WHY DOES AMERICA SUPPORT AN ANTI-AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP: EGYPT?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 24, 2004. |
|
Rep. Weiner submitted a bill that finds Egypt not a reliable ally
against terrorism. The government is an openly and extensively
anti-American dictatorship that persecutes Christians, promotes hatred
of Jews, and violates its peace treaty (that the US sponsors). It even
endorses suicide bombing (IMRA, 2/16).
The bill prohibits US military aid to Egypt, and recommends it be converted to economic aid. However, the bill offers the President a waiver in the prohibition if he deems it in the US "national security interests" to continue the military aid. No means are beneath the Arabs, even supposedly moderate Arabs such as Egypt, and even such means as terrorism and torture. Rep. Weiner specializes in fine-sounding bills that leave it to our dissembling Presidents to waive Weiner's therefore toothless prohibitions. Then he claims credit with Jewish and other American audiences for taking action that does not result in action. Let us not be taken in by these supposed friends of Israel, much less laud them for deceiving us. The military aid will continue, even if the bill is passed. Now suppose the military aid were converted to economic aid, as the bill proposes. The US would be giving economic aid to an openly and extensively anti-American dictatorship that persecutes Christians, promotes hatred of Jews, violates its peace treaty, and endorses terrorism. How repugnant! Meantimes, this is the role the U.S. envisions for Egypt When the pro-US Shah fell, the State Dept. turned to Egypt to guard S. Arabia against take-over by radical states. The US armed Egypt so that it could invade S. Arabia and continue the oil supply. If Egypt did occupy S. Arabia, it would acquire its fabulous wealth and huge stockpiles of arms (and then tell the US it doesn't need the US anymore). The US would want Israel to provide a land route for Egyptian forces, and not attack those forces. Those forces have obtained about $60 billion in US aid. They pose a danger to Israel. Why did Israel play along? The US enticed Rabin, Pres, Netanyahu, Barak, and Sharon with the notion that Israel would become a major factor, a country of importance, and that the rest of the Mideast would be democratized and mellow. Israelis want other countries to like them, so it is eager to please the State Dept.. (It forgets that the State Dept. is anti-Zionist). The lure overcame any sense of caution those leaders may have had. They believed the promises. They failed to realize that big countries usually exploit small ones, then discard the alliance when it becomes inconvenient. (Such is the history of the Bible, but those Prime ministers do not take the Bible seriously, though its historical lessons remain useful.) Israel cannot trust the State Dept. or Egypt. If Israel balked, it actually would be considered more important. It does not see that such is the role of Syria and its relationship to the US, that usually courts it. Without nuclear capability, Israel would be taken for granted. PM Sharon probably thinks he still is a brilliant tactician. No, the State Dept. has the brilliant tacticians; he is their dupe. In going along with the State Dept., he refuses to explain to his government, Party, and people his grandiose plans (lest they reject them and him). He is like the Bush Administration and the State Dept., which keep their policies from the knowledge of Congress as long as they can. The US government tries to avoid checks and balances. The US may try to have Egypt take over Gaza and Jordan take over Judea-Samaria (as they once did via aggression). The US would have to arm Jordan, first. (It already is arming it somewhat.) While Israelis may be pleased that it wouldn't have the P.A. to contend with, it would have well-armed neighbors equally hostile (Winston Mid East Analysis, 2/17, e-mail). It was reported late last week that Prime Minister Sharon has invited the Egyptian Army to deploy in Gaza in place of the IDF. Was he acting on his own initiative? Maariv correspondent Ben Caspit wrote that Sharon revealed his proposal when meeting recently with top Israeli military leaders, who were not enthusiastic over the idea, and has even already made the offer to Egypt. Egypt, however, has thus far rejected the idea. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA notes that the proposal "removes the key element of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty completed in 1982: a series of progressively more restricted limited-force zones spanning the Sinai Desert to protect Israel against surprise Egyptian invasion." Egyptian forces in Gaza would be only some 40 miles of Tel Aviv. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
NEWS UPDATE FROM THE HADASSAH MEDICAL ORGANIZATION
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 24, 2004. |
|
This was posted by the Hadassah Medical Organization yesterday.
News Update From the Hadassah Medical Organization
Monday, February 23, 2004
Both Hadassah Medical Center at Ein Kerem and Hadassah Hospital at Mount Scopus treated the wounded of yesterday's suicide bombing of bus No. 14 near Liberty Bell Park; it was the second suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem in less than a month. The blast took place in the early hours of the day, killing eight and wounding over 70, many of them young students on their way to school. 28 of the wounded were brought to Ein Kerem; 6 were brought to Mount Scopus. As of this afternoon, fourteen remain hospitalized at Ein Kerem, one still in severe condition. Two remain at Mount Scopus, both in mild condition. The following is a more detailed report provided by Ron Krumer, Director of External Affairs of the Hadassah Medical Organization: Yesterday morning, workers were dismantling the C.T. scan at Mt. Scopus in order to make room for a new one. It was pretty much dismantled when the alert about the Bus no. 14 explosion came. The workers reversed action and succeeded to re-assemble it, so that it was ready for action when a C.T. scan would be needed for one of the wounded. 3 weeks passed since the bus no. 19 explosion, yet I enjoyed playing with the thought that it was much longer. The news reached me while I was doing something that perhaps couldn't be further removed - I was sitting in the cafeteria hosting the administrative director of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, meeting with Dr. Martine Toledano, head of the department of complementary medicine. 34 of the wounded were brought to our two hospitals. Below are accounts of three patients who were affected by yesterday's tragedy: Oz Iluz (age 12) - Oz is the goalkeeper of the children's team of Beitar Yerushalayim, the most popular soccer team in Israel, who was riding bus No. 14 on his way to school. (He is the third player of that team that was injured in a terror attack). Oz was hurt in his face and his eye. When he was checked upon arriving at the hospital, doctors noticed a bulge near his wrist and thought he had a fracture. Only after looking at an x-ray, they could see that it was a piece of someone else's bone that penetrated his hand. Ron Cohen (age 24) - injuries to his eyes. He was operated on yesterday for more than 5 hours. Ron is the son of a senior official of the municipality of Jerusalem. His brother is a well-known news photographer. He discovered him on the site of the explosion as he arrived to take pictures there. Chanan Michael (age 90!) - Chanan's life was saved yesterday because he refused to sit down as another passenger offered him his seat, and he remained standing by the driver. Chanan is still working 5 days a week at a large travel agency that brings many groups to Hadassah. THE 14 BUS
The 14 bus
Even though we weren't on that bus
Could have been me or you
Jews are being murdered here
Jews are being murdered here in Israel
BUT what will you do? living so far away?
Be an activist - NOW
That 14 bus is
Am Yisrael Chai ! With blessings from Israel
"Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" by Judy Lash Balint
(Gefen) is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com.
|
|
MURDER OF OUR SANDWICH MAN IN JERUSALEM
Posted by Deb Kotz, February 24, 2004. |
|
This essay was written by David Bedein, who is Bureau Chief of the
Israel Resource News Agency, Beit Agron International Press Center in
Jerusalem.
It comes by way of Tova to Nancy Karkowsky to me. Please share
it with others.
Ever since the restaurant at the Beit Agron Press Center in Jerusalem closed a while ago with the fall in tourism, Yehudah Haim's sandwich business for us at the corner grocery store had been booming. He would make each pre-prepared sandwich with healthy fresh bread and any condiments that the customer would ask for. He knew exactly many pickles I liked with my tuna fish, and just how much maonaise I liked with my egg salad. And he carefully cut each fresh vegetable to order. I had a special need, since I would wash my hands at Beit Agron and make the blessing over the bread only when I got to the store. I got used to hearing Yehudah's "Amen" to the first bite in my sandwich, before he would fill it with his goodies. On Sunday morning, I was on the bus to work, passing the old Jerusalem train station when we heard the bus in front of us blow to bits. My first insinct was to run to the bus, and don my press badge to report what I saw. My friend with me had a digital camera, and he quickly snapped shots and got them in real time to the media. Yehudah Haim was on that ill-fated bus in front of us, also on his way to work. Except that Yehudah was catapulted lifeless from the bus that was supposed to take him to another day of making nourishing lunches at the corner grocery store. All I can think of for the past 24 hours is Yehduah's smiling face on Friday, when he said Amen to my blessing on a tuna bagel, when he wished me a good Shabbas. A smiling face that the PLO turned into a lifeless body on Sunday morning. Today at lunch, I felt that I had lost my lunch partner. Maybe Yedudah said Amen to my blessing from heaven above. The reality of media reporting continued, as Yehudah was being buried. Fanny Haim, Yehuda's widow, had the presence of mind to write an open letter to the judges in The Hague, in the hours before she buried her husband, which she published in the daily Yediot newspaper in Israel. [Click here to read her letter.] Deb Kotz is an active member of the Brandeis Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintains an email list to distribute articles of interest to the local community. She can be reached at DebKotz@aol.com |
|
DOES SHARON PLAN TO DESTROY ISRAEL?
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 24, 2004. |
|
When Mr. Wallerstein says that; "There is no plan merely to withdraw
from Gaza. Sharon plans to uproot, in stages, most of the Jewish
communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza." He is correct but does not
really go to the heart of the issues. The true goal of all of the Oslo
traitors is to destroy Israel. Without acknowledging this, no serious
effort to challenge or change the situation can occur. All this
dancing around the issue only strengthens the enemies of the Jewish
people and causes more death and destruction.
This news item appeared on Arutz-7 and is archived as
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=58356
Yesha Leader: "PM Sharon Plans to Uproot Most of Judea and Samaria" Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the first outspoken Likud promoter of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, visited the southern Shomron community of Ofrah last night and met with some of the residents. He arrived at the invitation of a former colleague of his from their days in the Jerusalem Municipality, Chaim Falk. "It was most definitely not a regular work meeting," recounted Yesha Council leader Pinchas Wallerstein this morning, "but much more tense, charged and difficult." When Arutz-7's Emanuel Shilo asked a question about "Sharon's withdrawal-from-Gaza plan," Wallerstein interrupted and said, "You see how you fell into the trap? There is no plan merely to withdraw from Gaza. Sharon plans to uproot, in stages, most of the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Even now, in the first stage, he doesn't talk only about Gush Katif, but rather about the communities in Gaza and a few other isolated ones in Samaria [Shomron]. He will start with the smaller ones, and will then continue, when the public has gotten used to it, to the others. And all this will be in unilateral steps that will not require or bring an end to terrorism. He talks about a withdrawal from Gush Katif - but the threat hanging over Judea and Samaria is no smaller than that hanging over Gush Katif." Speaking with Arutz-7 today about the meeting last night, Wallerstein said, "Olmert first tried to convince us that there was no choice because of the demographic issue between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. He did not explain, however, how the arrival of many Arabs from Lebanon and Jordan to the new Arab state would alleviate that problem - nor could he convince us why only Jews need be uprooted from their homes, and why Um el-Fahm should not be included in the new Arab state. We mainly complained to him - I'm speaking calmly to you now, but there was great anger, outbursts and frustration last night - about the fact that Sharon had deceived the public in the last election; Sharon said that Amram Mitzna of Labor was a political rookie for proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - and is now presenting that exact plan as his own. We also asked him about the split that this plan would cause in the nation and to the army, and how would our sons be expected to behave if given such orders, etc. - and of course he had no answers to any of these questions." "Let there be no mistake," Wallerstein said. "If the State of Israel decides to give in hopes that someone will like us if we withdraw to a new border, no one will suffice with anything less than the whole thing: The border will be the Mediterranean. For sure, they will make do with nothing less than all of Gaza and all of Judea and Samaria. We could not hold back from reminding him of the verse in the Book of Esther that we will soon read on Purim, 'Who knows if just for this reason you have attained the kingdom... and if not, salvation shall come from elsewhere and you and your house will be lost.' We have no sentiments towards this government. Sharon will have to understand once and for all that our reactions will not be just calm discussions sitting around a tea table..." "We must make it clear to the public: This government must not exist any longer. We have to emphasize to the public that something has changed, that it's no longer business as usual. Because if not, then the People of Israel will enter a very dangerous state of despair and apathy, with no one showing leadership and vision, and no one pointing out the dangers. People will say, 'OK, it's just Gaza,' etc. - But do they think that there will be any fewer Arabs in Gaza if we leave, or that it will be any harder for the terrorists to get around?" Wallerstein said he has no complaints against the National Religious Party or National Union for not having initiated the toppling of the government, but added, "My opinion is that we must not remain quiet, we must go out to the streets and present the Nation of Israel with a challenge. I am almost certain that if the NRP and NU show that they are serious about leaving, Sharon himself will start explaining why his plan is no good. But if they vacillate, then it will be too late - because Sharon will continue pushing his plan, and then he'll say that he already promised the Americans, etc." 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. |
|
CUT THE TIES THAT BIND
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 24, 2004. |
Background: Ted Belman posted a review of Ronald Gross's book
"Socrates Way" yesterday on IsraPundit. The allusion is to
Socartes' allegory "The Cave." Gross wrote:
"Each of us harbours a myriad of ideas, attitudes, and opinions that have been 'programmed' into us by our upbringing, schooling, culture, and social and media environment. The 'chains' that bind us to these ideas are our understandable desire to please others, to be accepted, and to save ourselves the effort of thinking things through ourselves."These are comments on the article posted by David S. Here's my out-of-the-box Zionist thinking for the day: Let's push for an immediate end to US aid to Israel, and to Israel's status as an American client-state. While significant in dollar terms, and as a percentage of the US foreign aid budget, US aid to Israel amounts to approximately 2% of Israeli GNP. Surely, there are worse things in life than a 2% pay cut. Now let's consider the benefits of an end to the client-state relationship for both the US and for Israel: 1. Israel could no longer be plausibly positioned as a US surrogate in the Middle East. If America wants Israel to do things that America perceives to be in the American national interest, it can apply to the Israeli government the same way it would apply to Pervez Musharaf in Pakistan - without any of this nonsense about the "mutual self-interest" of the American and Israeli states. Israel can start to regain its national sovereignity, and begin to make hard rational decisions in its own national self-interest - no more settlements in Gaza, or giving up territories that it needs for its own self-defense, or embarking on other lunatic projects emboldened or enabled by the idea of a great-power protector. 2. Israel would no longer have to buy expensive weapons systems and advanced machinery from American manufacturers at full price. It is an open secret that a very large percentage of US aid to Israel comes right back to the United States in the form of government-sponsored profits for US arms manufacturers, aircraft and high-tech companies, etc.. Why should Israel pay a political price so that American companies can profit? 3. Instead of buying advanced American weapons systems at full price, Israel would be able to use its own advanced arms industry to partner up with European, Russian and Indian manufacturers and compete directly with American companies. As a first world country located in the middle of the third world, and under constant military pressure from its adversaries, Israel's weapons industry is in an unparalleled position to blow bigger, slower and dumber US companies out of big portions of the worldwide arms market. Even better, the ability to buy weapons and technology and partner up with non-American companies around the world should do wonders for Israel's diplomatic standing with potential allies - and perhaps even some of its enemies. 4. Break the link between the new anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Virulent anti-Semitism has been a problem for Jews for the last millenium and a half through the Christian and Moslem worlds. Just as traditional Christian anti-Semitism has largely quieted down, however, it has been replaced by a peculiar brew of anti-Israeli and anti-American feeling in Europe and especially throughout the third world. While some of the current anti-Israel feeling in the world may be purely anti-Semitic or ignorant in its origins, there can be little question about the role that anti-American feeling plays in hatred for Israel. Anti-Israeli sentiment is a useful cover for those interested in attacking America for its role as world hegemon; traditional anti-Semitic attitudes, combined with the tiny size of the Jewish people, make Israel a much more appealing target than big, strong, populous America. While conquering America seems impossible even to bin Laden, conquering Israel does not. Severing the client state relationship between America and Israel would make a victory over Israel much less symbolically significant or appealing, while giving Israel the room it needs to manuever in a bloodthirsty region of the world. 5. End the welfare state mentality among Israel's leaders and voters alike. Generations of Israeli political leaders - like many of the voters who elect them to office - have had their judgement blurred by the habit of living on handouts from others. The Israeli political system is a mess, and it has been years - since Yitzchak Rabin, or arguably, since Menachim Begin - that we've seen an Israeli government give any signs of being able to think ahead. Israel is also a country in need of deep economic reform, with a pool of very well educated and technologically literate people who need to throw off the shackles of Soviet-style thinking - if Taiwan can succed, then so can Israel. 6. Restore the deterrant power of the Israeli military. Thanks to the dependent relationship created by American aid, Israel is now in the ludicrous position of having the world's 4th or 5th most powerful army - the dominant military power in the Middle East - while being unable to launch small-time anti-terrorist raids within its own borders without asking permission from America. Worse, Israel must stand idly by while the United States ships ever-more advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia and Egypt at discount prices, eroding Israel's advantage in the event of another conventional war in the region. Why should Israel submit to the managed destruction of its prime strategic resource - regional military superiority - instead of being able to leverage that resource in the service of Israel's national self-interest? Without the perceived - and actual - ability to bomb Syria and Iran when they sponsor terrorist attacks that murder and maim Israeli citizens, and to blow up open Hizbullah training camps in Southern Lebanon, Israel may as well sell all those fancy American jet-fighters for scrap. 7. Israel's strategic needs have changed since the end of the Cold War. The transformation of Israel into an American client-state was clearly in the national self-interest of both the United States and Israel in the days when Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union shaped the order of the world. Without American backing, and the American nuclear umbrella, the State of Israel might well have been destroyed by its Soviet-backed neighbors. In exchange to extending its military (including nuclear) umbrella over Israel, America gained a superb listening post in the Middle East, forward bases close to Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, and a theatre in which to try out new weapons systems against their Soviet counterparts. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the benefits of the client-state relationship have declined for both sides - but especially for Israel, a country with a comparatively thriving economy that can easily defeat any combination of its neighbors in a conventional military conflict, but has been hamstrung in recent years by the shifting demands of US diplomacy in the region, most of which still seem to be tied to the Rogers plan - a State Department position paper whose premise is clearly that a strategically weakened Israeli state is in the American national self-interest. Ironically, as long as direct military conflict with the Soviet Union in the Middle Eastern theatre was still possible, the US never dared to weaken Israel's strategic position relative to its neighbors. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, American and Israeli state interests have again diverged, and the Rogers plan has become the apparent basis of US state policy for the past fifteen years - under Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush. A further irony here is that a weak Israel may actually cause even greater problems for the US than a strong Israel, increasing Israel's value as a target for proxy humiliation of the US, while increasing volatility in the region. This will be true as long as the current client-state relationship stays in place. Clearly, a relationship that requires Israel to sacrifice its own strategic self-interest on behalf of another state is not in Israel's national self-interest, any more than it has been in Lebanon's self-interest to have its policy choices influenced by Syria. 8. Why not transform a relationship of momentary convenience and arm-twisting into a relationship that's about values and national self-interest? A relationship founded on actual, demonstrable self-interest, accompanied by deeply shared values, is much more stable and advantageous for both sides than a shallow relationship built on arm-twisting and propaganda. I believe that the strategic relationship between Israel and the US is real, and that this relationship tilts heavily in America's self-interest - so why not put that relationship to the test? As long as America is presumed to be carrying water for Israel, the rest of the world will continue to attack Israel as an American proxy - and domestic American support for Israel will be increasingly difficult to maintain. Why sacrifice Israel's capacity to pursue its own national self-interest - political, strategic and economic - for a few billion dollars a year? In the absence of a powerful and successful Arab state or a great-power country willing to give the Arabs advanced weapons for nothing, the Israelis lose more than they gain from the client-state relationship with the US. In the last ten years, the escalating nature of the price Israel has paid - at home and abroad - for becoming an American client-state has become clear. Continuing to fill such the client-state role, against Israel's clear national self-interest, is a sign of the ghetto mentality that Zionist leaders once deplored. It makes American Jews feel comfortable to believe that American and Israeli national self-interests will somehow always the same. Close, yes - at times. But the same? Not unless we make it so - and the results so far have not been encouraging. So enough already. Ted Belman is a major contributor to IsraPundit (http://IsraPundit.com), a pro-Israel activist website. |
|
GIBSON'S "PASSION" AND THE GOSPEL TRUTH
Posted by Jock L. Falkson, February 24, 2004. |
|
Reports say Gibson has placed responsibility for the death of Jesus
without ambiguity, on the Jewish people. Not only on those who were
alive at the time, or a generations later, but on all Jews for all
time. Jews must contest this view.
In this we are assisted by a recent Papal encyclical repudiating the anti-Semitic reading of the relevant verse, stressing instead that Christ's death was part of his God-ordained mission. And for which Catholics of our times should not blame Jews. Gibson has appeared in many TV interview's saying that he has done nothing except tell the Gospel truth. However, the medium is the message and the message of his movie is in the eye of the beholder. Early reviews of Gibson's film stress Christ's death as a Jewish responsibility. He certainly overlooks the fact that it was God ordained - as Jesus clearly foretold on 3 different occasions in Mark, Matthew and Luke. And as John also recorded. The Christ-killer charge was a base Christian accusation which finally led to the inhuman annihilation of six million Jews of Europe, largely at the hands of the German people. It was a holocaust without precedent in the appalling history of anti-Semitism. Let us examine the sources. Was Jesus tried by Caiaphas? The circumstantial evidence surrounding Jesus' trial point to Gospel writers and embellishers who were unaware of Sanhedrin* rules and procedures. (* Highest judicial council of the Jewish nation, with 70 to 72 members.) We read that Jesus was arrested and taken to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest (who also served as head of the Sanhedrin). But this was Passover eve, the night of the Seder. The high priest would certainly have been busy with the Seder tradition for a large number of people, family, friends, and guests. There is no way he would have conducted a trial - any trial - let alone an important one, at his home. Certainly not on Passover eve. It just could not have happened. Was Jesus Tried By the Sanhedrin? Another version has Jesus taken to the Sanhedrin where an official trial was held. Here Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy and delivered to Pilate for the application of Roman justice. Again credibility problems indicate there was no Sanhedrin trial. Because the Sanhedrin never sat on a Jewish holiday. It never held night hearings. It would never have sat on a Seder night. The mandatory interval of 24 hours between hearing and sentence was not observed. The conclusion is inescapable - there was no such trial. Was Death of Jesus Decreed by God? Mark, Matthew and Luke each relate that Jesus foretold the exact details of his approaching death - on three separate occasions. Jesus told his disciples he would be betrayed, tried, then crucified. Three days later he would be resurrected and appear again before being taken up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God. Since this was clearly God's divine plan, neither the Jews nor the Romans could have done anything to frustrate it. So how come the Jews were accused of the crime of deicide? Romans Crucified 220,000 Jews The Gospels were written 70 to 100 years after the death of Christ. (Earliest date deduced because Gospels do not mention sacking of the Temple in 70 A.D.) To give the Gospels a more authoritative Christian and pro-Roman slant many changes and amendments were made to the texts over time. Had the Passion narrative been written immediately after the crucifixion and not been changed thereafter to suit circumstances, the blame would undoubtedly have fallen on the Romans. Role of Pilate in Death of Jesus The Romans had already crucified over 220,000 Jews during their rule in Palestine. Putting another Jew to death on the cross was no big deal for Romans. Jews however had not crucified one person throughout their history. Gospel writers portray Pilate as a rather nice gent who was reluctantly involved in the trial of Jesus. Philo, a contemporary of Pilate however, described him as cruel and unbending, full of antipathy to Jews. It was entirely out of character for Pilate to have taken a liking to one particular Jew brought to trial. Nor was it the business of the Romans to try Jews for breaches of religion. Conversely it was not the business of the Sanhedrin to try Jews for political crimes. The Gospel writers had a need to curry favor with their Roman rulers. In relating the story of The Passion it served their Christian purpose to minimize the Roman role and to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Romans did not in fact try Jesus for his alleged blasphemy, but for sedition. They claimed Jesus admitted to being "King of the Jews." They saw Jesus as a political threat to their rule. The Barabbas story was another invention. For there never was a custom of releasing a Jewish prisoner at Passover. No trace of any such custom has ever been found in Jewish sources. The hand washing episode too was an emendation. Jesus Pleads For Mercy Jesus believed that what God had destined for him could not be undone. God had ordained his crucifixion and all the players in this tragedy (Judas included) would have to enact their roles in the unfolding tragedy the way God intended. Yet suddenly and unexpectedly Jesus hoped he might be spared his cruel fate. He pleaded for mercy, not to the Jews or to the Romans. He pleaded, correctly, with God, as related in these verses: Mark 14:36: "Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." And later, near to death when Jesus says: Matthew 27:46: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Jesus did not want to die. God however did not permit him to live. Since this was a divine plan why was anyone or any group blamed for his death? Tragic Consequences of Matthew 27:25 This single sentence: "And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children", is responsible for Christian persecution of Jews throughout the centuries. Only given in Matthew 27: 25, the irony is that this apparently self-inflicted curse was nothing more than another editorial insertion! Let us analyze this passage in more detail: According to Matthew "a multitude of people" were present at the Roman trial. But "All the people" could not possibly have exclaimed these words, in an unrehearsed response. It is indeed difficult to visualize even 2 or 3 people together shouting this utterance - unless they had previously arranged to do so. The incident could not have happened. In any event the Jews present at the Roman trial could not have spoken for the immense majority of the nation who were not. And who, in an age where news moved at the speed of donkey or camel, might have heard about it - if at all - only well after the event. This curse was one of many embellishments inserted into the Gospels to show Jews as baddies and Romans as goodies. "On us and our children"? Notice Matthew's verse only places blame "on us and our children." Not on "our children's children." Nor does he add: "forever more." Even assuming this punishment was valid as Matthew has it, it should therefore only have extended to those present, and their progeny, for one generation. Yet Christianity blamed the entire Jewish nation, for over 2000 years, for the alleged crime of deicide. "Our children's children?" "Forever more"? Why did the church Fathers seize on this one sentence to wreak such unjustified vengeance on all Jews forever more? A Google search in the New Testament for "our children's children" and "forever more" brought up 1680 and 442 references respectively. So these terms were used frequently and whenever necessary. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if Matthew intended to extend this punishment to "our children's children"... "forever more", he would have written so unequivocally. But he did not. What justification did church Fathers have to preach and teach this uncalled for, unceasing revenge? (We believe Gibson agreed to remove this scene from his film. If so Jews will certainly appreciate this indulgence.) While Gibson's right to make his film is not denied, the consequences look bad for Jews. There is every reason to fear his film will fan the flames of anti-Semitism - not so much in America - but in Europe, where sad to say they are once more burning brightly. Radical Islam too will undoubtedly and cynically, exploit The Passion to further damage the Jewish people. As it has demonstrated in reviving and disseminating the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" forgery. Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net. |
|
SUICIDE BOMBERS AND THEIR REWARD
Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 24, 2004. |
|
The other day while lying in my bath, agonizing on what is
happening daily, the terror, death and destruction visited on us by
suicide bombers, a distracting thought entered my head.
Aware of Moslem attempts of get rid of us by this means, the thought stuck me, that they too have a problem. Each successful mission entitles the new entry to heaven to enjoy the connubial bliss of 72 authenticated virgins. With so many thousands of volunteers standing in line applying for entry, there is bound to be a forthcoming shortage of genuine virgins. The Moslem clerics are aware of this and are still searching for some solution to this vexing problem. If however they were to issue a Fatwa, that some of these could be re-cycled after first use and provide similar services, that would solve a problem. By attaching small stickers to bums stating "Slightly used but still serviceable" they would overcome this holy problem. Those not satisfied, would be given the option to return to earth as Jews. |
|
UK AND SWEDEN PAY FOR ARAFAT'S PROPAGANDISTS AT THE HAGUE
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 24, 2004. |
|
This appeared today on the IMRA and is archived at
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19916
The Palestinian propaganda offensive against Israel in the Hague is being led by two lawyers - Michael Tarazi and Diana Butto, who are employed by Arafat's PLO and whose salaries are being paid by the taxpayers of Britain and Sweden via the Negotiations Support Unit. The European Institute for Research on the Middle East has completed a study of the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit, created in 1998 and funded by British and other governments, for technical assistance in its preparations for permanent status talks. The NSU is officially part of the PLO and therefore under the direct control of Arafat. After the collapse of the Oslo framework and negotiations, the NSU has continued to operate, primarily as an information and propaganda arm of the Palestinian Authority. In particular, the NSU, which continues to receive British and other European funding, and its personal, have been central in the campaign to demonize Israel regarding the construction of the separation barrier, including in the UN General Assembly and the case brought to the International Court of Justice. The text is available at www.europeaninstitute.info/Publications.htm For additional information, contact
Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il 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. |
|
WALL OF SILENCE
Posted by Ken Heller, February 23, 2004. |
|
This was written by Russell Grayson and appeared on Arutz-7
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com) on february 11, 2004.
A notorious Middle Eastern country is actively in the midst of settling a decades-old border dispute through the construction of a high, concrete wall along its long-disputed border with a neighbor. Despite vigorous protests from this affected neighbor, the project goes on without hitch, construction having been underway for weeks now. The builder insists that the wall is designed to stop the infiltration of terrorists. The neighbor, allegedly victimized, insists that this wall is being built upon disputed territory, further insisting that the transgressor must build it - if at all - outside of the parameters of the area in dispute. The concern is that constructing the wall in its present location will result in the de facto seizing of disputed land, and the unilateral imposition a new border. This would negate any rudimentary gains made heretofore in the long, tortuous, ongoing effort at a negotiated border settlement. Tensions are rapidly escalating between these two neighbors, and area observers are seriously concerned that the possibility of all-out war is becoming more likely. This wall, however, is not one being built by the Israelis - it is the product of Saudi Arabia's effort to seal its frontier with Yemen. Moreover, what makes this news even more shocking is that this ongoing construction could not possibly have escaped knowledge or detection by any of the various intelligence agencies and news services of the many powerful nations that have more than ample economic and political interests in the area, the United States included. However, not so much as the merest scintilla of news about this offending wall has made it into the coverage of any mainstream news bureau. Passing notice, in one or two short paragraphs buried in their less-important news areas, appears in the Arab media - Gulf News, Al-Jazeera, Arabic News. A few other sites parroting these same insignificant blurbs is all that can be discovered. Indeed, despite a total scouring of news sources, not even a bit of information is available regarding the height, length, or breadth of this wall on what is a 1,350-kilometer border. There is some slight mention that a German firm, which had been retained to survey and demarcate that border, has been sent packing in the midst of its work - an ominous sign. Nowhere is there any public international outcry, or even the least glimmer of indignant criticism. No country - beside Yemen - is so much as whispering in protest at all. Not one nation has asked the U.N. to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. No one is raising the shrill shout of condemnation. What is all too noticeable is the booming volume of absolute silence on the issue upon the world stage. The U.N. Security Council is quite obviously far too busy using Israel as its whipping boy to give any consideration at all to what is a clearly parallel issue involving the construction, over vigorous protest, of a terror-barrier wall. Credibility is an absent commodity amongst the members these days, and it may long have been so. This does not, by any stretch, imply that the Saudi wall should be inspiring, in equal share, the magnitude of obsessive, vitriolic opposition to that which is being hurled at Israel from nearly all quarters. Indeed, that a sovereign nation has the duty - the primary raison d'etre - to protect its citizens is self-evident. That included in the exercise of that duty is putting a stop to catastrophic assaults by the ideologically deranged with their nail-bombs, guns and love of murder, is equally fundamental. Israel has the inherent, inalienable right to seal its border in self-protection - as does the house of Ibn Saud - without being pilloried for doing so. However, Israel alone is condemned for choosing self-preservation over political appeasement. It is well past the time that Israel was accorded the same international understanding and deference, when its government exerts its sovereign rights, that all others seem to enjoy without exception in the community of nations. Nevertheless, what is clearly obvious is that the team sport of nations and news media - near-reflexive Israel-bashing - just might stem from motives less than honorable. The Arabs can't be that much better at presenting their "victim" status than the Israelis are. Nowhere after the murder-bombing on a rush-hour Jerusalem commuter bus was there any news coverage of the joy and pride openly articulated after the carnage by both beaming parents of the PA policeman who carried out the crime. That it was cause for a general public celebration in the Arab streets around his home was ignored. That his equally proud uncle was one of those deported by the Israelis after last year's siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, during which the altar was used as a commode, also escaped mention. This, despite the images of street-dancing, singing, candy-distributing support for the September 11 massacre, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others, which have managed to flicker briefly upon our TV news screens. That the so-called human rights organizations count as civilian "Palestinian" deaths those who are killed while engaged in armed combat, those murdered without any due process by the PA for any perceived offenses of "collaboration" - some as small as daring to sell their own land to Jews - and even the murder-bombers themselves, is information nowhere provided in any mainstream medium. Where the media bias lies is obvious, from the placement of stories in major newspapers and television newscasts, to the language chosen to describe the news, to the images that accompany that news. Israel is demonized relentlessly. It is high time that some basic fairness was instilled back into the process. Israel cannot be expected to just wring its hands whilst the Arabs continue to ignore, support, or lionize the murderers in their midst and do nothing to impede their heinous mission. That Israel restrains itself to its own detriment in asserting its right to protect the safety of its citizens is painfully and sanguinely obvious, or else the demographics on the ground would have changed significantly long ago, and there would be no need for a wall. Ken Heller is founder of "Citizens Against Giving-up Eretz Yisrael," a grassroots, worldwide network of Jewish and Christian pro-Israel activists. He was a major organizer of the world-wide demonstrations on July 20th against the Road Map. |
|
TAINTED PLAINTIFFS IN THE HAGUE
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 23, 2004. |
|
I wrote this to Ha'aretz.
Your newspaper is performing a great service by listing which nations are arguing this week before the International Court of Justice in The Hague for a ruling that Israel's security fence is illegal. I notice that Saudi Arabia was on the opening-day list of speakers. You have to admire the Saudis' chutzpah. After all, they're building a security barrier along their disputed border with Yemen to keep out terrorists - a threat that Saudi Arabia only recently and belatedly seems to have recognized. What is so wonderfully delicious about the Saudis' gall is that they have had a running dispute for decades with Yemen over huge swaths of land claimed by both sides. And it is exactly in that disputed corridor that the Saudis' have been erecting their barrier. Yet, surprise, surprise, the U.N. General Assembly seems not to have rushed into a vote requesting the International Court of Justice to insert itself in this dispute between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. With the UN and the ICJ, what's good for the good apparently doesn't apply to the gander. Actually, the Saudi barrier is not the only other security fence in the world. India is building a security barrier in disputed Kashmiri territory to keep Muslim terrorists from infiltrating and killing its civilians. Again, who's protesting at the U.N. or in The Hague? On Tuesday, The Hague will witness another parade of presumed law-abiding and freedom-loving countries opposed to the fence who will be hammering Israel. They will include, inter alia, Cuba and Malaysia. Will any of the eminent jurists ask Cuba's representative whether Fidel Castro's brutal repression of dissidents might perhaps violate the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and whether Havana's credentials on enforcement of international law might therefore be a tiny bit suspect? Or will Malaysia's representative be asked whether his legal brief is just a teensy bit tainted by his prime minister's anti-Semitic diatribe at a recent summit of Muslim nations? With adversaries like that, Israel's case looks better every day, even as the court's prestige evaporates amid a self-inflicted grand spectacle of having to sit through the testimony of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Malaysia. |
|
US TO VET ISRAELI POLICIES BEFORE GUARANTEEING LOANS
Posted by IsrAlert, February 23, 2004. |
|
Isralert's source for this item:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/ also
http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=28348&sid=8225
TEL AVIV - The United States plans a review of Israel's economic performance to determine whether another $3 billion in loan guarantees should be issued to the Jewish state. Envoys from the two countries will meet in Jerusalem on Monday under the Joint Economic Development Group in an effort to review Israel's spending policy, including that in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The panel was established to review Israel's economic plans and ensure that they met the terms of the loan guarantee agreement. The U.S. delegation will be led by Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs Alan Larson, who will also visit Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Officials said the U.S. delegation will urge Israel to reduce spending in Israeli communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 2003, the United States approved the first portion of the $9 billion of loan guarantees. Israel used $1.6 billion to obtain loans at preferred rates. U.S. officials said the loan guarantees have been dependent on the implementation of an economic recovery plan approved by Washington that would encourage competition, accelerate privatization, and bring public spending under control. Another condition stipulated the bolstering of intellectual property rights protection. U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, said Israel's economy has become much healthier over the past year. He cited an improvement in Israel's credit rating, the reduction of long-term interest rates and the doubling of direct foreign investments. "Some problems remain, especially Israel's high poverty and unemployment rates, and a stubborn budget deficit," Kurtzer said on Feb. 10. "Deeper cuts on spending in some sectors - for example, settlement activity - are necessary." Kurtzer urged Israel to streamline and improve the tender process, including increasing transparency and shortening the time for an award. He said government tenders have been revised to favor Israeli companies. IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
THE SON MUST REFUTE FATHER'S HATEFUL RANTS
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, February 23, 2004. |
|
This was written by Mitch Albom, a columnist for the Detroit
Free Press; it appread on the Free Press website (www.freep.com).
My sister married a wonderful guy. His father was a Hungarian Jew. During World War II, he and his eight brothers and sisters were imprisoned in German concentration camps. Some were killed in gas chambers. Others were put on a boat that was deliberately sunk. By the war's end, my brother-in-law's father was the only one left. For years, his wife would find bread stuffed under his pillow, a habit from Nazi starvation. Every now and then some nut case says the Holocaust was faked. Usually, you dismiss him as pathetic. Last week, however, a man named Hutton Gibson told a national radio host that the Holocaust never happened, that there were no concentration camps, only "work camps," and that Jews basically made the whole thing up. Hutton Gibson is Mel Gibson's father. So this nutcase must be addressed. He must be addressed because his son has made a movie called The Passion of the Christ depicting Jesus' last hours. There are fears the movie will stoke anti-Semitism. I have not seen the film yet - it opens this week - so I can pass no judgment on it. But I have heard his father. And he needs no movie to spew hatred. Jews "are after one world religion and one world government" Hutton Gibson declared. He said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is Jewish, should be hung. He said Holocaust museums were "a gimmick to collect money." In fact, he called the entire Holocaust "fiction." He said Jews weren't killed, "they simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles. They have to go where's there's money." That would be news to my brother-in-law's aunt, another Holocaust survivor who, thanks to Nazi experiments, was left sterile, unable to have children. She still bears a Nazi number burned into her arm. I suppose Hutton Gibson would call that "a tattoo she got in the Bronx." Now the elder Gibson is not new to this stuff. He writes books and magazine articles denying the Holocaust and scorching the Jewish faith. And, I am not saying that Mel Gibson believes what his father does. But, he has to say so himself. Instead, to date, Gibson has refused to fully refute his father. He acknowledges the Holocaust, but says, "Nothing can drive a wedge between me and my blood. He's my father. I love him." That's fine. But denying hatred does not cancel love. By his own doing, Gibson has put himself on a stage where he has new obligations. He's not promoting a "Lethal Weapon" movie here, where he's a crazed cop who swears and drinks and sleeps with women (all pretty non-Christian stuff, by the way). No. He has made a deeply religious movie, a lightning rod for Christians and Jews, and one he claims was inspired by his faith, including "going back to the things I was raised with." One presumes his father did some of that raising. Mel Gibson insists he is not anti-Semitic. He can prove it by declaring his father's words are wrong. How would Gibson feel if his father had been gassed, shot or hung in Auschwitz or Dachau instead of his luckier fate, enjoying a good, long life hurling insults at others? The reason Nazism existed is because people lived in denial. If you visit the site of concentration camps today, you will be astounded by how close neighborhoods were to the gates. Yet no one did anything - even as innocent people were murdered a stone's throw away. No one asked Mel Gibson to become a spokesman on faith. He did that himself. Now that he has hopped on center stage, he can't simply hear what he wants. He has an obligation to publicly shoot down his father's words. After all, Gibson said he made his movie because he could no longer deny his faith. Imagine someone denying your existence. Jerome S. Kaufman runs the Israel Commentary website (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel-Commentary) or (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
A CURIOUS ARAB-PALESTINIAN CLAIM
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 23, 2004. |
|
Dear friends,
Yet another Palestinian manipulative lie: The news services report from The Hague that in the International Court of Justice the Arab-Palestinian delegation is arguing that the fence Israel is building to separate terrorist murderers from their Israeli victims, renders impossible a viable Palestinian State. How very interesting that suddenly a few square kilometers make such a huge difference... If cutting a few square kilometers from Judea and Samaria renders a Palestinian state there impossible, would the addition of those few kilometers make it possible? Think about it! I have been claiming for a long time that the territory of Judea and Samaria (The West Bank) is much too small for an independent viable country (squeezed between Israel and Jordan). Surely it is not a question of a few kilometers either way. Now the Arab-Palestinian delegation admits it and agrees with me. There is only one solutions to the Mideast conflict: Jordan is already a viable Arab-Palestinian independent state, built on most (75%) of the historic British Mandate of Palestine. Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
LET THE PUNISHMENT PREVENT THE CRIME
Posted by Beth Goodtree, February 23, 2004. |
|
It has always galled me that when an Arab is convicted of terrorism in
some way shape or form, he or she is then housed, fed, clothed, and
given medical attention courtesy of the very people he/she tried to
murder. Better this criminal with genocide in his or her heart be made
to give back to the society they plotted to destroy.
First off, the majority of terrorists or terrorist-abettors in Israeli jails are not the ones who wish to murder and commit suicide at the same time. They merely wish to murder. Nor do their unincarcerated comrades-in-genocide wish to see their fellow henchmen killed. Therefore, these terrorist felons can be employed to prevent future mass murders. As part of their sentence, the terrorist would be given 'community service,' to be fulfilled during his or her incarceration. This terrorist would be assigned to either the police or anti-terrorism forces to assist in the prevention of terrorism. Here's how it would work. First, before the program is instituted, there should be massive publicity about it warning the public in both Israel and her territories (now occupied by Arabs) that such a program will be under way. Once the public has been duly notified, the real program can begin. Let's take a 'typical' terrorist I'll call Abdul. (Funny how one can speak in terms of 'typical terrorist' - it just shows how far decent, civilized people have let the situation deteriorate.) Abdul has just been convicted of recruiting homicide/genocide bombers and scouting potential locations for them to commit their acts of mass murder. Abdul,as part of his punishment, has been assigned to the terrorism prevention unit of the police. On Abdul's first day doing his community service, he is dressed up as an Orthodox Jew, including beard and payess. Then, accompanied at all times by one or two police representatives in plain clothes, Abdul will ride the Jerusalem buses. All day. He and his 'handler' will randomly go from one bus to another for an eight hour period. In between, they may stop and eat at some restaurant that might be a popular target for terrorism. They may even go for a stroll through some malls or markets that have been targeted by terrorists. The whole point will be that if his fellow terrorists know that one of their own might be killed in an attack, they very well might not do it. Even Abdul himself might help in the terror prevention. Once he is sentenced to community service, he may tell his conspirators not to do any attacks because they might kill him too. Or his loved ones might contact his former terror group with the same appeal to cease and desist. On another day, Abdul may also be dressed like an observant Jew and be ridden in a car along some of the roads where shooting attacks have occurred. On yet another day, he may be kept in a house in a community that comes under frequent rocket attacks. Never would Abdul be put in the deliberate line of fire per se, but he will be out there - just like a typical Jew - who is most often the target of terrorist murder. Now multiply this by hundreds of Abduls (and Abdullahs) and you have hundreds of very good reasons for the terrorist organizations to stop their murderous attacks. To those who would say this is cruel and unusual punishment, I pose the following question. If forcing Abdul to dress like a typical observant Jew and do normal things like riding a bus, eating in a restaurant and shopping in a mall is cruel and unusual, then what does it say for the circumstances under which the innocent Israeli population must live their lives on a daily basis? Are the critics of my plan saying that it is okay to be a terrorist but it is not acceptable to make a terrorist experience what it is like to be his or her potential victim? Are you saying that living life as an Israeli is cruel and unusual? If that is the case, then each and every terrorist should be tried for crimes against humanity under the genocide laws. And if found guilty, they should be executed, as this international law provides. Also, their leaders, starting with Yasser Arafat, should be captured and tried and, if found guilty, punished in a like manner. Meanwhile, this plan will not only be utterly fitting of the crime, it may actually be rehabilitative. Forcing these criminals to live their lives like the potential victims of their genocidal intents may actually change their way of thinking. If there is any shred of humanity left in them, it may make them see their victims not as 'the Zionist entity,' but as human beings. And the eventual release of a rehabilitated prisoner, who is no longer a threat to society is the best outcome possible. Beth Goodtree is an essayist who writes both serious and satirical political commentary. |
|
ISRAEL BURIES VICTIMS OF SUICIDE BUS ATTACK
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 23, 2004. |
|
This was written by Etgar Lefkovits and Kerb Keinon. It appeared on
the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com) today.
Israel continued on Monday to bury the victims of Sunday's suicide attack in Jerusalem in which eight people were killed. On Sunday, a Palestinian suicide bomber wearing a bag of explosives on his back boarded a crowded Jerusalem No. 14 bus and blew himself up, murdering eight people and wounding more than 60 others. It was the second bus bombing in the capital in just over three weeks. The victims of the attack were identified as Lior Azulai, 18, a senior at Jerusalem's Gymnasia Rehavia high school; St.-Sgt. Natanel Havshush, 20; Benayahu Jonathan Zuckerman, 18, a senior at Jerusalem's Experimental High School; Yuval Ozana, 32, of Jerusalem; Ilan Avisidris, 41; Yafe Ben-Shimon; and Yehuda Haim, 47, of Jerusalem, the brother-in-law of Israel's consul-general to The Hague. The eighth victim of the attack was identified Monday as Rahamiam Rami Duga, 38, from Mevasseret Zion. Yaffa Ben-Shimol and Yehuda Haim were laid to rest Monday noon in Givat Shaul, Jerusalem. Rahamiam Rami Duga was buried in Shamgar cemetary in Jerusalem. Ilan Abisidris will be buried in Be'er Sheva Monday. The al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the morning rush-hour attack, and identified the bomber as Muhammad Za'al, 23, from the village of Husan near Bethlehem. The previous suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem last month was also carried out by the same group, with the bomber also coming from the Bethlehem area. Israel's reaction to the attack will be to speed up construction of the anti-terrorist fence around the capital and to focus sustained military efforts on apprehending terrorists in the Bethlehem area, senior officials said Sunday night. They said the continuous IDF actions against the terrorist infrastructure will continue, and there is unlikely to be one dramatic action in direct response to Sunday's attack. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said, "There is no doubt this is a horrible attack that cannot go unanswered." The 8:30 a.m. blast ripped through the Egged bus opposite the capital's Liberty Bell Park as it was making its way toward the city center. "There was a tremendous explosion and then everything fell in on me - the windshield, pieces of the bus, blood, and human flesh," said passenger Meir Aharon, who managed to extricate himself from the carnage and was lightly wounded in the attack. The force of the explosion, which thundered throughout central Jerusalem, scattered body parts and glass all over the major thoroughfare. "There were pieces of human bodies all over the bus and all around the bus," said Jerusalem city councilman and opposition leader Nir Barkat, who was driving across the street at the time of the blast and helped treat the wounded. "Would that the whole world could see the horrors that were in that bus," he said, his hands, trousers, and shoes covered in blood. For an hour after the blast, the bodies of the dead lay on the ground as rescue workers picked through the wreckage. Bit by bit, fighting a biting-cold winter wind, the remains of the victims were collected in large white bags for identification and burial. Police said the bomber likely boarded the bus, which began its cross-city route in the city's new southeastern neighborhood of Har Homa, in Jerusalem's Talpiot industrial zone. The bomber took a seat toward the middle of the bus, escaping the notice of two security guards who got on and off the bus minutes later. Then, with the bus approaching the gas station that lies adjacent to the park, he detonated his medium-sized explosives, which were laced with pieces of iron and metal shards to maximize casualties. "People were screaming 'mommy' and 'daddy.' There were body parts everywhere, including some hands and feet scattered outside the bus," medic Reuven Pohl said. "You could see the debris rising up from the nearby Scottish Church, and then within seconds the smell of explosives came waffling up in the air," recalled eyewitness David Hazan. Jerusalem police chief Cmdr. Mickey Levy said there were no "specific alerts" at the time of the attack, aside from what security officials said were some 50 general intelligence warnings about impending attacks. Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Shlomo Aharonishky said it was unnecessary to draw a connection between the bombing and Monday's court debate over the security fence being at The Hague, reiterating that Palestinian terrorist organizations strike at Israeli civilians "whenever and wherever they can." "Our working assumption is that the Palestinian terrorist organizations are consistently trying to carry out attacks whenever and wherever they can," he said, adding that the security forces are operating on heightened alert this week nevertheless. Aharonishky said the bombers' successes in repeatedly penetrating Jerusalem were the result of "dozens of kilometers" where the security fence that is being built around Jerusalem has not been completed. To date, only one third of the planned 80 km. Jerusalem-area barrier has been completed. The barrier, a network of electronic sensor fences, concrete walls, observation posts, and other obstacles is aimed at preventing Palestinian bombers from entering Israel from the West Bank. About one-third of the roughly 730 km. security fence going up across the country, which zig-zags in and around the West Bank to incorporate Jewish settlements, has been completed since construction got under way last year. The attack took place as a group of American Jewish leaders from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations was holding a five-day conference at a hotel just down the block from the scene of the attack. Deploring the world's "double standards" for criticizing Israel for building the security barrier, Barkat, the Jerusalem council opposition leader, said that "Our right not to be blown up is more important than the quality of life of people whose lives will be disrupted as a result of... the fence." In a statement issued hours after the bombing, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei condemned the attack and called for "an immediate halt to these actions," which he said gave Israel an excuse to continue building the barrier and to carry out military raids. On Sunday night, 38 people remained hospitalized, including a 15-year-old in critical condition. Among the seriously wounded were a teenage brother and sister who were originally evacuated to different Jerusalem hospitals, and were reunited later in the day at the same hospital to make it easier for their parents to be at their bed-sides together. Eleven students were wounded in the attack, the Education Ministry said. Sunday's bombing came less than a month after another Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up on a city bus near Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's official residence on January 29, murdering 11 passengers. Before the demolished bus in Sunday's attack was hauled away by late morning, the bloodstained cellphones of passengers rang persistently from the wreckage. A bloodied book of psalms lay amid the destruction, as did a notebook with Bugs Bunny on the cover, and a civics text entitled To Be Citizens in Israel. About two hours after the attack, the charred skeleton of the bus - a twin of the No. 19 bus targeted last month that was sent to The Hague - was towed away, and the newly cleaned street was reopened to traffic. The bombing on the No. 14 bus was the second time in just over half a year that the route was targeted by a suicide bomber. On June 11, 2003, a bomber on a bus on the same route going in the opposite direction murdered 17 passengers on Jaffa Road. The attack took place about 45 minutes prior to the weekly cabinet meeting, where Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said it is possible the bombing was timed to coincide with the International Court of Justice hearing in The Hague, in order to prove to the world that the fence doesn't work. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dismissed Mofaz's analysis, saying the Palestinians don't need to look for reasons to kill Jews. "They've been doing it for years and haven't stopped for a single day," Sharon said. One of the ministers said the timing of the attack was bad for the Palestinians, since it would detract from their arguments at The Hague, and that PA officials are probably "pulling their hair out" because of the timing. Sharon responded that the Palestinians "do not pull their hair out" when Jews are killed. Mofaz opened the cabinet meeting with a survey of the overall security situation. He said that despite the morning's attack, Israel has been able to foil numerous other suicide attempts, and added that the security fence has proven itself highly effective in reducing the number of successful terrorist attacks. According to police figures, there have been 101 successful suicide attacks since September 2000, the beginning of the current violence, and another 149 that failed. Failed attacks refer to terrorists who either blew only themselves up or were apprehended while on the way to carrying out a suicide attack. Of the 934 people killed over the last 41 months, 584 have been killed by suicide bombers - a figure government officials are using to point out the necessity of the fence to keep them from infiltrating Israel. |
|
HAARETZ FAVORS THE TIPH ENEMY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 23, 2004. |
|
The Temporary International Presence in Hebron comprises mostly human
right activists from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland, and
security personnel from Turkey and Italy. They followed the Hebron
Accords to "assist in monitoring and reporting the efforts to
maintain normal life in the City of Hebron, thus creating a feeling of
security among Palestinians in the City of Hebron." They don't care
about disrupted lives and insecurity among Hebron Jews (from the Arab
snipers, rioters, inciters, and molesters).
A Norwegian TIPH observer wrote home, Hebron has always been a Palestinian city with a small Jewish population. (Actually, it was a Jewish city before the Arab influx, and is the second holiest city of Judaism. Size of population is a poor criterion for entitlement, considering that the Arabs kept down the Jewish population by driving it out more than once.) Asked about Arab violence, he replied, "Would you have liked to be checked three times a day by foreign soldiers... Or that your city is occupied by a foreign power?... If we compare with the German occupation of Norway during the 2nd WW, we called the sabotage and attacks on Germans resistance fighting." How unfair! (Hebron is part of the Jewish homeland, into which Arabs came as conquerors and immigrants. The Nazis were occupiers; Israelis are not. The Nazis employed brutality; the IDF does not, not against the Arabs, that is. The Norwegian resistance attacked Nazi control, whereas the Arabs attack all Israelis, including civilians at worship, on school buses, in baby carriages, or wearing dresses.) Haaretz interviewed the director of TIPH. He condemned the curfew on Hebron Arabs and the demolition of terrorists? houses. He fails to condemn terrorist murder. Although the Arabs shot at Jews in Hebron every day and night for a two-year period, he called these security measures ethnic "cleansing." That slanders the Jews but describes Arab warfare. P.A. terrorist leader Jibril Rajounb confirmed this, upon the Israeli withdrawal from 80% of Hebron. It was confirmed partially by the Arab deputy mayor's assertion that, as under previous Muslim rule, only Muslims should be allowed to pray in the Cave of the (mostly Jewish) Patriarchs, in a structure built by a Jewish king 600 years before the Arabs arrived. Sympathizing with this TIPH prejudicial malice, Haaretz suggested that Israel reexamine "its forgiving policies toward the extremist settlers in Hebron." Far from 'forgiving,' the government stations more than 10 times as many police per resident in the Israeli zone of Hebron than within the State of Israel, and indicts a much higher percentage of the population, but has a conviction rate of less than a third of that in the State of Israel. (The government loses its frivolous harassment cases despite the bias of the justice system against Jews and especially religious ones or ones in conflict with the Arabs.) So much for government 'forgiveness' and Hebron Jewry being 'extremist.' The Norwegian said, "I ask myself all the time what we are dong in Hebron." Answer: TIPH is a terrorist-serving organization, offering daily support to Jew-killers. They have no place in Hebron or in Israel. They, not Hebron's Jews, must be expelled from the city. (They interfere physically with Israeli security forces fighting terrorists. That is not peacemaking but complicity with murder. The only thing Israel has to be ashamed of is not having expelled them.) The editor claims, "It's not the armed, warmongering settlers who need protection, but the thousands of helpless Palestinians." How false and irresponsible! The Arabs advocate war and shot, stabbed, and stoned Jews for years. The Jews do not commit aggression. Hebron is Hamas country! What is wrong with the TIPH for feeling sorry for them!) The editor urges "properties returned to the lawful owners." How can he not know that the Arab market, now housing Jewish families, is on land taken by the Arabs from Jews? Many other properties seized from the Jews are occupied by Arabs or possessed by the Israeli Custodian (Hebron_today, 2/17). Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
FROM A NEW WIDOW
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 23, 2004. |
|
Fanny Haim, whose husband Yehuda was killed on Bus #14 in
Jerusalem yesterday, appeals to the judges in The Hague:
"Today, in The Hague, you will sit in judgment. Today, I will bury my husband, my heart - which has been cut in two. I am not a politician. I am appealing to you as someone who has lost her husband, a woman whose heart has been silenced - and a woman whose tragedy the separation fence could have prevented. I was married to Yehuda for 21 years. He was the love of my youth, since I was 15. Yehuda's sister is Israel's Economic Attache in The Hague and works in the Embassy there. For months, she, her husband and the Embassy staff have been trying to open the world's eyes. For months, they have been fighting for the rights of the State of Israel. As for me, what could I have asked for? Only for my small right, my husband's right, the right to see our children grow and prosper, go to school and serve in the army. I will no longer receive this right. But today, you can see to it that other Israeli families will merit this basic thing - to raise a happy family, to get up in the morning without bereavement, without gravestones, and without cemeteries. Today, as you begin your deliberations with open eyes, think, just for a moment, about the ordinary people behind this bloody conflict. Think for a moment about the golden heart of my husband Yehuda, and about our young son, Avner. Maybe you can explain to him - he's only 10-years-old - why in God's Name he doesn't have a father any more. People will enter your hall today, who will speak, who will accuse. Mourners will enter my home and I will be unable to understand and I will certainly not be consoled. This evening, you will go home, kiss your spouses, hug your children - and I will be alone. True, the politics are far from me, but now as the pain is far too close to me, I think that I have acquired, with integrity and with tears, the right to appeal to you and say: If there had been a fence all along the length of the state, then maybe I, just like you, could kiss my husband this evening. Do not judge my country; do not restrain it from preventing additional people from becoming victims. Today, I am burying my husband; don't you bury justice. Fanny Haim, Jerusalem "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" by Judy Lash Balint (Gefen) is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com Return to "Murder of Our Sandwich Man in Jerusalem" |
|
WHERE IS IRV RUBIN WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
Posted by Arlene Peck, February 23, 2004. |
|
Recently, while transferring some of my past television shows (Wow!
It's Arlene Peck!) From tape to DVD's I had a chance to review some I
had done with Irv Rubin. For those of you who don't know who he is,
Irv was the Director of the Jewish Defense League which was founded by
Rabbi Meir Kahane who was also murdered. I knew both of these men well
and it's ironic how in those days the words of both men which were
considered 'radical' and 'crazy' have become mainstream thinking
today.
I remember Rabbi Kahane telling me repeatedly how "We Jews are the only ones stupid enough to give our enemies the ability to vote. Tell me? Which Arab country would Jews be allowed to visit, much less vote. They aren't going to beat us with bullets, but with ballots!" Irv was another story. Although he didn't have the same charisma as Kahane, he was a powerful force. I have no doubts that he was killed in prison on his way to arraignment. The official story of suicide was ludicrous. Knowing Irv as I did, there is no way he would have killed himself. Especially, after waiting a year in jail for his case to come up. The reason I mention this now is because there is a terrible void of the kind of 'rabble rousing' that these men represented that is needed in the Jewish state. Leaders come and go, (usually the same half dozen) and ten minutes in office capsulate to the demands and whims of our State department. Most of which officials, I believe, to be firmly in the pocket of the various Arab countries that they once represented. Israel is not a banana republic yet is treated like one. Unfortunately, most times its leaders respond as such which doesn't help the situation. Instead of opening the jails and tearing down the fence, they might want to show a little backbone. Any other country would, at this point in time, bombing the hell out of the Palestinian Authority. Yet, the current logic is, "Let's tear down the fence so Arafat can go bomb another bus and we can keep the guys in Hague happy." Aside from the lack of leadership, where are the public relations from the Israeli government that they are in sorely needed? Far too often, I see issues being buried under 'quite diplomacy' which should be shouted from the roof-tops. Stories, which should be placed in the national newspapers totally ignored by the local consulates. If necessary, full page ads should be taken out on a regular basis to get the point across. A case in point is Walid Shoebat who was recently a guest on my television show. He was once a former PLO terrorist who is now a strong supporter for Israel. Under great danger to himself, he is speaking out about the violent culture which he was raised under. A week or two before the taping, I called the Consul General, Yuval Rotan's office to invite him, or a representative to appear on the show. As usual, I was rebuffed. I then contacted the Press Office to see if they would like to send someone to the studio to go on with him. Nobody was interested. What are those people doing over there? Incidentally, I contacted the good people at Jerusalem Front Page, a Christian Broadcasting station with over a hundred outlets and they jumped right on it. He was even invited to North Carolina to attend the Christian Coalition meeting. When speakers like he or Daniel Pipes, Tovia Singer, or most any controversial person, who happens to be Jewish are booked to speak at a University, the Arabs are there in full force. They intimidate. They threaten. And, usually are able to shout the Jewish speaker down. Like the hi-jacking and "suicide" bombings this violent culture has besieged upon the world, they have been very effective. So, now the unthinkable, Anti-Semitism, is given full reign and nobody is there to combat them. I spoke with Dr. Pipes on his way to the Berkley campus and he told me his reactions afterward. "It was a carnival atmosphere but, I also expected the university to do a much better job of controlling the outbursts, the insults and the general atmosphere of intimidation." He is a guy who can handle that, however, most speakers can't and the students are the ones who suffer. In the old days, my friend Irv Rubin would have traveled there just as he did to Idaho to confront the Nazis. Where are the backups to combat these Arabs who are out there at our universities? Shouldn't the Israeli consul be doing less plaque taking and more When I was in Israel reporting, I went to that bastion of Arab anti-Semitism, in Jerusalem, Orient House where the press seemed to like to gather and have drinks in the evening. The Arabs were out in full force socializing with the members of the press. Maybe it's time for the Israeli Consul to do a little of their own promoting. "Anti-Zionist" Film festivals are becoming the norm at our universities and the students are being taught regularly about the "siege and occupation" of Israel by the Jews. Anti-Semitism is running rampant at our schools. What is being done to combat it? The Irv Rubin that I remember would have been outside with a bullhorn reminding these planned "demonstrators" that they were not allowed to do all that they are getting away with today. He took his own "troops" to Idaho to confront the Nazis. Where are the backups to combat these Arabs who are out there at our universities? Like the hijacking and "suicide" bombings this violent culture has besieged upon the world, they have been very effective. So, now the unthinkable, Anti-Semitism, is given full reign and nobody is there to combat them. Maybe the Israeli consulate should be doing less 'plaque taking" and a little more of the basic public relations? Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
ISRAEL ON TRIAL
Posted by David Wilder, February 23, 2004. |
|
Yesterday was a normal Sunday - the beginning of the week. In Israel
we live a five and a half to six day work week which begins on Sunday
and ends Friday afternoon. We have a one-day weekend.
Sunday morning - the kids go to school, the parents to work. Nothing out of the ordinary. Sitting at the computer, drinking coffee, running a tour, the same old stuff. Listening to the radio, half-watching the beeper, everyday events. Sirens screeching, ambulance-lights flashing, news bulletins, blood on the street, twisted metal, crushed cars, a bus exploded. Nu, so what's new? Identifying murdered family members at Abu Kabir, bodies wrapped in a tallis, funerals, cemeteries, weeping and wailing, mourning. Nothing out of the ordinary. Soft, quiet music broadcast on Kol Yisrael radio, a blood-stained text book - "How to be an Israeli citizen," strewn on the ground amongst body parts. The fate of every good school book, right? Gruesome? Nauseating? No, no!! This is the mundane existence of every Israeli, the way it's been now for years. Within two hours after the 14A bus exploded near the Inbal Hotel, across the street from Liberty Bell Park, life had returned to normal. The bus had been towed away and the street cleaned of the wretched remains of a bus-bombing. Israel radio announcers dutifully broadcast the chronology of the day. Reports from the hospitals, how many injured, their condition, identification of the dead, their names, time of the funerals, which cemetery. Pictures in the newspapers, stories of their lives - and a new, added attraction: others from the same family wounded or killed in previous terror attacks. For example, among yesterday's victims was Lior Azulai, an 18 year-old 12th grader, whose aunt Iris Azulai was killed in a terror attack in Jerusalem 12 years ago. Thirty one year old Yuval Ozana's uncle was killed four years ago during a Yesha terror attack. Two of his nephews were seriously wounded in the Ben Yehuda bombing two years ago. Hours later, news headlines: no major reaction expected to morning terror attack; Parts of security fence dismantled. This morning: Sharon in the Knesset: "I will take my 'disengagement plan' to Washington and present it to President Bush in March." And only days ago, "the "Disengagement Plan" is a security measure and not a political one." "We must be realistic, and prepare for the option that the current situation, in which the Palestinians do not implement their part of the President's vision, will continue. This will create a security and political vacuum. In that case, Israel will take the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians... This will include the redeployment of IDF forces along new security lines and a relocation of some settlements. Security will be provided by IDF deployment, the security fence and other physical obstacles. These steps will increase the security of the citizens of Israel and make it easier for the IDF and security forces to do their difficult work... Obviously, the "Disengagement Plan" will leave the Palestinians with much less than they would have if they had followed the requirements of the Roadmap." In other words, Israel's present surrender to Arab-Arafat terror is being forced on us. If only the terrorists would cooperate, Israel is prepared to give them more! This is one side of the coin: Israel vs. Israel. Our own stupid blunders. At the same time there is the other side: Israel vs. the world. A few days a foreign journalist, interviewing me, scoffed when I remarked that Arabs desiring to leave Israel (including Yesha) have somewhere to go - there are 22 Arab states surrounding us. Yet there is only one Jewish state - we have no where else to go. This is it. She claimed that we all have somewhere to go. "After all," she said, "you came from New Jersey."I asked her about my wife, who was born here, or my children and she shrugged it off, saying, "you all came from somewhere." My response: "you know, sixty years ago, when six million Jews were slaughtered during the holocaust, the world sat and watched. The Europeans and the Americans knew exactly what was happening, yet they did nothing to stop it. They could have bombed the railways or the crematoriums, but preferred not to. As far as I'm concerned, that says only one thing. Jews were being told, "We, the rest of the world, don't want you living with us. Leave." So we tried to leave, to come back to Israel. Yet we were told then, and still today, "Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel really doesn't belong to you, it belongs to someone else, the Arabs, the 'palestinians.'" So I ask: the world tells us not to assimilate into their cultures, but we have no right to live in our own land. So where would the world like us to go? To disappear into the sea? Months ago (in truth, years ago) the Israeli government has decided that the best offense is a good defense. This is, of course, an illogical philosophy, in direct contradiction to rational strategic policy which says that the best defense is a good offence. So much for Ariel Sharon's legendary military genius. One of the results of this policy was the decision to build a 'fence,' 'separating' us from the 'palestinians.' The Arabs, fearing that the fence will be the border of a 'palestinian state' are fighting its construction and have taken their cause to the nations of the world. The present 'Hague Hearings' are allegedly 'the case against the fence.'- In reality, the fence question is a smokescreen for a much broader topic: is Israel a legitimate, autonomous state with the right to protect its citizens and ensure its survival, or not? This is the real issue. Israel decided, rightfully so, not to officially participate in the Hague hearings, claiming that the international court has no jurisdiction over internal security measures implemented by a sovereign state. However, the number 19 Egged bus, bombed a month ago in the heart of Jerusalem, is adorning the street adjacent to the court proceedings. This, a living (or better termed, dead) example of the terrorist war declared against Israel by Arafat three and a half years ago. The terrorist representing Arafat, Nasser al-Kidwa, said this morning that he hoped a decision by the court would result in international sanctions against Israel. Let there be no mistake - in my opinion the fence is a dreadful mistake. It is not the way to stop terrorism and will be an appalling failure. However, that is a mistake we should be free to make on our own, without international intervention. Our security must be in our hands, not controlled by others. An Arab victory in the Hague is only the first step towards establishment of an 'international observer force' stationed in Yesha, resulting in a serious abridgement of Israel's ability to defend itself against continuing terror. And of course, this is only the beginning. The Hague Hearings are not about the fence, rather, the State of Israel is on trial. With blessings from Hebron. David Wilder is spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm. Or contact The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com, 718-677-6886. |
|
THE WASHINGTON POST'S ANTI-ISRAEL REPORTING CONTINUES
Posted by Robert G. Samet, February 23, 2004. |
|
Friends:
The Washington Post's anti-Israel bias shows no sign of letup. As a
result, EyeOnThePost Inc. has initiated an ad campaign in which we'll
regularly publish "Open Letters to the Washington Post." In these
"Open Letters" we'll do our best to expose the Post's one-sided and
often untruthful reporting. We've never before made a public appeal
for help, but we need your financial assistance now. Our first ad ran
this week in the Washington Jewish Week on the subject of a recent
Post article, discussed below, that was widely viewed in the community
as slanted and inaccurate. The Jewish Week also ran a story about this
article, and in the story mentioned the launching of our "Open
Letters" ad campaign. You can see the Jewish Week article at
Our plan is to publish these "Open Letters" in the Washington Times,
and if funds are sufficient, in The Washington Post as well.
Many of you saw the horrendous article on the front page of The Washington Post on February 10, 2004 with the headline "Israel Hems in Sacred City, Encircling Jerusalem Complicates Prospects for Peace." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27078-2004Feb9.html
This massive article was obviously designed to coincide with the impending hearing in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. It occupied 1/3 of the front page and two full interior pages, with 6 color photos and 3 maps. The thrust of the article was that Israel has for many years been involved in a massive land grab with respect to Jerusalem. The article asserts that the Security Fence is a part of that plan and that it not only oppresses and inconveniences Palestinians, but it also makes a peace agreement difficult.
The purpose of the Security Fence and other construction around Jerusalem is for security and to keep out terrorists, but security needs are mentioned only briefly in the article.
The historical context was completely inaccurate. The article refers to both the War of Independence and the '67 War but nowhere mentions that Israel was attacked by the surrounding Arab nations in 1948 and nowhere mentions that East Jerusalem was captured in 1967 after Jordan, despite repeated warnings to stay out of the war, joined the other Arab nations in attacking Israel. Israel's history of having been attacked and of having been forced to fight defensive wars are facts that are necessary for an understanding of Israel's conduct.
This is how the article described Israel's War of Independence. Note that there is no mention of Israel being attacked, and note that the War of Independence becomes the "war for independence," as though it was just something Israel had to do to gain independence: "Under the agreements that ended British rule in Palestine in 1948... Jerusalem was to be an international city. But Israel's war for independence ended the following year with Israel in possession of the western part of the city."
This is how the article describes the '67 War. Note the failure to mention the defensive nature of that War and that Jordan attacked Israel. "In the 1967 Middle East war, Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and shortly thereafter annexed East Jerusalem and the lands around it - 27 square miles in all."
The article, in a manner that has become typical of The Washington Post, places heavy emphasis upon the impact of The Security Fence on Palestinians, with no mention of the thousands of dead and wounded Israelis that prompted the construction of The Fence. In doing so, it shamefully ranks inconvenience to Palestinians above Israeli lives and security.
The following letter to The Post effectively exposes the article
for its anti-Israel slant:
If the object of "Israel Hems in Sacred City" (p. A1, 2/10/04) was
to give readers a balanced understanding of Israel's defensive wall,
you failed miserably. The wall is there to keep out suicide bombers,
yet the term "suicide bomber" appears only twice, toward the end, and
one of these in a quote of an Israeli. Nor is there any mention of the
death toll in Jerusalem from these deadly attacks, nor of the even
larger number of lives ruined by permanent injury from suicide
bombers. Yet would this wall have been built if there had been no
attacks? Of course not.
On the other hand, if your object was to give a one-sided
presentation of the negative effect of the wall on Palestinian life,
you did a brilliant job. If your object was to make readers think that
the wall was built for territorial expansion and to oppress
Palestinians, you were superb. And in such a prominent position, too
(front page above the fold)! Would you write a similar article about
the hardship to Mexicans caused by fences along the US-Mexico border
without mentioning their raison d'etre? Would you implicitly question
that reason by saying "American officials say it is there to keep out
illegal immigrants". (Of course that's a bad analogy because you can't
compare people seeking work with suicide bombers.)
I will be happy to restart my subscription to the Post when you
become a true newspaper, and not a Palestinian propaganda organ.
Name Withheld
But these letters are rarely published, and they don't have a
substantial impact on The Post. We need your financial help in order
to continue what we're doing. We've been in existence for almost two
years now, and, for the most part, we've been funding our own
activities. This is the first time we've sought funding from the
public. The display ads (Open Letters to the Washington Post) and
other activities we are planning are expensive, and if we're going to
be able to focus public attention on The Washington Post for its
unethical and slanted reporting, we're going to need funding. Any help
you're able to provide for this worthy cause will be put to good use.
Your tax deductible contributions to Eye On The Post, Inc. can be
mailed to the following address. Thanks.
EyeOnThePost, Inc.
Robert G. Samet is Co-Chairman of EyeOnThePost, Inc. |
|
TOO PREDICTABLE
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 23, 2004. |
|
Another random bus bombing. This one a day before Israel is to be
"brought to court" to defend itself for building a fence designed
to keep Arabs from disemboweling its kids.
More incinerated and maimed innocents whose only crime was their existence in a land where their ancestors have lived for over three thousand years. Another hollow condemnation by the alleged "good half" of the Arafatian / Hamas-Islamic Jihad good cop / bad cop team. Not that they really object, but it's "bad publicity" for their own cause. I believe it was Martin Niemoller, a German theologian, who wrote something like the following: "First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing. Then they came for the Jews and I remained silent. And by the time they came for me, it was too late." Coincidentally, on the same day a while back on August 19, 2003 that another Arab bought his ticket to "paradise" and its seventy or so virgins by blowing Jews apart on a bus, yet another was doing likewise to United Nations workers in Iraq. Now, what was the lesson regarding Reverend Niemoller's remarks again? This is the same U.N. that, at best, has seen a "moral equivalence" between Jewish babes and grandmothers being deliberately and wantonly slaughtered and Israeli steps taken to try to stop that slaughter. The latest Arab suicide bomber claimed he did this to avenge Israel's killing of armed Hamas fighters in Gaza. What I am writing is admittedly being written in anger, but there is no doubt regarding the truth of the words: Israel has become too darned predictable. Sharon is caving in himself to pressure from so-called friends...the same ones who would have leveled the source of these atrocities had it been done to their own peoples. Arabs, who refuse to dismantle their terrorists and who still do not accept the permanency of a Jewish State, also demand that Israel stand by and do nothing while Jews get butchered. They can't seem to figure out why Israel must have such things as a security fence or real borders instead of armistice lines which made it, among other things, a mere 9-miles wide...a constant temptation to those aiming to destroy it. As if the answer wasn't obvious. How many other nations would continuously tolerate such horror without exacting just and devastating retribution? Think about the daisy cutter and bunker buster bombs, etc. America used against our own enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq as just a few recent examples. Despite all that the Arabs say, they know that the Jews will try their best to just kill the rats in their dens. They'll go house to house, endangering their own sons, and try to target the exact murderers and plotters as best as possible. That's what happened in Gaza a few weeks ago...the Arabs' excuse for the latest bus bombing in Jerusalem. Yet the Geneva Conventions make perfectly clear that militants are not permitted to use their own non-combatants as human shields, that those non-combatants do not prevent an army from pursuing terrorists, and that any harm occurring to the civilian population as a consequence falls on the heads of the cowards using their own people this way. But you'd never know this by listening to the accounts in the press or given even by our own State Department from time to time. Given all of the above, there is, again, only one conclusion...Israel has indeed become too predictable. Arabs know that their own wives and children will not be deliberately targeted on buses, in restaurants, shopping centers, etc. So what I will state next, I regret, but will say anyway. It's time, given the Arab track record of barbarity, for them to reap what they have sown. It's time for massive Israeli retaliation. It's time for Israel to do what is necessary to protect its citizens, regardless of how much aid the U.S. decides to suspend. And many a U.S. citizen will convey the proper message to politicians come November if Foggy Bottom is allowed to have its Arabist-dominated way with Israel over this.. Poll after poll among Arabs have shown that even if Israel withdrew to the 9-mile wide armistice lines imposed upon it after the 1948 fighting (having been invaded by surrounding Arab countries immediately upon its rebirth) - something UN Resolution #242 expressly does not require it to do - Arabs would still reject its right to exist. So who's kidding whom here regarding the fence. And Israel's "friends" know this as well. It's time for Arabs to know that Israel will tell the hypocrites around the rest of the world (much of which has also had plenty of Jewish blood on its hands) that it doesn't care what they think and act to protect its own people - as any other nation would - as best as it can. It's time for Israel to not worry about being too precise in its targeting...for it's time that Arabs fully understand that if they harbor and support terrorists as heroes, they'll share in their fate. President George W. Bush said almost those exact words regarding America's own fight not long ago. When dealing with their own "problems" - a la Assad's "Hama Solution" in Syria (in which ten times more people were killed in a month than Israel killed in two years of intifada), King Hussein's Black September in Jordan, Saddam's murder of Kurds in Iraq (5,000 in Halabja alone), the slaughter of millions of Black Africans in the Sudan, etc., Arabs have murdered literally millions by poison gas, bombs, and artillery from afar...and without a peep out of the United Nations. And no hearing before an international court of justice either. It's time for Israel to make it clear that it will use its own air force, tanks, and such - the way America has - to target the rats' dens instead of risking the lives of its own nineteen year old infantrymen by futilely trying to do the job as "morally correct" as possible. This has gained it nothing among the world's hypocrites and cost it the lives of more of its own soldiers instead. Israel is fighting a war it didn't want. It repeatedly offered more than fair compromises to its enemies...far more than Arabs ever offered to any of their own national competitors. But nothing short of its own suicide will satisfy most Arabs. Arabs don't worry about "ethical choices" when disemboweling Jews. On the contrary, the more innocent the victim, the more preferred he is for shock value as a target. It's time for Arabs to get massive doses of at least a modified version of their own medicine. While I don't advocate blowing up Arab buses, restaurants, schools, and such any building, town, etc. harboring murderers and their collaborators must be recognized for what the Geneva Conventions recognize it as: a fair military target. Listen to Article #51/7: "The presence of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attack..." Article #58b: "The parties to the conflict shall...avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas." The rats' dens are typically set up in or adjacent to civilian apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, etc., as America has learned for itself in Iraq. Article #51/2: "The civilian population...shall not be the object of attack. Acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited...Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited." Arabs typically target Israeli civilian targets. And those famous funeral processions showing hundreds of the dead butcher's colleagues firing weapons into the air? It's time that Israel sees that for what it is: one big, legitimate military target. It's time for Israel to stop letting Arabs dictate how the game will be played. If mothers and infants are fair game for Arabs, then what are the murderers' collaborators? It's time for Israel to send the press packing, tell the UN to drop dead, build the security fence as quickly and as strongly as possible with an adequate buffer (permitted by U.N.#242) so it doesn't have its absurd suicidal 9-mile wide existence again, and ask its friends in the United States to stop having one set of standards for themselves and another one for Jews in their sole, microscopic state. When we thought we knew where Saddam was dining, we bombed the restaurant to smithereens... innocent diners present and all. And the more unpredictable the Israeli response to Arab barbarity, the better. I wish it had not come to this. But when volumes of Arabs start dying relatively randomly (Arabs outnumber Jews 50 to one...they know this...so do the math), as Jews are doing, perhaps they'll be less likely to treat their own terrorists as heroes. And yes, this may also not be the solution, but Israel has tried everything except consenting to its own demise, and nothing else worked either. Arabs simply replaced a pre-'67 "one fell swoop" strategy for Israel's destruction with a "destruction in stages" strategy instead. It's time for Israel to lose its predictability and for Arabs to get a megataste of what they've been dishing out. And it's time for Israel to draw its own lines in the sand and let all know it...including and especially its alleged friends. Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress magazine (http://www.jewishxpress.com), a monthly publication based in southern Florida. His background is in Middle Eastern Affairs. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. |
|
TERROR IN JERUSALEM
Posted by Ariel Natan Pasko, February 22, 2004. |
|
Another terrorist outrage has occurred in
Jerusalem. "The Holy
City of Jerusalem," is my latest article.
Mother Rachel is still crying for her children - the Jewish People (Jeremiah 31:14). Not because they've been dragged off to Babylon in servitude, that ended long ago. They've since returned to their borders (Jeremiah 31:16), rebuilt their cities and towns, and re-established their national life. But, Mother Rachel - buried not far from Jerusalem, just outside Bethlehem - cries because of the horrendous bus bombings and murders perpetrated on her children in these times. Islam claims that Jerusalem is their "third holiest city," one hears that phrase ad nauseum, in the media. It's based on a mythological flight of fancy of Muhammad. But serious scholars - Islamic and otherwise - know better, that Muhammad never set foot in Jerusalem. The Arabs that live in the Land of Israel, who call themselves "Palestinians," claim Jerusalem is so important to them; they want it to be their capital city, for a state that never was. And yet, they blow it up. Peace by piece... Jerusalem the Holy, has yet again suffered another outrage. The second bus bombing in just over three weeks and the 23rd bombing in Jerusalem - that's almost 200 people killed and over 1,500 injured - since the Oslo War began in October 2000. Imagine if an American city - say New York or Los Angeles - suffered 10,000 dead and over 75,000 injured. It has ripped apart bodies, it has ripped apart lives, it has ripped apart families, it has ripped apart dreams, and it has ripped apart the "Peace of Jerusalem" that King David exhorts the whole world to pray for (Psalms 122:6). One can debate "rights" and wrong, "occupation" and suffering, who has suffered more, and to whom does Jerusalem belong. But these are futile efforts, because the truth is crystal clear. Just look at the second part of the verse in King David's holy song. "...They who love you [Jerusalem] shall prosper" (Psalms 122:6). Since 1948, with the return of Jewish political independence in the land of their forefathers, the Jews have prospered. They have built a modern economy and society; they have ingathered exiles; they have rejoiced in the L-rd. The children have returned to their borders (Jeremiah 31:16). Since the liberation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the Old City in 1967 - all previously ethnically cleansed of Jews, by the brutal Jordanian occupation - Jerusalem has grown and prospered. Jews from all over Israel and all over the world have flocked to her, built her, loved her... But the latest usurpers, the "Palestinians" have not prospered. As they work harder and harder to steal what is not theirs, they descend into further poverty and degradation. The Arabs in Gaza today - under the Palestinian Authority - are much worse off economically than when they were under Israeli rule, and this, in spite of the infusion of billions of donor dollars to help them. The same situation exists in the "seven cities" - in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank - which Israel turned over to Arafat's rule. And in Jerusalem? The Arabs of Jerusalem are also suffering. Although under Israeli rule, they've identified with the PA and they've been allowed to vote in the one election - for Arafat - the PA has held since taking power over 10 years ago. They've spurned the "Peace of Jerusalem". The Arabs of Jerusalem want to liberate themselves - or be liberated - from the Jews, i.e. Rachel's children, that's why they suffer. And when a suicide bus bomber blows up another bus in "Jewish" Jerusalem; I'm sure they secretly rejoice, as do their brothers, who openly party in Gaza and the West Bank. Like in the story of King Solomon and the two mothers claiming the same baby as theirs (I Kings 3:16-28), the "Palestinians" as the false mother, would rather see the baby cut in half [Jerusalem] rather than given to it's rightful guardian [the Jewish People]. More than they love Jerusalem, the Arabs hate to see it in the hands of the Jews. Jerusalem, their "third holiest city" and they are killing it. But Jerusalem, the Holy City, City of Gold, City of G-d, is beloved by the Jews. In spite of the bombings, the slow economy, the lack of tourists, the very high rent and real estate prices - because Jerusalem is in such demand - Jews struggle to live there. Jerusalem is our Holiest City! But "Holiness" doesn't mean separation from life, in Jewish thought. Holiness means the fullness of life, a G-D centered life, full of joy and truth. Jerusalem thrives in spite of those who attack her. Truth is on the Jewish People's side. Jerusalem grows and awaits the return of her king and her house, the Messiah and G-D's Temple. King David in his near infinite wisdom continues, "For the sake of my brothers and friends, I shall speak of peace in your [Jerusalem] midst" (Psalms 122:8). He then concludes, "For the sake of the House of the L-rd, our G-D, I will seek your [Jerusalem's] good" (Psalms 122:9). More than the Jewish People need Jerusalem, Jerusalem needs them. Of what value is the Holy City and House of G-D, if there are no people to take in their sacred spirit? G-D's Spirit dwells only where there are those who will benefit from His Presence. As G-D told Moses in the desert, "Make me a 'Mikdash' [Temple] and I will dwell 'Bitucham' [among them]" (Exodus 25:8). On the surface it means in the sanctuary. But more deeply, "I will dwell within them," within those who are prepared for G-D's Presence. Murderers, and those who help them; thieves and their minions; oppressors and occupiers, yes, all the Arabs in the Land of Israel, are not prepared for His Presence, and are not worthy of Holy Jerusalem. If Jerusalem is their "third holiest city," what about numbers one and two? Let them go to Mecca and Medina to blow up. Let them worship their god of blood lust, murder, and mayhem in "their holiest cities". Why settle for number three? But we and our children will go up to the mountain of the L-rd. Jews will continue to live and thrive in Jerusalem, bombers and their hate will not stop that. Jerusalem is the Jewish People's Holiest City and that will never change... riel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko |
|
MAD MAX AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, February 22, 2004. |
|
[A scene from The Passion of the Christ] Let me begin from afar. At
Yad Vashem, during my first trip to Israel, I encountered a large
group of German tourists meticulously taking pictures of exhibits
documenting their grandfathers' deeds. They did it seriously and
methodically, as only Germans can do things even when on vacation, and
their faces expressed very little besides the usual concentration on
the task at hand. I tried to imagine how I would feel at Yad Vashem if
I were German - and could not. I tried to decide if I would even
consider it possible to go there if I were German - and could not.
It's not easy, after all, for a Jew to imagine being German, or vice
versa, I suppose. But there they were, stepping from one exhibit to
the next, not looking guilty, busily snapping picture after picture. I
tried to imagine what they would do with the photographs they were
taking: "Here is Hans floating in the Dead Sea like a piece of
ham. And this is Grandpa Fritz about to shoot a Jewish woman with an
infant in her arms."
Unlike Germans, I don't need to be reminded of the Holocaust, so I didn't go to see Shindler's List or The Pianist. I am not planning to see The Passion of the Christ either, although for a totally different reason. Mel Gibson has made a few wonderfully entertaining movies and starred in many more. However, as far as I am concerned, none of his movies could be called profound. Depth is not really his forte; his version of Hamlet, for instance, was little more than a fencing contest accompanied by declamation from Shakespeare. The Most Rev. Stefan Soroka, Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in USA and Archbishop of Archeparchy of Philadelphia, added to my skepticism. In his review of The Passion of the Christ, he wrote: If you want to see over two hours of cruelty, intense torture, and lots of blood, with tidbits of informing scenes of who this Jesus is, you might want to sacrifice your time and money to see this movie... There is very little offered to help the viewer to come to know and appreciate Jesus in his humanity and in his divinity. There is no need to guess whether the movie is going to hurt the Jews. Our 2,000 years of experience have taught us that whenever there is a reason to ask such a question, the answer is invariably "yes". Meanwhile, Christians all over the world, blissfully oblivious to the Jews' worries, eagerly anticipate the day they will see the gory details of the last hours in the life of the Jew they worship: the gospel according to Mel. This indifference of one part of Judeo-Christian civilization to the anxieties of the other makes me think that if our civilization were a marriage, it would be a terribly unhappy one. Why? Your marriage cannot be happy if you have no clue whatsoever how your significant other feels about you. Do you have any idea how Christians feel about Jews? I know I didn't, even though some of my best friends are Christian. A sheer incident unexpectedly provided an insight into the mystery. Here's what happened. A friend sent me the Most Rev. Soroka's review of Mel Gibson's movie. I found it interesting and promptly forwarded it to my subscribers. There are Christians among my subscribers. One of them wrote to me that he had never believed Jews were responsible for Jesus' death and even offered a reference to the New Testament intended to support his position; nevertheless, he couldn't wait to see the movie. And then he mentioned something about some guilt that I, in his opinion, wasn't supposed to feel. I do not succumb to guilty feelings readily, which is one of the many things that make me a terribly non-orthodox Jew. Even my own mother doesn't easily succeed in making me feel guilty. I have certainly never thought that anyone might expect me to feel guilty about the terrible fate of Jesus Christ. That's why I didn't immediately comprehend the meaning of my reader's remark and decided to disregard it. A few days later, without any apparent reason, I suddenly remembered a West German immigrant to the United States I had met several years ago, when there were still two Germanys. Out of curiosity, I asked him what caused him to leave his comfortable, prosperous country. He complained that the feeling of collective guilt for the wartime atrocities was so pervasive in his country that it turned his life there into a constant mental torture. I thought that such mental torture might give us hope that Germany would never start another war, but I didn't say that. Instead, I asked him how old he was at the end of World War II; he was five. I told him I didn't believe he had to feel guilty about something in which he did not personally participate, nor could have influenced one way or the other. It wasn't obvious to me at first why that particular memory surfaced at that particular moment, but it finally dawned on me: unless I was terribly mistaken, my reader meant exactly what I had said to that German immigrant. Having been born long after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, I couldn't be held personally responsible for the terrible crime my folks committed 2,000 years ago. I was probably supposed to experience the sense of tremendous relief, but that didn't happen. Instead, I realized that, in the eyes of Christians, Jews look pretty much like those German tourists at Yad Vashem looked in my eyes, and it scared the bejesus out of me. Most of Christians are not anti-Semites. They don't hate us. They don't discriminate against us. They don't blame us, but they do expect us to feel guilty. If we don't feel guilty, where is the guarantee we don't kill another god as soon as the opportunity presents itself? What I have said so far has probably made some people feel uncomfortable. What I am about to say will probably make them angry. Nevertheless, I would like to offer to them my own perspective on history and guilty feelings. You see, there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ has ever existed. None whatsoever. None of the contemporary historians mentions him. In all the works of Josephus Flavius, there is one sentence describing rumors of the Messiah's arrival. Our primary source of information about him, the Gospels, were written decades after Jesus' supposed death (the earliest, by Matthew, in 70CE), and it is hard to imagine they were based on any kind of solid evidence. If they were, they should've mentioned it and they didn't. The shroud of Turin is roughly 1200 years old; obviously, it is not historic evidence of Christ's existence. Last year, archaeologists found a very old ossuary in Israel with an inscription that read "James brother of Jesus". If they could prove that James, whose bones had been stored in the box, was the brother of Jesus Christ rather than some other Jew with the same first name, it would be the first scientific evidence of his actual existence. Obviously, it would also raise questions about Mary's virginity. But so far there is no such proof, so Virgin Mary is still a virgin. I support the right of Christians to believe, along with Tertullian, that something is certain because it is impossible, which is usually misquoted as credo quia absurdum est. However, my life, and lives of 14 million Jews around the world might be a bit less worrisome if our Christian friends would stick to the principle "innocent until proven guilty" not only when OJ Simpson is tried for double murder, but also when it comes to our collective guilt in the crucifixion of your God. Because no matter how much the prosecution says that the absence of the body demonstrates the divine nature of our alleged victim, any unprejudiced jury would agree with the defense that doubt is cast about the fact of the crime, not to mention the very existence of the victim. This perfectly reasonable doubt has not stopped our Christian significant others from torturing us for 2,000 years, and, unlike the crime for which we are still being daily punished all over the world (although the severity varies significantly from one place to another), the crimes of punishing us are a historical fact. Actually, it is probably the longest historical fact in history. Think about it: anti-Semitism had been an integral part of every single Jewish life in the last two millennia. Christians had been persecuting Jews for 19 centuries before the Holocaust; then the Holocaust came, Germany lost and things went back to normal: a desecrated cemetery here and there, a rabbi or a yeshiva student beaten up in the street - small things, really. Of course, things like that happen mostly in Europe. In this country, we usually get by with anti-Semitic rallies on campuses. But if you want to talk about collective guilt, do you really think it is a Jewish prerogative? Don't you think it might be actually healthy for your collective psyche to try it? Or to ask yourselves, how come Jews who are usually so quick to learn, have never learned to hate in return? Are we being in some ways more Christian than Christians? Back to the Germans at Yad Vashem. Think how you feel about Germans every time you watch a movie about World War II. Now ask yourselves again whether Gibson's movie will hurt the Jews. I am not going to ask you to boycott the movie: I am not that naive. This is what I am suggesting instead. When you watch the details of Christ's suffering, imagine a Jewish friend of yours (aren't some of your best friends Jewish?) in place of that devastatingly handsome actor. Imagine him or her covered with his own blood instead of ketchup. And if you succeed, multiply it by 250,000. That's how many Jews were really crucified by Romans around the time you believe Jesus was killed by the Jews. Enjoy the movie. Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/ |
|
THE FATAH-AL AQSA BRIGADE
Posted by Honest Reporting, February 22, 2004. |
|
This morning (Feb.22) a suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus killed 8
Israelis - including two teenagers on their way to school - and
injured over 60.
The attack was perpetrated by a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. While it is generally accepted that this terrorist group is connected to Yassir Arafat's Fatah party, most major news agencies continued to downplay that relationship in today's reports: Associated Press: "The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militant group loosely affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the attack and identified the bomber as Mohammed Zool, 23, from the village of Hussan near Bethlehem." DIRECT CONNECTION The evidence, however, clearly indicates that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is not some "loose offshoot," but rather has a direct and ongoing bond to the Fatah party, which holds a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. The Palestinian government, therefore, bears direct responsibility for the group's heinous terrorist acts:
HonestReporting calls on other media outlets to follow the BBC's lead and specify the integral connection between Fatah and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM This is not merely a semantic matter. The close ties that bond the Fatah-led PA to terrorist groups are the fundamental problem that prevents progress toward peaceful reconciliation. The dominant political party in the PA remains a direct sponsor of ongoing terrorism - the ruling politicians and the terrorists are one and the same. If media outlets fail to convey this, their readers and viewers certainly can't understand Israel's position in the raging debate over the security fence, which tomorrow reaches the world court at The Hague. One paper that clearly doesn't "get it" is The Chicago Tribune, which published today three op-eds (1,2,3) railing against the security fence, all under the theme "Build Bridges, Not Walls." Israel has been attempting to build bridges with her Palestinian neighbors for over fifty years. But as a terror-free Palestinian leadership has never emerged, and Israeli families continue to be torn apart by senseless terrorist murder, no other option currently exists. Until there's a Palestinian partner who forsakes terrorism, Israeli citizens deserve the protection of an imperfect wall. In reporting on today's attack, did your local paper indicate the direct connections between the perpetrators of the horrific attack and Yassir Arafat's ruling Fatah party? If not, write a letter to the editor, using the talking points above, and stressing the significance of accuracy on this particular issue - which cuts to the heart of the entire conflict. Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias. Honest Reportng monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com. It has produced a documentary film "Relentless: The Struggle For Peace in Israel" that has now been been seen by thousands of people at over 100 public screenings across the globe. |
|
SOME RELEVANT FACTS ABOUT THE HAGUE COURT PROCEEDINGS
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 22, 2004. |
|
1) On the building of the International Court of Justice in The
Hague, Holland, there is an impression of the ten commandments with
the sixth - Thou Shalt not Kill - clearly evident.
The purpose of defensive fence Israel is building is to prevent the
massacres perpetrated by the Palestinian terror organizations with the
direct or tacit blessing of the Palestinian Authority. Yet, it is
Israel that will tomorrow sit in the accused dock, not the
Palestinians.
2) The Palestinian suicide assassin this morning was a member of El-Aqsa Brigades, an off-shoot of Fatah, Arafat's organization. 3) In a statement to the media, following the latest bus massacre this morning, Ahmed Qurei, the Palestinian Prime Minister, condemned the mass murder in Jerusalem because it is against the Palestinian national interests. Pay close attention: The Palestinian PM does not condemn the murder because it is murder. He condemns it because politically this is not an opportune moment for the Palestinians. 4) About eight months ago, during the reign of Abu Abas (remember him?), Israel made several goodwill gestures to him and the Palestinians. Among them Israel withdrew the IDF from Beit Lehem and handed the PA control over the security there. Guess what, both the latest suicide bombers came out of Beit Lehem... 5) Building the security fence is not Israel's right. It is Israel's OBLIGATION!!! If the above facts are unfamiliar to you, you are not using the right media. It is your obligation to demand from your media provider accurate reporting and complete attention to all the facts. For instance, did any of the TV networks you are watching today, show the Palestinian street celebrations, including distribution of free candies and cakes to passers by, in the wake of today's bus massacre? Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
REPLACE SHARON!
Posted by Ruth and Nadine Matar, February 22, 2004. |
|
Ariel Sharon's policies have totally failed and he must be replaced
immediately.
The latest Arab bus bombing in Jerusalem is merely the latest of a long line of intolerable conditions which our citizenry has been required to "live with" for an extended period of time. It is time we call a halt to this despairing situation. Sharon's policy of restraint towards Arab terror and violence is inexcusable. Steps should have been taken long ago to wipe out the infrastructure of Hamas and the other terror groups, including the destruction of the so-called Palestinian Authority, leaving Arafat without a base from which to operate. His recently announced policy of abandoning the Jewish settlements in Gaza is another inexplicable posture which defies reason. If there is today firing of mortars and other destructive missiles into Israel from the Gaza area, how much more so will it continue in the future. Furthermore, there would be no possibility of a proper response by Israel to such Arab attacks, that does not invoke worldwide criticism. Then, of course, there is the question of rewarding Arab terror which would rightly be seen as such by the terrorists. The example of Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon was seen as a victory for terrorist action, and Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza is identical to the mistake we made in Lebanon. The whole concept of two states living side by side in peace with each other is a fantasy which Sharon has adopted by virtually endorsing "the Road Map". Sharon has not been in any way critical of this preposterous plan, which does not deal with reality. Nor does the hatred which the Palestinian Authority continues to foster. This is evident in the unchanged PA educational system, and in the daily hostile propaganda against the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel. The Jewish People deserve better leadership than what it presently has. Arab Terror will not cease unless the structures from which it operates are totally rooted out and destroyed. Further additional action is required, but at least the fundamental rooting out of Arab terror is the first necessary step. The Jewish People presently are without hope and are sorely disillusioned. They require a leadership that will restore their confidence and pride in themselves and in their government. Sharon's dictatorial policies must be halted. Israel's very existence is threatened, and public morale is at an all time low. The only solution is for Ariel Sharon to step down, either voluntarily or be removed from office. Are the Jewish People wise enough to take such action? 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 |
|
PEGUA
Posted by Dr. Mike Gropper, February 22, 2004. |
|
I am praying at the 8 o'clock morning minyion in our synagogue. It is
Rosh Chodesh Adar. I felt good. Soon we will celebrate Purim. During
the davening, the guy in front of me leaves and goes outside as his
portable telephone is ringing. He returns - he is a British guy. His
son is in the army. I ask him if everything is okay. He says no,
another bus just blew up in Jerusalem. We finish praying. Everyone
starts to talk as the news spreads through the shul. This is an all too
familiar experience, a tragic one. You immediately think of where it
happened, who do you know who may have been in that area. This
happened on the #14 bus, right near Liberty Park Bell. The terrorists
have struck again, killed and maimed innocent people as the world
waits to have another shot at going after Israel for its security
fence.
It disgusts me. But I am more disgusted with our leaders who don't have faith in our right to punish those people who are slaughtering the Jews of the Promised land. The leaders in Israel are in fact very cowardly. There is no diplomatic or political consideration that can justify what these Palestinian nazis are doing - nothing. Its time that someone stands up and punishes them severely to a point that they are the ones that are terrified. This is our right. If only our leaders understood this. If only they believed in HaShem. If only they understood that our freedom here is not because of Bush, the U.N., or the European Union. It is a gift from HaShem. Someone who understands this would act quite differently. They would let these terrorists and their people know that Jewish blood is costly. I hope that day comes soon. I pray it will. |
|
VISITING US CONGRESSMAN ASTOUNDED BY ISRAELI RESTRAINT
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 22, 2004. |
|
This was written by Tal Yamin Wolowitz and Arik Bender. It appeared on
the Ma'ariv International website (http://www.maarivintl.com
Gerald Nadler, US congressman from Long Island was overwhelmed by what he saw this morning: "it is simply horrifying to see it up close, to see the pieces of human flesh on the ground", he told Maariv Online. Israel's restraint is remarkable to Nadler: "Any other nation on earth under attack as Israel is would have already begun bombing the Palestinian Authority. If this had happened in America, you would already see the B-52's in the air, blowing up the place where the terrorists were sent from. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of those who say that Israel must not build the security barrier?. Nadler added that the images of what he saw remind him of the period of the Holocaust. Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (COP), Malcolm Hoenlein witnessed the aftermath of the attack. At the time of the attack Hoenlein and members of the COP were in a meeting with the Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon at the nearby Inbal hotel. "During [Yaalon's] speech, we heard the blast", said Hoenlein. "Yaalon was handed a note by one of his assistants that it was a terrorist attack... we all ran out of the hotel to see what happened and what I saw, those images will stay with me for the rest of my life. I will never forget the horrific images I saw this morning. The bodies lying on the sidewalk and inside the wrecked bus, the pieces of human flesh scattered everywhere and the shock and pain of the casualties", he told Maariv Online. Hoenlein went on to say that members of the COP would use this personal experience to help strengthen Israel in its fight against terrorism. "The absurd part of all this is that at the same time that we are witness to the destructive and deadly effects of this attack on Israel, she sits as defendant in The Hague tribunal... we must put an end to this farce immediately. The one who should stand accused is Arafat, not the State of Israel." Nir Barkat, opposition leader in the Jerusalem Municipality was also a witness to the attack. He was on his way to visit a school when the bus blew up right in front of his eyes. "I ran to the bus to help people," he told Maariv Online. "There were body parts strewn all over, the condition of the bodies was awful. I tried to ignore the body parts and ran to help the injured. There was an 18 year-old girl covered in blood. I tried to stop the bleeding until the ambulances came." Barkat says he thought of going to The Hague hearings, but decided against it. "We must finish the barrier in order to prevent these terrible attacks. It is simply horrifying. The first thing to be done is to stop these killings, the killing of innocents." |
|
CAFE HILLEL DELIVERS
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 22, 2004. |
|
About an hour after the #14 bus blew up at the corner of Bethlehem
Road and King David Streets just below the Inbal Hotel this morning, a
delivery arrived from Cafe Hillel, a few bus stops back on Emek
Refaim.
In solidarity with the new latest crop of Jerusalem terror victims,
the Cafe where seven people lost their lives last September, sent
refreshments for the ZAKA workers and police.
The bodies of the eight people whose lives had just ended had been quietly loaded onto ambulances and driven away. It took three ZAKA workers, dressed in white plastic, to get each body into a bag. Police photographers documented everything, as their colleagues combed the interior of the blown out bus, carefully extracting whatever personal material remained. Backpacks, pocket books, shoes, coats, books all emerged and were taken for investigation. The ZAKA crew fanned out in all directions scraping the sidewalk for pieces of flesh. Where I was standing in the gas station opposite, glass littered the ground, along with a saucer-size piece of scalp. Apart from the press, no more than a few hundred people stood quietly around, watching the well-oiled clean-up process. There was no yelling, no wailing, no one offering solutions. Someone's cell-phone rang and a conversation ensued about the best place to get a car fixed. Another woman called her dentist to say she'd be a little late. Border police did their best to keep the press photographers behind the barricades, but a few self-important Jewish leaders visiting from abroad pushed themselves in front and were led closer. At the gas station, the owner of a vehicle that had pulled up for gas at the moment of the explosion was allowed to return to get his belongings out of his undamaged car. A friend hugged him as he got in and pulled out a few things - they both looked across the street at the carnage a few yards away. Mayor Uri Lupolianski showed up an hour after the bomb went off. He obediently went through the ritual of Channel I and 2 interviews, but had nothing significant to say. Jerusalem Police Commander Mickey Levy announced that the police had informed the hospitals treating the 40 wounded, that some kind of toxic material had been used in the bomb. A little more than seventy minutes after the "event" as it's known in Hebrew, an Egged truck pulled up and hauled off the bus, allowing ZAKA to complete their flesh search among the glass that had been underneath, before the bitter cold wind blew pieces of paper and plastic all over the place. Oh, I almost forgot - today is the start of Tourism Week. Tonight is the official opening of the Prime Minister's Conference on Tourism, at Binyanei Haooma just across town. Of course it's going ahead as planned, with 500 foreign guests arriving today from all over the world. One event was cancelled - Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman had scheduled a ceremony at noon today in Jerusalem, to deliver the first specially fitted buses equipped with a "protection system" against homicide bombers to Egged. Judy Lash Balint is a Jerusalem based writer and author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times". Her website address is www.jerusalemdiaries.com |
|
STILL TRYING
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 22, 2004. |
|
We've been trying to conform to the dictates of the never seen, but loudly heard, "International Community" led by George of Carlisle, and closely monitored by U.S.State Dept. enforcers. Honest we have.
We began dismantling an eight-kilometre stretch of the separation fence east of Baka al-Sharkiyeh this morning. Just as the Americans and their United Nations allies have demanded. The Israeli government is in the last stages of logistical planning for the forced relocation of Jews from Gaza, and the West Bank. To ensure that the absolutely sovereign PLO-Hamas regime in Gaza will not have to waste any effort in developing their economy and providing a decent living for their subjects, we in Israel have stepped up our efforts to provide employment for the Palestinians and tax revenues for their terror regime. We have been "creating jobs" for the PLO-Hamas subjects by hunting down non-Muslim foreign workers on the streets of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem, and deporting them en-masse. We've been doing our best. Police investigations and threats of prosecution have silenced the majority of would-be dissenters in the State of Israel. We have also made foreign travel difficult if not impossible for those who could organise protests in the USA or elsewhere. Of course as George Bush and the shadowy "International Community" claim, we "could do more". We have not yet arranged to bomb our own cities and citizens in the fashion of Joseph Heller's "Catch-22", but we have made it easier for our "Peace partners" to do so. And so they have. 7 killed, 60 injured in Jerusalem suicide attack |
|
THE LEFTIST RULES FOR DEBATING
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 22, 2004. |
|
The following are the basic principles upon which all public debate must
be conducted if you wish to be a true progressive leftist and politically
correct:
1. Leftists should be free to call everyone else nasty names, but no one
should be permitted to call leftists back nasty names.
2. For a leftist to call someone nasty names shows social concern and awareness. For someone to call a leftist a nasty name back is immature and impolite and avoiding the issues. 3. Leftists need never document their claims. 4. Whenever a leftist is presented with documentation of facts that contradict the leftist's theology, the leftist must insist that no facts have been presented at all. 5. No scientific sources that presents facts contradicting leftist theology are admissable. 6. All arguments may be settled by telling a non-leftist that he reminds you of Rush Limbaugh. 7. Never ever take an economics course. 8. Never recognize the fact that every idea of Marx's was debunked over 150 years ago. Never read any social science written since Marx. Never admit that you know that Marx was a racist and anti-Semite. 9. Never visit the library. 10. Never study statistics or public policy analysis. 11. Insist that you truly believe 10% of humans are gay and that gay people are not abnormal. 12. Always say "people of color" so everyone will know you care. 13. Recycle. 14. Pretend that you do not care about material things, but never sell your VCR or cellular phone or condo. 15. Never admit that life ever involves tradeoffs. After all, when there are tradeoffs it is harder to feel righteous. 16. Always support proposals that make real problems of the world worse as long as they make you feel caring and righteous. 17. Never admit that anything could be positive about the United States. 18. Always insist that there are few world problems that could not be improved through the destruction of Israel. 19. Always insist that you have no idea what political correctness is. 20. Always use the female pronouns half the time or more. That way everyone will know you are egalitarian. 21. Insist that you are more caring and compassionate than anyone else. 22. Remember, you would rather that poor people in the Third World starve, rather than that they should embrace capitalism and live like you do. 23. Other people must always be required to relinquish their material things so that you may feel idealistic. 24. Your property is sacred; other people's property is to be used for social engineering and doing good. 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. |
|
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONFLICTS
Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 22, 2004. |
|
The latest suicide atrocity in Jerusalem has been a
rude but necessary wakeup call for peaceloving Jews and, hopefully,
Arabs as well.It is doubtful whether Abu Mazzen will cooperate
with Zahal in eliminating the Moslem fundamentalists. He definitely
cannot do it with his forces and needs the help of Zahal.In spite of
his vehement declarations of today,it can be assumed that Zahal will
continue to rely mainly on its own Arab 'stinkers' and sophisticated
intelligence apparatus. Here and there, some genuinely peace-loving
Arabs,who sensed Israel's readiness for compromise will offer their
services, but, all in all, it will be up to Zahal.
Conflicts between nations have, historically, been resolved when one side has been convincingly defeated and is is a state of shock. Thus it was for Germany, Japan, Yugoslavia, etc. We can go back further and take the soutern American states, the Boers and many other situatins of conflicts and their settlement. We can also remember the Yom Kippur war and Egypt. Perhaps Jordan also can be taken as an example. We need, unfortunately, to send the Palestinians into a state of shock.I suggest the following steps: 1] Bomb Arafat and the terrorists sheltering inhis Mokato complex. 2] Demolish the houses of the suicide bombers and their relatives and banish them to the lebanon. 3] Take back control of the cities in the West Bank. 4] Inform Europe and the U.S.A. that we are willing to discuss a final peace settlement and a possible palestinian state only afte a complete dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure and only in direct talks with peace-loving palestinian leaders. |
|
2,500-Year-Old Jewelry Israel
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 22, 2004. |
|
This is a new item by Gavin Rabinowitz, an Associated Press writer. It
appeared in Newsday.com yesterday.
Ask Arafat and he'll tell you these people were palestinians.
JERUSALEM --Israeli archaeologists excavating caves near the Dead Sea discovered jewelry, a makeup kit and a small mirror - 2,500-year-old fashion accessories for women. The trove apparently belonged to Jews who returned from exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C., said Tsvika Tsuk, chief archaeologist for the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. "This find is very rare. Both for the richness of the find and for that period, it is almost unheard of," Tsuk said on Friday. Using metal detectors, archeologists found the treasures under a stone-like accumulation of sediment thrown up by a nearby spring. They included a necklace made of 130 beads of semiprecious stones and gold; a scarab; an agate medallion of Babylonian origin; and a silver pendant with an engraved crescent moon and pomegranates. What appears to be a makeup kit contained an alabaster bowl for powders, a stick to apply the cosmetics and a bronze mirror. They also found a pagan stamp showing a Babylonian priest bowing to the moon. "These finds confirm the (biblical) accounts of Jews returning from exile in Babylon," Tsuk said. When the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Kingdom of Judah in 597 B.C., he sent many Jews into exile in Babylon. These Jews and their descendants were later allowed to return by the Persian monarch Cyrus in 538 B.C. Tsuk said the find shows that there was a wealthy and flourishing community of returnees living in the area. "These are not the belongings of a simple person," he said. The archaeologists were part of a joint team from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv. They have been excavating caves near the Dead Sea for the last three years. |
|
THINKING JERUSALEM
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 21, 2004. |
|
While it keeps getting shoved onto the back burner for fear of the
intense heat that it will generate, there's no doubt that Jerusalem
will be one of the most difficult issues to resolve in any so-called
"peace process." It's time to take a look at some blunt facts
regarding this issue, despite the risk of ruffling even some friendly
feathers.
While Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have ties to Jerusalem, these ties are in no way "equal." In religious Jewish sources, for instance, Jerusalem is mentioned over 600 times, but it is never mentioned even once in the Koran. It is alluded to in the latter in passages about the Hebrew Kings, David and Solomon, and the destruction of the Temples of the Jews. Arafat and Co. deny a Jewish Temple ever existed there. They call the Temple Mount "Buraq's Mount," after Muhammad's supposedly winged horse. But a mention of Jerusalem itself is no where to be found in the Muslim holy book...interesting, since it was recorded in many other places besides the writings of the Jews themselves for over 1,500 years before the rise of Islam. Religious claims of both Christians and Muslims to Jerusalem exist primarily because of both of their links to the Jews. Political claims - based upon facts on the ground - are, admittedly, more complicated. Even so, throughout over three millennia since King David conquered it from the Jebusites, renamed it, and gave it its Jewish character, no other people except the Jews has ever made Jerusalem their capital, despite its conquest by many imperial powers, including that of the Arab caliphal successors to Muhammad as they burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions. Damascus and Baghdad were the capital seats of caliphal imperial power, and Mecca and Medina the holy cities. This is not to say that Jerusalem was ignored by its Muslim conquerors (i.e. the Umayyads built the Dome of the Rock/Mosque of 'Umar on the Temple Mount making it Islam's allegedly third holiest city), but it is to say that Jerusalem was and is in no way the focus for Islam that it is for Jews and Judaism. Since David made Jerusalem his capital and it became the site of his son Solomon's Temple, Zion became the heart and soul of Jewish national and religious existence. Jews from all over the early diaspora made their pilgrimages and sent offerings to its Temple. "By the Rivers of Babylon we wept..." and "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning..." were just a few of the many Biblical expressions of the Jews for Zion. Such yearning persisted throughout subsequent millennia in the Diaspora as well. "Next Year in Jerusalem" sustained the Jew throughout countless degradations and humiliations culminating in the Holocaust. There is no Muslim parallel to these claims, regardless of efforts to portray Palestinian Arabs (many of whom were new arrivals in the land themselves) as the "new Jews." Jews, from a hundred different lands, didn't have twenty-two other states to potentially choose from and suffered dearly for this statelessness. Most Muslim Arabs want sole rights over Jerusalem the same way they want sole rights over Tel Aviv: In their eyes, only they have legitimate political rights anywhere in what they regard as the Dar al-Islam. Regardless of whatever theology one clings to, Jesus' historical experiences in Roman-occupied Judaea and Jerusalem were those of a Jew living under very precarious conditions. Thousands of his countrymen had already been killed, crucified, etc. in the subjugation/pacification process. The contemporary Roman and Roman-sponsored historians themselves - Tacitus, Josephus, Dio Cassius, etc. - had much to say about all of this. Listen to just this one telling quote from Tacitus: " Vespasian succeeded to the throne... it infuriated his resentment that the Jews were the only nation who had not yet submitted." These oppressive conditions led to open revolts and guerilla warfare to rid the land of its mighty pagan conqueror - wars which would eventually lead the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, to rename the land itself from Judaea to Syria Palaestina in 135 C.E. in an attempt to stamp out any remaining hopes for Jewish independence and national existence. Judaea was thus renamed after the Jews' historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the eastern Mediterranean or Aegean region, to drive home the point. For a modern analogy, imagine little Latvia as it was engulfed by the Soviet Union in the latter's heyday of power. Or a Hungarian freedom fighter or Greek partisan taking on the Soviets or the Nazis. Think of the sympathy and admiration normally given to such situations... Now think about the treatment the Jews have received over the ages for longing for this same freedom and dignity. Whatever Jesus did or did not mean in his alleged statement, "render unto Caesar...," this passage and others in the New Testament have been used to belittle this same desire for freedom and independence among the Jews. Judaea Capta (not "Palaestina" Capta) coins were issued, and the towering Arch of Titus was erected after the first major revolt in 70 C.E. and shows, among other things, the Romans carrying away the giant Menorah and other objects from the Jewish Temple that at least many if not most Arabs and other Muslims claim never existed. It stands in Rome to this very day to commemorate Rome's victory over the Jews and Jewish Jerusalem. When Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, fled Mecca to Medina in 622 C.E. (the Hijrah), the inhabitants welcomed him. Medina had been developed centuries earlier as a thriving date palm oasis by Jews fleeing the Roman assault (the banu-Qurayzah and banu-al-Nadir tribes, etc.), and its mixed population of Jews and pagan Arabs had thus become conditioned for a native prophet speaking the word of G-d. Muhammad learned much from the Jews. While the actual timing of his decision on the direction of prayer may never be known, during his long sojourn with the Jews of Medina, his followers were instructed to pray towards Jerusalem. Early prominent Arab historians such as Jalaluddin came right out and stated that this was done primarily as an attempt to win support among the influential Jewish tribes (the People of the Book) for Muhammad's religio-politcal claims. It is from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven on his winged horse. A mosque, the Dome of the Rock, would later be erected on this Jewish holy site after the Arab imperial conquest of the land in the 7th century C.E. There is no doubt among objective scholars that Jews had an enormous impact on both Muhammad and the religion that he founded. The holy sites for Muslims in Jerusalem (i.e. the mosques erected on the Temple Mount of the Jews) are now deemed "holy" precisely because of the critical years Muhammad spent after the Hijrah with the Jews. The Temple Mount had no prior meaning to pagan Arabs. While there was some early Christian influence as well, intense scholarship has shown that the Holy Law (Halakha) and Holy Scriptures of the Jews had a tremendous influence on the Koran, Islamic Holy Law (Shari'a), etc. Muhammad's "Jerusalem connection" was most likely not established until after his extended stay with his Jewish hosts. This was no mere coincidence...Muslim religious beliefs regarding Muhammad's conversations with the Angel Gabriel, etc. notwithstanding. When the Jews refused to recognize Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. Before long, with the exception of Yemen, there were virtually no Jews left on the Arabian Peninsula. And the direction of prayer was changed away from Jerusalem and towards the Kaaba in Mecca instead. To say that Jerusalem has the same meaning for Muslims as it has for Jews is to simply tell a lie. In modern times, Jews constituted the majority of Jerusalem's population from 1840 onwards. When Jordanian Arabs - whose nation itself was formed from 80% of the original mandate for Palestine issued to Britain on April 25, 1920 - seized East Jerusalem after their invasion of reborn Israel in 1948, they destroyed dozens of synagogues and thousands of Jewish graves, using tombstones to pave roads, build latrines, etc. When the Jews were denied access to their holy sites for almost two decades, the whole world remained silent. After Israel was forced to fight a defensive war in 1967 due to its being blockaded by Egypt's Nasser at the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli) and other hostile acts, Jerusalem became reunited. Access to all peoples and faiths subsequently became unhindered. It was at this moment that much of the world next chose to rediscover Jerusalem...demanding its redivision, internationalization, etc. Now there's justice for you! Sickening... but, unfortunately, not really shocking or unexpected in the Jewish experience. For centuries, Jews were forcibly converted and/or expelled, massacred, humiliated, demonized, inquisitioned, ghettoized, declared the "deicide people," etc., to one extent or another, in both the Muslim East (where they were also known as kelbi yahudi - Jew dogs) as well as the Christian West. They are determined that their rights in the sole capital of the sole, microscopic, reborn state that they possess will not be sacrificed on behalf of any 23rd state created for Arabs. Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. This article is archived at New York Jewish Times (http://nyjtimes.com/Heritage/News/2004/Feb/ThinkingJerusalem.htm). |
|
UNWARRENTED BIAS BY THE MAYOR OF THE HAGUE
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 21, 2004. |
|
Please join in sending e-mails to the ambassador of the Netherlands to
condemn the outrageous position of the mayor of The Hague on the eve
of the International Court of Justice (Injustice?) hearings on
Israel's security barrier. The mayor has demonstrated outrageous
anti-Semitic chutzpah by criticising victims of terrorism for daring
to show pictures of Israelis killed by Hamas & Co. as part of a
planned peaceful protest in The Hague. Suggest you use your own words.
I got the e-mail address from the ambassador's CVs on the Dutch
embassy website. To get maximum impact, please also ask your friends
to join in. Shalom. Leo
To The Hon. Boudewijn Johannes van Eenennaam
Dear Ambassador: I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms the outrageous statement of the mayor of The Hague that the Israeli Embassy in your country threatens public order by providing pictures of Israeli terror victims to people who plan to demonstrate peacefully against attempts to misuse the International Court of Justice as a political tool to condemn Israel's security barrier along the West Bank. This barrier is solely a security measure to prevent terrorists from killing hundreds of innocent civilians in Israel. Israel has made it amply clear that it will take down the barrier as soon as there no longer is a threat from terrorist groups bent on murdering Jews. I would hope that Dutch authorities, instead of impeding free expression, would uphold the right of peaceful protest, including the use of pictures of people killed by terrorists to underscore the fact that the security barrier is needed to save lives. I would think that this is an elemental right in a free, democratic society and I'm shocked that a Dutch official would object to free expression by victims of terrorism. I'm afraid the mayor of The Hague has disgraced not only himself but your country in this matter by his totally repellent conduct. I would hope that your government would immediately dissociate itself form his perverse attitude in this matter, issue an apology and reaffirm strongly the right of peaceful protest. Sincerely, |
|
CAN ISRAEL GET A FAIR TRIAL?
Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 20, 2004. |
|
This was written by Gerald M. Steinberg, who is the director of the
Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan University,
and editor of www.ngo-monitor.org. It appeared in the "National
Post," yesterday. It was distributed by the Canadian Institute
for Jewish Research (CIJR) as a Isranet Daily Briefing.
As the International Court of Justice's consideration of Israel's separation fence draws closer, the political and propaganda aspects of this battle are gaining strength. For the Palestinians and their supporters, this is a mega-opportunity to put Israel on trial and a milestone in the demonization process. They can hope to build on the achievements of Durban, where thousands of powerful NGOs turned the September 2001 UN Conference on Racism into a rally against Israel. From Durban, they moved to Jenin, condemning the Israeli anti-terror operation that followed the Passover bombings as a war crime, and repeating the false Palestinian claims of a massacre. And now, instead of accepting the Israeli separation fence as a legitimate response to terror, the demonization coalition is attacking the "apartheid wall." The fact that this case is being heard at all is a farce that further erodes any remaining moral authority of the UN and the.court. In a very partisan vote, the UN General Assembly gave the court a highly loaded mandate, essentially telling the judges to find Israel guilty without considering the history of terrorism and hatred. In agreeing to hear such a pre-cooked case, the ICJ.will be weakening its standing even further. But for the anti-Israel.campaign, the main event will take place outside the court. The media campaigns will be led by Arafat's representatives, including.the anachronistic European-funded Negotiation Support Unit, as well as the Arab League, and the Conference of Islamic States. [T]his highly partisan version of reality, amplified through the doctrine of Palestinian victimization, will be supported by powerful NGOs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.This group led the way by spreading the use of the term "apartheid wall" and other incendiary language. As a result, these organizations, despite their claim to further the principles of human rights, have become active participants in the conflict. Given this framework of warfare by other means, the challenge for diplomats, journalists, and for the international court itself is to be able to separate the massive hype from the substance. In particular, the question is whether the Israeli case will even be given a hearing. The proceedings should be widely recognized as a kangaroo court, with no claim to moral or legal legitimacy. From the perspective of the Israeli consensus - and, it should be recalled, Israel is a vibrant democracy - this separation barrier is not only legitimate but a vital necessity. The reports that refer to unilateral disengagement.as Ariel Sharon's plan to avoid making peace with the Palestinians, miss the point entirely. Sharon resisted this approach for a long time, but the logic has become inescapable. If he had not announced this move, another leader would have. The logic and morality of unilateral separation begins with the understanding that the status quo - based on a Swiss-cheese map of intertwined Palestinian cities and Israeli settlements left over from the failed Oslo process - is intolerable for all. Israeli military responses to three years of terror have been quite effective, but sporadic attacks continue. The multiple checkpoints, frequent closures and other sources of daily friction between individual Palestinians and Israeli soldiers contribute to the tension. And the political status quo poses a demographic threat to the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict have failed completely. Until there is a credible Palestinian leadership to disarm the terror factions and implement a lasting accord, negotiations, however well intended, are not going to end the conflict. The evolution of a pragmatic Palestinian leadership will take many years or decades. Until then, unilateral disengagement is the least bad option, as many Israelis, including Sharon, now recognize. Israel needs to define pragmatic de facto borders, and build its defensive shield along these lines. The section that has already been built has proven effective in protecting northern coastal cities such as Netanya and Hadera from terror attacks. In some cases, while the logic of these arguments is accepted, the campaign to demonize the separation plan focuses on the route. Indeed, on this issue, there is an active debate within Israel, and the route has been changed a few times to reduce the impact on Palestinian villages located along the seam. At the same time, the political accusations that Israel is stealing territory are not supported by the facts on the ground. Demands that Israel ignore security and other factors, and build the fence along the 1949 ceasefire line - the Green Line - are without foundation, and the massive efforts to rewrite history and turn these lines into sacred international borders are entirely fraudulent. And if the Palestinians were to receive all of their demands as a result of terror, the lesson would be that murder pays. By registering its formal opposition to the procedures at The Hague, Canada may be signalling its unwillingness to any longer tolerate Palestinian efforts to abuse the international institutions that are central to the Canadian ethos. In attempting to get these arguments into the public debate, the main arena will not be in the International Court of Justice, but rather the television screens, Internet sites, and newspaper headlines. Previous experience in the cases of Durban, Jenin and in much of the press coverage and NGO reporting on the Israeli separation policy to date has shown that the urge to join in demonizing Israel for protecting its citizens from terrorism is hard to resist. Perhaps this time, some lessons will have been learned. |
|
AM YISRAEL CHAI
Posted by Tamar Bush, February 20, 2004. |
|
This article was written by Barbara Sofer and appeared on the
Jerusalem Post Online website (http://www.jpost.com) yesterday.
Tamar Ben-Zvi, 24, is as excited as any bride could be a week before her wedding. Blonde and blue-eyed, she is often mistaken for a foreigner. She couldn't be more of a sabra, growing up working in the kibbutz cowshed on Mount Gilboa. And then the milkmaid fell in love with a soldier - robust and darkly handsome and, best of all, with a nurturing soul. His army comrades told her how he would cover their exposed feet whenever he came back last at night. She even liked his name, Shai Haim, literally "gift of life." From listening to Tamar speak about her husband-to-be, you'd never suspect the great difficulty with which Shai will break the glass under the canopy. Shot by a terrorist, he no longer walks. Likewise, it's hard to imagine the bittersweet emotions of the officiating rabbi. Even as he rejoices for Shai and Tamar, the rabbi cannot possibly forget that his own son was killed in the same attack that paralyzed Shai. That rabbi is Jerusalem Post columnist Stewart Weiss from Ra'anana. Tamar's friendship with Shai began when she phoned another soldier in his unit. Shai picked up a ringing cellphone for his absent army bunkmate with the intention of taking a message. Instead, he and Tamar talked for two hours. Their May romance blossomed. By happy coincidence, Tamar already knew Shai's best friend, Ari Weiss, whose cousins lived on Ma'aleh Gilboa. Although Tamar and Shai were just getting to know each other, Ari foresaw their marriage and promised to make merry at their wedding. It was one of the few promises the sincere and kind-hearted staff sergeant wouldn't keep. On September 30, Ari Yehoshua Weiss was on guard duty in Nablus. Shai hadn't been scheduled to guard, but he decided to join Ari. Shots rang out. Shai went down. Ari ran toward him and took the second, fatal bullet himself. The medics found them lying side by side. Shai's parents phoned Tamar with the grim news. Ari was dead. Shai had survived, but he was seriously injured. He was already in surgery when Tamar arrived at the hospital. "Abdominal injury" didn't sound too bad at first. BUT AS the hours passed, Tamar's fears escalated. She remained alone with Shai in the intensive care unit. She wept all night for Ari and prayed for Shai. She realized then that she would do anything to get Shai back, no matter the condition in which he came back to her. At dawn Shai finally opened his eyes. He motioned that he wanted to write. "My friend is dead," he scrawled. He made Tamar promise to attend the funeral for both of them. At the funeral Ari's mother, Susie, sought Tamar out among the thousands of friends. Susie hugged Tamar and wanted to know how Shai was. "I wondered how she could be so large of spirit to care about someone else at a time like that," Tamar said. "What a remarkable family." In the last year-and-a-half, Shai and Tamar have become part of that family. They speak to the Weisses daily. They couldn't imagine any other rabbi marrying them. "He's a son to me," says Stewart Weiss of Shai. Nonetheless, as their son's friends from his unit gather next week, Ari's absence has to be excruciating. Had he lived, Ari would have been a witness at the wedding. As for Shai's paralysis, acquaintances are quick enough to remind Tamar of "what she's getting into." Tamar answers that she knows many walking persons who are emotionally paralyzed and aren't nearly as "open, loving, and beautiful" as her Shai. "There are tests in life," says Tamar. "We've passed this one." Their own families have never uttered a word of discouragement. After the wedding, the couple are combining their honeymoon with one of those Israeli post-army wanderings: six months in the Far East. In eulogizing Ari, his father asked those at the funeral to return home and sing "Am Yisrael Chai" - "the people of Israel lives." Anyone who knew the family well understood why. Rabbi Weiss saw as a role model Chaim Shapiro, a Holocaust survivor whose only surviving son died with honor fighting in the War of Independence. Shapiro buried his son to that song of Jewish survival. The Weisses, in turn, have become role models for us all, may we never be tested. The indomitable spirit of Israel will be very much alive next week as Rabbi Weiss pronounces the blessings under the bridal canopy. The soul of Israel will live in the embrace of a bereaved mother who finds it in her heart to dance with a young bride. The determination of our people manifests itself in the courage and dignity of a young couple going on with their lives despite the terrible price defending our country has cost them. We are humbled and inspired by their ability to find the roses among the thorns. May their lives always be filled with the sounds of joy and gladness. May they be blessed with the peace of their own holy canopy. |
|
ARAFAT'S JESUS
Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, February 20, 2004. |
|
When anti-Semitism all over the world reaches the catastrophic levels
of the latest (but, probably, not the last!) Holocaust, when the world
willingly mistakes "Jenin Jenin" by Arab propaganda and
"Jesus Jesus" by Mel Gibson for documentaries, what we need
is a quiet reminder of the truth, both modern and ancient.
Here is a timely and eloquent one, thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater's newsletter (http://goldwater.mideastreality.com). This essay was written by Gerald A. Honigman; it initially appeared on the Jewish Xpress Magazine website and is archived at http://www.jewishxpress.com/issue/28/ArafatJe.html. "Now Jesus, having been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod..." is how the account of Jesus' birth begins in the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. Notice, please, the location is Bethlehem of Judea... not the "West Bank"... not "Palestine"... but Judea. As the year 2003 began, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Irineos sought appointment as Patriarch of Jerusalem. Letters with his signature on them to Yasser Arafat contained, among other things, the following: "You are aware of the... disgust... all the Holy Sepulchre fathers feel for the descendants of the crucifiers of our Lord Jesus... crucifiers of your people... Jewish conquerors of the Holy Land of Palestine." Irineos claims that his 6/17/01 letter, published in Maariv, was a forgery. Unfortunately, there are evidently many other documents of the same flavor making the rounds as well. Irineos's attitude, unfortunately, is not uncommon among many Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere. Indeed, the quote above is virtually the same as words often spoken by the Greek Catholic Archbishop of Jerusalem, Hilarion Capucci, a few decades earlier. So it's safe to assume that many people still share these beliefs. Some have simply inherited and modified them from traditional Christian teaching. Others, feeling exposed and vulnerable themselves living among real or potentially hostile dominant Muslim populations, seek common ground with their own off again/on again persecutors by turning the focus on a common demon, the Jew. Christians played an important role in the nascent Arab nationalist movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries (does the name George Habash and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine sound familiar?), and the above explanation was certainly one of the main motivating factors. This was not unlike some Jews seeking to be absorbed under the potentially protective, inclusive umbrella of various socialist movements in Christian Europe around the same time. A few years ago, during the Pope's visit to Israel, the media reported one of many of Arafat's own frequent comments on this subject. Speaking of the Apostle Peter, Arafat explained the "Palestinian" - i.e. non-Jewish - identity of Peter & Co. The Arabs have constantly tried to portray themselves as the "originals" in the land. Now for a reality check... There was no country or nation known as "Palestine" during the time of Jesus. The land was known as Judaea and its inhabitants were Judaeans... Jews. Tacitus and Dio Cassius were famous Roman historians who wrote extensively about Judaea's attempt to remain free from the Soviet Union of its day, the conquering Roman Empire. They lived and wrote during, or not long after, the two major revolts of the Jews in 66-73 C.E. and 133-135 C.E. They make no mention of this land being called "Palestine" or its people "Palestinians." And they knew the differences between Jews and Arabs as well. Listen to this quote from Vol. II, Book V, The Works of Tacitus: "Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea... he commanded three legions in Judaea itself... To these he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from Alexandria... amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between neighboring nations.." After the 1st Revolt (see also the contemporary accounts of the Roman-sponsored Jewish historian, Josephus, in his extensive Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews), Rome issued thousands of Judaea Capta coins which can be seen today in museums all over the world. Notice, please... Judaea Capta... not "Palaestina Capta." Additionally, to celebrate this victory, the Arch of Titus was erected and stands tall in Rome to this very day. When, some sixty years later, Emperor Hadrian decided to further desecrate the site of the destroyed Temple of the Jews by erecting a pagan structure there, it was the grandchildren's turn to take on their mighty conquerors. The result of the struggle of this tiny nation for its freedom and independence was, perhaps, as predictable as that which would have occurred had Latvia taken on the Soviet Union during its heyday of power. Listen next to this quote from Dio Cassius: "580,000 men were slain, nearly the whole of Judaea made desolate. Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war (the Bar Kochba Revolt). Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, ' I and the legions are in health.'" The Emperor was so enraged at the Jews' struggle for freedom in their own land that, in the words of the esteemed modern historian, Bernard Lewis, "Hadrian made a determined attempt to stamp out the embers not only of the revolt but also of Jewish nationhood and statehood... obliterating its Jewish identity." Wishing to end, once and for all, Jewish hopes, Hadrian renamed the land itself from Judaea to "Syria Palaestina" - Palestine - after the Jews' historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the eastern Mediterranean or Aegean area... Sorry Yasser...trying to hijack the latter's identity won't work either. All of this did not occur until after 135 C.E., with the defeat of Judaea's charismatic leader, Shimon Bar Kochba. And, as with the breathtaking discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls practically at the moment of Israel's rebirth almost six decades ago by an Arab shepherd boy, Bar Kochba's letters to his troops, his minted coins "For the Freedom of Israel," and other archaeological treasures were also soon unearthed. "Palestine" became largely "Arab" the same way that most of the twenty-two states that call themselves "Arab" today did... by the conquest, occupation, settlement, and forced Arabization of other native, non-Arab peoples and their lands... Berbers, Copts, Black Africans, Jews, Kurds, etc. Muhammad's and his successors' imperial caliphal armies burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions. The Ottoman Turks were the latest in a long series of imperial conquerors to rule the land since the Jews fought for their freedom against Rome. They did so for some four centuries up until World War I. From the 10th century onwards, the Arabs lost control of the land themselves. And when the Arabs' own caliphal empires ruled, it was from Damascus or Baghdad. There was never an independent entity of Arab Palestine then either. During the Mandatory period following the break up of empires after World War I, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates commission recorded scores of thousands of Arabs pouring into a largely depopulated Palestine from surrounding countries to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews. Many more entered under cover of darkness and were never listed. All of these folks were preceded in the 19th century by many thousands of Egyptians who came with Muhammad Ali's invading armies and never left... more Arab settlers in Palestine. Arafat himself was one of them. So was Hamas' "patron saint," Izzadin al-Qassam... coming from Aleppo, Syria. And so much for Arafat's "Palestinian" Jesus |
|
THE JENIN MASSACRE: THE TRUTH LIES FIRST; LAST AND FOREMOST
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 20, 2004. |
|
Here are three essays on Jenin. The first by Paul Martin, written soon
after the 'Massacre', makes clear that the only massacre was the
attack on truth by Arab propagandists and their friends. But, as the
next two make clear, the distortions and lies about Jenin continue;
anti-Israel inflammatory articles and films continue to maintain that
a massacre happened in Jenin.
"JENIN 'MASSACRE' REDUCED TO DEATH TOLL OF 56" JENIN, West Bank - Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation. The official Palestinian body count, which is not disproportionate to the 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the incursion, was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office. [Two weeks ago, when European and particularly London newspapers were reporting estimates of "hundreds" massacred, Israeli sources in Washington said they expected the Palestinian toll to reach "45 to 55."] U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggested yesterday, in the wake of the Palestinian body count, that he may disband a U.N. fact-finding team that was to visit the camp to determine whether a massacre had taken place. Mr. Annan was responding to a decision by the Israeli security Cabinet earlier in the day not to cooperate with the U.N. team. The U.N.-Israeli dispute appeared unrelated to the Palestinian admission there had been no massacre. The Palestinians had suggested that most of the bodies were buried beneath the rubble of houses bulldozed by Israeli troops. No digging for bodies was taking place here, and there was no stench that could have come from decaying human flesh. The earlier Palestinian claims had sparked international outrage and prompted the Bush administration to press Israel to accept a fact-finding mission by the United Nations, an organization that the Jewish state regards as having a pro-Palestinian bias. Mr. Kadoura yesterday showed a reporter for The Washington Times the official Palestinian list of those who died. It contained 50 names. Six additional bodies, he said, had not been identified. He no longer used the ubiquitous Palestinian charge of "massacre" and instead portrayed the battle as a "victory" for Palestinians in resisting Israeli forces. "Here the Israelis, who tried to break the Palestinian willpower, have been taught a lesson," Mr. Kadoura said. He insisted that Israel had tried but failed, thanks to the heavy fighting, to destroy the entire warren of homes in the camp that had housed 11,000 people. The destruction, pictured graphically on television, appeared linked to Israeli bulldozing of the houses from which the remnant of the resistance forces were firing. In fact, it covers the size of a large football field and constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp, and a far smaller proportion of the housing in the city, which was largely left untouched by the Israeli incursion. The figures shown to The Times included 233 injured persons, mainly men. The figures revealed that 18 persons had been injured and one had died after the fighting had ended, the result of accidentally detonating either shells left after the fighting, or booby traps that were set by Palestinian gunmen throughout the camp. A British expert attached to the International Red Cross said these booby traps were almost identical to those used by the Irish Republican Army. The British claim suggested to analysts that IRA guerrillas were schooled in terrorist weaponry and irregular warfare, as were many radical guerrilla movements, in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian training camps in Lebanon. From behind a desk bedecked by portraits of Mr. Arafat, a string of past "martyrs" and of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Palestinian chief official in the city, who is also the Fatah leader, portrayed in an interview the events as another chapter in a long saga of resistance to foreign invaders - from Crusader times onward - that, he said, had made Jenin "the heart of Palestine" for centuries. The propaganda war continues, meanwhile, in the refugee camp itself. Families whose homes had been destroyed were ordered to sit and lie inside tents pitched near the destruction, to be available for interviews and filming with foreign reporters and photographers. At dusk, with the press opportunities concluded, they returned to houses offered to them in the undamaged city or in the rest of the refugee camp. Other young men, members of various factions, have been on duty in the camp's narrow streets, eager to conduct foreign correspondents to places where they say Israelis killed militants after they surrendered or had been captured. Others in the city say the resistance to the Israeli incursion had been carried out by only about 10 percent of the militants who had originally been in the area. Most had retreated into the hills or into city back streets as the Israelis entered the area, they said. Families living in houses directly opposite the destroyed area have told The Washington Times that Israeli soldiers, who temporarily occupied their houses just before the final battle began, treated them without violence and assured them: "You will not be harmed." They confined the 36 members of the Abu Khalil family to two rooms, allowing them out one by one, and set up a snipers' point upstairs through two holes in the wall - under a family framed message in Arabic: "There is No God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger." They confiscated identity cards but left them on the table before slipping out during the night. At the United Nations in New York, Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast said "a thorough, credible and balanced report on recent events in Jenin refugee camp would not be possible without the cooperation of the government of Israel." "Since it appears from today's Cabinet statement by Israel that the difficulties in the way of deployment of the fact-finding team will not be resolved anytime soon, the secretary-general is minded to disband the team," he told reporters after briefing the U.N. Security Council. Diplomats said Mr. Prendergast told council members that Mr. Annan was leaning toward disbanding the three-member team, which has been joined by numerous advisers. The team, which was to have arrived in Jenin on Saturday, remained in Geneva yesterday. The Security Council is to take up the issue of whether or not to disband the mission at a meeting today. The United States put forward the resolution adopted by the Security Council welcoming the dispatch of a U.N. team to find out what happened in Jenin during the Israeli military's attacks. Israel initially agreed to the idea, but subsequently raised questions over the composition of the team, its scope of inquiry, who could be called as a witness and what documents would be presented to the panel. Mr. Prendergast said that "with every passing day, it becomes more difficult to determine what happened" in Jenin. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Mr. Annan was considering whether to let the fact-finding team begin its work in Geneva or "simply abandoning the mission on the assumption that satisfactory terms of reference could not be worked out." * This article is based in part on wire service reports. PLO PROPAGANDA FILE "JENIN, JENIN" by Lee Kaplan, FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpage.magazine.com). From San Francisco State to Columbia University, "Palestinian film festivals" are becoming one of the major propaganda venues for those seeking to dismantle Israel.[1] The most widely seen of these films is "Jenin, Jenin," shot by an Israeli-Arab actor named Mohammed Bakri. "Jenin, Jenin" purports to be a documentary on the aftermath of the Jenin battle between the Israel Defense Forces and PLO terrorists that took place in `Jenin in 2002. The film has become standard fare at such screenings. There's one major problem: the film is a fraud. A common misrepresentation used by the Palestinians is that Jenin is a "refugee camp." It is, in fact, a city. And its casbah has been a hiding and breeding ground for terrorists whose goal is to murder Israelis. Even the Palestine Authority Police was afraid to enter it. Besides various armed individual terrorists, such as members of Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and Hamas, the area housed many of the bomb making factories where suicide bombers obtained their lethal cargos. In April, 2002 one suicide bomber from Jenin blew up a hotel in Netanya where Israelis were celebrating Passover, killing 29 Israelis - including many Holocaust survivors - and maiming many more.[2] Up to that point, the West Bank and Jenin were not occupied and Israel had withdrawn all troops as a demonstration of goodwill. Following this incident, the IDF went into Jenin to close down the bomb factories. But to an uninformed audience (the kind the Palestinians prefer), Jenin would appear to be a place where simple Arabs live, some even in tents. The film instructs viewers that these noble "natives" are besieged by Jews, who want to deprive them of their homeland. The Passover Massacre isn't mentioned at all, just that the Jews won't let the Arabs live in peace, and for some unknown reason attacked them. It should be noted the word "Jew" is used consistently throughout this film, rather than "Israeli" or the euphemism "Zionist." The reason is that the word "Jew" will elicit a more violent response from the rest of the Arab world where this film is screened - thus earning Bakri a fortune. The film opens with a shot of an elderly Arab man in a hospital with a bandaged hand and foot. He claims the Israeli soldiers held out his hand then shot it. When he protested, they shot him in the foot. The old man, however, is lying. He was treated by an IDF doctor in Jenin, and the old man's wounds were not bullet wounds, nor were they caused by activities in any way related to the battle. They weren't even inflicted by Israeli soldiers. It is, in short, a staged scene. The entire film consists of Palestinians claiming events and atrocities that did not occur. For example, multiple claims are made of F-16's attacking the city and of killing thousands of people. But no F-16's or jet fighter aircraft attacked Jenin. In fact, the Israeli government, eager to avoid civilian casualties, insisted that the IDF use young infantry soldiers in house-to-house fighting instead - to avoid the risk of bombing the city by air. This is a job one F-16 could have done. Instead, young men risked their lives to destroy the bomb factories. The result? Twenty-three Israeli boys died in close hand-to-hand combat. Another "eyewitness" describes the carnage as worse than Vietnam. Hardly. Despite claims that there was "not a single person in the camp who did not suffer," aerial photographs show the combat zone where the bomb factories were destroyed as roughly the size of a football field - a very small section of Jenin. Another interview subject is a ten-year-old girl who tells the filmmakers she wants to "go home," but the "Jews won't let her." She is referring to a once Palestinian area inside Israel's 1948 borders. Obviously, she was not alive in 1948 (nor, most likely, were her parents). In what sense was a village two generations removed her "home"? But the tour de force performance is done by Dr. Abu Rali of the hospital in Jenin. Interviewed on camera, he claims the Israelis "attacked the hospital and completely destroyed its west wing with F-16's."[3] As mentioned, no F-16's were used to attack Jenin. But of even more interest is the fact that the hospital in Jenin has no west wing, nor was any part of the hospital building attacked or destroyed during the battle; Bakri's film shows no such damage post-battle. The good doctor further accuses the Israelis of cutting off water and electricity to the hospital when the IDF brought water in for the hospital and even set up a portable generator to assure the hospital had electricity. What he doesn't say on film is that he rejected the blood supplies the IDF brought in from Israel on the grounds that he refused to mix "Jewish blood" with "Arab blood." The Israelis to solve the impasse actually had to import blood from Jordan to supply the hospital.[4] Numerous "eyewitnesses" then tell tales of women being raped, of parents being stripped naked and summarily executed, and then having their children executed. They say that Israeli soldiers went into kitchens and urinated into cooking pots (a terrible insult in the Arab world); another claims the Israelis "did not leave one building standing." (A mere 99.9 percent of the city of Jenin remained.)[5] Of course, attacking President Bush and America is de rigueur. One "witness" states that President Bush, through Israel, has killed "hundreds of millions of Arabs." Other than such first person accounts, the only other actual battle footage in the film shows Israeli tanks guarding captured terrorists at the close of the battle. Another Palestinian then claims, minutes after the footage ends, that his people were all run over and crushed by the tanks, "killing thousands." The Palestinian Authority's official death toll from the Jenin battle was 56, of whom 48 were armed combatants.[6] In their own media, the Palestinians claim the battle was a great example of their bravery against the Jews. But in the Western world, they suffered a massacre. This film makes its way around the Arab world inciting hatred against Jews and Israel. Rather than promoting peace, it merely serves to intensify the conflict. That is the real goal of "Jenin, Jenin": to slander Israel in the eyes of the international community, to isolate and weaken her, and ultimately to destroy the Jewish minority in the Middle East. To that end, the film is now being widely circulated on American campuses. And by inflaming its uneducated viewers, it may one day succeed in achieving its goal. ENDNOTES: 1. http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=57 2. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/893012/posts 3. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2240 4. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/blood.htm 5. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ll60 6. http://www.rense.com/general24/dt.htm "A REVIEW OF "SEARCHING JENIN: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF THE
ISRAELI INVASION", Imagine if someone were to publish a book about how Germans were brutalized and terrorized by American racist GIs who unjustly occupied their country in 1945 for no reason at all besides anti-German bigotry. Imagine that this same book never quite got around to mentioning that the brutal Americans had occupied Germany only after Nazi Germany launched World War II, which produced 55 million deaths. Imagine that this book ignored Auschwitz and Dachau. Well, if you can imagine such a book, then you are only partly on your way to understand "Searching Jenin", a vile shallow propaganda screed that makes the PLOs Covenant look like a masterpiece in cool impartial analysis. The book is published by Cune Press, a small propaganda outfit based in Seattle that produces the sorts of Far Left anti-American and pro-Arab books of which Osama bin Laden would approve, and with a special interest in printing sycophantic volumes about Syria. Following the waves of suicide bombings in Israel and especially the Netanya Passover Seder massacre, Israel at long last launched Operation Defensive Wall in 2002. As part of that military operation Israeli forces entered the towns of the West Bank and Gaza to flush out terrorists. In most cases the operations went smoothly and with few casualties to either side, other than to the terrorists being hunted down and killed or captured. In Jenin, whence many of the suicide bombers had come, the fighting was more severe and a relatively large number of Israeli troops were killed there in an ambush in an alley. After the battle of Jenin, the Arab propaganda machine went into high gear and issued bloodcurdling reports of mass atrocities by Israeli troops against Arab civilians in Jenin. The Arabs and their amen choruses referred to the events in Jenin as downright genocidal. The same people who cheer every time an Arab terrorist perpetrates a war crime suddenly denounced Israels incursion in Jenin as a war crime. Many in the Western media repeated these allegations credulously. Eventually a UN investigation reported what everyone in Israel already knew: There were no mass killings at all of Arab civilians in Jenin. Shimon Peres himself, hardly an Israeli rightwing settler, confirmed that - at most 20 - Jenin civilians had died in the house-to-house fighting, far less than in the single Netanya suicide bombing that had triggered the incursion in the first place. But Israel-bashing propagandists have never let facts get in their way. A series of books and a movie came out, repeating the medieval blood libels about the Israeli war crimes during the incursion into Jenin. In Jenin Jenin by Israeli film producer Muhammed Bakhri, Arab witnesses describe how Israel destroyed a hospital wing that had never in fact existed. Another Arab describes how Israeli troops simply walked up to him and shot him in the leg for no reason, while the film ignored the Israeli MD who had treated the same Arab at the end of the battle when he had no bullet wounds. And so on. "Searching Jenin" is an even more pathetic and a less believable hodgepodge of anti-Israel testimonies by alleged residents of Jenin than Bakhris documentary. The book is written by Arab propagandist Ramzy Baroud, contains a foreword by the Khmer Rouges apologist Noam Chomsky and a jacket endorsement by professional Arab propagandist James Zogby. On the back cover is an endorsement by Norman G. Finkelstein, where he demands to know What exactly happened in Jenin?, this from the very same historian whose research is routinely cited by Neonazis and Holocaust Deniers to prove that there was never any Holocaust of the Jews and that all Jews claiming to be Holocaust survivors are lying thieves. As one would expect from this genre of propaganda, one never learns in the book why Israel launched Operation Defensive Wall in the first place, although if you search very carefully with a magnifying glass in the chronology contained in one section, you can find the odd mention of a handful of Palestinian suicide bombings. You will of course never hear how the UNs own investigators proved there was no massacre at all in Jenin. You will never hear about how so many Israeli troops were killed there because they were risking their lives NOT to harm any innocent Palestinians. And you will never learn that Jenin was crawling with mass murdering terrorists and those who had organized suicide bombings against Jewish civilians. The book begins by telling us the tragic saga of photojournalist Mahfouz Abu Turk, who - Baroud insists - mysteriously disappeared in the middle of the Jenin battle, implying that he was murdered by the rampaging Israelis. Only in the appendix will you discover that Abu Turk is alive and well, was never injured, and I guess disappeared only in the sense that Baroud did not know where he was for a few hours. I suspect Baroud's next project is to prove that the brutal Americans attacked the innocent al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan for absolutely no reason at all except their racism and blind aggression. |
|
FAR-RIGHT ISRAELI POLITICIAN SEEKS SUPPORT IN PITTSBURGH
Posted by Bryna Berch, February 20, 2004. |
|
This article was written by Lee Chottiner, Executive Editor of the
Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, and it appeared in the Chronicle today.
Shmuel Sackett's movement in Israel isn't necessarily about a one-state solution and transference, he'll tell you; it's about "spreading the message of hope that new leadership is on the horizon for Israel." Once that leadership takes power, then his movement will be about a one-state solution and transference. Sackett, a Likud Party Central Committee member, belongs to a bloc within the party called Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish leadership). That bloc controls 135 seats on the 2,800-seat central committee. That's less that 5 percent of the total seats, but it's enough to make them the biggest voting bloc on the panel. Their goal is to wrest control of the Likud Party establishment in the next election, whether Ariel Sharon runs or not. They're starting to attract attention. In a December internal party poll, 50.6 percent of the respondents said Moshe Feiglin, leader of Manhigut Yehudit, should lead Likud. Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a distant second with 25.4 percent. That's music to the ears of Sackett, 42, who visited Pittsburgh last week to garner U.S. support for this movement. "We're talking about Jewish values," he said when asked about Manhigut's new popularity. He said his movement is less concerned with building a state for the Jewish people than building a Jewish state. Still, not everyone in Likud is thrilled with the rise of Manhigut. Education Minister Limor Livnat, during the Likud convention in January, recently referred to the movement as right-wing extremists who infiltrated the party, the Jerusalem Post reported. Judging from Manhigut's platform, Livnat may be right. Though Manhigut calls for Jewish education, a Jewish economy, fighting Jewish wars and using Jewish values - things all Jews can agree on in some form or another - it also calls for a Jewish state where only Jews may hold citizenship and where transferring Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza becomes a high priority. Ariel Sharon and President Bush have no problem with moving 7,500 settlers out of the Gaza Strip, Sackett said, "so we're going to implement the American policy of transfer." Sackett brushed aside concerns that such a move could lead to all-out war. "I'm a supporter of an all-out war," he said. "In case you haven't heard, there's a war in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Afula; it's a blood bath. "If they want a war, they will have one," he added. "And this time it won't take six days, it will take half that time." As for Arab-Israelis, their citizenship would be stripped, including their right to vote and have representation in the Knesset. "They have proven themselves disloyal to the Jewish state," he said. "We will maintain and protect their human rights, but not their political rights." Such a sweeping move would even include Bedouins who serve in the Israel Defense Forces. One of them - Omar Souad - died in action against Hezbollah. His body was one of three returned to Israel in the recent prisoner swap. Sackett acknowledged that some Arab-Israelis may have done good things; nevertheless "our army will be exclusively Jewish." Born and raised in New York, Sackett, his wife and children made aliyah in 1990. He co-founded a civil disobedience movement with Feiglin to oppose the Oslo process before they started Manhigut in 1996. If Manhigut takes control of Likud and does all it says it will do, Sackett predicted the world would not protest. "The world will be very positive," he said. "When the Israeli population stands up and behaves like Jews, the world respects this." Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudi website address is http://www.manhigut.org. Lee Chottiner can be reached online at lchottiner@pittchron.com. |
|
SMALL BITS, BIG FACTS: Muslims, Israel and America
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 20, 2004. |
|
ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDING IN ISRAEL
Illegal Arab construction is a major problem in Israel (as well as in Yesha). A Member of Knesset went to Ramle, an Israeli city with a mixed Jewish and Arab population, to check on the situation there. Masked Arabs threw stones at her. There are an estimated 30,000 illegal Arab buildings in the Negev, alone. In Jaffa, about 350 illegal buildings are in the early stages of construction. The problem, he reports, is rampant in Lod, Jerusalem, and elsewhere. The police do not enforce the law there, for fear of the Arab population. "'The State of Israel is being stolen away from us even within the Green Line,' MK Avraham said. 'Between Be'er Sheva and Dimona, motorists can clearly see the shocking illegal Arab construction going on there... The Arabs are trying to create territorial contiguity to block off our development. They're trying to turn Jaffa into the capital of 1948 Palestine.'" The MK is requesting a public inquiry before the problem turns into a worse flare-up than the Arab riots of October 2000. She wants to end the silence about the "large theft of lands" by the Arabs (Arutz-7, 2/11). This theft of land often is by illegal aliens. P.A. CONTINUES MURDERING "SUSPECTED COLLABORATORS" For a second time in February, Arafat's own organization's gunmen murdered someone whom they called a suspected operative for Israel. He was the father ofn one murdered by Al-Aqsa Brigade terrorists lastyear. They murdered another one in January. One in October, one in Sepember, and one in July. Hundreds since 1993. Shuarat HaDin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner depicted these murders as a preview of what PLO statehood would be like. She demanded a UN investigation. International groups believe that only a mall portion of the accused were employed by Israel. Most fell in disputes with other clans or with terrorist organizations (IMRA, 2/13). Calling them "collaborators" is an excuse. The Arabs have an excuse for every crime. HOW DO THE ARABS KNOW? After the Gulf War military success, the US government adopted a policy of global domination. Among US policy objectives are to ensure acceptable oil prices and military superiority for Israel. The American people were not told that S. Arabia maintained the oil supply for the past 30 years and kept the price stable, according to a formula agreed with consumer countries. IMRA notes there is no such formula - OPEC is a cartel (IMRA, 2/13 from Arab News). How do the Saudis know that domination is US policy? It wasn't announced and isn't practiced. Neither is there a known basis for asserting that US policy seeks acceptable oil prices or military superiority for Israel, as it arms the Arabs more than Israel. Before 30 years ago, S. Arabia declared an oil blockade of the US. Is that why the Saudi "Arab News" refers to "for 30 years?" S. Arabia does want a stable price, but at a high level. It seeks a level to exploit the world but not bankrupt it into inability to buy Saudi oil. That policy is not a virtue but self-interest and not in the US interest. THE THREAT FROM PAKISTAN Pakistan has turned out to be a potential menace requiring monitoring, "as India has been saying for some time. Even if Gen. Musharraf is a friend of the US, no one knows who will succeed him. Pakistan has undergone four coups since its establishment, and all the country's prime ministers have been ousted by the army before serving their full term. Do the Americans know, for example, where the nuclear bombs in Pakistan are stored and who the guards are? Islamist groups are becoming stronger in the country and are infiltrating the army, too. It's more than possible that the affair of Abdul Qadeer Khan was only the first act in a drama that is still being played out." (IMRA, 2/13 from Ze'ev Schiff of Haaretz.) Yes, I think Musharraf is an Islamist, doing just enough Anti-terrorism to deceive the US about his buildup of Islamist nuclear forces. THE MURDER OF THE AMERICANS IN GAZA The P.A. is presenting a non-logical case against the accused. The FBI team in Gaza has evidence that a lookout watched the convoy before exploding the bomb, by remote control. The explosion was not accidental as the P.A. claims (IMRA, 2/13 from Nitsana Darshan-Leitner in the Jewish Week) or mistaken identity. ARAFAT'S OFFICE IS TERRORIST HEADQUARTERS With financing from Hizbullah and Iran, Arafat's Tanzim members in his office in Ramallah, are planning attacks on Israel (IMRA, 2/13 from Jerusalem Post). Israel doesn't storm that headquarters, because the US demands that it not harm Arafat. Arafat stays there, because his presence protects the terrorists inside. Why do Israelis so one-sidedly admire the US? It leads to policies that enable many of them to be murdered. He is urged to "try harder" to fight terrorism. How about his not sheltering them? VIOLENT RIVALRY IN THE P.A. In the P.A., rival Arab gangs still are exchanging gunfire (IMRA). HOW MERETZ WOULD DEAL WITH TERRORISTS Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On told interviewers that Israel should wait for terrorists to enter Israel, before attacking them (IMRA, 2/13). Once terrorists enter Israel, they would not have to go far to murder Israelis. It would be difficult to prevent them. This policy would cost innocent Israeli lives in order to spare the lives of Arabs who live amongst, and support, the terrorists whom the IDF otherwise would pursue into their lairs. It is an unjust, impractical, unpatriotic policy. TERRORISTS' MOTIVES Arabs do not become terrorists out of desperation. They do so out of a cult of death and a culture that glorifies murder and genocide. It has nothing to do with territorial aspirations or the Arab-Israel conflict. It is a strategy, as in Iraq, where Israel is not involved and Muslims are killing Muslims (Robbie Friedmann, Ph.D. from Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, 2/17 in National Unity Coalition for Israel e-mail). NON-LEGAL BASIS FOR DISMANTLING OUTPOSTS The IDF has been relying for its authority to dismantle outposts on a Cabinet decision it misinterprets. The chairman of the Knesset Law Committee advised the IDF regional legal advisor that this Cabinet decision authorized "freezing" but not "dismantling" or "evacuation." The decision was to freeze them until at least the P.A. fulfilled its ant-terrorist obligations. (It never did). The IDF interpretation is not logical and not acceptable. It is the Cabinet that has authority over that issue, as it does over illegal building in general. This has been the practice for decades (IMRA, 2/15). SAUDIS FIND U.S. BACKTRACKING The Saudis find US policy backtracking. Therefore, they are puzzled over what US policy really is For example, for two years, the US had called Arafat irrelevant. It refused to deal with him, because he was "tainted by terrorism." It demanded that he appoint a prime minister with whom the US could deal. Now, Sec. Powell asserts that Arafat has "moral authority," which he should use to suppress terrorism. Now he is a leader responsible for Arab attacks against Israelis. Which is it? Arab News asks how can someone under virtual house arrest and bypassed by the US and Israel, pursue terrorists with P.A. security forces, and be blamed for failing to stop terrorism. IMRA notes that Arafat has no moral authority, but he commands P.A. forces with at least 40,000 security personnel (IMRA, 2/16) plus the Fatah militia that he pays. I agree that the US is backtracking. Hypocritically, the US did not refuse to work with appointed prime ministers likewise tainted by terrorism. Nor did the US ever really insist that Arafat suppress terrorism, not during the decade of Oslo. Neither does it insist now. Its policy amounts to, "Here, Arafat, is a billion dollars covering many projects the P.A. needs, and training for the forces with which you commit terrorism instead of repress it, but please repress terrorism that our gift frees you to spend your own revenues on." ISRAEL'S SELECTIVE PRAISE FOR EGYPT Foreign Min. Shalom praised Egypt for trying to broker a new cease-fire and for trying to arrange high-level meetings between the warring parties. He failed to note that a cease-fire would enable to P.A. to smuggle arms from Egypt through the tunnels without IDF interference. He failed to note that high-level meetings have been, so far, mere photo-opportunities. He did not comment that Egypt is not halting the smuggling from Egypt and the incitement against Israel (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 2/16). Why does he flatter Egypt? WHO WANTS A "TWO-STATE" "SOLUTION?" The U.S. and Israel tout a "two-state" "solution" for Israel and the P.A.. What does the P.A. say about it? Ahmad Nasser, Sec. of the P.A. Council broadcast that Israel has no right to exist because it is "Satan' offspring." (Arutz-7, 2/16.) The P.A. also encourages Western hope. Just because Israel accepts such an outcome does not mean that the Arabs do. The Arabs are in a jihad. Just because the US proposes such an outcome, does not mean that the Arabs would abide by it. Those diplomats who propose what the fanatics already reject are unrealistic. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
ISRAEL'S DAY IN "COURT"
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 20, 2004. |
|
As the mainstream media is busy "tampering with the jury in the Court
of Public Opinion", the illegitimate "International Court of Justice"
is preparing hear oral arguments on "the legal consequences arising
from the construction of the wall" to separate Israel's almost 6
million Jews from 2 million West Bank Palestinians.
In this article Ted Belman has confronted the media with their lies and misrepresentation of the facts in the "Ridiculous Case of the Great Wall" trial at the World Court, published on the IsraPundit website (http://israpundit.com) today. The Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper, had an outrageous editorial entitled "Israel's barrier gets day in court" This was Ted's Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Star. Please read on. Dear Editor. (From Ted Belman) Your editorial purports to be "even handed" yet in reality it portrays a view that equates the terrorists with their victims and supports the Palestinian narrative regardless of the facts. You blindly take the view that Arafat "tolerated the suicide uprising" rather than to accuse him of financing and encouraging the terrorist infrastructure on the West Bank. You write that "Palestinians will condemn Israel's "apartheid wall" and "land grab" as the acts of a pariah state" giving such views legitamacy rather than to advise that the use of the word "aparthied" in these circumstances is totally inappropriate, that it can in no way be a "land grab" as the Israelis are already in possession of the lands and are not annexing them and finally you repeat their smear that Israel is a "pariah state". I am surprised that you didn't also call it a "Nazi state". You argue that Bush should "push both sides to end the suicide bombings, dismantle settlements" knowing full well that only the Palestinians have to end suicide bombings and that the Israelis are in fact making plans to dismantle settlements. Yet you present it as an equivalence. More equivalence is seen in the sentence "Left to their own devices, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Arafat seem destined to let their peoples drift into ever more desperate violence." How outrageous. Sharon is doing everything he can to stop the violence even if it takes violence to do so whereas Arafat is doing everything he can to foster the violence. No where do you acknowledge that Israel has a valid claim to these lands or that it is entitled to secure borders pursuant to Res 242 which is part of the Roadmap.. Yet you condemn it for enclosing 15% of the lands to protect its citizens. While you acknowledge that there is no magic in the green line you allow only that "A few metres either way shouldn't matter." The fence is attempting to protect as many Israelis as possible and keeping as many Arabs as possible on the other side. Does that not make sense. The Act of Partition in 1947 did the same thing by drawing a very crooked line between populations centres as best it could. Underlying your editorial is the argument that Israel has no right to any of these lands and you expect the Court to rule likewise. In a fairer world, Israel would be able to keep much more of the land as a result of winning a defensive war. The aggressor when it is defeated historically loses some of its land. That principal should apply here. The Arabs should not be allowed to attack Israel time and again without consequences to them. The fence is not an obstacle to peace as you put it, the terrorism is. The terrorism predates the fence by thirty years. No terrorism, no fence. No terrorism, no targeted killings. No agressive war, no "land grab". |
|
PRISONER/HOSTAGE SWAP COMPLICATION
Posted by IsrAlert, February 20, 2004. |
|
This was an article in Arutz-7 (http://www.IsraelNN.com) today.
Israel fears that the body of a Jew may have been mistakenly transferred to Hizbullah in the recent prisoner/hostage exchange deal - and Hizbullah is already making new demands. It was just three weeks ago that Israel dug up the bodies of several dozen terrorists and other Arabs, in preparation for their transfer to Lebanon or Europe in the framework of the Tenenbaum exchange. Israel received abducted Israeli civilian Elchanan Tenenbaum, and the bodies of three killed soldiers, in exchange for over 400 terrorists and the bodies of several dozen others. Shortly afterwards, the family of one of the Arabs - Muhammed Biru, a 70-year-old drug dealer who died in Israeli prison - complained that the body returned to them was not the one they were expecting, but rather that of "an elderly religious Jew." A few days later, the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute confirmed that it had identified Biru's body, and that it was in fact in Israeli hands. Israeli sources said, however, that the body that mistakenly arrived in Lebanon had long been unidentified and unclaimed, and was not necessarily that of a Jew. Hizbullah now demands the return of 30 other bodies, as well as Biru, in exchange for the one it received by mistake. [emphasis added] Blame for the error is already being freely apportioned, with most of it going to Abu Kabir and its head, Dr. Yehuda Hiss. It has been explained, however, that as the graves were marked only by a stick and a number, the rainy and muddy conditions at the time the bodies were removed may have caused the confusion IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
HONORING NAIF HAWATME AND RACHEL CORRIE
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 19, 2004. |
|
1. Maariv today reports that there have been nine (!!) separate
attempts by the PLO and its affiliates to shoot down a jetliner
landing or taking off from Ben-Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, and each
has been prevented by intelligence services.
I would like to remind you that even Hannuka itself celebrates only eight incidents of miracles (actually, strictly speaking, seven). How long do Israeli politicians think they can count on miracles? How long do they think they can avoid the inevitability of going to war against Palestinian nazism? There is no alternative to R&D = Re-Occupation and Denazification! 2. In the spring of 1974, a few months after the Yom Kippur War, leftist students at the Hebrew University, where I was at the time a grad student, published a newspaper calling for meetings and talks between Israeli leftists and Naif Hawatme, the head of the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP). They liked Hawatme because he was giving lip service to Marxist mantras, The idea however was dropped a few days later. It seems that Comrade Hawatme had given the orders personally to a crew of his terrorists to infiltrate northern Israel from the Lebanese border and to take over a school building and massacre the children inside. The result was the Maalot massacre of children. So much for the wonderful peace plans of those lefties. These leftist students are today in many cases tenured leftist professors in Israel. Years later Hawatme was an exception to the rule of terrorist leaders willing to pretend to be negotiating with Yossi Beilin and his Spanky-and-Alfalfda-Make-Peace crew of negotiators. Hawatme wanted nothing of pretense. He demanded that the Jews be annihilated. Even Shimon Peres would not let him enter "Palestine" to give speeches in Ramallah. I mention all this because Moti Raz, one of the chiefs of "Peace Now", just ran to Jordan to pay his respects to the great Marxist hero Naif Hawatme, the butcher of the children of Maalot (Haaretz Feb 20). At the Palace Regency Hotel in Amman. No doubt, good room service. Hawatme has been also meeting with several of the Arab fascist Knesset Members in recent weeks. 3. Mel Gibson's father gave an interview to a NY radio station this week and insisted the Holocaust was a hoax and never took place. (Haaretz Feb 20) 4. So the whole world thinks it is ok for Israel to build a security fence but they just do not like its lines and want it to follow the pre-1967 Green Line - to signal that the entire West Bank and Gaza are to be turned over to the PLO and its allied armies to use as a launching pad for the next war to destroy Israel. The Israeli Left wants the fence along the Green Line for the same reasonbs. Now frankly, I myself do not like the lines for the fence either. I repeat what I earlier suggested. Replace the Security Fence with Security Cages. Place large Palestinian towns behind closed cages, and move remote villagers inside these cages. When the world whines, tell them that when people behave like animals they must be placed in cages like animals. Fence the Palestinians in, do not fence out the Jews! 5. Meanwhile, the Olympian (http://www.theolympian.com), a daily published in the Washington state capital, reports that Rachel Corrie, the terror advocate from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM - which REALLY stands for "I Support Murderers"), who died in a bulldozer accident last year while challenging an Israeli army bulldozer and while trying to protect Palestinian weapons-smuggling operations, has won a posthumous award from a "housing rights group": On Monday evening, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions presented Corrie's parents with the first Housing Defender Award given by the group... Previously, the group gave awards only to national governments. Saint Pancake was the first indivivual to be so honored. Her honored work on behalf of housing rights was apparently her defense of Palestinian terrorists devoted to blowing up houses with Jews inside. 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. |
|
THE LIKUD CONVENTION
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, February 19, 2004. |
|
The Likud Convention was supposed to hold a session in February in
order to vote on the proposed amendments to the Constitution,
including 19c which obligates ministers and MKs to obey the orders of
the Central Committee, and 156, which obligates the Prime Minister to
bring the list of ministers and the basic program of the government
for approval by the Central Committee. (The latter amendment will make
it difficult for the prime minister to replace the Rightist and
religious parties by the Labor Party.)
Since it appears that the prime minister doesn't want these amendments to be approved, the Convention is not being held. Five appeals were submitted to the Likud court on Tuesday, in order to force the Presidency of the Convention to hold a session for voting. These appeals reveal a very sad situation. The ruling party is being managed atrociously, without even a minimum amount of control and supervision of its current activists, even though tremendous sums of money are involved, or of its political activities. Tremendously important decisions are being made by a single person, without debate by the appropriate institutions, whether in the party, the government, or the Knesset, and without any proper public monitoring. The timetable will apparently be influenced by the appeal regarding the World Likud Organization, since in accordance with the recommendation of the WLO court both the voting, and the elections for the WLO, should be held before the end of March. We hope that the Likud Court, headed by retired Judge Avidgor Mishali, will put an end to this chaos. If we are unsuccessful in the Likud Court we will appeal to the Tel Aviv District Court. Obviously those responsible for the delay are aware that they cannot prevent the holding of a session of the Convention. However, it seems that we will have to fight for this, just as we did for the last session. Reminder: Please help us expand Manhigut Yehudit's membership list. Send our updates to your list as well. Moshe Feiglin began Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudi website address is http://www.manhigut.org. |
|
COMMENT ON URI AVNERI'S 'PEACE NOW' MENTALITY
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 19, 2004. |
|
A European friend with whom I have gotten into a friendly debate about
rising anti-Semitism sent me an article by Uri Avneri. I think he may
have clipped it from the International Herald-Tribune, Avneri is
identified as head of the Israeli peace movement Gush Shalom and a
former member of the Knesset. Herewith my reply to my Europen friend:
Returned from a 10-day trip to Southern California, Palm Springs and Los Angeles, and found Uri Avneri's article on anti-Semitism. Many thanks for sending it. I agree with Avneri's statement that all critics of Israel are not anti-Semites as well as with his argument that it is important not to confuse political differences with racism. But after that I part company with Avneri. For example, he starts by saying that all countries should be judged by the same standard, but then in the very same paragraph concludes that a higher moral standard is required of Israel. I happen to believe that Israel's human-rights record is superior to most countries despite obvious shortcomings in treating its Arab population. As a Jew, I am proud of Israel's performance under unremitting Arab hostility and terrorism. But that it my subjective feeling. In terms of international legitimacy, Israel deserves to be judged the way we would judge the United States, Russia, China or Belgium. To the question of whether Europe has become anti-Semitic again, Avneri offers a far too rose-tinted answer. He understates the extent and scope of rising anti-Semitism, brushing it off as a response to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the strong pro-Palestinian bias of European media. I happen to think that today's anti-Semitism in Europe is deeper and wider. For example, Avneri fails to address the question of why many (perhaps most) European intellectuals and media are so virulently anti-Israel, blinding themselves to Palestinian corruption and terrorism, while jumping on Israel for every real (or frequently imagined) wrong. It's important to understand that these are Europe's opinion-shapers and the depth of their hostility to Israel often veers into anti-Semitism. Avneri also makes light of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. It's not just that typically anti-Semitic remarks have crept into Arab discourse. That doesn't begin to tell the story. Sermons by Muslim clerics throughout the Arab world are reminiscent of the worst anti-Jewish diatribes in Hitler's Germany and they actively fuel terrorism. Avneri also goes overboard in his roseate view of Jews' historic experience in the Muslim world. He is right in arguing that Christian Europe has a far worse record than the Muslim world in the treatment of Jews. But he's too quick to swallow the notion that Muslim Spain was a "paradise" for Jews. There certainly was a level of co-existence and civility unknown in non-Muslim parts of Europe. But Jews, while not subjected to systematic persecution, knew their place was not as equals. Avneri's treatment of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir is much too gentle. Mahatir's anti-Semitic remarks at a conference of Muslim nation drew thunderous applause. Finally, Avneri ends with a disturbingly cavalier answer to the question of how to deal with anti-Semitism. You rightly put a question mark next to his statement quoting Jean-Paul Sartre as saying that we are all racists. What I remember from my extensive readings of Sartre is his essay on anti-Semitism published after World War 2. Sartre distinguished between two types of anti-Semitism, considering both an equal threat to Jews. He put in one category anti-Semites who would preserve the "Jew" but kill the person (the Hitlerian kind) and in another category the anti-Semite who would preserve the person but kill the "Jew" (I.e. so-called enlightened Westerners who happily would like Jews to shed their Jewishness and become assimilated). Under either anti-Semitic formula, there would be no "Jews" left. Sartre's views aside, Avneri totally distorts the danger of anti-Semitism by declaring that Israelis are just as racist as everybody else and that the real danger in Israel is represented by Arab-haters. He proposes that Israel should concentrate exclusively on Arab-haters in its midst and leave it to the Europeans and the Arabs exclusively to deal with their anti-Semites. That I totally reject. By all means, Israelis are doing and should do more to wipe out discrimination against Arab citizens. But Israel is also the Jewish homeland and its mission today, while defending itself against forces sworn to its extermination, is not just to look inward but to rush to the aid of co-religionists when they come under anti-Semitic assaults, whether in France, Belgium, Russia or anywhere else. The bottom line with Avneri is that he puts a higher priority on a peace-at-any-price formula for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, since he needs European support in that endeavor, is willing to overlook or minimize European discrimination and attacks against fellow Jews. All the best. Leo |
|
THE TEMPLE MOUNT
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 19, 2004. |
|
This was written by Hal Lindsey and appeared on the World Net Daily
website (http://www.worldnetdaily.com) today.
Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late
Great Planet Earth."
According to the Bible, in the last days, several events regarding Israel would occur in a particular order in a short time frame. The first, of course, would be the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland of Israel. "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land ..." (Ezekiel 37:21, New American Standard) The second, the Jews would regain sovereign control over Jerusalem. The following verse necessitates that they would do this as the times of Gentiles drew to a close: "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24, New King James) The rebirth of the state of Israel and the recapture of Jerusalem signal that the times of gentile world dominance is coming to a close, according to the Bible. Following on the heels of these events, the Bible says the Jews will rebuild their ancient Temple on the exact same place where it stood until destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Several prophecies speak of the Temple and the reinstitution of Mosaic ceremonies. According to the Law of Moses, these can only be practiced in a Temple restored to its original foundation. Paul writes to the Thessalonians concerning a very important event the Antichrist will perform in the Temple shortly before Christ's return. He writes, "Who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the TEMPLE OF GOD, displaying himself as being God." (2 Thessalonians 2:4 NAS) This also necessitates that there be a Temple rebuilt on its ancient site in Jerusalem. While the Jews have returned to their homeland, and have been in possession of their holy city since 1967, the Temple Mount is dominated by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosques. Muslims claim the entire Temple Mount as their third-holiest site. The mosques have stood there for 1,400 years. But the Bible predicts that, in the last days, the spot will again be occupied by a Jewish Temple. Unthinkable? Of course, the restoration of the Jews to the Land of Promise was unthinkable for centuries. Who could have dreamed in 1944 that four years later the Jews would have a state in their ancient homeland? Impossible! It certainly seemed so at the time. The world was just learning of the massacre of 6 million Jews in German concentration camps. But against all odds, in 1948, the Jews, having existed for centuries without country, land or flag, declared the existence of the state of Israel. This was the most important single fulfillment of prophecy concerning the last days. It set in motion the whole scenario of predicted events. The Jews brought to this new nation a culture unchanged by thousands of years of being scattered. Hebrew was resurrected as the official language of Israel - even though it had been a dead language for nearly 20 centuries. They restored the land, changed the climate and created a garden spot out of an utterly desolate Middle Eastern desert. Then, again against impossible odds, they won four wars aimed at their annihilation. In the process of winning the third one, they recaptured their holy city of Jerusalem. But the Muslim Waqf retains religious authority over the Temple Mount. Still, the Bible says that eventually, somehow, during the generation that saw the first two fulfillments, Israel and Jerusalem, will also see the third fulfilled, a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. Following a moderate earthquake and a weekend snowstorm, the walkway leading to the Temple Mount from the Old City collapsed. This news follows the news of the bulge in the southern Wall of the Temple Mount, which forms one of the outside walls of the Old City. Israeli archeologists have repeatedly warned that the retaining walls and understructure of the Temple Mount have been so weakened by unauthorized Muslim excavations that they are in danger of a catastrophic collapse. The Israelis have offered to do the work, but have been rejected out of hand. No matter what happens, Israel will get blamed. If the wall collapses completely, Israel will be blamed for not fixing it. If Israel tries to fix it, it will be accused of tampering with an Islamic holy site. Most religious authorities realize that a collapse could trigger apocalyptic events. But despite all of these circumstances, the Bible predicts that Israel will soon rebuild its Temple on its ancient site. Again I ask: Impossible? In the light of all the prophecies that have been fulfilled in this land in the last 50 years - all of which were considered equally impossible - I believe the Temple will soon be built. |
|
MICROSOFT PROVIDES PRO-ARAB BACKGROUND AS DOCUMENTARY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 19, 2004. |
|
Microsoft installed the Encarta Encyclopedia on the Internet. Shaul
Cohen of the U. of Oregon wrote some distorted and erroneous sections.
His "Arab-Israeli Conflict" equates the violence by both
sides, so that it is not clear that the Arabs are the aggressors,
especially in the riots of 1929 and 1936. Those riots were murderous
rampages by the Arabs, led on by false claims of Jewish designs on
Islamic shrines. The Peel Commission noted that the Jews are the
law-abiding ones, and behaved with restraint under provocation. (The
British had disarmed them.)
Cohen charged both sides with having rejected Resolution 242. "The Arab states continued to call for the destruction of Israel, while Israel for its part refused to withdraw from the territories it occupied." No, Israel accepted 242, but was not obliged to withdraw from any land until the Arabs acknowledged Israel's right to sovereignty in peace and negotiated that peace. Describing the violence after Oslo, he put it, "Palestinians (Arabs) conducted attacks on Israeli citizens, and on a number of occasions Israeli extremists responded in kind. "In kind?" No, Israelis did not bomb Arab buses, cafes, and malls, nor did their leadership urge them to do so. There was one attack, at the Hebron mosque. Ariel Sharon is described as controversial, hardline, disobedient, deceptive, and reckless. Arafat is descried as a Nobel laureate who is sometimes accused of failing to prevent terrorism (IMRA, 2/10 from Andrea Levin of CAMERA). Sharon has not been hardline as Prime Minister. Arafat pays for, and exhorts to, terrorism. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS? A Commentary on the Kurdish Situation
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 18, 2004. |
|
Gerald Honigman's article exposes yet another example of the
"International Community" led by the United Nations, the U.S. State
Dept. and the Council on Foreign Relations, placing Arab oil
interests before logic and the long term strategic interests of the
West.
The forced arabization of non-Arab peoples in the Middle-East, North and Central Africa, and elsewhere will only strengthen and embolden the forces of Anti-Westernism the world over. America's tendency to reward its enemies, and screw its friends is a danger to the security and well-being of its citizens. One must wonder just whom the U.S. Administration believes it is serving: the American people and their friends and allies, or the Arab nation that has become the greatest threat to the United States since Hitler? - Tamar While the world's media still debates whether or not Arabs who deliberately blow up civilian busloads of innocents are militants or terrorists, Mr. Ignatius has no problem using the "T" word for Kurds. And while the same media insists that there be a 23rd Arab state, somehow 30 million stateless Kurds are still considered undeserving of one. David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote on September 16, 2003 of the danger in playing America's Turkish card in Iraq. In the course of the article, when mentioning the Kurds, he referred to them only as terrorists or rebels. Now think about that for a minute. At a time when most media folks are still debating whether or not Arabs - who deliberately blow up busloads of Jewish innocents in buses, pizza parlors, teen nightclubs, etc. - are "militants" or "terrorists," folks like Mr. Ignatius have no problem using the "T" word for Kurds. Let's say, right from the start, that I support a strong Turco-American alliance, but it's not a good idea to have the Turkish military join us in Iraq. I'll get into this issue a bit later on. For now, consider the following... Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another Palestinian Arab state be permitted to be created (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). Could you envision the outcry around the world? Yet this is precisely what our friends, the Turks, have stated over and over again regarding the Kurds. And besides David Ignatius' comments, this has been echoed elsewhere as well such as in Thomas Friedman's March 26th article in the New York Times. Friedman advised that the Kurds should be told point blank, "what part of 'no' don't you understand? ...You Kurds are not breaking away." Nauseating. These are the same authors who, along with many others, have written volumes espousing the creation of that 23rd Arab state, While the Turks' nervousness over such a thought is understandable, their position (as well as Ignatius', Friedman's, etc.) is morally indefensible... if that means anything these days. We'll return to this issue as well later on. At this time, however, we need to take a good look at the plight of some 30 million perpetually used and abused Kurds. Think about all of the journalistic, political, and other energy which has been devoted to the creation of that 23rd Arab state. Now ask yourselves how much has been devoted to the plight of stateless Kurds? Think of Mr. Ignatius' and Mr. Friedman's comments for starters. For several decades now, in the study of Middle Eastern Affairs, some subjects have appeared to be taboo while others never seem to leave center stage. Perhaps one reason for this state of affairs lies in the perpetual quest for Arab petro-dollars by financially hungry academic institutions. Another possibly related reason has something to do with those who have hijacked an intolerant control of Middle Eastern Studies in academia. Israel, constantly in the spotlight's glare, is thus frequently picked apart (all in the name of "objective scholarship" of course), and every real and/or imaginary sin is repeatedly exposed for all to see and pass judgment upon. Indeed, many academics have taken the lead recently to single Israel out and treat it as a pariah in their attempts to have their institutions cut all ties to it. The mere suggestion that Pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism has problems with Jewish nationalism/Zionism for at least some of the same reasons it has had similar problems elsewhere - Berber North Africa, Lebanon, Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan, the Sudan, etc. - can elicit harsh rebuke. In the classroom, however, such subjects are more often than not simply not dealt with at all. Rare is the classroom, for example, that gets into a discussion of the "other side" of the Middle East refugee problem, the one half of Israel's Jews who fled Arab/Muslim lands as a result of the war Arabs launched against the nascent Jewish State. Even more rare is the class that puts the 1947 partition plan for Palestine into the broader context of another partition going on at the very same time between Hindus and Muslims over the Indian subcontinent. The double standard frequently reigns supreme, and while students are often left with the impression that one national movement holds a monopoly on evil and injustice, the other is in line for imminent canonization. Not surprisingly, therefore, revealing and provocative subjects such as Arab treatment of the Kurds have, until recently, simply been ignored. It took Saddam's gassing of them a little over a decade ago in Desert Storm to finally get some interest aroused...but not much. Yet these same voices, mostly silent on the decades' old subjugation and slaughter of Kurds, loudly protest that Arab nationalism has been eternally wronged because it has manifested itself to date - largely via conquest and forced arabization of other peoples and their lands - on "only" twenty-two states, including one on over 80% of the original Mandate for Palestine issued to Britain on April 25, 1920 and today known as Jordan. Some thirty million proud, much abused, and beleaguered people - still not in possession of one state let alone two dozen others - are thus simply disregarded in a grotesque display of moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy by the very same circles promoting an Arafatian state. What's even worse, outside of academia, an Arabist-dominated State Department perpetuates this problem for its own largely oil-tainted reasons. And most of the media engages in this double standard as well. The story of Kurdish nationalism is a depressing one when compared with that of other nationalisms in the Middle East. Arab and Iranian nationalisms, for example, are replete with events causing anger, frustration, setbacks, and the like, but their futures remain alive with the promise of a better tomorrow. Not so, however, for the Kurds...That is, not until recently. While great forces are still working against this - not the least being those at Foggy Bottom - the war in Iraq has the potential to, at long last, right an historic wrong. It is time... The Kurds are a native, non-Arab people who have lived in the Middle East for thousands of years. Their name derives from the ancient Guti (Guti-Gurti-Kurdi), conquerors of Babylon. They were the non-Semitic Hurrians of Mesopotamia and the Medes of Persian history. Their home covers mountainous regions now part of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other countries as well. But the heartland of ancient Gutium, the domain of later autonomous Kurdish mirs, had been in what is now - thanks to the British - Arab Iraq. The area around Mosul and Kirkuk, vast in petroleum deposits, was traditional Kurdish land. Add to this an ironic twist. While Syrian Arabs (as well as Saddam) like to sing praises to the medieval warrior Saladin's name, Saladin was, in fact, a Kurd who joined in the fight against Christendom's advances in the Middle East. Had he known what would be in store for his people at the hands of Syrian Arabs centuries later, he might have had second thoughts. A reading of the Kurdish nationalist Ismet Cherif Vanly's book, The Syrian 'Mein Kampf' Against The Kurds (Amsterdam 1968), gives some good insight into how Arabs have dealt with any and all potential rivals in the region. The Ottoman Turks controlled most of the Middle East for over four centuries. With the pending collapse of their empire, numerous peoples had their dreams for independence once again reemerge. President Wilson encouraged this himself in his famous Fourteen Points and his calls for self-determination for all former subject peoples. The Kurds were among those whose aspirations were addressed. The best and most reasonable chance for Kurdish independence was sacrificed, however, in the immediate post-World War I era on the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. What was promised as "Kurdistan" became Arab Iraq instead. The odds against a favorable outcome to such aspirations grew immensely from then on. Among other things, Arab nationalists feared that if such a state arose it would become the focus of immigration for millions of Kurds living in Turkey and Iran. Arabs also wrote that they would see the birth of an independent Kurdistan as equivalent to the creation of another Israel, i.e. it would permanently separate lands from what Arabs claimed solely for themselves. In order to maintain any credibility in the strategically important Arab world, the British - who had recently switched from a coal to an oil-powered imperial navy - decided that they had to ignore previous promises made to the Kurds and included the oil-rich Kurdish areas in what was being formed as Arab Iraq instead. Britain decided that its long-term interests required keeping the Arab world as friendly as possible. Besides backing off from promises to the Jews in Palestine (including chopping off all of the land east of the Jordan River and handing it over to the Arabs in 1922 with the creation of the Emirate of Transjordan), this also meant passing another litmus test, the abandonment of the Kurds. A newly invigorated Turkish Republic under Ataturk and Iran's Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled out, respectively, the potential western and eastern options as well - despite numerous and continuing revolts in the former and the brief Mehabad experience in the latter. Rebellion in these areas represented/represent acts of desperation by a repeatedly exploited and abandoned people. In an era in which former victims of imperialism and oppression were struggling for recognition and gaining national rights, the Kurds were alternately tantalized with intimations of independence and crushed by the withdrawal of these promises at the very moment their realization appeared to be within reach. The explosive results were inevitable. "Rebels," indeed, Mr. Ignatius... Even more troubling for those of us who love America and care about what our nation represents to the world, the United States replaced Britain as the primary user (abuser?) of the Kurds, using them to hammer away at our own enemies in the region, and repeatedly abandoning them to their own fate when our own immediate goals were reached. So, that brings us up to the present and our current problems with post-Saddam Iraq. We hear from the folks at the State Department that Iraq must not be dismembered because it will lead to instability in the region. Talk of a unified federal state had prevailed for a while, but even that seems now to be fading fast. The dominant Shia have other things in mind, and Arabs of any religious stripe do not look kindly upon the prospects of any kind of autonomy for Kurds. Funny, these same Foggy Bottom folks don't think twice about what the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state will do to both a miniscule, 9-mile wide Israel and a Jordan whose majority population is Palestinian Arab. Repeated partitions are legitimate for Palestine, but not even one is permissible for Mesopotamia/Iraq. There will be no "Road Map" for Kurdistan... What's wrong with this picture? The real reasons for our State Department not wanting this, of course, are quite different. One of the main issues is the same one that Britain had when it aborted an independent Kurdistan in the first place: fear of angering the Arab world. But think of what could happen if Mosul and Kirkuk's oil became part of a long overdue, friendly Kurdish State with America as its main ally... The other major concern is more noble and has to do with our friends, the Turks. With the collapse of their empire after World War I, when the dust finally settled, Ataturk pulled together a reinvigorated (if much constricted) Turkey. The eastern portion of what was left of the Turkish domain, however, largely consisted of Kurds, but the Turks had drawn their line in the sand and were not about to permit the dismemberment of any more of their territories due to a Kurdish nationalism frustrated with the loss of the one best chance it had at independence in Mesopotamia. So the Turks and Arabs (and others as well) have all harshly suppressed the aspirations of this stateless people. Additionally, Kurdish language, culture, and other aspects of Kurdish identity have been periodically outlawed. So here's our current challenge - if we can overcome the Arabists who too frequently call the shots at the State Department. We now have a chance to right an historical wrong. If Arabs can, after all, have twenty-two states, and very possibly a 23rd in the future, on lands mostly conquered and forcibly arabized from other, non-Arab peoples, how can thirty million Kurds be forced to forever remain stateless and usually at someone else's mercy? What will happen to America's Kurdish allies, who fought and died side by side with our troops to overthrow Saddam, when America leaves the area due to any number of potential reasons? Arabs will not hesitate to take "revenge" on this people whom they have a long history of massacring. Turks fear that an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq will cause and/or support a similar move to independence in the adjacent Turkish lands. This is, in reality, extremely doubtful. More likely - and with proper cultivation most probably - what will occur is that those Kurds ( like those Greeks or those Jews or those Armenians, etc.) who wish to live in an independent state of their own will migrate to that state in northern Iraq. Indeed, Turkey stands to lose many of its own potential "problems" this way. The odds of that new state - born as a result of American and possibly Turkish assistance by dismantling Saddam's Iraq - purposely biting the hands that fed it are not very likely. Turkoman tribes in the north and Sunni and Shia Arabs in central and southern Iraq will have a loosely federated state as well, and a formula can be reached whereby the oil wealth can be shared - including with the Turks who feel that they lost the Mosul fields due to Britain's earlier influence with the League of Nations after World War I. It was good that the Turks said "no" to our using their border with Iraq as a springboard for our troops during the overthrow of Saddam. Part of the price tag for such permission would have likely been granting the Turks permission to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan...a moral nightmare...again, if that means anything these days. Talk of inviting Turkish troops to now "help out" in Iraq falls into this same mold. Since we went to war and once again called upon our strangely loyal friends, the Kurds, to assist us in ousting Saddam, we have to be sure that this time we hold the moral high ground. We've not done this before with them. Indeed, after President George Bush (senior) called on them to revolt against Saddam in Desert Storm, he watched and did nothing while these people were massacred by the thousands. They had been gassed to death just a bit earlier. Secretary of State Powell's September 2003 visit to Halabja was thus a bit ironic. He was one of those who had a say in this earlier policy. Remember that the full force of America's war machine was nearby and could have acted...but didn't. And this was not the first time we abused them this way. It is time to right a long overdue historical wrong. Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22gah.htm |
|
THE ODD COUPLE: Israel and Russia Challenge OPEC
Posted by IsrAlert, February 18, 2004. |
|
The author of this article, Ed Blanche, is a member of the
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and a
Beirut-based journalist who has covered Middle Eastern affairs for
three decades. He is a regular contributor to "The Daily Star
(http://www.dailystar.com.lb), where this article appeared
today." It is archived at IMRA
(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19843)
IMRA comments: The loading point of the pipeline is already within range of the Qassam rockets that the Palestinians have developed. If and when Prime Minister Sharon's retreat is executed, the Palestinians will be able to easily import longer range missiles to put the Ashdod port under the same threat that Israel's other main port, Haifa, faces from the 12,000 missiles in South Lebanon - all formidable threats that will deter Israel from taking action to prevent an IDF-free Gaza Strip from developing even greater threats against the Jewish state (and even preventing Israel from responding to attacks). BEIRUT: Israel's vice-premier and trade minister, Ehud Olmert, was in Moscow last week with a particular message: "We want more Russian oil." Moscow is only happy to oblige, because a 250-kilometer pipeline running from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba has become a vital artery for Russian oil exports to the Far East, the fastest-growing energy market in the world and one Moscow wants to dominate. By sidestepping the Suez Canal, the Trans-Israel Pipeline, known as the Tipline, opens up a shorter and cheaper route for Russian oil exports to Asia and thereby threatens Arab exports from the Gulf. The first tanker to sail from Israel with a cargo of Russian crude pumped through the Tipline left Eilat, bound for Asia, in November. According to British energy analyst Simon Henderson, an expert on the Gulf, that event "has the potential to greatly impact the international oil market. Russian oil exports are unconstrained by the quotas of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a steady stream of expanded Russian shipments via the Tipline could lower prices worldwide." The new route also puts Israel firmly on the oil industry map, but more importantly it will strengthen Russia's position in the global energy market, challenging Saudi Arabia's as the pre-eminent oil producer. These days, Russia and Saudi Arabia are jockeying for the No. 1 spot as a world oil supplier with around 8 million barrels per day (bpd). A confrontation between Saudi-dominated OPEC and Moscow seems inevitable. With oil hovering around $30 a barrel, the Russians have little interest in aiding OPEC dampen prices, and it is expected to push up production this year. According to French energy analyst Francis Perrin: "Russia has no interest in collaborating with OPEC." The Americans have long wanted to undermine OPEC and US control of Iraq's oil, wealth could go far to achieve that. But the Russians seem to be ones making the running right now, and want to overtake Saudi production levels within five years. According to Simon Kukes, chief executive officer of Russia's giant Yukos oil company, Russian output could reach 11 million bpd by 2009. The Tipline connection also cements Israel's relations with Russia, a mortal enemy throughout the Cold War, at a time when many oil-consuming states are growing nervous about the security of energy supplies from the Arab world and are seeking ways to reduce their dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia. The Japanese, for instance, get 85 percent of their oil from the Gulf but want to cut that back to 65 percent. It is possible that the Russians may at some point open another export route to the Far East through Iran's Gulf terminal at Bandar Abbas, which could also reduce Asian demand for Saudi crude. Russia, Iran and India signed an agreement to develop a north-south transportation corridor in September 2000 that would also rival the Suez Canal. But that involves investing of billions of dollars and years of work, and would thus seem to lie far in the future. For now, the Tipline is the testbed for Russia's ability to pump up the volume of oil it ships to energy-thirsty Asia, where the market is being enlarged by China's growing demand for oil to fuel its burgeoning economic expansion. The Tipline was built in 1968 to carry oil shipped up the Red Sea from Iran, then still ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to Eilat and on to the Mediterranean for transshipment to Europe. At that time, the Suez Canal was still closed following the 1967 war, with the Israelis holding the eastern bank and the Egyptians the western bank, so the Tipline saved tankers having to make the long and costly haul around Africa to reach markets in Europe and the US. Israel took what it needed of the Iranian oil for its own consumption. But the 1979 revolution in Iran changed all that. The new regime cut off all links to Israel. The surge in Russian oil exports following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave the Tipline a new lease on life. By reversing the flow, with Eilat instead of Ashkelon as the loading terminal, the Russians found a new outlet as they drove to develop new markets. So now tankers from the Black Sea carry the oil to Ashkelon. These are of necessity not large supertankers because Turkey prohibits ships of that size using the Bosphorus Straits. But big tankers can be used to carry shipments from Eilat. The Tipline has the capacity to handle 55 million tons of oil a year. According to the Russian media, Moscow is expected to pump 20 million-30 million tons through Israel this year, as well as provide most of Israel's requirement of 240,000 bpd that formerly came for such diverse sources as Egypt and the North Sea. "Even if the pipeline route was used to its full potential," Henderson says, "Russian oil transported to Eilat would only be enough to fill one Asia-bound oil tanker every two or three days." But boosting the line's capacity would increase exports. Henderson noted that Russian oil shipped through Israel is made more attractive to Asian buyers because it eliminates the so-called "Asian premium," the extra $1 per barrel arbitrarily imposed on Asian consumers by Gulf producers. This has caused considerable resentment against the Gulf exporters, and provides another incentive to reduce their dependence on Arab oil. Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz of Saudi Arabia, the country's de facto ruler since King Fahd fell ill six years ago, made a landmark visit to Moscow in September 2003 hoping to improve relations, in large part because of the strains in Riyadh's relations with the US since Sept. 11, 2001. The Saudis signed a five-year oil and gas cooperation agreement, but the Russians, while cordial enough, were not inclined to curtail their campaign to boost oil exports that are the main driver of Russia's economic boom or to see prices cut back. The Russians have not forgotten how in 1985 the Saudis used their excess production capacity to flood the market and drive down oil prices to $12 a barrel, which wrecked any hopes that the then-Soviet Union had of an economic revival and contributed to the collapse of communism soon after. Yet the Saudis remain increasingly desperate for Russia's help, especially as the US agenda becomes more belligerent and insistent upon speedy political reform that the House of Al-Saud is reluctant to introduce. Just how desperate Riyadh is was evident in January, when the pro-Moscow president of Chechnya, Akhmad Kayrov, said after visiting the Saudi capital that Riyadh had halted all funding for Islamic rebels in the war-torn republic and recognized his government. That can only bolster Al-Qaeda in its campaign inside the kingdom by convincing many Saudis that their government is collaborating with those who seek to crush fellow Wahhabis fighting the infidel. Moscow's improving relations with Israel, despite some tensions, underline how Russia's policies in the region are changing. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has visited Moscow three times since his election in early 2002. Commercial relations are flourishing with trade running at several billion dollars a year. Russia and Israel are collaborating on programs that have strategic and military implications. Both states are threatened by Islamic extremists, and the Israelis, busy fighting suicide bombers, have been uncritical of Moscow's harsh measures against the Chechen separatists. With Israel as a vital artery for oil exports, the relationship is bound to
consolidate, undoubtedly at the Arabs' expense.
/font>
Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and
Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in
the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il
IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To
subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com
|
|
THE EXPERTS ADVICE: STAY IN GAZA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 18, 2004. |
|
MK Tzvi Hendel claims to have proof that PM Sharon suddenly decided
upon a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in order to avoid
indictment on an unrelated matter of bribery.
Sharon is alleged to have met with his aides to figure out how to neutralize the pending legal action. In this they were following the precedent of other diplomatic initiatives coinciding with the closing of police investigations against prominent politicians. MK Hendel urges the Attorney-General to decide promptly whether to indict PM Sharon. If indicted, Sharon would have to resign. If exonerated, Sharon would lose the incentive to save his freedom at the expense of expelling the Jews from Gaza Strip (Arutz-7, 2/9). Although elected to be firm with the Arabs, the Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to expel "thousands of people from their homes, destroy entire communities, and declare an entire section of the Land of Israel off-limits to Jews." He said it costs to much to defend them in Gaza. Could Sharon be more unethical and anti-democratic, as he discriminates against Jews? Suppose France declared that it cost too much to defend the Jews of Paris, and he would move out the Jews, rather than those who wantonly attack them. France would be declared antisemitic. Sharon is fulfilling the Arab dream of driving out the Jews, who sacrificed their lives for centuries to preserve their patrimony there. Sharon is doing more to advance the Arab cause than has Arafat. Sharon must be cashiered (Michael Freund, National Unity Coalition for Israel, 2/5, e-mail). Most key figures in Israeli intelligence and Army have advised against PM Sharon's plan for unilateral withdrawal from Jewish communities. They explain that the Arabs would see this as a victory for terrorism and redouble that terrorism, not leave Israel alone. The public also opposes the plan. So does the Biblical injunction against surrendering God-given land. The rabbis are not protesting loudly, however. They seem to be awaiting a Divine signal about what to do. Israeli Prime Ministers disregard the advice of the experts. They dance to foreign command. Sharon contends that the withdrawal he plans would enable Israel to retain more strategic parts of Judea-Samaria. Problem is, he has not gotten a clear and formal understanding from Pres. Bush that the US agrees. Nor can Sharon count on Bush being re-elected. The Democrat who replaces him might not endorse the previous agreement, if any. He might hold the leftist position that Israel should withdraw all the way to the Green Line. (Indeed, Sen. Kerry's campaign manager is said to be from American Friends of Peace Now!) If such a Democrat were elected, he would find that Sharon's uprooting of communities set a precedent Sharon would be hard to refuse to continue. How would Sharon dispute him on that? (Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA, 2/12.) When there is no good argument contradicting the experts, as in this case, the advice should be taken seriously. The politicians claim to have higher and strategic ends, but they usually are lower and non-strategic ends, such as poll ratings and pleasing US critics. Their advisors' dire predictions usually pan out, the polls are ephemeral, and the US remains unappeased. One who agrees with Sharon is Labor MK Yatom, a former head of the Mossad. He said he sees no reason for maintaining IDF forces in the Gaza Strip. He said those forces could return, if terrorism resumes. By what precedent does he base his assessment? Not on the recent experience with Lebanon. Since Israel withdrew from the security zone in southern Lebanon, Hizbullah positioned 12,000 missiles there. Hizbullah attacks Israel, which does not send forces back in and risk the missiles blanketing northern Israel. Instead, it mostly bombs empty buildings (in a pretense at retaliating). If Israel abandoned Gaza, the P.A. could declare sovereignty. The Security Council, which may welcome excuses to act against Israel, would forbid Israeli invasion. Once sovereign, the P.A. would import heavy arms. It would liquidate Israel's agents in Gaza. When attacked from Lebanon, at least Israel knows by whom. From Gaza, real or fictitious groups could claim to have made the attack, and Israel would not know whom to retaliate against. Gen. (Res.) Yatom's optimism sounds like a parody (IMRA, 2/11). Is he opining as a former intelligence chief or as a Labor politician? As chief, was he angling for the politician's job? Last week, an earthquake struck the land of Israel, registering 5 on the Richter scale. Everyone felt the earth shaking and all wondered whether it were a bomb and would a building crash down on them. It left no damage anywhere except cracks in the wall and foundation of the Knesset, especially in Sharon's office. That, suggests "Voice of Judea," is the specific sign from above, not just a physical effect from below (2/11, e-mail). Interesting interpretation. Another person who supports Sharon is MK Ezra, formerly in the secret service. He explained to Israel Radio why his support for PM Sharon's evacuation plan. He does not know why PM Sharon wants the withdrawal, but is confident that the PM and his security advisors must have a good reason. He sees his role as being to support the Prime Minister and the coalition. He would resign if he disagrees with the Prime Minister and thinks Sharon made a bad decision (IMRA, 2/8). If the decision threatened the country's survival, as recent decisions about the Arab-Israel conflict do, then Members of Knesset should press the Prime Minister to resign, as the one making a mistake endangering millions of lives. Ezra is the stereotypical party hack. He thinks the Knesset is supposed to be a rubber stamp. Rubber stamps aren't democratic. Even PM Peres objects to forcibly removing citizens from their houses. He quotes them, "We are connected with our place, we were born here, this is our land, we are citizens of the country." He was referring not to PM Sharon's plan to force the Jews out of Gaza, but to PM Sharon's thought of trading Um el-Fahm, an Israeli city of almost 40,000 Arabs, to the P.A. (Arutz-7, 2/8). Interesting that Israeli Arabs prefer being in the country they say oppresses them. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
SHARON IS A LAME DUCK PRIME MINISTER
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 18, 2004. |
When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his Disengagement Plan, I
jumped upon his bandwagon. In my article "Sharons Strategy and
Why I Support It" (http://israpundit.com/archives/003825.html), I
reasoned,
"He plans to build the fence in a path that is most advantageous for Israel. This will enable Israel to better protect its citizens and its economy. It will also enable Israel to strengthen its hold on the included lands during a very extended interim period. He is prepared to abandon some settlements on the east side of the fence and in Gaza and repatriate/transfer the Jews from them. This is a small price to pay for the opportunity to consolidate Israel's hold on a large and significant swath of land. One step back and two steps forward." Much has happened since then, which has riddled his strategy and my
support of it. The US is totally against Israel strengthening its hold
and won't let Israel build the fence where it is most advantageous for
it to do. Haaretz reports:
It also opposes moving settlers from the Gaza Strip to the West
Bank. The Americans have requested information on the 1982 relocation
of evacuees from Sinai and asked whether they were resettled in the
West Bank and Gaza.
Even before this clear diktat, Israel had capitulated and changed
the location of the fence to exclude Ariel and other close by
settlements and to forego a buffer for Ben Gurion Airport.
If yielding territory does not enable Israel to consolidate its
hold on the remaining territory, then the rational for yielding it is
totally destroyed.
His latest plan for disengagement in Gaza gave up a great deal for
little in return. The Camp David Accords, which conceded "every inch"
to Egypt, set a very bad precedent. To give up every inch of Gaza is
an even worse precedent because Gaza is indistinguishable from Judea
and Sumaria. Far better to retain the largest settlement block in Gaza
when withdrawing from most of it, and announcing Israel's intention to
annex it. In any event Israel will still be responsible to control the
terrorists in Gaza even after they uproot some settlements so what is
to be gained.
As Sharon has said many times, all his actions will first be
approved by the US. While it is better to proceed with the agreement
of the US, it is not a good policy to let the US call all the shots.
Israel must have a made in Israel policy even if the US doesn't like
it. If the US has its way with Israel, Israel will be forced back to
the '67 borders with minor exchanges and will be responsible to assist
the Palestinians to be economically viable.
The US holds that
This is utter nonsense. Negotiations are never conducted in a
vacuum. They are always affected by the relative strength of the
parties. And strength is not just measured in terms of military power
but also in terms of one's willingness to use it. Strength also
reflects one's political support or lack thereof. Furthermore, all
parties to a conflict attempt to impose "final conditions" on the
other either by militarily defeating them or by gaining advantages in
other ways. In the case of the Israeli/ Arab dispute the world is
attempting to impose final conditions on Israel and criticizes Israel
for doing anything to thwart its ends.
Israel is constantly accused of taking unilateral steps that
prejudge negotiations. This right is reserved to the world powers
alone. This condemnation must be utterly rejected. Every country
without exception does what ever it can to serve its interests without
waiting for agreement. Such condemnation is merely a tool to impose on
Israel a solution and to prevent Israel from bettering its position.
It has no basis in law or in any agreement.
Sharon is clearly a lame duck Prime Minister. His health is failing
and he may soon be indicted. The US is already distancing itself from
him and Sharon increasing is looking to the Left for support. He
settled for holding the forces of terror at bay rather than defeating
them massively. He has come out with many plans that involve
concessions with little in return and even those plans, he cannot
execute. He has refused to initiate legislation that would require a
super majority before any settlements are uprooted or land given back.
He has accomplished nothing. He has given the US a veto over all
Israeli policies and this is a total abdication of Israeli
sovereignty. He must go.
Sharon managed to get approval for the horrendous prisoner exchange
for which I will not forgive him. This is more than a security issue.
It goes to the heart of Sharon's willingness to fight and bodes ill
for Israel.
The all-important question is, "Can Israel go it alone?" Does Israel
have any choice but to comply with the demands of the US as Sharon is
doing? Is Israel fooling itself to think that it can act independently
and get away with it? Israel's choice is to accept like sheep, the
demands of the world, or to get off the slippery slope of the "peace
process" and stand and fight. Israel should not subject itself to the
will of the Quartet but should set its own terms for settlement. To my
mind, it can't be any worse off.
|
|
NY TIMES REBALANCES AL JAZEERA
Posted by Honest Reporting, February 18, 2004. |
|
On Feb. 16, the New York Times ran a highly sympathetic profile of
Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based media outlet that became well-known in the
West by broadcasting taped statements by Osama bin Laden. (This
article was also published in the Times-owned International Herald
Tribune.)
Under a headline declaring that Al Jazeera produces "Balanced Coverage," the Times article is filled with flattering quotes on Al Jazeera's effort to supply "comprehensive and accurate" news coverage, its lack of "ideological aim," and noble goal to "bridge the gap" between East and West. An Al Jazeera spokesman argues that since the station is criticized by both the Pentagon and Arab regimes, this "is a sign that what we are doing is right." The Times article supports that view - failing to cite any of the myriad examples of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western material that characterizes Al Jazeera coverage. Consider:
No one except the New York Times, that is. As journalist and commentator Tom Gross says, "This New York Times story is an example of how the paper, through the myth of 'objectivity,' subtly misleads its readers on Mideast issues on an almost daily basis." Al Jazeera, with 35 million daily viewers and plans to enter North American cable, is a growing force in propagating anti-Israel and anti-American lies under the guise of objective "news." New York Times readers, unfortunately, are left in the dark regarding this aspect of the "balanced" Arab media outlet. Honest Reportng monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com |
|
TERRORISTS NOW TARGET EUROPE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 18, 2004. |
|
Europe and the US let their countries be used for planning,
fundraising, and recruiting for terrorism against Israel and other
foreign countries. The West lacked the imagination to foresee that the
terrorists eventually would turn against it (just as they are turning
against their mentor, S. Arabia). The West (like the Saudis) thought
it was buying them off.
Now terrorists are talking about a jihad against Europe. The "British Observer," in reporting the growing network across Europe, still calls the terrorists "militants." In London, Warsaw, Madrid, Oslo, etc., Europe's detectives pit themselves against the dedicated fanatics, but enjoy little publicity over it, and therefore less public support than otherwise. That is the price that the West pays for the political correctness, that doesn't admit certain types of reality. Security officials know they must not lose, but the people they arrest get replaced. Britain is used for fundraising, credit card fraud, manufacture of false documents, and planning. Islamist ells are spreading into Eastern Europe, where organized crime is strong and governments are weak and easily bribed. Austria is a communications hub for the terrorists. France is the key recruiting ground for gunmen, but also where terrorists are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, one plot having been thwarted. In Germany, they arrange for Balkan gangsters to ship them weapons. S. Arabians continue to finance al-Qaeda and other terrorists. But the European cells are autonomous. They meet on an ad hoc basis. The only way to deal with the Islamist terrorists is to eradicate them without defense lawyers, trials, and human rights. "Holding a calling card or a check issued by a terrorist groups should constitute sufficient justification to shoot the bearer dead. Moreover, the Muslim communities which give cover to these terrorists should also be shopped home. Innocent people's lives would be hurt, to be sure, but collateral damage has always been an unfortunate consequence of war." (MEPF, 2/6 from Miriam Gardner of American Yated Neeman, 1/23.) Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
ISRAELI ARABS RIP SHARON PROPOSAL
Posted by Deb Kotz, February 18, 2004. |
|
Check out this article by Paul Martin from yesterday's Washington
Times. Wonder why this hasn't been reported in NY Times or other
national news organizations? Bias also lies in what's not reported as
well as in what is.
UMM-AL-FAHM, Israel - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has won no friends in this sprawling Arab city with a proposal that the community and others like it might be ceded by Israel to a future Palestinian state. Although Israeli Arabs of Umm-al-Fahm share much with their fellow Arabs in the neighboring West Bank, the former say they are more concerned about preserving the rights they enjoy as Israelis - including access to jobs, free speech, a democratic vote and a measure of political freedom. "We have a saying here," said Shoaa Saad, 22, "that the 'evil' of Israel is better than the 'heaven' of the West Bank. "Here you can say whatever you like and do whatever you want - so long as you don't touch the security of Israel. Over there, if you talk about [Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser] Arafat, they can arrest you and beat you up." Mr. Saad spoke while serving sweet tea and cakes in father Nabil's family-run restaurant that, until the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, catered equally to Arabs and Jews who wandered in from a nearby Israeli highway. That business was jeopardized this month when a Sharon spokesman said the government - which has proposed unilaterally to draw a new border with the West Bank if there is no progress toward a negotiated peace - may cede some Israeli-Arab areas to Palestinian rule in exchange for Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As many as 20 percent of Israeli citizens are ethnic Arabs, many of them concentrated in a so-called Arab Triangle of cities, towns and villages close to the West Bank. The idea of ceding some of these population centers appeals to many Jewish Israelis, who fear that the Arabs, with their higher birthrate, eventually will outnumber the Jews in Israel. In 50 years, the Israeli-Arab population has increased from 160,000 to 1.2 million; there are 5 million Jews in Israel. Palestinian political leaders were as quick to denounce the idea of a swap as were their Israeli-Arab counterparts. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said the scheme was "undebatable and unacceptable," and senior Israeli-Arab legislator Ahmed Tibi called it a "racist project" aimed at protecting Israel's Jewish majority. In Umm-al-Fahm, many Arab Israelis see the proposal as part of a broader dilemma they face. "The problem is we're treated here as B-class citizens, but we're seen [by West Bank Palestinians] as 'almost Jews,' " said Issam Abu Allo, 29, one of three young Israeli-trained lawyers who discussed their situation over a late-night dinner at a pizza parlor. "Mr. Sharon seems to want us to join an unknown state that doesn't have a parliament, or a democracy, or even decent universities," said Mr. Allo, who studied law and social anthropology at predominantly Jewish colleges in Haifa and Netanya. "We have close family ties in the West Bank, but we prefer to demand our full rights inside Israel. International law says neither Sharon or Arafat is allowed to make exchanges against the population's will." Before the intifada, or uprising, residents of Umm-al-Fahm readily found jobs in Israeli cities, mainly in the construction industry. But the strains between Jews and Arabs during the intifada have left a legacy of deep distrust. Many Jews recall that a group of hard-line Islamists was elected to the city council and that local youths at one point had blockaded the adjacent highway, leading to violence in which three young men were fatally shot. Often overlooked is that Israeli Arabs also have died in the bus bombings targeting Jews. At least two Israeli Arabs acted heroically to help thwart or end terror attacks, one of them suffering injuries in a suicide explosion after calling police with a cell phone to alert them to the danger. "The last three years of the intifada have made our position much worse," Mr. Allo said. "Israelis are suspicious of us now. Jobs are being closed to us. I was kept for two hours at the airport. I know a guy who was held several hours at the airport - just because his surname was Arafat." The lawyers agreed that "blowing up buses is not the way to bring peace," but they also supported the Palestinian mantra that the attacks were the result of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite generally good experiences with Jewish classmates at Israeli colleges, the lawyers considered themselves culturally different and distant from the Jews. The restaurant-owning Saad family expressed a far stronger affinity after years of trade with Jewish customers. "We used to prefer Jewish customers because they really told us how good our food was and, unlike our Arab brothers, never argued over the price," Mr. Saad said. "Now we get one Jewish customer a week on average - and I can see how scared he is as he walks nervously in and looks all around. I hope the good situation we had before the intifada comes back, but I doubt it." Deb Kotz is an active member of the Brandeis Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintains an email list to distribute articles of interest to the local community. She can be reached at DebKotz@aol.com |
|
FASCISM AT BERKELEY
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 18, 2004. |
|
This frightening article - written by Cinnamon Stillwell, a
contributing editor to ChronWatch - speaks for itself. It appeared on
http://chronwatch.com February 16,2004.
The "liberal" left has turned fascist. I wonder how professor Susan
Ervin Tripp will justify the behavior described. [ed note: Tripp, a
professor of psychology at Berkeley thought it appropriate to stage an
anti-Israel protest on Yom Hashoa (Holocaust Rememberance Day).]
If reaction to Daniel Pipes' lecture on Tuesday (2/10) was any indication, fascism is alive and well at UC Berkeley. Pipes was invited by the Israel Action Committee and Berkeley Hillel to speak at the college campus known for its leftist politics. But ironically, the home of "free speech" and "tolerance" has shown itself to be distinctly intolerant to those who express political views other than their own. And Daniel Pipes happens to fit that description. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, a member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a columnist for the New York Sun and the Jerusalem Post. But most importantly, he is pro-America, pro-Israel, and one of the foremost strategists of our time when it comes to the threat of militant Islam. All of these combined make Daniel Pipes public enemy number one according to UC Berkeley leftists and especially radical Muslim students; Indeed, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) was out in full force on Tuesday, acting like the thugs and bullies they routinely accuse Pipes of supporting. There were about 50-70 of them, amidst a crowd of 700, and after failing to prevent Pipes from speaking, they did their best to try and disrupt the lecture and intimidate the audience. Pipes had anticipated problems beforehand and had warned supporters that the Muslim Student Association was planning to make an appearance. They had posted an announcement about the lecture at the leftist website SFIndyMedia.org, raving that a "Zionist" was coming to town, and exhorting members to show up. In fact, the lecture was moved to another site on campus to accommodate a larger audience, but the MSA students still managed to sniff it out. Outside the lecture a crowd of them were gathered, along with sympathetic leftists, many carrying the types of signs and slogans that have become all too familiar in recent years. Signs equating Zionism with Nazism, for instance. Others presented Pipes' quotes out of context in order to smear him. Then there was the guy who shows up at all Bay Area leftist events in an Uncle Sam outfit with a sign saying "Israel Wants You to Die for Her." Another nut-job hovered near the entrance shouting to anyone who would listen about how Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. "were against Zionism." The Berkeley Police Department was out in full force, as were a private security team. People going inside were frisked three times and had their bags searched thoroughly as well. And a sign on the door warned that no banners, signs, shouting, or violence would be allowed. Yet all of this seemed rather futile because any and all were welcomed into the lecture, including the protesting MSA students and the guy screaming about Gandhi. The event was meant to be free and open to the public, but there's a point at which this type of inclusiveness becomes counter-productive. It was clear from the get-go that the protesters intended to try to disrupt the event, and once inside, that's exactly what they did. It began as soon as Pipes stepped up to the podium. In fact, before he'd spoken one word, someone had to be escorted outside because he wouldn't calm down. Then jeering, giggling, hissing, booing, and finally, the orchestrated chanting of "racist" and "Zionist," (among other things) starting drowning out the lecture. However, the rest of the audience gave as good as it got and the event turned into a shouting and clapping match between Muslims and Jews. The tension in the air was thick, tempers were rising, and yet amidst it all, Pipes kept his cool. He managed to deliver his lecture, which covered the War on Terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Iraq, but he was forced to stop many times. Pipes spoke directly to the protesters on several occasions, pointing out the irony of their undemocratic behavior, as well as mentioning casually that it is only when he speaks at college campuses that he requires such heavy security. He even brought up the fact that members of the MSA are currently under investigation for possible ties to terrorism. Their reaction to his speech was telling. When Pipes brought up the need to support moderate Muslims over those who subscribe to militant Islam, they booed. When he brought up the need to improve the status of women in Islamic countries, they booed. When he warned that peace in the Middle East would never be achieved as long as the Palestinians continued to subscribe to a "cult of death," they booed. When he mentioned Middle East Studies professors who have been arrested under terrorism charges, they booed. When he discussed the need to combat Islamic terrorism, they booed. When he referred to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as subscribers to militant Islam, they booed and shouted "Zionism" - no doubt a reference to the myth that Jews were behind the attacks. When Pipes brought up CampusWatch.org, the website he founded to provide a voice for students feeling oppressed by their leftist professors, they shouted out "McCarthyism" and, of course, "racist" yet again. And when he mentioned Iraqis? "liberation" from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, they booed even louder. "I'm sure the Iraqis were much better off under Saddam Hussein," Pipes responded sarcastically. When it came time for the question and answer period, the group of MSA students all got up together and left, chanting "racist" and "Zionist" over and over again. However, a few stragglers were left in the audience, and they eventually had to be escorted outside by the police because of their unruly behavior. One of these was the man who had been babbling about Gandhi. By this time he got down to basics, calling Pipes "a racist Jew." Sadly, it took several more of these epithets before he was forcibly removed. After the lecture, many Jews in the audience were visibly shaken. For those who hadn't yet encountered Muslim hostility up close and personal, it was an eye-opening experience. Perhaps not all of UC Berkeley's Muslim students subscribe to the anti-Semitic views of the MSA, but if that's the case, they certainly didn't make their voices heard that evening. The fact is, radical Muslim students and their leftist counterparts are the most domineering, destructive, and dangerous forces in higher education today. If we're to win the War on Terrorism, we may have to start with our own college campuses. Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
WAS TANNENBAUM ENGAGED IN ANTI-ISRAEL ESPIONAGE?
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 18, 2004. |
|
When Ariel Sharon and his people signed the insane "hostage exchange"
recently, according to which Israel put some 450 murderers back on the
streets in order to procure the bodies of three POWs who had been
murdered by the Hizbollah and one civilian whom the Hizbollah was
holding ever since he entered Lebanon illegally and with forged
papers, I opposed the deal and denounced the moronic politicians who
forged it. At the time it appeared that the live civilian was merely a
common criminal, possible a drug runner.
In recent days, bits and pieces of a new picture are emerging. I emphasize that I have no inside information and am just forming this impression from gleanings from the press (for example, in Hebrew: http://nfc.msn.co.il/archive/001-D-40565-00.html?tag=14-05-19&au=True), it is sounding like the citizen Tannebaum, who forced Israel's hand into releasing the 450 murderers, may have entered Lebanon seeking to sell Israeli intelligence secrets to the Hizbollah terrorists. I have no independent source that confirms this and am only repeating what the press is winking and implying. If I am wrong, I will later issue an apology. If this impression is right, the decision by Sharon to capitulate to the Hizbollah and buy back Tannenbaum for hundreds of released terrorists is a hundred times even stupider than I previously painted 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. |
|
GAZA
Posted by Barry Chamish, February 18, 2004. |
|
The battleground is now Gaza. The removal of the Jewish residents
there will open a new front against Israel. No longer will Israel be
able to contain the war being waged against it from Gaza without
suffering heavy casualties. If the world wanted peace, the Gaza Strip
would be extended into the nearly empty Sinai Peninsula, which would
require Egypt to actually bring hope to the Palestinians for once.
There is the space in Sinai to create a large and viable new nation,
if anyone really wanted such a thing.
The Gaza pullout will be the next stage in the dismemberment of Israel and its advocates point to the success of the south Lebanon pullout as a precedent. During the recent insane prisoner-bodies exchange, former Health Minister Ephraim Sneh revealed why Israel no longer has any bargaining power with Hizbullah. They now have 12,000 missiles pointed at northern Israel and there is nothing we can do to prevent them from turning the Galilee into ashes. With Gaza firmly in enemy hands, the same will go for southern and central Israel. Barry Chamish is the author of "Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin", "Israel Betrayed", "The Last Days Of Israel" and "Save Israel!". Write him at chamish@netvision.net.il |
|
TERROR UNHINDERED
Posted by Barry Rubin, February 18, 2004. |
|
In the midst of a "war against terrorism," three US government
employees are murdered in a terrorist attack. The local authorities
side with the terrorists, covering up facts, blocking an investigation
and helping the perpetrators get away with it. Yet the US continues to
give some financial aid and diplomatic support to that regime.
The story of the murder of three US security men in Gaza last October 15 is typical of the bizarre events in the Middle East, events that get taken for granted. Here's the story. Let's examine some broader lessons drawn from it. On October 15, 2003, a three-vehicle convoy of American SUV mini-vans drove into Gaza carrying US State Department personnel. Their mission was to interview Palestinians for Fulbright scholarships to study or teach in the US. They were escorted by Palestinian Authority police. But explosive charges laid in the road were blown up by terrorists watching from nearby. Three Americans were killed and one injured. Lesson 1: It would have been reasonable to expect outrage in the Arab world against the terrorists, along with many articles on how the US has helped the Arab world, and so on. While Jordan's government condemned the attack, there is a general rule in the state-controlled Arab media: Nothing positive can be said about America. By systematically ignoring or distorting US actions that help Arabs or serve Arab interests, the region's dictatorships deliberately construct anti-American attitudes. The reaction: In highly-publicized actions PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei telephoned condolences to the US government, promising the perpetrators would be caught. PA leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack as a "terrible crime." At the same time, of course, Arafat has been implementing a terrorist strategy ever since the year 2000, after he rejected a peaceful solution that would have ended the Israeli occupation and created a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem. The PA made no perceptible effort to find out who had perpetrated the attack, and how. On the contrary, it let evidence be destroyed at the attack site and sabotaged American investigation attempts. Lesson 2: The PA's attitude to this case is similar to the treatment of Israel in such matters. There are well-publicized public statements by PA leaders condemning terrorism, while no attempt is made to stop it. Indeed, incitement to commit such acts is daily carried on by schools, the media, preachers in mosques, and even PA officials. Even Edward Abington, a former US diplomat who became the PA's American lobbyist, admitted American officials "were charging that Arafat is dragging his feet on [this] investigation because the people who did it may get too close to Fatah," the group he heads. FINALLY, this month, the PA put four men on trial for relatively minor offenses - not first-degree murder - in connection with the attack on the Americans. It was a closed military tribunal, with no evidence made public. But two points were clear: PA statements showed these were not the main perpetrators; and they tried to excuse the crime by insisting that the attackers' target was an Israeli tank. How the person triggering the bomb confused a convoy of PA police vehicles and clearly marked diplomatic SUVs with a tank was left to the imagination. Lesson 3: The trial was a cover-up. The real issues: Who financed and aided these people? Who were the masterminds? What relations do they have with PA officials? Obviously, the PA's main concern has been to hide its own encouragement and involvement in terrorism, as is its practice regarding terrorist attacks on Israelis. The ultimate outcome may also be the same: Those convicted get quietly released after a few months to return to their terrorist activities. The US complained, in the words of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, that "[The PA] have not conducted a full, thorough and genuine investigation." The people on trial are not all those who were involved, and the proceeding "doesn't really resolve the issue of who killed the Americans, and whether they are being punished." Lesson 4: US experience during the peace process era as well as afterwards - as in this case - shows that the Palestinian leadership does not seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict even if that would provide them with a state. President George W. Bush's immediate reaction to the October attack was to say: "Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms." Secretary of State Colin Powell told Prime Minister Qurei that US help on getting a Palestinian state would come if and when there was a really serious attempt to eliminate terrorism. Yet even faced with this prize and the relatively simple task of proving their good intentions regarding the Fulbright murders case, the PA did not try to fulfill its commitments. The bottom line: Like those responsible for murdering 1,000 Israelis since 2000, the murderers of the Americans will go free because the Palestinian leadership helps and protects them. The writer is a former Fulbright scholar, director of the GLORIA Center, and co-author of the recently published "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography." This article appeared on the Jerusalem Post yesterday. |
|
THE FIGHT IS HEATING UP
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 18, 2004. |
|
About time someone in the Knesset showed some backbone.
This is a news item from Arutz-7 and is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=58047 "That Man Stole the Nation's Vote! He's a Liar!" (IsraelNN.com) MK (National Union) Uri Ariel was visibly angered yesterday when he launched an unprecedented verbal assault on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "That man stole the nation's vote! He's a liar!" exclaimed Ariel, demanding that Sharon step down from office over his planned removal of the Jewish community from their Gaza homes. Ariel reminded the prime minister of his past statements, his absolute refusal to "negotiate under fire" and fierce opposition to "unilateral concessions to the PA". Shortly after his unprecedented verbal assault against the prime
minister on Tuesday, Ariel asked to have the word "liar"
stricken from the minutes, then going on to explain when he labeled
the prime minister a "thief"he was referring to the fact
that he stole the vote from the people.
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.
|
|
A BUFFER IS NEEDED BETWEEN ENEMIES
Posted by CAMERA, February 17, 2004. |
|
The Chicago Tribune published in its Sunday (Feb 8) paper two
lengthy op-eds that contained information and context, from varying
points of view, regarding Israel's motivation for building a security
barrier. Many in the media continually harp on Palestinians'
objections to the fence and the hardship it causes them. But they
often ignore or downplay the terrorism and Israel's security concerns
which led to the fence. The Chicago Tribune, however, ran two op-eds,
"A buffer is needed between enemies" by Israel's consul general in
Chicago, Moshe Ram and "Good walls build good neighbors" by Tribune
reporter Ron Grossman, detailing the many reasons why most Israelis
have concluded that the security fence is, unfortunately, necessary.
Highlights from the columns: Moshe Ram (Israel's consul general in Chicago) wrote: * "The real builders of this fence are the Palestinian terrorist organizations, which, with the approval and financial support of the political leadership, continue to carry out attacks targeting Israeli civilians." Ron Grossman (Tribune reporter) wrote: * "More than 900 Israelis and foreigners have been killed by suicide bombers and in other attacks. Terrorists repeatedly have slipped into Israel from the West Bank - not just the authors of the carnage but others the Israeli military managed to intercept. Yet almost never have bomb-carrying Palestinians managed to cross into Israel from Gaza Strip, which already is surrounded by a fence on its land side." CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - monitors the media for anti-Israel bias. Its website address is http://www.camera.org. |
|
BITS AND PIECES: ISRAEL IN A VISE
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 17, 2004. |
|
ETHNIC CLEANSING OF JEWS FROM JEWISH OWNED LAND
No one understands Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans to withdraw from Gaza without an iron-clad agreement with the Palestinian Authority to cease terror and keep Gaza free of being a fully operative terror mini-State. Why was Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent to Washington on a recent secret mission while Natan Sharansky was already in Washington and not told of this meeting, nor included? Did Sharon fear that the Knesset would learn of their collusive plans and object to another Oslo scam? EGYPT-SAUDI ARABIA Is Gaza to be ultimately taken over by Egypt again? As a trade for - What? If Egypt takes Gaza, it would crush the terrorists with a brutal force - which is denied to Israel but, would draw no negative comment from the U.N., E.U., U.S. State Department, etc. What is the trade-off? After the Shah of Iran fell, thanks to then President Jimmy Carter, the State Department shifted its allegiance to Egypt to act as America's watch dog over Saudi Arabia (or at least the Saudi oil fields). The State Department, among others in the oil loop, wanted back-up insurance that, if Syria, Iran or Iraq were to move to take over the rich oil sources, Egypt, with $60 billion in free American weapons, would plunge into Saudi Arabia as a "friendly occupying power" and pump oil for American interests. To accomplish that, Israel would have to be recruited NOT to attack Egypt and to cooperate by giving them a land route around the Gulf of Aqaba, around or behind Eilat and into Saudi Arabia. Egypt does not have the sea lift capability to transport its coming across the Gulf of Aqaba with a full force - nor could it do so if Israel attacked it. As it stands now, Israel already faces Egypt's military colossus to its South with a military juggernaut, wholly paid for by American free tax dollars, namely $60 Billion and growing. Should Egypt be allowed to occupy Saudi Arabia, it would not only acquire the trillions of dollars in oil income but, also absorb one of the best stockpiles of American-made military equipment in the world. Israel would then be facing Egypt to its South-east, with a military that would be doubled in power - not to mention its oil income. The Saudi Kings, Princes, etc. would be retired to the Mediterranean in France or - wherever. Why would Israel go along with this sucker play? Quite simply, men like Yitzhak Rabin in his time, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and now Sharon would be easily recruited IF they were invited to the "Big Game". That is, if these little men were lured by the idea that the Middle East nations of Arab and Muslims could be somehow subdued, democratized and Israel would be allowed to be a player with the U.S. and Egypt. Far-fetched, impossible, imbecilic even stupid to have such misplace belief in glorious promises - not so! Little nations led by little men are often used as cannon fodder, lured by the promises of being "Big Players" on the Global Stage. They are invariably and inevitably sacrificed and disappear. The Jewish nation not only wants to be loved, it wants to be a recognized player as if it really was a Big Nation. Any observant Jew already knows that Israel is an important nation but, those who have been elected do not know this. They desperately want to be one of the "Big Boys" and, thus, they are too easily recruited to schemes. Egypt can no more be trusted than the Arabist State Department or the oil-driven thugs who are such a powerful force at the State Department and a host of various Administrations. We are awaiting more exposures of the Pakistani nuclear black market scandal. Don't be surprised to hear that Egypt has been one of the recipient's of Pakistan's nuclear technology bazaars. I would guess that there is a desperate effort at State and the Administration to keep Egypt's name out of the news. Some may recall that Egypt, along with Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria all pitched in donor funds more than 30 years ago to have Pakistan, the Islamic/Muslim nation of choice to make the Islamic Bomb. The selection was based upon Pakistan's scientific ability, its agreement to provide either a nuclear weapon or technology to the investors and, because it was theoretically far enough away from Israel so it could not be easily hit. Let us see if the U.S. State Department can keep a tight lid on the other nations that Pakistan provided with nuclear technology or even nuclear bombs - all of which are to remain hidden. (Note! I wrote about this at least 25 years ago.) Sharon is clearly in America's pocket, at least for those institutions like the shadow government unto itself like the U.S. State Department, the oil maggots, the think tankers who are tasked to think 500 years ahead to insure the U.S. a steady supply of energy. JORDAN/ARAB MUSLIM PALESTINIANS I still foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when Jordan will be armed by the U.S., as has been done with Egypt. Jordan will likely be handed the responsibility for taking over the uncontrollable Arab Muslim Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan River. This would be a reflection of Gaza going over to Egypt. Some will think this bodes well for Israel but, in the end, Israel will be in a vise - on a slip of land between the military colossus of Egypt and a well-armed Jordan - with Syria/Lebanon poised on the North. PRIME MINISTER ARIEL (ARIK) SHARON Sharon thinks he is a brilliant tactician - as he once indeed was as a General. But, now he is being played with - although he thinks he is one of the players. Naturally, Sharon like his predecessors, cannot share these grandiose plans with those in the government, his own Party - let alone the Israel people whose well-being for which he is responsible. In that, he is not a great deal different from the Bush Administration or the State Department who share little with the Congress until they are caught. Mind you, governments need secrets but, there must be checks and balances so you do not have run-away dictatorships, disguised as democracies. Let us continue with more bits and pieces. Israel would like to be seen a an invaluable ally to America and, in reality, is the only outpost of Democracy in the Middle East. By and large, outpost democracies are not as valuable to U.S. interests as foreign markets and oil resources controlled by dictators, monarchies, etc. Israel is, indeed, a productive, valuable ally to America but not to the special interests nor the very anti-Semitic State Department. If Israel were a "spoiler" like Syria, she would be held in higher esteem but, as a cooperative, submissive ally, her value is already pocketed and then discounted. Presently, her only value in the "spoiler" category is that she supposedly has nuclear weapons for self-defense. Both Arabists in the State Department and Egypt, among other Arab nations, want that to change - so that when Israel is to be taken down, there will be no appreciable fuss. While the State Department is deeply anti-Semitic, they are also thoughtful. They know that the Arab nations are similarly anti-Semitic through their observance of Koranic law and custom as practiced by Islamists. They know that the Muslims will never give peace to the Jewish State, "Hudnas" (false, temporary agreements) aside. So, for the practical reasons of oil and markets, Israel is slated to go, IF she agrees to be the proverbial sacrificial lamb. Which, of course, is why egoists like Sharon are courted with fanciful plans to pacify or control the Muslim "Jihadists". Therefore, it is up to you, the reader, to mull over the "bits and pieces" of plans in operation - some on the shelf, some to be used, some to remain on the shelf. Sharon is engaged in the process of run-away government, with himself as the "democratic dictator" who knows best for "his" people. It is not that he is a traitor betraying the nation but, rather that he has been recruited by the best minds in the West to commit suicide in the name of Israel while thinking he is saving the nation. Think of him as Samson, seduced by Delilah (aka George W. Bush). He cannot help himself until his mind clears and he pulls down the pagan temple of both his enemies and perfidious friends. ### P.S. I recommend that you pull up Caroline Glick's column in the JERUSALEM POST of February 13th which relates to the above article. She speaks of Saudi Arabia's cut back of one million barrels per day in support of Arab Palestinian terrorists and other "Jihadists". Perhaps occupying Saudi Arabia to terminate its funding of Global Terror is the right idea. Regretably, Egypt may not be a great deal better but, we can be sure that for, at least ten years, it would be filling its empty coffers for its own poverty stricken nation and NOT funding terrorists or the "Wahhabi Madrassa" schools all over the world. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel, Gamla (http://gamla.org.il/english) and the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm) |
|
PALESTINIAN LANDS
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 17, 2004. |
|
Dear friends,
BBC continues to outrage us with lies and Arab-Palestinian propaganda. Here is a quote from today's (January 16, 2004) BBC World News, and from its Internet site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3495833.stm: "Israel's government approves a $22m budget, mainly for building Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land." This is not even a misrepresentation. It is an outright lie and an outrage! Here is why: 1) There is no such thing as "Palestinian Land" except lands owned privately by Palestinians. 2) Not one Israeli village or city is built on lands belonging privately to Palestinians. They are built on either government lands or lands bought legally by Jews from their Palestinian owners. 3) As long as the Mideast conflict continues, and the fate of it is not finalized by both sides in negotiations, Judea, Samaria and Gaza can only be referred to as disputed lands. I therefore challenge the BBC to prove to me and to its listeners that Israeli villages and cities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are built on "Palestinian lands." If the BBC concludes that it erred in calling these lands Palestinian lands, it should admit its mistake on the air and immediately stop using this false terminology on its broadcasts. BBC World News is carried in the US by PRI and NPR. I urge you to write to your station and express outrage at the continued lies propagated by the BBC. BBC lies contribute to worldwide feelings of hatred against the Jewish people and to anti-Semitism. Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
MEALS 4 ISRAEL
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 17, 2004. |
|
Dear Friends,
Did you know that over 618,000 Israeli children go to bed hungry each night? Nearly one in five, 1,321 million Israelis, including 618,000 children lived below the poverty line in 2002. Some 74,000 of the families living below the poverty line were elderly couples and 61,000 families have at least four children. The situation is growing worse. To address this growing problem, www.Meals4Israel.com, an organization formed in Los Angeles by concerned and caring individuals, has created an efficient method to feed the hungry in Israel. They are currently fundraising for over 24 soup kitchens in Israel, while they screen and monitor them regularly. Donations go directly to the soup kitchens, there are no intermediaries. They are currently feeding over 60,000 people a month. They are running out of food supplies and need to feed more people and open more soup kitchens, they cannot do this without our help. Please visit the Meals 4 Israel website to learn more about Meals4Israel, and consider making a tax-deductible contribution of any amount to help feed the hungry in Israel. This is one thing all of us can do to help the people of Israel who are suffering on so many levels. You can donate through the internet at http://www.Meals4Israel.com. Or you can send a donation to Meals4Israel.com 11301 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 580, Los Angeles, CA 90064 or call 1 888 4 israel (toll free). |
|
ISRAEL'S UNTOLD STORY
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 17, 2004. |
|
This article was written by Lee Wolf, a canadian who made aliyah 3
years ago. He lives in Jerusalem where he works in marketing and
occasional freelance writing. The article is archived at:
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/Israels_Untold_Story.asp
It was circulated by email by Elizabeth Greene.
No sound, no fury. The international silence once again thunders in Israeli ears. You probably heard about the suicide bombing that brutally claimed the lives of eleven Israeli bus passengers two weeks ago. One of the victims was a young woman with whom I worked until just a few weeks ago. Her name was Dana Itach. She was completely blown to pieces. They identified her by her teeth. There were dozens more who were pulverized, crushed, scalded and sliced open but who managed to survive. One of them is a friend with whom I only recently became acquainted. His is a story you may not have heard. I visited him in the hospital the day after the bombing. Very weak, eyebrows singed off entirely, face splattered with blackened blood stains and red lacerations, he opened his eyes just after I walked into the hospital room. When I saw him I tried to put on an appropriate expression that would hide my fear at seeing his wounds. And I had no idea what to say. But by the time I was by his bed, he relieved me of my inability to start a dialogue. He managed to focus his rolling, glassy, morphine-intoxicated eyes and, in a barely audible and scratchy voice, his words slowly leaked out. "There was a great, bright, searing, yellow light. And the sound, it's something I can't describe. And then I was lying there and I realized it was a pigua (terror attack). And then I looked down and I thought, 'Oh no, my leg is gone from the knee down'. But it was just a piece of someone else's bloody flesh that had wrapped around my leg. And I thought 'Maybe I should finally leave this country.' You're lying there in absolute agony and there's no one there to help you. All these thoughts were going through my head. And I thought, 'If I leave it's a victory for the enemy.'" For the next six months he will be recovering from a shattered knee cap, a severed vein in his leg, shrapnel wounds, severe internal contusions and a number of surgeries. In addition, he will be dealing with the psychological wounds as well. Two weeks after the bombing, he is notably stronger. He has taken several steps with a walker and he is actually able to move himself, very gingerly, within his bed in order to find a position which is a little less painful. But he is exhausted and mentally tormented. He confided, "Every day I'm fighting to keep my sanity... I'm not sleeping; the dreams keep me from sleeping." THE OTHER UNTOLD STORY Even if you did pay some attention to this latest genocide bombing, my friend's story, his agony, his long road of recovery ahead is probably a story of which you weren't aware. But it's only one of the stories to which you likely didn't hear. The other untold story follows. Shortly after the bus bombing, a lone Israeli Mosad-trained operative, secretly and specifically trained for his mission, commandeered a private Palestinian truck just outside Ramallah in the West Bank. He flagged down the driver by the side of the road, and, when the driver stopped to help him, he climbed into the passenger seat of the truck's cab and withdrew a Walther P-22 rimfire handgun, specially fitted with a silencer. In the truck's payload area were some 25 local Palestinian passengers from the nearby West Bank town of Al-Hadiri, who were taking their regular weekly ride to Nablus. The driver, now at gunpoint, followed the orders of the Israeli operative. He drove to within 150 meters of President Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. At that point, he was coldly and silently murdered by a bullet to the head. The Israeli operative exited the truck's cab and walked around to the back of the truck where the passengers were reading, eating a quick morning bite and talking amongst themselves. Here, with his gun supporting his orders, the Israeli operative instructed 15 of the passengers to get out of the truck and lie on the ground, face down, ten meters away. He calmly surveyed the faces of those remaining in the truck. Then, with the almost-imperceptible dexterity of the oft-practiced move, he reached under his jacket toward his belt with his free hand, unhooked a high-explosive fragmentation grenade, pulled the pin, held it momentarily, and then tossed it into the truck's payload area. He ran several steps hard toward the passengers whom he had forced to lay down on the ground, diving for cover beside them. The ten passengers in the truck were instantly vaporized, spewed into pieces and scorched to death, remains of limbs flying in all directions. With the remaining passengers catatonically frozen in fear and shock, the operative calmly got to his feet, pulled out a ten-inch hunting knife, a shot gun and a hand-held flame thrower and methodically sliced, shot and scorched each of those whom he had forced to lie on the ground. Some were mortally wounded, some received moderate injuries (such as burns, shot wounds and severed veins) and others were lightly injured. Finally, the operative positioned the Walther P22 against his head and killed himself. The whole orgy of massacre took less than a minute. How could it be that you did you not hear of this latter story? Within an hour, much of the world expressed its revulsion and outrage at the Israeli attack. Most European countries immediately cut diplomatic relations with Israel, banishing the respective Israeli ambassadors from their lands and closing all Israeli diplomatic missions. Most African nations vowed support for Yasser Arafat and sent senior diplomats to visit the poor, shaken man in his office (only 150 meters from the attack site). Throughout the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of outraged citizens took to the streets decrying the barbaric violence and vowing to end Israel's reign of terror. Syria, Lebanon and Egypt massed troops along their respective borders with Israel. The United States censured Israel in harsh and unequivocal terms and cut 40% of its annual aid package to Israel. Israel was never so wholly isolated. How is it that you did not hear of this? The reason you didn't hear any of this is because the second story contains two vital inaccuracies: First, the operative involved was not an Israeli Mossad agent; rather he was a Palestinian policeman from Bethlehem named Ali Muneer Jaara. Second, the people he coldly murdered with shrapnel-packed explosives and those he cruelly injured were not Palestinian commuters within 150 meters of Arafat's headquarters; rather they were Israeli commuters who were attacked within 150 meters of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's home in Jerusalem. With these two inaccuracies thusly corrected, you did, in fact, know all about the second story. It was, in fact, the same story I recapped at the start: the genocidal bombing of Israeli commuters in Jerusalem two weeks ago; the bombing in which my former co-worker was murdered and my friend was deeply wounded along with dozens of others. In fact, the real untold story, the part that truly went unheard by definition, was the near total absence of international reaction against the Palestinian-supported policy of brutal violence and terror, a policy which manifested itself in almost exactly the same way as my fictional account of the murder of Palestinian commuters occurred. There was the same coldly premeditated plan of murder, the same surveying of the victims faces before the act; and the same rending of human flesh and bone with fire and iron. The same political statement by conducting the mass murder within 150 meters of the political leader's home. The fictional account, with Palestinian victims, lead to (fictional but not unexpected) worldwide outrage. The actual account, with Israeli victims, lead to worldwide silence. The real untold story is untold because it made no sound, no fury, no ripples and no impression on those who control Palestinian strategy. It was the relative international silence - as Israelis were cut down and cut up, flesh shredded within 150 meters of their Prime Minister's residence - that once again thunders in Israeli ears. Where were the forceful condemnations? Where were the morally correct governments of the West de-crying this crime against humans and following up with practical actions and consequences? Where was the flood of foreign diplomats dispatched to Israel to show support? Where were the street demonstrations by morally upright and aghast citizens of the world bitterly condemning the barbaric violence against Israelis? Where was the cutback in financial support to the Palestinian government? Where was the expression of outrage? Where was your cry of revulsion, your scream for an end to the continual, purposeful, intended, directed annihilation and mutilation of simple Israeli commuters? Would you have done so if my fictional account was true? If so, why didn't you do so this time? The untold story is not new. But its duplicitous and silent continuance is a thunderous death-knell for more Israelis. Beyond Israel, as citizens of Bali and Moscow and New York and Istanbul know, your co-worker or friend could be next. |
|
THE HA'ARETZ HOOLIGANS
Posted by David Wilder, February 17, 2004. |
|
The following text of the Hebron-Arutz 7/Israel National News
commentary will be available on their web site archives - "On Demand
Audio". http://www.israelnationalnews.org/metafiles/asx/shows/wilder.asx
HaAretz is at it again, playing its favorite game, "Hebron Bashing." Only a few days ago it was announced that David Landau, editor of the English edition of the newspaper, was appointed editor-in-chief of the Hebrew morning daily. Landau, a religiously observant Jew, actually visited Hebron a few years ago and toured with Noam Arnon and myself. Upon his appointment, Landau stressed that the paper's traditional views, (extremely left-wing) would not change during his tenure. It seems that Landau set out to immediately prove his point. And what better a way than by viciously attacking Hebron's Jewish community. Yesterday HaAretz newspaper printed a piece of journalist junk, an interview with the outgoing head of TIPH - the Temporary International Presence in Hebron. And today the paper's lead editorial is headlined "Hooligans in Hebron." Let's start with TIPH. In order to understand this organization, let's start with a quote from a former TIPH observer from Norway, interviewed in an Oslo suburb newspaper, Nordstrands Blad, on April 5, 2000. The article begins, "Hebron has always been a Palestinian city with a small Jewish population." When asked about Palestinian violence, the observer, Yngvil Mortensen said, "Would you have liked to be checked three times a day by foreign soldiers" Or that your city is occupied by a foreign power?... If we compare with the German occupation of Norway during the 2nd World War, we called the sabotage and attacks on Germans resistance fighting." There you have it: A TIPH observer comparing the Jews to Nazis and the Palestinians to resistance fighters. TIPH is comprised of observers from six nations: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Turkey and Italy. Most of the Scandinavian observers are human rights activists, while most of the others, from Turkey and Italy, held security-related positions. They are stationed in Hebron as a result of the Hebron Accords, signed and implemented seven years ago. According to their mandate, they are in Hebron to... "assist in monitoring and reporting the efforts to maintain normal life in the City of Hebron, thus creating a feeling of security among Palestinians in the City of Hebron." A short glance at the TIPH homepage [www.tiph.org] as well as the rest of the site, quickly confirms that their presence in Hebron is strictly for "the palestinians." They care not what happens to the Jews. This fact is enhanced during the interview with the outgoing TIPH director Jan Kristensen, who condemns curfews imposed on Hebron's Arabs and destruction of terrorist homes, but says NOT ONE WORD about the vicious attacks and murder of Jews in the Hebron region. Why does Kristensen ignore the killing of 10 month old Shalhevet Pass while sitting in her stroller, of Gadi and Dina Levi, while walking down the street in Hebron on a Saturday afternoon, of Rabbi Eli and Dina Horowitz, while enjoying their Friday night Shabbat meal in Kiryat Arba? Why does he conveniently forget the terror attack which cut down 12 men, soldiers and civilians between Hebron and Kiryat Arba on a Friday night just over a year ago? Why does Kristensen neglect to mention that fact that Hebron's Jews were shot at, every day and every night, for over two years. That, in the opinion of the 'head of mission,' is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, "the activity of the settlers and the army in the H-2 area of Hebron is creating an irreversible situation. In a sense, cleansing is being carried out." On January 17, 1997, when Israel abandoned 80% of Hebron to Arafat and the PA terrorists, Jibril Rajoub, then head of PA security in Hebron said, "We have liberated 80% of the city. The other 20% is like a heavy weight around our necks, which we must cast off." The Arabs have never been bashful about asserting what they view as their legitimate rights to Hebron and its holy sites. Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, the second holiest site to the Jewish people in the world, was off-limits to Jews for 700 years, from 1267 until 1967, because, according to the Moslems, 'it is a mosque and only Moslems can worship in a mosque.' This, despite the fact that the structure above the original caves was build by Herod, King of Judea, 2,000 years ago, i.e., 600 years before Muhammad was born. A few years ago the deputy Arab mayor of Hebron, Kamel Dweck, in an interview with Aaron Lerner of IMRA reiterated this opinion that only Moslems may pray in Ma'arat HaMachpela, and that should that Arabs ever control the site, Jews would be forbidden from entering and praying there. Despite these facts, despite the murderous aggression against Hebron's Jewish population, whose intended goal is the eviction of Jews from Hebron, despite the fact that the IDF actions in Hebron have been implemented strictly to offer protection to Hebron Jewish residents and visitors, while attempting to prevent the spread of Hebron-initiated Arab terror to other parts of Israel, HEBRON'S JEWS ARE PRACTICING ETHNIC CLEASING - NOT THE ARABS! The Ha'aretz editorial gives full backing to Kristensen's verbal abuse of Hebron's residents, and his insinuated demand that Hebron's Jews be expelled from their homes because, "personally I don't believe that it is possible for normal life to exist in Hebron between the communities, even if there are agreements between the leaders." The Ha'Aretz TIPH-supportive, anti-Hebron editorial demands: "The government must reexamine its forgiving policies toward the extremist settlers in Hebron." These 'forgiving policies' include over 100 criminal files opened by the police last year against Hebron residents and at least 50 cases presently before the court. (A few other interesting 'forgiving' statistics. In Netania, there is one policeman per 1,600 people. In Ma'ale Adumim, one policeman per 243 people. In Hebron, there is one policeman per every 138 people! In all of the State of Israel, only 20% of the police files opened are brought to court. In Hebron, 68% of the files are brought to court. Of all the cases brought to trial in Israel, there is an 86% conviction rate. According to attorneys handling Hebron cases, the conviction rate in Hebron is about 25%, and the conviction rate in all of the cases in Judea and Samaria is 54%.) We fully agree with the editorial position that the Defense Minister must "order the properties returned to their lawful owners." The 'properties' mentioned in the editorial refer to the former 'Arab market' which presently houses young Jewish families. This market, which 'belongs' to the State Custodian for Abandoned Property, was built on Jewish-owned land, and rightfully belongs to the Jews in Hebron. It should be legally recognized as such by the State of Israel. (See: www.hebron.com/news/marketresponse.htm) In addition, many other properties, legally Jewish-owned but presently occupied by Arabs or in possession of the above-mentioned custodian, should be returned to its rightful Jewish owners. Concerning TIPH, the Hebron Jewish community demands that these anti-Israel, Arab-biased foreigners be removed from Hebron immediately. According to Kristensen, "I ask myself all the time what we are doing in Hebron." He may not know, but we do. TIPH is a terrorist-serving organization, offering daily support to Jew killers. They have no place in Hebron or in Israel. They, not Hebron's Jews, must be expelled from the city. (See www.hebron.com/news/tipharticles.htm) As for Ha'aretz, the editorial's bogus assertion that "it's not the armed, warmongering settlers who need protection, but the thousands of helpless Palestinians" borders on incitement. We call on the Ha'aretz Hooligans to open their eyes, examine the facts as they really are, not as they imagine them, and stop aiding and abetting the enemies of the State of Israel, who are attacking and murdering its loyal, patriotic citizens. With blessings from Hebron. David Wilder is spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm. Or contact The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com, 718-677-6886. |
|
MYTHS ABOUT POLLARD
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 17, 2004. |
|
Bias has been a staple of American education and media. In my youth, I
studied the yellow journalism of the preceding era. In my schooling,
the US was held above reproach. Now it is held beneath contempt.
Neither extreme is justified.
Myth long has been another component of educational and media distortion. During WWII, movie newsreels emphasized "our brave Soviet allies," as if they weren't also our enemies. We thought FDR a friend of the Jewish people, and admired Winston Churchill, whereas their blocking of the Jews' escape from Nazi Europe doomed them to Holocaust. A new myth is being created about opposition to Communism being McCarthyism, whereas the Communists needed to be opposed but Sen. McCarthy failed to oppose them. He simply was demagogic. Have you watched the myth being woven around Jonathan Pollard, employed by the US Navy but who spied for Israel? The many dirty tactics used by the government to sentence him excessively, to keep him from appealing, and to mistreat him in prison hardly are protested. For him, the vaunted American sense of justice, that brings the guardians of political correctness to outrage over a politician's possibly improper private joke, is largely silent. The main dirty trick is to leak slander against him. They slander his motive. They imply that he committed crimes actually done by others or not done at all. The popularized damage assessment of his crime far exceeds the official one based on the evidence. These are threads in the weaving of a myth that demonizes him. His supporters try to explain the facts, but the general media is not interested in ascertaining the truth or correcting disinformation. The impression has been formed that he committed terrible crimes against the US. He did not. The usual penalty for what he did is about 2-4 years, if I recall, not his life sentence or the 19 years he already served. Pollard did not harm the US, in spying for that ally. He gave it information relating to its survival. His efforts probably spared Israel many thousands of casualties at the hands of Saddam Hussein (believed not to have put chemical weapons into the Scuds he launched at Israel because Israel was forewarned by Pollard - they prepared suitable civilian defense). This information, according to a US-Israel agreement, was supposed to be given Israel. US officials secretly violated that agreement. They were subversive, and should have been punished. Personally, I don't break the law. However, when one weighs the harmless crime that Pollard committed, to overcome the subversion of US policy, thereby saving thousands of lives, who can deny the decency of what Pollard did? He feels contrite, but I think he has become a martyr. He is a martyr to the pro-Arab subversives whom Pres. Bush Sr. pardoned in advance of an investigation. One never came. Now Pollard is the butt of a slanderous myth. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
RETURNING THE REMAINS OF ISRAEL'S SUPER-SPY, ELI COHEN, AKA KAMEL AMIN SABET
Posted by Belle Fine-Cohen, February 17, 2004. |
|
The story of Israel's super-spy, posted secretly to Damascus, is a
real life Middle Eastern espionage thriller, which ended in shocking
brutality for the region's most successful known agent, Elie Cohn. In
private, Cohn bucked the typical profile of an isolated, cold,
intelligence officer; he was also a beloved family man and young
father-of-three.
Little is heard nowadays of one of the region's most controversial modern historical figures who, in his lifetime, assisted guerrilla war tactics against the British in Egypt before the Suez Crisis, then went on to provide priceless inside military information to Israel a decade later. Cohn's double-life mirrors that of British double-agents Kim Philby, Guy Burgess et al. Exploiting his Arab-Jewish roots - he was born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1924 and his parents came from Aleppo, Syria - Cohn eventually infiltrated leading Syrian society as a tycoon, bon-vivant and soul-mate of the newly self-installed Ba'ath Party dictatorship which seized power in March 1963. Cohn's adventures on behalf of Mossad saw him - through a convoluted but plausible route - move to Damascus February 1962. He infiltrated the highest possible echelons of Syria's emerging Ba'ath political and military elite. Cohn's information helped bequeath some of the region's most sticky territorial challenges facing Israeli and Arab leaders today. Acting under his Arab pseudonym 'Kamel Amin Tabet' he is credited with partly rendering Syria's defences impotent as they went on to lose the Golan Heights, in just two days, to Israeli forces in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. While he lived near Tel Aviv, Cohn was recruited in 1960, then trained and bankrolled by Mossad - Israel's infamous, surgical and ubiquitous secret service. First off, he spent a year away from his family under his new Arab identity ingratiating himself and networking among migrant Syrian VIP's, including newspaper editors and top-level diplomats in Buenos Aries. He 'returned' to his adopted homeland, Syria, in early 1962 with a reputation as an ardent patriot. Masquerading as a son of a conveniently-departed wealthy textile merchant, he quickly became best friends with defence ministers and military commanders - some stationed at the strategically-critical and lush Golan Heights, which overlooked youthful Israel and her Kibbutz settlements. Providing an infinite supply of pretty female companions, alcohol, sheesha pipes and a relaxing ambience at his villa - a pied-a-terre to stressed captains of military and government - Cohn was quickly accepted as part of Syrian high-society furniture. As part of his meteoric rise in Syria, Cohn was soon the only civilian allowed to visit Syria's Golan Heights. Via coded radio broadcasts, he was able to provide troop locations, strength, equipment inventories and morale assessments back to Israel. Helped greatly by this intelligence, Israel went on to defeat the combined invading Arab armies in 1967 in just six days, annexing the Heights in the process. This was a controversial manoeuvre which drew a powerful sting from both Eastern and Western bloc superpowers, and still unresolved today continues to provoke bloody political disagreements and is the subject of United Nations' resolutions still waiting to be enforced. Cohn's sangfroid knew few bounds. On one instance he suggested that Syrian commanders have trees planted to provide shade for their wilting troops. He then reported back to Israel that it could mark Syrian gun stations by merely identifying groups of Eucalyptus along the border. On other occasions, Cohn so impressed his influential new friends that he was asked to moderate and censor a programme called "Emigrant Hour" by government-controlled Radio Damascus. Cohn reputedly stretched to inverting words from his favourite novel 'Robinson Crusoe', broadcasting them across radio channels and the national border with Israel, confirming his ongoing welfare to 'runners' back in Tel Aviv. Cohn even befriended Syria's new president, Amin al-Hafez, a leader of the strongly-secular Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath Party retain their stranglehold over Syrian society today. Al-Hafez became a strong acquaintance of Cohn during the spy's 1961 spell in Argentina - where Hafez was serving at the time as Syrian embassy defence attache - in effect, a political exile. Feeling bitterly betrayed, al-Hafez would sign Cohn's death warrant just two years later when it became clear his new Ba'athist government had been duped all along by Cohn. Throughout his work in Damascus, Cohn relied on mid-twentieth century tools of the espionage trade, such as transistor radios with miniature transmitters, electric shavers attached to an antenna chords, concealed dynamite sticks in Yardley soap and more traditional methods, such as writing paper containing codes in invisible ink. Despite his distant work, Cohn's love for his wife and young family never waned. He was spirited secretly back to his family three times between 1962 and on a final occasion in November 1964. It was then he reported his desire to come home, both homesick and in part motivated because he felt he was increasingly under suspicion... loose tongues were seizing up back in Damascus. And a mutual dislike of Syria's powerful, new intelligence chief, Colonel Ahmed Su'edani, unsettled Cohn. Within months Su'edani was to interrogate Cohn severely. Cohn and Israel's luck did run out soon after his reluctant, fateful, final return. Cohn was caught red-handed transmitting secret reports. Cohn's transmissions back to Tel Aviv had become too regular and, thus, predictable. They were reportedly picked up by Soviet technicians - operating in Syria, a key Mid East client-state of Moscow - who were able to pinpoint Cohn's house as the location of coded broadcasts to Israel. After months of harsh interrogation and a Stalinist televised show-trial, Cohn admitted his guilt. Despite mammoth international pressure (the resident West German ambassador left for Bonn in protest), the young father and government agent received a death sentence. On May 18, 1965, in Martyr's Square, Damascus, Cohn was hung publicly before a vengeful mob who shouted "death to Kamel, death to the Zionist spy". His execution, broadcast live on Syrian television, was also received on radio in Israel. Cohn's hysterical wife Nadia, pregnant with their third child, smashed window panes in the family home, inconsolable with grief. Cohn's aged wife, living in Israel since the 1950s, but born an Iraqi Jew, continues her long campaign calling for the return of her husband's remains from Syria along with Elie's older brother Maurice and the rest of the family.In a strange quirk of fate, an unwitting Maurice Cohn says he was one of the Mossad desk agents charged with encrypting and decrypting messages from his brother, known colloquially as "Our Man in Damascus". The Cohn family battle with the Syrian authorities to have Elie's remains returned, and give their relation a proper Jewish 'Hadith' burial, has itself become an important subplot in the wider, bloody Israeli/Arab dispute. But the Cohn's are only ever likely to triumph when rapprochement between the two countries is brought about - and the lush heights of Golan, which Elie unwittingly and posthumously helped Israel to seize, begin to be handed back. More information at: http://www.elicohen.org/ Contact: Richard Bingley, richard@humansecurity.org.uk, tel: 00+44 (0)7947 230426 & 00+44 (0)7947 751913 NEWS RELEASE UNFINISHED ISRAELI SPY STORY PREMIERS ITS PETITION & NEW WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET A Petition is being used as a tool to pressure the Syrian Government to release the Remains of Eli Cohen, Our Man in Damascus, an Israeli Spy who was executed 38 Years ago by the Syrians. The Syrians hanged Eli Cohen in 1965; his body was never returned, preventing his Family from saying Kaddish, the prayer of mourning for the dead at his tomb. This Was also in violation of the Sanctions Policy in International Humanitarian Law. Eli Cohen infiltrated the Syrian Government at an extremely high level. When he was about to be appointed as Defense Minister of Syria the Syrians uncovered him. His actions prior to his death helped the Israeli military in its defeat of Syria and other Arab countries in the Six-Day War in June 1967. His family, American Friends of Eli Cohen Memorial, Inc., a 501 (c)(3) non-profit Organization, and Petition Online, one of the largest petition sites on the Web, aims to focus world attention on Cohen's story in order to put pressure on Syria's President Assad to release his remains by using the Internet as a medium. You can sign the Petition by going to: http://www.petitiononline.com/EliCohen/petition.html The new Web site, http://www.elicohen.org is replacing the old site which was the idea of Eli Cohen's brothers, Maurice and Avraham Cohen. The new site is being redesigned and built by Charlie Kalech who is director of J-Town Productions Ltd. In Israel, and in cooperation with Eric and Hila Ralston, web engineers. Maurice Cohen, The other brother will be revealing new up-to-date facts not yet published. Facts surrounding the story of Mossad's espionage campaign in Syria will be told. Mossad Is the Israeli secret agency for which Eli and Maurice Cohen worked. Belle Fine-Cohen is Administrator of American Friends of Eli Cohen Memorial, Inc.USA, 6 Bat Shua Street, RAMAT GAN 52336 ISRAEL, Tel: 972 3 674 4577, Fax: 972 3 676 5226, E-mail: mcohen65@012.net.il |
|
JINSA Report #389
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, February 17, 2004. |
|
Maybe we could start a 'Drop Bush, Rumsfeld for President' movement?
This man is wise. This is JINSA Report #389, issued February 13, 2004.
At the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made himself available to answer questions posed by journalists, military officials and politicians from a variety of countries. We cite the official DOD transcript: Man identified as a Palestinian general: You talked about countries that were trying to produce weapons of mass destruction... Iraq and Iran and North Korea. I have a question, a direct question for you. What are you doing with Israel? As far as Israel is concerned, Israel has more atomic weapons in the region than any other country. Why do you remain silent in regard to Israel? Secretary Rumsfeld: You know the answer before I give it, I'm sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like we find it; and Israel is a small state with a small population. It's a democracy and it exists in a neighborhood that in many - over a period of time has opined from time to time that they'd prefer it not be there and they'd like it to be put in the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get put in the sea, and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged itself so it hasn't been put in the sea. Dr. Saleh Rusheidat, ambassador of Jordan to Germany: Some of the Israelis...said they need 20 years more to solve the (Palestinian/Israeli) problem. My question to you, what should be done to solve this problem? How much time do we have to wait? Secretary Rumsfeld: It depends, I suppose to some extent on the - oh, what's the right word - the desire on the part of the people in the region to solve it. People in the region tend to look outside the region and say, my goodness, why doesn't somebody come in and solve this? Why don't they grab people by the scruff of the neck, push them together and make them agree? That lasts about five minutes... in the last analysis, a lasting solution in that part of the world is going to come because people are exasperated, exhausted and tired of seeing their opportunities for prosperity go down the drain and tired of listening to people shoot off their mouths and people shoot off their weapons and fire bullets and no one deliver a dad-burned thing for the people. Senator Lindsey Graham, SC: Could you please explain why the doctrine of preemption is a rational doctrine in the war on terrorism? Rumsfeld: If someone is going to throw a snowball at you, you may not want to act preemptively; you can afford to take the blow and live with it and do something after the fact. As you go up the scale from a snowball to a weapon of mass destruction, at some point, where the risk gets high enough that it is not going to be a snowball in your face, but it could be a biological weapon that could kill tens of thousands of human beings; and then you ask yourself, do you have an obligation to take the blow and then do something about it afterwards? Or if you've got at risk - not 3,000, but 30,000, or 300,000 (potential casualties) - do you have an obligation in that case to act somewhat differently? The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org |
|
IRRATIONALITY OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 16, 2004. |
|
"Political correctness" is a common term rarely defined.
What is it? It is an amoral refusal to judge between different
political movements and religions, on the assumption that all are
equally valid. From that it has branched out to intimidate whoever
makes judgmental distinctions about such movements or who take certain
political positions of which the arbiters of this new fashion
disapprove, and further, to dictate permissible vocabulary to describe
certain afflictions and defects, now called "challenges."
Upholders of political correctness constitute themselves a thought
police to regiment expression. They not only demand that innocent,
though sometimes thoughtless, remarks and jokes be retracted, but that
those who express them be punished.
In the US, Islam benefits from political correctness. One may not describe Islam factually as an imperialistic faith seeking to subjugate others, without being criticized as intolerant. Political correctness trumps academic integrity and academic freedom. Even the US President describes Islam, despite its history of jihad, as a religion of peace. Whatever truth Islam may possess, it often has established itself by virtue of war. Indeed, it is not what Westerners conceive of as purely a religion. It also is a political movement. Perhaps the West can reach some accommodation with what is called moderate Islam. Within Islam, however, the totalitarian ideology known as Islamism cannot be reconciled with Western civilization. The Islamists want to destroy Western civilization and Islamic regimes that do not adhere to radical Islam. Despite the danger of Islamism to Western society, it often is not politically correct to warn of the menace it poses. Leaders of Islamist terrorist fronts get invited to regular political functions, some held at the White House. This undermines our war on terrorism. One measure against terrorism is terrorist profiling. Profiling is a traditional and effective police tactic. Under it, police make the most surveillance against those whose characteristics most resemble those of the criminals, so as to apprehend the likeliest suspects. Unfortunately, profiling came under disrepute because prejudiced police, taking advantage of the fact that for a certain period, certain types of crimes were most likely to be committed in certain areas by black men, picked on black men for nothing and insultingly. Profiling per se was not objectionable but it was abused by prejudiced police. Distinctions like that, the politically correct do not make. Insult and prejudice were not part of the airport inspector's profiling of Arab men. Arab men were the likeliest ones to commit airplane hijacking, though of course not all Arab men were likely to do it. Likewise, Muslim converts in the US Army were the likeliest to pass military information to terrorists. Nevertheless, in the politically correct crowd's reaction to this type of profiling, the federal government, at least for a while, felt pressured to check all passengers and soldiers equally, including ones least likely to commit the crimes. It was an unproductive use of resources that terrorists take advantage of. Ironically, political correctness is monitored by antisemites, who allow abuse of Jews on campus. Thus political correctness, originating in a desire to be considerate, is inconsiderate of Jews. Another form of censorship, it defeats efforts at self-defense. It is a danger to our republic. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
WAR OF THE WORD
Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 16, 2004. |
|
Even if only a minority of Muslims are what we call fundamentalists, they
set the agenda, not only of the other Muslims, but of the world at
large. Anyone who enters an airport faces the intrusive security
and other scrutinies he didn't have to face just a few years ago, when
he could come to the counter 15 minutes before departure and board
unmolested. Now Islam casts a shadow over so many things.
This article was written by John Parker and appeared in the Oklahoma Gazette Online (http://www.okgazette.com), February 12, 2004. Oklahoma City (OKC) Pastor Jim Vineyard has told thousands of Christians nationwide that Islam has sinister aims against Christians and Jews. His controversial claims recently hit a little closer to home. A humble servant of the Word, Pastor Jim Vineyard describes himself simply as the short, baldheaded pastor of Windsor Hills Baptist Church on N.W 23rd Street. But although he has led that flock for more than a quarter-century, he also preaches in front of pews in cities like Jacksonville, Ark, Long Beach, Calif, and Bourbonnais, Ill. He spreads the message about the "real" Threat against America and Israel, Christians and Jews. From his research of books and newspapers, he said he believes Islamic law gives Muslims three choices in dealing with nonMuslims: Convert them, subjugate them, or kill the men and enslave the women and children. He says he stands ready to take on the misleading arguments of Muslims and other Christians who claim otherwise. "When you believe in something, like I do, you put your life on the line or your money on the line for what you believe in," he said. Saad Mohammed has a message to spread, too. As director of information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, he's on the defensive in a Bible Belt state, in a nation still deeply shaken by believers in an Islamic-based philosophy who slaughtered nearly 3,000 people in September 2001. When Mohammed read Vineyard's full-page ad Jan. 26 in the Oklahoman newspaper, he feared for Muslims' lives. "We believe that it is a very evil, deadly article," he said. "It's filled with hate. It's filled with lies and prejudice, and a letter like that could influence people to do bad things toward Muslims." The $18,105 ad - a simple, large block of text - was titled, "An open letter to President George W Bush." It was credited only to "Oklahoma Citizens Standing in Solidarity with Israel," with an incorrect phone number (a typo, according to church officials). Windsor Hills Associate Pastor Joe Finn said Brother Vineyard withheld his name because "he's a controversial figure here in this city. And if he put his name on it, there'd be a lot of people, Christian people, who wouldn't read it." Vineyard said he ran the ad because President Bush may force Israel to allow a Muslim state inside its borders, which goes against the Bible. God gave that land to the Jews and charged Christians with being a "blessing to the Jews" by supporting them, he said. "America is at war and it's a war between Islam and the ideas of the West," Vineyard told the Gazette. "Everything that you and I hold dear in this country is at stake in how this war is settled." The ad said Islamic leaders in other nations refer to Christians as infidels and to Jews as "the children of pigs." It says Allah is a false "moon god, the war god," and tells Bush that "we are in a religious war! It is a war of Islamic terrorism against us and it is a war against God's chosen people - the Jews." It urges Bush, as a Christian, to follow the will of Jehovah, "our God." "One side or the other, in this war, a religious war, will have to be defeated," the ad said. "We do not want it to be Israel or the United States." Mohammed takes offense at the ad's characterization of Allah, an Arabic word. "The same God that the Christian community worships, and the Jewish community worships, we worship. It's the exact same god. We just call him Allah," he said. He said the ad also falsifies passages in the Koran about killing "infidels." "This verse was revealed to the Muslims to fight those who were practicing paganism - atheists," Mohammed said. "It has nothing to do with fighting against Christians or Jews because the Holy Koran tells us that the Jewish community and the Christian community are people of the Book. "A Christian and a Jewish person cannot fit the description of an infidel. They have faith in same God." Mohammed said Muslims have been physically attacked in New York and Chicago based on ideas like Vineyard's. "A letter like that could be very influential in a bad way," he said. Vineyard said he is a peaceable man, but that "we will one day lose our peace in America, if we don't get our head out of the sand." The ad's intent was only to enlighten people about Islam, he said. Mohammed and Jeff Hamilton, pastor of the First Christian Church and president of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, along with two other men upset about the ad, met Feb. 3 with David Thompson, publisher of the Oklahoman. Mohammed and Hamilton said Thompson was cordial and apologetic. Mohammed said Thompson stated that newspaper policy does not allow publishing ads that spread prejudice or hatred. The men gave Thompson a response letter (which ran Feb. 5 in the Gazette). Thompson told the Gazette the company has no written policy on handling political or advocacy ads. The company tries "to use good judgment on whether we feel, No. 1, the ad is factual and true, and/or misleading," he said. According to archives, the Oklahoman has a history with Vineyard. On June 15, 2002, an editorial by the newspaper congratulated Vineyard on his 25th anniversary at the church. "He is a passionate defender of the nation and people of Israel," the editorial said. Thompson said the newspaper's editorial support of Vineyard had "absolutely" nothing to do with approving the ad. "Every ad that you run is subject to criticism ... and certainly the advertisement that ran in our newspaper does not reflect the opinions or the views of this newspaper," he said. As for inciting violence, Thompson said Mohammed can "opinionize on any viewpoint that he would have. I certainly don't know whether it would or would not." Hamilton said the ad gave all religions a bad name. "The last paragraph is, obviously, the implication is who should we wipe out, and the implication is the Muslims. You certainly wouldn't want the Americans and the Jews wiped out. The thing is so blatant. It's almost advocating doing harm, and it's just taken so much stuff out of context." Vineyard said the solidarity group named in the ad is a loose association of Christians across the nation with similar views. The group does not have a headquarters, leadership or member rolls, he said. Donations for the ad came from people in several states, he said. Vineyard said the Interfaith Alliance and Muslim groups want to pressure journalists into keeping his kind of ideas away from the public. "They don't want the American people to know what the little short, fat, baldheaded fellow who pastors that church on 23rd Street has to say," he said. |
|
REFERENDUM
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, February 15, 2004. |
|
The magic solution of a referendum frightens the settlers. Sharon is
preparing this Doomsday weapon in order to remove the opposition of
the ideological Right in general, and of his own party in particular.
"If there is no progress within six months we will have elections",
Sharon added, hinting to the rebellious MKs in the Likud that it is
not certain which of them will be re-elected.
On the face of it, what could be more democratic than a referendum? Who can continue to oppose the uprooting of settlements after the nation has expressed its will so clearly? In the past some settlers demanded a referendum when it seemed that Rabin was bringing back Arafat contrary to public opinion. Hanan Porat declared at that time: "Only the nation will decide". It is now the turn of Likud MK Gilad Arden, one of the opponents of uprooting, to propose this idea. "Why not?", Sharon is now saying to his opponents on the Right, "I think it's a good idea to hold a referendum". However, the issue in question is neither democracy nor the wishes of the nation, but a corrupt kind of manipulation of public opinion. This has become a commonplace method of government, a kind of democracy based on media spins. Democracy is just a method of government. It is not itself a value, and Churchill once said that it was a very bad method, but all the others were even worse. Clearly democracy cannot come in place of leadership. It is simply intended to formalize the arrangements for changing the people ruling the country, and the relations between them and the citizen. It would apparently be possible in the modern age to dispense with the government altogether and conduct Internet referendums. For each issue the citizens could press a button in their homes and immediately decide how to act. Obviously such a method of government would lead to total chaos. If a kindergarten teacher were to hold a referendum amongst the children whether they want a piece of cake, obviously those in favor would form the majority. The same thing would happen if a referendum were to be held regarding the abolition of the speed limit on the roads. So what's the alternative - dictatorship? No, we want to democratically elect a leadership, not a PR agency. What will be the role of such leadership? To act against the public's wishes? Here we must clarify the meaning of the term "the public's wishes". There are apparently two kinds of wishes: the foam on the waves, and the deep currents. When the nation has proper leadership, it expresses its deep, collective wishes, the divine presence within it. When the nation lacks such leadership, it becomes a rabble. Real leadership expresses the real wishes of the nation, while worthless leadership smothers its internal nature and turns it into a rabble. In the issue facing us, those who propose abandoning Eretz Israel, the rock on which the nations' existence is founded, and replacing it by illusory tranquility, do not intend to express the deep wishes of the nation but are relying on it becoming a rabble. Churchill promised the British nation only blood, sweat, and tears. He kept his word. At times Britain's defeat by Nazi Germany seemed certain. The US refused to send Britain even a single rifle, which they feared would in the end fall into the hands of the Germans. While London burned Churchill received peace offers from Hitler. What would have happened if the British leader had brought those offers for a referendum? The answer is obvious: The waitresses in the Champs Elysees would today be serving the croissants in German. No-one would have halted Rommel on his way to Eretz Israel, and we leave the rest to the reader's imagination. Churchill addressed the nation's values, called on its real internal wishes, and saved the Free World. Democracy is not therefore populist abandonment of values in the guise of carrying out the nation's wishes. On the contrary, real democracy creates a leadership which expresses the nation's values and realizes its internal wishes - even if this is not always popular. Perhaps you don't agree with the definition of democracy presented above, and you still think a referendum should be held. Clearly for this purpose the facts must be presented to the public. The question is whether this is actually possible. The answer is that the only people currently capable of presenting reality to the public are the Arabs. As far as it depends on the Jews, the Israeli media will continue to dazzle the public with a blaze of false facts and unceasing deceitful propaganda. Even if the opponents of uprooting settlements are given the opportunity of expressing their views, this will be just a drop in the ocean of daily brain-washing absorbed by the average Israeli through all the media channels. The Israeli educational system has caused the average Israeli to be unaware of who he is and what he is doing here. Obviously he has no answer to the question what is the Gaza Strip and why we need to fight for it. At the same time the Israeli media have caused de-legitimization of the pioneering settlers. This is an on-going process that began more than twenty years ago. The majority of middle-aged Israelis (and certainly not younger people) do not know any other reality. Does anyone really think that a few minutes of TV time will change anything? The celebrated female terrorist, who stars in the artistic presentation in Sweden, and who blew herself up in the Maxim Restaurant in Haifa, possessed an Israeli ID card. Obviously no-one would suggest that her brothers be prevented from taking part in the referendum. Every intelligent Israeli understands that 20% of the Israelis have no connection with the nation. On the contrary, they blatantly identify themselves with its enemies. To sum up, this is neither a referendum nor democracy. We are at most witnessing an example of corrupt manipulation. But don't worry. The defeatist voices amongst the Jews have always produced amongst the Arabs a desire that cannot be overcome. All the withdrawals have always been accompanied by waves of terror. The Arabs will explode for the Jews the false bubble that the Left has blown up around them. They have the most effective methods of propaganda to return the Jews to reality. But what a terrible price we will have to pay for this despicable populism. Moshe Feiglin began Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. |
|
SHIITE RITUALS
Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, February 15, 2004. |
|
Shahsay Vahsay
Sadly, our ignorance of Islam is overwhelming. Here is an example. A letter attributed to a Marine chaplain serving in Iraq has been widely circulated over the Internet, hailing glorious accomplishments of the US-led coalition in that country. The chaplain leaves military victories to other historians, concentrating instead on the improvements the occupation has brought to the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Among those, he lists the lifting of restrictions on Shiite religious practices: "Shia religious festivals (all but banned [under Saddam Hussein]) are no longer illegal. For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala, thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam." To an innocent eye, this looks like restoration of religious freedom, and religious freedom, as every American will agree, is a precious thing. Of course, the question remains whether the religious freedom of Iraqi Shiites is precious enough for the American people to be paid for with the lives of American soldiers. Personally, I'd rather see every single one of them get home in one piece, even if it meant continued suppression of Shiite observances in Iraq. The vehement opposition of the Iraqi Shiites, led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to the US presence in their country does not alleviate my doubts. But, most importantly, our invasion in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Unless those newly restored freedoms somehow contribute to the safety of my country, I do not see a reason to consider them a victory for us. Rather it's a victory for the Iraqi Shiites who have managed to manipulate the occupiers into granting them previously denied liberties, which they are now (ab)using trying to snatch power for themselves. Do we want Iraq to be ruled by the ayatollahs? Unfortunately, the chaplain does not even attempt to explain the connection between Shiite rituals in Iraq and the terror level indicator in the United States. He does not describe those rituals either, although they definitely present an insight into the world of Islam. Few Westerners know that those celebrations culminate in a rampage of mass self-flagellation. Mobs of fanatical followers of the twelfth Imam roam the streets, covered with blood from self-inflicted wounds, chanting "Shahsay! Vahsay!" ("Shah Husayn! Alas Husayn!"), beating and cutting themselves with chains, swords, and whatever else can be used to inflict injury. Men and youths ecstatically mutilate themselves. Parents ecstatically mutilate their toddlers. Regardless of the price the United States had to pay for the freedom of such barbaric expression of religious fervor, any sane person should ask whether a cult allowing such festivals should be outlawed altogether in every civilized country. Try to imagine a young American in the military uniform watching such a parade of the most primitive cruelty, thinking, "Yes! This is worth dying for." Try to imagine a mother or a widow of an American soldier recently killed in Iraq, watching such an orgy of religious fanaticism and saying to herself, "Now it makes perfect sense." Try to imagine what those people, given a chance, would do to you. These festivities present an example of the senseless blood lust and flair for gratuitous violence inherent to Islam. However, I don't want to mislead my readers into thinking that such tendencies are unique to Shiites only. Two recent news items, both related to the just ended period of hajj, present an opportunity to demonstrate that these traits are common for all varieties of Islam. Traditionally, at the conclusion of the hajj, the participants "stone the Devil," which is symbolically represented by three pillars. (This year, by the way, one of the pillars had "USA" inscribed on it.) A stampede that somehow began during the ceremony killed more than 250 pilgrims and wounded scores more. This may sound like a freak accident, until you get the (partial) statistics of the hajj:
These numbers may seem terrifying, but not to Muslims who believe that death during the hajj erases one's sins and guarantees him or her a place in heaven. Think for a second about the implications. Religious people often refer to their "fear of God" as a major factor preventing them from sinning. All a Muslim sinner has to do to be forgiven is to arrange the circumstances of his or her death appropriately. To make it easier for them, Islamic teachings offer a variety of ways to die that guarantee them eternity in Paradise regardless of the life they lead. Here is what the Hadith says on the subject: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 82: This gives a "faithful" an easy way to erase all his or her misdeeds: a drowning, for example, whether accidental or arranged, entitles any villain to eternity of fornication with a platoon of indestructible virgins. Please note the reference to "Allah's Cause" in the quotation above. This is one hell of a loophole. If you fail to see a direct justification of suicide bombings here, you probably believe they are caused by economic hardships inflicted by cruel Israelis. I am not sure if Muslim women are entitled to any pornographic pleasures in what the Muslims mistake for heaven, but they are admitted there under some conditions. Not so long ago, a married Arab woman, a mother of two young children, was caught in an adulterous relationship with a local Hamas leader. The penalty for such crime is, of course, death, and the woman died, but in a way that got all her digressions annulled: she blew herself up along with four Israelis who happened to be nearby. Her lover provided the belt with explosives; her husband did not object. To a civilized person, such lack of respect to human life is clear evidence that Islam is in fact a death cult, rather than a legitimate religion. My drastic conclusion is corroborated by another item distributed by the Associated Press and posted on several news sites. On CNN, it was titled Top Saudi religious authority condemns terrorists. There is no shortage of condemnations of terrorism these days. Terrorist acts have become an almost daily occurrence, and every one of them is usually followed by a string of tepid condemnations. Yasser Arafat used to condemn every single terrorist act he ordered, but now he has a prime minister to do it for him. Kofi Annan used to do it routinely, but eventually grew tired of it; he refused to condemn the latest suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Colin Powell seems to have a few carefully worded versions of such condemnations prepared for him in advance, like obituaries for aging celebrities. He rotates them from one occasion to the next, every time looking his gravest and noblest, although you have to agree that he sounded more sincere when he was assuring the Security Council that Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. In the past, Europe used to present an off-key chorus of half-hearted condemnations, but now Europe is united and speaks with a single voice, which doesn't sound too convincing either. However, Islamic religious authorities do not condemn terrorism on a regular basis. I remember how, in the aftermath of September 11, desperate attempts were made to extract at least a marginally appropriate statement from any Islamic figurehead in the United States. The imams heroically withstood the pressure and refused to compromise themselves or their religion with an opposition to the slaughter of the infidels unless it was perpetrated by combined efforts of the CIA and Mossad. Americans with hateful eyes and unbelievable names, like Ibrahim Hooper, politely, but insistently grilled in front of the cameras, employed convoluted syllogisms striving to prove that the attack that was organized, financed, and perpetrated by Muslims as one of many battles of jihad, was nevertheless unrelated to their religion, did not amount to a terrorist act, and did not warrant a condemnation either as un-Islamic or for any other reason. Those of them who were forced to admit, however reluctantly, that killing innocent people is wrong, inevitably brought up Zionist aggressors murdering innocent "Palestinians". Don't you find it strange that Islam became widely known as a "religion of peace and love" only after September 11? Considering all the facts, we have to agree that either all Muslims are lying in unison, or, in the Islamic culture, the concepts of peace and love are very different from ours. It's quite possible, of course, that we are witnessing a combination of the two. That's why the headline made me curious. To my utter disappointment, it was blatantly misleading. The article quoted Sheik Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, whom it described as "Saudi Arabia's top cleric", as saying, "Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possession of Muslims?" In his sermon attended live by millions of pilgrims and transmitted to millions more in Saudi Arabia and other countries of Persian Gulf, the sheik specifically condemned acts of violence against fellow Muslims. He quoted Mohammad, the founder of the cult: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided." The good sheik kept on preaching that Muslims should not harm other Muslims. Non-Muslims were eligible for protection only as dhimmis. Not a single word was uttered about the sanctity of human life, regardless of the person's faith. Not a single word was uttered in defense of the "infidels" in general or Americans or, Allah forbid, Jews specifically. In effect, the cleric publicly confirmed that, according to Islam, no act can be deemed terrorist if the victims are not Muslim. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the cleric's "condemnation" amounted to incitement of religiously motivated murder, which is, after all, the essence of jihad. For Muslims, peace means an alliance against the "unbelievers", and whatever passes for love among them is only possible between members of their own cult. Just to conclude on an upbeat note, here is another news item related to the Muslim holiday of Eid, which marks the end of the hajj and is traditionally celebrated with the slaughter of sheep. The Paris suburb of Evry, which, thanks to its predominantly Muslim population, represents the accurate image of France in the near future, decided to televise the ritual slaughter of the sheep. The number of sheep they are planning to slaughter in front of the cameras: three thousand, three hundred. Municipal officials promise to try this novelty in other places in France if it works out in Evry. That's what I call a reality show! As long as they don't install TV cameras in American slaughterhouses, I say, Vive la Difference! Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/ |
|
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE NEW ANTI-JEWISHNESS
Posted by IsrAlert, February 15, 2004. |
|
Originally published by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute in
November 2002, written by Irwin Cotlar, currently serving as Canada's
Minister of Justice. Isralert's source for this item:
http://www.tzemach.org
What we are witnessing today is a new, virulent, globalizing and even lethal anti-Jewishness reminiscent of the atmospherics of the 1930s, and without parallel or precedent since the end of the Second World War. Anchored in the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, but going beyond it, the new anti-Jewishness can best be defined as the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon, national particularity and peoplehood anywhere, whenever that national particularity and peoplehood happens to be Jewish. In its more benign form (if it can be called benign), it finds particular expression in the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena where United Nations human rights bodies are used as the mask or protective cover for this anti-Jewishness (e.g. The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban). In its most lethal form, it refers to the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for existential or genocidal assault, as evidenced by the suicide-bombers -or what I prefer to call genocide-bombers - the convergence of both politicide and genocide. In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism - incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism" - involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism - and common to both - is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals - a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) - to discrimination against Jews as people - a new anti-Semitism - for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement. I would like to propose a set of indices by which we can identify and monitor the nature and meaning of the new anti-Jewishness. These indices are organized around a juridical framework and draw upon principles of discrimination and equality as they find expression in both domestic and international law. There are thirteen indices that may serve to illustrate this new anti-Jewishness. The first and most lethal is existential or genocidal anti-Semitism. I am referring here to the public call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Examples include the covenants of terrorist organizations like Hamas which publicly call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews anywhere; religious fatwas - or execution writs - issued by radical Islamic clerics, which not only call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, but proclaim it also as a religious obligation and calls by member states of the international community - such as Iran or Iraq - for the destruction of Israel and its people, as evidenced in the statements by their respective political leadership that call not only for the destruction of Israel but also express the intent to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this genocidal purpose. In a word, Israel is the only state in the world today, and the Jews the only people in the world today, that are the object of a standing set of threats from governmental, religious, and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. And what is most disturbing is the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence, in the face of such genocidal antisemitism. There are three manifestations of this phenomenon. The discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the Jewish people's right to self-determination which, as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, "is the denial to the Jews of the same right, the right to self-determination that we accord to African nations and all other peoples of the globe. In short, it is anti-Semitism." To the extent that Israel has emerged as the "civil religion" of world Jewry - the organizing idiom of Jewish self-determination - this new anti-Semitism is a per se assault, in contemporary terms, on the religious and national sensibility of the Jewish people. [I]f classical anti-Semitism was anchored in discrimination against the Jewish religion, the new anti-Jewishness is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people - and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance the essence of anti-Semitism is the same - an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time. There is yet another, and third, variant of political anti-Semitism. I am referring here to the "demonizing" of Israel. This is the contemporary analogue to the medieval indictment of the Jew as the "poisoner of the wells." In other words, in a world in which human rights has emerged as the new secular religion of our time, the portrayal of Israel as the metaphor for a human rights violator is an indictment of Israel as the "new anti-Christ" - as the "poisoner of the international wells". Ideological anti-Semitism finds expression not only in the "Zionism is Racism" indictment but the further criminal indictment of Israel as "an apartheid state," and the calling for the dismantling of this "apartheid state" - a euphemism for Israel's destruction. If the proclamation of "Zionism as Racism" gave anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction, the calling for the dismantling of the apartheid state of Israel is even more toxic and virulent, once again giving anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction. Indeed, the increased characterization or libeling of Israel as a "Nazi state" is tantamount to transforming ideological anti-Semitism into a duty-the obligation to remove this Nazi state, Israel. This refers to the convergence of state-sanctioned Islamic anti-Semitism, which characterizes Jews and Judaism, let alone Israel, as the perfidious enemy of Islam.and which finds expression in the proclamation made by Yasir Arafat-appointed and funded Imam, Ahmed Abu Halabiya, from a mosque pulpit and broadcasted on Palestinian state television - "The Jews must be butchered and tortured: Allah will torture them with your hands. Have no mercy on the Jews.... wherever you meet them.... kill them.". As for cultural anti-Semitism, I am referring here to the melange of attitudes, sentiments, innuendo and the like-in academe, in parliaments, among the literati, public intellectuals, and the human rights movement - as found expression in the remarks of the French Ambassador to the U.K. to the effect of, why should the world risk another world war because of "that sh**ty little country Israel"; or as British journalist Petronella Wyatt put it, "Anti-Semitism, and its open expression, has become respectable at London dinner tables" once more - not just in Germany or Catholic Central Europe. [W]e are witnessing an explosion of European anti-Semitism without parallel or precedent since World War II. Some examples, to which I can personally attest to, following my visits to European capitals these past two years, include assaults upon and desecration of synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish institutions; attacks upon identifiable Jews; convergence of the extreme left and the extreme right in public demonstrations calling for "death to the Jews"; atrocity propaganda against Israel and Jews (e.g., Israel injects the AIDS virus into Palestinians); the ugly canard of double loyalty; the demonization of Israel through the escalating ascription of Nazi metaphors; indifference or silence in the face of horrific acts of terror against Israel and the threatening of sanctions against Israel for exercising its right of self-defense against these acts of terror. In the words of Joel Kotek of the University of Brussels: "One's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict has become a test of loyalty. Should he become a supporter of Israel, he becomes a supporter of a Nazi state." I am referring here to the singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations. Some examples include the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, which turned into a conference of racism against Israel, where Israel was the only state singled out for indictment; the UN Commission on Human Rights, where Israel is the only country singled out for a country-specific condemnation even before the annual session begins, where 30 percent of all resolutions condemn Israel alone, while the major human rights violators enjoy exculpatory immunity; the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, where Israel became the first country in fifty-two years to be the object of a country-specific indictment, while the perpetrators of horrific killing fields - be it Cambodia, Sudan, etc. - have never been the object of a contracting party's enquiry; the systemic and systematic discrimination against Israel in the major d ecision-making bodies of the United Nations and its specialized agencies; the exclusion of Magen David Adom, Israel's humanitarian aid agency, from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; the conversion of refugee camps under UNRWA's management into bases and sanctuaries of incitement and terror, in breach of fundamental principles of international humanitarian and refugee law. The denial of international due process to Israel and the Jewish people in the international arena refers to the disenfranchisement of Israel in the international arena, where, for example, Israel emerges as the only country denied "standing" in any regional grouping in the United Nations, which resulted in Israel (and Jewish NGOs) being excluded from the Regional Conference in Iran, where the regional Asian position for the World Conference Against Racism was prepared. "Legalized" anti-Semitism refers to the international "legal" character of this anti-Semitism, in which, in a kind of Orwellian inversion of law and language, United Nations human rights bodies become the mask under which this "teaching of contempt" is carried out. Classical economic anti-Semitism involved discrimination against Jews in housing, education, and employment; the new economic anti-Semitism involves the extra-territorial application by Arab countries of an international restrictive covenant against corporations conditioning their trade with Arab countries on their agreement not to do business with Israel (secondary boycott); or not doing business with another corporation which may be doing business with Israel (tertiary boycott); or even conditioning the trade with such corporations on neither hiring nor promoting Jews within the corporation (I was able to document this in the course of my chairing a Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination). The cutting edge of this new anti-Semitism is Holocaust denial, which moves inexorably from denying the Holocaust, to accusing Jews of fabricating the "hoax" to indicting Jews for extorting false reparations from the innocent German people, to the building of their "illegal" State of Israel on the backs of the real indigenous owners, the Palestinians. Let there be no doubt about it, those who would seek to deny the Jewish people their past are the same people who, if given the chance, would deny the Jewish people their future. Racist terrorism against Jews refers to the state-orchestrated incitement to violence and terrorism against Jews. This racist terrorism has been ratcheted up into an alarming case of "mega" or "catastrophic terrorism" as exemplified by the recent attempts to literally incinerate thousands of Israelis by blowing up fuel and gas storage facilities in the Herzliya area and blowing up the Azrieli office towers in Tel Aviv; the attempted use of cyanide poison in a Jerusalem restaurant; the attempted blowing up of residential apartment areas in Haifa; and the recent disclosure of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda connected plans to target Israeli institutions and Jewish nationals in the Western hemisphere. This refers to the state-sanctioned "culture of hate"-integrating both old and new forms of anti-Jewishness-that finds increasing expression in the incitement to hatred in state-controlled mosques, media, schools, and other institutions, including such recent examples as the broadcasting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the appropriation of symbols and motifs from classical anti-Semitism to demonize Israel and the Jewish people today. In the words of Professor Fouad Ajami: The suicide bomber of the Passover massacre did not descend from the sky, he partook of the culture all around him - the glee that greets those brutal deeds of terror, the cult that rises around the martyrs and their families. None of this is intended to suggest that Israel is somehow above the law, or that Israel is not to be held accountable for any violations of law. On the contrary, Israel is accountable for any violations of international law or human rights like any other state; and the Jewish people are not entitled to any privileged protection or preference because of the particularity of Jewish suffering. But the problem is not that Israel as the "Jew among Nations" seeks to be above the law, but that it has been systematically denied equality before the law; not that Israel must respect human rights - which it should - but that the human rights of Israel have not been respected; not that human rights standards should be applied to Israel - which they must - but that these standards have not been applied equally to anyone else. Israel and the Jewish people have been singled out for differential
and discriminatory treatment in the international arena - and worst of
all - singled out for destruction. The time has come to sound the
alarm - not only for Israel and the Jewish people whose safety and
security is under existential threat and attack - but for the world
community and the human condition as a whole. For as history has
taught us only too well, while the persecution and discrimination may
begin with Jews, it doesn't end with Jews.
IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run
by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to
isralert@aol.com
|
|
THE GAZA PULLOUT
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 15, 2004. |
|
This was written by Cal Thomas and was published today on the
Washington Times website and archived at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040214-112850-5661r.htm
What is so difficult to understand about the Middle East that Western diplomats and politicians continue to play with scenarios that have no hope of succeeding? The so-called "road map" created out of wishful thinking by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations states there must be two prerequisites before Israel relinquishes more land. One is that the Palestinian side must forswear violence, and the other is the infrastructure that produces the violence must be dismantled. Neither has even begun to happen. Quite the opposite. This does not deter the wishful thinkers, however, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharo n. Mr. Sharon has announced a unilateral withdrawal of forces protecting Jewish "settlers" in Gaza, a strip of land Israel seized from Egypt when Egyptian forces used it to invade Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967. Partly, the announcement is for domestic political reasons. Mr. Sharon is involved in a bribery scandal investigation. Some believe a withdrawal might "pressure" Yasser Arafat and his band of serial killers to respond by eschewing terror. Those who believe such things haven't been paying attention to history. Mr. Arafat doesn't give. He takes. That's because his objective differs mightily from everyone else's. The West thinks a formula can be constructed that will, in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, help the Palestinians realize the "legitimate aspirations" of a state of their own. What Mr. Powell and so many others will not recognize is that Palestinian aspirations are for a state that replaces Israel, not one that co-exists with it. Reaction to the wall Israel is building to protect itself from encroachment by homicide bombers and others interested in its destruction is only the latest evidence Mr. Arafat and company remain a threat and have no intention of modifying their objectives. If their plans have changed from regular incursions into Israeli territory for the purpose of killing civilians, why would they oppose a wall? A Palestinian state without proof Palestinian intentions have changed would assure an unprecedented base for terrorism that currently does not exist. It would be a threat not only to the entire Middle East and U.S. objectives to democratize the region, but to the United States itself. Such a nation-state would serve as a breeding ground and launching pad for terrorism worldwide. As a sovereign nation, a Palestinian state would be difficult for the United Sta tes and the toothless United Nations to control as it exports terror throughout the world. The Palestinian Authority (PA) already is the largest anti-American terrorist entity and enjoys diplomatic protection from much of the world. Imagine what it would be like as a full-fledged state, absent a change in purpose and direction. These people are playing for keeps because they claim a mandate from their "god." "Infidel" diplomats are not likely to deter such fanatics from their divinely ordained rounds. President Bush is right in his assertion the United States is fighting a war with worldwide terrorism. The Palestinian Authority is part of that war. The PA's allies have included Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (whom Yasser Arafat praised for sending Scud missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf war), the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran, and other rogue nations in the region and beyond. Ideological mentors of the PA allied themselves with the Nazis and their goal of exterminating Jews (a goal that remains unchanged if one considers sermons, Palestinian TV and textbooks that are training a new generation of haters and terrorists). Mr. Arafat was trained by the Soviet Union's KGB. Any progress toward peace and stability in the Middle East begins with abandoning the fantasy that what America and Israel do or don't do affects the actions and goals of Mr. Arafat and company. Anti-democratic forces understand only two things - power and resolve. A memo recently seized in a coalition raid in Iraq proves the point. It indicates growing frustration by al Qaeda operatives in Iraq at America's resolve to remain in Baghdad until the stated objectives of free elections and a stable society are achieved. Such resolve - and not unilateral measures by Israel and the West, or "confidence-building acts" - is more likely to protect American and Israeli interests and create conditions under which Palestinians and Israelis can have better lives - together. |
|
WALID SHOEBAT: FROM TERRORIST TO ZIONIST
Posted by Arlene Peck, February 15, 2004. |
|
Lo-d, Honestly, I truly believe that with some of our friends, we
don't need enemies. And, if the truth be told, we, as Jews are often
our worst adversaries. What makes those self-haters the way they are?
Did their mothers not breast feed them? Did they never have a date for
the prom?
I am often called upon to speak to groups, both Christian and Jewish. Frankly, it sometimes amazes me just how naive Jews can be when it comes to "getting it". Lately, I've been privileged to go on Front Page Jerusalem radio which has a Christian audience. These good Christians, who, are receptive to learning who the enemy are and what can be done to combat the raging waves of Islamic fundamentalism that threaten the very core of our way of life. Given our past history, why are we, as Jews, so prone to putting our heads in the sand when it comes to the meaning of "peace" in the Middle East? The issue isn't one of land. No matter how much Israel cuts the Jewish state into pieces, like salami, for this illusive peace, it won't matter. The majority Arabs don't want to live side by side with anybody. The neighbors of Israel want the Jews dead and gone. After they've finished with the Saturday people, the Sunday people are next. Frankly, I wasn't aware how big of a problem the brain washing and cult of death had become until I recently had the opportunity to spend a few days with Walid Shoebat. He had flown in to be a guest on my television show. This amazing man was once a PLO terrorist who despite the time he's spent in Israel jails is now an ardent Zionist. I sat in awe while Walid told me, along with a room full of Los Angeles Jewish community leaders, how violent a culture he once belonged to. He reaffirmed how fundamental changes need to take place in the Palestinian society before any "negotiations" can begin. "The hatred has always been in the minds of the Palestinians," said Showbat. "However, under the direction of Arafat, the books the children study in school have been filled with fallacy concerning the Jews for at least a full generation." Imagine all this coming from a (saintly) Arab who was on the inside of it all. The key word is education and when a Jewish kid is born the college fund is usually started at the bank. Unfortunately, when Muslim children are born they are trained as toddlers that the Jews are the enemy and must be killed. I've long known this basic fact. Yet, here comes an articulate man like Walid to tell us that "fundamental change needs to take place in Palestinian society, as an entire generation of Palestinian youth has been taught to hate the Jewish state." This makes an impression, especially since it comes from a man who grew up and acted on the hate filled background he was taught day after day. Yet here comes Walid saying, "The occupation is not Israel occupying the land which supposedly belongs to the Arabs," Walid says. "The true occupation is of the minds of Palestinians, of teaching them hatred for Jews. That is the real occupation." This, folks, is the message this amazing and very brave man is taking on the road. Later, at his lovely home, I had dinner with his family. His wife, and their children were terrific and after spending time with them I was even more impressed. I had no doubts about the genuine and meaningful transformation of this former Palestinian terrorist. Walid told me he used to raise funds for the Palestinian Authority in order to finance bomb making and other terrorist activities. "I even walked to the Temple Mount one time with bombs but changed my mind when I saw Arab children playing in the yard." He said he did however, serve time in Israeli jails and came close to lynching an Israeli soldier who miraculously got away. There are others trying to educate the Jewish community about such dangers, however futile their efforts may be. Recently, I heard Rabbi Tovia Singer speak to a large group of Hillel kids about the dangers of anti-Semitism and the lure of cults facing them when they got to college. He was impressive and seemed to make an impression on their young minds. Itamar Marcus from Palestinian Media Watch spoke to a rapt audience at the Museum of Tolerance a few nights later when he showed the actual footage of the outrageous lies the Muslim youth are fed in order to indoctrinate them as adults. Even Walid, who incidentally, has an American mother with her own horror stories to tell, told me that when he was finally shown footage of the Holocaust on Israeli television he thought it was a fabrication. He related how he and his friends sat around eating popcorn and laughing and wondering how the Jews found skinny actors to fall into the graves. It's great when I, as well as my fellow journalist and activists such as Jack Engelhard, Trudy Gefen, Noami Ragen, Steven Plaut and so many others beat the drums to get out this message. But, we are usually preaching to the choir. How encouraging it is, when a Walid Shoebat comes onto the scene, along with a Joseph Farah and Tisbah Said, who publishes the newspaper Pakistan Today. They are telling the truth about Israel with great personal danger in doing so. They have been there from the inside and speak out with the same message. They make an impression that we just can't. Walid told me, "The Jews don't speak up as they should. So, I've taken it upon myself to speak out for them." He's doing a great service. It's a shame that we can count on one hand, out of a billion Muslims who are doing the same. Have I missed their marches protesting the violence and senseless homicide bombings? It's a disgrace that there are so many leftist Jews out there who think the way to solve any problem is to stand by the roadside and paint peace signs on vans and give the peace sign as people drive by. Even this sometimes outrageous columnist was fired from the Jewish Post & Opinion after thirty years of being a featured writer because the New Leftist owners of the paper decided that my columns were "mean to the Arabs" and they only wanted to print "words that were kind and not words that hurt". Well folks, we are hurting. I'm thankful that there is a former PLO terrorist like Walid out there who now strongly considers himself a Zionist. http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/search.html I wish that there were more like him who felt the same way, especially in the Jewish community. I wish the Israeli government would try to combat the problem with a massive public relations campaign instead of the usual "quiet diplomacy." Walid told me that he would like nothing better than to be able to return to Israel to de-program as many of those brainwashed as he can. Let's hope he stays safe and we should do what we can to help him finish his mission. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
SAUDI PAYMENTS FOR FOREIGN JOURNALISTS
Posted by IsrAlert, February 15, 2004. |
|
In a column published January 14th in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, columnist
Abdallah Nasser Al-Fawzan criticizes Saudi payments given to foreign
journalists in order to write pro-Saudi media reports. The following
are excerpts from the column. The article was translated and archived
by MEMRI, The Middle East Media Research Institute, is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the
Middle East.
"For quite some time I have been hearing rumors that we [the Saudis] are paying journalists in Arab and non-Arab capitals, and that these payments are not in the hundreds of thousands but in the millions. I did not believe it, because first of all it was in complete contradiction to our ethics, our values and dignity, our self-respect, and our reverence to our nation and country. Secondly, I found nothing in the publications abroad about the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] that justified such practices. [In fact] there has been an Arab regime that used to pay [journalists], and that was manifested clearly in media publications about it. For example, we remember the media festivals organized by Arab media outfits [to hail] this regime and we remember the odd propaganda efforts on its behalf. But when it comes to comparing ourselves with that regime we deserve epic poems of praise ... because we find no evidence to the [bribery] rumors. Furthermore, sometimes we are the target of organized m (HW: balance of this paragraph missing from original) "Such was my impression, and that is why the rumors did not sink in and did not leave me any reason for further contemplation. But the rumors persisted, and two days ago I was surprised by a trustworthy Saudi journalist and a media personality with considerable credence, Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, who published an article that changed my mind about the rumors I heard, and made me reconsider them seriously." "In his regular column 'Meeting,' published last Monday(January 12) ... he talked about our dire need for a home-grown strong and honest media, free of domestic and social shackles, able to stand up to other provocative and destructive media, rather than having to rely on crippled and suppliant foreign media... Mr. Al-Sudairi went on to say that: 'Having a crippled and suppliant media cannot benefit us,' and he added even more bluntly that 'we have had the most bizarre relationship with newspapers in other Arab countries ... which to this time receive annual payments and subsidies, although they are insignificant in their own countries, let alone in the Arab world...'" "I said at the beginning of this article that for various reasons I used to dismiss what I heard about paying Arab journalists... And although I do not support such payments under any circumstances, it would [be safe to] assume that they were given in exchange for taking certain positions and for defending us from attacks. However, this did not happen. On the contrary, the opposite has sometimes occurred. "Mr. Al-Sudairi confirms that payments were made, but why haven't we seen the desired effect? Mr. Al-Sudairi provided a heartbreaking answer in his article. He said that those who receive payments from us 'do not write one word to refute Western media campaigns, as if the payments are made to prevent them [too] from writing against us ... i.e. they are the price of their silence. "So, the problem is far worse than just making annual payments to Arab journalists, because these payments are the 'price of silence... "Finally Mr. Al-Sudairi said that those who receive bribes to spare us their harm do not have the ability to harm us with their words or to safeguard us with their silence. In the words of Mr. Al-Sudairi himself: 'They are insignificant ingrates ... and some of them even use pseudonyms to publish articles against us.' What a shame... What a tragedy... "I thank Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi for his obvious patriotic concern and
I join him in condemning this sorry affair, and urge everyone to
support him. If we are paying the price, as he said, to insignificant
ingrate journalists who consider them a price for their silence, and
still publish articles against us using pseudonyms, then the matter is
truly scandalous and calls for investigation and proper remedies, not
just for the end of the payments."
IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run
by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to
isralert@aol.com
|
|
U.S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 15, 2004. |
|
The US has provided most of the funding for Israeli development of the
Arrow missile defense system. The money was given on condition that US
approval was needed for Israeli sale of the system to third countries.
This veto was intended to prevent commercial motives from inducing
Israel to sell to countries that the US believes would damage US
security.
Now the US legislative and executive branches are concerned that the Arrow-2 would compete with a US system, PAC-3 lower-tier, being marketed to US allies and Mideastern states. The US reportedly will block an Israeli sale to India and Turkey (IMRA, 2/2). The veto was not supposed to be used so that US corporate lobbyists could get the US government to restrict the free trade that the US hypothetically promotes. US aid costs Israel financially and politically far more than it is worth. Its few billion dollars a year do not constitute a major part of Israel's $80 billion budget. Israel would be wise to discontinue it, and expand its own industry. To do that, it would have to free its own, largely government-owned and government-regulated industry. Perhaps it first should request the same treatment by the US that Jordan and Egypt enjoyed, of having their debt to the US canceled. (Initially, the US lent Israel annual subsidies, then granted it. Grants barely exceeded the interest due on past, high-interest loans.) Israel needs the debt canceled, due to the extraordinary costs from terrorism, which continue because the US has demanded that Israel not sweep out the terrorist P.A. regime. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
TOM FRIEDMAN: Protector Of His People
Posted by Jeff Dunetz, February 15, 2004. |
|
Most of the time I enjoy my monthly lunches with my friend Phil. He
always makes me laugh. Phil is the type of person who never has a mean
word to say about anybody. Today's meal was very different. When he
walked in today he was practically frothing at the mouth, going on and
on, ranting about Tom Friedman, the NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning
columnist.
"Phil calm down," I urged, "this isn't like you. You will get reflux or something. Why are you so angry?" He had a newspaper in his hand and slammed it down on the table. "Here, read this," he demanded. So I picked it up and saw that it was a copy of the NY Times from a few days ago. It was open to the latest offering from Mr. Friedman. It was the typical offering from the Pulitzer Prize winner, the usual political slant and eloquent prose. In his column Friedman was basically implying that the Jewish people in America control the President's policy, saying "Sharon has had Mr. Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and He has had Mr.Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office." He goes on to say "Vice President, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates..." Then he announced that Sharon's plan to take the settlements out of Gaza were part of a bigger plan to annex 50% of the West Bank. (this must have been an exclusive because I didn't read about that anywhere else). I looked over the top of the paper and saw Phil glaring and me. "Well?" He said, waiting for my review. "I gotta admit this guy is good." I said. Phil's face got dark purple, he looked like a shofar blower at the end of a very long note. "Good?" he yelled. "GOOD? HE HAS DONE SO MUCH HARM TO ISRAEL! NOT ONLY HAS HE GIVEN PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE TERRORISTS, BUT HIS WORDS ARE USED BY PEOPLE TO ATTACK ISRAEL... THAT IS GOOD? The deli got very quiet, except around poor Mr. Rosenberg's table. He got so startled he jumped, knocking over a delivery guy causing him to spill a case of frozen kenaydloch all over the place. "Calm down Phil, you'll get us thrown out of here," I whispered, hoping that he would copy my tone. "Don't you get it? Tom Friedman is misunderstood. He's just trying to protect Israel and the Jews." Phil looked at me like I had just grown a third eye, but I kept on going. "Why would he perpetuate stereotypes about Jews controlling the world" Why do you think he would say those horrible things about Israel? No Jew would really say that about his own people. He blames all the violence on Sharon government, even though this violence started under the watch of a more liberal Prime Minister. Tom Friedman is just trying to show how wrong those Anti-Israel sentiments are. This over the top article must be trying to show the world that the old Jewish stereotype can't be true. Let's face it if the Jews can't control one of their own, how can people think we control the world?" Phil seemed to calm down a little. "Really?" he asked. "Of course," I answered, "look at some of the things he's said. Like the time he said that the only reason President Bush supported Israel was that he didn't want to alienate the Jewish vote. "Mr. Bush blinked because he didn't want to alienate the Jewish Voter." (NY Times June 30th 2002) Does that really sound like someone who's last name is FRIEDMAN? No that sounded like it came from the Prime Minister of Malaysia. It's like he is ignoring Palestinian terrorism totally. He can't really believe that, he must be acting like an Anti-Semite to make a point." "Look at his statement this past January 18th that Israel is standing in the way of the Arab/Muslim world modernizing." Could any sane man really believe that? Totally ignoring the repressive regimes such as Iran and Syria refuse to modernize because it will lead do democratization... and the end of their power. Come on! He even uses terms like 'vicious cycle of violence,' putting the blowing up of a bus and the killing of terrorist on the same moral plane. I bet that Tom Friedman hates saying that. Surely every time he describes a West Bank settler a "fanatical Jew" a tear come to his eye! But he is taking one for the team, fighting Anti-Semitism by taking it to the extreme. What a nice guy that Tommy is!" One of his columns from last November is a particular favorite of mine. It really shows to what extent he will make himself look like he hates Israel, just to protect the Jewish people, "last three years of Palestinian uprising, suicide bombs and Israeli settlement expansion have blown away any remnants of understanding between Israelis and Palestinians" "The current government in Israel behaves as if country is weak little victim" "Israel should use its overwhelming strength to take some initiative; says it should work with new Palestinian prime minister, make tough demands but not expect perfection overnight, not allow itself to be goaded by Hamas into freezing everything, take its own initiative to dismantle settlements and tap Palestinians' interest in improving their lives" "The Bush administration has done nothing to stop Israel's ideologically driven leaders from squandering country's great strength rather than channeling it into creative options" "Isn't he wonderful? Blaming the victim! Wow what style. He calls Israel's leaders ideologically driven (although I have never seen one of them call for someone to blow themselves up) and then the cool part: he says that Israel should take the initiative to dismantle settlements. Look for creative options and then when she does, like last week's Gaza announcement, he rips it to shreds saying it's a plot to take over the West Bank. So you can't say anything bad about Tom Friedman. He is a hero, getting called a traitor because he's spewing Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish hatred. And he is doing it just to prove how mean spirited that position may seem." Phil was dazed. "You really think that he is doing it all on purpose, just to combat anti-Semitism?" ?Isn't it obvious! As a matter of fact, I hear rumors that for his next project he is working with Pat Buchanan co-writing a screenplay for Mel Gibson. It is called: The Jews Killed Kennedy, Mr. Rodgers and Captain Kangaroo. Jeff Dunetz is a 20-year marketing veteran, and a freelance writer. He can be reached at http://www.jeffdunetz.com |
|
AMAZING FACTS ABOUT ISRAEL
Posted by Marion Dreyfus, February 14, 2004. |
|
I think these are remarkable, almost incredible, achievements - given
the stresses and grief the world visits on this small country.
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following: The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel. Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel. The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis. Israel has the fourth largest air force in the world (after the U.S., Russia and China). In addition to a large variety of other aircraft, Israel's air force has an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16's. This is the largest fleet of F-16 aircraft outside of the US. According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S.officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats. Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined. Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed. In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech). With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentrationof hi-tech companies in the world - apart from the Silicon Valley, US. Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US. Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies. Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK. On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech startups. Twenty-four per cent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees - ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 per cent hold advanced degrees. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia, to safety in Israel. When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times. When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day - and saved three victims from the rubble. Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship - and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world. Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity. Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free." Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books. Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert. Israel has more museums per capita than any other country. Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer. An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes. Israel's Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders. Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors. Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well. A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue. An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert. All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth Marion D.S. Dreyfus is a journalist, and is currently in Wuchan, China, where she teaches at the University and does a radio talk show. |
|
SUE THE EU AND PROSECUTE CHRIS PATTEN
Posted by Beth Goodtree, February 14, 2004. |
|
It has just been revealed that the European Union has been funding
terror. In an article in Arutz Sheva* dated Feb. 13, 2004, "... the
European Union's Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concludes that tens of
millions of dollars in humanitarian aid donated by the EU to the
Palestinian Authority were actually used for terrorism against Israel.
Remarkably, the conclusions are based on papers that Israel discovered
almost two full years ago, during Operation Defensive Shield, and
which it presented to the world immediately afterwards."
These documents were displayed in Jerusalem on April 11, 2002 - almost two years ago. Included among them were some with Arafat's signature approving expenses for terrorist activities by 11 different terrorist leaders. Included in the papers were documents showing that the PLO headquarters in Jerusalem - Orient House - served as a center for terrorist activities. Orient House was the venue to disburse payments to terrorists' families as well as issuing Fatah membership forms. It also had an itemized report on terrorist activities in Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority salary slips for Orient House officials, proof of ties between the Palestinian Authority and Israeli-Arabs, and much more. When an official body provides money to a group or organization, they are responsible for how it is used. This is true whether it is America, the UN, any Arab nation or the European Union, for example. If the money is used to commit genocide and terrorist acts, then the financial sponsor is ultimately responsible. And if the financial sponsor was given proof of this and continued the funding, then that sponsor must be held accountable. Also, foot-dragging on the part of a financial sponsor must be punished. When it comes to preventing murder and genocide, only the swiftest action is acceptable. While suing the EU for a huge amount of money might be the first reaction, it will not necessarily create the desired effect. The best outcome would be to have a precedent-setting victory as a warning to future financial supporters of genocidal and/or terrorist regimes, while not alienating a group who is trying, apparently sincerely, to clean up its act. Therefore I propose that all the victims of Palestinian-Arab violence since the release of the incriminating documents two years ago, sue the European Union for one dollar. The court victory will be priceless. And it can be used by victims and their families to sue for monetary retribution from other supporters of terror who contributed to their suffering. Also, it can be used to deter or bankrupt anyone else who dares to willfully give money to genocidal monsters like the Arafat regime. Are you listening to this Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and especially, the UN? In the case of the European Union, even though it is ultimately responsible for its members and employees, it may be that certain employees wield enough power to stymie legitimate inquiries and investigations in order to further their personal political agendas. In this instance, it might be reasonable to hold these civil servants personally responsible. Chris Patten, the EU's Commissioner for External Affairs, refused to accept the legitimacy of the documents presented to him. Nor did he even open an investigation into their legitimacy, as was his responsibility. Instead he dragged his feet, while each month more babies, children, parents, and the elderly were slaughtered or maimed. It was only under extreme pressure from European parliament members that Patten was forced to order an OLAF (the EU's anti-fraud office) investigation into the Israeli allegations and proofs of terror funding. Chris Patten, by deliberately stonewalling any meaningful inquiry into the use of EU funds to commit genocide and terror, was an active accomplice in these acts. He also put the European Union in the position of continuing to fund anti-Semitic terror and genocide against its will. It is time for all the victims of the terrorists acts, (after Chris Patten was presented with the evidence and before he did anything about it), to sue him for every Euro he ever made. The plaintiffs may also include the EU itself, since his deliberate inaction made them unwilling financers of terror and murder. It is also time for Chris Patten to be tried as an accomplice to mass murder as well as serial murder, terror and genocide. A case can be made that he prevented any investigation with malice aforethought. Let him be an example to a previously uncaring world and to future bureaucrats with personal genocidal and anti-Semitic agendas: NEVER AGAIN! (On a happier note, a big TRES BON! to France for investigating Yasser Arafat's money trail.) *http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=57792 Beth Goodtree is an essayist who writes both serious and satirical political commentary. |
|
SAUDIS WARNED AGAINST CELEBRATING VALENTINE'S DAY
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 14, 2004. |
|
This is not a spoof. It was written by Khaled Al-Awadh, and appeared
in today's Arab News, which bills itself as "the Middle East's
Leading English Language Daily." The Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php) website spotted the news item and said this: "The ruling oil ticks of the House of Saud, in the world center of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance, are cracking down hard on any Saudis caught celebrating St. Valentine's Day... The article doesn't say which body part gets lopped off for violating this edict." BURAIDAH, 14February 2004 - Saudi religious authorities have warned the public against celebrating Valentine's Day or selling gifts related to the feast, Al-Riyadh reported yesterday. "It is a pagan Christian holiday and Muslims who believe in God and Judgment Day should not celebrate or acknowledge it or congratulate people on it," an edict issued by the Fatwa Committee said. "There are only two holidays in Islam - Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha - and any other holidays, whether to celebrate an individual, group or event, are inventions which Muslims are banned from," said the committee, headed by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh. Some Friday prayer leaders gave sermons warning of the dangerous effects of the day on young Muslims. "Celebrating such an event will create an identity crisis in the minds of our youngsters," said one religious leader. "Any Muslim who celebrates this day is not fully aware of the first chapter of the Holy Qur'an we read in every prayer," he added. "A Muslim is prohibited from celebrating, approving or congratulating on this occasion," said the ruling issued by the Fatwa Committee. Supporting others to celebrate the day such as buying or selling Valentine's items, presenting gifts or making festival food falls in the category of approval. Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith, president of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, has also issued a warning against celebrating Valentine's Day or the 'feast of love.' Al-Ghaith has instructed his officials all over the Kingdom to keep a watch on shops selling roses and other gift items to celebrate the occasion. "You should also enlighten Saudi citizens on the danger of this custom, which is alien to our society, and make them aware of its negative effect," Al-Madinah daily quoted the religious police chief as saying. The late Sheikh Muhammad Al-Othaimeen had issued an edict against celebrating the day and the edict had been widely circulated among Muslims. "A Muslim should be proud of his religion and do not imitate others blindly," Al-Othaimeen said. The occasion seems trivial to youths in Qasim. "I know it but I disdain it," said a 23-year-old Ahmad Al-Mutairy. "The Internet is full of such triviality. Only fools will fall into such traps," he added. "Our religion is very clear in this matter. We only celebrate two occasions every year at the end of Ramadan and during pilgrimage. Anyone who adopts another culture is very weak and misguided," said another young man. Waleed Al-Anazi attributed the spread of such un-Islamic attitudes to the information age such as the Internet and satellite television. "We have a great need to create an awareness of the importance of identity and self-respect among the young," he said adding it is the responsibility of parents and schools. |
|
AP-PA LLED
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, February 14, 2004. |
|
When it comes to Mid-East reporting, more often than
not, it appears that AP (the Associated Press) is nothing more than a
a mirror image of the PA (Palestinian Authority). This is reflected in
both the writings and photographs being disseminated by the
"reputable" news service.
One simple sentence found in an AP story that was carried by Foxnews.com on February 12th, contained five gross inaccuracies. The sentence reads as follows: In more than three years of fighting, 455 people have died in homicide bombings carried out by Hamas and other militant factions. (the full article can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111193,00.html) Using the term "fighting" as opposed to "terrorist activity" levels the playing field and neutralizes the sinister nature of what has clearly been, and continues to be, a campaign of terror launched against the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. Is AP implying that Israeli civilians are active participants/fighters in a battle which marks them as fair game for homicide bombings? Are terrorist tactics aimed at civilians an accepted and legitimate military strategy - If that's the case, then I guess this is just a bloody but equitable contest between compliant Jewish bus passengers and determined Arab combatants. No terror, no victims, no guilt. The staff at AP have serenely embraced and, at times, seem to subliminally encourage the violence of the region - at least when it's directed towards the Jews. Nobody ever gets killed here in Israel. People simply "die". The impact of 500 pounds of explosives and shrapnel ripping through human flesh never kills. Life just gently passes away from dismembered and burnt bodies. I guess if people were "killed", then there would have to be killers. Well, far be it for AP to paint the Palestinian Arabs as guilty of murderous outrages against innocent Israelis. By the way, the "people" who have simply "died" in that ambiguous sentence, happen to be Israelis, but AP is loathe to tell you that. People are people, right? No good guys, no bad guys, no victims, no aggressors - just "people". Ain't life beautiful? Not so fast...AP is being neither PC nor liberally humanistic, as the same article mentions some form of the word "kill" six times in reference to what Israeli's have done to Palestinians. 455 "people" have not "died" in more than three years of "fighting". But, close to 1000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab terrorists since the escalation of violence which began in September 2000. Israel's Ministry of foreign affairs puts the figure at 934. If AP has any doubt, they can go to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ia50 and count the names, review the ages and read the particulars. Perhaps AP employs an accountant from the PA who specializes in damage control. I suppose, in theory, one could slash in half the number of Israelis killed and arrive at a figure of 455 by deducting those who were murdered in standard non-suicidal bombings or shootings, stabbings, grenade attacks, etc... But why would AP find it necessary to compartmentalize the methods of violence or, for that matter, itemize the various Palestinian terrorist factions? It adds nothing to the article other than minimizing and whitewashing the truth. More and more Palestinian terrorist groups are launching joint atrocities, so the meticulous divisions of labor don't really matter -they never did. Is AP in the business of reporting the news or do its interests lie in confounding the public and obscuring the facts? One has to wonder. The last word of the sentence is "miltary factions". I perused the article and desperately looked for a term that closely resembled terrorists". I came up empty- handed. But I did manage to find the following highly creative list: militant, groups, cells, militant groups, militant factions, military wing, and my personal favorite (sic) is "masked men in military-style uniforms." It's time AP took a good look in the mirror. They may be surprised to see a keffiyah-draped ugly face - with a stubbly beard and trembling lips - staring back and smiling at them. "Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?" You can be sure it's neither the AP nor the PA. Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter, writer and co-founder of helpingisrael.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com |
|
THE NATURE OF THE BEASTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 14, 2004. |
|
The Arabs in Beirut and Gaza not only rejoiced at their men's return
from Israeli prisons, but they celebrated a victory over the Israelis,
who swapped about 429 live and 59 dead terrorists, for one live and
three dead Israelis.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese terrorists being flown to freedom in an Israeli Air Force jet deliberately ripped apart their seats, without repercussions (or much publicity). Thus, while the Arabs show themselves bestial and defiant, the Israelis show themselves too timid to tame them. Israel is in a dangerous, self-destructive state of mind. Actually, only a minority of Israelis thinks that peace with Israel's Arab neighbors can be achieved, but that minority is running the country (Steve K. Walz, Jewish Press, 2/6, p.70). Israel missed the opportunity to cancel the deal, amid great publicity, because the terrorists still are too violent to be permitted to go at large. Israel rarely uses opportunitis to show the Arab terrorists for what they are. Israel lacks the imagination and the combativeness. It is too civilized to deal with barbarians. Its leadership is suborned by friends of the barbarians. Who are those friends of the barbarians? One calls itself the honest broker. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
DO ISRAELI POLICIES CAUSE ANTI-SEMITISM?
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 14, 2004. |
|
This essay is taken from "Myths and Facts Online - A Guide to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Mitchell G. Bard,
http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org. A paperback edition of Myths and
Facts can be ordered directly at the Jewish Virtual Library website
(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/mythsorder6.html).
MYTH #131 "Israeli policies cause anti-Semitism." FACT Anti-Semitism has existed for centuries, well before the rise of the modern State of Israel. Rather than Israel being the cause of anti-Semitism, it is more likely that the distorted media coverage of Israeli policies is reinforcing latent anti-Semitic views. As writer Leon Wieseltier observed, "the notion that all Jews are responsible for whatever any Jews do is not a Zionist notion. It is an anti-Semitic notion." Wieseltier adds that attacks on Jews in Europe have nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. To blame Jews for anti-Semitism is similar to saying blacks are responsible for racism. Many Jews may disagree with policies of a particular Israeli government, but this does not mean that Israel is bad for the Jews. As Wieseltier noted, "Israel is not bad for the Jews of Russia, who may need a haven; or for the Jews of Argentina, who may need a haven; or for any Jews who may need a haven" (Leon Wieseltier, "Israel, Palestine, and the Return of the Binational Fantasy," The New Republic, October 24, 2003). As noted in the fact about criticism of Israel, taking issue with Israeli policies is acceptable if you do so because you believe that a) Israel has the right to exist, and b) that changes will make Israel a better place. In fact, such criticism, by Israelis, can be found in the Israeli media every day. Criticism crosses the line, however, when it delegitimizes Israel and is intended to weaken rather than strengthen its institutions. |
|
CHIRAC'S FRENCH KISS
Posted by Communade Juive France, February 13, 2004. |
|
This was written by Adar Primor and appeared in Haaretz.
If you are planning to visit Paris next week, maybe you should reconsider. Because of the "rising tide of anti-Semitism?" On the contrary. Because of the "I love Israel" parade. Next Monday, President Moshe Katsav will be arriving in Paris for a state visit. His counterpart, Jacques Chirac, intends to greet him with a big bear hug and even halt all the traffic in the busy downtown area. In the 16th century, the Protestant King Henri IV declared that "Paris is well worth a Mass" (i.e., conversion to Catholicism). The sovereign sitting in the capital today believes that warmer relations with Israel are well worth giving irritable Parisian drivers a nervous breakdown. Israeli officials who flew to Paris recently to handle the logistics of the visit say that the French carpet has never been redder, and it's been a long while since the smiles of their colleagues have been so broad and their handshakes so firm. Chirac is apparently anxious to play the role of Jacques I, the leader of a monarchy that wants to show its esteem for the Jewish state. The president-king has sent for his royal horsemen, ordered the Israeli flag to be flown on the Champs Elysees and placed his private jet at the guest's disposal. The entire French leadership will take part in this rare display of hugs and smiles. Katsav will take advantage of these warm sentiments to convey a message in three main spheres: Bilateral relations - Katsav will emphasize the importance Israel attaches to strengthening ties with France. He will express appreciation for France's efforts to build a new relationship that is no longer a hostage to the ups and downs of the peace process. Chirac will remind us that since the inauguration of the Raffarin government in the spring of 2002, the two countries have launched a whole series of projects and binational accords involving collaboration in science, commerce, education and culture. He will point out that the French still have more to offer. These projects and your visit here today, he will tell Katsav, are proof that whatever the disagreements, France is a true friend of Israel. Chirac will remind him of his country's role in establishing the State of Israel and its commitment to Israel's security. Internally, he will no doubt be asking himself how long it will take for this heating up of the "bilateral relations highway" to gain France some political leverage in the Middle East. The political process - Katsav will ask Chirac to use his considerable clout with the Arab countries and the Palestinians, and make his political support contingent on the cessation of terror. That is the only way to move forward on the road map you hold so dear, Katsav will say. Chirac may nod in agreement, but he will save the real dialogue on this subject for his talks with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose upcoming visit to Paris is now being worked out. Anti-Semitism - Katsav will express concern and warn against allowing legitimate criticism of Israel's policy to slide into views that imply a denial of its right to exist. The president will convey his appreciation for the vigorous action taken by the French authorities to deal with the scourge of anti-Semitism. Chirac will thank him for having faith in France and note that contrary to reports published in Israel, anti-Semitic incidents actually decreased in 2003 by 36 percent, also according to the figures of the Jewish community. Proportionally speaking, there are fewer anti-Semitic incidents in France than in the United States, Britain and other European countries. But this has not made France any less determined to fight the phenomenon, Chirac will say. A special interministerial committee that was established in November meets every month to discuss the issue from three angles: punishing offenders; promoting education and awareness of the Holocaust; and international cooperation. Katsav's visit will not spur France into changing its policies on Israel and the Middle East. In the long run, the future of French- Israel relations will be determined by the peace process. But the powerful message that the Chirac administration is trying to pass on to the people of Israel is one that is hard to ignore. While Muslim women in France are being ordered to remove their head scarves, flags emblazoned with the Star of David are being hoisted in the streets of Paris. And symbols, as we all know, have a tendency to penetrate deeply. This email was distributed by Communaute-Juive-France-owner@yahoogroupes.fr |
Posted by Voice of Judea, February 13, 2004. | ||
|
According to a poll published in Yediot Achronot a majority of
Israelis support the surrender of Gaza. In another survey published in
Yediot Achronot, a majority of Israelis feel that Israel is
self-destructing and that Israel is on the verge of economic and
social collapse.
Voice of Judea Commentary: Yes, the social, economic and security fabric of the state of Israel is rapidly unraveling. Only a society that is fully corrupt socially could support the expulsion of thousands of fellow citizens. The answer to Israel's economic and social woes is not to expel fellow Jews. The answer is to expel the Arab enemies. By doing so, Israel will restore security to the land. By restoring domestic peace and security, Israel will gain billions of dollars annually that are now wasted building walls and deploying troops. Not to mention the billions that Israel will gain when tourists return to Israel and regain their confidence in Israel. Much of the internal strife and stress created by constant fear of Arab terrorism would be extinguished. And the security pressure-cooker that causes so much domestic violence would be replaced with a calm and normal social climate. No, the answer is not to reward the terrorists by surrendering more land to them and by expelling our brothers and sisters. The answer is to unite and fight our common enemies. The website address of Voice of Judea is http://www.voiceofjudea.net. Subscribe by writing listmaster@voiceofjudea.net |
|
PETITION TO FREE BANGLADESH PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE SALAH SHOAIB CHOUDHURY
Posted by Dr. Richard L. Benkin, February 13, 2004. |
|
Dear friends,
As many of you know, I have been working over the past few months for the Release of my friend and colleague, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Bangladeshi jounalist whose only crimes are the advocacy of peace with Israel and understanding among Jews and Muslims. He was arrested as he was about to board a plane and make an historic flight to Israel, and has spoken out against the those who try to demonize the Jewish people. Despite international efforts on his behalf (which I do believe secured better living conditions and prevented the worst aspects of such an incarceration), the government now has seen fit to bring a charge of sedition. The fundamentalist press is again charging him with being a spy for Israel (Some even named me a member of the Israeli Mossad - to which I replied that if I'm all the Mossad has, the Mossad is in big trouble). The other day, Shoaib's brother called me from Bangladesh. (Sohail Choudhury has been our principle contact and has led the legal efforts on his brother's behalf). His home was attacked, and the police refused even to file a report. We must bring additional international focus on this case of injustice. Shoaib spoke up and stood up for us, at considerable personal risk. We must stand up for him. I have been in contact with my own and several other US congressional representatives, and they have gotten the U.S. State Department to "observe" the situation. If anyone can help galvanize their own representatives or others in the government or media, you will be doing a great mitzvah. I have been asked to speak to a few groups on this matter and certainly can provide (either as a speaker or via email) background material if you or others want. The other thing you can do is to sign the petition, CLICK HERE [Note: if the direct click doesn't work, the link is http://www.petitiononline.com/IFLAC102/petition.html ] And please pass it to everyone you know. It asks the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Canada to help free this captive. Bangladesh accounts itself as a democracy. As a participant in the writings and activities that are being used as the basis for my friend Shoaib's persecution, I can tell you that there is nothing there that any free country would consider worthy of its official time. PLEASE HELP ONE OF THE RIGHTEOUS MEN WHO STOOD UP FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN A WORLD WHERE TOO FEW DO. Dr. Richard L. Benkin Telephone: 847-922-6424
Mr. Choudhury is a senior journalist, a political analyst and editor of the Bangladash newspaper, "Weekly Blitz" (www.weeklyblitz.com). His soon-to-be-published book "Confession" investigates the rise of radical Islam in the Muslim countries. [Ed note: See also "Islamic Moderates," posted by Aryeh Zelasko, December 20, 2003 (the December 2003 Blog-Ed page) and "Another Suicide Bomber and a Question About Time," posted by Mr. Choudhury, October 14, 2003 (the October 2003 Blog-Ed page).] |
|
A PULLBACK THAT IS ALL RISK
Posted by Bryna Berch, February 13, 2004. |
|
This was an Op-Ed piece written by Yossi Ben Aharon; it appeared
in Maariv International (http://www.maarivintl.com).
The settlements in Gush Katif serve an important military function against terror. Furthermore, a thin Israeli army presence at the border with Egypt will invite pressure to put an international force in its place. Yisrael Galili was a Minister without Portfolio in Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin's government in the Seventies. He was also a stalwart of Achdut Ha'Avoda party - later a component of the present Labor Party - who identified strongly with the activist left. "At any point in our relations with Egypt,", Galili would say, "whether it be at war, a cease-fire, or a full peace, it is essential, of critical importance, that we control the border at Rafah, from the sea to the desert sands in the south. We must prevent, at all cost, the creation of territorial continuity from Egypt through the Sinai and Gaza Strip, up to Ashkelon. We were already in that situation once before, and we almost lost our country." Galili emphasized the strategic danger that could arise from Egypt through the Strip. What he didn't foresee was that the Strip would, with its 1.25 million Arab residents, turn into a demographic time bomb. Galili envisioned Jewish settlements in the area, a permanent civilian presence, not a permanent garrison. He knew what Sharon and Mofaz have apparently forgotten. That a military deployment in the area of Rafah, without the buffer of the Gaza settlements, would let the enemy surround IDF soldiers front and back. Evacuating the settlements will give terrorist organizations in the Strip an enormous boost in morale. Weapons smuggling through the Sinai, and the terrorist war of attrition on our soldiers will make their lives hell. Furthermore, a thin military presence on the border with Egypt, where confrontations have already taken place, will invite Arab and international pressure to replace IDF soldiers there with an international force. The complete ineffectiveness of any force of this kind has proven itself time and time again. Officers who have served in the Gaza Strip are well aware of the important military purpose the settlements in Gush Katif serve, but they must keep their opinions to themselves, because the authorities above them say: "You can't see the forest for the trees.". I once heard an officer, speaking in a private forum, say that the Gaza settlements are of critical importance to the army in fighting Palestinian terror. The Jewish settlements provide a commanding position over main arteries and vast open spaces = providing an important defense on the ground; they prevent freedom of movement for enemy agents; they sometimes provide a launch pad for army activities or a cover for operations, and they make it easier for the army to blend in with the terrain. They suffer constant terrorist attacks that would otherwise be directed at targets within the Green Line. The settlers pay a heavy price and face daily risk to their lives. And most of them do this out of their own free will, despite the daily defamation and de-legitimization they are subjected to by the Left. Recently, Israel appears in the foreign press - and not necessarily in hostile countries - as a country that was once a self-confident regional superpower with a clear policy, but that has now become a weak entity, whose leaders have lost their way. Withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, even if it is accompanied by a chorus of praise for the "peace of the brave", will put Israel's citizens in existential danger and will bring Israel's reputation and standing to the lowest ebb. |
|
A GUSH KATIF SALAD FOR THE GUINESS BOOK OF RECORDS
Posted by Dror Vanunu, February 13, 2004. |
|
In keeping with tradition, the cultural center of Gush Katif,
(Hamatnas), organized the annual Tu B'shvat nature event for the
children of Gush Katif. The children took part in baking 'pitot',
squeezing fruits, planting virtual trees in the computer and creating
wall paintings. The main innovative event this year was the
preparation of the biggest insect-free vegetable salad in the country!
Many of the region's agriculturists contributed their produce to this
giant salad. Afterward, the salad was packed in personal boxes and was
delivered to the I.D.F. soldiers who serve in our area.
Reuven Rivlin, the chairman of the Knesset, came to Gush Katif on February 12, 2004, to show his support for the Gush Katif inhabitants. During his visit he planted a tree in Neve Dekalim, accompanied by dozens of the village children. The secretary of the Knesset's visit is part of the Hof-Aza Regional Council program, which plans to put pressure on Ministers and Knesset members to oppose Sharon and his dangerous plan. In Israel in the past few days, the resistance to the Sharon plan has increased. The Chief of Staff, Moshe (Bugi) Yaalon's made a determined declaration to the effect that the evacuation of Gush Katif will add fuel to the fire of terror. In the past few days, many more people have also spoken out against the plan. Avi Dichter, who is head of the GSS; Aharon Zeevi Farkash, who heads the intelligence branch; as well as some American and European politicians have also made statements against the plan. Astoundingly, even Yossi Beilin described this program as a prize for Hamas. The cultural think-tank of Gush Katif is already planning some original activities to commemorate Tu Bishvat next year,including an invitation to the Guiness Record Judges to view and record the most enormous salad ever prepared This will be possible in light of the many families that are planning to move to Gush Katif this coming year Dror Vanunu lives in Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. He is a member of the Hof-Aza Regional Council. |
|
U.S. CENSUS 2000 ON THE ARAB AMERICAN POPULATION
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, February 13, 2004. |
|
It comes as somewhat of a surprise that both political
parties are so intent upon obtaining the Arab vote in this country. Of
course, every vote and every ethnic group is important - either
because of their numbers or the amount of funds they contribute to the
political party.
Evidently, some of the political strategists mentioned have been mislead by notoriously inflated numbers as to the number of Arabs there are in the country and specifically in the Metro Detroit area. Coincidentally, Larry Witham, in the Washington Times, reported the results of an independent, extremely reliable survey conducted of the Religious Congregations and Membership of 2000. The every-decade survey, a project since 1966 of the Glenmary Home Missioners, a Catholic organization in Cincinnati, is considered the most reliable database on religious affiliation at the county level. Its findings were based upon the number of Muslims affiliated with America's more than 1000 mosques. The number came to 1.6 million, far below the estimates of 7 million put out by Islamic groups. Understandably, the pro-Arab Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took great exception to these numbers that negates a great deal of their supposed political influence. In fact, Mr. Witham reported that other national surveys have also argued that the U.S. Muslim population is below 2 million. In the Detroit, Michigan area a similar situation transpires with a serious inflation of supposed population numbers. The Detroit Free Press in May 2001 reported on an Arab American, Abed Hammoud, possibly running for Mayor of Dearborn - the area where we have been told repeatedly is the home to 200-300,000 Arabs. The article surprisingly reported that the area has in fact only 59,000 Arab residents with just 17% are registered to vote. What percentage of these voters actually vote is another consideration. For people interested in accuracy, the United States Census for 2000 came out with the following numbers. The census states that the Arab population of the United States is 1.25 million people, up from the 940,000 of the 1990 census but not quite the 3-7 million claimed. Metro Detroit has 92,328 up from 59,029 in 1990 but not quite the 400,000 claimed! Dearborn, Michigan, the epicenter of the Arab population is up to 29,344 from 14,000 but not to the 200,000 claimed. Finally, there is always the question of the reliability of polls. Has the pollster a political agenda of his own? Zogby International polling mentioned in the News article opines that 450,000 Arabs live in Michigan and that of these, 150,000-160,000 are registered voters. John Zogby, who runs Zogby International, also happens to be the brother of James Zogby, well known Arab American politically savvy propagandist. It would seem only prudent to have less politically attached pollsters run surveys on issues in which the Arab vote or reaction is involved. Jerome S. Kaufman runs the Israel Commentary website (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel-Commentary). |
|
ISRAEL PREPARES TO REPRESS JEWISH DISSIDENTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 13, 2004. |
|
The Israeli secret service warns that potential
threats against PM Sharon are increasing from "extremist Israeli
settlers." Were any threats actually made? No!
Instead, the government is making threats against settlers, especially the Kahanist ones. This seems to be the old government ploy of intimidating opposition to its policies. As Israel concedes more, it inspires the Arabs to attack more. The more the Arabs attack, the more the Israeli people see that it is not the Jews who should be expelled. The more the people reject government policy, the more they accept the opposition policy. The more attractive opposition policy becomes, the more the government tries to intimidate it. The government may be relying upon administrative arrests and re-arrests, without trials. "Maariv" reports that the secret service warned the girl friend of Kach activist Itamar Ben-Gvir to break off her relationship with him. She did. That is how the secret service protects Jewish women. It does not protect Jewish women from Arabs who masquerade as Jews, lure them into their villages, and turn them into sex slaves (Voice of Judea, 2/6, e-mail). Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
FROM PALESTINIAN TERRORIST TO CHRISTIAN ZIONIST
Posted by Michael Freund, February 13, 2004. |
|
A former Palestinian terrorist who took part in attacks against Israelis in the mid-1970s has now become a vocal pro-Israel Christian activist in the United States as part of his "repentance" for his past actions. "My first goal is to give strength to the Jewish people, to give encouragement, to get rid of this stupid idea of establishing a Palestinian state," Walid Shoebat told The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview from his West Coast home. "I had a change of heart, and I am now very Zionist. I tie myself to the God of Israel," he said. Shoebat, who was born in 1960 to a Palestinian Muslim father and an American Christian mother, was raised as a Muslim and spent much of his youth in the village of Beit Sahur, outside of Bethlehem, and later in Jericho. As a child in school, he says, he was indoctrinated to hate Jews. "I remember singing in school: 'Arabs are beloved, Jews are dogs.' We were taught that Jews are descendants of monkeys and pigs," he recalls. As a result of his education, Shoebat also refused to believe that the Holocaust had occurred. "I used to watch the Holocaust shows on Israeli television on Yom Hashoah with popcorn and laughter, because I did not believe it was true. I thought it was a fabrication. I wondered where they found these skinny actors to portray the victims," he now says with regret. Shortly thereafter, Shoebat began to take part in anti-Israel activities, proving adept at riling up crowds of demonstrators. "As a teenager, I was involved in a lot of rioting and demonstrating, particularly between the ages of 14 and 18. I threw stones at rabbis at the Western Wall and protested on the Temple Mount." After being inducted into a Palestinian terrorist group, Shoebat agreed to take part in his first attack. "I carried a loaf of bread with explosives in it and my mission was to destroy the Bank Leumi branch in Bethlehem," he says. But when he arrived at the site of his intended target, he saw a group of children playing outside and had second thoughts, "so I threw it on the roof of the bank. I walked away and a few minutes later heard an explosion. It shook me up greatly." His other brush with terrorism occurred in the mid-1970s, when Shoebat and a group of friends nearly beat an Israeli soldier to death in Bethlehem. They set upon the soldier, who was attempting to catch a stone-thrower. "We grabbed him, beat him with a club, and he was bleeding profusely. He was nearly killed," Shoebat says, his voice trembling with emotion. "He had a baton in his hand and swatted at us, and somehow he managed to get away." Shoebat was later arrested on other charges and served a few months in an Israeli prison. At the age of 18, he moved to the United States, where he became a pro-Palestinian activist in Chicago and raised funds for the PLO. But in 1993, after marrying a Catholic woman whom he had tried to persuade to convert to Islam, Shoebat's life took a sudden and highly unexpected turn. When his wife insisted he prove his assertion that the Jews had distorted the words of the prophets, Shoebat purchased a Bible and sat down to read it. The experience, he says, was an eye-opener for him, leading him to abandon Islam and adopt evangelical Christianity. "Muslims claim to believe in prophets such as Moses and David, but they do not know what they say. The only way to do so is to read the Bible," he asserts. When his family learned of his conversion, he was disowned and received death threats, and Shoebat is certain the PLO is planning his demise. Nevertheless, he is determined to make amends for his past actions. "I seek forgiveness for what I have done. My whole dream was to destroy Jews and to destroy the State of Israel." Now, he says, "I want to fight for Israel from both theological and political perspectives. Israel must never be divided," he insists, adding that, "I am very Zionist. I believe that Zionism is the process of Jews making aliya and going back to their land. I call myself a Christian Zionist." Shoebat has begun to appear before Jewish and Christian audiences in North America, preaching support for Israel and its retention of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, while categorically rejecting the idea of establishing a Palestinian state. "I pray for the continuation of the Israeli 'occupation' so that we can have peace. If we put our hands with Israel and say that we want to be part of Greater Israel, we could be a great people. The Palestinians could then be the greatest people in the Middle East," he says. But in order for that to happen, Shoebat argues, fundamental change needs to take place in Palestinian society, as an entire generation of Palestinian youth has been taught to hate the Jewish state. "The occupation is not Israel occupying the land which supposedly belongs to the Arabs," he says. "The true occupation is of the minds of Palestinians, of teaching them hatred for Jews. That is the real occupation. "My goal is to go back to Israel and to live there, and to have a program for the Palestinians, to un-brainwash them." This, he says, is essential if there is ever to be peace in the region. "The Jews don't speak up as much as they should, so I will speak up," says Shoebat. "Israel is a small state and the Muslim world is a giant. Nevertheless," he concludes, "if we, the Zionists, stand strong, then we will prevail. I am sure that we will win." The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu. This article was on the Jerusalem Post website (http://www.jpost.com) today. |
|
PA: ISRAEL IS "SATAN'S OFFSPRING," FOUNDED ON RACISM, PROTOCOLS
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, February 12, 2004. |
|
A top Palestinian Authority official insists that Israel has no right
to exist because it is "Satan's offspring," founded on theft and
racism.
In an interview broadcast Feb. 6 on PATV, Ahmad Nasser, Secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, asserts that Israel cannot exist "among human beings" because it was "founded on the basis of robbery, terror, killing, torture, assassination, death, stealing land and killing people." His comments reflect the PA's continuing campaign to challenge and deny Israel's right to exist. The interview also cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous Russian forgery that was presented as the Jews' secret plan to rule the world, as the basis for the recent exchange of 400 Arab prisoners for one Israeli and the bodies of three soldiers. Nasser says the prisoner exchange is part of Israel's plan to show that a Jewish life is worth more than an Arab life, and proves that Israel is a "racist country" that "hates all the goyim, all the foreigners." Here is the text of the interview: Ahmad Nasser, Secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as interviewed on PATV Feb. 6, 2004: Nasser: "Israel is not deterred from anything. Israel was established on the basis of theft. Israel, the State of Israel, is the Satan's offspring, a Satanic offspring. Israel was founded on theft from the first moment. It was founded on the basis of robbery, terror, killing, torture, assassination, death, stealing land and killing people. On this basis, Israel was founded and will continue this way, never able to exist because its [Israel's] birth was unnatural, a Satanic offspring, and cannot exist among human beings... Only in this way can Israel exist. It is not capable of existing naturally as other nations in the world." Woman Interviewer: "The very existence [of Israel] is unnatural, is not logical. The root, the root itself is rotten." Interviewer: "This concept appears in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that they [the Jews] are at a high level [of existence] and the rest are at a low level." Nasser: "... It [Israel] does all it can to take as many prisoners of war as it can, for example, 10,000 Arab prisoners in exchange for the release of a hundred [Israeli] prisoners of war. By this, Israel is trying to put a value on an Arab and a value on an Israeli or Jew... Israel is an aggressive country, a racist country, an ideologically hostile country, which hates all the goyim, all the foreigners. Israel is a Satanic offspring." Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il). Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative. [Ed note: Item in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com), February 16: "U.S. President George Bush has long talked of his vision for "two states living side by side," and Prime Minister Sharon has given his assent as well - but the question is whether the Palestinian Authority agrees. A recent interview with a top Palestinian Authority official shows that Israel has still not earned the PA's respect for its right to exist."] |
|
YES, JEWS DO ENGAGE IN ANTI-SEMITIC BEHAVIOR
Posted by IsrAlert, February 12, 2004. |
|
This was written by Edward I. Koch, former mayor of New York City and
appeared
in the Jewish World Review website (http://www.jewishworldreview.com)
Feb. 12, 2003/20 Shevat, 5764.
Of all the anti-Semitic slurs, one of the most outrageous is that Jews secretly control the world. This false and foolish accusation has been heard many times. In March, 1997, the black Muslim cleric, Louis Farrakhan, said on CNN's "Evans and Novak" that Jews "meet once a year or so in Hollywood or in Park Avenue to look at the trends of America and the world. And if there are trends they do not like, then they write scripts, they write movies, they write books. They do things to influence the trends. And that is why I intend to stay on this path until there's some change made. Black people are going to be free of Jewish control." Farrakhan's fabrication about Jewish power and secret conspiracies is an updated version of the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a forgery created by the Russian Czar's secret police to incite pogroms - organized massacres against Jews. Even Henry Ford used the "Protocols" to support his well-financed rant against Jews during the days when he was rising to prominence through the production and sale of his Model-T Ford. A comparable attack on Jews was made by Pat Buchanan in 1990, when he referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." On "The McLaughlin Group," Buchanan said, "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States" with a litany of Jewish names. Last week we heard yet another version of the same old lie, this time from Tom Friedman in his February 5th column in The New York Times. Friedman, alleging that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are secretly controlled by Jews, wrote, "...Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates?" There are those who say it's paranoid to accuse a fellow Jew of an anti-Semitic remark. I don't think so. Let me cite another example: Bob Novak, a Jew by birth who converted to Catholicism and now defines himself as a "cultural Jew." Over the years Novak's constant attacks on Israel have been, I believe, thinly disguised attacks on Jews. To cite but one example, on his Nov. 24th show, Novak went ballistic on Israel. While discussing the Israeli assassination of Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, a senior military leader of Hamas who was directly responsible for dozens of Israeli civilian deaths, Novak denounced Prime Minister Sharon for ordering his execution. Novak's colleague, Margaret Carlson, called Hanoud a terrorist, and Novak defended him as a freedom fighter. Carlson responded, "Bob, ...you're the only person who would call Hamas freedom fighters." Novak rejoined with, "Oh, no; people all over the world do." Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, put it well when he stated, "Those who only find fault with the Jewish people, the Jewish State and the actions of the Jewish sovereignty and never find anything that is positive are anti-Semites under the guise of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel." Now comes Tom Friedman, often proclaimed as an expert on the Mideast. When President Bush, Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and, to a lesser extent, Secretary of State Colin Powell, come to the conclusion that it is in the national interest of the United States to support Israel, it must be, according to Friedman in his column of last week, because they have been brainwashed by "Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists." Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is so powerful, according to Friedman, that Cheney is "ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates." Ridiculous. Dick Cheney is a man of enormous competence and intellectual ability with an established record of achievement and service to the nation. To suggest, as Friedman does, that he is selling out the country is an enormous disservice to Mr. Cheney and indeed to any public servant. Did Friedman think President Bush was a puppet of the Arabs when, according to The New York Times, his father "telephoned Crown Prince Abdullah to assure him that his son's 'heart is in the right place' and that he was 'going to do the right thing' when it came to the Middle East?" Tom Friedman, who is full of himself, believes he can resort to the anti-Semitic slur of secret Jewish control, and avoid criticism because he is a Jew. In reality, Friedman disgraced himself and his newspaper. His false words, coming at a time when anti-Semitism is skyrocketing worldwide, are particularly irresponsible and repulsive. If he is capable of feeling shame, I hope he feels it now IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
DIE HAS (HASS, HATE, IN GERMAN) BY HAARETZ'S 'AMIRA HASS'
Posted by Marco Delmar, February 12, 2004. |
|
HASS = HATE!
HASS, as in Amira Hass, supplier of material to other haters. HASS - Amira Hass - the source for Islamo Arab militaristic agitators who tell us, "You Israelis are incriminating yourselves. See Amira Hass." HASS - Amira Hass - the best rationalizer for Arab Muslims, ages 8-80, killing Jews. HASS - Amira Hass - the best source for fanatical leftists all over the world "understanding" and "sympathizing" with Arab terrorists targeting innocent babies. HASS - Amira Hass - All the hate websites pump fuel out of 'Haaretz's Amira Hess'. HASS - Amira Hass - who has not learned from the Arab Muslim massacre on lefty 'Netzer' Kibbutz's kids that Arab Muslim militant couldn't care less if you are a 'Zionist', a 'right-winger,' a lefty, or a [so called, Why? Beats me!] "peacenick." HASS - Amira Hass - the most Anti-Jewish spewing fountain Israel has ever had. Does Haaretz even realize the damage it's doing? A few questions: 1) What does "innocent palestinians" mean? Is it to suggest that Israel does not differentiate between the armed and unarmed? 2) Where are the missing words in this article? Amira Hass' life-endangering words sabotage the life-saving-FENCE by making ugly bloody political "statements." 3) Where are the items in the article about Israel's humanitarian projects as it walks a most difficult narrow line between saving Israeli babies and not hardening Arab Muslims' lives? 4) At this critical time when Islamo Arab radical propagandists use their most ugly tools - their despicable 'definitions,' labels out of WW2 and South. Africa - where's Ha'aretz, as a major Israeli newspaper, in all of this? 5) At a time that all the Arab Muslim media's united against humanizing the Israeli victims, where's Haaretz historic obligation in all of this? 6) Where's Haaretz when you need a voice for the victims of the Region, victims of the UN, victims of the media? Why does it only pour salt on the wounds of the injured! |
|
JESSICA MONTELL'S OP-ED ON HOW UNFAIR ISRAEL'S ANTI-TERRORIST
BARRIER IS TO THE ARABS
Posted by Jock L. Falkson, February 12, 2004. |
|
I wrote this letter to the Jerusalem Post.
"Don't hijack the security fence" is the title given to Jessica Montell's article in your issue of Feb. 10. I was disappointed in your choice of the "fence" word for your headline. That designation is quite wrong because the fence is just one of 7 elements making up Israel's anti-terrorist barrier. Strangely, Montell herself makes 17 references to "barrier" and only 3 for "fence." She carefully avoided "security barrier" to give the impression Israel's purpose was to make Arab lives miserable. As if the suicide terrorists were not the main factor in Israel's decision to build this costly, protective barrier. Montell's title is "the executive director of 'B'Tselem: the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories." Having read her article I can only conclude B'Tselem has been improperly named. More properly it should be labeled "the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Disputed Territories." Not that Israelis are all that enamored of "disputed territories" It is however, at least correct, whereas "occupied territories" is a wrong if clever PR ploy to befog the truth. For when Jordan withdrew from its so called "West Bank", after a drubbing by the IDF in 1967, the land naturally reverted to Israel, as originally intended by the League of Nations. Allow me to recall that US Secretary of State, James Baker, specifically disparaged the usage of "occupied" as inaccurate. He made it clear that "disputed" was correct from the US view. This should remain so until peace is signed between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The Johnny-come-lately Palestinians were never party to these resolutions. This then is the legal position - upheld by UN resolutions 242 and 338. Until Israel's future borders are mutually agreed in a peace agreement, Israel has every right to develop towns, villages, residential communities, and commercial and industrial areas there. And to build its anti-terrorist barrier where planned. Israel's borders will not be defined by B'Tselem the way Montell and her Arab friends wish. Nor by the International Court of Justice. This is a political matter to be resolved between the UN specified parties in 242 and 338. To reiterate, the Palestine Terrorist Authority is not one of these. Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net. |
|
THE CASE AGAINST ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 12, 2004. |
|
Gaza has been part of the Land of Israel since
biblical times. Jews were prominent there for hundreds of years
afterwards. Jews had to evacuate during the Greco-Syrian occupation,
Napoleon's invasion, the British bombardment in 1917, the 1929
pogroms, and the war in 1948, when Egyptian armor moved up the coast
along the Gaza Strip, destroying several Jewish towns in Gaza and
reaching 15 miles from Tel Aviv. The Jews always returned and
re-established communities there
The US Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that Israel had to keep most of the Golan Heights and Judea-Samaria and all of the Gaza Strip, in order to be able to defend itself. Possessing the Gaza Strip, Israel has eight miles of hostile border there. Without it, Israel would have 45 miles of hostile border to patrol. The Arabs would be able to introduce subversion and terrorism. The Gaza Strip is the traditional invasion route into the Land of Israel. Like the freeing of Arab terrorists largely in exchange for the bodies of Israelis they murdered, the proposed withdrawal from Gaza is an invitation to murder more Israelis. "Come closer to the towns of Israel, that you may pick us off," PM Sharon seems to be singing to them. Israelis should be preparing a case against Sharon (and others) for conspiracy to commit murder (Emanuel Winston, Jewish Press, 2/6, M4). The problem is, the conspirators run the country, and prepare cases against the patriots. There is no visible prospect of patriots gaining control, except when the catastrophic results of Labor-Likud policy strike Israel. Then the conspirators would flee the country with the millions of dollars they raked from it and from foreign paymasters. PM Sharon's confidante, Uri Dan, asserts that Sharon plans more "surprise" withdrawals, these from Judea-Samaria. PM Sharon's rationale is that he would withdraw less than other Prime Ministers would. That way he could retain the strategic Jordan Valley and half the settlements. Sharon explains that the retreats he proposes now from Gaza would be temporary, as opening bargaining positions. That means he would retreat further. Self-contradictorily, he contends that by retreating now, Israel would not have to retreat as much, later (IMRA, 2/3). PM Sharon argues that a unilateral, partial withdrawal would enable Israel to retain the rest of Judea-Samaria. He contradicts that by asserting that this scheme is the starting point for further withdrawals to be negotiated within the Road Map. Once Israel makes a partial withdrawal, foreign powers would take it as a demonstration that Israel can uproot more established communities. He argues that Israel should retreat before foreign parties impose an arrangement. However, since the foreign powers want Israel to retreat all the way to the Green Line, and let millions of Arabs into Israel rather than this new "state of their own," the foreign parties would continue to pressure Israel. The evacuated areas could provide a base for foreign forces and human shields to take up the terrorist side, without having to consult Israel. Sharon claims that it is better for Israel to isolate itself from the chaos he sees coming to the P.A.. What isolation? However much the terrorists vie among themselves, they would acquire weapons that shoot over the security fence that is bankrupting Israel. His plan is too grave to be accepted on the strength of his shallow justifications. Serious national discussion is needed (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 2/5). By initiating withdrawals, Israel cedes the moral claim on Yesha and demoralizes its own people. The Arabs do not accept Israeli claims or credit its good faith - this is war, this is jihad, this is not gentlemanly bargaining. The Arabs would demand the rest of Yesha. The US agrees with them. In sum, If Israel withdrew from Gaza, as PM Sharon proposes, it would be running away from the problem without solving it. Israeli withdrawal would lead to terrorist statehood, brutal persecution of other faiths, and an anti-American dictatorship with the right to import heavy arms with which to menace Israel. The Arabs would position their forces nearer to Israel. The Arabs would greatly be encouraged, as they were by the retreat from Lebanon. It would be wrong to reward terrorists, by withdrawing, and fitting to punish them, instead (IMRA, 2/3 from ZOA). Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
THE WASHINGTON POST: Israel Versus Jerusalem
Posted by CAMERA, February 12, 2004. |
|
A long and extensively-illustrated article by correspondent John Ward
Anderson deploring Israeli policy in Jerusalem dominated the National
and World News "A" section of the February 10 edition of the
Washington Post ("Israel Hems In a Sacred City; Encircling of
Jerusalem Complicates Prospects for Peace"). The feature, including
eight color photographs and three maps, spilled onto a full two inside
pages. The play given Anderson's report is extraordinary and the
report itself is consistently misleading. "Israel Hems In a Sacred
City" epitomizes journalist malpractice.
Major flaws: 1) Anderson's story omits essential information, suggesting throughout that Israel's malign policies in and around Jerusalem have crippled Arab population and community growth while Israel advances inexorably. Statistics showing the burgeoning of the Arab population would have cast the story in a dramatically different light. Thus, whereas in 1967, the non-Jewish population of Jerusalem was 26.6%, by December 2002, the percentage had grown to 34% in a total population of 680,400. 2) Anderson says "projects to cut off access to Jerusalem to Palestinians living in the West Bank, which borders the city on three sides, have accelerated since the start of the current Palestinian uprising in September 2000." This language highlights the reporter's inversion of cause-and-effect, which implies Israeli bad faith and mistreatment of the Arabs. The projects are not "to cut off access to Jerusalem" but to control it, excluding terrorists like those who have murdered nearly 900 Israelis and wounded - in many cases maiming for life (see "Suicide Bomb Survivors Face Worlds Blown Apart," by Keith Richburg, Washington Post Foreign Service, January 31) - more than 5,000. 3) Anderson does not report that Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs a West Bank and Gaza Strip state, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, in exchange for peace during negotiations at Camp David in 2000. Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority rejected the proposal and walked out without making a counter-offer. Two months later they launched their continuing terror war against Israel, which includes repeated mass murders in predominantly Jewish western Jerusalem. Only after hundreds of casualties in its capital did Israel begin construction of the barrier. By emphasizing the latter over the former, however, the reporter inverts cause-and-effect. 4) Anderson's point of departure, that Israel denies Arab access, seems to follow a central allegation of one of his sources, Jeff Halper. The reporter misidentifies Halper as "an Israeli human rights activist" and quotes him to support the claim that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goals probably are "to foreclose the possibility of any viable Palestinian state emerging ..." Halper's position on Israel's anti-Zionist fringe is well-known. He advocates a bi-national "one-state solution" amounting to the destruction of the Jewish state. Inappropriately mainstreaming Halper and quoting his anti-Sharon dig without properly informing readers of Halper's radical views, sets up another manipulative omission: Sharon has announced his willingness to negotiate establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that would exist in peace with Israel. He has warned of "painful concessions" by Israel, including withdrawal from nearly all of Gaza, provoking opposition within his governing coalition and his own Likud Party. Had the Palestinians kept their 1993 Oslo promises - including an end to violence, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement, and dismantling the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure - they already would have the state Halper insinuates Sharon means to prevent. 5) Anderson reiterates that the security barrier under construction "is designed to cordon off the West Bank [and] has split some Palestinian neighborhoods and separated many Palestinians from their schools, jobs, families and lands." The reporter does note that "Israeli officials say that several of the measures are designed to deter the movement of Palestinian terrorists ..." Deter terrorists, not "cordon off the territories"; numerous controlled crossing points are planned. 6) Palestinian allegations that Israel means to "break their religious, economic, political and cultural ties to the city and preempt negotiations over its final status" are repeated. No hint is given that before they rejected the Camp David offer and returned to violence, in violation of their 1993 Oslo Accords commitments, Palestinians exercised "religious, economic, and cultural," if not political, ties to the city. No mention is made of an epidemic of illegal Arab construction in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, documented by Justus Reid Weiner for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. This has taken place despite authorization of enough permits for new housing to more than meet the need. Anderson makes no mention that this illegal building has been subsidized by the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments as a political move to counter or deny Jewish claims in the city. Post readers do not learn that Arab housing construction in Jerusalem outpaced Jewish building after the city's reunification, growing at a rate of 122 percent compared to 113.5 percent("Arab Building in Jerusalem: 1967-1997," by Israel Kimhi). Anderson also ignores that Jews were denied their own ties to much of the city during Jordan's illegal occupation of eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, from 1948 to 1967. Unmentioned is the fact that Palestinian Muslim religious authorities have been busy, since the mid-1990s, physically destroying archaeological evidence of Jewish religious and cultural ties by unauthorized excavations on Temple Mount. 7) Anderson writes that "under the agreements that ended British rule in Palestine in 1948 and divided the region into Arab and Jewish areas, Jerusalem was to be an international city. But Israel's war for independence ended the following year with Israel in possession of the western part of the city ..." This is historical revisionism. No agreements "ended British rule in Palestine in 1948 and divided the region into Arab and Jewish areas." The 1947 U.N. partition plan would have done so, but the Arabs rejected it and went to war to abort the new Jewish state. That is, rather than accept a second Arab country in what had been British Mandatory Palestine (Jordan was the first) in exchange for a tiny Jewish state confined to the eastern Galilee, coastal plain and part of the Negev, Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League rejected the proposed division. The Jews accepted it. The Jews ended up "in possession of the western part of the city" partly because they had built most of it and were already there, and partly because they successfully defeated Arab attempts to conquer them and force them out - as happened in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. 8) Anderson writes that "in the 1967 Middle East war, Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem ..." The reporter does not mention that Israel acted only after informing Jordan it would not attack unless the latter joined Egypt and Syria in war against it; Jordan replied by shelling Jewish west Jerusalem. He does not mention that Jordan renamed Judea and Samaria "the West Bank" after illegally occupying it in 1948. 9) Anderson writes of the Camp David talks in 2000 that "Ehud Barak [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's predecessor, appeared to accept a U.S. proposal that would have given Palestinians control over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, but the negotiations collapsed. Angered at his concessions, several partners in Barak's government bolted, and the coalition fell apart." More revisionism. Barak did not "appear to accept." It was afterall an Israeli-U.S. proposal; Barak therefore "offered" a proposal. As noted above, the negotiations did not inexplicably collapse - Arafat and the PA rejected the deal and walked out, making no counter-offer. Barak's coalition had fractured before the Camp David talks, after cabinet members from parties other than Barak's Labor party warned the prime minister against conceding not just control of the Temple Mount but nearly all the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But responsibility for failure at Camp David rests with the Palestinians. Summary: Palestinian inconveniences, difficulties, and losses brought on by Israel's security barrier are detailed and personalized. No similar treatment is given Jewish settlers or officials, who appear bureaucratic, conniving, or unfeeling. In these cases, cause-and-effect are not so much inverted as ignored altogether. Nevertheless, it must be noted that had the Palestinians met their 1993 Oslo obligations they would have been able to negotiate a West Bank and Gaza Strip state by the envisioned 1998 settlement date; if they had accepted the 2000 Camp David offer they would have had a state on virtually all the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital. Contrary to The Post's presentation, the Palestinians' problems are of their own making. No news occasioned this extraordinary article. Unless timed to appear in conjunction with an Israeli Supreme Court case and pending consideration of Israel's security barrier by the U.N.'s International Court of Justice - neither are mentioned - the piece must be considered a feature. Even so, corrupted by the errors, omissions, and apparent sympathies noted above, it probably should have appeared - if at all - as a commentary in The Post's Sunday "Outlook" section. CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - monitors the media for anti-Israel bias. Its website address is http://www.camera.org. |
|
CELEBRATING 9/11 AT THE FBI
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 12, 2004. |
|
Other than 2 or 3 "Whistleblowers", have any FBI employees been fired
for their ineptitude? And what about those BILLIONS of taxpayer's
dollars that were paid to the Federal government for SERVICES NOT
RENDERED? If a "mere citizen" or "subject" had taken money for
services never fulfilled, they be charged with fraud, imprisoned, and
their assets liquidated to re-pay those who had been bilked. Should
the US Taxpayer expect any less?
This was written by Paul Sperry and appeared yesterday on the Front Page Magazine website (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com). Formerly of Investor's Business Daily, he is Washington bureau chief of WorldNetDaily.com and author of the new book "Crude Politics." It is of interest that even though the FBI complains it has a problem finding people to translate its growing stack of Arabic material, it rejected a large number of Arabic-speaking Jews as translators. I guess they feel they are getting more accurate translations from their Arab employees. You can express your concerns to the FBI directly: FBI Washington
When linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds showed up for her first day of work at the FBI, a week after the 9-11 attacks, she expected to find a somber atmosphere. Instead, she was offered cookies filled with dates from party bowls set out in the room where other Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance translate terror-related communications. She knew the dessert is customarily served in the Middle East at weddings, births and other celebrations, and asked what the happy occasion was. To her shock, she was told the Arab linguists were celebrating the terrorist attacks on America, as if they were some joyous event. Right in front of her supervisor, one translator cheered: "It's about time they got a taste of what they've been giving the Middle East." She found out later that it was her supervisor's wife who helped organize the office party there at the bureau's Washington field office, just four blocks from the J. Edgar Hoover Building. "This guy's wife brought the date-filled cookies for the celebration," Edmonds, 33, recalled. At the time, the supervisor, Mike Feghali, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Beirut, was in charge of the FBI's Turkish and Farsi desks. But he's been promoted since then, and now also runs the all-important Arabic desk, which is key to intercepting the next al-Qaida plot. It gets worse. The language service squad is the front line in the FBI's war on terrorism, collecting all foreign language tips, information and terrorist threats to homeland security. Agents act on what the squad translates and reports. The sooner they get the information, the sooner they can thwart terrorist attacks. Investigators had missed clues to both the 2001 and 1993 World Trade Center attacks because they were buried in a backlog of untranslated wiretaps and documents in Arabic. Despite the backlog, Feghali told Edmonds and other translators to just let the work pile higher, according to Edmonds. Why? Money. She says Feghali, who has recruited family and friends to work with him at the high-paying language unit, argued that Congress would approve an even bigger budget for it if they could continue to show big backlogs. "We were told to take long breaks, to slow down translations, and to simply say 'no' to those field agents calling us to beg for speedy translations so that they could go on with their investigations and interrogations of those they had detained," said Edmonds, who was fired without specified cause by the FBI after she reported breaches in security, mistranslations and potential espionage by Middle Eastern colleagues. She claims Feghali actually tampered with her work to slow her down. "My supervisor went as far as getting into my work computer and deleting almost completed work so that I had to go back and start all over again," she said. Edmonds, a Turkish-American who is not a practicing Muslim, made the allegations last month in a 9-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. She also claims that Feghali threatened to sue the bureau for racial discrimination, but dropped the suit once the bureau promoted him, says Edmonds and other sources. The FBI, which like the army suffers from a severe shortage of Arabic translators, instated a bureau-wide Muslim-sensitivity training program after 9-11. Reached by phone at his Maryland home, Feghali was brusque and refused to talk about the allegations. "I'm not at liberty to discuss this thing, OK?" he said before abruptly hanging up. The spokesperson for the FBI's Washington field office, Debbie Weierman, did not return repeated phone calls. Feghali, who holds several foreign language degrees, has been an FBI language specialist for several years. He was a key translator in the government's case against al-Qaida operatives charged in the U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, and even testified in court. Sources say he is planning to move back to Lebanon. A key player in the 9-11 plot and the likely pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, the suicide plane that crashed apparently en route to the U.S. Capitol, was Ziad Samir Jarrah, a Lebanese. Edmonds has also complained about Feghali and other Middle Eastern translators to the Justice Department inspector general. And on Wednesday, she is scheduled to give a detailed briefing to members of the 9-11 commission in a secure room here. She claims terrorist "investigations are being compromised," and has demanded an independent probe of the FBI's language department. "If there were, and are, persons within the language department that either intentionally prevented translation because of their agendas, or persons who were, and are, not qualified to properly translate, it is likely that terrorist communications prior to 9-11 were missed; and it is likely that current and future terrorist communications will likewise be missed," Edmonds wrote Justice's Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a Jan. 5 letter. "I have alleged, and the FBI has confirmed (to Senate investigators), that there are in fact such persons in the language department." Fine still has not released the findings of his internal probe, even though Edmonds first filed her complaint with his office almost two years ago. Speaking for Fine, Justice official Carol Ochoa said the investigation is "still ongoing." "We are working hard to complete it expeditiously," she said in a Jan. 6 letter to Edmonds. |
|
SUPPORT THE ONLY MIDDLE EAST DEMOCRACY: End $200 Million For PLO Terror!
Posted by Marion D.S. Dreyfus, February 12, 2004. |
|
Dear Mr. President:
An article in Reuters this week reports that Suha Arafat has bank accounts exceeding $11 million dollars in her plush digs in Paris. The article also points out that over $900 million dollars have been squirreled out of the PLO and the corrupt malfeasant, Arafat, in the past 5 years. Much of this money must be purloined from monies supplied by the US to help the so-called suffering of those under the unregenerate master killer, Yasir Arafat. Since Arafat does not work, and thus has no salary except money he extorts from his followers or thralls, where else but from the US - and the self-duped EU - do his improbable millions come? Why are my tax monies going to make Suha Arafat's croissants and cafe au lait more regal and better couched? What is the US citizen getting for his and her dollar except the murder of innocents, blown up in terror incidents and targeted devices that murder our soldiery? Why is the US government still underwriting vicious combatants who will not renounce their appalling commitment to murder, mayhem, destruction and savagery? On Thursday, January 29, a 24-year-old Palestinian Authority policeman from Bethlehem named Ali Ja'arah, blew himself up on a bus in Jerusalem. He killed 11 innocent Israelis and severely wounded many others. As an official P.A. policeman, this homicide bomber's salary came from the Palestinian Authority which your administration funds at a rate exceeding 200 million dollars annually. I think you should express your outrage at this ongoing Islamic terror by ending all U.S. funding of the PLO. That would not only be the ethical course, but a politically advantageous course as well. If you were bold enough to say you had tried but failed to wean the PLO away from its terrorist ways, and that you were therefore not going to send the PLO another dime, you would likely be attacked by Senator Kerry for doing so. And that would give you a wonderful political opportunity. You could then campaign along the following line, and be supported by the vast majority of American voters: Do you want over 200 million dollars of your hard earned tax dollars to go to Arafat's reign of Islamic terror each year or not? If you want those hundreds of millions to continue to flow Arafat's way, and for the salaries of future homicide bombers to be paid on time, vote for Kerry. If you want it to stop, vote for me. You would have the more popular side of that question, and that could provide you your margin of victory in a close electoral contest this November. There is so much for you to gain, and so little for you to lose, by cutting off all U.S funding of the PLO. Why not do it now? Sincerely, ccl: vice.president@whitehouse.gov
Marion D.S. Dreyfus is a journalist, and is currently in Wuchan, China, where she teaches at the University and does a radio talk show. |
|
AL-QAEDA TARGETTED RABBI KAHANE
Posted by Sergio Adir Gad Ovadiah Tezza (Hadar), February 11, 2004. |
|
This article was written by Shelomo Alfassa. Chronologically, it encompasses
the time between Rabbi Meir Kahane's murder and 9/11.
World War III - Islam against the world - began November 5, 1990, with the shooting of Rabbi Meir Kahane. As Rabbi Kahane finished speaking at a conference at the Marriott Hotel, an Arab named Sayyid Nosair rushed toward the stage and fired a single, fatal shot. As Kahane collapsed, he raised one finger towards heaven, silently reciting the Shema. Sayyid Nosair was captured and taken into custody. Sayyid Nosair was acquited of the assassination by a Manhattan jury on Dec. 21, 1991. [Sergio's note: Nosair was given only 5 years on weapons charges; this was changed to twenty because of Giuliani's intervention. The excuse for not condemning Al Qaida terrorist Nosair for murder was "reasonable" doubt that the real cause of death was the bullet-wound in the neck and not heart failure by fear causing cardiac arrest after the Rav was shot - all because there was no autopsy on the Rav because it is forbidden by Halakha. After retiring, the presiding judge called the jury's verdict the "...most incredible miscarriage of justice he had ever seen in his career as a judge..." (see the movie "Jihad in America").] A police search of Nosair's home after his arrest yielded a "treasure trove of information," according to Ed Norris, then the chief of New York Police Department detectives. What they found were clues to an Islamic terrorist cell operating on U.S. soil - Arabic-language terrorist manuals, bomb-making instructions, videotapes and photographs of New York City landmarks. Although Sayyid Nosair was acquitted, he was sentenced to life in prison after he was convicted in a new trial of involvement in the assassination and of conspiracy to commit terrorism in the USA. Sayyid Nosair was a core member of the Mosque which was run by the Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman - the blind sheikh. Omar Abdel Rahman was one of the main operatives the CIA had utilized in its war against the Soviets. The CIA utilized Rahman because of his influence over the Mujahadeen, then brought him into the U.S. on a CIA-sponsored visa. Omar Abdel Rahman was the spiritual leader of a group called Jama'at al-Jihad, which assassinated Answar Sadat, President of Egypt. On Feb. 26, 1993, a truck bomb would explode in a parking garage beneath the World Trade Center, killing six people, injuring more than 1,000 others and causing more than $700 million in damage. Omar Abdel Rahman would be convicted as the mastermind of this bombing and sent to jail. At the time of Kahane's murder, the group was in the planning stages of this first New York Center Trade Towers attack. Nosair's cousin Ibrahim El-Gabrowny received 57 years in US prison for the conspiracy and other charges, including possession of bogus passports and visas intended to get Nosair out of the country following a jailbreak. Seven other defendants received sentences between 25 and 35 years each for planning what prosecutors called a "war of urban terrorism" aimed at changing U.S. policy in the Middle East. Nosair's cousin, Ibrahim el-Gabrowny, obtained a $20,000 contribution from Osama bin Laden for Nosair's legal defense. Wadi El-Hage, the key Al Qaeda operative involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, visited Nosair in his U.S. prison, several years before he went to East Africa. Osama Bin Laden's war on the West would continue. Some plots, such as a plan to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, were foiled. Others, like the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, were not. Police raids broke up al Qaeda cells in Frankfurt, Germany, Milan, Italy, and London, but a cell in Hamburg, Germany, led by a young Egyptian named Mohamed Atta, went undetected. Mohammed Atta and his team of Arab murderers killed 3,000 U.S. citizens on September 11th. Mohammed Omar Abdel Rahman, son of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, is a senior Al-Qaeda operative and an alleged financier of the 911 attack. Mohammed, in his late 30s, is perhaps the most senior Al Qaeda member after bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri. He is alleged to have organized the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. According to the Associated Press, March 4, 2003, "Government officials said Abdel Rahman ran a training camp in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks and also had a role in operational planning." The September 11 attack on the Twin Towers was an Al-Qaeda victory in the war which started on November 5, 1990 with the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane. The war continues. Note: These facts are all from open source government documents and
news reports.
This email was distributed by
Communaute-Juive-France-owner@yahoogroupes.fr
(http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Communaute-Juive-France/).
|
|
LOUTS YES, LUNATICS NO
Posted by Communade Juive France, February 11, 2004. |
|
This was written by Armand Laferrere, who is a senior civil servant in
France and a member of the board of the France-Israel Friendship
Association. It appeared as an article on the Jerusalem
Post, Febraury 9, 2004.
The French government recently announced a series of steps intended to fight anti-Semitism. Along with measures strictly meant to increase security France will launch a campaign for increased remembrance of the Holocaust. The French government wants to inoculate the young against anti- Semitism. It wants to remind them of Jew-hatred's most inhuman consequences, using the approach employed to convince young people to avoid alcohol by showing them pictures of a decayed liver. We all know the limits of this method. The offer of a beer and the opportunity to be part of an in-group is seldom rejected with: "Thanks a lot, but I'd rather look like a wimp and go home alone. Those rotten livers were really frightening." And yet for students in Europe - young Muslims, but others too - the first gulps of anti-Semitism have the same status-enhancing effect as that first beer. To genuinely fight anti-Semitism France must utilize measures that take the personalities of Jew-hating louts into account. Most anti-Semitic violence in France is the work of very young people motivated by a desire to prove their manliness. Teaching the Holocaust to these youths will lead draw yawns. Tough guys aren't disturbed by Holocaust pictures. Anti-Semites are not inherently opposed to the Holocaust. Trying to combat Jew-hatred with Holocaust education presents another drawback. Pupils are indeed faced with horror, but they are told nothing of its causes. Since it is hard to accept an effect without a cause, students are more likely to be convinced by the arguments of those who want to persuade them that such an absurdity could never have happened; that, if it did happen, the victims must have been responsible. We must therefore help these children understand that the Holocaust was - literally - an effect with no cause. Europe's Jews were destroyed in the name of a madness that never had any connection to reality. And if there's one lesson students should learn - far more important than the memory of horror - it is that human societies are not immune to such pathologies. Conversely, for Holocaust education to be effective, France must start by teaching about anti-Semitism. Let us show pupils how anti- Semitism has always used canards devoid of reality. Let us remind them, for instance, how Catholic tradition was able to claim that Jews as a collective killed Jesus. In fact, the Bible clearly shows that Jews were divided into two camps. The Bible shows exclusive authority over the death penalty was in Roman hands. The canard disregards the fact - of capital theological importance to Christians - that Jesus and all his followers were Jews. LET US teach how unfounded rumors had it that Jews poisoned wells and sacrificed Christian children. Let us recount how the lack of any evidence regarding these wrongdoings - and for good reason - gave rise to the myth of a Jewish world plot, secret and extremely clever. Let us show how this myth of an invisible cabal was fuelled - absent any evidence other than the visible success of a few families. Let us teach how anti-Semitism was a delirium: Jews were criticized for being money-lenders, although this job was more or less forced on them; Jews were criticized for lacking attachment to the land and lacking military values when they were in fact banned from being farmers and soldiers. In this madness Jews were described as despicable because they were poor, but also detestable because they were rich. They were considered the embodiment of capitalism, and of communism. They were viewed as stateless when nationalism was popular, but too attached to their land when being a citizen of the world became worthy. Only after introducing the history of anti-Semitism in all its mindlessness can we talk about the Holocaust. Then we can describe to students how the old disease of Jew-hatred regained strength, allowing Germans to blame Jews for their misfortunes. Let us show students how the virus revived and in its fury came close to destroying Europe. Let us conclude by reminding them that while anti-Semitism is the oldest collective madness that ever consumed entire nations, it was not the only one. The slaughter of the kulaks by Lenin and Stalin, the murder of nearly a million Cambodians by Pol Pot are other examples of unfounded delirium. Let us teach the younger generations to be wary of slogans explaining all the world's misfortunes by the supposed wrongdoings of any one group. This way, students - and sometimes even their teachers - will understand how the Holocaust was made possible. Wiser for this education, youths will be less tempted to act like tough guys. While in the eyes of a teenager it might be manly to glorify
assassins; taking lunatics as a model is far less glorious. Better-
informed on the nature of such evil, young people may well be better
prepared to identify its early signs both within themselves and
among their friends.
This email was distributed by
Communaute-Juive-France-owner@yahoogroupes.fr
|
|
THE MIDDLE EAST: A Macro and Micro Summary
Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 11, 2004. |
|
Rain, earthquake, terrorism, Zahal action in Gaza - what a way to get
old in Israel....Never a dull moment.Surely the Machoniks in Galut
are envious of us...We have survived and if the revolution against
Bibi's economic policies fails, we will live to an even riper old age.
The Macro Situation. Americas war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere has had these results: 1] The extreme Moslems are on the defensive in SAUDI ARABIA, SYRIA, LEBANON, PAKISTAN, SUDAN,etc. The Micro Situation. Israel's war on terror here and elswhere has had these results: 1] The Hamas and Jihad Islami are dominant in the Gaza strip. Thank God for Zahal and the lucid minds of past and present generals. Insofar as the economy is concerned, we are moving into second gear, and if there is a world recovery, we will be part of it. In the meantime, Machoniks, make the best of your old age-wherever you are. We in Israel have tried our best... With Zions Greetings, |
|
WHAT IS DIALOGUE WITH ISLAM SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 11, 2004. |
|
Some people propose dialogue by Christian and Jewish clergy with
Muslim clergy, to end Muslim hostility towards the others. Those who
propose it do not explain how this reconciliation is supposed to
occur. Islam holds that those other religions are inferior to it;
Islamists hold that their followers must be exterminated.
I propose the opposite - avoid dialogue. Fanatical ideology is impervious to dialogue. A demonstration of understanding, grace, and tolerance by the Christian and Jewish "enemy" would not penetrate that fanaticism in the violence-prone Arabs. The Muslim clergy expect themselves to be treated with respect. The problem is, they do not respect the others. When the other faiths have dialogue with Islamists, they imply that Islamists are not extremists and are not engaged in a world war to annihilate rival faiths. That indication would be false. Such an indication serves to get Westerners to lower their guard when they need to raise it. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
KNESSET CRACKS?
Posted by Voice of Judea, February 11, 2004. |
|
To support the printing and distribution of this message in millions
of copies, to every mailbox and billboard in Israel, please send a
generous contribution to "Homeland Initiative", 1403 44th
Street, PMB 29, Brooklyn NY 11219.
News Item: After a minor earthquake registering 5 on the Richter scale, was felt throughout the land of Israel, the only visible damage that has thus been reported are cracks in the Knesset wall and foundation. The most visible cracks are in Sharon's office. Voice of Judea Commentary: The people of Israel remain silent as Sharon and his comrades in the Knesset continue to defy Israeli public opinion with dubious plans to make a unilateral surrender of Jewish land, thus rewarding the Arabs for their savage terrorism. Sharon hears not the warnings of his own Shin Bet and Intelligence Chiefs who continue to explain that the Arab world will interpret Israel's retreat as a victory for terrorism and that this will cause an increase in terrorism in other parts of Israel. Sharon hears not the warnings of his military experts. Sharon does not pay much attention to public opinion or to the basic security needs of Israel. Sharon ignores the Biblical prohibition against surrendering G-d given Jewish land. The Rabbis and the people of Israel remain silent. Instead of us shaking the Knesset and shaking the heavens to rid us of the tyrants who continue to sell out Israel, we wait for miracles and signs from Heaven. Well, here is a sign for the mystical nation that waits for Divine signs. The walls and very foundation of the Knesset were exclusively singled out in this rare earthquake. Will this shake up Sharon? Will this shake up the nation of Israel? The whole nation of Israel from Dan to Beersheba felt the earth shaking under their feet. Our hearts all stopped for a moment as we asked ourselves, "Is it a bomb? Will this building come crashing on all of us? Is this our last moment of life? What is left for us to do?" As one's entire life flashes like an ultra-speedy movie, in our brains, contemplating what might be our last seconds. Thoughts about what we could have and should have done different in our lives flash by in those last critical seconds as well as snap thoughts about your family and loved ones. What could we do? What should we do? We should all stop for a moment again and try and recapture that minute of the "blast". And we should all pledge to do everything humanly possible to ensure that no Jew will ever have to live through that experience and through the horror of a true terror attack. Indeed, the trembling and shaking affects of the earthquake could have been a terrorist attack. Sharon and his recent invitation to Arab terrorists must be stopped, before more innocent Jews are blown up. Our salvation will not come from Arafat. And it is not George Bush or his empty "guarantees" that guarantee the survival of Israel. Only the G-d of Israel and Jewish power will guarantee peace and security in the Holy Land. Every Jew in the Holy Land felt the earth shake under their feet. Let us remember and not forget that feeling. Wake up and do something now. It is in our hands to stop Sharon from implementing his political earthquake that threatens the very foundation and existence of the Jewish state. We propose here a simple and modest program of survival for the land of Israel. "No to surrendering Jewish land! No to expelling Jews from their homes." Expel the Arabs instead so that we can restore peace and internal security. Expel the Arab enemies so that our economy can recover from the billions of dollars lost due to Arab terrorism. Expel the Arabs - so that we could live as free Jews in a Jewish state. One good thing has come of Sharon's suicidal unilateral surrender plan. Nobody can call the Kahanists and Israeli realists "racist" anymore for advocating the expulsion of our Arab enemies. If it is kosher for Sharon to babble about expelling and displacing Jews from their homes than it is no less kosher to speak of throwing out the modern day Nazis who thrive on Jewish blood. It is these simple words of sanity, perhaps the only blueprint of survival for Israel that needs to be plastered up throughout the land. Everyone who felt the shaking of the ground under their feet needs to read these words and to hear the only proposal that could save Israel today. To support the printing and distribution of this message in millions of copies, to every mailbox and billboard in Israel, please send a generous contribution to Homeland Initiative, 1403 44th Street PMB 29, Brooklyn NY 11219 Every 1000 dollar contribution means the printing of 30,000 flyers. Every flyer and poster counts. The people of Israel need to hear another alternative. They will not hear this message anywhere else! The traitors who brought the "Beilin Geneva Initiative" into every Jewish home in Israel received millions of Euros from the anti-Jewish European states. We don't have the Germans and Norwegian governments to sponsor broadcasting a message to save Israel. We can only rely on Jews and gentiles who love the land of Israel to support our initiative to spread the only message that can save Israel and the only message that will not be stated by anyone else. The earthquake has passed. The Arab time bomb is still ticking. The website address of Voice of Judea is http://www.voiceofjudea.net. Subscribe by writing listmaster@voiceofjudea.net |
|
WHAT THE PLO DOES WITH YOUR MONEY
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 11, 2004. |
|
The Americans and the Europeans have given Hundreds of Millions of
their tax payers' Dollars and Euros to help the poor and suffering
Pal. So what actually happens to all that money?
This is a news item published today in the Washington Times
(www.washingtontimes.com). It's called, "Arafat's wife focus of
transfers probe."
PARIS (Reuters) - French prosecutors said yesterday they had opened an inquiry into transfers totaling $11.5 million into bank accounts held in France by Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The Paris public prosecutor confirmed a report in Le Canard Enchaine weekly that an inquiry about Mrs. Arafat, who lives in Paris, was started in October after information provided by the Bank of France and a government anti-money-laundering body. The prosecutor's office said they wanted to check transfers from a Swiss-based institution made between July 2002 and July 2003 into two separate accounts held by her in Paris. The office said the probe is in the preliminary stage, meaning its aim is to determine whether there is sufficient grounds to take matters further. Mrs. Arafat could not be contacted for comment. Neither she nor her husband has previously been subject to a criminal investigation involving their finances, though both have repeatedly been accused of receiving misappropriated funds. A report by the International Monetary Fund in September found that Mr. Arafat had diverted $900 million donated for the Palestinian people to his own private bank account, according to news accounts, and CBS News reported late last year that the Palestinian leader had diverted $800 million in Palestinian aid money to a private account for his wife and daughter. Other accusations that donor money has been siphoned off by corrupt officials or diverted to militants carrying out a suicide bombing campaign against Israel have contributed in a drop in foreign contributions to the Palestinian Authority. On Saturday, more than 300 members of Mr. Arafat's ruling Fatah movement resigned collectively, demanding an end to corruption and greater democracy within Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Arafat has rejected all charges of corruption in the organization. Palestinians were surprised when word emerged in 1992 of Mr. Arafat's secret marriage to the much younger Suha. With her uncovered hair and expensive, Western-style clothes, she cut an unlikely figure during visits to Gaza. Her visits appear to have become rarer in recent years. She has caused Mr. Arafat a fair number of headaches over the years with denunciations of purported corruption, cronyism and human rights abuses in the Palestinian Authority. French prosecutors said the result of their preliminary probe would be known in a few months. They then have the option of opening a formal investigation, which under French law is the final step before any charges are filed. 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. |
|
A CALL TO PSALMS
Posted by Michael Freund, February 11, 2004. |
|
This is an article of mine from the Jerusalem Post about the need for
Israel and its Jewish and Christian supporters around the world to
deploy the most potent weapon in their arsenal: the power of prayer.
Enough is enough. For the past 11 years, we have watched in dismay as Israel hurtled toward disaster. Defying all logic, the Jewish state proceeded to arm its enemies, turn over territory to their control, and undermine the security of its own citizens. Israelis began to die in unprecedented numbers. Buses were bombed, cafes were attacked, yet our leaders forged ahead, plunging headfirst into the abyss. It made no sense. Our foes broke every promise, violated every commitment, and continued to kill. But the more they did so, the more Israel continued to withdraw. Throughout this period, we took to the streets, shouting and pleading for the madness to end. Protests were held, meetings were convened, and petitions were signed. We lobbied our representatives, urging and cajoling them to take action. Faxes and e-mails and ads in the newspaper. Articles and editorials, speeches and parlor meetings. What didn't we try, as we sought to save Israel, the Land and the people, from impending catastrophe? And now, after so much effort, and sacrifice, and suffering, when at last it seemed clear that Israel might finally prevail, along comes Ariel Sharon and declares defeat. The man who built his reputation by building Jewish settlements now wishes to uproot them. And so, after 11 years of Oslo, after hundreds of Jews have been killed and thousands of others wounded, we find ourselves once again facing the prospect of further withdrawal and retreat. The irony of it is too cruel to contemplate. It can not be that the Jewish people withstood years of Palestinian terror only to be driven from their homes by their very own government. It can not be that the self-sacrifice and determination which the Jewish people have displayed in reclaiming their land will all be for naught. It simply can not be. And yet, here we are, all of our options seemingly exhausted. Diplomacy has failed us, politics has disappointed us, and the world still hates us, even more so than before. In the past two elections, a majority of Israelis voted for parties who pledged to stop the capitulation, who vowed they would fight the terror, not its victims. They promised us firmness, but instead delivered frailty. We did what the world wanted, withdrawing from parts of our ancestral homeland, turning over places where our forefathers were buried and where the prophets of Israel once walked. We put our faith in men, and that perhaps was our greatest mistake. Right is left, left is wrong, and the Palestinians continue to spill Jewish blood. It seems as though we have nowhere left to turn, as there is no one in whom we can place our trust. No one, that is, except for G-d. It might sound silly, or even naive. But all of our high-tech know-how and military prowess, our scientific advances and wireless technologies, have not succeeded in extricating Israel from its current mess. Our modern solutions have failed us, so why not turn to the wisdom of yesteryear? Indeed, throughout history, the Jewish people have always looked to their Father in Heaven as a source of strength and support. During the darkest days of the Exile, the power of prayer was our most potent of weapons. It is time we deploy it once more. Friends and supporters of Israel should launch an international campaign, a Call to Psalms, which would unite Jews, Christians and others to pray on the country's behalf. Synagogues, churches and other houses of worship should recite selections from King David's Book of Psalms, whose power and beauty remain unequaled despite the passage of thousands of years. Rabbis and cantors, pastors and priests, should call upon their flock each week to pray for Israel. Collectively, we must storm the Heavens, and raise our voices, in this, the Jewish people's hour of need. As more congregations join in, the Call to Psalms would culminate with an International Day of Prayer in Jerusalem, one devoted solely to pleading for mercy from Above. p>Just imagine the impact it would have if millions of people around the world were to unite simultaneously in prayer. The reverberations could not possibly be ignored. They would be felt from Washington to Tokyo, and beyond. So many people wonder how they can play a role in changing things. Each of us wants to make a difference, to influence the course of events, yet often we feel powerless to do so. But that is precisely why prayer is so important, especially in this case, because it empowers every individual, rich or poor, saint or sinner, and enables us to forge a common bond as we transcend our differences on behalf of the Jewish state. Cynics will no doubt mock the idea, chuckling with derision at such "simplistic" beliefs. But we should pay them no heed. After all, it is thanks to their "progressive" agenda that Israel finds itself in its current predicament. The fact of the matter is that no prayer goes to waste. As King David himself wrote, "G-d is near to all those who call to Him, to all those who call out to Him in truth" (Psalms 145:18). Now, more than ever, is the time for us to do so. For, unlike our leaders, He will never disappoint. |
|
THE GREAT ARAB REFUGEE SCAM
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, February 10, 2004. |
|
This article was written by Schmuel Katz and appeared in the
International Jerusalem Post, October 23, 2003. It is called "As to
the Arab "Refugee Right of Return." Schmuel Katz was a
co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and a member of the
first Knesset; he is a biographer and essayist.
The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight. The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it. Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides -and they did in fact write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes. Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees. Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Soda al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders. When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of those that fled returning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in." Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramie and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers. The total number of Arabs, who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN. The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about then- plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel." It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing - food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and, received the free aid. I Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million. The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list. To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees." So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees. Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return." While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel. There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees. Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas. Once and for all Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime. Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose. It is a chutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever. Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories." Jerome S. Kaufman runs the Israel Commentary website (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel-Commentary). |
|
ABOUT THOSE ISRAELI 'SETTLEMENTS'
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 10, 2004. |
|
This is an important article wthat dares state the only truth that so
many others try their best to ignore. It was written Daniel Pipes, who
is director of the Middle East Forum, a member of the
presidentially-appointed board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a
prize-winning columnist for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem Post.
His website address is http://www.danielpipes.org/
The article was on the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm) today. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, has broken with decades of his own history and declared an intent to withdraw all Israeli habitations from Gaza, plus some from the West Bank. Doing so raises a basic question: Just how important are these "settlements" in the grand scheme of Palestinian-Israeli relations? (I use quotation marks around settlements because the dictionary defines this word as "a small community" or an establishment of people "in a new region." This inaccurately describes the Jewish habitations in question, many of which boast tens of thousands of residents in place over several decades.) Some analysts consider Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza to be one of the leading obstacles to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For example: * Thomas Friedman, The New York Times: "Israel must get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as soon as possible and evacuate most of the settlements. I have long advocated this, but it is now an urgent necessity. Otherwise, the Jewish state is in peril. Ideally, this withdrawal should be negotiated along the Clinton plan. But if necessary, it should be done unilaterally. This can't happen too soon, and the U.S. should be forcing it." First, it assumes that Palestinians seek only to gain control over the West Bank and Gaza, whereas overwhelming evidence points to their also aspiring to go further and control Israel proper. Therefore, pulling Israelis from the territories does no good. In fact, it probably does harm. Imagine that Israelis were uprooted and the Israel Defense Forces pulled back to the 1967 boundaries - what then? Friedman, AbiNader, and Kucinich assume the Palestinians would be grateful and reward Israel by tending to their own gardens, permitting Israel quietly to go its separate way. But I expect a quite different reaction: Palestinians will see a pullback signaling that Israel is weak, appeasing, and vulnerable. Far from showing gratitude, they will make greater demands. With Jenin and Ramallah in the maw, Jerusalem will be next on the agenda, followed by Tel Aviv and Haifa. This implies Israel is fated to stick with its towns and communities in the West Bank and Gaza. They might be a tactical and political liability, but they must retained and defended. To do otherwise is to indicate to the Palestinians that open season on Israel has begun, spurring yet more violence than the twenty or so incidents now taking place daily. Second, Sharon's intent to uproot Israeli habitations assumes that they pose a large, perhaps insuperable, barrier to a Palestinian-Israeli resolution. In contrast, I see them as a minor obstacle. Once the Palestinians do fully, irrevocably, in deed as well as in word, accept the existence of a Jewish state, all sorts of possibilities for ending the conflict open up. * Adjusted borders: As Sharon himself suggested last week, the "triangle" area in northern Israel, with its large Arab population, might be up for trading. Such schemas, admittedly, sound like cloud-cuckoo land at present. But when Palestinians finally undergo a change of heart, when they accept Israel's existence and renounce the use of force against it, all sorts of positive developments can take place to sweep aside today's seemingly intractable issues. And to the question, "How will we know when that change of heart takes place?" my reply is: When Jews living in Hebron (on the West Bank) have no more need for security than Arabs living in Nazareth (in Israel). Until that happy day arrives, the issue of Jews living in the territories is perhaps the least significant one facing strategists and would-be diplomats. Instead of focusing on this political triviality, they should devise ways to induce the Palestinians to accept the existence of a sovereign Jewish state called Israel. Until that happens, no other initiatives will do any good. Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
THE ISRAELI-ARAB THREAT
From INN, February 10, 2004. |
|
Dr. David Bukay of Haifa University's Political Science Department was
asked on Arutz-7 today his opinion of the growing phenomenon of
Israeli-Arab terrorist cells. "It's no longer a matter of 'wild
weeds,'" he said this morning, after the sixth such cell in a year was
uncovered yesterday, "but rather a common phenomenon. Hizbullah is the
new big leader, starting with Israel's retreat from Lebanon, and now
Balad and Islamic Jihad are now blatantly Hizbullah movements."
Balad, it should be noted, is an Israeli political party with three Knesset Members - two of whose leading members were arrested yesterday on suspicion of plotting to build a Hizbullah-funded terrorist infrastructure in Israel. "It's clear," Bukay continued, "that [Hizbullah leader] Nasrallah wants to turn Lebanon into a Shiite state like Iran, and, of course, to march on Jerusalem and destroy Israel. He is building his arsenals and capabilities towards this goal, and we have to be blind not to see this. Nasrallah has been proven to be right in telling the Arab world that the way to defeat Israel is by force, as was proven in our withdrawal." Asked about the phenomenon of the Israeli-Arab political parties, Bukay said, "Balad should be outlawed, but not because of the latest incident. We are the only democracy in the world with Arab religious sectarian parties that all identify themselves as Palestinian. This is insane. There are three Arab parties in the Knesset, all working with different strategies to destroy the State of Israel. Such a phenomenon is unheard of in other Western countries." |
|
ISRAELI MILITARY OPPOSE GAZA RETREAT
Posted by Bryna Berch, February 10, 2004. |
|
There were 3 news items in today's Arutz-7 (http://www.israelNN.com)
on Gaza that have important information.
IDF INTELLIGENCE CHIEF: P.A. ARABS WILL SEE RETREAT AS VICTORY FOR TERRORISM After a series of informal military warnings against a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, IDF Intelligence Chief Gen. Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash made it official this morning. At an appearance before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, the General said that Prime Minister Sharon's statement of intent to withdraw from Gaza would instigate more terrorism and attacks against IDF forces. "The Palestinians see [this plan] as a victory for terrorism," Farkash said. Acknowledging that some calls might be heard against continued terrorism after the IDF leaves, Farkash emphasized the likelihood that the plan will "strengthen the legitimacy of terrorism in the view of Islamic elements in Gaza. [The terrorist groups] see it as a surrender to terrorism, and this gives them motivation to perpetrate more terrorism in order to achieve more diplomatic gains." A predecessor of Farkash, Gen. (res.) Shlomo Gazit, has similarly said, "Our exit from Gaza will transform it into a big armed camp, into which weapons of all kinds will stream via land, sea and maybe even air... Moreover, this capitulation will be rightly viewed as a clear victory for the Palestinian armed struggle." Gen. Farkash also said that the security establishment foresees that a significant retreat from Jewish towns in Gaza will lead to a power struggle between the Arafat/Qurei forces and those of Hamas. Other points made by Farkash: Most Fatah terrorism operates with Hizbullah/Iranian funding and organization; Syria is serious about negotiating with Israel; Arafat is doing nothing to stop terrorism. EVEN GEN. EILAND OPPOSES A UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL Arutz-7's Haggai Huberman writes in HaTzofeh today that National Security Chief Gen. Giora Eiland - who has been charged with developing the plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza - is also not in favor of it. "A big mistake," Eiland calls it. Gen. Eiland does not negate a full-scale withdrawal from Gaza, but says that it must be done only with the consent of the Palestinian Authority. "A unilateral retreat with nothing in exchange," Eiland has said in internal discussions, "will solve nothing." Huberman further reports that Eiland was not even informed of the plan before Sharon made it public - despite his senior status as National Security Advisor. Neither were other generals in the IDF General Staff. Eiland does not plan to come out publicly with his objections, and will fulfill the task the Prime Minister has assigned to him of turning the withdrawal notion into a concrete plan of action. The Press Advisor to the Prime Minister said that the entire report on Eiland is "nonsense" and "not in accord with the facts" - but Huberman stands by his version, which he says is based on those who heard Eiland speak on the matter. JEWISH GAZA: TODAY AND IN HISTORY A victory over both terrorism and schemes to uproot the Jews of Gaza was celebrated in Kfar Darom today. Eliezer and Chana Bart held the brit - ritual circumcision - of their week-old son today, naming him Amichai [My Nation Lives] Yisrael. Chana is wheelchair-bound and paralyzed in the lower half of her body, following a terrorist shooting attack two years ago. Among her first concerns at the time was whether she would be able to bear more children. Doctors closely tracked her pregnancy, fearing that she would not be able to feel the onset of labor pangs. The family has seven other children, and the joy in Kfar Darom today was complete. Baby Amichai was born the day after Sharon's bombshell announcement of his plan to expel the nearly 8,000 Jews of Gaza from their homes. Contrary to popular perception, Gaza has long been a Jewish area, and is in fact included in the Biblical Land of Israel; a dispute among traditional Jewish commentators exists only regarding the area west of El Arish in northern Sinai. It is mentioned as land that should have been conquered by Joshua; was home to Jews during the times of the Hasmoneans and the redaction of the Mishna; and its Jewish population was strong enough to withstand an attempt by Constantine in the 4th century to build a Christian church there. More recently, Jews lived there from 1885 until World War I, and a renewed Jewish community remained there until the Muslim pogroms of 1929. Kfar Darom was established there in 1946, lasting only until the War of Independence two years later, and in 1973, Netzer Hazani - the first of 17 Jewish communities that now exist in Gaza - was established. |
|
THE INCALCULABLE COST OF PALESTINE
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, February 10, 2004. |
|
In the past few months, Stan Goodenough of the Jerusalem Newswire has
written two articles on a Palestinian state. The first was published
October 3, 2003, the second today. Both are worth reading.
When considering the price paid to try bring peace to the Middle East, it is natural to think of the thousands of lives, the millions of man-hours, and the untold billions of dollars that have been spent. The human cost has been staggering; the material cost immense, and all the more incomprehensible as we daily witness how fruitless the efforts have been; how abjectly they have failed. And yet, when measured against the sweep of human history, and especially the history of the Jews, the creation of a Palestinian state is set to exact a price that will dwarf all other costs put together. For the birth of "Palestine" will not only strengthen the Islamic world's determination to do away completely with the Jewish state. Its eventual affect will be the end of the Jews as a nation. Soon, not too long after the world celebrates the independence of the 23rd Arab state, the Jews of the world will curl up, wither, and blow away. It will take a little longer, but eventually the true Christians in the world will follow suit. No nation can last when the reason for its existence has been taken away. No faith can stand when its foundations have been undermined. No tree can survive without its roots. The creation of Palestine will, in one fell swoop, sever the bonds holding the Jews together as a nation, remove the ground on which Judaism stands, and cut off the faith supply that has nourished and kept the Jews alive for the last 2000 years. It will also shatter the biblical foundations on which much of Christianity stands. To grasp this, you need to have eyes to see. The area earmarked for Palestine is not just a 5,860 square kilometer piece of land the rest of Israel is being told to exchange for peace. Nor is it simply land housing a handful of sites sacred to Jews. The specific land the Jewish people are being asked, ordered and coerced into surrendering is the very cradle of its existence as a nation. In this land, the land Israel would have to take leave of forever, lie the bones of Abraham and his wife Sarah, Isaac and his wife Rebecca, Jacob, renamed Israel, and his wives Rachel and Leah with their maids Bilhah, and Leah - the fathers and mothers of the children of Israel that grew into the twelve tribes which made up the nation. Their tombs are in Hebron and Bethlehem - land designated for Palestine. The borders of Palestine are to encompass the lands given to Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Levi as a part, or the whole of, their tribal inheritance. Also in this land are the tombs of Joseph, favorite son of Israel, Samuel the prophet, and David the king, together with the tombs of most of the kings of Israel. Here Abraham built altars, at Shechem, Bethel, Jerusalem and Hebron; here God entered into an eternal covenant with him, promised him ownership of the land forever, and here, in Hebron, Abraham bought land. In this land, God established that covenant with Isaac and Isaac passed "the blessing of Abraham" on to Jacob. In this same land, at Bethel, next to today's Ramallah - Arafat's home - God visited Jacob and confirmed to him and his descendants after him ownership of the land forever. At Shechem (Nablus) Isaac purchased land. In this land, designated for Palestine, the Israelites camped at Gilgal, conquered Jericho, worshipped in Shiloh, assembled in Mizpah, lived in Gibeon, bred their sheep in Tekoa, grazed their flocks in Dothan, fought the Philistines, and housed their king in Gibeah. Also in this land, the land destined by the world to be Palestine, is Ramah, home of the prophet Samuel, Bethlehem, hometown of Ruth and Boaz, and then of Jesse, father of David. Here is the wilderness into which David fled to get away from Saul, and Hebron, where David ruled for the first seven-and-a-half years of his reign. Here is Jerusalem, being demanded by the Palestinians as a capital for their state, the City of David, where his throne was established, and from where Solomon and, after him, all the kings of Judah ruled. Here, in "Palestine-in-the-making," is the birthplace of Jesus, Bethany, where Lazarus was raised, the Mount of Olives, where Jesus wept over Jerusalem, Gethsemane in the Kidron Valley, where he was abandoned and arrested, Annas' house, where He was mocked, Herod's palace, where He was punched, Pontius Pilate's courtyard, where He was scourged, the Via Dolorosa, along which He stumbled under His cross, Golgotha, where He died, the Garden Tomb and the Holy Sepulcher, from which He arose, Bethphage, from which He ascended, all will be in Palestine. And Palestine will be home to the most glittering prize of all, the Temple Mount, the place where the God of Israel chose to place His name forever, the hill on which Abraham offered up Isaac, the hill on which Solomon and Zerubbabel built the first and second temples, the hill on which the third temple is meant to be built, and the Mountain of the Lord from where the Messiah is destined to rule. Can you see it? Can you see what lies behind this global effort to separate the Jews, (and the Christians, because Islam will wield control over all the places sacred to both) from Judea and Samaria - the cradle of Israel's physical birth and our, believing gentile's, spiritual birth? The Jews' unprecedented ability to survive as a nation outside their land through 2000 years of wandering and terrible persecution is mostly attributable to their longing to return to their homeland, and their belief that one day they would. It is to this land, this specific land designated for Palestine, and not the Negev and the coastal plain, not even the Galilee, that the Jews have prayed daily for 20 centuries to return to. It is to this precise part of the land, the "Mountains of Israel," that Ezekiel prophesied the Jews would be brought back to and settled in. And it is in this very part of the land that the Messiah whom we all seek, "will suddenly come to His temple." (Malachi 3:1) To remove this land from the Jews - the graves of their forefathers, the crucible in which they were formed and the place that holds the promise of their longed for redemption - will be to sever them from their national roots, from their past, and from their future, dispossessing them of the main motivation for remaining Jewish through the centuries. And as for us Christians - if God is unable to keep His promise to His ancient, Chosen People, what, then, will become of the hope that is in us? We dare not permit Palestine to be born.
Thick, squat and grotesquely gnarled, their roots twisting deep into
the ancient soil that has gripped them since their planting as
saplings two millennia ago, the oldest olive trees in Gethsemane's
Garden have been there to witness more history than we can imagine or
conceive.
Somehow, miraculously, they have survived siege, fire and the denuding
of the land around them. They have withstood earthquakes, droughts,
flash floods and who knows what other destructive efforts wielded by
nature and by man.
And 2000 years after witnessing the anguish of the One who prayed
in their presence before being led away to die, they still stand in
the shadow of Mount Olivet - immovable, unyielding, apparently
indestructible.
But take an axe to their roots, and they will surely, inexorably,
wither, and die.
So, too, will Israel.
A few weeks ago, I penned an article I called, "The incalculable cost of Palestine." Spelling out the de facto price that would be paid for the creation of a Palestinian state on the biblical heartland of Israel, I said that among other things, its birth would: * Mark the beginning of the end of the Jews as a nation. Creating Palestine in the biblical heartland of Israel, I wrote, would "sever the bonds holding the Jews together as a nation, remove the ground on which Judaism stands, and cut off the faith supply that has nourished and kept the Jews alive for the last 2000 years." I argued that it would also "shatter the biblical foundations on which much of Christianity stands." The article provoked a divided response: Some thought it was "wonderful" and "anointed," others wondered whether I had fled my faith or spent excess time in the Jerusalem sun. Quite clearly I had committed the cardinal writers' error of assuming most my readers were on the same page, so to speak, and would therefore know where I was coming from. I'd be grateful if those I thus abused would forgive me, and would follow through the rest of this article as I try to clarify and re-stress what I was really saying before. Actually, I am thankful for the opportunity to so quickly revisit this subject, for I believe it lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. Not until it is recognized and fully engaged will we Christians who are deeply concerned for the future survival and prosperity of the Jewish homeland be truly effective in our efforts to help secure her. "The incalculable cost" was written as a "what if," a wake-up call. I wanted to startle the reader into realizing what is actually at stake concerning Israel's fate. My intention was to strip away the layers that blur and fudge the issue, and bare the core for those who have spiritual eyes to see. Let me stress my personal starting point: I am a Bible believer. No philosophy, no revolutionary scientific theories or discoveries, no pleas for "reason," no scoffing, no threats, no bribes, no "enlightenment" - nothing will change what I believe. For me, forever, the Bible contains the divinely given words and wisdom of the Creator of all things. He cannot be wrong. He cannot change. He cannot be ganged up on, outnumbered, out-witted or out-maneuvered. He is God. And there is no other. This Being, Who alone has the right to do so, and Who knows the end of all things from the beginning, designated the swathe of land between the River of Egypt and the Euphrates as the national home of the descendants of the man He renamed Israel. In the pages of the Bible, He is referred to 16 times as the God of Abraham, 8 times as the God of Isaac, 22 times as the God of Jacob, and more than 200 times as the God of Israel. He states categorically and unequivocally that the aforementioned land is His personal possession. And He tells first Abraham, then Isaac, and then Jacob that He has given this land to them and their descendants after them, in this bloodline, "as an everlasting possession." He has given it to nobody else - not to Esau, not to Ishmael, not to the Arabs, not to the Palestinians. The land belongs, only, to Israel. Others may live here of course, but only Israel may be sovereign. In order to have this land, Israel needs to enter and take possession of it. The ancient forebears of modern-day Israel were commanded to enter and possess it, and the prophets foretold a day when their descendants would be brought back to the same land, and be settled in it once again - this time forever. [Ed note: The LORD is not hesitant to use the word "settle" to describe His replanting of the Jews in their land; I too, therefore, choose to use the words "settle," "settlement" and "settler" - without apology and without shame.] This instruction to settle, and justification for settling, is predicated upon the biblical promise and injunction. That is to say, it is the Bible that imparts to Israel the right and the command to be in this specific land, and to rule over it. Throw away the Bible, and Israel loses that right. At best, what they are then left with, in the aftermath of the 2000-year effort to annihilate the Jews, is the right to a haven state somewhere in the world - for example in Uganda, or, as Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin suggested just this past weekend, in Europe. The Bible is the ONLY document that gives the Jews the inalienable right to this land. The Balfour Declaration, League of Nations and United Nations rulings, white papers and "peace" treaties - all of these are contestable and open to alteration or reversal if enough of the world's nations decide it should be so. For Bible believers, the Bible alone has the authority to back the claim to this land as the Jews'. And, to get to the crux of the matter, the Bible specifically and intentionally singles out the very part of the land that is today on the chopping block for a Palestinian state as the heart of Israel's "eternal inheritance." For it was in Samaria, at Bethel, where Jacob (Israel) lay sleeping when God said to him: "[T]he land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants." (Genesis 28:13 cf. Jeremiah 31:5) He was not lying on the beaches of Tel Aviv but on the rocky slopes of the central "West Bank." Daily, for more than 2000 years as they wandered among the nations of the world, the Jews have been reminding God of His promise to restore them to this very land - the land of the Patriarchs - to Jerusalem, and to the Temple Mount. Their belief in Him and in His promises sustained them through the darkest history imaginable. It gave them reason to hope when it seemed futile to do so. It was a goal, an aim, in fact a beacon, holding their identity and their eventual future out before them - something real and promising to strive towards. Through unmentionable horrors, to the very doors of the gas chambers, the Jews clung to their belief in the Author of the Bible, the One Who founded the nation and gave it its land: "Sh'ma, Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehad" - "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is One." It was this faith that enabled Israel to resist all efforts to absorb them as a people, to render them extinct as a race. And the faith was, and is, inextricably in God and in His promises of this specific part of the land universally called the "Occupied Territories." It doesn't take rocket science to grasp what a devastating blow it would be to this, for so long, tenacious people should the physical embodiment of what they have been clinging to for fully half their existence as a nation, finally and irretrievably be taken from them. We should not fool ourselves either with pious proclamations about God being able to restore it all again. Certainly from the world's point of view it will be irretrievable. Once Palestine is declared a state and officially welcomed into the world community of nations, there can be no going back. For the Gentile nations there will be celebrations and rejoicing. For Israel, the birth of Palestine will spell catastrophe. Oh, those Jews who have long ago traded in their belief in the Bible and its God won't bat an eyelid. In fact, their dream of being fully accepted by the Gentile nations - of becoming just like them - will appear closer to realization than ever. But in the Diaspora, it was seldom the eviscerated Jew who carried the flame of Am Yisrael intact through persecution and out the other side. It was those who had faith; those who had a reason to believe in God, and in His promises to restore them to their land. Which brings me to where I was before: Being a publicly professing Bible-believer, I naturally never intended to communicate a belief that the Jewish people could be eradicated, or that the hope we true Christians are living in could be taken away from us. I wanted to communicate the calamitous nature of the threat. I am convinced that not until we recognize the extent of this peril will a fire be lit under us to try to counter it. When I wrote, I was caught up in that tension that exists between God's foreknowledge of all that will come to pass, in this case Israel's assured survival into eternity, and in the part we have to play to bring it all about. Some people believe that we need not concern ourselves overly much about Israel's future because God has it all in control. Yes He does. But I believe at the same time that we are a part of that unfolding picture that He has ever open before Him, and we can either rise to fulfill our destiny and help Israel fulfill hers, or we can decide to "leave it all up to Him." I believe God is looking for those who would "stand in the gap" for Israel at this time. (Ezekiel 22:30). Standing in the gap means interceding in prayer on Israel's behalf before the Lord, as Daniel did. (see Daniel 9). But I believe it means more than just praying, and then chastising Israel from afar for not being able to stand up against international pressure and claiming all its land. Standing in the gap for me means we are also to stand between Israel and our Gentile rulers who choose to deal with the Jewish people and their state in an unjust way. To play our part, or to leave it up to God? The following example may help to further clarify this question: It's almost universally believed that, but for the Holocaust, Israel would not have been restored to life. Had they not felt so guilty for abandoning the Jews to the Nazis, the nations of the world would never have permitted the re-establishment of the Jewish state. Should Christians, aware of Israel's prophesied future restoration, have therefore sat quietly by (as, to their eternal shame, so many did,) because it was all "foreknown," all "predicted," and they knew it would all "work out" in the end? Certainly not! Just as - had we lived then - we should have done everything in our power to save the Jews from Hitler's Holocaust, so too should we do all we can today to prevent Israel's enemies from pursuing the 2003 version of that very same plan. There is no question that the Arab and Islamic world is bent on wiping out the Jews just as surely as Hitler was. Effectively it has been the same plan all along: From the day Pharaoh commanded the Israelite boys be drowned in the Nile, right up to today, the enemy has sought to destroy the Jews and, with them, the channel God designed to bring hope and blessing and peace into the world. We should have resisted it before, and we should resist it now. Establishing Palestine would drive a barrage of nails into Israel's coffin - something I believe this generation's Christians should oppose with everything we have. "Jerusalem Newswire is a Gentile-run newsgathering and dissemination service based out of Jerusalem, Israel, that exists to provide users with the top daily news stories culled from a wide variety of Internet sources." |
|
SHARON'S CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY
Posted by Michael Gropper, February 10, 2004. |
|
I hope all of you are well. I thought that this article in today's
Post really reflects the way I feel, and I might add, I believe a
majority of Israelis feel, concerning Sharon's intention to have a
unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. It would be, I believe, disastrous
for Israel to do this. Instead, our army should have gone into Gaza
already and hunted down the terrorists who have killed 1000 Israelis
during the past 3 years.
This essay was written by Evelyn Gordon, a journalist and commentator for the Jerusalem Post. It appeared yesterday and is archived at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= =JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1076325294399 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for a unilateral pullout from Gaza has been justly criticized as a spur to terrorism: If three years of terrorist warfare are enough to make Israel flee Gaza without demanding anything in exchange, the terrorists have every reason to believe that more of the same will prompt additional Israeli retreats. But an equally serious problem, which has received far less attention, is the crisis of legitimacy created by the plan's timing - namely, the proximity between Sharon's policy u-turn and the prosecution's impending decision on whether to indict him for bribery. Were the proposed Gaza pullout a mere continuation of Sharon's previous policies, this proximity would be irrelevant, because the idea that the plan might be connected to his legal woes could never have arisen. The problem stems from the fact that the plan is a radical departure from Sharon's previous policies. Lest anyone has forgotten, Sharon was twice elected prime minister by the largest margins in Israeli history on a platform of "no concessions under fire," and the policies he pursued during his first three years in office largely adhered to that platform. Even more significant, last year's landslide victory was over an opponent whose signature policy plank was a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - an idea Sharon lambasted at the time as a dangerous concession to terrorism. Now he is suddenly advocating the very policy he was elected only a year ago to prevent. The result is that Israelis of all political persuasions have been wondering whether this turnabout is not a desperate effort to deter prosecutors from indicting him (and thereby forcing his resignation) by making them fear that an indictment would be viewed as reckless interference with a major diplomatic move. The question has been posed endlessly by politicians, media commentators and ordinary citizens; even the two diehard Sharon loyalists I know have admitted to niggling doubts about whether the new policy does not owe more to the soon-to-be-completed police investigation than to a sincere change in Sharon's view of the national welfare. This is far from being a minor problem - because if a move as controversial as a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is to be accomplished without causing a devastating crisis in Israeli society, it must enjoy unquestioned democratic legitimacy. And it will not enjoy such legitimacy if large segments of the public believe that Sharon has sacrificed the national interest to save his political and legal skin. THE CONSEQUENCES of a lack of democratic legitimacy can be clearly seen in the corrosive hatred that marred 1995, which remains an open wound to this day. The shocking climax of that hatred - Yitzhak Rabin's murder in November 1995 - has led many to forget the event that drove it to a fever pitch: the Knesset vote on the Oslo-2 Accord a month earlier, which created Palestinian rule in the West Bank by mandating Israel's withdrawal from six major cities. The agreement passed by a vote of 61-59, thanks to one of the most egregious cases of vote-buying in Israeli history: Rabin obtained the decisive two votes by bribing two MKs elected on the far-right Tsomet list to switch sides in exchange for a ministry and a deputy ministry - positions that offer not only power and prestige, but substantial financial benefits as well. I doubt that any other democracy would have allowed an agreement as fateful as Oslo-2 to be approved by such blatantly illegitimate means, and the degree to which the media and the legal system collaborated in whitewashing this act of political bribery is a mark of shame on Israel's democracy. But it was precisely this illegitimacy that created a climate so conducive to Rabin's assassination - because when the normal rules of the democratic game have been thrown out the window, making it impossible for one side to compete on the democratic playing field, it is easy for violent extremists to convince themselves that they are equally justified in scrapping the ground rules of civilized behavior. For Sharon, given the questions about his motives raised by the Gaza plan's timing, there are two ways to ensure that it nevertheless enjoys the necessary democratic legitimacy. One is to resign and call new elections: If he were to win reelection on a platform of unilateral withdrawal, he would clearly be justified in implementing such a policy. But the simpler method is to do what his government should have done long since in any case - submit legislation to require a supermajority, either in the Knesset or in a referendum, for ratifying the cession of territory. It is to the Likud's shame that the party, which has been quick to propose such initiatives whenever it is in the opposition and cannot get them passed, has always dropped the issue the minute it obtains power. But most democracies do require a supermajority, either of the legislature or of voters in a referendum, to approve controversial and irrevocable measures such as territorial concessions, precisely because they believe that it is essential to accord such decisions unassailable legitimacy in order to ensure they will be peacefully accepted by the disappointed minority. If Sharon's Gaza plan were approved by a supermajority of either the Knesset or the public - say, two-thirds of the Knesset, or 50 percent of eligible voters in a referendum - it would be impossible for even his harshest critics to question the legitimacy of the move. But if he chooses to push it through the Knesset by the usual method - a narrow 61-59 majority - the crisis of legitimacy created by the suspicion that he has subordinated the country's interests to his own political survival is liable to create an irreparable rift in Israeli society. |
|
IT IS TIME TO DISPENSE WITH THE FENCE
Posted by Ron Breiman, February 10, 2004. |
|
Given the anticipated complications at the Israeli High Court of
Justice and at the International Court at the Hague regarding the
fence and its placement;
Given the extraordinarily high cost of the fence and its uncertain cost effectiveness, and considering the numerous statements made by the Chief of Staff, indicating the better use to which this money could be put, providing a higher level of security for all the citizens of Israel; Given the alternate uses to which this money could be put, by investing both in more effective deterrents against those who practice terror attacks and homicide bombings, and in the sorely needed social programs that are suffering cutbacks in the current social and economic crisis; Given the suffering endured by Arabs (denounced by "human rights" supporters, interested in protecting the "human rights" solely of Arabs) and by Jews (as demonstrated by the policy of discrimination which establishes two levels of safety and security for Jews, based on place of residence); Given the lack of true utility of the fence, whereby soldiers cannot use the means at their disposal to deal with "protesters" who endeavor to dismantle it; Given the undoubtedly future "sacrifices to the fence" among soldiers who will need to patrol and secure the fence in order for it to be functional at all; Given the ability to circumvent the fence by tunneling under or by shooting over, the effectiveness of the fence will be short-lived, as the enemy develops solutions to outwit its design; Given the damage to the environment incurred by the fence's construction and maintenance; Given the unfortunate message of weakness and capitulation that the fence's construction broadcasts to the enemy; Professors for a Strong Israel strongly advises the Government of Israel to dispense with the fence of the absurd, and to move from the defensive to the offensive. Ron Breiman is Chairman of Professors For A Strong Israel. They can be reached at prof@netvision.net.il |
|
WHAT JUSTIFIES A REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 10, 2004. |
|
The Bush administration refused to deal with Iraqis loyal to Saddam or
with Afghanis loyal to the Taliban. The principle involved is that
since the US was at war with Saddam and the Taliban war criminals, it
would be hurting itself if it trucked with the enemy.
By the same principle, Israel is justified in refusing to deal with Quria of the P.A., while the P.A. is at war with Israel and committing war crimes (Morton A. Klein, "ZOA in the News," 2/2004, p.15). Unfortunately, the government of Israel lacks pragmatic principles and pride. By the time you see this, the government may very well have met with Quria. It is negotiating a meeting. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
AMRAN MITZNA WON THE LAST ELECTION
Posted by STEVEN PLAUT, February 10, 2004. |
|
In the last Israeli elections, Laborite Leftist Amram Mitzna ran on a
platform for unilateral Israeli withdrawals from the"occupied
territories" with no quid pro quo from the PLO in any form. Mitzna was
beaten in the largest election landslide in Israeli history.
Or was he? In fact, Amram Mitzna won that election. Ariel Sharon's proposals for a unilateral withdrawal/surrender in the Gaza Strip shows that Amram Mitzna may have lost that election but he was victorious in imposing his suicidal policies on Israel through Ariel Sharon. Sharon's new "Gaza First" plan is nothing more than the implementation of the first stage of Mitzna's platform. Gaza First? First before what? Yes, Sharon is posturing that by evicting the Jews from the Gaza Strip in an Israel-imposed ethnic cleansing of Jews there, he will indirectly be strengthening the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Balderdash. Why not acknowledge the logical conclusion from Sharon's proposal. If driving the Jews out of Gaza strengthens those in the West Bank, then it will only be a short time before Sharon and his people are negotiating returning Haifa to the Arabs who left it, restoring to them lands and homes they claim, all as a way to protect Israeli claims to Tel Aviv. Why not a unilateral withdrawal by Israel from Haifa with no quid pro quo from the PLO for that either? That in any case is, without a doubt, how the PLO will interpret Sharon's sudden "generosity". Shimon Peres, the man who did more to destroy his own country than any other in the past century, has congratulated Sharon on having adopted the Labor Party's platform as his own. Peres is correct for once. 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. |
|
THE NEW MIDDLE EAST
Posted by David Frankfurter, February 9, 2004. |
|
The EU Observer (http://euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=14368)
reports that Palestinian Foreign Minister, Nabil Shaath, is in Europe,
floating the idea that a future Palestinian State would join the EU.
It would seem that he has overlooked the internal changes that may be required to achieve his dream. I seem to recall that freedom of passage, basic rights for children, freedom of worship, equal rights for women, freedom of the press and a semblance of law and order are just a few of the basic requirements for EU member states. Just as the law of return (which gives automatic citizenship to Jews who wish to immigrate to the Jewish state) would probably exclude Israel from joining the EU, the Palestinian apartheid policy of a 'Judenrein' state based on sha'aria law would quickly scotch this idea. Of course, if a Palestinian state were to join the EU, then Jews facing anti-semitism in Europe could simply utilise their European passports to settle in their biblical homeland - just as they fled persecution from Nazi Europe, the Soviet Union and Arab countries in the past. Maybe Sharon should make sure that the houses he proposes evacuating in Gaza settlements be held in trust for them. David Frankfurter sends "Letters from Israel" emails to subscribers. Contact him at David.Frankfurter@iname.com |
|
STRENGTHENING OUR ROOTS IN GUSH KATIF
Posted by Dror Vanunu, February 9, 2004. |
|
Tu Bishvat, which represents the unity of the Jewish
people and the land of Israel was especially represented in this event
in Gush Katif.
Specifically now in light of the talk of capitulation to terror, the
residents of Gush Katif chose this event as a means of illustrating
their determention and love for Israel by living where they are now
and for ever!
Dror Vanunu lives in Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. He is a member of the Hof-Aza Regional Council. |
|
WHAT FREE SPEECH IN ISRAEL?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 9, 2004. |
|
The Supreme Court of Israel has banned public display of the slogan,
"No Arabs = No Terrorism!" That slogan happens to be true,
but truth when disapproved of by the Left, is banned in Israel.
Emanuel Winston would add another slogan, "No weak politicians =
fewer dead Israelis!"
PM Sharon is a weak politician. During his regime, Israelis suffered more. He is a liability for Israel, as he plans further, enervating concessions to the Arabs, at the behest of foreign powers. His release of hundreds of terrorists came three hours after a terrorist murdered ten and wounded 50, some critically. These weak Prime Ministers let the graveyards of Israel be filled up (Winston Mid East Analysis, 1/29, e-mail). A senior Israeli official stated publicly that the Israeli government knows that the terrorists it was releasing would "very quickly" engage in more terrorism. They know that the release endangered Israeli lives (IMRA, 1/31 from ZOA). Then why release them? After having been attacked again, Israel cancelled a meeting with the US and the P.A. about economic relief for P.A. residents (and not Israeli residents). Sec. Powell said he would insist to PM Qurei that he fulfill his obligation to fight terrorism. IMRA calls that insistence meaningless (IMRA, 1/30 from Haaretz from Reuters). Relief for Arabs while Israelis lose jobs? What a poor way to fight back against genocidal aggressors! Sure it is meaningless. Powell tells that to the P.A. periodically, to no effect. It is a charade. |
|
SAUDI WARLORD LEADS RUSSIAN BOMBERS
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 9, 2004. |
|
Truth be said, I am not shedding too many tears over the Arabs
slaughtering Russians. It was the Russians after all that recruited,
trained and financed the Arabs terrorists. The chickens coming home to
roost and all that. It is rather interesting, though, that every time
we get a peek into the real leadership of a major terrorist
organization there is Saudi involved.
This news item was on the website of the Sunday Times-World (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,1-993767,00.html) yesterday. It was written by Mark Franchetti. A SAUDI Islamic militant based in the breakaway republic of Chechnya is suspected of being behind last Friday's bomb attack on the Moscow metro, which killed 39 people and wounded more than 130. Abu-al-Walid al-Ghamidi, 36, has been identified by the FSB, the Russian intelligence service, as one of the most powerful figures in the Chechen rebel leadership. As the commander of several hundred Arabs fighting alongside the rebels, he is thought to have been responsible for a wave of suicide bomb attacks that have killed more than 200 people in just over a year. He is also believed to have been one of the masterminds of the Moscow theatre siege of October 2002, which ended with the deaths of 40 Chechen terrorists and 129 of their hostages. Walid, a follower of the Wahhabi sect that dominates worship in Saudi Arabia, signalled the determination of Chechen extremists to take their war against the Kremlin to Russian soil when he broadcast a statement from the republic last year on Al-Jazeera, the Arab television network. "If operations in Chechnya continue they will harm Chechen people, so we have decided to export operations inside Russia," declared Walid, a bearded man with long black hair who wore a uniform and spoke against the backdrop of a Chechen flag. "We consider all Russian people warriors because they elected this leadership when it pledged to crush the Chechen people. God willing they will pay for their fight with their blood and their sons." The statement raised fears of a series of bombings aimed at disrupting next month's presidential election, which is expected to return Vladimir Putin to power by a landslide. Aslan Maskhadov, the fugitive Chechen leader, yesterday denied responsibility for Friday's attack, the worst of its kind in Moscow. But he does not speak for more radical rebel commanders such as Walid and Shamil Basayev, the militant Chechen with whom the Saudi is said to have plotted the theatre siege. Despite the ferocity of the blast, there was an unexpected air of normality yesterday at the Avtozavodskaya metro station, which is lined with white marble and Stalinist mosaics glorifying Soviet workers. Trains were running to schedule and there was no obvious police presence. A bucket filled with red roses and carnations at the entrance to the station and a lingering smell of burnt bodies were the only reminders of the carnage of 24 hours earlier. Many of the passengers were in sombre mood, however, as they contemplated the fate of those who died when the bomb - packed with pieces of metal - was detonated in a tunnel 300 yards north of the station shortly after 8.30am. "I'll never feel safe on the metro again," said Irina Ignatieva, 28. "This is what we have always dreaded. The police will never be able to prevent further attacks. But I have no choice - I can't afford to travel by car." Police were questioning survivors and studying footage from a surveillance camera of two women suspected of being suicide bombers and a man believed to have been their accomplice, standing on the platform with two suitcases. Shortly before the explosion the man had apparently approached a member of staff and said: "You'll have a party on your hands." The bomb exploded in the train's second carriage moments after it had pulled away from the station. The carriage was ripped open by a blast so powerful that metal shrapnel pierced the walls of the tunnel, which filled with black smoke. The Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper said the driver had saved the lives of many of the 800 passengers by keeping the train doors closed to prevent them jumping out onto the live rail. He sounded the alarm and had the current turned off before opening the doors. "People were screaming while others tried to smash the windows to escape," said Anton Mikhailov, 32, an accountant who was in the third carriage. "There was thick smoke. People were panicking for fear of suffocating. The place was strewn with pieces of human flesh. It was a hellish scene." The passengers - some shaking uncontrollably, others covered in blood, grime and dust - struggled to make their way out of the tunnel in pitch darkness by feeling their way along the tunnel walls. Sparks flew over their heads from damaged wiring. Some drenched handkerchiefs in their own urine and held them to their faces to block out the fumes. Denis Malchanov, who was travelling in the front carriage of the train, said: "The scene was a heap of torn bodies among twisted bits of metal. People were sent flying through the windows by the force of the explosion." Despite some criticism of the security services for failing to prevent the blast, the attack appears unlikely to dent the popularity of Putin, who emphasised that it would not weaken his tough stance on Chechnya. Walid and those around him appear equally determined. Hardly known until recently, he is now seen by the FSB as an increasingly influential figure. Last year the Russians offered a reward of $100,000 for information leading to his capture - a huge sum in a region where the average monthly salary is $30. Walid is an explosives expert who trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban. He is thought to have moved to Chechnya in 1997. According to the FSB, he ran a terrorist training camp there under the command of Khattab, another radical Wahhabi known as the "black Arab" who was killed by the Russians in May 2002. Walid has since become the highest-ranking Arab militant in the war-torn region. The FSB accuses Walid of channelling financial support for the Chechens from Islamic militant groups in several Arab countries. It also claims that he has links with Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, but has provided no proof. Walid was recently quoted in an Arab newspaper as saying that he supported Iraqi insurgents who carry out daily attacks on American forces. "The Chechens are becoming more radical and are falling under the influence of extremist Wahhabi Arabs," said one Russian intelligence officer. "Walid is the key figure in this 'Arabisation' of the Chechens. He trains suicide bombers, plans the attacks and helps to choose the targets. He is fast becoming more powerful than the Chechen commanders that he came to help. "Few men are as dangerous and ruthless as him. He is at the top of our hit list." 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. |
|
POLITICALLY INCORRECT BUMPER STICKERS
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 9, 2004. |
|
HERE'S A LIST OF POLITICALLY INCORRECT BUMPER STICKERS:
National Suicide is Not a Peace Process An entire Generation will Now Have to Pay for THEIR Stupidity No Leftists, No Treason The Solution is Empowerment (with big photo of electric chair) Impeach Aharon Barak Turn off their Lights Envision Denazification Teach Yassir to Debka at the End of a Rope End the Illegal Palestinian Occupation of Israeli Lands The Illegal Palestinian Occupation of Israeli Lands Corrupts Take a Jewish Settler to Lunch Put a Post-Zionist in a Cage The Lobotomy Clinic - I am not just the Owner, I am also a Customer (with photo of Peres) Solve the Parking Congestion in Ramallah Send Avrum to Ramallah but Don't Let Him Back Pigskins! Remove Palestinian Settlements from Israeli Lands Send the Palestinian Settlers Back Home where They Came From I Love the Smell of Napalm in the Morning Protect Laboratory Animals: Put a Leftist in a Cage Remember CHamor the Son of Shchem! Send Arik Viagra Let Yassir Try Tamar Gozinsky's Shaving Cream for a Change Kick the Suicide Terrorists out of the Labor Party Daisy Cutters for Gaza Send Amir Peretz to Cuba You bring the Tar and I'll Bring the Feathers Haaretz - Black and White and Red all Over Pillory for Peace The Peace of the Brave (with photo of gravestone on which is engraved Yassir - Lived Too Long) Suha Looks Good in Black Take the Mapai out of the Likud Let 'Em Have a State in Guantanamo Bay Tanks A Lot For Every Jew a B-52 Defund the Kibbutzim Kick 'em Out of Ramat Aviv and Send 'em Home to Yesha IQ Tests for Seating Knesset Members Now End the Axis of Evil between the Jewish Left and Arab Fascism Bulldoze Orient House Peace is Harmful for Flowers and Other Living Things Another Soccer Mom for the Death Penalty Fricassee 'Em Jibril McNuggets Buy Avrum a REAL Yarmulka Let's Start with Corsica and Scotland Reconstructionists have a Gaylord Guns Don't Kill Terrorists, Jews Kill Terrorists If You See this Police Van for Interrogating Palestinians A-Rocking, Don't Come A-Knocking Palestinian Refugees? Fuggedabowdit! Give Beilin Cause for Wailin De-Activate "Activists" What Part of Denazification don't you Understand? No Tenure, No Leftism Is that a Feminist or a Bushido Wrestler? Peace Now - Just Pretend that War Does Not Exist Netsarim is our Stalingrad The New Ayalon Highway - Send Ami Ayalon to Chechnya Foreskin Implants for Meretz Voters Hillary would look good in a chador. No more Ahmed Tibi Heebie Jeebies Honored Beloved Sir, I am a senior officer in the PLO and I would like to offer you one third of the loot if you help me steal the money in the coffers of the Palestinian Authority so please email me your bank account information. ROBIN WILLIAMS' PEACE PLAN (Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. It's hard to argue with this logic! What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message - SP.) I see a lot of people yelling for peace, but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's my plan: The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in the affairs of other countries, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich, Saddam and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there anyway. We would station troops at our borders and allow no one to sneak through holes in the fence. We will allow all illegal aliens 90 days to get their affairs together and leave this country and will give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. I'm sure France would welcome them. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days, unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home, baby. Energy wise, the US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement, or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get little or nothing. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH....learn it...or LEAVE... Now, ain't that a winner of a plan. "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'" |
|
PERES OPPOSES FORCIBLE TRANSFER
Posted by Sergio Tezza (HaDaR), February 9, 2004. |
|
This was sent to me from Jack De Lowe.
Opposition leader Shimon Peres is opposed to forcibly removing
citizens from their homes. He said last week, "You're going to force
them to move? They don't want to, and you can't just do things by
force. They are Israeli citizens with rights and obligations just like
yours and mine... Listen to them. They are saying, 'We are connected
with our place, we were born here, this is our land, we are citizens
of the country.' What can you answer them?"
In case the context is not clear, Arutz-7's Ariel Kahane notes that Peres was not referring to the Israeli citizens of Gush Katif, but rather to the Israeli-Arabs of Um el-Fahm. It was announced last week that Prime Minister Sharon was entertaining the possibility of trading Um el-Fahm, an Israeli city of close to 40,000 Arabs bordering on Samaria, to the Palestinian Authority, in exchange for Jewish-populated areas in Judea and Samaria. The writer lives in Qiryath Arba/Hebron. He can be reached at http://www.HaDaR@kh4.org |
|
JIHAD IN CALIFORNIA
Posted by Israela Goldstein, February 8, 2004. |
|
I just read this article about
Art Torres, head of Democratic Party in California. It was written
by Steven Emerson, and appeared in Front Page Magazine
(http://frontpagemagazine.com) on January 16, 2004.
For years, the Democratic Party, in California and across America, stood for justice and decency and fairness and equality and peace. For years, the Democratic Party embodied principles and beliefs that define America, and led our nation to a better, stronger, freer day. Thus, it is deeply troubling to find that the leader of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres, has chosen to engage in the most vicious form of demagoguery in his recent appearance before the annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) held in Long Beach, California on December 20-21, 2003. This is not a charge I choose to make casually. But don't take my word - judge for yourself. So, here are Mr. Torres' own words, quoted verbatim: "... there has been a steady stream of attacks in the Qu'ran including specific verses taken out of context and on the Prophet. These attacks are vicious. They're mean spirited and politically motivated." Sounds familiar, the notion of twisting the Qu'ran and attacking the Prophet Mohammed for evil purposes? This is exactly what Salman Rushdie was accused of; and as a result, a fatwa calling for Mr. Rushdie's death was issued by Iran and supported by militant Islamic groups around the world. Bookstores were bombed. Translators of Mr. Rushdie's book were stabbed and assassinated. Mr. Rushdie was consigned to live under the permanent threat of being executed. But here we have the head of the Democratic Party issuing the exact same language issued by radical Islamic groups against Salman Rushdie. And, according to Mr. Torres, who are those carrying out the attacks on the Qu'ran and the Prophet Mohammed? Well, to my unpleasant surprise, he named me and Daniel Pipes. Mr. Torres' comments were rather chilling: "And a second stream of attacks have been against American Muslims in particular - and this type of attack is focused on tarring the community with the label Islamist, and these attacks have been led by Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson. We need to remember these names because they're getting away with it, because we don't confront them with their vitriolic hatred as implemented in our media waves... in America." So here we have the head of the Democratic Party in California using the same exact tactics as Islamic militants used in claiming that Salman Rushdie defamed Islam. In the typically inverted and conspiratorial logic of Islamic extremists in which they are self-portrayed as the "victims" of hate crimes, Rushdie was deemed the proponent of "hatred" against Muslims. Mr. Torres invokes the exact same murderous conspiratorial logic in claiming that Daniel Pipes, a noted scholar and expert on Islamic fundamentalism, and I have been engaged in a campaign of hatred against Islam. Indeed Mr. Torres' demagoguery was lifted straight out of the pages of the campaign by militant Islamic groups in the United States that have attacked me ever since I produced the PBS documentary "Jihad in America" that aired in 1994. The film exposed the threat of radical Islamic groups operating under the radar screen in the United States under the guise of being Islamic "religious," "human rights" or "humanitarian" groups. Of course, it was this very deception - the ability of militant Islam to hide under the radar screen in the United States - that resulted in the mindset that allowed the devastating attacks of 9/11. The post-9/11 designation of various Islamic "humanitarian" groups, which had previously raised more than $100 million tax-free for terrorist groups, as terrorist fronts and the post-9/11 indictments of various "mainstream" Islamic leaders for secretly operating terrorist organizations in the United States demonstrated how Islamic extremists had murderously immersed themselves for years into American society. The veneer used by Islamic terrorists and militants was the equivalent of a perfect crime: the militants and terrorists publicly claimed themselves to be the victims of "hate crimes" and of "human rights violations." And so, whenever Islamic militants were exposed, as they were in my film, radical groups claimed that it was Islam that was under attack. It represented a deliberate deceit to have the public believe that criticism of militant Islam was the equivalent of criticizing mainstream Islam. And so, after my documentary aired in 1994, I found myself the subject of constant attacks by militant Islamic groups that I had tarred all Muslims, that I defamed Islam, etc. Within a year after the documentary was broadcast, I was forced to go in hiding because I was informed by federal law enforcement officials of an assassination plot against me. The incendiary language and the fabricated allegations used against me since 1994 by various radical Islamic groups were chillingly reminiscent of the language used by Art Torres. In fact, the incitement by Torres was lifted directly from the attacks against me by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group created by Hamas front groups in the United States, the American Muslim Council (a Saudi created group whose leader was just indicted on secretly working for Libya in the US and who had been secretly affiliated with Hamas and Al-Qaeda leaders) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC? The very group that Mr. Torres addressed. And if anyone has even the smallest doubt as to what MPAC stands for, well then, just as Mr. Torres' words speak volumes, so do the words by MPAC and its officials. On September 11, 2001 - the day of the devastating terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center - Salam al-Marayati, Executive Director and one of the Founders of MPAC, stated during an appearance on KCRW-FM's "Which Way, LA?" program that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list": "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies." [1] Al-Marayati has also maintained that al-Qaeda has no American supporters. In reality, numerous American citizens have been found working with al-Qaeda, including Ali Mohammed, who worked for the American army, and Wadih El-Hage, who was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary and was convicted for the U.S. Embassies bombing plot in Africa: "The only known American supporter of al-Qaeda and bin Laden is John Walker Lindh... If the attorney general has any evidence that there are other supporters of al-Qaeda in our community, then that should be disclosed immediately and due process should be followed in order to preserve the civil liberties we all cherish and aim to protect. This fishing expedition will not help the war against terrorism. It will only hurt America's image abroad."[2] In February 2003, Aslam Abdullah, Vice Chairman of MPAC, was asked about the authenticity of a threatening audio tape containing the voice of Osama Bin Laden: "No one knows the origin of this or any other tapes. Al-Jazeera says that it received those tapes and the CIA analysts say that they have verified Bin Laden's voice. But no one gives accurate and factual information about these tapes. The world wants to know the reality of these and many other tapes. The world wants to understand the origin the validity of his statements and the legitimacy of his ideas. Moreover, the world wants to know his whereabouts. On November 30, 2002, Aslam Abdullah participated in a question and answer session on IslamOnline.net entitled "The Truth Behind America's War on Terrorism." His conspiratorial views on Zionism and Israel were telling: "Those who are part of the political Zionist movement in America want to ensure that no one ever comes close to challenging their power in Washington. They want to intellectually destroy everything that endangers their interests. They know it very well that without the support of the United States or any of the world superpowers, their country, namely Israel, would not be able to pursue its apartheid and racist policies in the Middle East. They will use every means possible to ensure that American administration stays on their side. They will create false enemies, they will distort facts, they will manipulate events; and they will concoct and fabricate lies. They have taken America hostage. Americans realize that, and many in the country have started speaking up. The political Zionists want to silence them before they become louder. They realize that young Muslim Americans are in the forefront of this movement of liberating America from the influence of racist policies of political Zionists. They want to silence them. The best way to discredit Islam and Muslims and use all the propaganda tools against them." The MPAC 2002 Annual Banquet featured Ali Mazrui, a SUNY-Binghampton professor who said: "There is also suspicion that some members of the Bush administration in collusion with Israel are more than ready to plunge the Middle East into turmoil in the hope that the final outcome would be to the territorial advantage of Israel and the strategic advantage of the United States. All this is part of the emerging external sadism of the United States, a readiness to hurt others abroad." In a 2001 press release, MPAC justified a Palestinian suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed 16, including 6 children: "[The Jerusalem bombing] is the expected bitter result of the reckless policy of Israeli assassination that did not spare children and political figures... MPAC holds Israel responsible for this pattern of violence."[4] Maher Hathout, MPAC's Senior Advisor, justified the very same suicide bombing, stating: "What happened in Jerusalem is very regrettable. It is the bitter result of the reckless policy of (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon. And it is about time that the Israeli public should exert some pressure on their government."[5] In a 1999 position paper, MPAC justified Hizbollah's 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon (which killed 241 Marines) as a "military operation" rather than a terrorist attack: "...this attack, for all the pain it caused, was not in a strict sense, a terrorist operation. It was a military operation, producing no civilian casualties - exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington's enemies."[6] In a November 1997 speech at the University of Pennsylvania, MPAC Co-Founder and Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati, refused to call Hizbollah a terrorist organization: Question: "You mentioned Hizbollah, do you consider it to be more of a, I guess a national liberation movement or a terrorist group?" During the same speech at the University of Pennsylvania in 1997, Al-Marayati justified Hamas' existence as a political entity, and equated Hamas with the PLO in terms of social programs and "educational operations": "Yesterday's terrorists in the Middle East are today's leaders. The PLO is the number one example of this [unclear word]. The PLO 35 years ago was considered a terrorist organization, nobody should deal with them, no terrorists can hide, so on and so forth. But they became the people in authority, in Palestine, today. So Hamas today, the way it's being viewed, is exactly how the PLO was viewed 30 years ago. And in fact, even Hamas in terms of its social and educational operations is doing exactly what the PLO was doing 35 years ago, as well as its quote unquote military operations."[7] Finally, at the University of Pennsylvania speech in 1997, Al-Marayati equated "jihad" to the statements of Patrick Henry: "And, the person who we think in America would epitomize jihad would be Patrick Henry, who said, 'Give me liberty or give me death.' That is a way of looking at the term jihad from an American perspective."[8] MPAC Senior Advisor Maher Hathout has also supported Hizbollah attacks, calling the group's activities "American" and apologizing for Hizbollah terrorists as simply "freedom fighters": "Hizbollah is fighting for freedom, an organized army, limiting its operations against military people, this is a legitimate target against occupation. The whole country keeps condemning Hizbollah; I disagree with them on other issues, but on the issue of fighting to liberate their land and attacking only armed forces, this is legitimate, this is an American value - freedom and liberty."[9] MPAC Senior Advisor Maher Hathout condemned the 1998 strike ordered by President Bill Clinton against Sudan and Afghanistan, in response to the attacks by Osama bin Laden on the US Embassies in Kenya and Tansania: "Our country is committing acts of terrorism according to the definition. What we did is illegal, immoral, inhuman, unacceptable, stupid and un-American."[10] MPAC signed and sponsored a petition to reinstate the assets of Hamas' charitable front, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, after it was designated as a front for terrorist financing. MPAC's petition stated: "The Holy Land Foundation has an impeccable reputation in aiding refugees not only in Palestine, but worldwide."[11] On October 28, 2000 rally, co-sponsored by MPAC, in Washington DC, Maher Hathout spoke: "We did not come here to condemn the condemned atrocities committed by the apartheid state of Israel. Because butchers do what butchers do. And because what is expected from a racist apartheid is what is happening now." While that is but a very, very small sample, you get the idea, even if, perhaps, Mr. Torres does not. Those few quotations tell us all we need to know about MPAC - and also about Mr. Torres. What is left to be said? What can be said? That Mr. Torres chose to legitimize a group that supports Islamic terrorism and that he himself parroted the same incendiary rhetoric issued by MPAC and other extremist organizations shows that the murderous deceit that led to 9/11 is still alive and well, at least in California. NOTES: [1] Larry Stammer. "AFTER THE ATTACK. Jewish-Muslim Dialogue Newly Tested." Los Angeles Times. September 22, 2001. [2] Lenny Savino. "Justice Dept. orders sharing of suspected terrorist list." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. April 13, 2002. [3] IslamOnline interview. February 15, 2003. [4] MPAC Press Release, "MPAC Issues Statement on August 8 Bombing in Jerusalem." August 9, 2001. [5] "Southland man loses daughter in Jerusalem blast." NBC4.TV. Los Angeles. August 9, 2001 [6] Salam al-Marayati, "A Position Paper on U.S. Counterterrorism Policy." Page 58. Multi Media Vera International. June 1999 [7] Confidential source [8] Salam al-Marayati at the University of Pennsylvania, November 1997 [In his speech, Marayati defined jihad as follows: "... jihad is not holy war, jihad means struggle or striving, and it has to be a legitimate struggle, a legitimate form of striving."]. [9] Maher Hathout, Speech at the National Press Club, "Afternoon Newsmakers." Event, June 18, 1998 [10] Maher Hathout, "An Immoral Response." Friday sermon at the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC), August 21, 1998, posted on the Voice of Islam Website. [11] "Petition to the US government to reverse its action against Palestinian Charity." Online Petition. http://www.petitiononline.com/hlf2001/petition.html Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project, the largest counter-terrorist archival data center on militant Islamic groups in the world, and the author of 5 books, the most recent (2002) being "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us." (Free Press.) |
|
BUSH VOLUNTEERS AMERICA TO BE BANKER TO ANOTHER ARAB STATE OF PALESTINE
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 8, 2004. |
|
President Bush, in choosing to be the father of
another Arab Muslim Palestinian State has committed the nation of
America to be the financial supporter or bread winner for that State.
There was brief period of time when the mix of immigrant Arabs who
named themselves "Palestinians" could generate income by working in
Israel.
That has passed as they became hostile in the extreme, resulting in unremitting terror. Ordinary workers took it upon themselves to kill Israelis or often their own Jewish boss. So, they cut themselves off from the Israeli market place for employment and can never again be trusted. President Bush thought he could tame and lower their violence by proclaiming a timetable for another Arab Muslim Palestinian State. He pressured Israel to withdraw into what many consider a narrow strip of land called a 'ghetto'. Soon, Bush will be the sole deep pockets to finance another Arab Muslim Palestinian State. Bush and his administration thus became both the father of another Arab Muslim Palestinian State - with all the responsibilities of a benefactor. Assuming that this Palestinian State comes into existence at the behest of Presidents George Bush, it will be up to George W. to appropriate the funds during his second term to perpetuate his family's creation. The American people will suddenly find that President Bush has committed considerable American tax dollars to support an indigent Arab Muslim Palestinian State. Given the tendency of the Palestinian leadership to embezzle donor funds as often happens in Third World nations, the amounts to be gifted yearly will be much higher than anticipated. While, no doubt, the Bush Administration will attempt to pressure Israel into allowing Arab Palestinian workers to enter Israel, it is unlikely that many will be allowed to pass the border checkpoints - given the dangers they have brought in the past. The history of terrorists, both coming in with the labor force and the workers themselves being terrorists, will simply be too great a risk. It will be difficult to estimate the burden on the American tax-payers to support an Arab Muslim nation who cannot or will not industrialize. Perhaps anywhere from $10 to $20 Billion dollars per year, once the other Arab nations transfer from 3 to 5 million of their unwanted Palestinians into the neo-Palestinian state. Of course, Bush will have to provide and pay for the American troops needed to police the various terrorist groups who will attempt to kill the Americans as they are doing in Iraq. The Europeans were so insistent in providing Arafat and the terrorists with donor funds, as long as they attacked Israel, will, no doubt, cease providing money once the Arab Muslim Palestinian State is established. Nor would we expect the Arab oil nations to be anxious to provide funds, given that a fully fledged Arab Muslim Palestinian state will become an armed threat to their governments. Most, if not all the burden, will fall on the creator of a Palestinian state, namely America. President George W. Bush will leave behind a legacy which added to his profligate spending will just continue to be a large burden to the American taxpayers. The United Nations through UNRWA (United Nations Refugee Works Administration) will demand that America pays the lion's share of their bloated bureaucracy within the expanded welfare state of Arab Muslim Palestinians. It must be noted that while Jews have taken upon themselves a duty toward their fellow men (inclusive of Christian and Muslims), there is nothing in their Covenant which requires them to commit national suicide to accommodate foreign interests and finance a terrorist state. In brief, neither Bush nor the Europeans can be allowed to feed Israel to a primitive people to elevate their self-esteem. If they, the nations, wish to advance the backward Arab culture through democratization then, by all means, take up the task. But, sacrificing a small but advanced civilization will not bring either gratitude nor change in the Arab culture. Strangely, Israel as the only outpost of democracy and advanced civilization in an otherwise 7th century time warp, should be nurtured as an example. Had the mullahs and Arab dictators not started wars, the Arab villages and towns would have grown into modern civilizations by living near and trading with the Jews. Perhaps that's exactly why the Muslim clerics and the dictators launched war after war to keep their people backward and dependent. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel, Gamla (http://gamla.org.il/english) and the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm) |
|
THE POWER OF GRAFFITI
Posted by David Ha'Ivri, February 8, 2004. |
|
I have a friend named Sam. He is older then I, he could be my uncle. I
have a lot of respect for Sam; he has love for the Jewish people and
has proven that with true "miserut nefesh". Sam was in the Irgun and
was shot at by Rabin and Ben Gurion's soldiers on the beach in Tel
Aviv.
My friend Sam is a member of the nationalist camp and always has been. He speaks with me often about his concern for what is happening to Israel, and he tries to fix things. He called me the other day and said that he read in the newspaper that someone wrote on a wall in Jerusalem: "Sharon is a traitor - Kahane lives". "Something must be done to stop this graffiti against Sharon because it is damaging the national camp", Sam said. Let's be clear, Sam is not a supporter of Sharon (anymore). This is not the first time that Sam has called me about the writing on the walls. He called me about two months ago. Then too, newspapers around the world ran the story of some graffiti on a wall in Tel Aviv. I know that he doesn't think that I write the graffiti, but he thinks or hopes that I have influence on the people who do. Who do you think writes graffiti on the walls? I'll tell you who: frustrated people who are not allowed any other means of expressing their views. What do you expect from youth who were beaten and tied up by the soldiers of the IDF, who then proceeded to demolish their shul, in European pogrom fashion? Where were the leaders of the Nationalist Camp while this was going on? Their silence was deafening. What do you expect from youth who went to the Right-wing demonstration in Tel Aviv last month and were beaten by paid toughs under instructions of their employers (The Yesha Council) who gave them clear orders to beat anyone holding a picture of Rabbi Kahane. (I have a taped testimony of the manager of the "security" company). I can understand letting off some steam by scribbling a slogan on a wall. Under such circumstances, this might even be considered a mild response. I told Sam the same thing that I told Avi Dichter and his Shabak agents: as long as the Kahane movement is unable to organize officially, there can be no official leadership of the movement. In these circumstances, any 15 year old with a can of spray paint is as much in charge as anyone else. If this situation does not sit well for the national camp or the government, then they are welcome to do what is needed to lift their ban and disgraceful classification of Kach and Kahane Chai as "terrorist organizations". The political gain that they thought to gain by outlawing Kahane has boomeranged on them, because when things get out of hand they have no one to turn to. Well, too bad. After this conversation with my friend Sam, I had some additional thoughts. First, a 15 year old with a can of spray paint isn't a bad idea. It seems to be a very effective way of getting a message out. Just do the math - $5 for the paint and 5 minutes of fear, and presto - your opinion is in newspapers around the world. The second thought was about the sorry state of the Jewish people. If these 15 year olds are the biggest threat and opposition to Sharon, then where are the adults? Who are the leaders of the Nationalist camp that Sam is so worried about? Where are they, and what are they doing to stop the national sell out? Do they exist? For months all we hear is Sharon and Olmart competing with Peres and Belin on who can give away more and put Israel in a weaker position. All of the "hawks" on the right are explaining why it's better for them to be in the government and not the left. They say the left's national suicide will be much more painful, and so, "its better that we do it". Does anyone stain the national camp's image more than they do? Can anyone damage the national camp more than they do themselves with their national sellout? Where is the opposition of Limore Livnat, Tzachi Hanegbi, Effi Eitam, Avigdor Leberman and Bibi Netanyahu? Has the perks of government portfolios softened their positions? I salute the unknown soldiers who spray in the night and save some Jewish pride. There is yet hope for the Jewish people. May Hashem send us leaders out of the night. |
|
THE PERPETUAL CROSSER
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, February 8, 2004. |
|
Nothing in Sharon's latest moves came as a surprise to people in
Manhigut Yehudit. The man who crossed the Suez Canal is not one who
retreats. When he is subjected to pressure, he seeks the "joint"
between the armies, the soft underbelly, and that's where he
concentrates the attack. This was to the Jewish people's advantage
when Sharon was in uniform, but acts against it after he retired from
the army.
Sharon is subjected to pressure from all sides. He is being pressed by the Israeli Left, by police investigations after receiving a caution, by the Americans and the Europeans, and by the local and foreign media. They are all pressuring him. Sharon has no clear strategic/ ideological line. In his heart he is for Eretz Israel, but this feeling lacks a basis of belief, as he himself has admitted to people from Yesha on several occasions. Since he lacks this belief, all his energy is directed at his personal survival. No, he won't resign if he feels that he is incapable of preserving the values that he once proudly supported. On the contrary, he will trample those same values underfoot in order to survive. Amongst all those pressing him he identifies a clear soft underbelly, which he decides to attack - the isolated settlements in the Gaza Strip and in northern Samaria. Any intelligent person can understand that destruction of settlements won't solve any problems, even temporarily. On the contrary, even senior IDF officers, who always sycophantically supported the defeatist leadership, are now expressing the opinion that destruction of the settlements will only intensify the terror and the Arab appetite. But we now see the ugly face of Sharon's actions. Just as in the wretched exchange of prisoners deal, here also the decisions are totally divorced from national interests. These populist decisions are based on a single parameter: do they reduce the pressure applied to Sharon? If the media obsession with the prisoners deal will represent Sharon as "humanitarian" and thus ignore the corruption scandals, let's free a few hundred terrorists and encourage Nasrallah to kidnap more civilians. The main thing is the next few weeks, regardless of what comes afterwards. If Haim Yavin and Edna Arbel will smile at me for a few days when they see the bulldozers destroying settlements, why not? We know that the Gaza Strip settlements will remain in place, will grow, and will flourish for many more generations, after this sad story of Ariel Sharon is forgotten. We know this, because as believing Jews we know what the last scene in the film will be. The Gaza Strip settlements aren't Yamit. These are believing settlers who have put down roots, and even a bulldozer like Sharon will not shift them. The question isn't what will be the fate of the settlements. The settlers know exactly what they are doing there and therefore their future is assured. The question is what will be the fate of Tel Aviv, of the State. This is the struggle being waged by the Manhigut Yehudit movement. Kfar Darom will remain forever, but the question is what price will we be forced to pay for Sharon's dangerous moves. In order to meet the danger, we call on every Jew faithful to his country to act in two ways: a) Strengthen the Manhigut Yehudit movement and its activities within the ruling party. Join the Likud and persuade others to participate in various activities. b) Participate in the protest and prayer activities organized by the leaders of Yesha, the settlements, and the various protest organizations. Moshe Feiglin began Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. |
|
DEMOCKRACY IN ISRAEL: Federman Still In Administrative Detention
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 8, 2004. |
|
Here we can see the true face of Israel's inJustice system. I
political activist who has been unsuccessfully prosecuted dozens of
time for the most absurd accusations is finally summarily throw into
jail by Israel's secret police. This is called Administrative
Detention. The secret police, on their own, can grab someone and throw
him into a dungeon. If nobody notices, he could rot there for years.
Federman has the mazel that he is a public figure and people are willing to fight for his freedom. He has no rights at all as an Administrative Detainee. He can not demand to see what he is being charged with, can not see any evidence against him, can not challenge any witness against him, does not have the right to a lawyer or even the right to speak to anyone. Again, if he were an ordinary person, he would just disappear without a trace. The Middle East's only democracy! This is a news item from today's Arutz Sheva and and is archived as http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=57456 Federman Filing an Urgent Appeal with the Supreme Court (IsraelNN.com) After learning the court has permitted his continued administrative incarceration based on classified evidence pointing to his ongoing efforts to perpetrate attacks, Noam Federman is seeking an urgent appearance before the Supreme Court. Federman, affiliated with the outlawed Kach Party, is allegedly planning attacks against Arabs and as such, has been in solitary confinement under an administrative incarceration order, not permitted a trial and not even charged with a crime. Federman calls the allegations against him absurd, explaining he couldn't possibly be working from his prison cell to carryout attacks since he remains in solitary and is only permitted to meet with his wife. Conversations with his wife are recorded as well. He is calling for a new High Court hearing, asking that the conversations with his wife be played for the court to prove there is no discussion of any planned illegal activities or attacks. 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. |
|
A PALESTINIAN STATE AND THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES
Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 8, 2004. |
|
THE STRATEGIC GOAL The post-9/11 world has highlighted the fact that the primary feature of anti-US Islamic terrorism is State Sponsorship (in the Middle East and beyond), rather than merely a law enforcement challenge (in the US). The strategic goal of the US and Israel is to defeat terrorism and stabilize the Middle East, which is inconsistent with the establishment of a new terror-supporting regime on the shores of the Mediterranean. I. THE ROOT CAUSE OF ANTI-U.S. AND MIDEAST TERRORISM The establishment of a Palestinian State will not bring down Middle East terrorism in general and anti-U.S. terrorism in particular. The Palestinian issue has not been the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regardless of the Palestinian issue, of Israel's policy and Israel's existence, the following factors should be considered concerning anti-U.S. Islamic terrorism: * Throughout history, inter-Muslim and inter-Arab politics have been a combination of terrorism, political violence, violation of agreements, dictatorships and suppression of human rights. Those who resort to terrorism against domestic rivals are expected to employ terrorism against foreign ones. * Iran, Iraq and Syria consider the U.S. as the chief obstacle on the way of realizing their megalomaniac ambitions: control of the Persian Gulf, takeover of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oil fields, occupation of territories in Turkey and Jordan, acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities, etc. * The U.S. represents the bastion of ideas that threaten the dictatorships of the Middle East: Free Market, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, etc. * Anti-U.S. Muslim forces have targeted Israel as a Jewish State, as well as "the Little Satan" that serves as the outpost of "the Big Satan", advancing U.S. interests and values in the Middle East, deterring radical regimes in the Middle East. In fact, an Israel-like outpost in the Persian Gulf would eliminate the need to deploy hundreds of thousands of American troops and spend billions of dollars in order to protect U.S. interests * Islamic terrorism has targeted the U.S. regardless of Israeli concessions and independent of U.S. pressure on Israel (1993 Twin Towers, 1995/6 Saudi Arabia, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania, 2000 Aden). * Islamic terrorism has targeted the U.S. in spite of the fact that six times in the last decade the U.S. went in harm's way in defense of Muslims in Kuwait, Northern Iraq (Kurds), Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. II. THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT AND MIDDLE EAST VIOLENCE * The 1948 war was launched by the Palestinians, and then joined by Arab countries due to Arab ambitions and at the expense of Palestinian interests. The 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars were launched irrespective of the Palestinian issue. The 1982 Israel war on PLO terrorism in Lebanon, the 1987-92 intifada and the current 1993-2004 war between Israel and Palestinian terrorism have not evolved into Arab-Israeli wars, because Arabs do not shed blood - or expend significant financial resources - for Palestinians; Arabs shower Palestinians with rhetoric. * Since the seventh century, the Middle East has been torn by inter-Arab and inter-Muslim conflicts, unrelated to Israel's existence, to Israel's policies, or to the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. The Sunni v. Shi'a, religious v. secular, rich v. poor, Iraq v. Iran, Syria v. Iraq and the Saudi v.Yemen conflicts, as well as internal strife in Iran, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries, have produced much more violence, instability and damage to U.S. interests, than the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. III. THE PLO/PA ARE NOT A TOP ARAB PRIORITY * Arab leaders have not marshaled their resources on behalf of the PA during the current war between Israel and PA/Hamas terrorism. The Arab league pledged some $2 billion in assistance, but forwarded about $200 million. The Saudis do not transfer assistance through the PA, but rather through Hamas and private organizations. * Arab leaders did not come to the rescue of the PLO during the 1982 Israeli assault on PLO terror bases in Lebanon. Saudi financial assistance to the PLO (until the 1990 PLO collaboration with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait) was $100 million annually, while their assistance to the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan was a $1 billion annually. * Rhetorically, Arab leaders have always identified with PLO/PA's claims to sovereignty. However, in practice, Arab leaders have been aware of the treacherous nature of the PLO/PA, and therefore have preferred to keep the PLO/PA under control, thus refraining from active support of PLO/PA aspirations for independence. IV. THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY (PA) INTENSIFIES TERROR * The Palestinian Authority was established in 1993 by Palestinian terrorists headquartered until then in Tunisia and terrorist camps in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Sudan. The establishment of the Palestinian Authority was perceived by terrorists as a reward to a systematic campaign of terrorism and intimidation against Israel, the role-model of counter-terrorism. Thus the Palestinian Authority has bolstered the forces of regional and global terrorism. * 254 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the 15 years PRIOR to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. 1,400 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the 10 years SINCE the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Proportionally, the number of Israelis murdered since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, would be equal to 70,000 Americans (23 World Trade Centers). * The Palestinian Authority has become the largest and most (diplomatically) protected anti-U.S. terrorist base. * The Palestinian Authority was established in 1993 by the Oslo Accord and supported by the Wye Accord and the Road Map. The most intense wave of anti-U.S. terrorism has been conducted since 1993, culminating on 9/11. * Never has a political process (from Oslo Process to the Road Map) produced as much terrorism, bringing the participants closer to war and further from peace, as has the process that centered on the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and aimed at the establishment of a Palestinian State. * Recent history (since 1968) suggests that the broader the authority of the PLO/PA, the more intense is terrorism. International terrorism intensified during the 1968-70 PLO autonomy/independence in Jordan, and plummeted upon PLO's expulsion from Jordan. Terrorism subsided in 1991/2 when the PLO was increasingly constrained in Tunisia, but was enormously exacerbated upon the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1993. The upgrading of the Palestinian Authority to the status of a State would drastically escalate terrorism. V. THE PA UNDERMINES U.S. INTERESTS AND VALUES * Since the demise of the USSR, the U.S. has faced the following threats stemming from Middle East: Islamic terrorism, ballistic missiles and non-conventional military systems, Iran, Iraq (until the destruction of Saddam's regime) and other rogue regimes such as Syria. * The Palestinian Authority - and its source of power, the PLO - have been traditional strategic allies of Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam, Khomeini and his successors and other rogue regimes in the Middle East and beyond. The ideological mentors of the PA were the allies of the Nazis (Haj Amin Al Husseini) and the Communist regimes of the USSR and East Europe. Arafat himself was trained by the KGB. * PA leadership openly rejoiced at the WTC bombing. Conversely, the capture of Saddam Hussein was met with gloom and anti-U.S. demonstrations. A central square in Jenin was named after Ali Jafar Al Na'amani, the Iraqi homicide-bomber who murdered four U.S. Marines in Najaf on March 29, 2003. A typical anti-U.S. sermon was given on January 2, 2004, by PA clerics, at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, condemning "the modern-day Tatars, the Big Satan, which has destroyed Baghdad." The sermon was broadcast live by PA TV and radio, and urged Moslems to launch a Holy War against the U.S. * Three U.S. attaches were murdered by PA-sponsored terrorists on October 15, 2003 upon entering the Gaza Strip in a diplomatic convoy. More U.S. citizens, visiting or residing in Israel were murdered by Palestinian terrorists, including Leon Klinghoffer (SS Achille Lauro), and the U.S. ambassador to Sudan and his deputy, murdered by Arafat's terrorists in 1972. Unlike the Taliban, the PA has never faced an ultimatum of handing over the terrorists or be destroyed. * Rather than combating terrorism, the PA has harbored and ran the largest terrorist base in the world. Every territory conceded by Israel has become a safe haven for terrorists. The PA has become a breeding ground and a test site for "modern-day terrorism", such as suicide bombing and car bombing, which has been exported to other arenas in the Middle East and beyond. Modern-day hijacking was introduced by the PLO in the late '60s, and then was employed by other terror organizations. * Official PA education, media and clergy systems have promoted anti-U.S. hate education, heralding Bin-Laden and Saddam and encouraging anti-U.S. terrorism. * The PA has become a role-model of suppression of (Palestinian) human rights. * The PA regime has caused an unprecedented flight of the Arab Christian community in Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Ramallah. VI. THE TRACK RECORD OF THE PLO/PA * The PLO has been the role model of inter-Arab terrorism, treachery and murderous violation of agreements. * In the late 1950s, Arafat, Abu Mazen, Abu Ala' and other leaders of Fatah fled Egypt due to subversive activities. * In 1966, they fled Syria - which provided Fatah with logistic infrastructure - after executing a number of Syrian intelligence officers. * In 1970, the PLO attempted to topple the Hashemite regime, which provided them with a safe haven beginning since 1968. * In 1975, the PLO tried to topple Lebanon's government, and in the process initiated a many-year civil war. * In 1990 (when the Bush/Baker team was pressuring Israel), the PLO participated in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which had accorded the PLO and Fatah diplomatic, financial and terrorist safe haven since the late 1950s. * As a result of PLO's track record, no Arab regime allows PLO personnel to bear arms on its soil, for fear of subversion. * The PA/PLO track record since 1993 has been consistent with PLO's inter-Arab track record, and true to the axiom: Leopards don't change spots; they change tactics. VII. A THREAT OF PA TO AMERICAN SECURITY Based on the aforementioned PLO/PA track record, one can expect that the proposed Palestinian State will aggravate the damage caused by the PA to U.S. interests and values: * A Palestinian State will intensify international terrorism. * A Palestinian State will destroy the Hashemite regime - a U.S. ally - thus expanding the territory and bolstering the radical clout of the Palestinian State. * A Palestinian State will provide Iran with an ally. * A Palestinian State will provide the pro-Saddam (or other radical) elements in Iraq with another ally in the unpredictable and volatile Mideast. * A Palestinian State will export terrorism into the Persian Gulf, threatening the survival of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. * A Palestinian State will become an outpost for anti-U.S. regimes in the Middle East and beyond. * A Palestinian State will transform Israel from a power-projecting strategic asset of the U.S. into an assistance-requiring strategic liability. Without the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria, Israel will lose its power of deterrence, which has kept radical regimes at bay and served to bolster the security of pro-U.S. weak Arab regimes (e.g. Jordan). * With a 9- to 15-mile-wide 1949 border - without the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria - Israel will lose a vital military surveillance platform, which has provided the U.S. with important intelligence. * Israel's posture of deterrence has spared the U.S. the need to deploy a large military force in the eastern part of the Mediterranean. It will require the U.S. to stretch its forces beyond current capabilities, while these forces are needed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, etc. VIII. STOPPING PALESTINIAN TERRORISM PA/PLO terrorism was triggered in 1994 by sweeping Israeli concessions, and by the the PLO status being raised from an increasingly irrelevant organization in Tunisia to an autonomous entity in Gaza, Judea & Samaria. In the ten years since its establishment, the Palestinian Authority has signed - and promptly violated - scores of agreements. They have demonstrated that there is no political solution with the PA. The only effective solution to terrorism is military, as has been demonstrated by the U.S. (vs. Iraq and Afghanistan), Turkey (PKK), Germany (Baader Meinhoff), Italy (Red Brigades), France (Action Direct), Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), etc. * Israel should follow the U.S. leadership in the global war on terrorism, adopting U.S. tactics in its wars against the Taliban and Saddam regimes: * The prime responsibility of a leader is the security of his own people, rather than the prestige in the eyes of the UN, West Europe or other parts of the globe. A nation does not subcontract defense against terrorists to a third party (let alone to a terrorist authority), does not complain about terrorism, but rather launches an offensive against terrorism. Would the U.S. consider entrusting anti-terrorist activities to Saddam or to the Taliban? * Moral clarity suggests that terrorists are not partners to negotiation, but rather enemies to be crashed. Members of the Saddam regime were not "president", "prime minister", "national security advisor" or "legislator." They were "terrorists", "liars", "cancerous elements". * There can be no negotiation with a regime that has systematically and violently violated every agreement. * Instead of a compromise or a ceasefire, the aim should be the destruction of the infrastructure that feeds the fire of terrorism. * Instead of defensive, deterrent, retaliatory or containment tactics, we should employ offensive, pre-emption and prevention on the enemy 's own ground. * Instead of low-intensity war, we should conduct a swift and comprehensive military campaign. * The political, ideological and financial echelons that constitute the key terrorist elements are to be eliminated, just like the initial bombing in the 2003 war on Iraq targeted the political leaders of Saddam's regime. * General MacArthur barred all Japanese connected to the Hirohito regime from participation in Japan's political, educational and business systems, locally and nationally. Paul Bremer is following in McArthur's footsteps, excluding Ba'ath Party members from participation in the rebuilding of New Iraq. Israel should adopt the same attitude toward the Palestinian rogue terrorist regime, the Palestinian Authority. The problem has never been a personal one (Arafat); it has always been organizational and systemic (the PA). IX. THE THREE-STAGE SOLUTION (Jerusalem Platform) * The nature of the Middle East, the most violent region in the world (no inter-Arab comprehensive peace during the last 13 centuries!), the nature of regional topography and geography (Israel's vulnerable narrow waistline and the threatening topography of Judea & Samaria mountain ridges), the track record of the last 100 years (the sustained campaign of war and terror aimed at eradicating the Jewish State), and the resulting security requirements, determine that Israel's control of the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean (40 miles) is essential to Israel's survival. * Israel is facing a unique enemy (the PA) that idolizes suicide bombing through its formal education, media and clergy systems. The PA has had anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-U.S. hate education (K-12) in place since 1994. It has corrupted the minds of Palestinians, especially the youth for the next one or even two generations. * The true and lasting peace has to be built on these facts, not on the false paradigm of "Land for Peace" in which the only democracy of the region, Israel, is forced to provide to its totalitarian enemies - scores of times its size - the only thing that it lacks: territory. In exchange, these dictatorial regimes promise to provide the one and only thing that they lack: peace. STAGE 1: REMOVING THE TERROR REGIME OF PA * Co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians requires the dismantling of the morally illegitimate PA. The effective dismantling of the PA requires the destruction - via war on terrorism - of the infrastructure established by the 60,000 terrorists, imported since Oslo from Tunisia, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria and Jordan. * The removal of PA's despotic regime would enable moderate Palestinians to assert themselves. The dismantling of the PA is a precondition for the democratization and pacification of the Palestinian society, following ten years of damage caused by the PA, and in defiance of the non-democratic and non-pacified Arab Middle East (with scores of inter-Arab conflicts and not a single democratic regime). * The democratization and the pacification of the Middle East can be secured primarily by deterrence. The bolstering of Israel's posture of deterrence - which requires Israel's military control of the 40-mile-stretch between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River - is a prerequisite for stability, for the defeat of Palestinian terrorism, and for the prevention of the establishment of a Palestinian terrorist state. STAGE 2: TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY AND CO-EXISTENCE * Palestinian human rights and democracy are preconditioned upon the removal of the terrorist, tyrannical and corrupt PA regime, whose primary victims have been ordinary Palestinians. * The Palestinians seek security and comfort just like any other people. However, with PA regime imposed on them, lawlessness and violence have become a way of life on territories under PA rule. * Presently these territories enter the state of chaos and civil war among clans, gangs and terror groups who control different areas of West Bank and Gaza. * Democratization and pacification are not attained via rhetoric and declaration of intent. The transformation of a rogue society into a democratic and peace-loving society is reflected through an intense overhaul of the education, legal, political, media, civil service, business and clergy systems. The transformation process must feature a drastic change of personnel, excluding the members of the rogue regime at all levels. The transformation must be proven over a long period of time, overcoming ideological, political and physical challenges from within and from without. The transformed political institutions, education system, the courts, the civil service and financial system and other institutions must demonstrate their departure from the jihadist norms of the PA and their adaptation of democratic norms. * Following the removal of the PA, day-to-day activities of Palestinian Arabs will be managed by regional autonomous councils. The regional councils will be assisted by Israel, as well as by outside entities, such as the U.S., Jordan and other member countries and organizations of the International Coordination Body (ICB). * Local Palestinians, with the assistance of Israel and members of the ICB, will elect representatives to the regional councils. No candidate shall be elected who was directly or indirectly involved in PA's activities, which directed, financed, incited, organized or carried out acts of terrorism. * Israel shall invite representatives of the ICB to observe - and facilitate - free democratic elections to the regional councils; preservation, upgrading and democratization of civil institutions; restoration and preservation of Palestinian human rights: women's rights, children's rights; eradication of torture and corruption. STAGE 3: COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT * Once the long-term democratization and pacification stage is attained, then the road is clear to a political solution between Israel and the Palestinian Arab residents of Judea & Samaria and Gaza. * Each party will have the right to introduce its own proposed solution. The Palestinians would be able to propose an independent state, while Israel would be able to propose annexation, regional and an administrative autonomy for the Palestinians, or any other solution. * Proposed solutions should consider the lessons of the past 10 years, the unpredictable and violent nature of the Middle East, the threatening topography of the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria and the vulnerability of Israel's narrow waistline (which is comparable to the length of the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport). * All plans partitioning the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (from the 1937 Peal Commission, through Oslo, the 2000 Camp David and the Road Map), have radicalized Arab and Palestinian anti-Israel policies, destabilizing the region, producing unprecedented terrorism and bloodshed, undermining U.S. interests and distancing Jews and Arabs from peace. * The State of Israel from Mediterranean to Jordan River (only 22,700 sq.km., smaller than New Jersey) is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, with scarce natural resources. This tiny area therefore cannot physically accommodate two independent states, Jewish and Arab. * Additional attempts to partition this area would amount to another costly victory of wishful thinking over experience. As the old saw says, "Fool me once - shame on you; fool me twice - shame on me!" * The area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River accounts for less than 1% of the land possessed by Arab countries. * This are is a mere 23% of British Mandate Palestine, designated by the League of Nations to become the Jewish National Home. Israel accepted the Partition and sacrificed 77% of historic Palestine to Jordan, in order to live peacefully in the Cradle of Jewish History: in Judea and Samaria. * The largest Palestinian community resides in Jordan, constituting over 70% of the population, commerce and banking and at least 50% of Jordan' s government and military, thus making it a true Palestinian state. Is there a need for an additional state for the Palestinians? One People is entitled to only One State. What the international community is pushing for now is a "two-states-for-one-people solution". * Palestinian people have the natural right to strive for the unification of their nation and for being citizens of one state. However, with Palestinian people divided (1/3 in the Judea, Samaria and Gaza, 2/3 in Jordan, Israel and elsewhere), and the Oslo agreements encompassing only 1/3 of Palestinian people, they will strive for unification even after (or even more so) the creation of a Palestinian State west of Jordan (family and tribal ties of Palestinians extend across the Jordan River), thus destabilizing Jordan, Lebanon and the entire region. * The Jordan River is the only natural border between the Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinian Arab State. Only this natural rift could assure a viable fence between the neighbors. * While the Palestinian residents of Judea & Samaria and Gaza will administer their own local affairs (legal, financial, municipal, law-enforcement, issuing ID cards, etc.) Israel shall retain all security and external relations authority, lest it repeat the grave terror-producing errors of Oslo. * Palestinian residents of Judea & Samaria, most of whom hold (or used to hold until 1988) Jordanian citizenship, will be allowed to participate in the Jordanian electoral process, in addition to their own regional elections. They will be citizens of Jordan and residents of the regional administrative autonomy. A Marshall Plan for developing and strengthening Jordanian economy and democracy should be implemented. Democratization and pacification would enable Israel to remove road blocks, to end closure, to open the labor market (for Palestinians) and to expand, significantly, the transportation, communications and utilities infrastructure in Judea & Samaria and Gaza for the benefit of Palestinians and Jews residing there. X. The Palestinian/Jewish Refugees Resettlement Regional Cooperation Project The Refugees Resettlement Project will be launched by members of the International Cooperation Board, with the active involvement by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The project will follow in the footsteps of similar projects, which have resettled almost all 100 million refugees, throughout the globe, since 1945. It will commit itself to a factual account of Jewish and Palestinian Arab refugees, of the origin and the number of Palestinian refugees and of the circumstances, which produced their misery. The project will involve a multi-billion dollar investment in Jordan, Egypt (especially in Sinai, which is contiguous to Gaza), Syria and Lebanon, in order to resettle the refugees. APPENDIX Nearly 70% of Americans Say "NO" to Palestinian Arab State The Zionist Organization of America conducted a poll, querying 1,000 Americans throughout the United States. The poll carried out by the firm of McLaughlin & Associates in mid-January of 2004 found that: BY 67% TO 19%, AMERICANS OPPOSE GIVING THE PALESTINIAN ARABS A STATE: 67.4% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs have not met President Bush's conditions for statehood, such as fighting terrorism, halting incitement to murder, and respecting human rights. Only 19.3% say they have met those conditions. BY 66% TO 17%, AMERICANS OPPOSE EXPELLING JEWS FROM THE TERRITORIES: 66.6% of Americans disagree with the Arab position that all Jewish residents of the Judea-Samaria-Gaza territories should be expelled; only 17% agree with that demand. BY 65% TO 18%, AMERICANS SAY PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY CAN'T BE TRUSTED: 65.2% of Americans say the Palestinian Authority "cannot be trusted to fulfill peace agreements that it signs with Israel"; only 18.6% say it can be trusted to fulfill them. BY 55% TO 21%, AMERICANS SAY PALESTINIAN ARABS SEEK DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL: 55.7% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs' goal is "the eventual destruction of Israel"; only 21.3% say their goal is "to have a small state living in peace alongside Israel." BY 73% TO 15%, AMERICANS OPPOSE U.S. AID TO THE PALESTINIAN ARABS: 73.6% say the U.S. should stop sending $200-million each year to the Palestinian Arabs; only 15% say the aid should continue. |
|
ISRAELI ENVOY EXPLAINS GAZA SETTLEMENT REMOVAL PLANS
Posted by Bryna Berch, February 7, 2004. |
|
Ehud Olmert - Sharon's very own Charlie MacCarthy dummy - told members
of the Bush Administration that Israel would pull out of Gaza
unilaterally. This means 8000 Jews will be transferred - ethnically
cleansed - from their homes and the farms and orchards they built in a
desolate land. This means Arabs hired by the Jewish Gazan farmers will
be out of a job. This means the Arabs will have an easier time hitting
what's left of Israel. This means more Israelis will be utterly
demoralized and confused whether their worst enemies are the Arabs or
their own government. Why are they leaving Gaza in enemy hands?
According to Olmert, it's so Israel will be in a better position while
they await "Palestinian readiness to negotiate." Yeah,
running out of Gaza is a move that will really encourage the Arabs to
become peaceful.
I'll bet Cheney and the others just sat there shaking their heads, wondering what this guy was smoking. This is polite account by David Gollust of the State Department; it appeared on the Voice of America website (http://www.voanews.com). An Israeli envoy met senior Bush administration officials to explain Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans to remove Jewish settlements from the Gaza strip. Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert acknowledged the Gaza pullout would be unilateral action, but said it would be consistent with President Bush's vision of a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. Mr. Olmert met with Secretary of State Colin Powell and later at the White House with Vice President Dick Cheney on a hastily-arranged Washington mission, aimed at easing U.S. misgivings about Mr. Sharon's plans for Gaza. The Bush administration has been wary about the Sharon initiative, on the one hand supporting the removal of Gaza settlements, but at the same time expressing concern about any effort to circumvent the international "Roadmap" to peace by imposing a settlement. In a talk with reporters here, Mr. Olmert conceded that the intended action in Gaza was unilateral, but insisted that it was "within the framework" of the vision for peace outlined by President Bush in his Middle East policy statement of June 2002. The Israeli official said there was no sign the Palestinians are ready to engage in a peace dialogue or crack down on terrorism. He said, under the circumstances, the Sharon government feels there is "no need to wait" on action in Gaza. "What we are interested in is to reduce the level of collision and confrontation, which is a daily event that creates difficulties - that is a source for bitterness and for sometimes unnecessary confrontations - to the inevitable minimum," he said. "And since, at the end of the day, according to the president's vision, according to the agreement of most of the Israelis, Israelis will not remain in Gaza anyway, then we are ready to pull out now when we will be ready for it soon, not as a concession for the Palestinians, but as an improvement of the living conditions of many Israelis." Mr. Olmert said plans for leaving Gaza, which would include relocating and compensating thousands of settlers, would be ready by the second half of this year, but he gave no indication when actual dismantling of settlements might occur. He said disengagement from Gaza would put Israel into what he termed a "more comfortable parking position" as it awaited Palestinian readiness to negotiate. The Israeli deputy prime minister, a former mayor of Jerusalem, also held out the prospect that Israel might reconsider the route of some segments of its controversial barrier in the West Bank, if security conditions improved. But he said that is a distant prospect at present. The United States has supported Palestinian complaints that the barrier, among other things, could prejudge the boundaries of a future Palestinian state. The Bush administration has said it will deduct funds from Congressionally-approved loan guarantees for Israel because of that project and settlement-building in the West Bank. |
|
THE SHARON EVACUATION PLAN WILL NEVER COME TO PASS
Posted by Nadia Matar, February 7, 2004. |
|
This is an English translation of Nadia Matar's Hebrew Internet radio
show of Feb 5, 2004.)
The scenario: Jean-Marie Le Pen, the fascist leader in France, takes power and becomes the French Prime Minister. The following day he announces a list of steps that his government will take, in order to limit the numerous expenditures in the state budget. These decisions include the prohibition of further Jewish residence in Paris. Le Pen explains: "In light of the many attacks against Parisian Jews, a considerable portion of our budget is wasted on the security of those Jews, everywhere in Paris. We must invest the money in other places, that are of greater importance to all Frenchmen, such as education, welfare, health, and the like. I have therefore decided to 'relocate' the Jews of Paris to small and remote villages, and even to persuade them to leave France. From today on, Jews will no longer live in or visit Paris." An imaginary scenario? Until a few days ago - yes. But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's statements for the uprooting of Jews from Gush Katif and for making the region Judenrein (clean of Jews) make this scenario extremely realistic. In response to all those who would rise up against Jean-Marie Le Pen in our scenario and accuse him of anti- Semitism, Le-Pen could argue, and justifiably so: "If a Jewish Prime Minister can uproot Jews from the Land of Israel, the birthright of the Jews - how much more can a non-Jewish Prime Minister uproot Jews from their homes in France, a place to which Jews have no historical connection." And, really, who would have believed that, of all people, Ariel Sharon, the hero of Unit 101, would want to fulfill the anti-Semitic dreams of the PLO, the Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad: the uprooting of Jews from their homes, the destruction of Jewish settlements, and the handing over of portions of the homeland to the enemy? To our amazement and shame, Ariel Sharon has thereby become the operational arm of these terrorist organizations. Our response to the Sharon plan is simple: This shall never come to pass! We have the power to prevent the imposition of the evil decree. First of all, since Ariel Sharon has become the most dangerous person for the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora, we must act so that Ariel Sharon will be deposed from his post of Prime Minister. Sharon must be transferred - sorry, "relocated" - from his office, to retirement on his Shikmim farm. In this manner we shall demonstrate, once again, that any prime minister who is ready to betray Eretz Israel and hand it over to the enemy, will be sent home in disgrace. Secondly, even if we do not succeed in deposing him, it will still be possibly to easily prevent the realization of the transfer. How? By upsetting Sharon's plans. Sharon and the rest of those who champion transfer for Jews begin from the assumption that the same scenario as in Yamit will play out in Gush Katif: that most of the residents will accept their fate, consent to receive compensation, and evacuate willingly. [In Yamit, 99% of the actual residents agreed to receive compensations and left quietly. The struggle we all saw on tv was fought by a couple of thousands of activist outsiders who had come to protest the uprooting by living there for a few months and staying till the bitter end]. Sharon expects that the same will happen in the Gazastrip, that most families will leave quietly and only a hardcore of "ideologues" will remain. Them he will treat harshly. In this manner, and only in this manner, will Sharon be able to uproot the settlements. But what if the scenario on which Sharon builds will not be realized? What if the decisive majority of the inhabitants of Gush Katif were to declare: This shall never come to pass! Under no circumstances will we budge. Eretz Israel belongs to the people of Israel throughout all the generations. No Jew is entitled to hand over a single bit of the land of Eretz Israel to foreigners, because Eretz Israel belongs to the generations of the past, present, and future. Not even a majority in the government or in the Knesset, not even a referendum, can make the handing over of portions of Eretz Israel legal or moral. Accordingly, even if, Heaven forbid, the government or the Knesset were to betray the homeland, we shall not accept this. It is well-known that there are immoral government decisions that a citizen must oppose, even if they enjoy a majority in the government and in the Knesset. Just as, for example, we would not obey a decision by the government and the Knesset forcing us to eat pork, so, too, we shall not obey the decision to uproot us from Eretz Israel. We shall say "No!" to compensation, we shall say "No!" to enticements, and we shall declare: "Our home is here, we are raising a third generation of children here and we are staying." If the inhabitants of Yamit had acted in accordance with this scenario, Yamit would probably still stand today - growing and flourishing. For what will Ariel Sharon, or any other government, do in such a situation? The deportation of thousands of families, men, women and children, simply could not be realized. Thousands of police officers and soldiers had to come for the uprooting of the Gilad Farm, inhabited by 2 families and hundreds of supporters. Even if Ariel Sharon were to mobilize the entire army and all the police, he would not succeed in his mission of destruction of the thousands of Gush Katif residents and the tens of thousands of their supporters. We must therefore understand that, with God's help, we have the power to stop Sharon's contemptible plan - whether by dethroning him, or whether by taking a firm and uncompromising stand that will upset all of Sharon's schemes. We must initiate an informational offensive (which is what the leaders of the national camp, both in and outside the Knesset, should have done long ago) that will remind the public that we are in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza by right, and not on sufferance. The state media sows disinformation as if there is no historic Jewish connection to Gaza. The time has come to shatter these lies and to explain to the public that we must stay in Gaza, not only for security reasons -anybody with common sense understands that withdrawing from Gaza would turn the area into a haven for terrorists who would threaten the entire south of Israel- but mainly because Gaza is part of Biblical Israel. Gaza and its surrounding areas were included in the portion of the tribe of Judah. The first settlement in Gaza was initiated by Johanan the Hasmonean, who conquered the city, and by Simeon the Hasmonean who settled Jews there. During the Bar Kokhba rebellion the Jews of Gaza also participated in the war against the Romans. Consequently, when the Roman commander Titus set out to repress the uprising, he was forced to first go to Gaza and put down the revolt there. This was because Gaza was "the key to Eretz Israel," since it is situated on the crossroads between Egypt and central Eretz Israel, and is also on the coastline. Following a Roman victory, a large slave fair was held in Gaza in which Bar Kokhba's soldiers were sold to merchants from the various lands who came to rejoice at the downfall of Israel. During the long years of the Exile, the Jews returned and settled in the holy cities of Israel, including Gaza. For a long period of time there were only three centers of Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel: in Jerusalem, in Tiberias, and in Gaza. It should be recalled that R. Israel Najara (the author of the Sabbath song Y-ah Ribon Olam) was the rabbi of the city of Gaza in the sixteenth century; and R. Abraham Azulai, the grandfather of the Hida (R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai), wrote his holy book Hesed le-Avraham in Gaza. The Jews of Gaza were forced to leave when Napoleon's army passed through the city in 1799, but they would later return and rebuild. The Jewish community in Gaza was destroyed during the British bombardment in 1917, but it was subsequently rebuilt. When the Arabs threatened to massacre the Jews of Gaza during the pogroms of 1929, the British compelled the Jews to leave. In 1946, however, the Jews returned and established Kfar Darom, that existed until 1948, when Egypt conquered the region. In short, our connection to the Gaza region is much deeper than our ties to Tel Aviv or to Ramat Hasharon. A Prime Minister who is willing to relinquish the Gaza District will eventually surrender Jerusalem, as well. The struggle for the Gaza District is therefore the struggle for the continued existence of the State of Israel. We have the ability to stand firm against those who arise to destroy us - the enemies from within and without - and, with the help of God, we shall prevail. 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 |
|
A TRIUMPH FOR FREE TRADE - IN RHETORIC: Could the EC's most recent
agreement with Syria lead to more coalition troops dying in Iraq?
Posted by David Frankfurter, February 7, 2004. |
|
I published this article in "The Sprout," a Brussels-based
magazine.
The EC and the government of Syria have just concluded their negotiations for a trade deal within the MEDA framework - a deal yet to be rubber-stamped by the respective parliaments. An official press release referred to clauses covering free trade, human rights, and terror. It is no secret that an essential part of Syrian financial strategy is gaining improved access to European markets as well as grabbing an increasing share of EU aid to the Levant. The dictatorship of the late Hafez el-Assad had brought stability but continued poverty to the average Syrian. Around 50% of Syria's foreign commerce is now conducted with the EU. The Ambassador of the EC Mission in Damascus, Frank Heske, noted that total aid through the MEDA programme is to reach Euro.300 million over 2002-2006. Nevertheless, the European taxpayer must question the wisdom of this substantial investment in the "new Syria". Syria's creativity over the past decade for developing new trade links does not point to a healthy and ongoing relationship with Europe. For example, President Bashir Assad's cousin has spent at least two years directing arms towards his co-Bathist customer in Baghdad. While sitting on the UN Security Council, Syria purchased weapons from Poland, Libya, and the Koreas amongst others and illegally re-exported them for tens of millions of dollars to Saddam's army. As Saddam diverted huge sums from the United Nations food-for-oil program into these arms purchases, he also secretly stashed away billions of dollars in Syrian bank vaults. It appears that the border between Syria and its Southern neighbour is still highly porous. What should be of grave concern to Europeans is whether coalition troops in Iraq are now suffering as a result of this trade in weapons. Similar questions can be asked of the now infamous "Niger Shipment" of uranium, which arrived in Iraq via Libya and Syria. Not only has Dr Ayad Allawi of Iraq's Presidential Committee apparently confirmed the reports as genuine. These stories reinforce the allegations about Syria's non-conventional weapons programs. Syria's trade in violence is not just limited to "hardware". Damascus is also involved in transferring "human resources". On December 19, 2003, AP commented on how volunteers recruited in Italy, Britain and Germany were able to cross freely the Syrian border with Iraq. Their aim: to attack and kill coalition troops. Syria's commercial policy is clearly not engineered to stabilise the Middle East Interestingly, there are those who see trade discussions as a breakthrough, which will lead to greater economic and political freedoms in Syria. Christian Leffler, the EU's chief negotiator, found his opposite numbers to be "positive" and "constructive". Patrick Searle, the leading British apologist for Syria, believes that the government in Damascus will now introduce reforms. But why did the EC make an agreement, before reforms have been introduced? Are they blind to the reports of organizations like Amnesty International (AI), which cited an increase in human rights abuses in 2002. Hundreds of political prisoners are still imprisoned without trial. 10 days after the trade discussions were concluded, an AI press release demanded the release of 14 prisoners of conscience from Syrian prisons. And none of this even considers Syria's dubious role in Lebanon and its support for the warmongering Hizbollah. The French government and its allies in the EC's secretive corridors of powers have obviously been galled by America's insistence that Syria is still a pariah state. As AI was preparing its statement, President Bush was approving a Bill from Congress authorizing economic sanctions against Syria. A tragedy for Europe or an ironic reminder that Syria still harbours terrorist cells, including those who actively oppose the work of the coalition in Iraq? The EU is now presented with two moral dilemmas. First, should the representatives in Brussels approve the agreement negotiated with Damascus? To say "no" or to ask for serious clarifications would require a bold step against the wishes of Commissioner Patten and others. Second, even if the seal of approval is given, what happens next? Hand over the money and then demand the promised reforms? It is times like this when the taxpayer probably knows both what should be done and what unfortunately will be done. Syria has an excellent opportunity to redeem itself. It has been cited in the Parliament of Westminster and other western democracies for having produced a series of anti-Christian and anti-Semitic broadcasts. The programmes are now being shown via the Internet throughout Europe. This abomination clearly repudiates the terms and the spirit of the trade discussions. The programmes should be recalled and an apology issued. Fortunately for the Damascan oligarchy, morality does not often play a major role when deciding European foreign policy. Judging from the pleas for further EU aid, the benefits of previous inflows have not yet filtered down to the average Syrian. Just as the President's father massacred thousands in Homs in 1982, so the current regime is able to claim innocence at the begging table. The result of this forceful diplomacy is that EU taxpayer and her defense personnel foot the bill in more ways than one. David Frankfurter sends "Letters from Israel" emails to subscribers. Contact him at David.Frankfurter@iname.com |
|
ISRAEL TECH
Posted by Jock Falkson, February 7, 2004. |
|
Roy Sasson visited Israel recently in the company of 80 of America's
brightest students. His letter is an eye-opener, worth reading and
passing around.
Hi, my name is Roy Sasson, I am currently a senior at the University of Florida majoring in Digital Arts and Sciences. I was born in Israel, and moved to the states at the young age of six. I've gone back to visit several times since, however my most recent trip allowed me to look at Israel through a completely different perspective. Over the past two weeks, I embarked on a memorable trip that has left an imprint in my life. Eighty students including myself from some of the most prestigious universities in the United States including Cornell, Penn State, Stanford, Columbia, The University of Florida (of course) and others, were invited to attend a trip to Israel to educate us in respect to the technology and business within the country. My expectation was simply 'another free trip to Israel'...I had no idea what I was in for. Prior to the trip, my perception was that Israel was practically a 3rd world country way behind its time, only a source of violence and turmoil. I saw first hand that Israel is in fact one of the major reasons as to why our modern world has become what it is today. Our trip was comprised of visits to top notch Universities, biotechnology companies, an aircraft development company, the stock exchange, meetings with venture capitalists,economists, business men, entrepreneurs, and prestigious professors. Some of the brightest students today had the opportunity to listen, interact, and most importantly question, some of the most amazing developments in technology. We witnessed these developments first hand, and got a chance to have them explained, not by their low level representatives, but by the actual scientists, professors, and business men themselves, and I have to say, it was nothing short of inspiring... Let's just list the facts... 80% of biotechnology in the entire world comes from Israel. The Entire World. I'm talking about technologies that will revolutionize the world. One such account was a biotechnology company who will in three months time be approved by the FDA to perform operations to remove tumors without even penetrating the skin! Every laptop that you use from now on is powered by the new mobile centrino processor, a technology developed in Israel. A 3D face recognition technology was recently developed here (to combat terrorism) that is so sophisticated it can tell apart identical twins. Teva Pharmaceuticals developed the most effective drug to counter Parkinsons disease. Israel is home to a pill that when taken, captures images inside of the body. File formats such as gif and zip files that you use everyday, developed here. Smart cards for credit cards, the chips in your digital cameras. It is in large part due to Israel that the internet is where it is today. Many of the problems that we were facing on the internet in regards to communication, bandwidth, and security, had already been implemented in the Israeli Army. The first Instant messaging software, the first firewall...the list is endless... Huge companies such as Microsoft, HP, Intel, and IBM, establish major research and development centers in Israel looking to capitalize on the breakthroughs, genius, and talent. The U.S. forces Israel to sign agreements not to adjust F15 and F16 fighter planes Israel buys from the United States with superior radar and other advanced technologies Israel possesses. Over 100 Israeli companies are listed on the NASDAQ, third only to Canada. Israel is the world leader in environmental research, high-tech, and the arts. It is in Israel where students cracked the GSM cellular phone network encryption code. Not surprisingly, over 50% of Israel's economy is driven by technology,and there are various reasons for this; their local market is only 6million (really small), I doubt that any of their neighbors (mostly Arab countries) would like to do business with them, eliminating a regional market. So when they develop these companies, technologies, and advances, they are built with the hopes and aspirations of making a difference in the world. It is a country where the entrepreneur has become the hero, and making an impact on the world is not uncommon. Israel is a country built around art and education. When an Israeli is successful it does not simply affect his household, but the entire country, bringing up the economy, honor to the country, and a strong sense of pride. Just imagine if our capitalist society was focused on building companies and technologies to make a difference in the world, instead of making a difference in our pockets. Imagine the possibilities with an educational system enforcing the idea that you, the young and bright, can make a difference in the world, in a country where we do not have to worry about violence and terror as Israel does to maintain its survival. One professor told of us of a story of a child who asked his father, serving in the Israeli Army "why do you fight?" His father answered,"I fight today so that your generation will have the opportunity to learn and be educated so that you may be engineers, so that the generation that follows yours may live to be poets and artists." I wasn't told to write this, and I'm not exactly the most eloquent of speakers. I am writing this because I see it as my responsibility, privileged enough to have experienced these things first hand. I tell you all of this not to show you the importance of Israel from a Jewish perspective, but to show you the importance of Israel as part of the human race. |
|
OFFICIAL EGYPTIAN PAPER: SUICIDE BOMBINS ARE LEGITIMATE KILLING
KIDS IS OK.
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 6, 2004. |
|
When faced with the duplicity of the present Likud leader and Prime
Minister, it is worth looking back at the legacy of the Likud's first
great success, Begin and the "peace" with Egypt. Here we can see the
result of this peace. A peace that was paid for with the gifting of
all the Sinai to Egypt, the loss of defence-critical air bases and
strategic depth, oil, the destruction of Jewish communities, the
destruction of Jewish businesses, triple digit inflation and, not the
least, the lives of thousand of Jewish soldiers and civilians.
Israel of course got "peace" and Begin got a pat on the head from the
Goyim. At least our present Likudnik is a bit smarter and seems to be
getting a Greek island and a good retirement package for his efforts.
This article appeared on World Net Daily yesterday and is archived at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36960
An editorial in an Egyptian government newspaper asserted suicide bombings are legitimate even if children are killed. The daily Al-Masaa praised suicide operations, calling on Palestinian organizations to not publish the names of the bombers so that their families' houses would not be demolished, according a translation provided by the Washington, D.C.-based monitor Middle East Media Research Institute. The editorial came amid debate in the Arab media over the dispatching of a mother by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Reem Al-Riyashi, who left behind two toddlers, hid a bomb underneath her robe at a Gaza border crossing, killing four Israelis. In a farewell video, Riyashi said,"It was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists." The Egyptian daily said, "We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion, [an enemy] who has deadly weapons prohibited by international law, that is not deterred from using them against the defenseless Palestinian people." The paper asserted even if civilians or children are killed in the suicide operation, "the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi." "Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation," Al Masaa said. The paper said, however, it questions the Palestinian organizations' practice of publishing the names of the people who carry out the attacks. Publishing the names, Al Masaa said, "is a valuable gift that the Palestinian resistance gives the Zionist entity, since as soon as it receives this gift, the armies of the [Zionist] entity hasten to the home of the martyr's family, wounded by the loss of its son, in order to multiply its pain by destroying its home." 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. |
|
TU B'SHVAT IN GUSH KATIF
Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, February 6, 2004. |
|
In reaction to the Prime Minister's recent statement concerning Gush
Katif, Women In Green have responded by organizing three busloads of
Jews to celebrate Tu B'Shvat by planting trees in Netzarim, in Gush
Katif.
Historically, and Biblically, Gush Katif is an integral part of the Land of Israel, promised by the Almighty to the ancestors of the Jewish People as an eternal heritage. Ever "practical", Prime Minister Sharon obviously doesn't believe in Hashem, nor His Bible, nor His Promises. The Jews returned to Gush Katif with the approval of previous Israel Governments. They developed barren land and made same fertile and productive. Sharon has announced that he intends to uproot these Jews from their homes and communities in this area. The intolerance of the Moslem faith is being catered to by Sharon, under the pretext that it is necessary to separate the Arab and Jewish communities from one another, as they cannot live in peace together. Sharon does not mention that it is the Arabs who have embarked on an anti-democratic path. It is they who are responsible for the terror and violence widely practiced by the Arabs against the Jews in their Biblical homeland. The Jews have repeatedly offered their hand in peace, but the Arabs have rejected such overtures, and want the Jews out of the Land of Israel. In his projected solution, Sharon has declared his intention to unilaterally remove the Jews in the near future from the Gaza Strip, as a precedent for the later removal of Jews from Judea and Samaria. Women In Green are vigorously opposed to this shortsighted solution of Sharon, which caters to Arab violence and terrorism, and in effect encourages and rewards it. In the last analysis, the entire Arab populace must take responsibility for the Arab violence which is taking place in Israel today. Without its cooperation and approval Arab terrorism could not exist, not even for one day. Those are the facts; everything else is Arab and media fiction! 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 |
|
AL AWDA AT WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY IN MIDDLETOWN, CT
Posted by Alyssa A. Lappen, February 6, 2004. |
|
This Tu b'shevat weekend, extremists seeking Israel's political
elimination, through the so-called "right of return," will
hold a hatefest at Wesleyan University in Middletown. Let us be
entirely clear. This group's political goal implies the genocide of
the Jewish people in its homeland. It denies Jewish Israelis the right
to their own nation and homeland - because they are Jews.
Sixty years ago, Nazi Germany attempted to eliminate the Jewish presence in Europe and very nearly succeeded. Many other Europeans assisted, through their silence and inaction, in the murder of two thirds of Europe's Jews. Today, the Muslim Middle East seeks to send Israeli Jews "back." But roughly half of Israeli Jews were among, or descend from the 1 million Jews [1] expelled by Arab and other Middle Eastern Muslim governments between 1920 and 1979. These Muslim states appropriated billions of dollars in Jewish property and wealth. Moreover, the ancient Jewish people has roots in Israel, which has maintained an unbroken Jewish presence from biblical times until the present day. Centuries of conquest and subjugation suffered by the Jewish people, including the Muslim conquests of Israel beginning with the first Caliph Umar, [2] never extinguished that link. In short, Al Awda attempts to cloak a radical Islamic goal - jihad genocide against Israeli Jews - as just and proper. Intellectual honesty requires that universities recognize al Awda's goals as what they are: no more just and proper than the Armenian jihad genocide [3] in 1914, the current jihad genocide against Sudan's Christian Dinka people,[4] the 200-year [5] jihad genocide [6] against Biafra's Ibo people [7] or of hundreds of other jihad genocides conducted against indigenous peoples of Africa, the Middle East, India and Asia throughout Islamic history. These historical jihad genocides are recorded by scholars such as Bat Ye'or, Peter Balakian, Tudor Parfitt, David S. Margoliouth, K.S. Lal, Louise Fevrier, A.S. Tritton, Antoine Fattal, G.H. Bousquet, Moshe Perlmann, Speros Vryonis, Charles-Emanuel Dufourcq, JZ Hirschberg and many others. Comparing Al Awda's rhetoric to that used in the historical and current genocides makes the pattern clear. Jewish activists who help to shield Al Awda from charges of "anti-Semitism" are no less against their own people than historical Christian janissaries, the slave soldiers that Islam directed to conduct jihad genocides in conquered lands. As the late Hindu scholar [8] Sita Ram Goel argues in his 1994 forward to Suhas Majumdar's fine volume, Jihad: The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War, "There was a time, not so long ago, when the exponents of jihad minced no words and pulled no punches. They were brutally frank in spelling out what jihad really meant. That goes a long way to explaining the intellectual assault now occurring at America's universities against Israel and the Jewish people. If you can't attend, observe and or cover the Al Awda proceedings, please ask President Douglas Bennett at dbennet@wesleyan.edu intelligently why he has allowed hatred of Israel and Jews to proceed on his elite university campus. Does he consider hatred of Jews and Israel, alone among prejudices, politically correct? If not, why has he allowed this to transpire at Wesleyan? When initially challenged about it, why did he initially pretend that no such event scheduled this weekend? Did he hope to cover-up or prevent exposure of anti-Semitism on his campus? The following news release comes from DAFKA, a student movement to represent the rights of Jewish students and Israel on campuses nationwide.
[1] http://www.forgottenexodus.com [2] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4917 [3] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060198400/qid=1076016307= /ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0990786-6691354?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 [4] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312306237/qid=107601835= 3/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0990786-6691354?v=glance&s=books [5] http://www.gaminggeeks.org/Resources/KateMonk/Africa/Western/Nigeria.htm [6] http://biafra.info/biafra/nigeria-biafra-civil-war-= ahiara-declaration.html [7] http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:EyLXlyvB5DMJ:www.biafraland.com/= biafra%2520story.rtf+biafra+ibo+jihad&hl=en&lr=lang_ar|= lang_en|lang_fr|lang=_de|lang_iw&ie=UTF-8 [8] http://www.bharatvani.org/books/jihad/for.htm Alyssa A. Lappen is a freelance journalist and prize-winning poet. Her work has appeared recently in such journals as Midstream, FrontPageMagazine.com and Campus-Watch.org and in many others over the last two decades. |
|
A HISTORIAN'S TAKE ON ISLAM STEERS U.S. IN TERRORISM FIGHT
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 6, 2004. |
|
This was written by Peter Waldman and appeared today on the Wall
Street Journal. It is archived at
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107576070484918411,00.html
Bernard Lewis often tells audiences about an encounter he once had in Jordan. The Princeton University historian, author of more than 20 books on Islam and the Middle East, says he was chatting with Arab friends in Amman when one of them trotted out an argument familiar in that part of the world. "We have time, we can wait," he quotes the Jordanian as saying. "We got rid of the Crusaders. We got rid of the Turks. We'll get rid of the Jews." Hearing this claim "one too many times," Mr. Lewis says, he politely shot back, "Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next." The vignette, recounted in the 87-year-old scholar's native British accent, always garners laughs. Yet he tells it to underscore a serious point. Most Islamic countries have failed miserably at modernizing their societies, he contends, beckoning outsiders - this time, Americans - to intervene. Call it the Lewis Doctrine. Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test. For much of the second half of the last century, America viewed the Mideast and the rest of the world through a prism shaped by George Kennan, author of the doctrine of "containment." In a celebrated 1947 article in Foreign Affairs focused on the Soviet Union, Mr. Kennan gave structure to U.S. policy in the Cold War. It placed the need to contain Soviet ambitions above all else. Terrorism has replaced Moscow as the global foe. And now America, having outlasted the Soviets to become the sole superpower, no longer seeks to contain but to confront, defeat and transform. How successful it is at remolding Iraq and the rest of the Mideast could have a huge impact on what sort of superpower America will be for decades to come: bold and assertive - or inward, defensive and cut off. As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative. After Sept. 11, 2001, as policy makers fretted urgently about how to understand and deal with the new enemy, Mr. Lewis helped provide an answer. If his prescription is right, the U.S. may be able to blunt terrorism and stabilize a region that, as the chief exporter of oil, powers the industrial world and underpins the U.S.-led economic order. If it's wrong, as his critics contend, America risks provoking sharper conflicts that spark more terrorism and undermine energy security. After the terror attacks, White House staffers disagreed about how to frame the enemy, says David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President Bush. One group believed Muslim anger was all a misunderstanding - that Muslims misperceived America as decadent and godless. Their solution: Launch a vast campaign to educate Muslims about America's true virtue. Much of that effort, widely belittled in the press and overseas, was quietly abandoned. A faction led by political strategist Karl Rove believed soul-searching over "why Muslims hate us" was misplaced, Mr. Frum says. Mr. Rove summoned Mr. Lewis to address some White House staffers, military aides and staff members of the National Security Council. The historian recited the modern failures of Arab and Muslim societies and argued that anti-Americanism stemmed from their own inadequacies, not America's. Mr. Lewis also met privately with Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Frum says he soon noticed Mr. Bush carrying a marked-up article by Mr. Lewis among his briefing papers. A White House spokesman declined to comment. Says Mr. Frum: "Bernard comes with a very powerful explanation for why 9/11 happened. Once you understand it, the policy presents itself afterward." His exposition and the policies it helped set in motion heralded a decisive break with the doctrine that prevailed during the Cold War. Containment, Mr. Kennan said, had "nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward 'toughness.' " It rested on the somber calculation that even the most aggressive enemy wouldn't risk its own demise by provoking war with a powerful U.S. The Lewis Doctrine posits no such rational foe. It envisions not a clash of interests or even ideology, but of cultures. In the Mideast, the font of the terrorism threat, America has but two choices, "both disagreeable," Mr. Lewis has written: "Get tough or get out." His celebration, rather than shunning, of toughness is shared by several other influential U.S. Mideast experts, including Fouad Ajami and Richard Perle. A central Lewis theme is that Muslims have had a chip on their shoulders since 1683, when the Ottomans failed for the second time to sack Christian Vienna. "Islam has been on the defensive" ever since, Mr. Lewis wrote in a 1990 essay called "The Roots of Muslim Rage," where he described a "clash of civilizations," a concept later popularized by Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington. For 300 years, Mr. Lewis says, Muslims have watched in horror and humiliation as the Christian civilizations of Europe and North America have overshadowed them militarily, economically and culturally. "The question people are asking is why they hate us. That's the wrong question," said Mr. Lewis on C-SPAN shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. "In a sense, they've been hating us for centuries, and it's very natural that they should. You have this millennial rivalry between two world religions, and now, from their point of view, the wrong one seems to be winning." He continued: "More generally ... you can't be rich, strong, successful and loved, particularly by those who are not rich, not strong and not successful. So the hatred is something almost axiomatic. The question which we should be asking is why do they neither fear nor respect us?" For Mr. Lewis and officials influenced by his thinking, instilling respect or at least fear through force is essential for America's security. In this formulation, the current era of American dominance, sometimes called "Pax Americana," echoes elements of Pax Britannica, imposed by the British Empire Mr. Lewis served as a young intelligence officer after graduate school. Eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi - now a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council - argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future, says Mr. Perle, who then headed the policy board. A few months later, in a private dinner with Dick Cheney at the vice president's residence, Mr. Lewis explained why he was cautiously optimistic the U.S. could gradually build democracy in Iraq, say others who attended. Mr. Lewis also held forth on the dangers of appearing weak in the Muslim world, a lesson Mr. Cheney apparently took to heart. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" just before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Cheney said: "I firmly believe, along with men like Bernard Lewis, who is one of the great students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, toward calming things in that part of the world." The Lewis Doctrine, in effect, had become U.S. policy. "Bernard Lewis has been the single most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West," says Mr. Perle, who remains a close adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The idea that a big part of the problem is failed societies on the Arab side is very important. That is not the point of view of the diplomatic establishment." Mr. Lewis declined to discuss his official contacts in Washington. When told his political influence was a focus of this article, he turned down an interview request. "It's still too early," he said. "Let's see how things turn out" in Iraq. In speeches and articles, Mr. Lewis continues to advocate assertive U.S. actions in the Mideast, but his long-term influence is likely to turn on whether his neoconservative acolytes retain their power in Washington in years to come. Born in London in 1916, Mr. Lewis was drawn to the study of history and foreign languages by a deep curiosity about "what things looked like from the other side," he said on C-SPAN in April. He earned undergraduate and doctoral degrees in Mideast and Islamic history from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, then spent five years working on Mideast issues for British intelligence during World War II. Among other things, his wartime service taught him the dangers of appeasement, he told a seminar at the University of Toronto last spring. He said speeches by foes of war in Iraq reminded him of the arguments of peace activists in the 1930s. "All I can say is thank God they didn't prevail then," he said. "If they had, Hitler would have won the war and the Nazis would be ruling the world." In 1945, Mr. Lewis returned to the University of London as a professor, where he earned renown in Ottoman and Turkish history. He was lured to Princeton in 1974 and soon became a mentor to many of those now known as neoconservatives. Mr. Perle recalls hearing Mr. Lewis speak in the early 1970s and inviting him to lunch with Mr. Perle's then-boss, the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington. "Lewis became Jackson's guru, more or less," says Mr. Perle. Mr. Lewis also was an adviser to another Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when Mr. Moynihan was ambassador to the United Nations in the 1970s. He formed lasting ties with several young Jackson and Moynihan aides who went on to apply his views to Iraq. Among them were Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy defense secretary; Elliott Abrams, now National Security Council Mideast chief; and Frank Gaffney Jr., a former Pentagon official. Talking with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Perle says, was "like going to Delphi to see the oracle." Mr. Lewis retired from teaching in 1986 but has maintained ties with many former students in high posts. One, Pentagon analyst Harold Rhode, has played prominent roles as Mr. Wolfowitz's adviser on Islamic affairs, as a planner of the Iraq occupation and as an aide to Pentagon strategist Andrew Marshall. Mr. Lewis dedicated his latest book, "The Crisis of Islam," to Mr. Rhode - who says Mr. Lewis is "like a father to me." Mr. Lewis is also close to government circles in Israel and Turkey - non-Arab lands he describes as the only successful modern states in the region. He warmly praises Kemal Attaturk, who made Turkey a secular republic after World War I by suppressing Islam. (He has also said the Ottoman Turks' killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 wasn't genocide but the brutal byproduct of war. It was a stance for which a French court convicted Mr. Lewis in 1995 under France's Holocaust-denial statute, imposing a token penalty.) Israeli experts say Mr. Lewis's contacts with Turkish generals and politicians helped cement Israeli-Turkish military ties in the 1990s. Mr. Lewis became politically involved with Israel by the mid-1970s, when he wrote an article for the American Jewish Committee publication Commentary. At a time when Israel was dead-set against a Palestinian state, he recommended that Israel "test the willingness" of the Palestine Liberation Organization to negotiate a two-state solution to the conflict. But Mr. Lewis also wrote that Palestinian Arabs didn't have a historical claim to a state, because Palestine hadn't existed as a country prior to British rule in 1918. Israeli leaders jumped on that part of his thesis. The late Prime Minister Golda Meir required her cabinet to read the article, says Amnon Cohen of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who worked for the West Bank military government. He says Mrs. Meir summoned Mr. Lewis and "they spoke for hours. Her aides tried to end it, but Golda kept going and Bernard didn't want to be rude. She was very much in favor of his point" that Palestine as a nation had never existed. Mr. Lewis began spending months at a time at the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University in the 1980s. He became the confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon. Mr. Cohen organizes an annual conference at Hebrew University in honor of Mr. Lewis's birthday. Mr. Wolfowitz took part by videoconference in 2002. Signaling the administration's acceptance of Mr. Lewis's prescription for Iraq, Mr. Wolfowitz said: "Bernard has taught how to understand the complex and important history of the Middle East, and use it to guide us where we will go next to build a better world for generations to come." Mr. Lewis's work has many critics. Some academics say Mr. Lewis's descriptions of Arab and Muslim failures epitomize what the late Edward Said of Columbia University dubbed "Orientalism" - the shading of history to justify Western conquest. Mideast historian Juan Cole of the University of Michigan praises Mr. Lewis's scholarly works earlier in his career but says his more-popular writings of recent years tend to caricature Muslims as poor losers, helpless and enraged. Mr. Cole is among those who say Mr. Lewis's call for military intervention to transform failed Muslim states risks making the culture clash between Islamic lands and the West worse. So far, they say, Iraq looks more like a breeding ground for terrorism than a showcase of democracy - not surprising, they say, given that the U.S. invaded an old and proud civilization. "Lewis has lived so long, he's managed to live into an era when some people in Washington are reviving empire thinking," says Mr. Cole. "He's never understood the realities of political and social mobilization and the ways they make empire untenable." Ilan Pappe of Haifa University says Mr. Lewis's view that political cultures can be remade through force contributed to Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in 1982. "It took the Israelis 18 years, and 1,000 soldiers killed, to abandon that strategy," Mr. Pappe says. "If the Americans operate under the same assumptions in Iraq, they'll fail the way the Israelis failed." After Sept. 11, a book by Mr. Lewis called "What Went Wrong?" was a best-seller that launched the historian, at age 85, as an unlikely celebrity. Witty and a colorful storyteller, he hit the talk-show and lecture circuits, arguing in favor of U.S. intervention in Iraq as a first step toward democratic transformation in the Mideast. Historically, tyranny was foreign to Islam, Mr. Lewis told audiences, while consensual government, if not elections, has deep roots in the Mideast. He said Iraq, with its oil wealth, prior British tutelage and long repression under Saddam Hussein, was the right place to start moving the Mideast toward an open political system. Audiences lapped it up. At the Harvard Club in New York last spring, guests crowded the main hall beneath a huge elephant head, sipping cocktails and waiting for a word with the historian before his speech. On a day when Baghdad was falling to U.S. forces, one woman wanted to know if the American victory would make Arabs more violent. Mr. Lewis politely deflected the question. When the throng shifted, another interrogator pushed forward, this one clearly intent on the possible next phase of America's remolding of the Mideast. "Should we negotiate with Iran's ayatollahs?" asked Henry Kissinger, drink in hand. "Certainly not!" Mr. Lewis responded. Up on the podium, Mr. Lewis lambasted the belief of some Mideast experts at the State Department and elsewhere that Arabs weren't ready for democracy - that a "friendly tyrant" was the best the U.S. could hope for in Iraq. "That policy," he quipped, "is called 'pro-Arab.' " Others, like himself, believe Iraqis are heirs to a great civilization, one fully capable, "with some guidance," of democratic rule, he said. "That policy," he added with a rueful smile, "is called 'imperialism.'" AMERICA ABROAD Some ideas that have shaped U.S. foreign policy: 1900: Open Door Policy rejects efforts to carve up China or restrict its ports 1901-09: Gunboat Diplomacy used by Theodore Roosevelt to exert U.S. influence and deter Europeans from Americas 1917: Making the world safe for democracy is Woodrow Wilson's rationale for entering World War I 1919-20: Isolationism rises as U.S. shuns League of Nations Wilson championed 1930: Protectionism reflected in Smoot-Hawley tariff bill 1932-3: Good Neighbor Policy of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt forswears armed intervention in Latin America 1941: FDR looks to a world with Four Freedoms: of speech, of worship, from want and from fear - meaning deep arms reduction 1947: Containment of Soviet power by counterforce is urged by George F. Kennan; later, notion of mutually assured destruction helps keep U.S.-Soviet relations peaceful 1947: Truman Doctrine, focused on Turkey and Greece, says U.S. will back free peoples resisting armed minorities or outside pressures 1948: Secretary of State George C. Marshall implements Marshall Plan that sets out to lift Europe from postwar poverty 1957: Eisenhower Doctrine offers U.S. aid to any Mideast country threatened by communism 1960s: Domino theory and vow by John Kennedy to "bear any burden, pay any price" for freedom motivate U.S. to fight Vietnam war 1969-76: Realpolitik of Henry Kissinger leads to opening with China, detente with Soviets Late1970 s: Human rights guides foreign policy in Carter years Mid-1980s: Reagan Doctrine aids insurgents fighting leftist governments in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan 1990: New World Order of superpower cooperation declared by George H.W. Bush after Iraq invades Kuwait 2001-2003: "Lewis Doctrine" calls for seeding democracy in failed Mideast states to defang terrorism |
|
INTERNATIONAL FUNDS TO THE PALESTINE AUTHORITY
Posted by The Prism Group, February 6, 2004. |
|
Without too much fanfare, OLAF, the self-regulatory body of the
European Union (EU) is about to visit the Middle East. It is no secret
that only about 10% of EU expenditure can be fully and openly
accounted for. This unsatisfactory situation is revealed further when
overseas aid is considered.
Since its inauguration, The Prism Group has argued consistently that foreign aid directed towards Palestinians has ended up in the pockets of men of violence rather than the man in the street. http://www.theprismgroup.org/euinquiry.htm. Some estimates have calculated that in the past decade alone around $10 billion has been transferred to the PA by overseas donors, which have included the governments of Canada, the United States, Norway and Ireland, as well members of the Arab League. The largest single donor is probably the European Union, which by its own accounting has contributed over 4 billion EUR, either directly to the PA or through UNRWA or NGOs. Both of the latter groupings are known to be closely aligned to the PA. In December 2003, the EU agreed at a meeting in Rome to transfer a further 40 million EUR in special aid. This can be added to the extra recent donations from the World Bank. And the British Parliament is also considering transferring funds along the model established by their European counterparts during 2004. The Prism Group continues to ask, "where has the money gone?" We have been in correspondence with leading Members of Parliament (MEPs) on the issue. One leading backbench MEP, who is involved with the ongoing reviews of transfers to the PA, wrote to us that certain large tranches of funds paid to the PA were not authorized by the European Parliament, and that "the system has a black hole in my opinion." The sums involved are huge on any scale. They have been delivered to a comparatively small and dense populace. The PA is building neither hospitals nor schools. So what is happening to all this public taxpayers money in the hands of the Palestinian leadership? We hope that the work of the OLAF delegation to the Middle East will finally begin to provide some transparent answers to these questions. "The Prism Group gets the facts and sheds light on them." They investigate such areas as what Palestinian Arab children are taught, the integrity (or lack thereof) of the Press in the Middle East and Women's Rights. Their website address is http://www.theprismproup.org |
|
UNILATERAL ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL - THE U.S. ANGLE
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 6, 2004. |
|
The source for this article is Yoram 'Tex' Ettinger in Israel.
1. While the US and Israel may refer to "unilateral withdrawals" (from Lebanon, Judea, Samaria and Gaza) as "redeployment", terrorists - as well as lucid observers - consider them a form of "retreat," "appeasement" and "disincentive for compliance." 2. SETBACK TO U.S. PEACE INITIATIVES. Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and from 40% of Judea&Samaria (since 1993) has produced unprecedented wave of terrorism, which has quagmired various US peace initiatives (Clinton, Mitchell, Tenet, Zini, etc.). The latest Israeli withdrawal from Bethlehem facilitated the January 29, 2004 homicide bus bombing - 11 murdered, which may have doomed the Road Map. 3. TERROR EXPORTED TO IRAQ. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon - encouraged by the US - has propelled Hizballah (which murdered 300 Americans in Beirut in 1983) from a local to a regional player. It has facilitated the exportation of Hizballah-style terrorism to Iraq, while inspiring the unprecedented 2000-2004 Palestinian terrorism. 4. INCITEMENT AND TERRORISM REWARDED AND RADICALIZED. Unilateral Israeli withdrawals have nurtured Palestinian terrorism, which has become a role-model for international terrorism, including anti-US Islamic terrorism (Palestinian terrorists fought the US in Afghanistan and Iraq; and Ben Ladin's mentor was a Palestinian). 5. SETBACK TO WAR ON TERRORISM. Unilateral Israeli withdrawals have severely undermined Israel's posture of deterrence, which has been a role-model for countering-terrorism. Israel's weakened deterrence posture, has therefore, caused a setback to the global war on terrorism. 6. UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL CONTRADICTS U.S. BATTLE ON TERRORISM, providing terrorists with an expanded safe haven. Would the US contemplate a unilateral withdrawal from radical regions in Iraq, in face of mounting terrorism? Would the US consider a unilateral withdrawal from the Kabul area, in order to moderate terrorism in Afghanistan? 7. ISRAEL - TEST BED FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM. Israel has been the largest and the most experienced battle-proven laboratory for countering terrorism. Its success has advanced US war on terrorism. Its failures - caused also by unilateral withdrawals (Land-For-Terrorism) - have caused a setback to US war on terrorism. 8. UNILATERAL WITHDRAWALS LEAD TO A PALESTINIAN STATE, which - based on PLO/PA track record - would undermine US interests: It would be a terrorist state, dooming the Hashemite regime, bolstering Iran, exporting terrorism to the Gulf States, facilitating Russian ambitions in the Mideast, allying itself with No. Korea and other rogue regimes, suppressing human rights, deepening corruption and accelerating Christian flight from Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Ramallah. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
JERUSALEM'S TEMPLE MOUNT: TOURS TODAY, TEMPLE TOMORROW!
Posted by David Ben-Ariel, February 6, 2004. |
|
An ever-increasing number of Torah-observant Jews are now making
aliyah (ascent) to the Temple Mount, despite the misguided Chief
Rabbinate ban (in collaboration with the State) against such religious
pilgrimages before.
As is evident, faithful Jews have come to have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the "permitted places" the Temple Mount affords to visit without worrying about entering the Holy of Holies determined to be in the area of the occupying Dome of the Rock (where Avraham was about to sacrifice Isaac). Such prayerful pilgrims (who first go to the mikveh and refrain from wearing leather shoes) are now properly guided by biblically knowledgable/kosher tour guides. They've found such faith in action is not only permissable but must be promoted, actually hastening the process of redemption and reminding all Israel and world Jewry of their biblical roots and reponsibilities. These most holy tours, a bold exercise of Israeli sovereignty and a humble walk in faith, testify the Temple Mount must be restored as the TEMPLE Mount, and reveal that G-d's Holy Spirit has rekindled a proper zeal in Jerusalem's heart. Such a growing rededication to Israel's national meaning and purpose (the trickle of tourists must become a flowing stream of life) must culminate in a national ceremony inducting the Temple Mount Faithful's Cornerstone into its proper place upon the Temple Mount: created to host G-d's royal House of Prayer for all Nations! David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall." His website address is http://benariel.port5.com/ |
|
b>I AM RAISING FUNDS FOR YESHA
Posted by Ken Heller, February 6, 2004. |
|
I am continuing to raise money for the communities in YESHA - Biblical
Israel - and affiliated organizations that strive to meet the safety
and security, educational, medical, emergency, recreational and
personal needs of our brothers and sisters who live there.
There is too much need and it is difficult to make a determination as to which priority is more worthy than the next so I am trying to raise enough money than would at least enable us to collectively, albeit partially, satisfy several needs at a time. My father, Yoel ben Shmuel, a"h, z"l, passed away last Shabbat and, quite frankly, this has served to re-invigorate my attempts to help others. Please join me in this effort. Can we make a difference? Please send whatever you can to
AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL
Shalom u'vracha l'Yisrael, Ken Heller is founder of "Citizens Against Giving-up Eretz Yisrael," a grassroots, worldwide network of Jewish and Christian pro-Israel activists. He was a major organizer of the world-wide demonstrations on July 20th against the Road Map. |
|
TOP COPS RETURN FROM ANTI-TERROR PROGRAM IN ISRAEL
Posted by JINSA Report #388, February 6, 2004. |
|
Fourteen of the most senior police chiefs, sheriffs and state police
commanders returned from Israel last week after five days of
intensively studying counter terrorism techniques. These law
enforcement executives, traveled to Israel as participants in JINSA's
Law Enforcement Exchange Program (LEEP). Modeled after the JINSA's
extremely successful Flag & General Officers Trip, the LEEP program is
designed to establish cooperation between American and Israeli law
enforcement personnel and to give the American law enforcement
community access to the hard "lessons learned" by the Israelis in the
interdiction of and response to all forms of terrorism.
The Israeli National Police hosted the JINSA group in cooperation with the Israel Security Agency and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The delegation studied methods and observed techniques used by Israeli police forces in preventing and reacting to suicide bombers. The agenda also focused on the critical role of intelligence gathering and interagency information sharing. Israeli commanders of bomb disposal and undercover units briefed the delegation on the increasing sophistication of domestic terrorists, who can employ a range of weapons, from knives and guns, to car bombs or cell phones outfitted with explosives. American officials learned about the mindset of a suicide bomber - the true "smart bomb" and how to spot trouble signs. One of the highlights of the intensive five-day schedule was a nighttime patrol with the Tel Aviv Police. Israeli experts discussed how to secure large venues, such as shopping malls, sporting events and concerts, without disrupting the enjoyment of the public. The group also took time to look at the Security Fence as a defensive measure to lessen the possibility of terrorist infiltration. The saw where the fence has already been constructed as well as planned future sights. The consensus of the group was that in light of prior Israeli casualties the fence has saved lives. Participants represented Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Boston, Minneapolis, Upstate New York, San Diego, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey. They were invited by JINSA through a process that considered geographic region, involvement in national professional policing organizations and professional responsibilities in the fight against terrorism. Chief Joseph Polisar, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police was a participant in the program. The IACP is the largest law enforcement organization in the world. All other major American law enforcement organizations were represented on the trip including the Major Cities Sheriffs Association and the Police Executive Research Forum. Steven Pomerantz, a former Assistant Director of the FBI and a member of JINSA's Board of Advisors, led in the planning and execution of the trip on the American side. In summing up the goals of the LEEP project he noted, "Nothing can replicate American officials seeing these types of problems firsthand and the systems that are put in place to deal with them." The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org |
|
AND THEY FELL ON THEIR FACES
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 6, 2004. |
|
The source for this item was Moshe Kempinsky, http://www.shorashim2u.net
I turn on the radio and listen to the voices and I shake my head in disbelief. In the midst of burying eleven innocent souls and attempting to heal the gaping wounds of the wounded and the surviving families, the polticians continue to talk. Prime Minister Sharon is adamant. "If we don't come to an agreement with these people," he says, "we will pull out unilaterally." Isn't that the reason that they are killing Jews in the first place? What dramatic message are we conveying? How exactly are we punishing them for not agreeing to come to terms with us? We are obviously a tired and bruised people. We have been that way before. A tired and bruised people came out of slavery in Egypt. We were bludgeoned into submission for years under taskmasters. We were forbidden to believe in ourselves. We were denied the ability to believe in our Creator. We lost the courage to make our own choices. The Bible in Numbers 14 relates the following after the return of the spies that Moses sends in to scout the land before their entry. The spies describe a beautiful land but also exhibit a despairing sense of powerlessness. 2 And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron; and the whole congregation said unto them: 'Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would we have died in this wilderness! 3 And wherefore doth the LORD bring us unto this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will be a prey; were it not better for us to return into Egypt?' 4 And they said one to another: 'Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.' 5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel. 6 And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of them that spied out the land, rent their clothes. When faced with such small mindedness created out of despair one can only "fall on one's face". Our sages describe the term to describe intense prayer. It also describes intense frustration. Moses and Aaron felt both. It is a description that describes the feelings of most of us who have not lost faith. You listen to the news report and want to do the same thing. Yet the Jewish people have learnt much since those days. We may fall on our faces in prayer but we will not do so in despair. In those days there were only Joshua and Caleb. Today there are tens of thousands of Joshua and Caleb's. On November 27, 2001 Palestinian terrorists opened fire on a civilian convoy of schoolchildren and their parents. Etty Fahima of Netzer Hazani was killed and three other Gush Katif residents wounded, including a two-year-old girl. Hanna Barat, 38, of Kfar Darom, was traveling in a car with her two year old daughter Hodaya. When the firing began she stretched over her daughter and suffered a bullet in her spine but succeeded in saving the life of her daughter. Since then Hanna has been relegated to a wheelchair. This Tuesday, in what physicians are calling a medical miracle Hanna gave birth to a baby boy in natural childbirth. This baby is Hanna and her husband Eliezer's eighth child. They have just entered into their new home in Kfar Darom in the Gaza strip after it had been renovated in preparation for this new arrival. In an interview with B'Sheva's reporter Hagit Rotenberg, Hanna said that "the answer to all these 'plans' is children and the expansion of our communities...With G-d's help, we will be living here for a very long time." There are many more Joshua and Calebs amongst the Jewish people today. They are all cognizant of one important fact. Though there may be some individuals in this battered people that have lost a connection with their G-d, G-d has never lost His connection to His people. That is the reason all this ill conceived plans will flounder and vanish. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
LUNACY STRIKES
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 6, 2004. |
|
PM Ariel Sharon announced his plan to unilaterally expel all Jews from
Gaza and vacate all Jewish villages there. This action will take place
without any concessions from the Arabs and while Hamas and other
terrorist groups are continuing with their plans to destroy Israel and
kill as many Jews as they possibly can.
Sharon's plan amounts to complete lunacy. It is impossible to imagine a crazier plan. Withdrawal under fire with tail between the legs. I believe this is the most dangerous junction in Israel's history. The incredulous fact is that it is inflicted on herself, not by Palestinian terror, but by its own Prime Minister. The plan is opposed by the Israeli right as well as from the left. I am sure there are many Arab-Palestinians and Arab countries who are scratching their heads trying to understand the madness and their unexpected success in pushing Israel. Here are some quotes on the subject from various articles. From the right and the left. Both oppose Sharon's plan. First, Michael Freund who was Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu. His article appeared in the Jerusalem Post January 4, 2004 [ed note: see below for full article]. He speaks from the right: "Sharon's plan is immoral, unethical and anti-democratic. It singles out Jews for expulsion because of their ethnic and religious identity. In other words, because they are Jews, they must be segregated under duress and compelled to move elsewhere." Secondly, Ami Ayalon who is the initiator of a peace plan similar to the recent Geneva Initiative. He drew up this plan with his Palestinian partner Prof. Sari Nusseibeh. In his article published in the Jerusalem Post Feb 5, 2004, he attacks Sharon's plan from a different angle: "Settler evacuations to prevent coexistence campaigns? No wonder Hamas and Islamic Jihad are overjoyed. By being willing to sweep out entire Israeli communities, from Netzarim to Katif, with nothing in return and no final objective defined, Sharon has seemingly fulfilled radical Arab dreams of ejecting us - by force and bit by bit." Lastly, here are quotes from the Jerusalem Post Editorial of February 2, 2004 [ed note: see below for full text]: "If the endgame was Israeli withdrawal in exchange for no Palestinian concessions, why the long and agonizing wait? What was the point of the sacrifice? Indeed, what was the point of electing Ariel Sharon rather than Ehud Barak or Amram Mitzna? If the endgame was Israeli withdrawal in exchange for no Palestinian concessions, why the long and agonizing wait? What was the point of the sacrifice? Indeed, what was the point of electing Ariel Sharon rather than Ehud Barak or Amram Mitzna?" Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
PM SHARON'S PLANLESS PLAN FOR RETREAT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 6, 2004. |
|
A fter members of the Likud Central committee
presented cogent arguments against retreating from Yesha, PM Sharon
proposed retreat in a prepared speech that ignored his colleagues?
arguments. He has never debated the consequences of establishing a
P.A. state.
True, PM Sharon promises that he would discuss the plan with his coalition parties, but he is actually taking up the plan with the US, after which he probably would present his Cabinet with a fait accompli. Sharon is putting his political acumen at the service of neutralizing his Israeli opponents, not at neutralizing Israel's Arab opponents, whom the plan would help in their jihad against Israel. Problem is, once the retreat is made, its consequences becomes fateful, and recovery from it becomes difficult (IMRA, 2/2). Indeed, Sharon says he has given orders to plan for the removal of 17 settlements in Gaza. He has decided that Israel should not hold onto them in a final settlement. He anticipates leaving no Jews in the Gaza Strip. He seeks US support for this (IMRA, 2/2) meaning that the US should pay for the destruction of Zionism and eventually of Israel. Israel likes to call itself a democracy, but its system permits Prime Ministers to foist undigested plans upon a skeptical people, and inaugurate disasters. Following his predecessors' precedent of adopting a predictably disastrous plan without evaluating it, he has decided what the negotiations should result in. However, withdrawing in advance of negotiations weakens his bargaining position. He has decided what Israel would do, but does not tell his people and does not have democratic debate about what may seal their fate. Neither has he brought into the discussion the non-Israeli Jewish people, whose patrimony he is peremptorily disposing of. He acts as if directed by the State Dept., not as a patriot. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
VACATING GAZA - REFERENDUM HOAX
Posted by Voice of Judea, February 6, 2004. |
|
Referendum Hoax
Ariel Sharon continues to plow ahead with his plans to make unilateral land surrenders and expulsion of Jews in Gaza and elsewhere. Sharon says he agrees to make a national referendum on the Gaza part of his plot, but argued that he would not be obligated to follow the findings of such a referendum. Voice of Judea Commentary: Hmm... sounds like a no lose situation for the Prime Minister. Let us get a few things straight. A referendum on Gaza that he is not obliged to listen to is a farce for too many reasons to count. Here are some points to consider: 1- The referendum would only include Gaza in the question, because Sharon believes that he might have a consensus on pulling out of Gaza. He knows that if he revealed to the nation all of his sinister plot that he already revealed to Washington, he would be tossed out on his, you know what. 2- The referendum should not be worded, "Do you support Sharon's plan to leave Gaza?" It should be worded, do you think expelling Jews and making unilateral surrender of Jewish land to Arabs will convince the Arabs that terror does not pay and increase security? And the second question should be: Do you think that expelling the hostile Arabs will increase internal security? The third question should be: Do you think groups like the Kahane movement, that propose expelling Arabs are any more racist than Sharon's Likud that now proposes expelling Jews from their homes? The fourth question: Do you think all parties, including the banned Kahanists should be permitted to participate in national elections? This is the four point referendum that could turn Israel into a secure Jewish state. Everything else is irrelevant and nonsense! Such a referendum will one day be implemented and "Judea shall dwell forever." Jewish threats against Sharon rise? Potential threats against Ariel Sharon from extremist Israeli settlers are increasing. The warning by the head of Israel's Shin Bet security service came in a closed-door meeting, and was reported by the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv. The report comes amid growing anger in the settler movement over the Israeli prime minister's plan to evacuate most Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip, which is seen as a precursor to a West Bank withdrawal. Avi Dichter, head of the Shin Bet, has ordered stepped-up investigations of extremists. Voice of Judea Commentary: When Dichter was asked if he had any specific or concrete threats - He answered that there was nothing of substance and just general intensification of anti-Sharon verbal rhetoric. There is no increase in threats against Sharon! There is only an increase of harassment of Kahane supporters, so as to silence the most effective and organized legal opposition to Sharon's new surrender plans. It is simple. The more Israel surrenders; the more the Arabs are inspired to attack; the more the Israeli public understands that it is not the Jews who need to be expelled from their homes; the more Israelis begin to listen to the only alternative proposed by the Bible and articulated by the Kahanists - "to drive the enemies out of the land" (Deuteronomy 33), the more the Shin Bet cracks down on the messengers of truth. The threats are not against Sharon, it is Sharon's thought police who are regularly and openly threatening the Kahanists and who are preparing the stage for more administrative arrests without trial and worse, G-d forbid. The website address of Voice of Judea is http://www.voiceofjudea.net. Subscribe by writing listmaster@voiceofjudea.net |
|
ZOA CONDEMNS THOMAS FRIEDMAN COLUMN IN N.Y.TIMES
ACCUSING ISRAEL AND JEWS OF "CONSPIRING" TO MANIPULATE BUSH
AND CHENEY
Posted by Zionist Organization of America, February 5, 2004. |
|
NEW YORK - The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has
condemned a column by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times
claiming that Israel's leaders are "conspiring" to manipulate
President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
In his column on February 5, 2004, Friedman wrote that Israel's Prime Minister "has had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing." "Friedman's language conjures up disturbing stereotypical images of Jews conspiring to manipulate world leaders and events, and gives comfort to bigots who promote such imagery," said ZOA National President Morton A. Klein. "We urge the publishers of the New York Times to publicly repudiate Friedman's outrageous insinuations." The ZOA notes the troubling similarity between Friedman's article and accusation over the years by Pat Buchanan and other extremists that the White House is "occupied Israeli territory," an accusation that many regard as antisemitic. The ZOA also points out that Friedman's statements are reminiscent of the statement by the first President George Bush, on September 12, 1991, that he was "one lonely little guy" besieged by "some powerful political forces" and "something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill" (referring to American Jews who were visiting their Congressmen and endorsing U.S. humanitarian loan guarantees for Soviet Jewish refugees relocating to Israel). At the time, Thomas Friedman characterized President Bush's statement as "a harsh attack" (N.Y. Times, Sept. 21, 1991) and said the President had used "threatening language" (N.Y. Times, Oct. 6, 1991). Friedman noted that "Mr. Bush's remarks provoked a flood of supportive mail to the White House, much of it anti-Semitic" (N.Y. Times, March 2, 1992) He also wrote: "Mr. Bush exacerbated the crisis [in relations with Israel] by striking what many American Jews felt was a low blow with his statements of Sept.12, 1991 that basically implied that there was something disloyal about American supporters of Israel lobbying for the loan guarantees over Mr. Bush's objections." (N.Y. Times, Aug. 16, 1992) ZOA President Klein said: "Now it is Thomas Friedman himself who is doing what he criticized Bush for doing in 1991: engaging in harsh attacks and striking a low blow, by implying that there is something disloyal about American Jews and others expressing their views on Israel. "At this time of increasing anti-Semitism around the world, one would have hoped that a prominent newspaper columnist like Mr. Friedman would be more careful and sensitive about using language and imagery that conjure up derogatory stereotypes about Jews." After the 1991 affair, veteran Jewish journalist Winston Pickett wrote: "American Jews were stunned by ... the image of all-powerful legions of Jews overrunning the Capitol that seem implicit in what he said ... Jewish leaders and rank-and-file [regarded Bush's remarks] "as one of the most mean-spirited addresses by an American president in recent memory ... [Mideast scholar] Daniel Pipes said [Bush's statement] "will go down in the annals of anti-Semitic writing. Jew-haters will cite it as a reference point for years to come." In fact, in the aftermath of Bush's press conference, the White House received a rush of congratulatory letters with decidedly anti-Semitic overtones." The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations condemned President Bush's remarks as "troubling." (Metro West Jewish News, Oct. 2, 1992) The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its website address is http://www.zoa.org. |
|
FEBRUARY 5, 2004: THE WEEK THAT WAS
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, February 5, 2004. |
|
I spent the bulk of this week writing a rather lengthy piece for a new
Jewish publication. The powers-that-be requested that the tone of the
article be a bit cosmopolitan. So I did my best to hide the genuine
hillbilly within me and, armed with a thesaurus, I approached the
keyboard with scholarly sophistication. I admit that it's a real trip
to write for the highbrow crowd, and certain subject matter does
deserve to be presented with a bit of finesse. But then there are
times that a more simplistic, brief and down-home approach is called
for. This past week was one of those times. So let's try applying some
simple common sense to the week that was...
I hear Limor's conscience has been bothering her and she's asked the Israel Prize committee to reconsider their awarding of this year's prize to Yigal Tumarkin. We could engage in a complex philosophical debate about art and morality or the flawed artistic personality vis a vis creative impulses, but I'd rather summarize the issue like this: One need not be an ass in order to be an artist. A mensch is equally capable of creating a masterpiece. Next... Sharon intends to uproot the Jewish communities in Gaza. I could provide numerous proofs that Gaza is an unequivocal part of the Biblical Land of Israel. I could give a lengthy dissertation on the strategic significance of the area and the importance of retaining a Jewish presence there. But rather than grapple with the issues of biblical borders and strategic depth, I need only look at their keffiyah's, suicide belts, RPG's and AK-47 assault rifles. Suffice to say the following: Those guys wanna kill me and take what's mine. I'm not leaving, but maybe they should. Next... Sharon, his government and subsequently we Israelis appear to be in difficult straits (not to worry, as we've been there before - check out this week's Torah Portion). Friends tell me that if the government falls, somebody worse could come in - like Peres (G-d forbid). Or, they tease me about my former allegiance to Bibi. It's true, I used to be a diehard Netanyahu fan, but I'm less sophisticated now and charisma doesn't it do it for me anymore. But a consistent, no-frills guy like Uzi Landau...well...maybe. We could enter into an intense political discussion and deliberate over the merits of forming a united national front. It would be a highly effective strategy and would give us immense leverage whether we were in the coalition or opposition. But this is no time for dreams or predictions. This much I can tell you... I don't know what's going to be, but I do know that in times like these, we Jews cannot stay put, as we are obligated to move forward. Next... A neighbor's son was killed this week in a military accident in the Golan. We share the same last name, live on the same moshav and have younger sons with similar first names and ages in the same class at the same school. My 16-year old awoke at 5AM to find three soldiers, his Rosh Yeshiva and teachers standing above his dormitory bed, prepared to deliver tragic news. My son stood up a bit bewildered and one of the soldiers remembered that he was supposed to be looking for a tall kid. My son didn't fit that description. When I heard the story and the news, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry and so I did both - simultaneously - with lots of tears. We Jews can do that - we've had a lot of practice. The phones are still ringing, because a lot of people were confused when they heard the reports. I now realize how many very dear friends I and the other Horowitz family have. I also realize that we are truly all one family. My 16-year old hasn't left his friend's side all week and he appears to be a little bit older and taller than he was last week. Elon Yaacov Horowitz z"l was one of Israel's finest. Everyone in the Golan will tell you that. My oldest son enters the army in one month. I found this whole episode to be too close for comfort. Comfort, now that's concept worthy of a more in-depth explanation, because the simple, down-home definition amounts to plopping oneself onto a lazyboy recliner and hitting the remote. Comfort is a complex notion for us Jews. We're constantly longing and searching for it. It's been a long haul, but we'll know it when we finally feel it. So the week ends and I'm haunted by the sounds of laughter and crying. Some are the voices of the present and others are from the past. I imagine my ancestors had weeks like this - where they felt a bit tired, fed-up, and frightened. But like them, I'm very determined to continue. Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter, writer and co-founder of helpingisrael.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com |
|
ARCHEOLOGIST: WAQF ENDANGERING REMAINS OF SECOND TEMPLE
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 5, 2004. |
|
This is an article from Haaretz yesterday, written by Haaretz staff
and agencies.
An Israeli archaeologist has charged that Muslim authorities are excavating a disputed holy site in Jerusalem in a way that endangers the remains of the Second Temple. An Israeli photographer took photographs that were released yesterday that show stone blocks with a unique design linked to the Second Temple, which was destroyed in 70 C.E. Hebrew University archaeologist Eilat Mazar charged that the presence of the blocks in the middle of a Muslim construction project shows that the Waqf, the Islamic Trust, is ignoring the site's importance in Jewish history. The pictures were taken two weeks ago by Yossi Milshtin, an Israeli journalist who sneaked into the site masquerading as a Palestinian. Jews are banned from visiting the Muslim shrines. Milshtin said he had been alerted by Mazar about the presence of the stone blocks, and took a camera and video recorder with him to record their images. Mazar said the images showed large stones endowed with architectural elements unique to the Second Temple period. "[They show] beautiful grapevines," she said. "There is no doubt that these are motifs from the Second Temple period. It is the different elements of the decoration that show this, combined with the style of the artistic work." Mazar, a member of the Committee for the Preservation of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, said the stones had been revealed by excavation work the Waqf is carrying out to build a new mosque at the Temple Mount compound. "There is no archaeological supervision [of the work] and no plan or survey to see what the real condition of the Temple Mount is", she said. "The Temple Mount is neglected, and it's just a matter of time before it collapses," she warned. Archaeologist Avner Goren complained that the Waqf is building a new mosque on the site, and may be wrecking chances to learn exactly what the Temple Mount looked like. "The work includes digging without any archaeological supervision," he said. "This is very bad." Officials from the Wakf were not immediately available for comment due to the Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha. Milshtin said the grapevine-engraved stones were photographed near an area known as Solomon's Stables, which archaeologists say was constructed by King Herod between 40 and 30 B.C.E. He said he was appalled by the apparent carelessness with which the mosque work was being carried out. "The stones are located in the wall, a wall they rebuilt after conducting renovations there," he said. "They are using it on the bottom of the wall, at the very bottom. This is a scandal that it is just used as a supporting stone." |
|
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE JERUSALEM CONFERENCE
Posted by Arutz Sheva News Team, February 5, 2004. |
|
Join us for a week of Tours of Yesha (Biblical Israel) and lectures, panels and deliberations at the Jerusalem Conference. Do you want to learn more about the challenges that await Israel in the next decade? Then you don't want to miss "The Jerusalem Conference" The Annual National Economic Conference "The Jerusalem Conference" will be held at the Jerusalem (formerly Hyatt) Regency on March 15th to March 17th 2004 and will feature Israeli Ministers, Members of Knesset, Guests from the USA, Academic and Spiritual Leaders, Prominent Business Leaders and Heads of the Israeli National Security establishment. A brainchild of Yaacov (Katzele) Katz, The Jerusalem Conference is intended to counter the left-wing drift of the prestigious Herzliya Conference. It is planned to be an ideological and spiritual response to that conference at which the prevalent solution to every problem is retreat. The organizers of the Conference are offering a special package which will allow you to join us for this wonderful event. In addition to the conference you will be taken on 3 days of fabulous touring. The tours will include Binyamin (Beit El, Arutz 7 Studios, Shilo and the hilltop outposts), Hevron, Gush Etzion and the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem. See for yourself how the pioneers live and reclaim the land! The cost for this package is only $695.00 per person (double occupancy - not including airfare) and includes 6 nights at the Hyatt Regency (bed & breakfast), 3 days of full participation in the Conference (including lunch) and 3 days of escorted tours. Don't miss out on the event of the year, contact us immediately for more details at jercon@israelnnmall.com or call at 718-576-2220 The website address of Arutz Sheva (Arutz-7) is http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com |
|
ARAFAT'S BODYGUARDS RECRUITED FOR SUICIDE ATTACKS
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 5, 2004. |
|
This is a news item that was published today on the World
Tribune website.
JERUSALEM - Bodyguards of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat have been recruited for suicide operations against Israel. Israel military sources said special operations forces have arrested at least one member of Arafat's Force 17 praetorian guard. Force 17 is responsible for Arafat's security and has branches throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Arafat's ruling Fatah movement has been cited for being the leading force in suicide operations against Israel. But the Israeli arrests marked one of the first times that Arafat's bodyguards have been involved in such attacks. Israeli security agents captured Muhammad Abu Lil, 18, on Dec. 13 along with another Fatah agent from the West Bank city of Nablus, both of whom were on their way to bomb a restaurant in the Israeli city of Petah Tikva. The statement said Abu Lil's accomplice, Ahmed Abu Hawila, had been recently recruited to Force 17. A Fatah commander was said to have recruited suicide attackers from Force 17. The sources identified Nader Abu Lil, a 25-year Fatah commander, for responsibility for the recruitment of Force 17 and other Palestinian security officers, as well as planning operations. The information of Fatah's recruitment from Arafat's guard came in wake of the arrest of suspected suicide squads in December. The suicide squads were said to have been recruited and organized in Nablus.Nader Abu Lil was also accused of having planned to launch a suicide attack in January 2004. The military statement said an Israeli raid on Jan. 2 in Nablus's old city quarter yielded two large bombs meant for use in Israel. A suspected suicide squad composed of Palestinians from Nablus-area refugee camps was captured. Military sources said the use of Arafat's bodyguards for attacks has been encouraged by Iran and Hizbullah, which finance up to 90 percent of Fatah insurgency operations. They said that in many cases Fatah has teamed with the Iranian-sponsored Islamic Jihad or Hamas to launch operations in Israel. On Wednesday, Israel's military reported that troops captured a Fatah commander in the northern town of Tubas in the West Bank. The commander was identified as Jihad Sawafta, who survived a previous assassination attempt by Israeli forces. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
GETTING THROUGH TO REUTERS AND STAR TRIBUNE
Posted by Honest Report, February 5, 2004. |
|
HonestReporting media activists have
scored another important victory for accuracy in Mideast coverage:
A cornerstone of our 2003 Dishonest Reporting 'Award' was Reuters' attempt to legitimize Hamas by falsely describing their goal as the 'pursuit of independence'. For example: The military wing of the Islamic militant group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement faxed to Reuters. Hamas has spearheaded a 28-month-old Palestinian militant uprising against Israel for a state in Gaza and the West Bank. (Feb. 15, 2003 - emphasis added) Hamas makes it perfectly clear in their official charter and at speaking events that their goal is the destruction of the State of Israel - not merely an independent Palestinian state - yet the highly influential Reuters persisted in this charade, regularly casting Hamas as 'freedom fighters'. We are now pleased to report that the thousands of emails that HonestReporting subscribers directed to Reuters in recent months have paid off - Reuters has fundamentally improved the way they describe Hamas in news reports:
Congratulations to HonestReporting subscribers for this important accomplishment. STAR TRIBUNE APOLOGIZES HonestReporting's latest communique noted the double standard of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which broke their policy against using the term 'terrorism' when they found 'Zionist terror'. Star Tribune editors have recognized the problem with both articles critiqued by HonestReporting, and apologized. Regarding the January 21 article in which the Kach movement was described as a terrorist organization, but Hezbollah was not, Star Tribune deputy managing editor Roger Buoen said: I agree with your point that referring to the organizations in this way gave readers and unfair and unbalanced description of the two groups... That was a mistake because it created an imbalance in the portrayal of the two organizations. We have talked to the editor involved, and she understands the balance and fairness problem that the editing created. And regarding the January 31 story which referred to 'Zionist Terrorists', editor Paul Walsh said: Quite simply, that was an oversight. A sharp-eyed editor should have changed that word. The Wall Street Journal's popular daily weblog, Best of the Web Today, quoted HonestReporting's research, bringing it to the attention of many thousands of new readers. FRIEDMAN IGNORES FACTS NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman blames Ariel Sharon today (Feb. 5) for everything that's wrong in the region. Alongside a number of distortions, Friedman claims Sharon is responsible for the failure of PA Prime Minister Abbas: [L]ast week, Mr. Sharon turned over 400 Palestinian prisoners to the Islamist Lebanese militia Hezbollah in a prisoner swap, something he was never ready to do with moderate Palestinian leaders. This is patently false. On two occasions - June and August, 2003 - Sharon ordered the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, in what his administration specifically called 'goodwill gestures' to support Abbas and the road map peace process. Friedman's own NY Times reported after the August release that it was "the largest of several Israeli prisoner releases in the past few months, and brought the number of those freed to almost 600." Comments to: letters@nytimes.com. Send a copy to the Times' Public Editor, Daniel Okrent: public@nytimes.com HonestReporting has 60,000 members worldwide, who help monitor the media for anti-Israel bias. Their website address is http://www.honest.reporting.com |
|
THE WASHINGTON POST SPRINGS A LEAK - AGAIN
Posted by Eric Rozenman, February 5, 2004. |
|
The hoary charge that Israel steals Arab water - in this case
Palestinian water - resurfaced in "Avoiding a Mideast Water War," a
February 4 Washington Post Op-Ed column by Mark Zeitoun.
(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10797-2004Feb3.html)
When not wrong, the commentary misleads. Its appearance in The Post suggests that either editorial page editors a) don't know the issue, b) did little or no fact-checking, or c) don't care. First the small things: 1) The author, Mark Zeitoun, is identified as "a humanitarian-aid water engineer who has worked on assignments in Lebanon, Congo-Brazzaville, Iraq and most recently, the occupied Palestinian territories." But he is also a Palestinian-Canadian and leader of CEPAL, the Canadian Educational Exchange with Palestinians, whose mission includes "raising public awareness in Canada" about Palestinian Arab refugees. Writing from "occupied Jerusalem" for the Gulf News' Online Edition last April 13, he equated "genocidal" U.N. sanctions against Iraq with the brutality of Saddam Hussein. In an April 17, 2002 press release on the Institute for Public Accuracy Web site, Zeitoun alleged, without verification, that "in almost all the cities that the Israel Defense Forces have occupied, there has been severe damage to the water infrastructure through systematic targeting and sabotage." 2) "The occupied Palestinian territories" presumes something not in existence. The West Bank and Gaza Strip remain disputed territories until their final status is determined by Arab-Israeli negotiations. Zeitoun also calls Israeli villages and towns in the West Bank "illegal settlements." Among others, Eugene Rostow - co-author of U.N. Security Council resolution 242, the basis of post-1967 Arab-Israeli diplomacy - pointed out that Israel has legitimate claims to Judea and Samaria and that Jewish communities there do not violate the 1949 Geneva Convention. 3) The Post rarely illustrates Op-Eds. It did this one - with a two-column photograph of a man perched on a pipe, measuring the depth of a stream below. The photo appears to be the same one used by the paper to illustrate the Oct. 2, 2002 news story, "A River Runs Through Mideast Dispute," which inaccurately reported an Israeli-Lebanese disagreement over water sharing, omitting Lebanese violations and refusals to cooperate. 4) Zeitoun complains that only Israel and Jordan are entitled to water from Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee) and the Jordan River. That's correct, and follows long-standing international recognition of prior use claims in water allocation as well as a 1996 agreement between the two countries. Perhaps if the Palestinian Authority had negotiated a peaceful settlement with Israel, as it pledged to do under the 1993 Oslo and subsequent agreements, instead of participating in a terrorist war against the Jewish state, it too might have a water-sharing agreement by now. 5) Zeitoun writes that of the aquifers that "lie mainly under the West Bank, Palestinians draw 20 percent, Israel 80 percent. The average Israeli uses roughly 350 cubic meters of water per year - four times the amount used by the average Palestinian." He doesn't say that while the aquifers in question straddle the pre-1967 "green line," the topography (Samarian mountains in the West Bank, low lands in Israel) means that the water itself is more accessible inside Israel and that Israel developed those sources before gaining the territories in the '67 Six-Day War. 6) Neither does Zeitoun acknowledge that though Israel draws 80 percent of the water from the aquifers in question, it pipes more than 40 million cubic meters annually into the West Bank for Palestinian use. Proportionately, Israeli use of the Western and Northeastern aquifers has declined, from 95 and 82 percent, respectively, in the 1950s to 83 and 80 percent in the mid-1990s. Israelis do use more water per capita than do Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip - not four times more but 2.5 times; in 1995, 308 cubic meters per person annually to 124 cubic meters. But Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese water use per capita is higher than Palestinian and Israeli consumption. And in addition to the water it provides the West Bank, Israel annually pipes another 4 million plus cubic meters to the Gaza Strip and 55 mcm to Jordan, of its own total safe yield of 1,350 mcm. Rather than "stealing" Arab water, Israel provides a significant portion of its own scarce resource to the Arabs. 7) Israeli water consumption is neither at the expense of Palestinians nor excessive, but a model of conservation and efficiency. As for Palestinian Authority handling of water resources, Zeitoun never mentions - and Post editors appear unaware - of the U.S. Agency for International Development's conclusion: "The West Bank and Gaza suffer from chronic water shortage, preventing sustained economic growth and negatively impacting the environment and health of Palestinians. The limited water available is inefficiently used ... Palestinian groundwater supplies have increasingly become polluted as a result of inadequate sewage treatment and over-pumping of wells. Untreated sewage is dumped in valleys and the Mediterranean Sea, decreasing the quality of already inadequate groundwater supply and polluting the soil, sea, and coastline." In addition, leakage from old pipes wastes considerable amounts of West Bank water. It did not have to be this way. An Israeli-Palestinian experts committee, an outgrowth of the Oslo II agreement, began meeting to cooperate on water issues. The United States, European Union and others donated several billion dollars to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. But Palestinian terrorism against Israel and the corruption of the PA sabotaged both cooperation and development of Palestinian water facilities. For more on details missing from The Post Op-Ed, go to
www.camera.org, click on Issues and then Water, and to
www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org, click on Myths and Facts Online, and in
the chapters "Human Rights in Israel and the Territories" and "The
Peace Process," click on the myths "Israel is stealing water in the
territories. Israel allows Jews to drill wells but prevents Arabs from
doing so" and "Israel has a surplus of water and its refusal to share
with its neighbors could provoke the next war," respectively.
Eric Rozenman is Washington Director of
CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America -
which monitors the media for anti-Israel bias. Its website address is
http://www.camera.org.
|
|
"I SAW A HAND"
Posted by Barry Shaw, February 5, 2004. |
|
It seems that our polite words and facts do not sway a section of
public opinion.
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs finally decided to release more graphic results of the deliberate Palestinian terror campaign against innocent Israeli civilians. Perhaps this depiction of the harsh truth we in Israel have suffered, may silence, if not convince, our chronic critics. I add these comments. This was said by Arafat to an Arab audience just days after he had received a peace award in Stockholm in 1997. He is carrying out his pledge until today WE PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND ESTABLISH A PURELY PALESTINIAN STATE. WE WILL MAKE LIFE UNBEARABLE FOR JEWS BY PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND POPULATION EXPLOSION. WE PALESTINIANS WILL TAKE OVER EVERTHING, INCLUDING ALL OF JERUSALEM. These were said by survivors and eye witnesses to the latest bus bombing in Jerusalem at the hands of one of Arafat's terrorists.
Barry Shaw sends his 'View From Here' column from Israel. To subscribe, write netre@matav.net.il |
|
CPJ CONDEMNS ATTACKS OF PALESTINIAN MEDIA OUTLETS
Posted by IsrAlert, February 5, 2004. |
|
New York, February 5, 2004 - The Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) deplores recent violent attacks on private Palestinian media
outlets in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by armed gunmen.
At around 4:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, three masked Palestinian men carrying automatic rifles stormed the offices of the Ramallah-based Al-Quds Educational Television, according to staff. Assistant Manager Haroun Abu Arrah, one of two station employees present at the time, told CPJ that one of the men demanded a "tape," and when Abu Arrah asked for clarification the assailants began beating the two staffers with rifle butts and fists. Abu Arrah said that after the beating, two of the assailants went into another room and fired several rounds at some of the station's equipment, destroying computer screens and video equipment. During the shooting, Abu Arrah and his colleague fled the building. Abu Arrah and station Director Ayman Bardawil said Palestinian police are investigating the incident, but that no arrests have been made. Neither men are aware of a motive for the assault and noted that the station had not aired anything controversial in recent days, nor had it received any threats. On Tuesday, February 3, employees of the recently established Gaza City weekly newspaper Al-Daar discovered when they returned to work from the Eid al-Adha holiday that day that most of the computer equipment in the office had been destroyed by unknown assailants. Hassan al-Kashif, the magazine's editor in chief, told CPJ he believes that the vandalism came in retaliation for the magazine's editorial stance against official Palestinian corruption. Palestinian sources told CPJ that Al-Daar-which is close to former Palestinian preventive security chief Mohamed Dahlan, who is a leader in Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization-may have been attacked because of internal political conflicts within Fatah. On January 8, 2004, five armed men beat Saifeddin Shahin, Gaza correspondent for the Dubai-based satellite news channel Al-Arabiyya, after the car he was in stopped at a major Gaza City intersection. Shahin said that while he was being beaten, the attackers claimed that they were from Fatah and told him not to talk about the group again in his reports. Fatah denied responsibility for the incident, according to Shahin. The journalist said he does not know what triggered the attack but said that recently he had done a piece on a Fatah celebration marking the anniversary of the group's founding. A colleague of Shahin's thought that the fact that Al-Arabiyya portrayed the celebration as disorganized may have sparked the incident. Shahin thinks that the station's reporting on internal struggles within Fatah may be the source of the attack. Al-Arabiyya was also targeted last fall. On September 13, 2003,
five masked and armed men entered the building where Al-Arabiyya is
housed and destroyed office equipment, including computer screens and
furniture. The assailants said they were from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigade, a militant group loosely linked to Fatah. The Associated
Press reported that a spokesman for Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade denied
responsibility for the raid. The men never gave a reason for the
attack, but Al-Arabiyya staff said recent reports on internal
struggles within the Palestinian Authority, including control over
security services and the role of the Palestinian prime minister, may
have angered some.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is an independent,
nonpartisan organization dedicated to the defense of press freedom
around the world. For more information about press conditions in the
Palestinian Authority Territories, visit www.cpj.org.
|
|
TOM FRIEDMAN'S INDICTMENT OF BUSH AND SHARON
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 5, 2004. |
|
Tom Friedman is so besotted with his demonization of Sharon and Bush
that he no longer is in touch with Mideast realities. His Feb. column
is an ill-tempered screed that belongs in the same league as Howard
Dean's infamous SCREAM. I suppose when one's illusions so dramatically
clash with actual facts on the ground, the only thing left is to yell
at imaginary demons. This is the letter I sent to the New York Times,
Friedman's publisher. Shalom. Leo
To: letters@nytimes.com
Columnist Tom Friedman points the finger at the wrong villains when he blames President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for failing to support a "decent, moderate, political center" among Palestinians ("A Rude Awakening - The White House in denial" op-ed Feb. 5). When there was a glimmer of hope for the peace process, Mr. Sharon promptly began negotiations with former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and began to release some Palestinian prisoners. At a Mideast summit and at the White House, Mr. Bush rolled out the red carpet for Mr. Abbas. But Yasir Arafat immediately vetoed Mr. Abbas' cabinet selections and, confronted by the challenge of a would-be moderate leader, sent him packing. Meanwhile, the Bush administration still maintains an annual $200 million aid program in an effort to coax Palestinians to take a more rational course. But as long as Mr. Arafat, tainted by terrorism and steeped in corruption, remains in charge, Israeli or U.S. efforts can only go so far. If Mr. Friedman wants to assemble a real cast of villains who stand in the way of a Palestinian political center, he might do better to single out not only Mr. Arafat but the Palestinian rejectionist terror front, its patrons in Damascus and Tehran, and European and U.N. diplomats who still try to do business with Mr. Arafat. |
|
ORWELLIAN SPEAK
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 5, 2004. |
|
War is peace, defeat is victory and tyranny is democracy. The Mini
Wizard has spoken! This news item is from Arutz-7 and is archived as
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=57357
Minister Paritzky Feels a National Referendum is Anti-Democratic
Paritzky added the idea of a national referendum ahead of a cabinet decision on the matter is not a good one, one that contravenes the democratic principles of the country. 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. |
|
EXPLAIN, PLEASE
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 5, 2004. |
|
Can any of you legal eagles out there explain to me what is
illegitimate in expressing the opinion that an elected official has
committed a crime? Why is it legitimate for Israel's newspapers and
politicians to accuse public official of committing all sorts of
crimes and not legitimate for individual, private citizens? The
newspapers are after all not filing criminal charges with the police,
they are accusing. Treason is in fact a crime and not just an
unpopular activity.
True, graffiti is not the most sophisticated or esthetic form of communication but we have witness all too often that the media is closed to the politically unclean and even legally printed and posted posters are summarily torn down and arbitrarily banned. Let us not even consider the banning of opposition radio stations, political parties and the such. That really does not leave much else left other than graffiti, does it? This article comes from Arutz-7 and is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=57375 Eitam: Graffiti Compromises Legitimate Struggle (IsraelNN.com) National Religious Party leader Minister Effie Eitam condemned the act of painting graffiti on Jerusalem walls labeling Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "a traitor". Eitam stated, "Leaders of the nationalistic camp will not permit extremist fringe elements to use unacceptable methods that harm the Israeli democratic system and offend the moral and ethical struggle for security and in favor of continued settlement in Gush Katif. Eitam was referring to graffiti on Jerusalem walls stating "Sharon's a traitor" and "Kahane lives". 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. |
|
EXPLAINING THE ADDITION TO JIHAD
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 5, 2004. |
|
This article was written by Jessica Stern and appeared today as an
Opinion piece in the Daily Star Online, Lebanon
(http://www.dailystar.com). She is a lecturer at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government, and author of "Terror in the Name
of God: Why Religious Militants Kill" (2003).
Why do religious terrorists kill? I have been asking them and their supporters this question for the last five years. My interviews suggest people join religious terrorist groups in the belief that they can make the world a better place for the population they aim to "serve." But over time, terrorism can become a career as much as a passion. Leaders harness grievances, humiliation and anomie, turning them into weapons. Jihad becomes addictive. Violence turns activists and mystics into evil men. Grievances end up as greed - for money, political power, status or attention. For the leaders, perpetuating the movement becomes a central goal. What starts as moral fervor becomes a sophisticated organization. Organizational survival demands flexibility, especially in terms of the mission. Terrorist organizations alter their missions in many ways. Some find a new mission when the old one is completed. Some broaden the mission to make it attractive to a wider variety of potential recruits. Some form alliances with other groups whose missions are different from their own; transform their missions into profit-driven enterprises whose principal goal is enrichment; or form strategic alliances with organized criminal groups. Some groups have sticky missions, but only the spry survive. Osama bin Laden has changed his mission repeatedly. His first goal was to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. After achieving that goal (with help from the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others), he found himself with a band of warriors in search of a new holy war. He offered to help defend the Saudi kingdom after Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990, but King Fahd turned instead to US troops. Bin Laden then began a new mission, articulated in a 1992 edict: to force US troops out of Saudi Arabia, the Horn of Africa and Somalia. With each successive fatwa, bin Laden altered his mission. His third fatwa, issued in February 1998, urged followers for the first time to deliberately target American civilians, rather than soldiers. Although it mentioned the Palestinian struggle, this was only one among a litany of Muslim grievances. His fourth, in October 2001, emphasized Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands and the suffering of Iraqi children under UN sanctions - concerns broadly shared in the Islamic world. Bin Laden was actively seeking to turn the US "war on terrorism" into a war between Islam and the West. The Sept. 11, 2001, "events," he said, had split the world into two camps: the Islamic world and "infidels," and the time had come for "every Muslim to defend his religion." A mastermind of Sept. 11, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, would later describe violence as "the tax" Muslims must pay "for gaining authority on earth." Individually, the terrorists I interviewed cited many reasons for choosing a life of holy war, and I came to despair of identifying a single root cause. But the variable that most frequently came up was not poverty or human rights abuses - as has been posited in the press - but perceived humiliation. Humiliation came up at every echelon of terrorist group members - leaders and followers. For example, the founder and former leader of a Kashmiri group, the Muslim Jambaz Force, told me that the primary factor that led him to start the group was a sense of cultural humiliation. "Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts. We are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves. It felt to me at the time I was involved in militancy like a personal loss," he said. But the militant despaired at what had happened to the jihad movement, saying: "The first generation of fundamentalists - Qutb and Maududi - was focused on daawa - education. We focused on freedom. This generation is much more rigid, stricter, than my generation. They are focused on hate. Hate begets hate. You cannot create freedom out of hatred." Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, observed that the "new world order" is a source of humiliation for Muslims. He has argued that it is better for the youth of Islam to carry arms and defend their religion with pride and dignity than to submit to humiliation. Violence, in other words, restores the dignity of humiliated youth. This is similar to Franz Fanon's notion that violence is a "cleansing force," which frees oppressed youths from an "inferiority complex, despair and inaction," making them fearless and restoring their self-respect. Fanon also warned of the dangers of globalization for the underdeveloped world. The purpose of terrorist violence, according to its advocates, is to restore dignity. Its target audience is not necessarily the victims and their sympathizers but the perpetrators and their sympathizers. Violence is a way of strengthening support for the organization and the movement it represents. The terrorism we face today is a response not only to political grievances, as was common in the 1960s and 70s, and which might, in principle, be remediable. It is a response to the "God-shaped hole" in modern culture about which Sartre wrote, and to values like tolerance and equal rights for women that are supremely irritating to those who feel left behind by modernity. Extremists respond to the vacuity in human consciousness with anger and with ideas about who is to blame. In their view, arrogant one-worlders, humanists and promoters of human rights have created an engine of modernity that is stealing the identity of the oppressed. The greatest rage, and danger, comes from those who feel they can't keep up, even as they claim superiority over those who can. The answer to the question: "Why do they hate us?" is not only envy, engendered by US military and economic might, but also American policies and, more importantly, how these are perceived by potential recruits to terrorist organizations. It is not just who they are (those who see themselves humiliated by globalization and the "new world order"), and not just who we are (an enviable hegemon) but also, in part, what we do. We station troops in restive regions, engendering popular resentment. We demand that other countries adhere to international law, but willfully weaken instruments we perceive as not advancing our needs. Despite our belated recognition that weak states may threaten us more than strong ones, we allow failed states to fester. There is, for example, a danger that we may have today created the preconditions for a failed state in Iraq. The US needs to take into account the inevitable trade-offs in policymaking between domestic policy objectives, such as the desire for cheap oil, and long-term counterterrorism goals. In short, it needs to take into account how its policies play into the hands of its terrorist enemies, assisting them with mobilization. The religious terrorists the US faces are fighting on every level - militarily, economically, psychologically and spiritually. Their arms are powerful, but spiritual dread is the most dangerous weapon in their arsenal. Perhaps the most evil aspect of religious terrorism is that it aims to destroy moral distinctions themselves. Its goal is to confuse not only its sympathizers, but also those who seek to fight it. By the same token, the adversaries of terrorist groups need to respond not just with guns, but also by sowing confusion, conflict and competition among terrorists and between terrorists and their sponsors and sympathizers. They should encourage condemnation of extremist interpretations of religion by peace-loving practitioners. They should change policies that no longer serve their interests or are inconsistent with their values, even if these are policies the terrorists demand. In the end, what counts is what we fight for, not what we oppose. We need to avoid giving into spiritual dread, and hold fast to the best of our principles and values by emphasizing tolerance, empathy and courage. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
WHEN PALESTINIANS BECOME OPPRESSORS
Posted by Jock Falkson, February 5, 2004. |
|
This article by Robert Fulford in the National Post, Canada, February
2, 2004, talks about how the Palestine Authority (PA) became the
Palestine Terrorist Authority. It focuses on how the PA treats its
own. Robert Fulford can be reached at
robert.fulford@utoronto.ca
The mistreatment of Palestinians by Palestinians has seldom been given more than cursory examination by journalists outside the Middle East, and for obvious reasons. Israel's supporters are more inclined to worry about the random murdering and maiming of Jews, an attempt to shatter the nerves of Israelis and destroy their state. Those who sympathize with Palestinians don't want to remind anyone of how badly they treat each other. Palestinians have somehow become the favourite oppressed people of intellectuals and journalists in Europe and elsewhere. It's unfashionable to say a word against them. Last week, in an article mostly ignored abroad, Bassam Eid, a brave man who runs the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, described the violence that now rages uncontrolled among his people. His article, "The Reign Of the Thugs,"* in an Israeli daily, Haaretz, said the Palestinian Authority can't begin to curb the violence. Palestinians murder other Palestinians in cold blood and no one gets charged. Gunmen, some political and some apparently not, spread fear among the population. But, Eid asks, "What Palestinian interior minister would be daring enough to punish those responsible? Would the Palestinian interior minister be killed if he imposed a penalty upon them?" Eid reported that in the town of Tul Karm, local security is now managed by the Al-Aqsa Brigades when they are not running terrorist operations against Israel. In October they shot down, in the street, two men accused of collaborating with Israel. Criminals, in other words, now function as police and sometimes executioners. This makes it less surprising that it was a Palestinian "policeman" who killed 11 (including a psychologist originally from Toronto) in a Jerusalem bus on Thursday. Last summer Eid reported there had been at least 73 vigilante killings of accused collaborators since the start of the current intifada in 2000. He says that the town of Nablus is currently ruled by two armed, illiterate thugs. A former journalist for both Israeli and Palestinian newspapers, Eid now spends all his time campaigning for human rights. He started with an Israeli organization but founded his own group after he realized that he had little credibility among Palestinians while connected to Israelis. He's no great friend of Zionism, he dislikes Ariel Sharon's policies and he wants to see Gaza and the West Bank under Palestinian control. Three years ago he lost some supporters in Israel by claiming that rock-throwing constitutes "non-violent resistance," though rocks have killed more than 10 Israelis. But his human rights campaigns put him in even more severe conflict with the Palestinian leaders, whom he considers incompetent as well as corrupt. A vehement opponent of suicide bombing, he thinks it scandalous that Yasser Arafat encourages Palestinians, including children, to kill themselves and others. Last year he wrote, "It appears the nearly 2,500 Palestinians and more than 700 Israelis killed during this intifada are not enough to fulfill Arafat's political interests." In 1995 he brought out a report on the PA's human rights violations, including torture, quoting the testimony of 72 victims. In 1999, in a study of academic freedom at Palestinian universities, he found a network of undercover agents collecting the names of those who criticize the PA. He said students and faculty did not feel free to speak in class. "There are a number of cases, particularly in Gaza, of violations of academic freedom. The consensus is that these professors are used as examples for others." Students know that classmates are paid to monitor them. Many students have been arrested and then later repeatedly visited by PA security forces. Last June I had dinner with Bassam Eid in the courtyard of the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem, an idyllic oasis where nothing even hints at the passions that rage a few hundred metres away. Eid turned out to be a heavy smoker, nervous and fast-talking, anxious to tell his own story and frame it in precisely his own way. He believes human rights develop from the bottom up; they are seldom bestowed by those in authority. "You have to take human rights. No one will give them to you." He expressed contempt for the European Union, which gives vast sums of money to Palestinian leaders without any honest accounting. Despite his resentment of the Israelis, he has no illusions about the virtues of the Palestinians. He wondered aloud who was more to blame for Arafat's crimes: Arafat, or the populace that tolerates and even reveres him? He said Palestinians fall into three categories. Those who support the Arafat gang out of self-interest, those who are apathetic, and the rest, who are afraid to speak. Once he hoped that Palestinians could build a bridge of democracy to the Arab world. "But when the Palestinian Authority arrived, everybody just forgot about democracy." He believes all Palestinians have two faces, one they show each other, one they show the outside world. He tries to reveal the face that's usually hidden. Over dinner someone asked him, "Isn't there anything good you can say about your people?" His reply was chilling. "At the moment, no." And now he acknowledges that the Palestinians need the most basic kind of help from outside. In his Haaretz article he argued that they should ask Jordan, Egypt and perhaps Turkey to send in security forces to restore order in the territories. The Palestinians simply can't manage it on their own. *The Haaretz article is archived at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/387765.html.Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net. |
|
PASSIONATE PATTEN OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Posted by David Frankfurter, February 5, 2004. |
|
Yesterday I wrote to you of the overiding passion of certain members of the European Parliament and Commission, and one of you wrote to tell me of the aspirations of one of the most passionate of them - Commissioner Christopher Patten. Chris Patten has been at the forefront of those writing cheques to the Palestinian Authority. Despite public admissions by Palestinians, and all the evidence to the contrary, he always insists that not one Euro was used for unauthorised purposes and that the money must flow. In fact, he continued to claim that the International Monetary Fund was closely monitoring EU aid long after the IMF denied it & aired suspicions that international aid money was being abused - and then subsequently reported enormous sums being proved as 'diverted'. Hopefully the EU internal 'fraud squad' (OLAF), who are visiting the Middle East in a search for evidence, will finger the culprits. Meantime, Chris Patten seems to be preparing his options. The Guardian reports that, just in case he is bounced from his ability to help the Palestinian leadership financially, he is seeking other ways to promote the cause. He is, apparently, top runner for the job of Chairman of the BBC. No doubt from that position he would be able to bring the BBC's documented* anti-Israel bias to a new level of achievement. *As far back as March 2002, Trevor Asserson, in www.bbcwatch.com, has produced compelling evidence that BBC has shown "a disquieting policy of discrimination in the way that Israel is treated... If the BBC cannot provide impartial news coverage it has no legitimate call on public funds simply to promote its own prejudices." David Frankfurter sends "Letters from Israel" emails to subscribers. Contact him at David.Frankfurter@iname.com |
|
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: - Removing Gaza Settlements Is Good But It
Won't Ultimately Suffice
Posted by Aaron Lerner, February 5, 2004. |
|
This is a transcript of yesterday's State Department Daily Press
Briefing by Richard Boucher, spokesman for the Department.
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry, sorry I'm two minutes late today, but I'll try harder tomorrow. Anyway, I don't have any statements or announcements and I'd be glad to take your questions. QUESTION: Well, perhaps we can revisit what we went through at length yesterday, whether the Administration would approve of Israel giving up most of its settlements in Gaza. I bring it up again because Annan says he's for it, and Israel is saying that, "We're going to do it." So could you have another swat at that pleasure? MR. BOUCHER: Sure. I have the same racket I had yesterday. QUESTION: Okay, well - MR. BOUCHER: I'll be glad to take a swat at it. QUESTION: I'll take notes this time. QUESTION: An amazing admission. MR. BOUCHER: (Laughter.) It's a real challenge. As we all know, the issue of settlements has been a complicated one and a difficult for both parties for many, many years. And it's one of the issues that has to be dealt with if we're to arrive at the President's visions of two states that can live side by side in peace and harmony. It's an issue that's been addressed in the roadmap, because it's important that we start to make progress in resolving this issue and removing it as a difficulty between the two parties, setting up a situation where Israelis and Palestinians can both have stable lives. So it's addressed in the roadmap. I was address in the Mitchell Commission Report that there should be a freeze on settlement, including natural growth of settlements. That translated in terms of getting started into an Israeli Government commitment to dismantle outposts and to, in accepting the roadmap, freeze settlement activities. But we all know that in the longer run, other steps are going to have to be taken on settlements in order to resolve the issues and get to that point where two states can live peacefully, side by side. So our view of this particular statement has to be in that context, that action on settlements, action to remove settlements as a source of tension and a source of difficulty is good, but we're looking for action on settlements that moves us in the direction of the President's vision, that moves us forward towards achieving the kind of outcome that all the parties are looking for, the kind of negotiated settlement that the parties have been committed to. And so those actions immediately could take the form of the things that have been committed to, and that's moving down the roadmap by ending the outposts and freezing the activity. Other steps on settlements, again, would be good if they move us forward on achieving the President's vision of a negotiated settlement where two states can live peacefully, side by side. QUESTION: Just so we both can be clear about this, okay, when you say "other steps," we both know the roadmap does not speak of ending settlements. We do know it speaks of not expanding them and of removing outposts. So when you say "other steps," I think you mean not steps other than Sharon is announcing, but steps other than proscribed in the roadmap. Because otherwise, you're saying even Sharon's willingness to remove virtually all settlements isn't in good enough; he's got to do more than that on settlements. I know you're saying there's more to a settlement, an agreement, than settlements. MR. BOUCHER: Yes. QUESTION: Okay. So no, you're not saying, "Do more than you stay you're doing, Sharon, do more than the roadmap." MR. BOUCHER: I - no, and what I'm is saying steps such as those he's announced, or particularly, the specific steps that he's committed to already in terms of outposts and settlement activity are good things. They move us down the road. QUESTION: Right. MR. BOUCHER: And any steps that are taken that move us closer to resolving the issues, to reaching a negotiated outcome, is good. The bigger issue of settlements and removing settlements or the status of settlements, as we all know, is wrapped up in the territorial issues that have to be negotiated as part of a negotiated solution. And so steps that move us down the roadmap, steps that make it easier to achieve a negotiated solution, steps that make it easier to achieve the President's vision - the specific ones that they're committed to or some other steps that they might take - are good as long as they move us forward towards the kind of negotiated solution the parties are pledged to and that we're pledged to. QUESTION: Or maybe that last phrase puts a special light on this. Because the concern within the Administration, certainly among all the people that want to push Israel all the way back to God knows where, is that Sharon will do something unilateral and then, you know, say, "That's it. It's all over. There's your agreement." Are you still concerned that this type of unilateralism might - for this Prime Minister - mean that's all he's going to do, basically? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate on this Prime Minister and what he may or may not do, and what context he may or may not do it in. I do know that this Prime Minister, this Israeli Government, is committed to the roadmap and to moving forward in that way. And certainly we've been looking not only for action by Israel to meet its obligations under the roadmap, but particularly for action by the Palestinians to meet their obligations on the roadmap so that we can move forward. But the - as a general matter, we've always been concerned about any steps that could unilaterally - attempt to unilaterally end the process or unilaterally impose a settlement. QUESTION: Does that mean, then, that the United States - or does the removal of settlements from Gaza make it easier to get to a negotiated agreement? Does - MR. BOUCHER: Action on that or action on - QUESTION: Does it fit in with the roadmap? MR. BOUCHER: - action on settlements in other ways would make it easier to resolve the issue in the long run, yes. QUESTION: So this is - okay. So that we're - you're no longer regarding - you don't - or maybe not no longer - you don't have a problem with the plan that he has said that he is working on to withdraw the settlements from Gaza? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can endorse an entire plan that's not really a commitment yet. I mean we've heard some discussion of this prospect. QUESTION: Yeah, but the disc- what all you've heard, you're not opposed? MR. BOUCHER: No. We've said action on settlements is good as long as it's part of moving us forward down towards the vision and - QUESTION: But you're not ready to say that this is - this would be moving you down the road to the vision? MR. BOUCHER: Removing settlements removes them as - removing settlements can help us move down the road towards the vision, but it can't be seen in isolation, and it can't be seen in isolation from other steps on settlements and other steps needed to take to - that both parties need to take to achieve a negotiated solution. QUESTION: With your architecture - can I say that? Your approach, the U.S.'s approach is based on reciprocity. So do you care to venture beyond what you've said and tell us whether you think the Palestinians ought to do something to reciprocate for Sharon removing Israeli Jews from Gaza? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that he's done that. QUESTION: I mean, if he goes ahead and does that. MR. BOUCHER: I think - the approach is that we're looking for the parties, both parties, to take steps that move us in the direction of a negotiated settlement. We have been very, very explicit and very clear, and I will be again today: the Palestinians need to take action against terror, against the groups that foment terror, against the climate of violence; they need to organize their security situation so that they can take control of the security situation, their security services, so they can take control of the security situation and really act responsibly, as a state will have to act when one is created. And so we've been very explicit that both parties have obligations that they need to meet. There are immediate obligations in the roadmap, and we hold both parties to those. Yes. ... QUESTION: I don't know if this came across anyone's desk here, but a top security advisor to Arafat is accusing the U.S. of blackmailing the Palestinians. Jibril Rajoub said the Americans have threatened to disengage from the peace process unless the Palestinians arrest those responsible for an October bomb blast in Gaza that killed three Americans traveling in diplomatic convoy. You know, the U.S. has said there hasn't been enough action. Maybe it's been embroidered a little bit, or what? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, comments like that are ridiculous. The United States has made very clear how seriously we take the matter of the killing of our people. Everybody should take it that seriously. And we've been very clear with the Palestinian Authority on our expectations. Our position is that there needs to be a resolution of the security situation in Gaza, including apprehension of those who are responsible for the killing of U.S. officials there. We have seen some cooperation, but we think that cooperation needs to be further increased. And that's something we do talk to the Palestinians about on a regular basis. QUESTION: But what do you think of this - MR. BOUCHER: But as far as our - QUESTION: Yeah. MR. BOUCHER: - engagement in the peace process, QUESTION: Yeah. MR. BOUCHER: - we're still involved, as evidenced by the travel of our officials and the kind of conversations we continue to have with the parties. And second of all, as far as our assistance programs, whether it's through the UN or in terms of our assistance to Palestinians through other nongovernmental and other organizations, that kind of assistance continues. USAID programs for the Palestinians continue. QUESTION: You've had people there. You know, Satterfield, others. MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. QUESTION: Was this said, that you know of, to any of the U.S. envoys or any - MR. BOUCHER: Did they say it to us? QUESTION: Yeah. MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't know. I think our people do regularly raise, though, with the Palestinian side, the need to get to the bottom of this matter and find those who are responsible for the killing of American officials. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il |
|
THE ISRAELIS, ORDINARY PEOPLE IN AN EXTRAORDINARY LAND
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 5, 2004. |
|
This is a review of Donna Rosenthal's book. It is available at Barnes
and Noble and other book sellers.
We are constantly hearing about Israel, the "Middle East conflict" or the "Israeli-Palestinian issue" on TV, radio, newspapers, or the Internet from sources often less knowledgeable than we are ourselves. The world is preoccupied with tiny Israel and those few whose lives are linked to the land, to each other and inextricably, to us. Donna Rosenthal, a reporter for major media organizations devoted four years to researching THE ISRAELIS. The result: a fascinating, factual and at times riveting account of the people known to the world as Israelis. Many actually have little understanding of the people called Israelis until they read this insightful, fascinating book. Even Israelis find gripping anecdotes about their neighbors and achieve a better understanding of those around them. In a country where two degrees of separation lie between victim and relative or friend, where the person you read about in the news was a fellow student, a bridge partner, a coworker, the doctor who saved your life, birthed your babies, served with you in the IDF, the wife of the local merchant, the recent musician immigrant, or the guy who shared a l'chayim at last Shabbat's kiddush or greeted you this morning at the bus stop. These are the people called Israelis and they're all here in Rosenthal's book, there are still plenty of anecdotes to surprise, shock and bring your heart into your throat. Rosenthal so effectively introduces us so to those effected by tragedy or simcha that we begin to appreciate our borderless community. The Israelis is a book about my michpacha and yours. A must read for any seeker of understanding. Why are Israelis so combative? Why won't they wait their turn in line? Why are they driven to take such risks on the road, chain smoke, talk incessantly on cell phones? Read the section on Dating and Mating to understand why military service is such a vital rite of passage. Now, I am not in the habit of writing book reviews but this particular product is brought to us by an experienced, objective journalist. It is the heavily researched, reasonably objective reportage of a skilled student of our people. Perhaps no place else in the world can one find such a mishmash of survivors, rabbis, entrepreneurs, physicians, musicians, engineers, refugees, orthodox, rabbis, doctors, reform, conservative, reformadox, rabbis, ultra secular, physicians. Black, brown, white, Asian, Ethiopian, American, Russian, Jews from Arab lands and throughout Eastern Europe, and, more recently, South America... Jews all. There's even a revealing look at the dilemma faced by Israeli Arabs, Israeli and Arab Christians and even an exploration of the motivation behind homicide bombers. Know someone going to Israel on a mission, making Aliyah, covering the "situation" for the press, or just going on vacation? The Israelis is a perfect gift. Want to get inside the mind of those faced with the "new normal" of life under threat of terror? Read this book. Every Jewish Federation, synagogue and church group, which sends groups to Israel should buy The Israelis in bulk and make it required reading before embarkation. Anyone truly wanting to understand the people of the land...how did they get here? Where did they come from? What is life like behind the doors, in the kitchen, the parlor, the street and yes, in the bedrooms? The Israelis... a must read. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
SUICIDE BOMBERS IN IRAQ FOLLOW PALESTINIAN MODEL
Posted by Bryna Berch, February 4, 2004. |
|
This news item was on the Middle East Newsline website
(http://www.menewsline.com) today. I wouldn't be surprised to find the
Palestinian Arabs are doing more in Iraq than acting as advisors. No
matter how much George Bush denies it, there is a confederacy between
the different Arab terrorist groups. Like the Democratic candidates
vying to be the Democratic choice for president, they fuss at each
other, because they want to be topdog. But, when necessary, they work
together. And they all want the same thing - to kill off Israel.
BAGHDAD [MENL] -- Al Qaida and related insurgency groups have adopted Palestinian tactics in strikes against U.S. and allied targets. Iraqi security sources said Sunni insurgents and Al Qaida operatives have been advised by Palestinian insurgents from the ruling Fatah movement and Hamas on methods to launch suicide operations against the U.S. and allied military presence in Iraq. The sources said the methods include the choice of targets, use of explosive belts and the infiltration of operatives. The Palestinian model was said to have been employed in the twin suicide strikes against Kurdish targets in Irbil on Sunday. At least 65 people were killed and another 250 were injured in the bombings of Kurdish political parties in the northern Iraqi city. "The use of suicide bombers is new to Iraq but common in Palestine," a security source said. "In Iraq, attacks meant to result in massive casualties were usually done by car bombs." |
|
TOPPLE SHARON NOW
Posted by Michael Freund, February 4, 2004. |
|
This article of mine from the Jerusalem Post calls for the removal of
Ariel Sharon from power in the wake of his decision to uproot Jewish
communities in Gaza. The article also provides a brief overview of the
history of Jewish settlement in Gaza, which stretches back much
further than most people think.
Ariel Sharon has got to go. Barely 12 hours after Palestinian terrorists launched their nightly round of rocket attacks against Jews in Gaza late on Sunday, Prime Minister Sharon decided to launch a brutal attack of his own. "I have given an order to plan for the evacuation of 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip," Sharon said on Monday in an interview with Ha'aretz. "It is my intention to carry out an evacuation - sorry, a relocation - of settlements," he said. Then, almost as an afterthought, he added, I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza. And so, instead of defending Israel's citizens, Sharon chose to threaten them. In one fell swoop, Israel's premier has arrogated to himself the right to forcibly uproot thousands of people from their homes, destroy entire communities, and declare an entire section of the Land of Israel off-limits to Jews. This cannot be allowed to pass. Sharon's plan is immoral, unethical and anti-democratic. It singles out Jews for expulsion because of their ethnic and religious identity. In other words, because they are Jews, they must be segregated under duress and compelled to move elsewhere. Were it to happen anywhere else in the world, were any government to declare its intention to expel Jews, and only Jews, from their homes, it would rightly be denounced as racism and anti-Semitism. Just imagine if the French government were to proclaim that because of mounting anti-Jewish attacks, Jewish neighborhoods in Paris were to be emptied of their residents, since protecting French Jews in the heart of the city was proving to be "too much of a burden". And what if German authorities were to decide that due to skinhead violence, Berlin's Jews would simply have to leave. In such instances, one can well imagine the outrage that would erupt, the protests and petitions and press conferences that would flood the governments involved, demanding that they withdraw their plans and apologize. After all, a government's primary responsibility is to provide for the security of its citizens, not to give in to those who threaten them. But that is precisely what Sharon seeks to do - to cave in to terror and to realize the Palestinian dream of driving out Gaza Jewry. In reality, though, Sharon's plan is far worse, because he aims to carry it out not in the heart of Europe, but in the cradle of the Jewish people itself: the Land of Israel. The fact of the matter is that Gaza has a long and rich Jewish history which stretches back for thousands of years. In the Bible, when the Jewish people first entered the Promised Land, Gaza was apportioned to the Tribe of Judah (see Joshua 15:47 and Judges 1:18) as part of its eternal patrimony. In the fourth century, hundreds of years before Islam was founded, the Jews of Israel used Gaza as their primary port of commerce for international trade and seafaring. One of the oldest and largest ancient synagogues ever discovered by archaeologists can be found in Gaza. It dates back to the sixth century, or 1500 years before Sharon was elected premier. Great medieval rabbis, such as Rabbi Yisrael Najara, author of Kah Ribbon Olam, the popular Sabbath hymn, and renowned kabbalist Rabbi Avraham Azoulai, author of the Hesed L'Avraham, lived in Gaza, where they served as leaders of the Jewish community. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Jews fleeing the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal found refuge there. Centuries ago, the great scholar Rabbi Yaakov Emden wrote as follows: "Gaza and its environs are absolutely considered part of the Land of Israel without a doubt." "There is no doubt," he ruled in his work Mor U'ketziyah, "that it is a mitzvah to live there, as in any part of the Land of Israel." By deciding to uproot Gaza's settlements, Prime Minister Sharon has unfortunately added his name to the long list of those who have sought to "cleanse" the area of Jews. The first to do so was the Roman emperor Gavinius, in the year 61 CE, followed by the Crusaders, Napoleon and the Ottoman Turks, all of whom forced the Jews out. Arab rioters in 1929 did the same, as did the Egyptian army in 1948. Each time, however, the Jews returned. They rebuilt Jewish Gaza, the land of their ancestors, defying their foes time and again. This had nothing to do with "occupation" or "confiscation" of someone else's land, and everything to do with reclaiming what is rightfully ours. The proof is compelling and overwhelming: Gaza belongs to the Jewish people and to no one else. Hence, Sharon's plan is not only an insult to history - it is an affront to future generations of Jews, because it would deny them a part of their everlasting inheritance. Moreover, it is an outrageous assault on the 7,500 Israelis who have sacrificed so much to repossess Gaza for the Jewish people by making it their home. By failing to stand by Gaza's Jews, and preferring instead to yield to their enemies, Sharon has done more to advance the Palestinian cause in recent months than Yasser Arafat himself. He has betrayed the Jewish people, their land and their destiny, offered an invaluable reward to Palestinian terror, and undermined the morale of untold thousands of Israelis. He is a desperate man resorting to desperate measures, one who is putting his own personal interest ahead of the country in a transparent attempt to deflect attention away from his entanglements with the law. The time has come to send Sharon packing and to topple his government forthwith. Whatever his past accomplishments, he is no longer fit to serve as leader of the Jewish state. The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu. This article was on the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com) today. |
|
ARIEL SHARON: PRINCE OF PERFIDY
Posted by Ken Heller, February 4, 2004. |
|
Inasmuch as it is clearly apparent that we cannot continue to sit
by quietly and watch the Jewish State chopped to pieces at the hands
the "Prince of Perfidy", by none other than the Crime Minister
himself, Ariel Sharon, I am going to try to resurrect the network that
was established last July to demonstrate against the Sharon
government's acceptance of the Road Map.
For those of you who are queasy at the prospect of demonstrating against Sharon, you have my pity. Last July when we demonstrated against the Road Map, there were some who didn't want to take a such a negative slant on the demonstrations and preferred to have pro-Israel instead of anti-Sharon flavor. I disagreed then and disagree now. Sharon must be toppled before he does anymore harm by doing more for the Arab cause then the Arabs themselves...and it is important we say so loud and clear as well as publicly, preferably at the Israeli consulates around the world... on the same day! We are not demonstrating against Israel or Am Yisrael but against the most corrupt and certain to be the worst government in Israel's history. Those who would like to organize their particular city, it is important to get a spot, get your clearance or permit from local police and then get your people. Let's please try to have over 250 people at each demonstration...and let's try to have more than just 14 cities that we had last July! Can we at least triple that number this time? Knowing that time is critical here, I would like to have it before Purim and this time in the middle of the week, say, Wednesday, March 3rd at noon local times. If you agree with this action and the time...please begin to spread the word throughout your community and please inform me the of the precise location and address you have chosen along with the precise time so that I could post the information on various blogs and websites. To those of you who have lengthy lists, please send this email to your people and you may include my new email address, rmk1190@yahoo.com so that I can give information about the demonstrations to those who would be interested in attending. Thank you very much for joining what must be successful effort Chazak, chazak, venet'chazek!!! (be strong, be strong and may we be
strengthened!!!)
Ken Heller is founder of "Citizens Against Giving-up Eretz
Yisrael," a grassroots, worldwide network of Jewish and Christian
pro-Israel activists. He was a major organizer of the world-wide
demonstrations on July 20th against the Road Map.
|
|
HIGH STAKES GAMBLE FROM A MASTER STRATEGIST
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 4, 2004. |
|
Please keep in mind that this is from the man who does not believe
there is Black and White in the world. Everything is relative. Your
retreat is my withdrawal. Your defeat is my victory. It is all
relative so why get so upset? After all it will not be any of Sharon's
relatives who will be expelled and have their homes and lives
destroyed. No off course not. All of his relatives will be on some
Greek island having a nice time with all that American money. It is
all relative you know.
This article is archived at IMRA (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19676). It was written by Uri Dan and appeared on the New York Post yesterday. [IMRA: This is not a parody. Sharon confidant Uri Dan accurately reflects Ariel Sharon's contention that retreating will somehow insure that future retreats will not be required. He says this even though in Sharon's own presentations he explains that the retreats will be to temporary lines that will serve as the OPENING positions for future negotiations with the Palestinians and with the U.S. making it clear that this retreat would ultimately be within the framework of the Roadmap (e.g., addtional withdrawals).] February 3, 2004 -- ARIEL SHARON is preparing more surprises. The "relocation" of Jewish settlements won't be limited to 17 in the Gaza Strip, but will extend to the West Bank and may total 30, possibly more. And this is coming from the founding father of the settlement movement - someone who has been their chief supporter in the various military and political posts he's held since Israel captured the Palestinian territories in the 1967 Mideast war. Sharon's reasoning is simple: He believes any Israeli prime minister who follows him may be pressured to pull back much further, to the pre-1967 borders. Sharon, the former general and defense minister, believes those borders are militarily indefensible. So he came to the conclusion, after three years of bloodshed and seven years of fruitless negotiation - the so-called "Mideast peace process" - that it is time to say goodbye to the Palestinians. Sharon wants to separate Israelis from Palestinians as much as possible - by "relocating" some settlements and erecting a security fence along the West Bank. The settlers will feel betrayed. But he is willing to take the heat from them now - after all, who else could do that and survive politically? - in order to preserve the large blocs of West Bank settlements from future concessions. Sharon visualizes Israel holding on to about 50 percent of the West Bank - in some 100-plus settlements - as well as the strategic Valley of Jordan. IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis) tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il |
|
ARIEL SHARON'S UNFUNNY GAZA PLAN
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 4, 2004. |
|
This is from the DEBKAfile and is achived at
http://www2.debka.com/article.php?aid=781
February 4, 2004, 4:00 PM (GMT+02:00)
No buyers in Washington for Sharon`s disengagement blueprint For some months now, laughter courses - an idea copied from India's "mirth is medicine" Laughing Clubs - have been the rage in Israel's main cities. In the dumps after three and-a-half years of Palestinian violence and severe economic disruption, Israelis are trying to relieve tension by a jolly good laugh. Needless to say, the laugh meisters have not claimed a foothold in Israel's lower-income towns, where trying to scrape together a living in the face of government ineptitude is no laughing matter. Now, as if his failure to alleviate fear and widespread economic hardship were not enough, Ariel Sharon has dropped a political bombshell: a plan to evacuate 17 of Israel's 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and transfer their populations to communities yet to be established in the Halutza sand dunes of the northern Negev. The prime minister's spin doctors are presenting the evacuation scheme as a first step in a one-way plan to disengage from the Palestinians that will also entail the removal of several settlements inside the West Bank. This plan, if feasible, would draw substantial popular support. To show the blueprint is in earnest, he has tapped General Giora Eiland, the newly-appointed national security council chief, to chart the security borders of the disengaged state of Israel. Seen striding purposefully up and down the corridors of the prime minister's office, maps in hand, two pairs of spectacles at the ready, the general has nothing to say to reporters; after all, he is in uniform. But Sharon's spokesmen have made sure the media know that his chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, fully briefed US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Even so, a thick cloud of uncertainty hangs over the Gaza plan. Sharon, who instigated and promoted many of the communities he now proposes to uproot, said the evacuation of some 7,500 Gazan settlers is still two years off. His trial balloonist, deputy premier Ehud Olmert then announced the removals would start in June or July. No wonder a growing number of Israelis are signing up for laughing lessons. After all, in nearly three years in office, Sharon has made little progress in resolving the unending conflict with the Palestinians; neither has he excelled in creative diplomatic thinking. Israelis remember all too well his 2001 election pledge to "bring security to the people of Israel." Even the project he solemnly undertook of a security fence to keep suicide bombers from crossing in from the West Bank has virtually come to a halt, leaving yawning gaps at its most vulnerable points, the Sharon plain north of Tel Aviv, the Lod vicinity of Ben Gurion international airport and Jerusalem. At those three points, the prime minister bowed to the Bush administration's opposition to any deviations from the pre-1967 war Green Line that cut into the West Bank. Nonetheless, Sharon no longer tops the White House's list of wanted guests. Once a frequent flyer on the Tel Aviv-Washington line, he has not visited Washington since last summer. The planning for White House talks in late February or early March has not been finalized. According to DEBKAfile's political analysts, Sharon has missed the boat of America's post-Iraq War regional strategy and the upheavals it has wrought in the Arab world. Seeing Israeli still mired in the Palestinian quagmire, the Bush administration has moved on. Its focus on the Middle East road map and promise of a Palestinian state has shifted to the weighty questions of how much autonomy to allow Iraq's Kurds and Shiites. Not easily discernible to most Israelis, who are sunk deep more mundane concerns, America's policy reorientation away from the Israel-Palestinian conflict is an open secret in Washington. Weisglass has been rushing back and forth between Jerusalem and Washington in search of White House backing for Sharon's disengagement-cum-settlement evacuation plan by talking to Rice, her deputy Steve Hadley and national security council staffer Elliot Abrams. Yet Sharon's disengagement-cum-settlement evacuation plan has no buyers in Washington for three reasons: 1. The Bush administration wants no part of the burden of supporting the Palestinian economy. That role is assigned to Israel; disengagement is thus ruled out. Since Israel is also designated main provider of jobs for the Palestinians, the security fence is disallowed because it would obstruct the movement of West Bank laborers. By halting construction on the fence, Sharon has taken this American concern on board. 2. The prime minister's Gazan plan has run into direct opposition from Egypt and Jordan out of kindred concerns. The Mubarak government has forcefully warned the US that if Israeli settlers and military depart the Gaza Strip's Gush Katif, not only would Palestinian jobs in the lush fruit, vegetable and herbs greenhouses be forfeit, but there would be nothing to bar a Palestinian exodus from the teeming Strip into adjoining regions of Egypt's northern Sinai. Egypt is seriously anxious for Israeli settlements to remain in the Gaza Strip. Jordan too fears Palestinians exiting a West Bank Palestinian state and heading east in large numbers in consequence of any disengagement from Israel. 3. The bribes scandals hanging over Sharon and his problems with coalition partners have not escaped Washington's attention. With typical bravado, he warned potential pro-settlement government rebels that he will replace them with Shimon Peres? Labor Party. That prospect is pie in the sky, as Washington knows full well. It would be a toss-up to choose who is on shakier ground between the Likud prime minister and a Labor party that signed its own death warrant again on Tuesday, February 2, by voting to extend through 2005 the term as party leader of the octogenarian Shimon Peres who has never won a national election. The francophone Peres has never been a favorite of Washington. Above all, Bush has exhibited a resolve in Iraq and other places never to pin key US diplomatic moves on unstable political forces. That consideration alone would have sufficed to red-flag Sharon's proposals in Washington. 4. The United States, after threatening to deduct from Israel's annual aid package the relatively small cost of the fence the sections that dip into the West Bank, will certainly shy from footing the $15 bn bill for removing and re-housing the Jewish communities of Gaza. The Bush administration would much rather spend the money on projects to draw Sudan out of the Arab fold. Like the security fence therefore, Sharon may start removing the Israeli presence from the Gaza Strip, but it is hard to see how he can go all the way through with it. At the same time, albeit for a virtually impossible price, Sharon has a slim chance of regaining some of his lost standing with the Bush administration and its acceptance of a revised disengagement plan, under the following circumstances: A. If Muammer Qaddafi, in a bid for a welcome to the real world, decided to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, pulling the rest of North Africa, including Tunisia, after him. B. If, as we reported on January 24, Europe and the Saudis pressed ahead with an initiative for bringing Israel into the European Union and NATO as a full member in return for its withdrawal to pre-1967 war lines and a settlement evacuation plan. The DEBKAfile motto is: We start where the media stop. |
|
THEY WOULD DO IT FOR FRIENDS
Posted by David Frankfurter, February 4, 2004. |
|
A few weeks ago, I had the delightful experience of a chat and dinner
with a German Member of the European Parliament member, Ilka
Schroeder. Ilka is remarkable and young, energetic, intelligent and
frank. Qualities rare in a politician anywhere in the world.
Her incisive analysis of Europe's activity in the Middle East are well summarised in various newspaper interviews she gave while visiting Israel. (Click here to see her interview with CNS News.) She sees Europe's unquestioning support for the Palestinian narrative and methods as being a simple political tool to advance the new European Imperialism, combined with a healthy dose of good old anti-Semitism. There was one question which had been troubling me for a long time. What I have never really understood is why the European Parliament and Commission continue to allow the Palestinian leadership 'divert' (to quote that lovely IMF euphemism) so much of European taxpayers money to their own pockets, while the average Palestinian suffers such poverty. It can't just be power, glory and anti-Semitism, can it? What I can't help but wonder, is whether some of the 'diverted' European billions are being 'diverted' to European political pockets - creating that unconditional willingness to cover-up, lie, and continue funding theft, murder and organised crime and the promotion of hate. Ilka's reply sent a shiver down my spine. "It's worse," she said quietly, "it's a passion for these people. Your question doesn't matter. They would do it for free." This is her interview with CNS News, as reported by Julie Stahl, CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief, January 2, 2004. Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - European Union support for the Palestinian Authority against Israel is part of Europe's "hidden war" against the United States to become a world superpower, a European parliamentarian said in Jerusalem this week. Washington has often backed Israel's position against the Palestinians, particularly in its war on terrorism over the last three years. The United State is also perceived by the Arab world to be pro-Israel. President Bush has consistently refused to meet with PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, while Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been a guest at the White House many times. The EU has argued that it is a neutral observer. But Israel has rejected direct EU participation in the peace process fearing that what it considers the EU's pro-Palestinian bias would tip the scales in favor of the Palestinians. The EU has backed the Palestinian Authority since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1992, becoming one of its main financial supporters and giving the PA hundreds of millions of euros (dollars) since then. EU parliamentarian Ilka Schroeder charged that EU backing for the PA goes beyond support for the Palestinian cause and is actually part of a secret agenda to gain power in the world. "For me it is obvious that the Middle East has become one of the most important fields of European military superpower ambitions," Schroeder said. "The primary goal of the EU is the internationalization of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict in order to underline the need for its own mediating role... The longer the conflict continues and the deeper it gets, the more evident is the incapability of the U.S. to moderate the peace process," Schroeder told diplomats and journalists at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem this week. "The need for a solution only exists as long as war continues. This is why the EU does not want the conflict to end before it gains [a] major role. And this is why the EU does not wish the PA to give up too early and why the EU is strengthening the PA. "The EU is ... stirring up conflict that it supposedly wants to see resolved by financing one side. This is inherently inhuman purpose of EU humanitarian aid in the region. The Palestinians are playing the ugly role of cannon fodder of Europe's hidden war against the U.S.," Schroeder charged. Schroeder, who has served in the European parliament since 1999, is currently an independent member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left. She started an initiative in the European parliament several years ago to investigate the possible PA misuse of EU funds when Israel put a freeze on the transfer of tax revenues to the PA, fearing that those monies would then be used to fund terror attacks against Israel. At the time, the EU dismissed Israeli allegations as propaganda. After Israel raided Arafat's Mukata headquarters compound in Ramallah in 2002 and removed truckloads of official PA documents, Israel confronted the EU with the charge that funds it was transferring to the PA were being used to finance terrorism. Despite the fact that more than 170 European parliamentarians have now joined Schroeder's initiative for an investigation, she said, it has "pretty much failed." "European parliament does not intend to verify whether European taxpayers money could have been used to finance anti-Semitic, murderous attacks," she said. 'Road Map' EU Success According to Schroeder, although the current Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, known as the "road map," was supposedly derived from Bush's peace plan for the region, the EU considers it a big success that the plan was enshrined as U.S. Middle East policy. "This road map was a German invention that is now in a modified version a part of the official policy of the U.S. ... There was a European success to make the road map the official policy of the U.S. government," she said. In June 2002, Bush delivered a major Middle East policy address, which called on the Palestinians to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror" - an obvious reference, though not by name, to Arafat and his PLO associates. Israel welcomed the address, which called on the Palestinians first of all to bring a halt to terror. But the Palestinians rejected Bush's call for a new leadership. However, a few months later, the U.S. had teamed up with other members of the so-called Quartet, including the EU, United Nations and Russia, to pen the "road map" peace plan, which was supposed to have been based on Bush's speech. The road map called for Israel to withdraw to positions it had held before the beginning of Palestinian violence in September 2000, the dismantling of illegal outposts in the West Bank, and a cessation of military operations in PA areas - operations, which Israel credited with reducing the number of terror attacks. The plan required the PA to appoint a prime minister, reorganize its security forces and resume security cooperation with Israel and it promised the PA a state more or less unconditionally by 2005. "The premise of this plan is that all that is missing for real peace is an independent Palestinian state. In this concept, Israel is held responsible for the existence of an aggressive Palestinian nationalism, for terrorist acts committed against its own citizens and the growth of anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism all over the world. "Before this happened, Israel and the U.S. demanded the end of terrorist acts as a sign of goodwill from the PA before negotiations could start. Had the PA done this it would have been a sign that they had changed their strategy and wanted to be a real partner in a lasting peace process," Schroeder said. David Frankfurter sends "Letters from Israel" emails to subscribers. Contact him at David.Frankfurter@iname.com |
|
MAYBE THEY CAN GET BUSH TO WEAR ONE?
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 4, 2004. |
|
Maybe they can get Bush to wear one? This is an news
item from Arutz-7 and is archived as
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=57251
American College Republication Respond to Suicide Bombers
The T-shirts, which the College Republicans created and are selling on their website, http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/cr, are in response to the on-going terrorist attacks around the world. Bryan Pravda, Executive Director of Public Relations for the College Republicans at Texas, said, "We are wearing these shirts in classrooms, on buses, and in local coffee shops. The aim of the message is for people to appreciate the freedom in which they are living." Pravda continued, "Both America and Israel want peace, but the war on terror is necessary so citizens do not have to live in fear." Brian Bodine, Chairman of the College Republicans at Texas, asserted, "Freedom and liberty should not have to be attributed to the Republican Party or the Democrat Party. However, President Bush is the only leader [out of the Presidential candidates] firmly defending these inalienable rights." Pravda stated, "Gruesome and horrific murders targeted at the
innocent in Israel, America, Turkey, Iraq, and other allies of
freedom, have called us into action in creating these shirts. Some say
that our shirts are offensive, but I find silence in the face of
terror a greater offense."
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.
|
|
ELEGY TO ILAN RAMON
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, February 4, 2004. |
|
Ilan Ramon was something special for all of us. He rose above all the
current disputes and represented links with the roots of the past and
with hesitant hope for the future.
I didn't really follow the media festival which accompanied the lift-off of the first Israeli astronaut. Something in these media spins turns me off, regardless of the subject. Despite this I felt that this was something different. This modest man, with such a brilliant combat record, who was now attracting the attention of the entire world, wearing a shy grin, did not devote the world acclaim that he received to advance his own private ego. He didn't make a universal, politically correct statement ("From space I shall call for peace with the Palestinians" - a sentence that would have gone down well over CNN). He didn't even focus attention on the State of Israel. He understood that what he really was, and what he represented, was first and foremost the Jewish people. We have become accustomed to the appearance, in all kinds of international events, of Israeli representatives who wish to appease the barely disguised anti-Semitism of their hosts: A delegation to the Eurovision contest, which persists in waving the Syrian flag, a well-known conductor who makes a point of playing compositions of the spiritual father of the Third Reich, or just an ordinary Israeli "artist" who presents in Norway a "creation" justifying the murder of Jews. Israelis who have been brought up to deny that they are different from others, who reject their unique Jewish identity, and who lack a religious basis, inevitably attempt to assimilate when they go abroad. This is what happens at best, but at worst they identify with anti-Semitism. "I am really a successful Israeli. I display no signs of Judaism. The proof of this is that I understand the antisemites. I am actually on their side?" Ilan Ramon did not come from a religious background of any kind. He really represented the perfect Israeli. He was secular, educated, heroic, handsome, successful, married with successful children, a man of the world - in short, an example of the ultimate Israeli. But when this person reached the summit of popular attention something strange happened. He was permitted to take a small number of items with him. He insisted on taking with him a Sefer Torah that had been smuggled out of a concentration camp, fixing a mezuzah on the door of the space ship, eating kosher food, and observing Shabbat in public. What had happened? It's not clear what caused Ramon to act so strangely. Perhaps it was the result of the long years of training, in a country which knows how to separate religion from politics, while at the same time recalling its faith in G-d both in the President's speeches and in its bank notes. The demonic fear of their faith, created by the Israeli political system, vanishes when Israelis leave Israel. The religion doesn't seem to present a threat in Nepal, where thousands of Israeli backpackers participate in the Seder night organized by Chabad. But this explanation is not fair to Ilan. He was really a great man, who at a time of trial knew how to connect to the truth. It doesn't really matter what caused it. What is important is that is happened to the ultimate Israeli, and when the time comes this truth will be revealed to all the Israelis. No, they won't suddenly return to their Judaism in the style of Uri Zohar. I hope not. I don't want them for myself, but for themselves. A kind of real, general, process, that Ramon expressed so well. Those who believe that the internal Jewish flame in the hearts of the Israelis continues to burn, should find hope in the example given by Ilan Ramon. Moshe Feiglin began Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. |
|
ONE WEEK LATER
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 4, 2004. |
|
The shiva week is over. For the families of the eleven victims of the
#19 bus bomb the initial mourning period draws to a close. The rituals
of mourning ratchet down a few notches for the next 30 days, and even
further over the next 11 months, but the real pain of living without a
father, sister, daughter, husband, son or brother has only just begun.
On the surface, the speed with which the city returns to "normal" is almost obscene. The area of the horror is cleaned with lightning speed. People are back waiting at the #19 bus stop with no visible signs of discomfort. Politics dominates the news again. But beneath the surface, this attack seems to have had a particularly jarring effect on many of us. Like Cafe Hillel, last September, this one occurred on our turf, everyone knows someone killed or injured. Dozens still lie in hospitals, looking forward to months of rehab. if they're fortunate, or adjusting to a life of disability and post-traumatic stress if they're not. In countless conversations this past week, friends have expressed their profound feelings of grief, loss, depression, resignation and helplessness. For one, a nurse at Hadassah Hospital, it was the swift discovery that the son of a colleague lay in a ward upstairs with "moderate" injuries - the loss of an eye, limited hearing and shrapnel all over the place. Another friend who was walking a block away when the bus blew and saw everything, has had trouble doing anything except sleep all week. Someone else was surprised to find herself so upset over the realization that one 23 year old victim shared her rather unusual last name. I was shaken to discover that father of seven, Chezi Goldberg, 42, an e-mail acquaintance, was supposed to be the third member of my Hebrew conversation class that started this week. It's the severing of a life in full swing that's so jarring. Driving a couple of American guests around town at the beginning of the week, I realize that there's almost nowhere to go that doesn't harbor a reminder of the terror we've endured. Here Sbarros; there Cafe Moment, the #4 bus stop on Jaffa Road, the site of the stabbing in front of the Anglican School, Cafe Hillel, Ben Yehuda Mall,Hebrew U, the shoe store next to my coffee bar where the owner's wife was murdered in a bus bombing etc. etc It's becoming increasingly difficult to lift oneself out of the reality of the effects of Arab terror. Especially this week when the lop-sided body/prisoner exchange takes place and our prime minister decides to give the appearance of rewarding terror by announcing his plans to remove thousands of Jews from their homes. This shiva week is over, but who knows what next week will bring? Judy Balint is author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen). It is for sale from http://www.israelbooks.com. |
|
JUNE/JULY 2004 ELECTIONS? NETANYAHU TO MEET SHARON
Posted by Aaron Lerner, February 4, 2004. |
|
Israel Television News correspondent Ayala Hasson
reported this evening from "sources" close to Prime Minister Sharon
that he does not rule out calling for elections in June or July 2004
if he finds that he is unable to pass his retreat plan but that others
could make this move difficult (the Basic Law does not enable the
prime minister to force elections if a majority of the Knesset
supports the formation of a government without elections - see below).
Hasson noted that Sharon's major political problem today is within his own Likud party, where there is substantial opposition. While Foreign Minister Shalom has come out against retreat, Hasson pointed out that Finance Minister Netanyahu, who could pay a key role in leading the internal opposition, has yet to take a public stand and has asked for a meeting with Sharon to discuss the program. Hasson said that it would be sufficient for Sharon if Netanyahu simply continued to remain silent on the matter. Basic Law: The Government (2001) www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hd0 Authority to disperse the Knesset. 29. (a) Should the Prime Minister ascertain that a majority of the Knesset opposes the Government, and that the effective functioning of the Government is prevented as a result, he may, with the approval of the President of the State, disperse the Knesset by way of an order to be published in Reshumot. The order will enter into effect 21 days after its publication, unless a request is submitted under subsection (c), and the Government will be deemed to have resigned on the day of the order's publication. (b) Within 21 days of the publication of the order, a majority of the Knesset Members may request that the President charge one of its members, who has so agreed in writing and who is not the Prime Minister, with the task of forming a government. (c) Where a request as aforesaid has been submitted to the President, the President shall inform the Speaker of the Knesset. The President shall assign the task of forming a Government to the Knesset Member named in the request within two days. (d) A Knesset Member to whom the task of forming a Government has been assigned under this section shall have a period of 28 days for its fulfilment. The President of the State may extend the period by additional periods not in the aggregate exceeding 14 days. (e) Should no such request be submitted under subsection (b), or if the period defined in subsection (d) passed, and the Knesset Member did not inform the President that he formed a government or where he presented a Government and the Knesset rejected his request for confidence under section 13(d), it will be deemed to be a Knesset decision to disperse prior to the completion of its period of service, and elections to the Knesset will be held on the last Tuesday before the end of 90 days of the President's announcement, or of the rejection of the request for confidence in the government, as relevant. (f) If the President gave notice under subsection (3) or if the Knesset member presented a Government and the Knesset rejected the request that it express confidence in it under section 13(d), then the Knesset is deemed to have decided to disperse before the end of its term of office, and elections to the Knesset will be held on the last Tuesday before the end of 90 days of the President's announcement, or of the rejection of the request for confidence in the government, as relevant. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il |
|
WHAT SUPPORT FOR AN ARAB STATE IN BIBLICAL ISRAEL?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 4, 2004. |
|
What Israeli Support For An Arab State In Yesha?
Israel's one-sided media (that takes the Arab side or the side of appeasement of the Arabs, and slants polls) give Israelis the impression that most Israelis favor establishment of a PLO state in Yesha. Israelis lack a forum for expressing what they do think. Women in Green has been traveling throughout Israel, collecting signatures for a petition against PLO statehood. At each town's central hub, it set up tables and asked people to sign. People stood in line to sign. They brought their family, friends, and neighbors, and importuned passersby to sign. They relished Women in Green standing up against the supposed consensus. In a fairly short time, more than 350,000 signed. Did the media take notice? When the Ayalon appeasement scheme collected fewer signatures, almost half from Arabs, it drew media attention. Not the Women in Green petitions. PM Sharon ignored them too. Then Pres. Katzav invited Women in Green to discuss its drive, and finally Maariv commented (Women in Green, 1/28, e-mail). What American Support For A PLO State In Biblical Israel? ZOA sponsored a new poll that found that almost 70% of Americans disapprove of PLO statehood and the Arab demand to expel Jews from the territories (National Unity Coalition for Israel, 1/28, e-mail). There have been polls that found the opposite, but those polls had slanted wording. I did not see the wording of the McLaughln & Associates poll sponsored by ZOA. Meantimes, the Bush administration keeps pushing on Israel to be a passive punching bag and let terrorists continue to kill its people. Assistant Sec. of State John Wolf, top US envoy to Israel and the P.A., said that he persuaded Israel to give the P.A. more time to crack down on terrorists. (Since it did not crack down during the ten years of Oslo, what did he expect?) He admitted that the P.A. was all talk and no action. In a bid for balance, he complained that Israel didn't do all it might, meaning it should have made more concessions to the P.A. that was trying to destroy it. He is not balanced, for he monitor's Israel's compliance with the Map by demanding it do things not in the map, such as released imprisoned terrorists. He says that is to build trust. ZOA does not trust HIM, and suggests that Pres. Bush find an envoy who would not pull Israel's punches against terrorism (IMRA, 1/27). I suggest that the America people find another President, who gives these envoys their unsavory missions, though his rival candidates do not seem to be firm enough against terrorism, either. As for "trust," the problem is not that the Arabs don't trust Israel, which constantly makes concessions in vain to show that it can be trusted. The problem is that Israel cannot trust the Arabs, because their culture and ideology embodies deceitfulness and they seek conquest. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
WITHDRAWAL FROM GAZA REWARDS TERROR
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 4, 2004. |
|
This is a comprehensive compilation of links to news stories and
background regarding Gaza.
Sharon: Separation Necessary For Our Future - Joshua Brilliant Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Tuesday he was determined to implement his plan for a unilateral pullback. Speaking in Ashkelon, Sharon said, "This step must be taken" to facilitate Israel's secure development. "I intend to implement what I said...It's tough but I have decided." A senior government official said Sharon realized the public is fed up with the current situation. Sharon is concerned, also, about a possible collapse of law and order in the Palestinian areas that would create a dangerous vacuum. He wants to preempt a situation in which Israel is pressured to send over its troops to put an end to anarchy and restore its civil administration. (UPI/Washington Times) Sharon to Present Pullout Plan in DC - Janine Zacharia Prime Minister Sharon will personally present Israel's plan for disengagement from the Palestinians to President Bush in Washington once Israel's National Security Council chairman Giora Eiland completes the preparations for the unilateral steps, according to an Israeli official, who said the trip would probably take place in the next few weeks. Israel has pledged to share the disengagement plan with the U.S. before carrying it out. "There will not be any surprises," the official added. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday: "We certainly welcome action on settlements and we look for their action on their obligations. But we also look for action from the Palestinians on their obligations, especially with regard to dismantling the infrastructure of terror." "Action on settlements is consistent [with the road map]. It's generally positive," Boucher added. (Jerusalem Post) Security Official: Withdrawal from Gaza - A Prize to Terror - Amir Rappaport "This will encourage terror, give a prize to the Palestinians, and will wet the appetite of the terrorists," said a senior security official in response to the idea to evacuate most of the Jewish settlements in Gaza. "Hamas will take credit for our flight under fire," he said. "The Jewish towns that remain in northern Gaza and the IDF forces protecting them will become a target for intensive terror." According to security sources, "the struggle against the terror that will come out of Gaza after the withdrawal will require enormous forces." Hamas might use the withdrawal as an opportunity to take over Gaza completely, at the expense of the PA. (Maariv-Hebrew) Al-Aksa Leaders: Sharon's Words Mean Victory, We Want You to Flee - Eli Vaked Two senior leaders of the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Hashem Abu Hamdan and Nadir Abu Lil, said Sharon's intention to remove settlements is a victory for the Palestinian resistance, but they want to see an "Israeli flight, like in Lebanon." The two claimed that Palestinians in the West Bank, as well as in Gaza, possess rockets and mortars that will reach the cities of central Israel. They said, "The Israeli separation fence is a cardboard barrier. Soon the Israelis will witness our actions from inside the fence." (Yediot Ahronot-Hebrew) Palestinian Militants Say Gaza Plan Won't End Fight Palestinian militants claimed a victory on Tuesday after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a plan to remove most Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip, but they vowed no let-up in their attacks inside Israel. "Sharon's statement no doubt resulted from the greatness of resistance and steadfastness of the Palestinian people," said senior Islamic Jihad leader Nafez Azzam. (Reuters) Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis (Best of U.S., UK, and Israel): Settlers Assert Their Right to Gaza Land - Ravi Nessman A day after Prime Minister Sharon said Jewish settlements in Gaza would have to be removed, the settlers threw open their heavily guarded electric gates Tuesday to show they are just ordinary suburban folk who want peace - but will never leave this land. In Netzer Hazani, Anita Tucker, 58, a New York native who has lived in Gaza for 28 years, said the community was deeply affected by the killing of three of its members, including its rabbi, by Palestinian attackers. But she also insisted the Gaza settlements are a lovely and quiet place to live, far safer than suicide bomb-plagued Jerusalem. "It's a town. I never understood the word settlement. It's a town like suburban Long Island, like suburban London," she said. Even if Israel did leave the Gaza settlements, it would not be enough, said Wael Yusuf, a Palestinian police officer. Israel would also have to give back the West Bank, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and every other square inch of land it inhabits, he said. (AP/Washington Times) On Dismantling Gaza Settlements - Shlomo Avineri (Access/Middle East) The Israeli public debate over the last decades has been characterized by two varieties of how to bring Palestinians to negotiations. The doves say that "if you make the Palestinians a decent offer, this is the end of the conflict, they will accept it." And the hawks thought, "if you hit them hard enough on the head, they'll cave in." Both have proven to be wrong. The fact that the Palestinians are violently against unilateral disengagement suggests who is going to be the winner. Israel is going to be the winner, not the Palestinians. For the Roadmap you need a partner. It's pretty obvious that we don't have a partner. If you look at similar conflicts that have characterized the last decade - Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia - in none of them is there an attempt to have a Roadmap to a final-status solution. What you have in those cases are stop-gap measures. The Roadmap was dead on arrival. The Roadmap was a wish-list. It suggested what the U.S, and many people in the West and Israel, would have liked to see. The only place where people think you can find a final solution in two months or two years is the Middle East. This is totally unrealistic, totally utopian. One has to lower one's sight from conflict resolution to conflict management. This is what the international community has done with relative success in Bosnia, Kosovo - and this means stabilization. The writer is professor of political science at the Hebrew University, and former director-general of the Israel Foreign Ministry. See also It's Paradise Here - Except When They are Trying to Kill Us - Toby Harnden (Telegraph-UK) Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN THE ARAB WORLD
Posted by Barry Rubin, February 4, 2004. |
|
Thirteen years ago, in 1991, U.S. soldiers arrived in Saudi Arabia to
liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression and annexation. Among the American
forces were women who drove vehicles. Perhaps inspired by this presence,
several dozen Saudi women later held a demonstration in which they drove
cars illegally.
Women were not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. They still cannot do so today. Despite a recent, highly publicized statement by a Saudi prince saying this situation would change soon, there is no sign whatsoever that this law will be altered. Indeed, in July 2003 a powerful Saudi businessman and writer submitted his regular column to a leading Saudi newspaper, Ukaz, foreseeing a future when women would have equal rights in his country. After being rejected the first time, it was finally published. The article stirred up a great deal of controversy and reactions ranging from death threats to support. Western media sources hailed the article as an example of the increasingly open debate there. A few days later, the writer's column was dropped from the newspaper. What makes this outcome especially remarkable is the fact that his father founded the newspaper and he himself is a major stockholder in it. Within the last few days, the top state-appointed Saudi clerics strongly criticized the presence of women at an international development conference held in the country. Many observers conclude that this official decision is going to make it almost impossible to increase women's rights in the kingdom even if the regime there wanted to do it. Some Arab governments do recognize that inequality for women is one of the main - though there are many other - reasons for their slow pace of social progress and lagging economic development. But look what has happened - or rather hasn't happened - even in these cases. After the Iraqi army was driven from Kuwait in 1991, its monarch promised women rights. Consequently, in May 1999 - the time gap tells something about the pace of change in the region - he issued a decree giving women the right to vote and run for office in the next Kuwaiti elections. While Kuwait is the most democratic country in the Gulf - and arguably in the whole Arab world - voting rights are strictly limited. Of two million people living in the country, only 800,000 are Kuwaiti citizens and of these just 112,000 males can vote. In July 1999, the elections saw the victory of more liberals than ever before, holding about 16 of the 50 seats. Supporters of women's suffrage confidently predicted parliament would endorse the ruler's plan. Islamist members, however, passionately opposed the idea and they had wide popular support for doing so. "Those women who are calling for political rights have reached menopause and need someone to remind them of God," said one of them. When the most popular version of the women's voting rights legislation came up for the vote, the elected members rejected it by a 32 to 15 margin. Supposedly this was only to be a temporary setback. The government suggested it would resubmit the bill in 2000. A liberal parliamentarian remarked, "One thing I know for sure, in 2003, women will have their political rights." But he was wrong and Kuwaiti women still don't have the right to vote or run for office. Also in 1999, the Jordanian government proposed canceling article 340 of the Penal Code which said that killing a wife or female relative engaged in adultery was not a crime. Even after the king endorsed the change, a poll showed about two-thirds of his subjects against doing so. The most recent development is perhaps the most shocking of all. The U.S.-supervised Iraqi Governing Council Decision No. 137 called for replacing that country's civil law with Islamic law. After protests from women's and other groups, the decision has been reported withdrawn. Still, one wonders what will happen when Iraqis can vote on this issue. Of course, it is possible to point to progress on women's rights in the Arab world. Women now vote in Qatar, they are elected in small numbers to many parliaments, and they have an increasing role in business and rising levels of education. Saudi Arabia is not typical. Yet the amount of progress and the pace of change is still remarkably slow. If Iran is also considered, the situation becomes even worse. But in Egypt, a survey shows that one-third of women have been beaten by their husbands, female circumcision continues to be practices, and a husband who kills a wife involved in adultery would only receive a three-year sentence. With rising Islamist influence - or at least regime efforts to appease such groups - the clock seems to be running backward in many places. By no means do all women support a basic change in their status and even those who do are often not exactly "progressive" on other issues. Experts estimate that Kuwaiti women are even more conservative than the men and if given the chance would vote for parties that would deny them the vote. Clearly, women have emerged as a major constituency favoring
democracy and a moderate regime in Iran. This has not yet happened in the
Arab world. The appeals of traditional viewpoints, radical Arab
nationalism, and Islamism have attracted far more women than have liberal
ideas. Whether or not their voices are heard on the side of reform will be
one of the main factors determining whether the Arab world remains
socially stagnant and politically authoritarian.
Professor Barry Rubin is Director of The Global Research in
International Affairs Center (GLORIA) and Editor of Middle East Review
of International Affairs (MERIA).
|
|
PRESIDENT BUSH AND ISRAEL
Posted by George K. Bernstein, February 3, 2004. |
|
To: The Republican Jewish Coalition:
I am President of the Brandeis District of the Zionist Organization of America and a member of the National Board of Directors of ZOA. I am a life-long Republican, having served in the Rockefeller Administration in New York State and in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. I can tell you unequivocally that unless there is a change in President Bush's position on Israel, I and many others - Jewish and Christian supporters of Israel - will not support his reelection. At best, we will sit on our hands. We are not fooled by the good cop (Bush), bad cop (Powell, et. al.) game the Administration is playing. We are sick and tired of the President's declarations about the importance of the war against terrorism here, when at the same time his actions deny Israel the right to defend itself against far worse terrorism. The concessions he and his representatives are pressuring Israel to accept will doom the Jewish State. We in America can survive an occasional defeat. Israel can only lose once and it will cease to exist. If President Bush continues to appease the Arabs abroad and the Muslims at home at the expense of Israel he will not get the Jewish and Christian right votes. He certainly will not get mine. Regretfully,
|
|
GAZA: THE CASE AGAINST ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL
Posted by Zionist Organization of America, February 3, 2004. |
|
On June 19, 1967, in the wake of the Six Day War, the U.S. Secretary of Defense instructed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to present their "views, without regard to political factors, on the minimum territory" that Israel would be "justified in retaining in order to permit a more effective defense against possible conventional Arab attack and terrorist raids." Ten days later, the Joint Chiefs presented a report which concluded that Israel needed to retain substantial portions of the Golan Heights, and Judea-Samaria, and all of Gaza. With regard to Gaza, the Joint Chiefs wrote: "By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it is, the strip serves as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism, and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage." Throughout history, foreign armies have used Gaza as a springboard for invading the Land of Israel, from Pharoah Sethos I in the 13th century BCE, to Napoleon in 1799. The British army, under Allenby, used it as an invasion route in 1917. In 1948, Egypt used Gaza as its route to invade the newborn State of Israel. Advancing through Gaza, the Egyptians soon reached Yavneh, just fifteen miles from Tel Aviv. Several Jewish towns in Gaza, including Nitzanim, Yad Mordechai, and Kfar Darom, were destroyed by the Egyptians and not rebuilt until after Israel recaptured the area in 1967. * Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in 2002: "Netzarim [a Jewish town in Gaza] is the same as Negba and Tel Aviv; evacuating Netzarim will only encourage terrorism and increase the pressure upon us." (Arutz 7, Nov. 25, 2003) * Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said in 1988: "To just get up and leave Gaza would be a mistake and a scandal. It would create a chaotic situation, a situation like Lebanon; I don't suggest we take such a step." (Israel Army Radio's "Good Evening, Israel" program, March 22, 1988) * Yitzhak Rabin's Minister of Housing and Construction, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, said in 1993: "I wish I could believe that pulling out of Gaza would solve the problems. But this won't solve anything and is only running away from the problem which we have to face." (Jerusalem Post, March 9, 1993) * In 1971, Yisrael Galili, a minister in the cabinet of Golda Meir's Labor Party government, said that Gaza was "critical for Israel's security and could never be given up." The Labor government began building fourteen Jewish communities in Gaza. (Jerusalem Report, July 14, 2003) Gaza has been a part of the Land of Israel since biblical times. The borders of Israel specified in Genesis 15 clearly include Gaza, and it is described in Joshua 15:47 and Judges 1:18 as part of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah, and in Kings it is included in the areas ruled by King Solomon. The area came under foreign occupation during some periods, but the Jewish king Yochanan, brother of Judah the Maccabee, recaptured Gaza in 145 CE and sent Jews to rebuild the community there. Throughout the centuries, there was a large Jewish presence in Gaza in fact, it was the largest Jewish community in the country at the time of the Muslim invasion (7th century CE). Medieval Christian visitors to the region mentioned the presence of the Jewish community in Gaza including Giorgio Gucci of Florence (1384), Bertandon de la Brooquiere (1432), Felix Fabri (14 83), and George Sandys (1611). So did Jewish travelers, such as Benjamin of Tudela and Meshullam of Voltera (1481). The medieval Jewish communities of Gaza included many famous rabbinical authorities, among them Rabbi Yisrael Najara, author of the 16th-century hymn Kah Ribbon Olam, which to this day is sung at Shabbat tables throughout the Jewish world, and the kabbalist Rabbi Avraham Azoulai, author of the famous book Hessed L'Avraham. Writing about the question of whether or not there living in Gaza fulfills the biblical requirement [mitzvah] to live in the Land of Israel, the famous sage Rabbi Yaakov Emden, in his book Mor Uketziya, wrote: "Gaza and its environs are absolutely considered part of the Land of Israel, without a doubt. There is no doubt that it is a mitzvah to live there, as in any part of the Land of Israel." The Jews of Gaza were forced to leave the area when Napoleon's army marched through in 1799, but they later returned. The Jewish community in Gaza was destroyed during the British bombardment in 1917, but later it was rebuilt again. When Palestinian Arab threatened to slaughter the Jews of Gaza during the 1929 pogroms, the British ruling authorities forced the Jews to leave. But in 1946, the Jews returned, establishing the town of Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, which lasted until 1948, when Egypt occupied the area. During the past three years, Palestinian Arab terrorists have carried out tens of thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel, murdering nearly 1,000 Israelis and maiming many more. The terrorists demand, among other things, that Israel withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents. Terrorists, like all criminals, deserve to be punished for their crimes, not rewarded. For Israel to withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents would be to reward the terrorists. It would also encourage more terrorism, by demonstrating to the terrorists that additional violence may bring about additional Israeli concessions. The Palestinian Authority regime currently administers parts of Gaza but does has not have sovereignty, because of the presence of the Israeli Army. The PA does not control the borders, does not control sea access to Gaza, and does not have a full-fledged army. If Israel withdraws from the area, the PA will be able to establish a sovereign state. Such a state would certainly be a terrorist state, to judge by how the PA has treated terrorists until now. It has not disarmed or outlawed terrorist groups; it has not shut down their bomb factories; it has not closed down the terrorists' training camps. It has rewarded terrorists with jobs in the PA police force. In short, the PA has actively collaborated with and sheltered terrorists. Moreover, the PA itself has sponsored thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel. The PA has also created an entire culture of glorification of terrorism and anti-Jewish hatred in its official media, schools, summer camps, sermons by PA-appointed clergy, and speeches by PA representatives. PA school textbooks teach that Jews are "evil racists." Establishing a state in Gaza would not satisfy the Palestinian Arabs' goals. The aim of a Palestinian Arab state would not be to live in peace next to Israel, but to serve as a spring board for terrorism and invasions aimed at annihilating the Jewish State. The PA makes no secret of its goal; the official maps on PA letterhead, in PA schoolbooks and atlases, and even on the patch worn on the uniforms of PA policemen show all of Israel not just the disputed territories labeled "Palestine." The last thing the world needs now is yet another totalitarian,
anti-American terrorist state. Yet that is exactly what a Palestinian
Arab state in Gaza would be, judging by the behavior of the PA during
the ten years since it was created. The PA is a brutal Muslim
dictatorship that tortures dissidents, silences newspaper that deviate
from the PA line, and persecutes Christians. The official PA media
actively incite hatred against America, and the PA maintains warm
relations with the most anti-American regimes in the world, including
Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea.
The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest
pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to
strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and
Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel
bias in the media and on college campuses. Its website address is
http://www.zoa.org.
|
|
A JEWISH DECISION
Posted by David Wilder, February 3, 2004. |
Ariel Sharon said:
"I have given an order to plan for the evacuation of 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip." So said Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of the State of Israel, to journalist Yoel Marcus of HaAretz yesterday, February 2, 2004. This morning Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed his opinion that the 'relocation' will occur sometime this summer - June or July. Why? There are any number of possibilities. Perhaps it's Sharon's possible upcoming indictment. As was said yesterday, 'the deeper the legal problems, the deeper the eviction.' Sharon may believe that he's 'saving' himself, i.e., as long as he faithfully follows the 'left track' he will not be indicted. However, it could also be the opposite. Sharon knows that he's going, that the axe will fall in the very near future. He may believe that a positive Knesset vote to abandon Gush Katif will obligate any future government, just as Oslo, initiated by a Labor government was accepted as 'legitimate' by the following Likud-Netanyahu-Sharon regimes. American-European pressure, or maybe he really believes this is good for the State of Israel. I wouldn't discount Alzheimer's also. The truth is that it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that Sharon has to go. If anyone had any doubts about Sharon's intentions, they are now crystal clear. Sharon intends to meet George W. next month, map in hand. And not to have any false impressions... Gush Katif is only the beginning. According to secret information leaked from the Eiland Committee, set up by Sharon to plan massive transfer evictions throughout Yesha, Kiryat Arba and Hebron are potential victims, on the list of communities to be 'relocated' along with other South Hebron Hills villages. We must not live with illusions. Sharon intends to dump tens of thousands of people out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, effectively destroying a Jewish presence in Yesha. He has said it and he has the capabilities to do it. We have a long record of experience with Arik - he is a builder and he is an evictor. Let's not forget Yamit. Besides the actual transfer itself, the dangers inherent in Sharon's statements are multiple. It goes without saying that each and every word creates additional motivation to kill Jews. Why not? The rewards Israel is granting the terrorists are tangible. The more the blood, the more the land. At the same time the left is licking its chops. The warmonger of the right is about to implement the plans they've talked about for decades. This is exactly what Yossi Beilin and Avraham Burg were hoping for when they initiated the Geneva Accords. They will be victorious without even having to dirty their hands. But the real threat has yet to be mentioned. It's not the Arabs I'm worried about. They are predictable. The menace is the Jews. Let's put the cards on the table. And, there should be no mistake - I am not, in any way, shape or form, supporting or justifying the ideas about to be presented. However, it would be grossly negligent to blatantly ignore them. Sharon has a deeply embedded love of agriculture. So much so that he has not yet stopped planting, for at the moment he could easily be sowing the seeds of an all-out civil war. Let's face it: there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are fervently opposed to abandoning Yesha and evicting tens or hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. Probably, a great number of them would, given little choice, swallow the bitter pill. Not voluntarily - I expect that an overwhelming majority would never leave their homes of their own accord. But they would not go overboard, in other words, they would not use weapons against police, soldiers or any other security force expelling them. But, make no mistake, there probably are those who would. It's scary, and it would be a big big mistake on their part. However, it is practically impossible to prevent. There is not, in all of Israel today, any leader who is accepted by everyone. There is no one who could 'give orders' thereby preventing anyone from pulling the trigger. Israelis are, as a rule, extremely independent. The culpable parties would not necessarily originate in Yesha. Yitzhak Rabin's assassin came from Hertzelia. And part of the problem is that such acts tend to snowball. It's difficult to know where it would end. Unfortunately we already witnessed the murder of one prime minister. It would be an immense criminal act if high-level politicians were again targeted - not by Arab terrorists, but by unbalanced Israelis. We should all have learned by now that violence is not the solution, that differences, as deep as they are, cannot and should not be dealt with via guns and explosives. That only exacerbates already flammable situations. But it is almost impossible to prevent or disregard. The possibility does exist. Again - all these forecasts are not based on any 'inside information' and would, in my opinion be Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!! Murder and political assassination cannot be condoned. But one would have to be blind to ignore the potential. And it is all Ariel Sharon's fault. He is chopping up Eretz Yisrael into little pieces, boiling them together with a multitude of Israeli Jews - Am Yisrael, in a cauldron placed atop a mammoth scorching bonfire. It should be obvious that the contents will boil over. This is all easily preventable. A few days ago, at the ceremony marking the return of the bodies of our three soldiers from Lebanon, Sharon spoke, defending his decision to release hundreds of terrorists. He said, "We have taken all aspects into consideration, we have seriously considered and weighed all the information, and finally we placed on the scales a decisive weight: it is called 'Jewish Sentiment'. I have no other word to describe the decision to bring the boys home, to the soil of our homeland, carrying a heavy price other than a 'Jewish Decision.'" Jewish Sentiment is not exclusive to murdered prisoners of war. It certainly should play a role when dealing with Eretz Yisrael. Sharon must make a real 'Jewish Decision' - to stop his follies or resign. Otherwise the Knesset will be burdened with the "Jewish Decision," by voting Sharon and his government out of office. With blessings from Hebron. David Wilder is spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm |
|
ATTEMPT BY ARABS AND ISRAELI LEFT TO DESTROY JEWISH HOUSING IN HEBRON
Posted by News from Hebron, February 3, 2004. |
|
Speaking recently on Kol Yisrael radio, Attorney Shlomo Leker,
representing 75 Arab vendors, accused Hebron Jews of illegally
occupying the Rinat Shalhevet neighborhood (formerly the "Shuk" - old
Arab market). He claimed that Defense Minister Shaul Mufaz is ignoring
a court-order to evict it's Jewish residents.
At a hearing before the High Court of Justice, the judges issued a decision calling on the State to respond within 20 days why they have not yet evicted the building's residents, in order to allow reopening of the market. The following is the reaction of the Hebron Jewish Community: 1. The building, known as 'the shuk' or Arab market, was built on Jewish property, which is today under the management of the Israeli department of the custodian for abandoned property. 2. The property was obtained by the above-mentioned department as a result of the 1929 Hebron massacre and the Jordanian occupation in 1948. 3. The market was closed and not functioning for approximately ten years. The contract between the department of the custodian and the Arabs expired and presently the Arabs have no legal hold on the property. 4. The original owners of the property, 'Kollelot HaSefaradim Magen Avot' requested of Hebron's Jewish community, both orally and in writing, that the property be resettled. 5. An appeals committee dealt with the issue concerning present legal ownership of the property (as a result of the Defense Minister's intention to evict its present Jewish residents). Two of the three judges on the appeals panel ruled that the property legally belongs to the department of the custodian, thereby allowing the Defense Minister to evacuate the site of its Jewish residents, but not requiring him to do so. A third judge ruled that the property legally belongs to it's original Jewish owners - Kollelot HaSefaradim Magen Avot. 6. However, two of the three judges on the appeals panel recommended that the custodian's office contractually rent the property to the Jewish families presently living there rather than evict them from the site. 7. There is no argument as to the facts presented above. 8. It can be concluded: It would be advisable for the Defense Minister, who is the final arbitrator, to accept the recommendations of the two judges on the appeals panel and to permit the Jewish residents to rent the building in which they are presently living. Any other decision could only be viewed as an immoral historic injustice. 9. Furthermore, any talk of the Defense Minister's 'obligation' to evict families from the property, and talk of the so-called 'injustices committed' to the Arab vendors (who have no legal hold on the property), is totally false." |
|
THE DEEPER THE LEGAL PROBLEMS, THE DEEPER THE EVICTION
Posted by Dror Vanunu, February 3, 2004. |
|
Following Prime Minister Sharon's shocking announcement regarding his
plans for the dismantling of all settlements including expulsion of
all Jewish populace in Gush Katif, the Gaza Coast Regional Council
expresses deep sorrow and pain.
The residents of Gush Katif, with the active support of other partners from the National Camp, will do all in their power, within the limits of the law, in order to bring to an end Ariel Sharon's term as Prime Minister. We regret that Sharon, who is presently under criminal investigation (this Thursday he is to be again interrogated) and his political future foggy, is trying to sway Israeli public opinion by releasing irresponsible declarations that endanger the inhabitants of Israel and the entire Western world. We call on Sharon to immediately return to those known positions that enabled him to be elected and admired. We call on. Sharon not to bring added disaster upon the Jewish people by the expulsion of Jews from their homes. There is absolutely no logic in the expulsion of citizens from their homes. In times of peace the Katif area settlements will play an integral role as a bridge of understanding between the nations, whereas in time of endless Islamic terrorism, dismantling settlements will be read by the Palestinians as running away, fleeing and will directly cause them to intensify the terror activity against Israel. Terrorists the world over will get a clear message that terror is a worthwhile and effective means of attaining their aims, thus encouraging terror bases all over the world to act against Western targets. We believe that the existence of the settlements in the Gaza strip is critical to the safety of all Israelis. It is unimaginable that the government will even consider giving up this important area, risking the lives of so many. We deeply hope that Sharon's statement will turn out to be a misstatement, and that the Jewish people will not have to deal with something so painful and so dangerous. (Joel 3,20) Dror Vanunu is spokesman for the Hof-Aza Regional Council. He lives in Gush Katif. |
|
LAND FOR NOTHING
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 3, 2004. |
|
This is an Opinion column from yesterday's Jerusalem Post
Online Edition (http://www.jpost.com).
You do not have to believe that it is in Israel's permanent interest to remain in the territories to argue that unilateral withdrawal is a bad idea. Even if the ultimate outlines of a plausible political settlement with the Palestinians are fairly clear, the means Israel should or should not take to achieve it are equally important. If Israel is to retrench territorially, will it do so in a manner that conveys an impression of weakness or strength? For decades, the Israeli Left has accurately diagnosed many of the problems posed by occupation, above all the demographic aspect. But the medicine the Left prescribed - legitimizing the PLO, ignoring Palestinian non-compliance with the Oslo accords, and then negotiating under fire after Oslo collapsed - has proved to be poison. Territorial depth may not be the strategic asset it once was, but it remains absolutely vital that Israel maintain its credibility in the face of the continuing Palestinian terrorist onslaught. For three years Ariel Sharon has pursued a broadly consistent policy, refusing to negotiate under fire while also refusing to rule out the possibility of a Palestinian state. This was wise - if the goal was to defeat Palestinian terror or at least outlast it in the hope that a more responsible Palestinian leadership would emerge. Sharon's policy was also in tune with the vision laid out by President Bush in his June 24, 2002 address, which gave a conditional green light to Palestinian statehood. In recent months, however, two things have become clear: First, that a new Palestinian leadership would not emerge on its own, and second, that neither Israel nor the United States was prepared to force its emergence by removing Yasser Arafat from power. This called into question the sense of everything that had come before. If the endgame was Israeli withdrawal in exchange for no Palestinian concessions, why the long and agonizing wait? What was the point of the sacrifice? Indeed, what was the point of electing Ariel Sharon rather than Ehud Barak or Amram Mitzna? Under Sharon's disengagement plan, Israel was to give the Road Map a last chance to work before resorting to unilateral measures, within a time frame of about six months. This was a retreat from the prime minister's original policy, but at least it had the virtue of giving the Palestinians an incentive to meet their Road Map commitments before Israel set new borders unilaterally. Had Israel also pursued a vigorous policy of targeted killings and other anti-terror measures, the Palestinian incentive to do so would have been enhanced. Now, with the prime minister's reported intention of withdrawing unilaterally from the Gaza settlements, the incentive has been removed completely. Why should the Palestinians raise a finger against terrorism if Israel appears to be heading toward a complete unilateral withdrawal? Of course, Sharon's disengagement plan calls not only for territorial withdrawal but also for consolidating its control over the part of the territories that would "constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel." But it's hard to see why Palestinians should fear such threats if the Gaza withdrawal indicates that Sharon is not going to carry them out. More broadly, why should the Palestinians make peace with Israel if they can get the land without making peace? In response, the prime minister will argue that withdrawing from Gaza puts Israel behind more defensible lines. It also eliminates the high physical and financial cost of defending the Gaza settlements. These are indeed advantages. But similar pragmatic and strategic arguments were put forward to justify Israel's withdrawal from its security zone in southern Lebanon. Whatever benefits that withdrawal offered, it is now widely acknowledged that the precipitous and humiliating manner of the withdrawal - handing Hizbullah both a strategic and a propaganda victory - did much to inspire the Palestinians to resort to violence four months later. And here is where the credibility factor comes in. To withdraw in the face of terror is to inspire further terror. Whatever peace Israel gains on its southern front it will surely lose elsewhere, as Palestinians intensify their efforts to drive Israel to the Green Line - at least. Nor does it help that the timing of this announced withdrawal seems to coincide with the prime minister's burgeoning legal difficulties. It sends the signal that it is the Palestinians who can afford to wait Israel out, not vice versa. That's not a signal this government, or any future government, ought to send. |
|
HEZBOLLAH'S VICTORY, ISRAEL'S DECLINE
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 3, 2004. |
|
This was written by Daniel Pipes and appeared in the New York Sun
today. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, a member of
the presidentially-appointed board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and
a prize-winning columnist for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem Post.
His website address is http://www.danielpipes.org/
When asked in 1787, as the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia came to an end, whether it had created a monarchy or a republic, Benjamin Franklin replied. "A republic, if you can keep it." His pessimism comes to mind whenever a republic makes a terrible mistake, from the French policy of appeasement toward Germany in the 1930s to the American policy of incrementalism in Vietnam to the South Korean "sunshine policy" now under way. And Franklin's worry felt newly relevant on Thursday last week, as the state of Israel effected a most extraordinary swap with Hezbollah, one of the world's leading terrorist groups. In exchange for one rogue Israeli civilian, captured while possibly engaging in dubious transactions, plus the remains of three soldiers, Israel released 429 living terrorists and criminals, including 400 Palestinians, 23 Lebanese, five other Arabs, and one German, as well as 59 corpses. It comes as little surprise to learn, in the description of the New York Times, that this exchange prompted "a day of national celebration" in Lebanon and a "somber" mood in Israel. Nor is it astonishing to hear the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, describe the present as "not a time of happiness." Mr. Sharon went on to explain his motives in carrying out the exchange by referring to the relatives of the dead Israeli soldiers: "Three dear families, whose souls knew no rest for the past 40 months, will now be able to unite with their sorrow over a modest grave, and composure as a promise was kept, and a right and moral decision was made despite its heavy price." In other words, a major decision of state was taken for the sake of bringing small solace to three families. But what are the strategic consequences for Israel of this act of seeming morality?
The Sharon government also failed its allies in the global war on terror.
These many negative consequences raise questions about the morality of this Israeli government action. In its early decades, Israel's strategic prowess was legendary, transforming a weak country into a regional powerhouse. The past decade has seen the opposite process, whereby that powerhouse reduces itself to a tempting target. That this change is entirely self-induced and achieved through the democratic process makes Benjamin Franklin's prophetic concern all too real. When will the descent stop? By then, how much damage will have been done? |
|
ISLAMISTS TEACH IN THE U.S.
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 3, 2004. |
|
Although Hamas is on the US list of terrorist organizations, the US
government pays Hamas activist Mustafa Abu Sway as a Fullbright
scholar to teach at Florida Atlantic University.
Mr. Sway denies his affiliation, asserting, "I cherish the Jewish presence" in Israel " and advocate 'non-violence." On th other hand, at an inter-faith meeting in Israel in 2002, he said, he said he wished the State of Israel "would disappear." In a 2003 study by the US Institute of Peace, he is quoted, "To imagine shared sovereignty or dual sovereignty is not being faithful to Islamic tradition" (which is hegemonic). He called for an Islamic state of Palestine to replace Israel. Like other Islamists, he changes his message to suit the audience. Thus on ABC News, he called jihad a spiritual concept, but as co-author of a P.A. textbook, he called jihad a military obligation, referring to Israel. Israel, which is expert about such matters, has named Sway a "known activist" in Hamas. For example, Sway was a board member and raised funds for two Hamas fronts, the Heritage Committee and the Foundation for the development of Society. Both were shut down by Israel. He worked for the Palestinian Arab "Charity Coalition" that includes Al-Aqsa Foundation of S. Africa and the Comite de Bienaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens. Those are Hamas fundraisers whose assets were frozen by the US. He is connected to the Islamic Movement in Um al-Fahm, Israel, of which 14 members were arrested for Hamas fundraising. (That Movement is notoriously Islamist.) Despite the evidence, Florida Atlantic U. described the charge as lacking evidence. When students stopped registering for his classes, the University campaigned to recruit them (Daniel Pipes & Asaf Romirowsky, NY Sun, 1/27, p.7) Why do US universities and the government foster the very Islamism we are supposed to be fighting back against? The University did not investigate or check with Daniel Pipes. In a 1/30 letter to the "Sun," the University claims it took responsible action. It stated that it: (1) Asked the accused whether he were guilty, and accepted his denial; and (2) Asked the State Dept. and the Fullbright committee to investigate him, telling readers that those agencies investigate thoroughly. What Islamist doesn't deny guilt? Those agencies would be investigating like locking the barn door after the horse got out. The State Dept. is so pro-Arab, that it let in unscreened some Islamists who committed 9/11. For months afterwards, it defied orders to screen applicants. It wants to resume granting Saudi applicants visas automatically, even though many Al-Qaeda terrorists are Saudi. When will agencies supposedly operating for the public welfare, such as a university, attain the maturity to thank critics and rectify identfied faults? Instead, these agencies become defensive. Are the universities anti-American? If so, why give them federal aid? Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
SHARON IS TEARING APART THE NATION
Posted by Voice of Judea, February 3, 2004. |
|
PM Ariel Sharon warned his "right-wing" coalition partners that he
would swap them for others and replace the existing government
coalition partners with left-wing knesset factions, if they will not
support his new plans to evacuate Jewish towns in Judea, Samaria and
Gaza. Sharon is expected to show the Americans a proposed list of
Jewish towns he plans to uproot, upon his upcoming visit to the U.S.,
later this month.
Sharon narrowly survived a no-confidence vote yesterday, after he announced that he would be making a unilateral withdrawal from 17 Jewish towns in Gaza, effectively making Gaza "Judenrein" - free of Jews, with the expulsion of more than 7000 Jewish residents. Former Labour leaders Ehud Barak and Binyamin Eliezer "Fuad" said that they would join a Sharon government if Sharon is truly planning to turn these words into action. Deputy PM Ehud Olmart says that the government will tear down the proposed Jewish towns this summer. MK Tzvi Hendel, in mocking the new Sharon plan said, "His plans to tear down Jewish towns deepens as the investigations against him deepens" - making reference to the recent intensified criminal investigations against Sharon. Some believe that Sharon is moving to the left, hoping to appease the left-wing judiciary before they make their decision about indicting him on bribery and other charges. Voice of Judea Commentary: Our Rabbis teach us that one who offers false "flattery or any flattery to the wicked fall prey to their very fear that motivated them to flatter and appease the wicked." (Sotah 41:) If Sharon thinks he will be exonerated from his alleged criminal behavior and election fraud by kissing up to the left-wing establishment, he may be in for a very big surprise. The once mighty General is heading towards a very sad and lame ending with criminal charges hanging over his head and with betraying the land of Israel, the nation of Israel and the Torah. Sharon has not received some sort of Divine mandate to determine and revise the G-d given borders of Eretz Israel. In the end, his half-baked surrender will not satisfy or appease the Arabs, the Americans or the suicidal Israeli left. Sharon speaks of changing his government if they don't bow to his dictates. He also speaks of ignoring the wishes of the majority of his own Likud party. I have better ideas: We can simply swap the Prime Minister. Better yet, Sharon can swap nations - and take some time off at the Hague or in Belgium, where they would love to try him as a war criminal in spite of his grand plans to expel thousands of Jews. He does not quite get it. They want millions of Jews dead, not thousands expelled. Posters have been plastered on major highways throughout Israel reading, "Tearing down Jewish towns will lead to a civil war". Graffitti against Sharon and his new surrender plans were sprayed in Tel Aviv on walls adjacent to HaBima- the national Israeli Theatre. Earlier this week, an outstanding officer, in officer's training school, returned his rank and said that he would be unable to give orders to dismantle Jewish towns and asked to return as an ordinary soldier to his combat unit. The IDF is launching a survey to make certain the ranks are purged of officers who might not be willing to carry out the anti-Jewish orders against their brothers and sisters. In the recent dismantling of the Tapuach West synagogue, most soldiers had no problem carrying out the orders. There was a small fist-fight that broke out between two of the soldiers, after one soldier used unwarranted force on one of the Jewish worshippers. Efforts are underway to rebuild the Tapuach West Synagogue. Several months ago, in Mitzpeh Yitzhar, during the evacuation, a group of IDF soldiers, refused orders and physically prevented police from attacking the "settlers". Mitzpeh Yitzhar was swiftly destroyed shortly afterwards. It has since been rebuilt, and is now slated again to be dismantled. Sharon may have found a clever way to prevent the return of Jews to their dismantled towns. Sharon may have a brilliant trick to prevent the rebuilding of Jewish towns after the planned destruction. Some argue that the "security fence" being built will be used to prevent "settlers" who are expelled from returning home as well as serving as a buffer- wall to prevent assistance and resistance from fellow Jews who would come to show solidarity and to battle the destruction of the Jewish towns. The walls will not secure Tel Aviv from mortars and terrorism launched by Israeli Arabs but it will effectively block Jews out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Voice of Judea Commentary: If Sharon uses the fence/wall he is building to block Jews from
entering into parts of Israel this will not work in his favor. He will
build a wall of resistance to his plans within Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
He will build a national resistance movement in the major cities
composed of angry Jews who show solidarity with the noble Jews in
Yesha. He is making the mistake of his life. The wall will not stop
Arab terror and will not stop Jewish resistance.
The website address of Voice of Judea is
http://www.voiceofjudea.net. Subscribe by writing
listmaster@voiceofjudea.net
|
|
K'CHOLMIM PROGRESS REPORT
Posted by David Yisrael HaLevi, February 3, 2004. |
|
Shalom Y'didim - Friends:
The new K'Cholmim community is finally up and running! K'Cholmim has joined a small agricultural outpost in the Jordan Valley. The area is at once politically calm (for the moment anyway), physically safe, and ideologically important. Mevo'ot Yericho is a small community of 10 families built around a common dedication to the ancient synagogues of Jericho (one of which is in walking distance) and to the agricultural development of Eretz Yisrael. Our goal is to triple our size in the course of this spring and summer. Ultimately, we hope to build a semi-rural community of 150 families living a variety of mutually beneficial lifestyles. Mevo'ot Yericho plans to develop the community through cutting edge ecological agricultural work, experimentation with new environment-friendly building techniques, a number of small adult educational programs (ranging from short-courses in agricultural techniques to a one year program for American students in a yeshiva setting), home businesses vending over the internet, a retreat center, and tourism diverted from the nearby Tiberias-Jerusalem road. We are currently planning to build on three varieties of housing lots: 50 half dunam lots constructed economically in an attractive suburban style, 50 two dunam (half acre) lots for families interested in building their own houses, and 5 larger plots offered to economically independent families interested in starting their own farms! In addition, we hope to replace our own temporary housing with small permanent structures caterings to students, new immigrants, and couples considering a more permanent move to the Jordan valley. To continue dreaming in the Jordan Valley we need your help! There are three ways to help Mevo'ot Yericho: 1) Come and live with us! Are goal is to absorb four new K'Cholmim families a month until the start of the coming school year. As always, singles are welcome. Couples are even better. And families with children are urgently needed to fill out the age gaps in the community! Willing to consider living and building with us? E-mail us and come for a free Shabbat in the balmy Jordan Valley. You will find a welcoming and relaxed community, unlimited agricultural land, a quiet political situation, and an efficient and pro-Anglo adminstration! Call or e-mail us todaycome for Shabbat this Friday! Don't have time for a Shabbat? Arrange to drop in during the week. We'll show you around, let you talk to the residents, and stuff you with tea and cake... 2) Volunteer your expertise or labor. We are looking for volunteers to help with our agricultural and eco-building projects. We also need the experts to supervise our efforts. Want to spend a day, a week, a month, or a summer living and working with us? Get in touch. The community may be able to work out attractive volunteer incentives such as room and board or a plane ticket to Israel! 3) Buy us trees and bushes! We desperately need trees and plants to reclaim the soil and create a pleasant environment here in our lush valley pretending to be a desert! So buy a tree for Yesha (icon on the homepage) and designate the money for the K'Cholmim Yishuv. We have already received a number of donations and 7 beautiful trees wave six feet high beside our playground. (The community was ecstatic!) Anyways, I hope I have elicited a little excitement regarding our new project. Please tell your friends about our efforts. Hopefully, together we can turn this small human seed into an ideal community and an Or La'Goyim! B'Ahavat Yisrael,
P.S. The website infrastructure is currently being paid for with the few dollars a month we receive from our paid sponsors. Please check out the advertising links featured on our homepage and beyond. Maybe you can throw a little business their way and keep them coming back for more! David HaLevi is founder of K'Cholmim. It's website address is http://www.kcholmim.org. Or email david@kcholmim.org |
|
THE AUTHENTIC JEW
Posted by Herbert B. Sunshine, February 3, 2004. |
|
It is difficult to sum up the life of Rabbi Meir Kahane. It is like
describing the moon to someone who has never been there. The terms to
be used are authenticity and integrity. He was authenticity with a
capital "A" and integrity with a capital "I." Although elected to
public office, he was certainly not a politician. He did not play
politics with the truth. He did not say the sweet things the people
wanted to hear. He was, rather, an author, a teacher and a scholar. To
those who knew him, he was the epitome of what a rabbi should be, the
epitome of an authentic rabbi.
The essence of the Jewish idea of authenticity, the highest of all mitzvot, is the imitation of G-d, to be "in the image of G-d."(Genesis I: 27) The first of the Ten Commandments is "I am the L-rd, your G-d, who has taken you out of the Land of Egypt" (Exodus 20:1). Rabbi Kahane liberated the body of the Russian Jew from the Gulag, and liberated the mind of the Jew from the Galut. He freed those in a captive, orphaned generation, who knew not the wisdom and truth of our eternal heritage. To his followers he was beloved and called simply "the rabbi." Literally thousands have a part of him in their lives and in their hearts. To some he was a personal friend, a comforter of wounded souls. To some he was a rosh yeshiva, an educator, a lecturer and an author. To some he was an activist, a motivator, and a doer. To all he was a living inspiration of what a Jew should be. He was a real human being, a decent human being. He was not a hater. He lived his life as a G-d-fearing Jew who felt the pain of his people, who did not fear the opinions of others, who did not pander to the persuasion of the majority. As a Jew should, he literally believed that G-d ruled the world and that he was the servant of that G-d. His secular training and his yeshiva-gained knowledge, were on the highest level. The Rabbi analyzed and foresaw today's existential Jewish problems. He was an independent thinker. He loved the truth and he hated hypocrisy - under any label. His perceptive vision was extraordinary, even unequaled in his generation. But his leadership qualities were simply unique. He was the glorious Jewish past reincarnated. Not the past of Holocaust and ghettoization. The good Jewish past. The Jewish past that brought into the world morality, sanctity and G-d. That is what Rabbi Meir Kahane taught us that Judaism and Jewishness is about. Despite what others may credit themselves for, the Rabbi, not they, was the most effective force in world Jewry in freeing its captive Russian brothers. He did not hesitate to demonstrate, he did not fear arrest, he did not moderate his opinions for fear of "making waves." On the contrary, the Rabbi made waves. Waves of Jewish pride, waves of love of Jewish education, waves of love of Israel and waves of immigration to Israel. In America, it was the Jewish Defense League which bore his imprint and carries his memory. In Israel he was the founder and leader of the Kach Movement and of the Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea in Jerusalem. Their principles espoused Jewish sovereignty, Jewish pride, Jewish education and Jewish immortality. He was the sole Zionist-religious Knesset member who never traded principle for principal. He was an unswerving, unchanging, political optimist who ran for Knesset four times until he was elected - and would have run again, with substantial popular support, had his enemies (rival political parties) not banned him. The Rabbi saw G-d's word as relevant, as mandatory, and as the direction to Jewish success. He believed that a world whose ways were dictated from Above would be a world with intimations of the World To Come. All of his writings, profound, learned, emphasized that everything is "Torah," that nothing is "political." He consistently taught that Jews are a religio-nation. That there can be no healthy and normal Jewish people without the Land of Israel and the G-d of Israel. That only authentic Judaism and a strong Jewish hand will preserve the State of Israel and the Jewish people. He was identified with the idea of "transfer" of the Arabs out of the Land of Israel. But this concept did not originate with Rabbi Kahane. G-d says in His Torah: "When you enter the land, you shall dispossess the inhabitants, lest they be thorns in your eyes."(Numbers 33:55) (On that verse, Rashi says "thorns" are nails and bolts.) The major powers in the Jewish world - the Israeli government and the American Jewish Establishment - considered the Rabbi to be their most dangerous enemy - dangerous to their continuation in power. In truth, those who comprised the power structure were terrified of him and of his message. They moved heaven and earth to silence him, and the methods they used were ruthless. Most American synagogues refused to allow him to address their congregations. His opinions were rarely, if ever, published in mainstream newspapers. He was never interviewed on Israeli television. He was arrested and jailed over xx times. He was forced to give up his American citizenship by an Israeli law that was aimed only at him. He was banned from standing for re-election to the Knesset. And eventually, he was murdered. His funeral, in Jerusalem, drew crowds of thousands upon thousands. Those who knew him, loved him and admired him came and, also, those who supported him not in word and not in deed. Only the Rabbi could have brought together so many Jews from every class and belief. There were former political opponents, yeshiva students, the religious and secular, the old and young. In their hearts, they knew his greatness. They knew that he was the transcendental personality of our generation. They also knew, that in the future, when his greatness will be revealed, he will be known not as "the rabbi," but by the title of his major work, Or Ha'Ra'ayon, The Light of The Jewish Idea. As was first said by the Rabbi's illustrious ancestor, Moshe Rabbenu, ben Levi, "Who is for God. let him come to me."(Exodus 32:26) It was our failure that we did not "come" to him and that we did not elevate him to power, prevent his murder and establish his name in our generation for all time. Mr. Sunshine is a retired U.S. Attorney-at-Law who resides in Jerusalem. He conducted a private practice of law for 35 years and was an adjunct Professor of Law in Upstate New York. In Israel, Mr. Sunshine served as President of the Yeshivah of the Jewish Idea and was, until its banning, a member of the Inner Council of the Kach Party. He was the English-speaking spokesperson for Rabbi Meir Kahane from 1988 to 1990. |
|
MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUTE DISCOVERS TERROR
Posted by Honest Reporting, February 3, 2004. |
For the past three years, no matter how monstrous the Palestinian
attack on Israeli civilians, the Minneapolis Star Tribune has
consistently refused to apply the word 'terrorism.' One of the paper's
editors explained their 'evenhanded' position in February, 2002:
In the case of the term 'terrorist,' other words - 'gunman,' 'separatist' and 'rebel,' for example - may be more precise and less likely to be viewed as judgmental. Now, suddenly, the largest paper in Minnesota has discovered 'terrorism' in the Mideast. No, it wasn't the horrific murder of 11 men, women and children on a Jerusalem bus on Jan. 29. That was described yet again in Star Tribune wire reports as the work of a 'militant group'. Here were the rule-breakers: 1) On Jan. 31, the Star Tribune ran a profile of a local priest, Michael Ovikian, who grew up in Jerusalem. The reporter describes Ovikian surviving the 1946 Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (emphasis added): It was midday July 22, 1946. Ovikian was eating in the basement of the King David Hotel when Zionist terrorists struck... The Brits had fortified the hotel's eight-story southern wing with barbed wire and tanks. But the terrorists sneaked in the northern end dressed as delivery people, their milk cans filled with TNT. So the Star Tribune, which has maintained a 'non-judgmental' refusal to call Palestinian terror by name, determined that the King David bombing was, in fact, 'Zionist terror'. This, despite the fact that (unlike any Palestinian terror) the Irgun issued specific warnings of the impending strike against the British command at the hotel, and that civilians were not intentionally targeted. 2) The Jan. 21 edition of the Star Tribune carried an AP article on IDF anti-Hezbollah actions, accompanied by a photo of the IDF dismantling a West Bank outpost and synagogue. The photo caption was careful to point out that the "synagogue was dedicated to the memory and teachings of American-Israeli Meir Kahane, whose anti-Arab Kach movement is on the U.S. State Department list of terror organizations," but the article describes Hezbollah (which is on that same State Department list) as mere "guerrillas." Moreover, the Star Tribune edited out the following passage from the original AP article, which described American support for the Israeli reprisal: The United States blamed Hezbollah guerrillas for the escalation and cautioned Syria against giving support to the Lebanese militant group. It seems that all the talk by the Star Tribune of sophisticated editorial policy was just a lot of hot air - masking what is genuinely an anti-Israel double-standard. A further indication of the double standard: The Star Tribune has a special section of its online edition devoted to world terrorism, which includes archived articles on terror threats and attacks in the US, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan - even Nigeria. But blowing up a Jerusalem commuter bus didn't qualify. These latest blunders extend the Star Tribune's history of distorting the conflict. In 2002, after being caught red-handed, Star Tribune editors publicly admitted that the newspaper re-wrote wire service stories in a manner which radically distorted the meaning of a Human Rights Watch report on casualties in the Jenin refugee camp. The Star Tribune's own ombudsman called this an "embarrassing wart." In response to the latest events, Minnesotans Against Terrorism clarified to HonestReporting that the issue is not whether Kach or the Irgun committed terrorist acts:
HonestReporting encourages subscribers to send comments to Star Tribune through their online form (http://www.startribune.com/feedback/form.php?opinion=1) More information on this important topic is online at one of HonestReporting's ongoing projects; see (http://www.TerrorPetition.com). Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias. HonestReporting has 60,000 members worldwide, who help monitor the media for anti-Israel bias. Their website address is http://www.honest.reporting.com |
|
ARE WE BEING DIVERTED FROM A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT?
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 3, 2004. |
|
This comes from yesterday's DEBKAfile:
http://www.debka.com/article?php?aid=780
It is entitled "Dr. David Kay Had Map Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places
in Syria"
Setting up an inquiry commission is the political leader's favorite
dodge for burying an embarrassing problem until the pursuit dies down.
President George W. Bush will this week bow to election-year pressures from Democrats and his own Republicans alike and sign an executive order to investigate US intelligence failings regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction on the eve of war. Both his senior war partners, the Australian and British prime ministers, face the same public clamor ever since WMD hunter Dr. David Kay resigned, declaring there were probably no stockpiles in Iraq and "we were all wrong." At the same time, the CIA and other intelligence bodies accused of flawed performance do not look particularly dismayed by the prospect of facing these probes. They point to the cause of the political flap, Dr Kay, as contradicting himself more than once in the numerous interviews he has given since he quit as head of the Iraq Survey Group. In the last 24 hours, DEBKAFile went back to its most reliable intelligence sources in the US and the Middle East, some of whom were actively involved in the subject before and during the Iraq war. They all stuck to their guns. As they have consistently informed DEBKAFile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly, Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs were present on the eve of the American-led invasion and quantities of forbidden materials were spirited out to Syria. Whatever Dr. Kay may choose to say now, at least one of these sources knows at first hand that the former ISG director received dates, types of vehicles and destinations covering the transfers of Iraqi WMD to Syria. Indeed the US administration and its intelligence agencies, as well as Dr Kay, were all provided with Syrian maps marked with the coordinates of the secret weapons storage sites. The largest one is located at Qaratshuk at the heart of a desolate and unfrequented region edged with marshes, south of the Syrian town of Al Qamishli near the place where the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish frontiers converge; smaller quantities are hidden in the vast plain between Al Qamishli and Az Zawr, and a third is under the ground of the Lebanese Beqaa Valley on the Syrian border. These transfers were first revealed by DEBKAFile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly in February 2003 a month before the war. We also discovered that a Syrian engineering corps unit was detailed to dig their hiding places in northern Syria and the Lebanese Beqaa. A senior intelligence source confirmed this again to DEBKAFile, stressing: "Dr. Kay knows exactly what was contained in the tanker trucks crossing from Iraq into Syria in January 2003. His job gave him access to satellite photos of the convoys; the instruments used by spy planes would have identified dangerous substances and tracked them to their underground nests. There exists a precise record of the movement of chemical and biological substances from Iraq to Syria." Armed with this knowledge, Kay was able to say firmly to The Telegraph's Con Coughlin on January 25: "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons. But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program." Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved. Yet in later interviews, the last being on February 1 with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition - and for reasons known only to himself - Kay turned vague, claiming there was no way of knowing what those convoys contained because of the lack of Syrian cooperation. What caused his change of tune? Since he began talking to the media, interested politicians have been rephrasing his assertions on the probable absence of stockpiles, by dropping the "probable" and transmuting "no stockpiles", to "no WMD." These adjustments have produced a telling argument against Bush's justification for war and a slogan that has deeply eroded public confidence in US credibility in America and other countries. Tony Blair and John Howard will no doubt set up outside inquiry commissions like Bush. In Israel too, opposition factions have seized the opportunity of arguing that if Israel's pre-war intelligence on Iraq's arsenal was flawed, so too was its evaluation of Yasser Arafat's role as the engine of Palestinian suicidal terror. The fact that intelligence was not flawed - UN inspectors dismantled missiles and Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait - is easily shouted down in the current climate. By the same token, no connection is drawn between the Iraqi WMD issue and the grounding this week of transatlantic flights from Europe to America by credible intelligence of an al Qaeda plot. The Washington Post spelled the threat out as entailing the possible spread of anthrax or smallpox germs in the cabin or planting of poison chemicals in the cargo. It was also suggested that suicidal pilots might crash an airliner on an American city and drop payloads of toxic chemicals and bacteria. Two questions present themselves here. One: if minute quantities of weaponized biological and chemical substances dropped by Osama bin Laden's killers from the air are menacing enough to trigger a major alert, why would Saddam need stockpiles to pose an imminent threat to world security and his immediate neighbors? Would not a couple of test tubes serve his purpose? Two: Where did al Qaeda get hold of the WMD presumed to be in its possession and who trained its operatives in their use? Once again, DEBKAFile's senior intelligence sources recall earlier revelations. The ex-Jordanian terror master Mussab al Zarqawi is key director of al Qaeda's chemical, biological and radioactive warfare program. In late 2000, we reported him operating WMD laboratories under the supervision of Iraqi intelligence in the northern Iraqi town of Bayara. Since then, the same Zarqawi has masterminded some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Iraq, such as the blasts at the Jordanian embassy and the murder of Italian troops in Nassariya. Zarqawi is and was the embodiment of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda going back four years, long before the American invasion of Iraq - which indicates the source of Osama bin Laden's unconventional weapons purchases. In another interview, the former ISG director expanded on his statement that Iraq was falling apart "from depravity and corruption." The Saddam regime, he said, had lost control. Saddam ran projects privately and unsupervised, while his scientists were free to fake programs. A senior DEBKAfile source commented on this assertion: "That's one way of describing the situation - and not only on war's eve but during all of Saddam Hussein's years of ruling Iraq. We are looking at institutionalized corruption of a type unfamiliar in the West; it was built up in a very special way in Iraq." The country was not falling apart, but it was being looted systematically. Just imagine, he said, Saddam and the two sons the Americans killed in July 2003 had their own secret printing press for running off Iraqi dinars and other currencies including dollars for their own personal use. The central bank went on issuing currency in the normal way, unaware that it was being undermined from within by the ruler's private press. "Saddam's corruption was structured, a hierarchical pyramid with the ruler, his sons and inner circle at the top and the petty thieves at the bottom making off with worthless paper." Some of our sources challenged two more of Dr. Kay's assertions to Wolf Blitzer: a) After 1998 when the UN left, there was no human intelligence on the ground, and b) "There were no regular sources of information, not enough dots to connect." If this is true, how does he explain another statement in the same interview that the US entered the war on the basis of "a broad consensus among intelligence services - not just the CIA, but also Britain, France and Russia?" On what did this consensus rest if there were no informants on the ground? And furthermore, how were the American and British invading armies able to advance at such speed from Kuwait to Baghdad with no obstructions and without blowing up a single bridge, road or other utility, including oil fields, ports and military air fields? Every obstruction had clearly been removed from their path by intelligence agents on the ground, who reached understandings with local Iraqi commanders before the war began. In the face of this evidence, the question must be asked: Why does Bush take David Kay's assaults and demands with such stoicism instead of going after Damascus - as defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has proposed from time to time? One theory is that he does not trust any of the evidence. Saddam was famous among UN inspectors for his deception techniques; he may have practiced a double deception. Hard and fast facts are likewise hard to come by in Damascus. Above all, Bush may simply be determined to adhere to his plan of action come what may, whatever crises happen to cross his path, in the confidence that his path will lead to a November victory at the polls. Three inquiry commissions will most likely be set up to examine the American, British and Australian intelligence assessments of Saddam's weapons of destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war. In the meantime, the actual weapons will continue to molder undisturbed in the ground of Syria and Lebanon. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
KEEP THE PIZZA COMING
Posted by Sergio Tezza (HaDaR), February 3, 2004. |
|
Dear Friend of Israel:
We are Jews living in Qiryat Arba - Hebron. We distribute free pizza and soda to our young Israeli soldiers serving in the area. Dozens of soldiers every night drop by to enjoy free pizza and drinks at our small Israelpizza place. We have a live web-cam set up where you can see and speak with the soldiers through your computer as they enjoy the pizzas and drinks that have been donated. Visit our web site at http://www.israelpizza.com and please contribute some pizza for our young kids. Help us, even a little, so that we are not forced to close the place down. You'll be making a soldier's day and help us and Israel in the process. I believe this project is important for several reasons: The army is closing many of its kitchens for lack of funds. Soldiers will be eating "meal mart" meals 3 times a day from now on. A fresh pizza with soda will surely be an improvement over that. With the world at large generally being against our young Israeli soldiers, they need to know that people care about them and about what they are doing to serve and protect Israel. By developing a real relationship with Israeli soldiers through the live web-cam both the donors and the soldiers benefit, creating a feeling of brotherhood. (Please go to our live web-cam at: http://israelpizza.com/pizzot.asp?ID=Live between the hours of 6:00 pm-9:00 pm Israel time, 11:00 am-2:00 pm Eastern Standard time for this exciting experience. To speak with the soldiers at that time, please call: 011-972-555-851-56/7. To send a message to the soldiers through e-mail, please write to: israelpizza@hotmail.com There are 4 families presently involved with maintaining Israel Pizza. The husband of one of those families was seriously injured in the Hebron attack last year where twelve of our fighters were killed, and many injured. He is still undergoing frequent surgeries. Helping to support Israel Pizza also helps to support these families during these very difficult economic times in Israel. You may contact me for any additional information about Israel Pizza at http://www.HaDaR@kh4.org Sincere thanks The writer lives in Qiryath Arba/Hebron. |
|
THE GREATEST DANGER TO ISRAEL TODAY IS ARIEL SHARON!
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland, February 3, 2004. |
|
Below I am reproducing in full a letter from Ruth Matar. I found it
very painful to read, and equally painful to post. I am also
constantly aware that I should not interfere in the internal affairs
of other countries (would that Powell felt that way), and that it is
the Israelis alone who will suffer the consequences of any policy they
adopt. All these considerations notwithstanding, I look with horror as
Ariel "feet of clay' Sharon prepares to cede portions of the Land of
Israel for absolutely no counter concession. My horror is exacerbated
by the latest MIA-for-terrorist trade that took place the other day.
With this in mind, I am unable to refrain from posting Ruth Matar's
letter.
LETTER FROM RUTH MATAR (WOMEN IN GREEN) JERUSALEM
Dear Friends, Why do I say that today Ariel Sharon is the greatest danger to Israel? Why do I say that about Israel's erstwhile hero, the hero of so many battles? Because Prime Minister Sharon keeps stating that a Palestinian state is "inevitable". And because of him there are some polls that report that the majority of Israeli Jews support a Palestinian state. I assure you, these Jews are a minority. Don't be misled by these polls. A large majority of Sharon's Jewish countrymen are opposed to this anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist position. Much depends on who does the polling (the latest poll claiming that the Jews are resigned to a Palestinian state, was commissioned by PEACE NOW and executed by the Arab pollster Zogby). All depends on how you phrase the question and who does the polling! The Women in Green experience in collecting 350,000 plus signatures for a Petition to Prime Minister Sharon against the creation of a Palestinian state within the Holy Land - in a relatively short time - shows a very different attitude on the part of Israel's Jewish population. People literally stood on line to sign the Petition when we set up our tables in communities all over Israel! We sent every one of these 350,000 plus signatures to Mr. Sharon, but we did not merit an answer from him. So much for Sharon's belief in the democratic principle of listening to the voice of the People. The most objective and revealing survey of the attitudes of Israel's Jewish population regarding a Palestinian state was conducted by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA) in June 2002. Here is a key question and answer: "Do you support the proposal that Israel withdraw to the pre-Six Day War lines - including from all of the Golan, Jordan Rift Valley, and the Old City of Jerusalem, agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state - and allow Palestinian refugees the right of return to Israel instead of receiving monetary compensation - in return for peace with the Palestinians and the Arab states?" For 4% Against 93% No response 3% Why is there so much disinformation around in the United States and Europe, that the People of Israel are hankering for, or at least resigned to, a Palestinian state? This lie has been spread by various Israeli politicians from the left such as Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid, Amram Mitzna, et al. with the enthusiastic assistance of the leftist Israeli media. The most tragic development, however, is Ariel Sharon's 180 degree turnaround, and his emphatic support for the establishment of a Palestinian State. What is the reason for Sharon's about-face? I have no answer whatsoever. If you read Sharon's prolific writings - also his writings in English - such as articles in the year 1995 in the Jerusalem Post, and his autobiography "Warrior", you will see no signs of Ariel Sharon's spiritual and moral disintegration. Suffice it to say that this ardent Zionist and courageous fighter for the Jewish Homeland is now virtually unrecognizable. Some years back, on February 10, 1995, Ariel Sharon, then a Likud MK and a former Defense Minister, wrote an op-ed article in the Jerusalem Post entitled: AN EMASCULATED GIANT CALLED ISRAEL. The following are excerpts from this article: "Signs of our internal disintegration are increasing. And the Arabs are aware of them too. ... The PLO is laughing up its sleeve, and the European Foreign Ministers don't give a hoot. And Israel, with all the power and justice on its side, looks like an emasculated giant." An "emasculated giant" aptly describes today's Ariel Sharon! He has undergone a moral and spiritual disintegration! In previous years, Sharon unequivocally encouraged settling our Biblical Heartland, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Now he is intent on evacuating Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. In fact, yesterday he called for the evacuation of 17 Jewish Communities in the Gaza Strip. He creatively calls this disengagement, where in plain simple terms this means RETREAT. Years ago, he was intent on defending the lives of the Jewish People at all cost. Now a policy of "restraint" is his all encompassing solution. And the final shameful end to his illustrious career is his immoral deal with Israel's implacable Arab terrorist enemies: Nasrallah, leader of the Hizbullah, and Arafat, leader of the PLO. Make no mistake about this. Arafat is working together with Nasrallah, and pulling the strings in the background. On Thursday, January 29, 2004, 461 "ticking bomb" Arab terrorists were freed, 400 of them returning to their cheering compatriots in Judea, Samaria and Gaza; many of them vowed that they still hated Israel as much as ever and believed in the virtues of suicide bombing. In addition, Israel returned the bodies of 59 Lebanese terrorists and supplied information on the fate of 24 missing others. Nasrallah victoriously boasted that he was going to kidnap more Jewish soldiers in order to free more Arab terrorists. What did Israel get in return? The remains of our three murdered soldiers and the kidnapped Elhanan Tennebaum. An important question, the answer to which the Israeli People are entitled to: Why was the retired IDF Colonel, Elhanan Tennenbaum, who had high security clearance, allowed by the Israeli government to flit around Arab capitals trying to make big bucks for himself in allegedly shady drug and arms deals? A petition to the Supreme Court in Israel was made against this release. A three judge panel rejected this petition on the very day of the exchange. Justice Levy, who was one of the three judges, in his opinion strongly criticized this exchange: "The fear of the petitioners that we now face yet another chapter of bloodshed is also my fear. This is because this release is not being done as a gesture towards an enemy who wishes to change his ways, or who wishes to consider a possibility of coexistence with Israel? I have added my signature with a trembling hand, and I have one hope: that those [in the government] who made this decision, who see the entire picture and on whose shoulders rest the responsibility of insuring the safety and security of Israel's citizens, were totally convinced that the decision they made was the correct one, despite the terrible danger caused by the release of the evil ones for each and every one of us." The immediate result of this "exchange" was a suicide terror attack in the middle of Jerusalem with 11 dead and more than 50 injured, some critically. Government sources were quick to tell us that there is no connection between the carnage in Jerusalem and the deal negotiated with the Arabs that was executed at the same time, as our enemies murdered and maimed us in the streets of Jerusalem. Is Sharon responsible for this immoral prisoner exchange? Should he have known better? Absolutely! The first break in Israel's resolve occurred in 1985. Over 1,100 Palestinian prisoners were set free in exchange for three captured Israeli soldiers. Many of these released prisoners returned to active life as terrorists. Israel's IDF soldiers had endangered their lives - and some gave their lives - to capture those released terrorists in the first place. This release led to the first Intifada in 1987 and subsequently to the Oslo Accords. This first exchange occurred in 1985. At the end of July of 2003 Sharon made a mistake along the same lines. He released 443 Arab terrorists after strong pressure from the Bush administration, which demanded a confidence building measure on the part of Israel. In September of the same year, in three separate terror attacks, 17 Israeli Jews were killed, amongst them a six month old baby girl, deliberately shot in her rocker, and Dr. David Applebaum and his daughter Nava, the day before her wedding. What did these attacks have in common? All three attacks were committed by terrorists who had been released by Sharon from jail. This "confidence building" measure certainly contributed much to the confidence of the Arabs. The terrorists became more convinced than ever that terror pays - that they can literally get away with murder. A dear American Christian friend of mine, Cal Hubbard, wrote me the following email. I am quoting from parts of his letter: "I am outraged at recent developments in Israel. Israel gives up 400 terrorists in return for 3 dead Israelis and one live one! ... Too late - it has been done and the consequences will be disastrous, I'm afraid to say. While Israel is giving up terrorists - even at almost the same time - a bus is blown up and 10 are dead and 50 injured. How can this go on and how long will Sharon take to respond in appropriate ways? I cannot help but think of Churchill's statement after Chamberlain came back from Germany in 1939 with his famous 'peace in our time' message. Churchill said, 'you had your choice between war and shame - you chose shame but you will get war.' Sad to say, Israel is still choosing shame. They have a war, whether they realize it or not." Yesterday, Monday, February 2, Sharon dropped another bombshell. He wants, as a starter, to abandon 17 Jewish communities in Gaza, most of which he himself had established. He is intending to present his plan for unilateral withdrawal from Jewish Communities to President Bush when he visits Washington, most likely during the last weekend in February. When asked why he would not allow a vote on his plan, Sharon responded that "even if the entire faction [his own Likud party] votes against me, I will stick with what I believe is the right thing to do." My Letter from Jerusalem last week was entitled "United We Stand - Divided We Fall". The unity of Bible believing Christians and Jews is now more crucial than ever. It is important to convince President George W. Bush not to accept this undemocratic plan of Ariel Sharon. The People of Israel are not behind Sharon! Yesterday Sharon barely survived a no confidence vote, 42 to 41. The 120 Member Knesset was not in full attendance. This is a sign of a serious rift in Sharon's 68 member coalition! He has lost the Jewish People's support. The People are asking him to draw the proper conclusions and to resign. Dear Friends, please forward this letter to all your friends and acquaintances, President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and your Senators and Congressman. It is most effective to telephone President Bush at 202-456-1414 and Vice President Cheney at 202-456-7549, or fax them at 202-456-2461. Your Senators and Congressman can be reached by calling the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-456-6212 or 202-224-3121. It is also very effective to send a regular letter by snail mail to: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. You can reach your Senators by writing them at U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC 20510. The address for the House of Representatives is U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC 20515. The G-d of Israel has made an everlasting Promise to the Jewish People that the Holy Land will forever be their inheritance. No earthly leader is empowered to go against G-d's Word. This is definitely the endgame. We must all fight the evil designs of Arab terrorism. With Blessings and Love for Israel,
When Ruth Matar's letter was posted on IsraPundit, these are some of the comments readers made. As I read Ruth Matar's letter I couldn't help but feel exactly as the
poster did. Between the horrific deal with Hizballah, with the
subsequent homicide bombing, only a mentally deteriorating leader
would make a further declaration to dismantle Jewish homes. A once
valiant leader, has become a pathetic old man and is leading his
country to disaster. His claims that this unilateral withdrawal will
enable Israel to defend itself better, and will make sure that the
next government doesn't have the opportunity to give away more, is
absolute rubbish. All this plan does is give the terror masters a
prize for their endeavors, and makes it impossible to impose a peace
on them. They will now be emboldened to pursue their dream of
destroying the "cancerous Israel" For shame, Ariel!
Posted by: Andre at February 3, 2004 05:29 PM Ruth...Welcome to Israel, land of opportunism and "Machers".
And we who live inside the walls and confines of this
self-constructed, ever-contracting, Ghetto will watch flying pigs fill
the sky - oinking the praises of George the Clever, and his faithful
sidekick.
Posted by: Tamar at February 3, 2004 09:14 PM Joseph Norland is a major contributor to IsraPundit (http://IsraPundit.com), a pro-Israel activist website. |
|
ARABS DENY THEIR TERRORISM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 3, 2004. |
|
Were terrorism not the basic and unrelenting Arab tactic, Israel could
make peace agreements. It would not have to worry about violence
resuming. Alas, terrorism built into Arab culture!
During peaks of terrorism against the Jewish and the American peoples, Arafat and other Arabs claim, without evidence, that the attacks were committed by Israeli security forces to anger Israelis and Americans against the Arabs and to panic foreign Jews into immigrating to Israel. According to him, there is no Arab terrorism. When Arafat makes these claims, nobody questions his facts or his logic. He must have the media thoroughly cooperative or cowed. Nobody asks him whether Israeli security forces are wise to have Israel attacked, when they want to induce foreign Jews to move to Israel. Neither do they ask him to reconcile his denial of favoring terrorism with his advocacy of jihad, whose main tactic is terrorism. Nor do they confront him with the proof that his people constantly engage in terrorism, that his media constantly exhorts to terrorism, and that his regime finances terrorism. Those facts and those questions would be inconvenient for him. Arafat does not let himself be inconvenienced by the media. If they want interviews, they must keep quiet. If they want to live, they must tout his line. Besides, they have their own problems with antisemitism, financial interests, ignorance (their audiences' and their own), deadlines, and a drive to entertain rather than to inform. When the West exerts pressure upon the Arab world to do something about terrorism and for democracy, the Arabs go through the motions of reform. They try to redefine terrorism so that what they commit would not be called terrorism, and so that Israeli defense against terrorism would be called terrorism. The Arabs announce steps against terrorism and for democracy. The steps for democracy usually are vague and are scheduled for years into the future. By that time, the promise is forgotten but not the good will it generated. The steps against terrorism do not end the large-scale financing and inciting to terrorism. They imprison some low-level terrorists or turn some terrorists over to the West, but leave the terrorism infrastructure in place. Promises to shut off terrorist funding seem never to get enforced. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
UNHOLY WAR OVER JERUSALEM
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 2, 2004. |
|
This is by Stan Goodenough of Christian Action For Israel
(www.cdn-friends-icej.ca), a Christian Zionist group. The articles
appeared in the Middle East Digest 5 years ago - February 1999.
Binyamin Netanyahu's government may, or may not, have clamped down on Palestinian nationalistic activity in Jerusalem since it came to power two-and-a-half years ago. Government officials cite as proof of their efforts the cessation of visits by foreign dignitaries to the PLO headquarters at Orient House. Detractors say that de facto PLO "police" and other activity in the city has grown increasingly brazen during this time. The war over Jerusalem is being waged simultaneously on another front, however - the battle for Christendom's hearts and minds. It's a fight Israel largely seems willing only to engage in behind the scenes. Not so Israel's foes. Yasser Arafat knows the value of securing a Christian alliance for his cause. As often noted in the Digest, the PA chief makes a habit of foreseeing a united Muslim-Christian Jerusalem as the capital of his future Palestinian state. The battle will not stop, he insists, until the flag of Palestine flaps in acclamation over the city's mosques and churches. The man's not stupid. He uses simple arithmetic. He knows that there are nearly two billion Christians in the world. He knows that churches in Jerusalem representing a great proportion of these Christians own the land on which they are located. And he knows how many of the native members of these churches regard themselves as Palestinians first and Christians afterwards. So he talks contradictory nonsense about claiming "Holy Jerusalem" as capital of what he has always insisted will be a "democratic and secular" Palestine. However, as a good Muslim - for whom there exists no separation between mosque and state - he is increasing his control over the churches that own the land by putting in place priests loyal to him. Proponents of this process call it "indigenisation" - the investing of indigenous priests over native congregations. If the security report submitted last November to PM Netanyahu and Internal Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani is correct - and only Palestinians have challenged its accuracy - the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate owns the land on which sits the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Rehavia, as well as large parts of Abu Tor, the Old City and the Valley of the Cross (on the edge of which the Israeli Knesset is located). With the aid of lawyers familiar with Greek law, and through the establishment of pseudo-Christian organisations, states the briefing on Netanyahu's desk, Arafat's PA is succeeding in its efforts to gain control of properties like these via the various churches. The success rate is impressive. So far the PA has acquired influence in the Latin Patriarchate, the Anglican Bishopric, the Lutheran Bishopric and the Greek Catholic Bishopric of Jerusalem. The last two decades have seen Palestinian clerics loyal to the PLO replace the Anglican's British bishop and the Lutheran's German one. Instead of the traditional Italian patriarch, the powerful Roman Catholic Church has had Palestinian Michel Sabbah wearing its robes since 1987. Lufti Laham is Greek Catholic Archbishop. And, Riah Hanna Abu-Assal recently became the second generation Palestinian Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem after Samir Kafity. Like his predecessor Abu-Assal is an outspoken critic of Israel. The tide is turning against Israel. Last year it failed to prevent the appointment of Palestinian Boutros Mouallem as bishop of the Greek Melkite Church - the largest and oldest Christian denomination in the region - and now it is worried that a Palestinian patriarch might replace the traditionally Greek head of the Greek Orthodox Church. A Jerusalem-based legal scholar currently researching the city's religious dimension in the run-up to final status talks informs the Digest that Metropolitan Timothy, head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, recently voiced an openness on the indigenisation issue which only months ago would have been unthinkable. Meanwhile, Arafat is working to extend the PA's influence to the Armenian Patriarchate, the Franciscan Order (which controls Catholic sites on behalf of the Vatican), and the Greek Catholic Bishopric of the Galilee. Oslo may be stalled, but Arafat remains uninhibited in his talk about the final status issues. During these negotiations, he says, the primary issue to be resolved will be Jerusalem. Palestinian Christians are being lined up to support his claim. February will see a meeting of pro-PLO clergy here aimed at "reducing denominational divisions among the Christian community as a means to present a united front against Israeli attempts to weaken the church and the indigenisation movement". It's not known at this point whether Arafat will attend the meeting in person. He may have been invited to make the opening address. What is quite certain, however, is that his spirit will be present in the room. In the words of that old PLO chant: "With spirit and blood we shall redeem you, O Palestine." |
|
DEGRADATION OF THE JEWS: Ethnic Cleansing Horror
Posted by Beth Goodtree, February 2, 2004. |
|
The Jews have the unique distinction of being the only people who suffer from ethnic cleansing not merely by outsiders, but by their own people. In today's world, many 'respected' leaders are calling for an ethnic cleansing of the Hebrew people in unique new ways. And this includes some of Israel's leaders too. But first, let's take a look at some recent records as well as ancient and modern facts... Fact: The one and only homeland the Jewish people ever had is what is now called the State of Israel. The oldest book in the world - the Bible - clearly describes the Jewish homeland and gives its exact boundaries - which by the way, are far larger than the current State of Israel. Even that notorious (and foolishly shortsighted) anti-Semite, Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Al-Zaqaziq swears the Bible is historical truth. He made a statement in the August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi that he takes as fact the Bible's account of the Exodus. He made this statement in full anticipation of using the Bible as indisputable evidence in a legal action whereby he planned on suing every Jew on the planet for trillions of dollars. In my book, if an anti-Semite, particularly a Muslim one, admits that Biblical evidence is valid, then it is, whether for the Exodus or for land rights. Fact: Israel is as inseparable from Judaism as Mecca is from Islam or The Vatican is from Catholicism. For 2,000 years, since the original ethnic cleansing of what is now called Israel, Jews have said in their Passover Seder prayer, "Next year in Jerusalem!" Who else has a written claim of land ownership spanning almost 6,000 years and a verbal and written one expressing a desire to return to the aboriginal land from which the original inhabitants had been ethnically cleansed? The Jews have a right of return spanning 2,000 years as the only ethnic and religious group tied to the modern State of Israel - as well as some lands stolen from them by the Jordanians, Syrians and a few others. Also, unlike almost all other religions, Jews (with a few exceptions) are one ethnic group who also share a common religion that has the same derivative name. This means that anything done against Jews is done against both an ethnic group and a religion. Fact: Modern anti-Semites have tried to separate Israel from Judaism to justify their hatred towards Jews and desire to destroy Israel. This tactic is the utmost in humiliation since by de-legitimizing Israel, these haters are seeking to de-legitimize and ultimately destroy the entire Jewish religion. So who are these modern-day advocates of ethnic cleansing and how can they get away with it? First, one must recognize the written and stated goals of that Arab entity run by Arafat now occupying Israeli land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. In article 15 of the PLO charter, it specifically calls for "the liquidation of the Zionist presence."* This can only be interpreted as advocating both an ethnic cleansing of the Jewish homeland, and genocide. Because of the above stated goal, it is proper to interpret every homicide/genocide bombing as an attempt to ethnically cleanse the State of Israel of its rightful inhabitants as well as to exterminate those inhabitants. The same goes for the daily barrage of missiles raining upon Israeli homes, as well as shootings of Israeli commuters, home invasions and murders of Israeli families, etc. To prevent such unfathomable evil from happening, Israel has opted to build a security fence. This is a common practice among most other nations - and they are not under daily attack for their very existence. Anyone who declares that such a benign, non-aggressive security barrier is 'not helpful,' is actually advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide by wanting to allow the genocidal monsters free access to their victims. Such notables as President Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Kofi Anan, and the entire Arab/Muslim world (with no exceptions) are but some that would like to see Israel leave herself wide open to ethnic cleansing and genocide. Then there is the issue of 'the Roadmap to Israel's Destruction.' This is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt at ethnic cleansing using legal means and a deception of peace. According to the 'gang of 4' who are pushing this plan, they want to ethnically cleanse Jews - many of whom have multi-generational claims to their land - from their aboriginal homeland. Apparently, everyone has a right to his or her aboriginal homeland, except the Jewish people. Even non-aboriginals, such as the Arabs occupying Israeli land (most of whom are Jordanian or Egyptian, no matter what they call themselves) are seen as having more of a right to the Jewish homeland than the Jews. And now, even Ariel Sharon is advocating the ethnic cleansing of his own people from their own homeland. "It is my intention to carry out an evacuation - sorry, a relocation - of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements," he stated.** (This is along with the multitudes of Jews he wants to remove from Judea and Samaria.) If our own people advocate our ethnic cleansing, what hope do we have of survival in a notoriously anti-Semitic world? * http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm
Beth Goodtree is an essayist who writes both serious and satirical
political commentary.
|
|
GROUNDHOGS AND HUMAN RODENTS
Posted by Jeff Dunetz, February 2, 2004. |
|
On Thursday 11 people were ruthlessly murdered in Jerusalem by a
homicide bomber who as it turns out was a Palestinian Policeman, yet
when I opened the paper Friday morning there was no reference to the
victims just a picture of the killer, later in the paper was a nice
little reference to the fact that Monday is groundhog day.
Punxsutawney Phil makes it into the paper and so does a picture of a
mass murderer, but the victims of the bombing remain nameless and
faceless.
It is with that in mind that I wrote this piece for. the Jewish World
Review. It's archived at
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0204/dunetz_2004_02
It happens every year in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. On February 2, members of the Groundhog Club adorned with top hats and tails, surround the home of Punxsutawney Phil one of the most famous rodents of the world. More than just a tourist attraction, there are people that really do believe if Phil the groundhog sees his shadow we will suffer though six more weeks of winter. Phil is just one example. All across the world there are ceremonies just like the one in Punxsutawney - ceremonies, where people trust animal behavior to indicate the future. There is the one that takes place in Ramallah on the West Bank. The Ramallah rodent is named Palestinian Yassir. Around since 1959, every few months Yassir pokes his head out of his hole and if he sees a peace plan, we have six more months of terror. Yassir is not a groundhog, he is a moneyhog. In-between his popping his head out of the hole, he plans new ways to kill civilians, Arab and Israeli, all to keep his friends from finding out that he is stealing their money. Yassir the Moneyhog is worshiped in Europe, because his primary role is killing Jews. To help him with his cause they give him money to help feed other Palestinians, but he keeps most of the money for himself. That's why he is afraid of peace, why every time he sees peace in the distant horizon he invents new ways for the Palestinian people to kill themselves and Israeli civilians, so in the confusions they don't realize that it is him, good ol' Mr. Moneyhog, is causing a lot of their pain. According to Salam Fayyad, a former World Bank official who Arafat was forced to appoint finance minister last year after crowds began protesting his corrupt regime, "There is corruption out there. There is abuse." Recently CBS News reported that Yassir the Moneyhog had amassed "somewhere between 1 and 3 billion dollars." Yasser's biggest scare came just a few years ago: During the Oslo process things got so close to peace, he had to unleash a huge wave of terror so that his friends would not find out about the billions of dollars hidden in Swiss bank accounts. Another ceremony that uses a rodent as a seer is the one in France .The animal in this one has had many names. The latest is Judenphobe Jacques. If Jacques poke his head out of his hole and sees Jewish people living in peace, we will have six more years of horrible anti-Semitism. This tradition has been around for thousands of years. The first practitioner was a Pharaoh of ancient Egypt. But after a two hundred year run there was a series of 10 very unusual occurrences, that diverted his attention. One of Judenphobe's favorite activities is to glorify terrorists. It all harkens back to the tradition of Pharaoh - except instead of throwing the Jewish babies into the Nile, Judenphobe helps Palestinian Yassir blow up Jewish children. The Judenphobe tradition is entrenched in Europe and the Arab counties and it is growing more popular everyday. The UN has Judenphobe parties - they throw them in the General Assembly Chamber, adorned with signs such as, "Protect Palestinian babies not the Jews" and the favorite of Ireland, "Anti-Semitism is NOT religious intolerance." During the UN Party, all the delegates gather around a small hole and out pops Kantseenuthing Koffi. If Koffi sees Jews dying he goes back into his hole and closes his eyes. The only think that brings him back out is when Jews try to defend themselves. When that happens we have six days of anti-Israel speeches. There are so many other events that people don't know about, there is Mousears Michael who is so afraid of being recognized as Jewish, he pokes his head up from a tree atop of a castle and if he sees a Jewish shadow he runs from his background and we have 6 more months of ABC News' anti-Israel Bias. One of the newest prognosticators is known as Passiveagressive Powell. Passiveagressive he helps predict US Foreign policy. Passiveagressive Powell has been known to trade Israeli lives for Arab oil. Every time Israel ties to defend herself he pokes his head up from the fence between US and Mexico (that's a good wall) and if he needs something from the Arab world we get six days of condemnation. When you watch the news over the next few days you will see lots of stories about Punxsutawney Phil. What you won't see are the names and the faces of the people killed and maimed in homicide bombings in Israel - TV news doesn't want you to see them, it may give you sympathy for the terror victims instead of the terrorists. So when you are watching the news and you see another story about Groundhog day please remember, the tragic victims of senseless murder that were blown up in Israel this week, and the rats all across the world who give aid and support to the murderers. Jeff Dunetz is a 20-year marketing veteran, and a freelance writer. He is married and the father of two kids who ask lots of questions about being Jewish that he can't answer. Jeff has been active in Jewish organizations since his USY days. Presently he is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Dix Hills (Long Island) Jewish Center. |
|
SUWAD FAMILY BLASTS UN FOR COOPERATING IN KIDNAPPING
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 2, 2004. |
|
Please note; The Suwad family are ARAB citizens of Israel!
This article was written by Eli Ashkenazi, and appeared on the Haaretz website today. The Suwad family Monday lashed out at the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for its conduct during and after the kidnapping of the three Israeli soldiers three years ago, accusing it of cooperating with Hezbollah in the kidnapping. Hezbollah returned the body of the Suwads' son Omar last Thursday along with the bodies of two other Israeli soldiers. "UNIFIL did not answer how the soldiers were killed. They stood only 150 meters away from where it happened and so cooperated with the kidnappers. Later they failed to hand over a tape documenting the incident," a family member told President Moshe Katsav, who came to console the Suwads in their Salameh home. The bereaved mother, H'dra Suwad, told the president she had given the most precious thing she had and he did not come home alive. "Every day in the past few years seemed like a year to me. I thank the government for not sparing efforts to bring the sons home," she said. Katsav told the family that he raised the issue of the kidnapped soldiers in every country. "I said it was inhuman. The Hezbollah were intransigent and unwilling to give information." Omar Suwad's twin brother Amar said "the president did not leave us for one second. His heart is with us. He felt as if this was his problem too, supported and strengthened us. We thank him wholeheartedly." |
|
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 2, 2004. |
|
No doubt that Sharon wishes to divert attention from his thievery and
that of his family and friends but let us not forget that even before
all this, he was doing everything he could to destroy the country. We
have witnessed over the past few years the bribery of one major public
official after another by foreign governments and strong rumors of
many more. Even private individuals not wanting to lose out on this
one arena of free enterprise in Israel's communist economy have begun
soliciting foreign Governments for money so as to betray the country.
At what point does it become legitimate to call all this treason? At
what point does it become legitimate to actively and directly fight
the traitors?
Sharon must resign. This was an Arutz-7 news item today and is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=57163 Is Sharon Working to Divert Attention from Investigations? (IsraelNN.com) With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon scheduled to be questioned by police on Thursday regarding corruption allegations against him, some coalition legislators believe the announced planned removal of Jewish communities from Gaza is a ploy to divert national attention away from the prime minister. MK (National Union) Prof. Aryeh Eldad and Deputy Minister (National Union) Tzvi Hendel stated with certainty that Sharon's interview with Ha'aretz announcing he ordered the preparation for the planned "relocation" of 17 Jewish communities of Gaza is directly related to the increased pressure placed on him by ongoing police investigations into alleged campaign funding and corruption charges. 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. |
|
THE NETUREI KARTA CULT OF MINIM
Posted by Neturei Karta, February 2, 2004. |
|
As you know, I recently published an article entitled "I am Ashamed to
be an Israeli". The article seems to have had a very wide exposure
and I have received many responses.
Among those I received were a series of email letters from someone associated with the wacko Neturei Karta movement, and - if I am not mistaken he is actually the guy who runs their anti-Israel web sites. He and I have carried on a correspondence of sorts all week. Below I have collected the essence of the notes I sent him and compiled them into this "Open Letter to a Leader of Neturei Karta". But first, some background information. Neturei Karta is a small sect of ultra-Orthodox "Jewish" religious extremists, best known for marching arm in arm with Arafat, endorsing every anti-Israel terrorist and anti-Semite on the planet. It wants Israel destroyed and does not care if a Second Holocaust must take place in order to achieve this lofty goal, because Israel must not be set up at all before the Messiah comes (in their opinion) and - more generally - because many Israelis are secularists and some eat pork. No one knows how many people the sect has; they claim about 50,000 but I suspect the correct number is one zero less. The Neturei Karta were originally set up as a splinter breakaway movement in 1938, mainly by fanatical ultra-Orthodox Hungarian Jews, splitting from the more mainstream Agudat Israel party and movement. Agudat Israel has made its peace with Israel's existence and has participated in the country's affairs, run for and been elected to the parliament, and even held cabinet posts. Neturei Karta is Aramaic and means "Guardians of the Gate". It is motivated by intense hatred not only for secularist Jews but for all Orthodox and observant Jews who happen not to share its ideas. It openly calls for Israel to be destroyed and it openly supports the worst genocidal anti-Semites on the planet from Arafat to Asad - in order to "punish" those evil Jews who refuse to accept its religious notions. Naturally, Neturei Karta has been adopted by all the Bash-Israel organizations in the world and is celebrated by them as the only "true" representatives of Judaism. Curiously, the people who hail Neturei Karta are themselves often leftist secularists who would never consider backing religious lunatics from other faiths. The Islamofascists of course also love them. The Neturei Karta "Rabbis" are cult figures roughly like Jim Jones from the Jonestown story. I guess Jewish Elmer Gantries might also be an accurate description. The most famous image of Neturei Karta may be http://www.gravett.org/Israellycool/archives/010995.html Here is my message to the member of the Neturei Karta with whom I conducted the "dialogue" this week: "Open Letter to a Leader of Neturei Karta". Dear Sir: In the Amida prayer, which Jews recite three times every day, there is a section in which the "minim" are denounced. The "minim" refer to small treasonous groups of Jews who collaborated with the Roman enemies of the Jewish people, and the prayer explicitly mentions that these minim were tattlers, snitches, people who served the anti-Semites of their day as agents, and worked against Jewish existence and survival. Since then of course the segment in the daily prayer is understood to be a curse in general upon anti-Semites, and especially Jewish anti-Semites working against their own people. Jewish anti-Semitism was not born with the modern Israeli Oslo Left. I mention all this because I can think of no more apt illustration of a cult of Minim than the Neturei Karta. Your cult is nothing more than a pseudo-Jewish pagan group working against Judaism and for the enemies of the Jews. You claim that you are simply opposed to Israel because it is full of pork eaters and people who trample upon Jewish observance. Well, let me tell you something. The most secularist pork eater on any kibbutz in Israel is halakhically (by Rabbinic law) far more Jewish and far more pure than all the "Rabbis" in the Neturei Karta cult. And why do I say this? Because, as you know, there is a clear halakhic rule that says that living in the Land of Israel is itself "shakul" or equivalent to observing all 613 religious commandments or mitzvot! All of them! Even the ones reserved for priests and even the ones that may only be performed in the Temple and so may not be performed today. There is not a single "Rabbi" in Neturei Karta who performs these 613 mitzvot. Yet the worst pork eater in Israel is already deemed equivalent to one who observes them all, even before he gets started. If he was circumcised at 8 days, that already puts him even one more mitzvah/commandment ahead of you and your "Rabbis". No, I am not suggesting that living in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, should be regarded as a legitimate blanket exemption from all other religious precepts. I am simply saying that even someone who observes nothing at all in Judaism but lives in Israel is more Jewish and more religiously pure than the "Rabbis" of your minim cult. When you march in anti-Israel demonstrations alongside anti-Semites (the Durban conference comes to mind), when you endorse Arafat and his stormtroopers and serve as their public relations agents, when you support terrorists and excuse mass murders of Jews, you are acting as followers of the Evil Bil'am, not as sons of Jacob. You say you want Israel destroyed because it was not set up properly, because the Messiah has not yet come? Do you really think that Israel can be destroyed without there also occurring a Second Holocaust? Don't you realize this is the unavoidable consequence of what you are proposing, and what the people you are supporting seek? Let me tell you something. A ketuba marriage contract signed on the Sabbath is still a valid one and must be respected, even though signing it on the Sabbath is a prohibited violation of the day. A Cohen or priest who marries a divorcee has sinned because such a marriage is prohibited by the Torah, but the marriage must be acknowledged and even accepted and honored. It stands. Whether or not Israel was created properly or at the correct time, the fact that it exists changes how Jews must behave and requires a certain amount of responsibility and "arevut ze l'ze" or mutual support and defense, even from the most smug, self-righteous pretenders at religiosity. Whatever you think about the erection of Israel, you have no right to endorse those seeking to destroy it and its population through violence, people seeking genocide of Jews. And if you DO endorse such people and march with them, you are nothing more than a disciple of the Evil Bil'am. You are a collaborator with Haman. You are worse than Dotan and Aviram. Had you lived in Shushan in Persia in the days of Queen Esther and her Uncle Mordecai, you would have been marching arm in arm with Haman. After all, those Persian Jews also included many who no doubt violated the Sabbath and other religious principles. The Neturei Karta would have supported Haman as a way to "punish" them. How many Rabbis of Rabbi Akiva's generation served as PR agents for the Romans, to justify their murdering Jews? How many said the murders were justified because - after all - so many Jews were not properly observing mitzvot? In Elijah's generation all except a few thousand Jews were acting as pagans. Strange, but I do not recall Elijah justifying anti-Semites murdering them. Indeed, Elijah endorsed the very worst pagan of all, King Ahab, when the King went on the war path to kill anti-Semites. Of course, if Neturei Karta Minim had been around in those days, they would all be in Syria helping the evil Ben-Haddad murder the Jews. The Neturei Karta "Rabbis" are not recognized as Torah Authorities by any Torah Authority outside the cult. No Sephardic Rabbis, no Ashkenazim, no Misnagdim, no Chassidim. No one recognizes Neturei Karta as a legitimate movement of Judaism. In essence, these Rabbis - like me - see Neturei Karta as a pathetic minim cult. Can you name a single Rabbi outside Neturei Karta who endorses the view of your own "Rabbis"? Of course you cannot. So you think collaborating with the worst anti-Semites on the planet who openly endorse genocide of Jews is better than collaborating with misguided radical secularists who need to be pulled back to the traditions of Israel? You believe that when a Jew sins he ceases to be a Jew. I wonder which books you are reading as replacements for the Torah. This is the level of the "logical reasoning" they are teaching these days in Neturei Karta ashrams? (I hesitate to call them yeshivos). You insist the Zionists are the Devil, not the Palestinians. And of course, if the Palestinians are not the Devil, why should anyone think the Germans were? Since you defend the Palestinian right to murder my family, and as it happens we do not eat pork, then what is wrong with the Germans murdering lots of Jews? Why don't you guys march around in your pro-PLO parades with swastikas and put one on your web site? And if someone happens NOT to keep the religious precepts of Judaism, what gives you the right to act as Public Relations man for the people who seeking to murder such sinners? The Neturei Karta cultists are inverted Bil'amim. The Evil Bil'am was ordered to curse Israel, yet ended up blessing the Tents of Jacob. You are the reverse. You are ordered by the Torah to bless Israel but you curse the Jewish people. You have no concept of Jewish solidarity because you are not Jews, you are a pseudo-Jewish minim cult. I really think you need to grow up or see a good shrink. So should
your "Rabbis".
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.
|
|
GROSS DISTORTIONS OF ISRAELI PUBLIC OPINION BY THE WASHINGTON POST
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 2, 2004. |
|
This is the letter I sent to the Post.
The Post's report about Israel's decision to show on the Internet a graphic view of a Jerusalem suicide bombing distorts Israeli public opinion on the advisability of airing such a video and on who's responsible for such carnage ("Israel Exposes Horror of Bus Bombing" Feb. 2). The article leaves the impression that Israelis are sharply divided about putting such footage on the Internet (it "unleashed an emotional public debate.") Sheer nonsense. Most Israelis welcomed the decision to show the world the gruesome results of terrorism as a long-overdue step. Criticism by a small group opposed to any military response to terrorism doesn't come close to matching an overwhelming consensus to use the video to demonstrate Israel's need to build a security barrier against terrorist incursions. In seeking to explain the allegedly sharp public split about the video, your reporter went on to paint a larger picture of "many Israelis (who) are increasingly frustrated with political leadership on both sides that has not stopped the violence." The clear inference here is that Israelis blame Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as much as Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. That again misses the mark by a mile. The vast majority of Israelis either back Sharon or, if critical of some of his policies, still blame Arafat as the principal instigator of this bloody conflict. |
|
THE OPIUM OF THE MASSES; THE MIDDLE EAST'S BREAD AND CIRCUSES
Posted by Barry Rubin, February 2, 2004. |
|
The Arab-Israeli conflict, along with anti-Americanism, continues to
be the opiate of the Arab world. These are factors which literally drug
entire societies into accepting otherwise intolerable conditions.
There is no shortage of examples. Recently, a columnist recorded in a Lebanese newspaper how he raised the issue of the mass murders uncovered in Iraq only to be criticized for "whining." Instead, he should be focusing on the foreign threat to the Arabs. As for such killings, what was the big deal since they happened in all Arab states? Consider three recent statements from totally different parts of the political spectrum. From the establishment, Ali Ukla Ursan, the Syrian regime's Stalinist-style intellectual bureaucrat, insists that the proper answer to Saddam's overthrow is that all Arabs should unite to intimidate the United States which, along with Israel, is responsible for all the world's evil. From the Islamists, the new head of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, often portrayed as a relatively moderate Islamist group, called for a jihad against Israel and the Americans in Iraq as a solution to the Arab world's problems. From the left, Walid Jumblatt, head of the Lebanese Socialist Progressive Party, did not demand socialism or progressive social policies. He just proclaimed that the only ones offering hope to fix the Arabs' terrible mess are Palestinian suicide bombers. And in interview after interview throughout the Arab world, average people explain that they don't care how many Iraqis were killed or tortured by Saddam Hussein or how much money he stole. This is all irrelevant because he supported the Palestinians and opposed the United States. Two years ago, an Egyptian intellectual who has been for many years one of the most genuinely moderate people you will find in the Arab world, told a Western interviewer that the solution to terrorism was not merely repression but also providing "measures that give hope." Whatever he thought personally, Sid-Ahmed did not identify the measures needed as instituting democracy, providing civil liberties, raising living standards, generating millions of jobs, moderating the lessons given Arabs in mosques or schools, building better housing, opening up stagnantly statist economies, instituting equality for women, sharing wealth more equitably, ending corruption, removing the selfish and incompetent elite from power, or any other of a hundred things that need to happen in Arab countries for people to live better, happier lives. Instead, his sole specific proposal was to solve the Palestinian problem. After all, he told the Western television interviewer, "Our President says 50 percent of the terrorism in the world is triggered by the Palestinian problem." Did he believe that statement, the interviewer asked? The Egyptian was visibly embarrassed. After all, he had just hinted that Usama bin Ladin and the September 11 attacks had nothing to do with that issue, and he was also aware that thousands of Muslims had died from terrorism in Egypt, as well as Algeria and other countries. Well, he said, solving it would show that something was being done. This all reminds me of a very old joke. A man walks into a psychiatrist's office. There is a bird sitting on top of his head. The psychiatrist says to the man, "Aha, I see what your problem is!" "That's right," replies the bird to the doctor's surprise. "How do I get this man off my feet?" In short, the reality is the reversal of expectations. If Israel is the Arab world's obsession it is because the man won't let the bird go. He is holding tightly onto its feet to keep it from escaping. This is why what really happened in the year 2000 - Israel's offer to give up the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and most of east Jerusalem - must be wiped from people's minds or prevented from ever entering them. The issue is too useful to give up. Regimes need it to justify their hold on power. The anti-democratic Islamist and left oppositions need the issue to justify their drive for power. The masses need the issue to give them some visible enemy which they can denounce without risking jail. The liberals need the issue to prove their patriotism. On the public and verbal level, of course, the battle for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim "rights" on this issue is an obvious duty. Israel is the most horrible country in the world; Zionism is the most evil ideology of modern times. Their crimes are endless, comparable - as anyone who watches the Arab media, studies in schools or goes to mosque is told on a daily basis - to those of the Nazis. Ok, say Western observers, we know this is exaggerated. But even if you discount these claims, this must be the thing that really upsets and preoccupies the Arab world, the prism through which everything else is seen. Well, not exactly. Instead, it is merely the oldest trick in the book of politics. First, you mesmerize the people by persuading them that you are their protector against a diabolical enemy. Then you pick their pockets and beat them up as they express their devotion and gratitude. Next, you demand that others compensate you for your alleged suffering at the hands of this supposed evil-doer. But was the real grievance of the fascists in Germany and throughout Europe the evils of Jewish domination or was this just a good way to mobilize mass support by stoking murderous rage against someone else? Was the Soviet system really trying to help proletarians elsewhere and was its ferocious repression caused by the "crimes" of Western liberal capitalism? Were Latin American oligarchies rolling in wealth alongside impoverished peasants really motivated mainly at horror of the supposed evil intentions of any reformers they could portray as communists? And therefore was the best way to get along with these systems and solve the problems of those societies to exterminate the Jews, eliminate capitalism, and kill anyone who favored land reform or democracy? Finally, if anyone points out that the emperor has no clothes - or rather is wearing extremely fine garments that he has stolen from the citizenry - the critic can be easily dismissed. After all, this is just the line of the Zionist, reactionary, racist, Orientalist, conservative, American propaganda. So shut up and cheer your dictator. The Middle East is being impoverished and brutalized by this con-game. And with one of its chief practitioners, Saddam Hussein, in jail, his colleagues abroad are re-doubling their efforts to keep the system going. Professor Barry Rubin is Director of The Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) and Editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). |
|
FREEING MURDERERS - IS THAT JUSTICE?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 2, 2004. |
|
Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy refused to sign a court order to
stop the release of over 429 Arab Muslim Terrorists but, yet he
recognizes that this release will lead to a new wave of bloodshed.
While the Supreme Court fails the Israelis people, so too does their
government.
We watch as a modern day Nero (Ariel Sharon) fiddles as Israel burns. Through the centuries, we have watched as Emperors, Prime Ministers, Kings and pathological dictators, mad with power sacrifice their own people. We now watch Sharon, grown old and seemingly witless, as hardening of the arteries and possible mini-strokes dictate the thoughts. Here we see a man, owned by a young American President, whose only focus is on his mandatory power - regardless of the cost. The Israeli Supreme Court has seen its failing and has done nothing to save the nations. The Israeli Government is floundering under a once heroic man who can no longer be depended upon to lead his people in safety and sovereignty. In dismay we observe the Knesset fight political battles with each other as Sharon allows the Jewish nation to slide into failure. Clearly, it is time for the people to rise up and throw them out of office. Sharon's time is over. He served honorably - til now. But now, he is risking Jewish lives and Israel's sovereignty. He must go and we must have leadership that will save the nation and the people. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel, Gamla (http://gamla.org.il/english) and the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm) |
|
THE NEXT ISRAEL-HIZBULLAH EXCHANGE: THEATER OF THE ABSURD
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 2, 2004. |
|
The Iran-Hizbullah terrorism conglomerate has a long record of
successfully hiding hostages, managing embellished crises, and waging
psychological warfare aimed at maximizing Iran's political dividends.
This article was written by Yoram Schweitzer of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel-Aviv University (www.tau.ac.il./jcss/) It is No. 98 and it appeared today. The recent Israel-Hizbullah prisoner exchange appears to be Act I of an ongoing drama. The next chapter, if it is played out, will also star Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah, acting on behalf of the Government of Iran and with the backing of the Syrian and Lebanese Governments. But Act II will shine the spotlight on the symbiotic relationship between several state sponsors of terrorism and the Hizbullah organization that serves as their proxy. And it will also highlight the West's continued willingness to tolerate the ongoing exploitation of that relationship by the state sponsors, especially Iran. In light of previous experience, the declared intention of Nasrallah and his Iranian patrons to seek a solution to the riddle of the missing Israeli navigator, Ron Arad, must still be treated with caution. But even if Nasrallah does come up with new information about Arad's fate in exchange for what he hopes will be a bigger payoff than he received in Act I of the exchange, it is clear that Nasrallah is only a pawn, however slick, in a typically crafty Iranian game. Iran's role in all this is reflected in the arrival in Beirut of a delegation headed by Ali Akbar Muhtashampur, one of the founders of Hizbullah, and Hadi Khamenei, the younger brother of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Their presence at the lavish ceremonies marking the return of Lebanese prisoners symbolized Iran's honored status and the image it wants to project to the world as the party that worked diligently behind the scenes to make the deal possible. The high-level delegation was also meant to communicate the seriousness of Iran's intention to play a constructive role (along with Hizbullah and Syria) in the joint mechanism set up by German mediators to find a humanitarian solution to the problem of MIAs in Lebanon. The public commitment and cautious optimism voiced by German mediator Ernst Uhrlau about the chances of sustaining the process and succeeding where his predecessor had failed raised hopes that this time, in contrast to their performance in the mid-1990s, the Iranians will honor their promises to end the suffering of the families of Arad and the four Iranian diplomats missing in Lebanon since 1982. But if that is the case, it is still unclear what brought about a change in Iranian policy on this matter. The answer may lie in the realm of strategy and geo-politics, that is, in Euro-American pressure on the matter of Iran's nuclear program and the presence of American forces around Iran's borders. It may also lie in domestic pressure to get this troublesome issue off Iran's international agenda. Whatever the case, the protracted negotiations about the question of Ron Arad, many of whose details have already been made public, clearly indicate that the Iranians and their central partner in Lebanon, Nasrallah, have known about Arad's fate for a long time. Consequently, the effort they will ostensibly make now in order to justify the unreasonable payoff they are demanding is a fraud. For the brief period of time given to the "Humanitarian Search Mechanism" can only be an elegant "escape hatch" from the charge that they have deliberately concealed the Israeli airman for 16 years (since he was transferred to the Iranians by Amal dissidents in 1988); otherwise, there is no reason to expect that it will suffice after so many similar "efforts" have failed in the past. The Iran-Hizbullah terrorism conglomerate has a long record of successfully hiding hostages, managing embellished crises, and waging psychological warfare aimed at maximizing Iran's political dividends. This game, in which Hizbullah functions as the operational arm for Iran's policy of extortion and serves as its fig-leaf, was first played out in 1984-1991. During that period, about a hundred hostages were kidnapped in Lebanon, most of them from Western countries. Some were held in Lebanon for several years in inhuman conditions, paid a heavy psychological cost, and were released when their countries paid a huge ransom; some died in captivity. The kidnapping chapter in Lebanon ended only when Iran forced Hizbullah to desist in return for Western support for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Iraq as the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq War. An attempt to include the release of Ron Arad in that package deal failed, and his fate has remained a mystery ever since. In this theater of the absurd, the current effort to resolve the puzzle of Ron Arad is presented as a new play, though it stars precisely the same actors. Nasrallah is willingly cast in the lead role, but Iran is feeding him his lines. Iran itself, as is its wont, insists on projecting a fair and neutral demeanor even as it extracts the full price in return for undoing what were its own actions. Iran expects to get a hefty commission from Germany and France for its effort and good will in resolving the issue and through them will demand the release of terrorists it, itself, dispatched. The payoff most highly prized by Iran and Hizbullah is Kazem Darbi. According to the findings of a German court, Darbi was an Iranian studying in Germany who, on the orders of Iranian intelligence, recruited a group of Hizbullahis living there to murder Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the Mykonos Restaurant in Berlin in 1992. Other targets for release include one of the hijackers of TWA flight 847 in June 1985 who murdered US Navy diver Robert Stethem and was jailed by Germany, some of those involved in the murder of former Iranian Prime Minister Shahpour Bakhtiar, and five members of the Hizbullah cell active in a wave of murders carried out in France in the late 1980s on behalf of Iran. If French and German leaders have to respond to demands to release terrorists convicted and jailed in their own countries, they will be helping Iran to reap its own profit from another Israel-Hizbullah exchange and to avoid punishment for its past actions. In return, they would do well to demand a drastic change in Iran's support of terrorism and to make it clear that if Iran refuses to comply, they will follow the precedent set in the confrontation over Iranian nuclear activities and push the European Union to join in American-led sanctions through the Security Council. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
RETREAT PLAN: ASK "IF" NOT "HOW"
Posted by Aaron Lerner, February 2, 2004. |
|
Before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rose to read from his prepared
retreat plan speeches at the Likud Central Committee and then at the
Knesset, he had to sit through presentations of cogent arguments
against retreat.
But his presentations never addressed the issues his colleagues raised, just as to this day he has yet to engage in a serious debate regarding the merits and consequences of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And when he confirmed to the Likud Faction today that he wanted to retreat from the Gaza Strip he told them that he instructed National Security Council Chairman Brigadier General (Res.) Giora Eiland, to plan the retreat - not to study the efficacy of retreating. Prime Minister Sharon promised in his Knesset speech that the retreat plan "will be undertaken following exhaustive discussions between the coalition parties", but in truth it would appear that he would prefer to present his cabinet with a fait accomplis after making various commitments in Washington based on the detailed retreat plan that Eiland develops. In the absence of a change in the process, the nation's planners and decision makers will never seriously consider if Israel should retreat - only how to retreat. And this is a pity, because no one has a monopoly on wisdom. A retreat program isn't a measure that can be readily changed once it is implemented - regardless of why the plan came into being (observers give a 90% chance that Sharon is doing this in the hope that this will somehow postpone his indictment). The consequences of bad policy could be grave. Ironically, in the last days Israel carried out a series of security measures in both the Gaza Strip, Jericho and Bethlehem that illustrate what Israel is able to do today with relative ease but would face considerable difficulties in a post-retreat environment in which Israel faces a sovereign Palestinian state (recognized by the world and a member of the UN) that fills the vacuum and is bolstered by the presence of various foreign forces and observers and armed with weapons to put Israel's second port, Ashdod, under the missile threat that Haifa already faces from Lebanon. It should be noted that while it is quite possible that Mr. Sharon has put some thought into how he could neutralize or circumvent his Israeli opponents in order to carry out a retreat (most likely in large part by trying to lock Israel into unauthorized commitments to Washington) there is no reason to believe that much thought has been given to the morning after. Just yesterday (Sunday) the Sharon Administration gave a simple example of its painfully limited planning horizon when the Cabinet decided to postpone Israel's Independence Day and Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day by one day so that Remembrance Day would not start on Saturday night. It was known in 1949 (!!!) that in the year 2004 Remembrance Day would fall on a Saturday night. This issue, of course, could have been thought about 4, 3, 2 or even one year ago, before all the calendars were printed that would cover April 2004 - but it wasn't. It remains to be seen if Mr. Sharon's coalition partners and retreat opponents in the Likud will have the courage and savvy to stop the retreat juggernaut by insisting on thought before action. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il |
|
A JUDENREIN GAZA
Posted by Sergio Adir Gad Ovadiah Tezza (HaDaR), February 2, 2004. |
|
This was written by Yoel Marcus, Haaretz Correspondent.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says he has given orders to plan for the removal of 17 settlements in Gaza. "I have given an order to plan for the evacuation of 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip," Sharon said Monday in an interview with Haaretz columnist Yoel Marcus. (The full interview with Sharon will appear Tuesday in Haaretz.) "It is my intention to carry out an evacuation - sorry, a relocation - of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements," the prime minister added. Sharon, who informed the Likud faction of the plan at a closed-doors meeting later Monday, also mentioned the problematic nature of evacuating settlements in Gaza. "We are talking of a population of 7,500 people. It's not a simple matter. We are talking of thousands of square kilometers of hothouses, factories and packing plants. People there who are third-generation. The first thing is to ask their agreement, to reach an agreement with the residents. To move thousands of dunams of hothouses, educational institutions, thousands and thousands of vehicles, it's not a quick matter, especially if it's done under fire." "I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon added. Asked whether he intended presenting his plan to U.S. President George Bush during his visit to Washington later this month, Sharon said: "Absolutely. It has to be done with American agreement and support. We need their support." The prime minister said he had not yet discussed the issue of financing the evacuation with the Americans. "But we will have to discuss [it] with them." Likud MK Yehiel Hazan, who was present at the faction meeting, said that the prime minister did not give a timetable. "He didn't say it would happen at once," said Hazan. "He said it is possible there will be no more Jews in the Gaza Strip." Sharon has previously said that if there is no progress in attempts to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, then he will embark on a program of unilateral disengagement. Until now, the prime minister has been short on details, although he has said that the plan would require the relocation of some isolated settlements. There has also been speculation that the separation fence Israel is building inside the West Bank could serve as a border in the disengagement plan. |
|
SENATOR KERRY ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 2, 2004. |
|
"I think there are 15% of both people on both sides of the Green
Line who would happily push the other people into the Mediterranean or
across the Jordan River," he said (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 1/27,
p.4).
How even-handed between the jihadists who threaten America and would drown Israeli Jews, and some Israeli Jews who would move those jihadists into the existing Palestinian Arab state called Jordan, so they could not deprive Israel of its strategic border and patrimony. His parallel arithmetic of 15% and 15% is mistaken, too. The Arabs collectively favor dispossession and even murder. Few Jews favor dispossession, and I have heard of none who favor murder. Misinformed factually, Sen. Kerry draws the wrong conclusion and misinforms audiences. Since the Territories are the unallocated part of the Mandate for a Jewish national home, because they lay in the historically Jewish homeland, there would be nothing wrong with Israel ending the conflict with its immediate neighbors by transferring them out of the battle zone, where they are the genocidal aggressors. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. |
|
THE NEW ZOA POLL
Posted by Andre Nahum, February 2, 2004. |
|
New Poll: Nearly 70% Of Americans Say "No" To Palestinian Arab State
And Expulsion Of Jews From Territories
NEW YORK - A new poll has found that nearly 70% of Americans believe that the Palestinian Arabs have not fulfilled the conditions necessary to be given a state, and oppose the Arab demand for expulsion of Jews from the territories. The poll was sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and carried out by the firm of McLaughlin & Associates during mid-January of 2004. The poll questioned 1,000 Americans from throughout the United States. ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "It is a myth that American public opinion supports creating a Palestinian Arab state or expelling the Jewish residents of Judea-Samaria and Gaza. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose creating what would be a new terrorist state, and oppose the racist, un-American concept of kicking people out of their homes and towns on the basis of their religion or ethnicity." The poll's findings: By 67% To 19%, Americans Oppose Giving The Palestinian Arabs A State: 67.4% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs have not met President Bush's conditions for statehood, such as fighting terrorism, halting incitement to murder, and respecting human rights. Only 19.3% say they have met those conditions. The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its website address is http://www.zoa.org. |
|
ISRAEL'S SELF-HATING NEWSPAPER
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 2, 2004. |
|
This is worth reading in full. It appeared today on Front Page
Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com). It was written by P. David
Hornik, a freelance writer and translator living in Jerusalem, whose
work has appeared in many Israeli, Jewish, and political publications.
Reach him at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
During the Israeli workweek of Sunday, January 18 to Friday, January 23, I kept track of the opinion pieces published on the English website of Israel's left-wing daily Haaretz. The paper, which goes back to pre-statehood days, is actually considered to have moved toward the Center during the intensified terror war launched in 2000. But as the quotations below will show, it is at best a minor change. Indeed, during the week I surveyed, the picture was not all black. Haaretz's token right-wing columnist, the insightful Israel Harel, wrote a piece supportive of Israel in the context of the incident at the Stockholm museum, in which Ambassador Zvi Mazel damaged a display of a snow-white suicide bomber floating over a pool of Israeli blood. The thoughtful left-of-center columnist Amnon Rubinstein also came out, more cautiously, in favor of Israel's official position that the display was an outrage, as did a Swedish Jewish activist in a guest column. And former minister Moshe Arens, an occasional contributor, provided a splendid column on the folly of kowtowing to Syria. But with these exceptions, the paper was in typical form. The main theme of the left-wing columnists was, as always, that peace with the Palestinians and the Arabs is there for the taking and it is only Israel's pig-headedness that keeps the conflict going. Special targets of these pundits' spleen were the separation fence, Ariel Sharon, and Israeli society itself. One would not guess from their writings what is understood by more and more people of goodwill: that, however foolishly and recklessly, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000 and has kept offering them one ever since, and the Palestinian reaction has been constant terror and incitement. Even though being an Israeli means being someone whose children have been targeted for murder by Yasser Arafat and the entity over which he presides, the large majority of whose members favor, if not celebrate, the slaughter of Israeli civilians of all descriptions, this changes nothing for the Haaretz columnists and the leftist fringe of the population that they represent. Their instinct remains to exonerate and perceive virtue and moderation in the Palestinians and the Arabs, and to accuse and vilify Israel. Thus Zvi Bar'el (January 18) detects soft breezes of peace blowing in the Arab world: "Last week, the editor of the Lebanese daily Al Nahar... proposed to the Israelis and Palestinians, and to the Arabs in general, '... Let us look toward a political society like the European Union, in which we will renew our aspirations together before we all drown together.' ...Even in Egypt the weekly Al Ahram al Arabi can publish... articles about the... dictatorship under which the Arab states exist, while in Saudi Arabia the public discourse against Islamic terrorism is being cultivated." But unlike Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, those bastions of enlightenment and pacifism, Bar'el finds Israel lacking in the right stuff: "The shockwaves of the conceptual jolt haven't yet reached Israel, though. No barricade has yet been positioned against the dictatorship of the old conceptions: 'The only thing the Arabs understand is force,' 'There is no partner for negotiations,' ... 'First the cessation of terrorism, and then negotiations.' ... The belief in the truth of these conceptions is so fanatic that any challenge to them is tantamount to the desecration of all that's holy." Considering the real facts of history - the Camp David Accords with Egypt and the retreat from the entire Sinai, the "Oslo process" with the Palestinians - one can only marvel at these words written by a professional Israeli commentator. Aluf Benn (January 22) quotes the U.S. vice-president expressing a reasonable view that takes account of the facts on the ground: "Richard Cheney... explained last week: 'As long as Yasser Arafat is the interlocutor on behalf of the Palestinians ... we think any serious progress is virtually impossible. The Israelis are never going to sign up, nor should they sign up to a peace, unless ... they've got confidence that there is someone there on the Palestinian side prepared to keep those commitments.' " What's that? A top U.S. leader implying that the conflict isn't Israel's fault? Benn isn't going to take that lying down: "Without intending to do so, Cheney guaranteed that Arafat will remain in his Muqata headquarters. The Likud government will not take a chance on removing him if leaving him in place frees it from negotiations." The words are somehow twisted to put the onus - not on Arafat, but on Israel. Just for the record, Likud governments, for better or worse, have shown a distinct readiness to negotiate as in the Camp David Accords, the Madrid Conference, the Hebron Agreement, the Wye Agreement, and the present Likud government's oft-reiterated commitment to the road map. But Benn adds for good measure: "Washington... continues to keep close tabs on Sharon, for fear that he will go wild and ignite the region." Gideon Levy (January 18) has his own twist on the theme of Israel's culpability for the conflict. For him, it all starts at a very specific place: "All of the Israel Defense Forces checkpoints in the occupied territories are immoral and illegitimate. Therefore, they must be removed unconditionally. There is no place to discuss their security value. Even if someone were to succeed in proving that a connection exists between locking residents in their villages and preventing terrorist attacks in Israel - which is highly doubtful - that would make no difference one way or the other. A law-abiding state does not adopt immoral and illegitimate measures, whatever their value ... The only question is why checkpoints exist deep in occupied territory? By what right? Only to satisfy the settlers and abuse the Palestinians? ... the checkpoints are the great hothouse of terrorism. It is there that the hatred and the despair are fomented." Thus, Israel places checkpoints in the territories out of some arbitrary sadism, solely to be able to send its sons to do difficult, dangerous duty there and harass the local population. The "hothouse of terrorism" is not a century of anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic incitement in the Arab world, but the checkpoints - not a single one of which, in actuality, would exist if the Palestinians, after Israel evacuated the urban areas of Judea and Samaria in the mid-1990s, had set about the task of building their future state rather than inculcating a thirst for "martyrdom" and blood in an entire generation. Ze'ev Sternhell (January 23) chips in that Israel's "traditional liberal-conservative right ... died a long time ago; ... its place has been taken ... with respect to the Arab world, by an aggressive and battle-hungry attitude." Yoel Marcus (January 20) grouses that "Military Intelligence reports about Assad's seriousness do not dovetail with Sharon's political interests at the moment..." That Sharon, despite the godly edict from Military Intelligence, might genuinely doubt Assad's sincerity and be loath to give up the Golan for solid strategic reasons, is something Marcus would not allow because it might make Israel look better than Syria. Soon the separation fence is supposed to go on trial at The Hague. Supporters of Israel understand that it is being built as a defensive measure against the worst sustained campaign of terrorism any country has ever known. Haaretz pundits, though, have a different take. Member of Knesset Yossi Sarid (January 21): "... this fence may begin with protection but ends with a brutal attack on Palestinians who have committed no sin. ... even in my worst nightmares, I never imagined that Ariel Sharon would go as far as he has in his fencing efforts... Without a doubt,... Sharon's fence is a crime against humanity..." Good thing Sarid won't be serving on the International Court of Justice. Gideon Samet (January 21): "The separation fence folly is turning into one of the worst scandals in which an Israeli government has become entangled... The fence is designed to serve as a makeshift interim solution that shoves aside diplomatic resolutions that the prime minister has done his utmost to derail... the fence has been his way of showing there is no way to get around the impasse in talks with the Palestinians - an impasse for which he bears most of the responsibility." Again, Samet not only trashes the fence but sounds the beloved mantra that peace - with the Palestinian Authority, home to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, collaborator with Hizbullah, importer of weapons from Iran, etc. - is shining like an apple on a tree, and it is only Israel that spoils it. These leftists? animus against Sharon himself is prima facie and cultic, and hardly comes up short of Bush-hatred among the American Left. In a different column (January 23), Marcus says: "Since he became prime minister, close to 1,000 Israelis have been killed. No peace, no security, lots of hot air..." Yet if Sharon had at any point ordered the IDF to decisively defeat the terror, there is absolutely no doubt that Marcus would have sung a different tune about him as a brutal warmonger. Doron Rosenblum (January 23) informs us:" ... [Sharon] was elected twice by a landslide not because of his ... successful policies, but because of his trampling, bulldozer-like personality... Only Sharon is capable of grabbing the microphone at a Likud convention and asking, 'Who is in favor of eliminating terror?' - as if his very personality were synonymous with eliminating terror, and not some ugly, raging, egocentric thing." For Yossi Sarid in the already-quoted column, it's even worse: "And as I know him, his character and his plans, I presumed that [the] fence would come out crooked. If Sharon is able to take something straight and twist it out of shape, he will unquestionably do so.. Sharon is larger than our nightmares ... a brute without inhibition or tether, one suited to serve as prime minister of South Africa in the blackest days of the apartheid..." Presumably, a society that would elect this brute twice in landslides is nothing to brag about itself. The Haaretz sages confirm that inference. Novelist-poet Yitzhak Laor (January 19), in a piece on Ambassador Mazel's act of protest in the Swedish museum, suggests that Mazel "succeeded in explaining to the Swedes how far we - not 'the region,' not 'the conflict,' but we - are from notions of the freedom of artistic expression... readers of newspapers on the Internet could learn about what had happened in Stockholm without slanting the incident in the direction of 'Gewald, they're murdering us.' ... We have learned to live not only in fear, but also in the demonization of the other side [and] the total rejection of any rational debate..." The leering cynicism of that "Gewald, they're murdering us" is hard to fathom from an Israeli who has been living in Israel these last few years. The same derisive caricature of Israel as a boorish society hemmed in by fears of the past is offered by Samet in his column: he calls Israel a state in which "a tyrant [Sharon] is taking root," in which it is "so easy to appeal to anti-Semitism, national anxieties and all the other old ghosts ... " Ari Shavit (January 22) refers to "the moral rot greedily eating away at the state," and here, again, is Doron Rosenblum: "Sharon has plunged us into a kind of national chaos of identity that he himself symbolizes. More than being the prime minister of a rational, law-abiding country, he operated like a Diaspora leader in a self-imposed ghetto... Nixon, in the democratic United States, defended himself by saying: 'I am not a crook.' Sharon, in the Israeli Jewish community, can say: 'And even if I am - so what?' " It's all there in the words of these columnists - the self-loathing, the softness toward enemies, the demonization of the prime minister, the crude defamation of a society subjected to severe traumas. Not a struggling democracy but a brutal, lawless, benighted, peace-obstructing country with a mad-dog leader. Even those with a dovish perspective must ask themselves if the intellectual level represented by these columnists is something to be proud of. And Haaretz makes this bilge available to the world on its English website, every day of the week. 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. |
|
IS IRAN REACHING CRITICAL MASS?
Posted by Lewis Lipkin, February 1, 2004. |
On Feb 1, 2004. On the occasion of the Eid al-Adha,(the festival
following the period of the Hajj), Ayatolla Ali Khamenai, Supreme
leader, addressed the Iranian people. There was the usual litany of
hate against the West personified by the Great Satan, the United
States and the paeans of praise for Palestinian efforts against Israel.
There is a sort of "half-time" coaches peptalk urging all good Moslems
to go out there and fight. They can win if they try hard enough.
"...[The West, particularly the US and Israel] are haunted by the thinking that the day may come when the entire Muslim Ummah with millions of hearts in one body, rise up in unity against all these atrocities, the day when the Islamic world, with all its natural wealth, rich historical and cultural heritage, and its geographical expanse, will no more allow these evil powers th at have plundered its resources for two-hundred years, to continue their unbridled aggressions and intimidations. ..." [Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting --http://www.iribnews.com] This reprise of the anti-westernism so prevalent at the time of the 1979 revolution declares the position of the conservative clerical faction in Iran. The position is essentially unchanged. Khamenai and the council of Guardians form the kernel of "mullah" power. The multi-hued groups in opposition to this would-be total power is collectively termed reformist. Also on Feb 1, 2004: 117 members of the Majlis, (the parliament) resigned in protest against the action of the Council of Guardians in pruning the list of those that will be permitted to run in the elections scheduled for mid-month. Eighty of the members of the present Majlis have been declared unsuitable to run. The resignations paralyses the parliament since a 2/3 is necessary for actions such as the pending national budget The mass resignation was the response to the "bone" thrown the reformists when the Guardian Council restored about 1,100 of the 3,600 previously barred candidates to eligibility on the election list. This concession did not however include the 80 sitting members who had hoped to be able to run for reelection Reformist stregnth presumably lies in the youth of the country. Since the government measures taken for recovery from the Iraq war, the proportion of population of age 15 or younger grew to 50% in 1986 and is probably even more skewed in favor of youth today. However, it cannot be presumed that simply because one is young in Iran that one will be automatically anti-clerical. There are very large numbers of youngsters enrolled in the Basij, an auxilliary arm of the Revolutionary Guard. Last July weapon bearing "vigilantes" - members of the Basij - attacked protesting students and patrolled the area near Teheran University. There is also the somewhat older, educated goup, who are without jobs, and who are no longer being exploited by being exported to other countries. This politcally most dangerous group could either be a greater threat or a stronger support,to the clerics than the relatively unorganized mass of youngsters. To appreciate this power, one has only to recall a simillar group, the "armed-intellectuals" who formed the kernel of Hitler' Sturm Abteilung in the early 30s [cbh] The crisis has been building since the student demonstrations last July. It is now in a dead-lock which, apparently, only the Supreme Leader Khamenai can now resolve. Also on Feb 1 2004: More suicide bombings in Iraq, this time with Kurds as principle victims. Almost certainly the perpetrator was not Shi'ite. What is clear is that Shi'ite Iran, whether under clerics or under counter-revolutionaries, in the next few months will continue to covetously eye selected lands in Iraq - Baghdad and the area to its south. Given Iran's historical and traditional relationships with these Iraqi areas, there is the prospect of an alliance and perhaps even eventual incorporation. The most significant Shi'ite sanctuaries are in Iraq - in Karballa and An Najaf. A recent arranged meeting with the Iranian U.N. ambassador and several congressional Republicans prepared for unofficial meetings with Iranian officials. By this time, the covey of congressional aides headed by Senator Arlen Specter's staffer should have arrived in Iran, for the "talks" (that have already been denied by the clericals). One would assume that Wolfowitz is in Iraq for more than merely watching the Superbowl with the troops. Apparently Specter is not the only member of Congress who understands that Hizbollah is a conservative clerical creation. A reformist or counter-revolutionary regime could leave Nasrallah and the Hizbollah with a zero power base, by merely removing the imprimatur of the "competent jurisprudent" of Khomeini's theory. Without Iranian religious and financial support, Hizbollah would very soon become powerless. Contrary to what most people believe, Syria is now only a complacent host for Hizbollah. Also on Feb 1 2004 In Israel, after the release of Hizbollah terrorists in exchange for three Israeli bodies and a live drug dealer, Israel responded to Hizbollah's ideas on future profitable kidnappings of IDF members. "IsraelNN.com) In response to intimidations by Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, that the terrorist organization would carry out more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers, Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz said that 'if Hezbollah does try to go the way of kidnapping soldiers, our response will be extremely harsh. No less than the options are open to Hezbollah, options are also open to us?" [Arutz-7 13:00 Feb 01, '04 / 9 Shevat 5764] |
|
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN ISRAELI
Posted by Harv Weiner, February 1, 2004. |
|
Source: Ma'ariv - translated from Hebrew. On the Israel Action
Committee Vancouver website (http://www.iact.ca).
Translator's note: This was written by Yair Lapid in Ma'ariv (an Israeli newspapers) a few weeks ago (HW:that was in 2002). I translated it because I think that everyone should get the chance to read this now, at these times. Especially after recent events. I hope I did it justice; it is a very, very powerful piece in Hebrew. (To those of you who are confused in the second to last paragraph, rain in Israel is a very good thing. To be an Israeli means to turn on the TV late at night just to find out that instead of "Rambo 3" they are airing a local horror film we all have a part in. To hope there's no one there you know, to be happy when you find out that there's no one there you know, then to feel shame you were happy. To keep looking at the screen even though you know what the next picture will be. To say, "I can't believe I was there just two weeks ago." To feel you've been saved even though you were nowhere near the place. To walk around the house at 2 a.m. and quietly look in on your kids while they are sleeping. To think to yourself how they look so young all of a sudden, underneath the covers, so late at night. To be an Israeli means to know that something has happened, by the music they are playing on the radio. To think, just to yourself, how they always play the most beautiful songs at times like this. To understand that when the anchorman says "there are seriously injured" he means "there are casualties," and "struggling for his life" means "dying." To ask yourself what he meant by "shock victims," only to understand on your own after giving it a couple of seconds of thought. To call your family even though it's very late just to ask, "what's up?" as if nothing is. To go out to the mall as if you're going to the reserves, and to go to the reserves as if you're going to war. To say to yourself, "if I had a tiny bit of brains in my head I would move to Australia." But not to mean it seriously. To argue a little bit more with the person you live with, but to not admit to yourself that it's because of all of the tension. To be an Israeli means to say "we need to hit them hard," without knowing exactly who that is. To say, "this can't go on like this," while worrying that this is exactly how it's going to go on. To say "we need to conquer the Gaza Strip," only to hear yourself say it. To understand that there isn't going to be a simple solution, still to hope that maybe there could be. To listen to the radio and hear people call in saying the most horrific things, to think that it only shows how far we've deteriorated, while wanting, just a little bit, on the inside, to call in yourself. To remember that you've trusted so many leaders in your lifetime that have let you down, but to still tell yourself that there is one out there that won't. To tell yourself that it's time to make out a will, but not to do it. To be an Israeli means to feel fatigue in the middle of the day you just can't explain that starts at your shoulders and goes all the way down your spinal cord. To be an atheist that asks where G-d is, and a religious person that asks where the IDF is. To say to yourself "more people die a year in car accidents then like this" and to no longer know if that is even true anymore. To start thinking that after Jerusalem and Haifa, it will probably be Tel-Aviv's turn. To get mad every time they say "well planned attack," because even that compliment they don't deserve. To know a clear and somber fact that in a day, two max, you'll find out about someone you know that was killed. And if not that, then someone you'll know who knows someone. To be an Israeli means to say "I'm fine, it's the state that's gone to shit." To start sentences with the phrase "well except the situation..." to cancel trips because this isn't the time, and then to go after all because to hell with it all. To remember Rabin, for some reason. To realize that you never spoke to your son about that war, and to swear that you will make the time. To want to go to that new Israeli movie everyone is talking about, just 'cause you want something Israeli. To eat more then usual, to wake up later and then be on the run, to notice how everybody is making more jokes then usual lately. To know that this all means something, but to not be sure what. To be an Israeli means feeling like the country is a little big on you. To exchange familiar sayings with complete strangers, and to hear the strangest sayings from the people you thought were most familiar. To hear the prime minister talk about "willpower," and understand, too late, that he's talking about you. To take comfort in the fact that at least it's raining this year. To stand in front of the window with a hot cup of tea in your hand and to think that, finally, the first time in years it's rained so much, how nice of G-d to clean the world like this. To be willing to accept a postdated check, because that also has to do with what's going on. To sit up late at night and decide it's time to start tightening the belt. To look at old pictures instead of new newspapers. To be an Israeli means to be a slightly better person then you thought you would have to or be able to be. Harv Weiner runs IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com |
|
THOUGHTS FROM A SOLDIER
Posted by Judy Balint, February 1, 2004. |
|
This was written by J.J. Lewis, a newly liberated soldier.
Well, well, well
So this week is an interesting time for me. Over the course of the next few days I will reach a couple of turning points. The two-year anniversary of aliyah, my twenty fourth birthday and being released from the army after a year and a half of diverse and interesting service to my people. On top of all that I am getting kicked out of my home since you may only live here for two years. I decided to use this letter to review this tiny section of my life in order to clear it up for myself and perhaps to give you a glimpse of what I have been through. As I pack my bags to leave, I do as most people do and review the accumulated piles of junk, memories and associated items that gather in one's life. I see all that I have done. A pamphlet from a speech, material from my kenes mishtacharim (gathering of those being freed from the army in which they help you with the process of going from the army to being a citizen), tickets from plays and concerts, random drawings, doodles, and full on paintings, all reminding me of where I have been and friends I have made. I will miss the people I lived with here, they have become brothers and sisters. Helping each other out with problems and just enjoying each other's company. Being here without any family makes you adopt those around you as surrogates, and the bond grows tighter with time. So I will miss those of ever-divergent backgrounds that I have lived with over these two years and hope to stay close with them even as I leave this nest and move a few blocks away to a different apartment. Ok, fine that isn't so traumatizing, it's the same feeling that you get when you leave camp or say good-bye to roommates, but the army is something else. While in the army you have direction and a path in your life. You know you are actively doing something worthwhile and are living a selfless existence. The trauma of basic training, the drills and discipline, onward to advanced training that turn a soldier into a warrior, then the hardships of actual service in hostile cities. You learn to live without the comforts of life, get used to the bitter cold of standing guard for long hours with the only thing to occupy your mind are paranoid visions of how a terrorist could attack you, a sniper from that roof, machine gun attack from an outlying hill, RPG from a passing car. You slowly learn to cope with needing to ask your commander who's a few years younger than you, for permission to pee. Learn to hold back your personal feeling as you transport prisoners or even the occasional dead body of a terrorist. As you have to tell some women that they can't take the direct route to their field, or have to take a detour to their house. As you have to point a weapon at someone and be prepared to actually kill another man. These things are hard and they do harden you, they allow you to make hard decisions and make you confident that you can if the need arises. You learn to cope with these things, joke around death and any other hard subject. You gain the ability to function while starving, exhausted and worn out. It is a painful and difficult process but it is worthwhile in the end. This week I took part in the tekes sof maslul(end of tour ceremony)of the guys I went through training with, it was a nice way to end my service almost like a graduation. I helped others get into the army and tried to prepare them for what to expect (it's never enough and no one really believes what they got themselves into till after its over). All in all I spent the last year and a half of my life, and even the two years of my aliyah fully, filled with purpose. I feel that I could not have done anything better with my time, yet am glad that this trial is finally over. Next time join me as I discuss my quarter life crisis, or "done with the army turned 24 and have no clue what to do next." Judy Balint is author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen). |
|
ISRAEL'S GIFT TO A TERRORIZED WORLD
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 1, 2004. |
|
This was written by Yossi Klein Halevi and appeared
in the Jerusalem Post today. Mr. Halevi is a contributing editor and
Israel correspondent for The New Republic and an associate fellow of
the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.
The BBC recently invited me to a panel discussion on the subject "Is Israel Losing Its Soul?" Cynics can be forgiven for noting a certain improvement in the network's attitude toward Israel, by assuming that Israel still has a soul to lose. Unfortunately, I couldn't make the debate, but if I had participated, here's what I would have said: "Before dissecting the flawed soul of Israel, I'd suggest we discuss the collective soul of Palestine and, by extension, of the Arab world. Israel, after all, was ready to become the first country in history to voluntarily withdraw from its historic heartland and share sovereignty over its capital city. By contrast, Palestinian society has become prisoner of a death cult that celebrates mass murderers as religious martyrs and educational role models. And, unlike the Israeli soul, which is torn over the price we must pay for self-preservation, the Palestinian soul shows few signs of remorse for its culture of national suicide." No country's soul has been more severely tested than Israel's. Only Israel has faced terrorism from its creation; only Israel confronts an enemy that considers its existence an offense. The vitality of our soul is tested daily in the intensity of our dilemmas. How do we reduce humiliation at the roadblocks while controlling an enemy that uses ambulances to smuggle explosives belts? Which is the more moral decision - to kill Hamas leaders along with innocent Palestinians or allow mass murderers to escape and risk the lives of innocent Israelis? How do we maintain basic human sympathy for Palestinian suffering without encouraging Palestinian self-pity and avoidance of blame for creating this disaster? Not all our answers to those and other challenges have been wise. Sometimes we yield to immoral power, sometimes to immoral weakness. Still, it is our struggle for balance between security and morality that is a sign of the vitality of the Israeli soul. In the global war against terror, Israel is humanity's laboratory for testing the limits of a democracy under permanent siege. The value of that experiment is ignored by Israel's foreign critics. But not only by them. Our own ideologues of left and right demand a simplistic resolution of the tension between security and morality. Dogmatic leftists - like the Israeli human rights activists who petitioned the international court against the security fence - perceive the Palestinians as a benign minority merely seeking freedom, rather than as part of a regional majority that wants to uproot us and denies the legitimacy of our being. For their part, dogmatic rightists despise the democratic norms we've imposed on ourselves and want nothing more than to be freed of those constraints. In measuring the state of our soul in the war against terrorism, I would suggest two criteria. The first is our ability to withstand terrorist blackmail. That is not only a tactical but a moral necessity. If Israel surrenders - for example, if we negotiate substantive political issues under terrorist fire - then terrorists everywhere will be encouraged to persist. If Israeli society can be broken, terrorists will realize, then any society can be broken. The fact that we haven't surrendered to a terrorist assault intended to atomize Israeli society by frightening us away from our public spaces is Israel's gift to a terrorized world. Arguably no other Western nation could have withstood the sustained atrocity assault we've endured over the last three years and still remain basically intact. IN A recent article decrying what he called a "failed Israeli society," former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg wrote, "Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism." In fact, our ability to maintain those "centers of Israeli escapism" and refuse to be intimidated is proof of our moral health. Burg ends his eulogy for Israel by appealing to Israel's friends abroad to help us once again become a light to the nations. But that's precisely what we've been during these last three years, even if much of the West and some on the Israeli left don't realize it. When we weigh our tactics in the war against terrorism, the psychological impact on terrorists should be a central consideration of our decision-making. By that measure, the prisoner exchange agreement between Israel and Hizbollah, which frees hundreds of terrorists and rewards kidnapping, is immoral. Not surprisingly, Hizbollah leader Nassrallah boasted, just after the exchange was announced, that he would now initiate additional kidnappings of Israelis. President Moshe Katzav's declaration that he was ready to pay "any price" for the return of Ron Arad was likewise an immoral psychological empowerment of terror. The question of unilateral withdrawal is not just a political but a moral dilemma. Ehud Barak's Lebanon withdrawal, on the eve of final status negotiations with the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000, only encouraged the Palestinians to "learn to speak Lebanese" as some Palestinians put it at the time. The current terrorist war is, to some extent, a result of Barak's flight from Lebanon. These days, a single terrorist attack can produce as many casualties as Israel suffered in a year of combat in Lebanon. That is the price of surrender. If the Sharon government wants to ensure that unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria won't empower terrorism, it needs to balance withdrawal with a tough message to the Arab world. Annexing those parts of the territories still in our possession after withdrawal, for example, would make the point that terrorism exacts a price not only on the society that is targeted but also on the society that encourages it. The second criterion for judging the state of Israel's soul is the vitality of our democratic institutions and culture. We note with justifiable pride that Israel is the Middle East's only democracy. But that's not just a debating point against Arab propagandists: it also imposes responsibility. As the sole Middle East democracy at a time of radical transition for the region, the responsibility to be an example of democracy under stress is even more acute. Yes, it is maddening to see Mustafa Dirani, who sold Ron Arad to the Iranians, appear in an Israeli court to sue for six million shekels in compensation for abuse he claimed he endured under interrogation. But decisively resolving the unbearable tension inherent in our war against terror, in favor of either an absolutist human rights agenda or an absolutist security agenda, would destroy the essence of Israel's soul, which is the ability to sustain paradox. |
|
THE DEMOGRAPHIC TIME BOMB
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 1, 2004. |
|
This is the famous demographic time bomb that we have been warned
about time and time again.
There are very few factors that so eloquently express the total insanity and ideological bankruptcy of the Chilloni establishment as this. For 55 years it has been the official policy of the State to encourage the abortion of Jewish babies and provide financial assistance to Arabs that encourages them to have large families. Furthermore, everything possible has been done to denigrate, restrict and impoverish the only sector of the Jewish population that has large families; the religious and especially the Haraidim. So what did you expect to happen? This is a news item from today's Arutz-7 (http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com). Israeli Muslim Population Growing At Abnormally High Rate:
(IsraelNN.com) The central bureau of statistics released population
figures, attesting to the fact that there are now 1,070,000 Muslim
citizens living in Israel comprising 16 percent of the total
population. The report also notes that the Muslim birthrate is one of
the highest in the world and is 2.4 times as great as the Jewish one
with one quarter of Israel's children being Muslim. The bureau
predicts that, if the present trend continues, Muslims will constitute
20 percent of Israel's population by 2020.
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.
|
|
SOUND THE GREAT TRUMPET
Posted by Patricia Berlyn, February 1, 2004. |
|
A Time to Speak is a Message from Israel that appears in monthly
issues on the A Time To Speak website
(http://www.israel.net/timetospeak).
Each message is on a theme that relates to Israel and the Middle East past and present. The contents include history, background, current events, analysis and comment, and excerpts from published writings. A Time To Speak is designed to go behind and beyond standard news media reporting, that is necessarily brief and at times incompetent. It is entirely independent, and has no affiliation with any group, organization or political party. This essay is No. 37 (#1 of Volume IV), from the January 2004 issue of Time To Speak. - PB And on that day... you shall be picked up one by one, O Children of Israel! And in that day a great trumpet shall be sounded. - Isaiah 27:12-13 Too often, officials and governments of Israel and blocs within the population mute the trumpet or play false notes upon it. It must now ring out loud and clear, proclaiming truth obscured by lies and ignorance, awakening pride and fidelity where they have gone slack, and rousing those slipping into self-delusion and weakening of will. The Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying "Unto your seed have I given this land" - Genesis 15:18 "I will bring you into the Land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and I will give it to you as a possession. I am The Lord." - Exodus 6:8 "I will restore My people Israel.
When The Lord turned back the captivity of Zion
The Land of Israel is a sacred trust, not a tract of common real estate up for sale or deals. Through 2,000 years of exile and dispersal, mostly under conditions of cruel oppression and degradation, the Children of Israel did not relinquish that trust. When at last the Land has been restored and redeemed, those who would toss it away betray themselves, their ancestors and their descendants. Official spokesmen for Israeli government policy habitually make public statements about land and borders in terms of "security needs", as though that were a necessary excuse to allow a nation to keep some bit here and there of its own territory. The people of Israel came home a land that had fallen into an abandoned, desolate wilderness of desert and swamp, and restored it once again to a Land of Milk and Honey. It has no obligation, indeed no right, to bargain it away to populations who in recent times came in from other regions to take advantage of what the Jewish pioneers had created. It has no obligation, indeed no right, to bestow it on the "Arab Palestinians" whose nationality was invented no earlier than 1967 and to serve no other purpose than the destruction of an Israel whose existence and accomplishments are intolerable to its neighbors and their claque in other nations. Israel has no obligation, indeed no right, to be a willing party to a newly invented international doctrine of To The Defeated Aggressor Belongs the Spoils. It is the right, and indeed the obligation, of governments of Israel to refuse to surrender the heart of its historic homeland for the invention of a fraudulent terrorist state that will live only to kill. There are many people in the United States, and some elsewhere, who are willing to stand against the injustice and folly of forcing such surrender upon Israel, and of forcing the pioneers of Israel off of the land they have redeemed and rebuilt. It is unsufferable that any government or prime minister of Israel should - show less righteousness and faith than these true friends [For historical data, see: Issue 2, "The History and Meaning of Palestine and Palestinian"; Issue 6, "Thy Dwellings, O Israel"; Issue 8, "Tongue of Deceit - Part I".] One of the most egregious examples of the refusal of officials to protect the heritage of its nation is the supine policy on Temple Mount. The place where the First and Second Temples stood has for 3,000 years been of supreme sanctity to Judaism, and all Jews worldwide turn toward it when they pray. When Jordan attacked Israel in 1948, with the support and assistance of Great Britain, it managed to seize Temple Mount. For the next 19 years of Jordanian occupation, no Jew of any nationality was permitted to visit it. It was the victim of the most vulgar desecrations. Then when Jordan again attacked Israel in 1967, Temple Mount was at last restored to Israel and the Jewish people. In meticulous regard for the religious sensibilities of others, the Muslim waqf was permitted to keep the administration of the ancient Christian Church of St. Mary of Justinian that Arab conquerors had converted into the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Since that time, the waqf had by default been permitted to take over virtual control of Temple Mount. It builds what and where it pleases, in a program to take over the entire Mount as one mosque. Standards laws and regulations on building are not enforced, even when it puts the ancient walls in danger of collapse. When the waqf permits repairs to the walls, engineers come from Jordan as though Temple Mount would be desecrated if the Jews who made it holy were to touch one of its stones. Every trace of anything Jewish or Christian on Temple Mount is being sought out and purposefully destroyed. Scholars and archaeologists, Israeli and non-Israeli, have pleaded with successive governments of Israel to stop these depredations, that are costing incalculable losses in relics, inscriptions, texts, being blotted out of history forever. The pleas have been ignored. Muslim worship on Temple Mount is permitted and protected. Jewish worship is forbidden. It has been known for an Israeli policeman to arrest a Jewish visitor on charges that he looked as though he might be reciting a silent prayer. Thus it is official policy to perpetuate the anti-Jewish bias of the foreign regimes of the past. Despite proclamations to the contrary, Jerusalem and Temple Mount are not significant in either Islam or in Arab history. [See further Issue No. 1 "Jerusalem - I Pledge", and Issue 34 "Weighed in the Balance"] It is, however, important to the enemies of Israel to take Jerusalem and Temple Mount away from the Jews - knowing, as some Israeli politicians do not, that an Israel that will throw them away has cut out its own heart. Saying 'Peace! Peace!' but there is no peace. - Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11 It is definitely because they have misled My people, by saying 'Peace!' when there is no peace. - Ezekiel 13:10 "The doctrine of peace at any price had done more mischief than any I can well recall that have been afloat in this country. It has caused more wars than any of the most ruthless conquerors" - Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 19th century. The Hebrew word shalom is usually rendered into English as "peace", and is so much a byword that in everyday speech it serves as both greeting and farewell - both "hello" and "goodbye". But "peace" is not an adequate translation for "shalom". The word comes from a root-concept for "complete" and the over-all connotation is "well-being". It is thus a word that cannot be appropriately applied to the "peace" ploys of the past dozen years. 1] The Oslo Accords, perpetrated in the autumn of 1993, have the shameful distinction of being one of the worst acts of criminal folly in the 4,000-year history of the Children of Israel. They were devised by an eccentric political clique noted for hostility to all Judaic tradition, bred in secret, and foisted on the country even though a majority of the population and its representatives opposed it. The substance of the Oslo Accords was to pick up the dregs of a disintegrating terrorist movement and install it with autonomous authority over the heart of the Hebrew homeland. The outcome was a bloody deluge of terror, mass murder, anguish and peril is all too well known today. And this willfully self-abasing surrender by a nation that had no need to surrender was seen by its enemies not as generosity but as weakness, met not with goodwill but with scorn and contempt, inspiring new hopes that Israel is broken in spirit and can yet be destroyed. These consequences, so far from being unforeseen or unpredictable, were widely and resoundingly foretold. The clique then grasping political power branded all those who raised their voices or took up their pens as "enemies of peace". 2] As though nothing had been learned from the Oslo blunder, the next forfeit to "peace" was a rout out of the security zone on the Israel-Lebanon border. Harassed by loud protest groups financed by the European Union, the government-of-the-day withdrew the military guard literally overnight. This precipitate flight - (a) abandoned the
Christians of South Lebanon who had been virtual allies 3] As though nothing had been learned from the catastrophic miscalculations of Oslo and Lebanon, the current Prime Minister of Israel and self-dubbed "Warrior" Ariel Sharon has inveigled a bare majority of his cabinet to accept the Roadmap designed by the alien "Quartet". The designers are the European Union, Russia, the United Nations - whose credentials and records guarantee ill-will to Israel - and the U.S. Department of State, whose stance is opposite to that of the American people. The motive for the Roadmap is to ensure that the damage done by the Oslo Accords should not be undone but, rather, should be made even worse. [See Issue No. 28, "Express Road to Doom"] 4] Yossi Beilin, arch-perpetrator of the Oslo Accords and current errand-boy of the European Union seems to think that he has learned something - that with egomaniacal effrontery and contempt for democracy he can succeed once again in imposing his will on his unwilling country. This time, by way of his Geneva Initiative - aptly termed by some commentators "a suicide-note". [See Issue No. 35, "Making Mischief"] His hoax violates the law against private citizens negotiating with foreign parties, he has yet to be subject to any legal action and verbal admonitions from the government officials have been disquietingly subdued. 5] This prime minister and his party won office by unprecedented electoral margins because they promised the voters a reversal of the lethal policies of its rejected predecessors. But rather than carry out those reversals demanded by the public, the platform of the winners is discarded and the failed, discredited and rejected policies of the losers adopted in its place. Facing a sadistic enemy openly determined on the destruction of Israel, and delighting in the mass murder of Israelis, his policy is not victory but accommodation, trying to persuade the enemy to "reform" just enough to let him accede to its demands and gratify its ambitions. To this end, he has presented the enemy with a fierce ultimatum: Either lower the level of terrorist mass-murders long enough for me to give away the Land of Israel to you, or else I will unilaterally run away and abandon it to you. The catchword for this policy is "disengagement" and it is disengagement indeed - from legitimate rights, from history, from faith, from pride, dignity, self-respect and from survival. "We looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them." - Numbers 13:33 1] Public spokesmen for official policy, who seem chosen for their lack of verbal or visual qualifications, appear on the airwaves after every atrocities to reiterate the plea for "negotiations" to make "peace" with the homicidal offspring of Oslo. 2] After every atrocity, there is an official threat/promise of "response". More often than not, there is no response. When there is a response, it is primarily directed against empty buildings. 3] When Hezbollah terrorists fire missiles across the border into Israel, sometimes killing with them, there is an official assurance that Israel "reserves the right" to take action. Reserves the right, but does not exercise it. 4] As part of Sweden's preparation for an international conference on genocide to be held in Stockholm, a stupid display was installed in the courtyard of the national museum. It promotes in the guise of Snow White a female jihad-bomber who murdered scores of Jews and Arabs in a restaurant in Israel. (Israel's ambassador to Sweden disconnected the spotlights on Snow White, and was denounced worldwide for "vandalizing a work of art".) The government of Israel announced that it would not send a delegation to the conference unless the exhibit was removed. The exhibit was not removed. The government of Israel sent a delegation anyway - but upheld the dignity of the Jewish people by replacing the designated personnel with participants of lower rank. An obsession with showing "good will" too often achieves no good, and too often does great harm. Succumbing to pressure from outside meddlers can be fatal. Some examples are cited in "Lethal Gestures", by Dan Diker, Jerusalem Issue Brief, 18 December 2003: "[...] Israeli gestures in the absence of Palestinian security measures have had proven lethal consequences for Israeli civilians and soldiers alike. Improving the economic situation of the Palestinians is important, but the precipitous removal of security measures can cost lives. This point should be remembered before Israel is asked again to undertake similar risks in the future. "[...] While security officials report receiving 52 separate warnings of impending terror attacks as of December 17,2 the IDF announced it would continue to ease restrictions on the movement of Palestinians throughout the West Bank. "The Israeli moves followed sharp criticism by U.S. Middle East envoy David Satterfield who on December 11 'slammed' Israel for continued 'restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians' and 'the consistent failure to issue permits to Palestinians identified as critical to the success of the reform effort'... In addition, Secretary of State Colin Powell urged Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on December 12 to do more to alleviate Palestinian hardship... "Israel continues to pay a high price for acceding to American pressure to ease West Bank restrictions. On December 3, at the last minute, Israeli security forces prevented two Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel by Islamic Jihad terrorists, one against a public school in Yokneam and another in Beit Shean. According to news reports, the terrorists, under the direction of Islamic Jihad headquarters in Damascus, sought to enter Israel through the northern Jordan Valley after the easing of security restrictions. Because of Israels new security fence that separates Yokneam from the terroristsstaging area in Jenin, they were forced to travel a much longer route around the fence to the Jordan Valley, providing the IDF with critically needed time to learn of their plan and thwart it. While the security fence has already repeatedly proven its utility, U.S. officials continue to express their reservations about the entire project. "On November 18, IDF sergeants Shlomo Belski and Shaul Lahav were shot and killed at close range by a Palestinian terrorist as they stood guard at a checkpoint near Bethlehem on the tunnel road linking Jerusalem to the Gush Etzion communities south of the capital. The attack was carried out by Jabbar al-Ahmad, 21, a member of the Palestinian security services as well as the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a Fatah terror group under the direct control of Yasser Arafat. According to IDF sources, this attack was only the latest in a series of Palestinian terror actions against Israeli targets in the area since Israel turned over full security control of Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority on July 1, 2003, as a goodwill gesture to former PA prime minister Abu Mazen in exchange for promises that the PA would combat terrorism and maintain security control. On October 24, a Fatah terror cell originating in Bethlehem opened fire at IDF soldiers guarding the same checkpoint... According to Israeli security sources, In the five months since the IDF turned over security control of the Bethlehem area, Palestinian security agencies have yet to prevent terror activities emanating from the area, despite PA statements to the contrary. [...] "Since the unilaterally announced Palestinian hudna (cease-fire) of June 29, 2003, 85 Israelis have been killed and 417 wounded in Palestinian terror attacks, as of December 16, 2003.9 The hudna came to a violent end on August 19 when a Hamas suicide bomber blew up a Jerusalem city bus, murdering 23 Orthodox Jewish worshippers returning from evening prayers at the Western Wall, many of them children, and wounding nearly 150. One Israeli official noted immediately following the attack that the bomber had 'first looked into the eyes of his victims before detonating his explosive belt.' "On September 9, 2003, Hamas terrorists struck twice more, murdering 16 people and wounding over 80 in two suicide bombings within the space of six hours. Ihab Abdel Kader Salim, 19, killed nine Israeli soldiers and wounded scores of others at a soldiershitchhiking post near Tel Aviv. Israeli security sources confirmed that Salim had been released from Israeli administrative detention on March 3, 2003. "That same evening, Ramez Fahmi Az Aldin Salim, 22, detonated an explosive belt that killed seven Israelis and wounded 50 others at Cafe Hillel in Jerusalem. The bomber had been released from IDF administrative detention on February 2, 2003. Among those killed in this attack were [U.S.-born] Rabbi Dr. David Appelbaum, head of Shaare Tzedek Hospitals emergency room, and his daughter Nava, who was to have been married the following day. Dr. Appelbaums death was a particularly profound loss for the Jewish state as he was widely recognized as a global authority on emergency medicine and had personally cared for thousands of victims of Palestinian terror since 1981. "Despite Israel's repeated goodwill gestures and the widespread easing of travel restrictions on Palestinians, as well as the prime ministers recent public statements indicating his intention to take unilateral steps to improve the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians, senior Israeli security officials warn that such moves could create a terrorist 'wonderland,' enabling them to 'rest, rearm, and upgrade.' With Yasser Arafat once again in control of the PAs armed forces and his encouragement of numerous splinter terror groups, there is little doubt that additional gestures Israel may be compelled to make could have a lethal impact on Israeli citizens in the future. "It is easy to conclude a U.S.-Israeli diplomatic meeting with a call for seemly innocuous gestures on the part of Israel intended to improve the everyday life of Palestinians. The betterment of Palestinian living standards is an important goal. However, Israeli gestures in the absence of Palestinian security measures have had proven lethal consequences for Israeli civilians and soldiers alike. This point should be remembered before Israel is asked again to undertake similar risks in the future." In the military action against a terrorist base in Jenin, 23 Israeli soldiers, z"l, lost their lives unnecessarily because their consideration for Arab civilians led them into an ambush. (This was the real "Jenin Massacre", the term misapplied by hysterical news media and lying UN officials to an imaginary mass slaying of Arabs that never happened.) Avihu Keinan, z"l, a young soldier from the community re-established at biblical Shilo, lost his life when the military doctrine of humane restraint put him in unnecessary peril. His father, Moshe Keinan, speaks out in "A True Jewish Morality Not A False One," Reported by IMRA (Independent Review and Analysis) 11 October 2003: "Moshe Keinan, father of Givati Brigade reconnaissance unit soldier, Avihu Keinan, who was killed in action the day before Rosh Hashanah while searching for a terrorist commander, will be marching to Jerusalem from his home in Shiloh. He will depart from his son's grave in the Shiloh Cemetery on Sunday morning, October 12. "He is demanding that the Israeli armed forces be instructed to fight the war against terror in a manner consistent with true Jewish morality, and not the false morality which endangers our soldiers and citizens. "He is demanding that the army act in a truly moral way; it should not care more for the enemy and the enemy's supporters than it does for Israeli soldiers. "He is demanding a morality that is not perverted by unnecessary feelings of guilt, a morality that does not irresponsibly endanger our soldiers to the benefit of our enemy. "Moshe Keinan does not view as "moral" a policy that does not first and foremost protect the lives of our soldiers and citizens. A 'morality' that cares more for the lives of the leaders of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad than it does for the lives of our soldiers and citizens is a false morality. "A true Jewish morality protects Israeli children on buses, teenagers in shopping malls, young couples in coffee houses and adults in restaurants over the lives of the terrorists and their supporters. "Even the Geneva Convention acknowledges that civilians cannot be used as shields. The lives of these civilians are their own responsibility of those who place them in danger. "Those who support this false morality are themselves immoral; they are endangering and damaging the lives of Israeli civilians and soldiers. [...]" Avihu Keinan is buried in his home town of Shilo, one of the communities that Ariel Sharon is threatening to abandon to the terrorists who killed him. Mr. Keinan has sworn never to be pulled away from his son's grave. It is more and more often questioned by Israel's friends
in the world, whether this young-ancient nation has lost the spirit
and courage which created and sustained it. It has not. But it is
ill-served by those who advanced themselves to its leadership and then
proved themselves unworthy to lead. They toot on a penny-whistle, when
it is past time to Sound the Great Trumpet.
Patricia Berlyn is a writer and editor, mostly on the history and
culture of ancient Israel. Her article entitled "Twelve Bad
Arguments For A State Of Palestine" is in the
September-October 2003 Issue of Think-Israel.
|
| Home | Featured Stories | Did You Know? | Readers' Blog-Eds | Background Information | News On The Web |