The Truth About Israel

2006-05-10T07:21:00.000-04:00

Off topic, but I had to post this.

Have a close look at both the photographs & read the messages below them. Forward this message to as many people as you can. This won't fulfill any of your wishes; nor ignoring it will cause any misfortune; but its our moral duty to be concerned...towards humanity; take care...

Kevin Carter (photographer) took the picture below...

This was found in his diary ,

Dear God, I promise I will never waste my food no matter how bad it can taste and how full I may be. I pray that He will protect this little boy, guide and deliver him away from his misery. I pray that we will be more sensitive towards the world around us and not be blinded by our own selfish nature and interests.

I hope this picture will always serve as a reminder to us that how fortunate we are and that we must never ever take things for granted.

Please don't break.. keep on forwarding to our friends On this good day.. Let's make a prayer for the suffering in anywhere any place around the globe and send this friendly reminder to others Think & look at this...when you complain about your food and the food we wasted daily.........

2005-07-21T08:50:00.000-04:00

No essay... no B.S.... no long dribble...

One picture says it all...

This might be a unique style of a mechitza, but it's no civil war like some are led to believe...

2005-01-12T07:07:00.000-05:00

The Unilateral Withdrawal: A Security Error of Historical Magnitude

Yaakov Amidror

The Aims of the Disengagement Plan

On April 18, 2004, the Israeli government issued a general outline of its proposed unilateral disengagement plan from Palestinian territories. The government announcement correctly played down any advantages to be expected from the plan. It was claimed that "a better security situation, at least in the long term" will be achieved - a meaningless, vague statement. The announcement did not mention the promises made by the former head of the prime minister's office regarding a freeze of the situation in Judea and Samaria following the execution of the plan. On the contrary, the announcement claimed that the plan was created because "the stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation." Furthermore, "the relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria . . . will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions."

It is true that dismantling settlements and removing army units will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, an achievement that has great potential. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that friction with the Palestinians would be mitigated in numerous areas between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River if Jews were evacuated from those sites. However, virtually all the experts agree that an expectation of improvement in the quality of Palestinian life is totally unfounded, since disengagement will prove disastrous to the Palestinian economy.

Furthermore, the claim that "the process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip" is unfounded from both the legal and diplomatic aspects. Clearly, as long as Israel guards the external perimeter of the Gaza Strip, and no one is permitted to enter or leave without inspection and approval, it will continue to be regarded as responsible for the fate of the residents there. In addition, the pressure to open entry and exit doors for the Palestinians will be substantial, and it is reasonable to assume that Israel will compromise security needs in order to ease the pressure. It therefore seems that the Israeli government has not succeeded in producing a single serious argument that can refute objections and justify the grave step that it is taking.

At times when a diplomatic plan is proposed, it is difficult to estimate where it will lead from the security aspect, and even after some time has elapsed, the actual result may remain in dispute. There are also people who defend certain moves although reality differs entirely from what they envisioned. The correct approach to be adopted when analyzing diplomatic proposals, as in the case of the disengagement plan, is the analytical one that asks: What are the chances of improving the security situation after the disengagement, and what is the risk that this situation will deteriorate? This is not the place to present alternatives to the plan under discussion, but it is fitting to estimate the possible developments if the status quo were preserved, without execution of the plan.

Supporters of the unilateral withdrawal from the left of the political map assess the positive features along the lines of, "the disengagement plan offers an opportunity for the creation of a positive dynamic in Israeli-Palestinian relations." In other words, the disengagement plan may well be "the first stage of resolving the conflict with the Palestinians; the partner will be created if the Palestinians seize the opportunity and demonstrate a serious attitude to the first stage of the roadmap that must lead to the reduction of violence."

Although the roadmap demands more vigorous and clear steps than simple "reduction of violence," even those who are prepared to accept this minor gesture are called on to explain how it will be possible to persuade the Palestinians to reduce the violence after withdrawal from Gaza. Even after Arafat's departure from the stage, is there any realistic chance that his successors will agree to fight against Hamas? Will they take any active steps to prevent its operations, and how will they dismantle the terrorist infrastructure or prevent its reinforcement?

Arafat demonstrated that he did not wish to take the required steps in order to weaken Palestinian terrorism capabilities, although the Israeli leadership demanded and expected this from him in 1994, when he and his cohorts arrived on the scene. Why should the Palestinian leadership act differently when Israel is withdrawing under the pressure of the very same terror, now that the Palestinians have made no pledge of any kind to Israel, in contrast to their commitment after the Oslo Accords? Obviously many of the Palestinian residents of Gaza desire quiet that will permit them to live normal lives. Yet will a withdrawal from Gaza that is perceived as running away in fact strengthen their position in Palestinian society?

For a while it appeared there was a chance the Egyptians would enter the picture. However, this apparently was a false impression that resulted from lack of familiarity with Egyptian policy. It seems rather that Egypt would at most slightly increase its efforts, meager until now, to prevent the smuggling of arms into Gaza, and that it would aid in training the Palestinian security forces. Nor does the absence of the Egyptians from the picture permit an analogy with Lebanon. Syria is currently preserving the fragile equilibrium in southern Lebanon and preventing escalation on the part of Hizbollah - which some of us predicted would follow the IDF withdrawal - because it fears the price of a war in the north. Without Egypt, the Gaza theater does not appear to include a force that on the one hand would fear an Israeli threat, and on the other would be capable of forcing the Palestinians to halt the terror.

Consequently it is far from clear on what the supporters of the disengagement plan base their optimistic assumptions regarding the future.

The Operational and Tactical Significance Given this likely vacuum, an estimate must be made of what is liable to happen in the Gaza Strip itself, and what is the significance of transferring responsibility for the defense of the residents of Sderot, Ashkelon, and the western Negev to the Palestinians. At present, and as opposed to the stipulations of the Oslo Accords, no one on the Palestinian side has made any commitment to combat terror.

Contrary to the argument sometimes aired in the Israeli press that Hamas prefers that Israel remain in Gaza, the aim of the organization is in fact to liberate the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria from any Israeli presence, and subsequently continue the long, hard struggle on the other side of the Green Line. Consequently it may be estimated that:

a.. The departure of IDF forces from Gaza may be disastrous at the tactical level. It may bring today's Qassam rockets to the heart of Ashkelon, whose fate will become that of Sderot. If the range of the rockets increases, other towns will become additional targets. b.. It is impossible to predict the ramifications of evacuating northern Samaria and whether a threat of rocket attacks against the center of the State of Israel will result. This will depend on the extent of the freedom of action given to the IDF in the region. c.. The disengagement will cause a significant reduction in Israel's ability to respond locally - both in Gaza and northern Samaria - to developments such as rocket attacks. This reduction will inevitably result from the expected deterioration of the level of intelligence and even more from the restricted freedom of action of the operational forces. The IDF will lose its capability of combating the chain of production and firing of the Qaasam rockets. d.. It will be more difficult to defend the line of the Gaza fence when on the other side there is no Israeli force capable of creating a real buffer zone. e.. If over the course of time Israeli control of the Philadelphi route becomes more tenuous, or if a sea port is constructed in Gaza or the Gaza airport becomes operational again, as promised in the Oslo agreements, then rockets that can reach Kiryat Gat and the southern outskirts of Ashdod can be smuggled in. Furthermore, surface-to-air missiles will also likely be smuggled in, curtailing the Israeli Air Force's freedom of action above Gaza or even in Israeli skies near the fence.

Thus, Israel is about to establish a state in Gaza, a state in which Hamas will have freedom of action and be joined by the umbilical cord to Hizbollah. When Israel no longer has the capability of closely supervising the sea and air borders of the Gaza Strip, the Lebanese model of the northern border recurs in the southwest, whereby rockets that boast a range of dozens of kilometers are perched on the dividing line and threaten Israeli towns. Israel will lose its capability of retaliating against terror originating in Gaza, just as it currently does not fight against terror coming from Lebanon: 80 percent of the terrorist attacks originating in Judea and Samaria are perpetrated by organizations receiving Hizbollah aid and financing, and Israel is doing nothing because of its fear of retaliatory rockets by Hizbollah.

It is impossible to know if the situation will deteriorate immediately and we will see the results in Ashkelon in a few days, or if the threat will be realized at a later date, after international pressure has been applied to Israel to present the next program for withdrawal. It is reasonable to assume that Palestinian offensive capability will be built up under the umbrella of its control in the field, and the threat will be displayed in accordance with Palestinian needs. Israel will lack the capability of preventing or influencing the realization of this threat.

The escalation of terror since 1994, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, until the present gives a clear indication of what is likely to happen in the future, when the Strip will be an area off limits to critical Israel activity. Indeed, those who think that it will be possible to act on intelligence in the Gaza Strip with the same ease that the IDF enjoys today ignore the political constraints. After the withdrawal the IDF will be unable to operate in Gaza. Only if murderous terrorist activities originate from there over a long period of time will Israel slowly, and after paying a bloody price, acquire the legitimacy to act again in the Gaza Strip. The terror that will be encountered by Israel in the future, if the Palestinians decide to employ it, will be far more sophisticated and less vulnerable.

The War against Terror and Disengagement The critical situation described above is all but certain, yet does not represent the gravest damage to be sustained. Even more serious is the likely possibility that the unilateral withdrawal will harm the deterrent concept that Israel (and the democratic world) is laboring to build in the face of the waves of global terror. By its action Israel will declare publicly that terror is a winning formula, and will thus spur the continuation of terror both at home and abroad.

The Palestinian war of terror erupted four years ago, at a time when Israel and the US president were prepared to hand over to the Palestinians the entire Gaza Strip including the Philadelphi route, the Temple Mount and most of the Old City of Jerusalem, and more than 90 percent of Judea and Samaria. Yossi Beilin's personal proposal was also on the agenda, in which Israel would absorb a significant number of refugees as part of an overall settlement. At no stage were the Palestinians prepared to avow that the agreement would form the end of the conflict and that they would not raise further demands.

Partly in an analogy with the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon several months earlier, the Palestinians assumed they could overcome Israel by means of terror. Arafat was prepared to go to war even though in the negotiations with Ehud Barak he had scored tremendous achievements. The Palestinian state was about to be established with the blessing of the US and with the agreement of Israel; its capital would be East Jerusalem with its center in Haram al-Sharif - the Temple Mount. However, Arafat refused to accept the proposal, apparently since he was not ready to be the leader who ended the conflict, and he therefore did not agree to make a commitment that the Palestinians would have no additional demands in the future. In his view, as with many of his supporters who had seen the "salami technique" in action, the agreement was to be merely another stage in the struggle to destroy the State of Israel. It is therefore also clear why he could not consent to the generous quota of refugees that Beilin suggested would be allowed to return to Israel. Arafat contended that no restrictions should be placed on the number of refugees eligible to return, just as in effect no restrictions should be placed on the efforts to destroy Israel at a later stage. (Ironically, Abu Mazen declared recently that in the Camp David talks of 2000 Arafat was prepared to make greater concessions than he himself was.)

The tool employed to subdue Israel and force it to accept greater Palestinian demands was terror, which after the years of drawn-out fighting in Lebanon seemed an unbeatable tactic. Palestinians saw the IDF as having fled from the Lebanese battlefield in disgrace, and Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah urged the Palestinians to emulate his successes. Technical examination of the data reveals that the concept of Hizbollah success was unfounded. In the last seventeen months of its presence in Lebanon the IDF suffered twenty-one fatalities, all of them military personnel. From the perspective of a war against terrorist and guerilla organizations, the number is not "intolerable." For its own part, Hizbollah did not chalk up great achievements during that period. However, Israeli public opinion did not withstand the mounting domestic pressure to withdraw, and some regional leaders saw therein the beginning of a broader rift in Israeli society that would, under the same logic, play into the hands of the Palestinians. Although the withdrawal from Lebanon seems to be an Israeli success judged by the relative quiet in the north, the long term strategic message that emerged from the withdrawal caused great damage to Israel, especially in the Palestinian context.

When the intifada broke out while negotiations were continuing, the IDF and Israeli leaders failed to understand that Israel was facing a long confrontation. The prevailing theory was that Arafat resorted to violence in order to enable himself to display flexibility a short period thereafter. According to this approach, the war was a symbolic move to allow Arafat to point at independence achieved by force.

In contrast to the political misinterpretation, the preparations at the tactical level proved adequate, and at the beginning of the intifada the IDF succeeded in foiling the Palestinian hopes of achieving victory by the masses over the "army of occupation." Yet when the fighting, which had seemed at first to be a more violent version of the previous intifada, evolved into a long, hard war, the situation became far more complex. Apparently Arafat was not seeking a better diplomatic agreement or a pretext for concessions, but was rather attempting to defeat Israel. Every civilian target was legitimate for terrorism purposes, and the terrorist infrastructure blossomed in the regions in which the IDF had lost control following the Oslo Accords.

As the terror evolved and escalated, the slogan "let the IDF win" emerged, even though there were those who argued that since there was no real terrorist infrastructure it was impossible to fight it using regular military forces. In fact, over the first eighteen months of the intifada, until April 2002, the IDF's hands were tied. The army learned the hard way that it could not fight against terror without controlling the area. Commanders began to realize that from the outside it was impossible to prevent terror without sparking serious friction with a civilian population that spawned, nurtured, and launched the terror. Following the 2002 Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Operation Defensive Shield was launched, driven by the principle that the IDF was returning to the heart of the populated areas in Judea and Samaria in order to regain military control of them. This complicated move did not bear immediate fruits. On the contrary, for a considerable time many people criticized the army for failing to produce results, since in practice the terror continued and the IDF seemed far from achieving a victory of any kind. Ultimately, however, the difficult lesson became clear, namely, that a war against terror is not for the impatient, and positive results emerge only after prolonged fighting - in the case of the intifada, over the course of about two years. This period saw construction of the separation fence, which proved of considerable benefit in the areas where it was erected. At the same time, it is clear that this alone is not a comprehensive solution, and even regions without a fence experienced a decrease in terror. IDF presence and the extensive use of targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders and activists led to a reduction in the number of attempted attacks. There was also a significant drop in the number of suicide bombings perpetrated inside the Green Line, with the General Security Services (GSS) and IDF proving quite successful in thwarting such attacks. The powerful combination of fewer attempts to execute terrorist attacks and the increased success in foiling such attempts created a new situation in which the scope of the terror declined significantly.

Israel was on the verge of an historic achievement. For the first time after many years a democratic country succeeded in demonstrating clearly that it was possible to combat terror, without systematic decimation of the population of the kind perpetrated in Assad's 1982 massacre of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and that it was possible to repel and defeat determined and cruel Islamic organizations that target civilians. In a world in which so many countries are engaged, albeit generally unsuccessfully, in a war against terror, Israel represented a leading, professional, and moral example. The IDF proved that when it was given the essential conditions, mainly to gain control of the area and eliminate the terrorist leadership, with the aid of excellent GSS intelligence it knew how to damage the terrorist capabilities greatly. It was again possible to show that there was no basis to the myth that emerged after World War II that an army cannot defeat terrorist and guerilla movements.

Israel was very close to victory. A military force can never eliminate the cause of a conflict between nations or societies, nor destroy the will of the opposing side. However, it was demonstrated that military action may drastically reduce the capability of a terrorist organization to execute its plans. At the heart of terrorist infrastructures are the leaders, the commanders in the field, the operatives, and the laboratories, and they can be attacked. Israel successfully adopted the method of targeted assassinations to destroy the core infrastructure of the terror, i.e., terrorists having the greatest operational experience. Two years elapsed from the beginning of the Defensive Shield campaign until its results became apparent, because control is acquired over time when the area is occupied, and not by magic solutions. The army can only gain real control by a long, sometimes arduous process, while displaying determination and persistence.

The option of regaining control also applied to the Gaza Strip, but was rejected on the assumption that such an operation would be very difficult and would involve numerous casualties, both among IDF soldiers and among the local population. As long as firing continued at Sderot and its surroundings only, many people thought that the operations of Judea and Samaria should not be implemented in Gaza, even though on the eve of Defensive Shield there was considerable opposition to it in Judea and Samaria for the same reasons. Yet what will be the response when the firing from Gaza reaches additional cities in Israel? The difference is now apparent between areas in which the IDF regained control after fighting (Judea and Samaria), and those in which it remained outside and did not regain control (the Gaza Strip). Sderot, located near an area beyond IDF control since the implementation of the Oslo agreements but in which there is a fence, has become a border town suffering Qassam rocket attacks and paying for the lack of control with its blood. In contrast, in Judea and Samaria, with or without the fence, there is no high trajectory fire, and the other forms of terror are also slowly being eliminated by the IDF. Their potency is far less than in the past, and will decrease further after completion of the fence.

The IDF has reached a success rate of 80 percent in thwarting terrorist attacks originating in Judea and Samaria, and the terrorist leaders replacing those who have been arrested or killed are inexperienced youngsters who spend more time protecting their own lives than in perpetrating terrorist attacks. Of its own volition, Israel is about to surrender all these achievements and receive nothing in return.

The Significance for the Future After the unilateral withdrawal, which will be heralded by the Palestinians as flight (even if Israel proclaims that the decision was not caused by terror but by other reasons), it will be difficult to persuade anyone in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular that terrorism did not defeat the State of Israel. The victory of terror will become a myth that will influence the future, even if Palestinian diplomatic or tactical considerations dictate a lull in the terror after the IDF withdrawal. There will perhaps be a large internal struggle among the Palestinians for domination and booty, but it will be clear who fled and who left the booty behind.

Today, even before the withdrawal is implemented, three quarters of the Palestinians in the territories believe that the decision regarding unilateral withdrawal reflects the victory of the terror imposed by the Palestinians. Hizbollah's Nasrallah will justifiably declare that after four years of warfare the Palestinians succeeded in realizing half of their dream, and there is no reason to think that in the coming years they won't achieve the other half, on condition that they continue to wage a protracted terrorist war against Israel. The Palestinian strategy will be clear: the creation of a threat against Israel's home front, while waging a terrorist and guerilla war under the protection of their umbrella that prevents Israel from retaliation.

Rather than standing at the threshold of a significant strategic achievement, where it is clear to the Arab side that Israel makes no diplomatic concessions to terror but continues to combat it successfully to the bitter end, the unilateral withdrawal will place us on the verge of a protracted confrontation, under far worse conditions, facing an enemy gaining momentum and strength because of its success. This is the nature of the missed historic opportunity. It was interesting to listen to American officials who explained that the US was opposed in principle to the unilateral withdrawal because it contradicts its strategic concept not to surrender to terror. In the end Jerusalem succeeded in persuading Washington to support the move in return for adding northern Samaria to the withdrawal and restricting construction in the settlements.

After giving up its achievements in the battle against terror and displaying its fear of international pressure, Israel has lost its status. The US was the first to realize this and it has increased the package of concessions to the Palestinians that Israel will have to pay as part of the plan. Even the Republican administration has made it clear that Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria is only the first stage in the process. The explanations of the former head of the prime minister's office that attempt to justify the withdrawal from a Rightist stance, as if by virtue of the withdrawal future pressure on Israel will be averted, are totally unfounded. The day after completion of the unilateral withdrawal the international pressure for continuation of withdrawal will begin, but this time the pressure will be even greater, because there will be a precedent of the evacuation of settlements and areas without receiving anything in return from the Palestinians. That which Israel volunteered to do in Gaza will form the basis for a demand to do the same in Judea and Samaria. US Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Europeans have said this explicitly.

On the other side we find the Left, which in the face of the unilateral concession justifiably fears the possible results. Those who for years conducted negotiations and still believe that there is a partner for talks with Israel are opposed to the government's decision. It is clear to them that the chances that someone on the Palestinian side will agree to negotiate with Israel are now rapidly declining. If the Palestinians receive their demands by the force of terror without giving anything in return, not even a declaration, why should they agree to negotiations in which they will be expected to make concessions? Even if today there is no serious partner on the Palestinian side, the unilateral move is likely to delay the creation of one for many years.

However, the Israeli Left can claim one more victory for itself in its efforts to return Israel to the 1967 borders and dismantle the settlements in Judea and Samaria. For the first time in the history of Zionism the Israeli government has shattered a taboo and is uprooting settlements without external pressure and without receiving anything in return. The dam has been burst by the Right, and the Left will certainly widen the hole. Without doubt this precedent will serve Israel's enemies and "friends" in the future, whenever they will wish to extract concessions of this kind without demanding flexibility on the part of the other side. If the prime minister thought that his concessions would prevent pressure in the future, he is mistaken. On the contrary, an Israeli withdrawal without receiving anything in exchange will form the desired modus operandi for the Palestinians and their supporters in the Western world, and from now on their task will be far easier.

Conclusion The proposed unilateral withdrawal contains a strategic, diplomatic, and military risk that has been described concisely by senior defense officials as "backing for terror." This expression has not merely a literal meaning, i.e., rockets being fired against Ashkelon, but also a broader, deeper one, of historic surrender to the wave of Islamic terror and words of encouragement to the terrorists in the vein of "continue on your successful path." Spain fled from Iraq because of terror in Madrid, and the Israelis will be regarded as fleeing from Gaza for the same reason.

That which we found easy to analyze and condemn regarding Spain, we prefer not to understand in the Palestinian context. Flight from terror, even if it is called "unilateral withdrawal," remains flight, and its results will be disastrous. Israel must remain where it is and make difficult, courageous decisions regarding regaining control of additional areas in the Gaza Strip in order to remove the capability of firing at Sderot. This is part of the IDF mandate.

If and when there will be someone to talk to on the other side, removal of settlements and the IDF presence can form bargaining chips in negotiations. The Israeli government, however, has played its cards without receiving anything in return, and therefore can only expect to experience more terror. This was explained better than anyone else by Prime Minister Sharon years ago when as an ordinary Knesset member he appeared at the Likud Central Committee and said, "Labor wants to hand over the Gaza Strip, and even among us there are people who voice similar opinions . . . The Jews have apparently forgotten why we liberated it twice, in 1956 and 1967, from the Egyptian occupier (which followed a previous attempt to do so at the end of the War of Independence that nearly succeeded). Why did we pay the price three times? Because the Gaza Strip threatened us when it was not in our hands. What is proposed is to abandon the security of Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat, Sderot, Netivot, and dozens of kibbutzim and cooperative communities."

At the time Sharon made an excellent analysis of the tactical danger resulting from the disengagement. The current strategic danger is even greater.

2005-01-12T03:44:00.000-05:00

A World Without Israel

By Josef Joffe
http://www.foreignpolicy.com

January/February 2005 Imagine that Israel never existed. Would the economic malaise and politicalrepression that drive angry young men to become suicide bombers vanish? Would thePalestinians have an independent state? Would the United States, freed of itsburdensome ally, suddenly find itself beloved throughout the Muslim world? Wishfulthinking. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains more antagonisms thanit causes. Since World War II, no state has suffered so cruel a reversal of fortunes as Israel.Admired all the way into the 1970s as the state of “those plucky Jews” who survivedagainst all odds and made democracy and the desert bloom in a climate hostile toboth liberty and greenery, Israel has become the target of creepingdelegitimization. The denigration comes in two guises. The first, the soft version,blames Israel first and most for whatever ails the Middle East, and for havingcorrupted U.S. foreign policy. It is the standard fare of editorials around theworld, not to mention the sheer venom oozing from the pages of the Arab-Islamicpress. The more recent hard version zeroes in on Israel’s very existence. Accordingto this dispensation, it is Israel as such, and not its behavior, that lies at theroot of troubles in the Middle East. Hence the “statocidal” conclusion that Israel’sbirth, midwifed by both the United States and the Soviet Union in 1948, was agrievous mistake, grandiose and worthy as it may have been at the time.

The soft version is familiar enough. One motif is the “wagging the dog” theory.Thus, in the United States, the “Jewish lobby” and a cabal of neoconservatives havebamboozled the Bush administration into a mindless pro-Israel policy inimical to thenational interest. This view attributes, as has happened so often in history, toomuch clout to the Jews. And behind this charge lurks a more general one—that it issomehow antidemocratic for subnational groups to throw themselves into thehurly-burly of politics when it comes to foreign policy. But let us count the waysin which subnational entities battle over the national interest: unions andcorporations clamor for tariffs and tax loopholes; nongovernmental organizationsagitate for humanitarian intervention; and Cuban Americans keep us from smokingcheroots from the Vuelta Abajo. In previous years, Poles militated in favor ofSolidarity, African Americans against Apartheid South Africa, and Latvians againstthe Soviet Union. In other words, the democratic melee has never stopped at thewater’s edge.

Another soft version is the “root-cause” theory in its many variations. Because the“obstinate” and “recalcitrant” Israelis are the main culprits, they must be punishedand pushed back for the sake of peace. “Put pressure on Israel”; “cut economic andmilitary aid”; “serve them notice that we will not condone their brutalities”—thesehave been the boilerplate homilies, indeed the obsessions, of the chattering classesand the foreign-office establishment for decades. Yet, as Sigmund Freud reminded us,obsessions tend to spread. And so there are ever more creative addenda to thewell-wrought root-cause theory. Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment forInternational Peace argues that what is happening between Israelis and Palestiniansis a “tremendous obstacle to democratization because it inflames all the worst, mostregressive aspects of Arab nationalism and Arab culture.” In other words, theconflict drives the pathology, and not the other way around—which is like thestreetfighter explaining to the police: “It all started when this guy hit back.”

The problem with this root-cause argument is threefold: It blurs, if not reverses,cause and effect. It ignores a myriad of conflicts unrelated to Israel. And itabsolves the Arabs of culpability, shifting the blame to you know whom. If onebelieves former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Arab-Islamic quest forweapons of mass destruction, and by extension the war against Iraq, are also Made inIsrael. “[A]s long as Israel has nuclear weapons,” Ritter opines, “it has chosen totake a path that is inherently confrontational.…Now the Arab countries, the Muslimworld, is not about to sit back and let this happen, so they will seek their owndeterrent. We saw this in Iraq, not only with a nuclear deterrent but also with abiological weapons deterrent…that the Iraqis were developing to offset the Israelinuclear superiority.”

This theory would be engaging if it did not collide with some inconvenient facts.Iraqis didn’t use their weapons of mass destruction against the Israeli usurper butagainst fellow Muslims during the Iran-Iraq War, and against fellow Iraqis in thepoison-gas attack against Kurds in Halabja in 1988—neither of whom were brandishingany nuclear weapons. As for the Iraqi nuclear program, we now have the “DuelferReport,” based on the debriefing of Iraqi regime loyalists, which concluded: “Iranwas the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior-level Iraqi officialsconsidered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balanceIsrael and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations,but secondary.”

Now to the hard version. Ever so subtly, a more baleful tone slips into thisnarrative: Israel is not merely an unruly neighbor but an unwelcome intruder. Stilltimidly uttered outside the Arab world, this version’s proponents in the Westbestride the stage as truth-sayers who dare to defy taboo. Thus, the British writerA.N. Wilson declares that he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Israel,through its own actions, has proven it does not have the right to exist. And,following Sept. 11, 2001, Brazilian scholar Jose Arthur Giannotti said: “Let usagree that the history of the Middle East would be entirely different without theState of Israel, which opened a wound between Islam and the West. Can you get rid ofMuslim terrorism without getting rid of this wound which is the source of thefrustration of potential terrorists?”

The very idea of a Jewish state is an “anachronism,” argues Tony Judt, a professorand director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. It resembles a“late-nineteenth-century separatist project” that has “no place” in this wondrousnew world moving toward the teleological perfection of multiethnic and multiculturaltogetherness bound together by international law. The time has come to “think theunthinkable,” hence, to ditch this Jewish state for a binational one, guaranteed, ofcourse, by international force.

So let us assume that Israel is an anachronism and a historical mistake withoutwhich the Arab-Islamic world stretching from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria toPakistan, would be a far happier place, above all because the original sin, theestablishment of Israel, never would have been committed. Then let’s move from thepast to the present, pretending that we could wave a mighty magic wand, and “poof,”Israel disappears from the map.

Civilization of ClashesLet us start the what-if procession in 1948, when Israel was born in war. Wouldstillbirth have nipped the Palestinian problem in the bud? Not quite. Egypt,Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon marched on Haifa and Tel Aviv notto liberate Palestine, but to grab it. The invasion was a textbook competitive powerplay by neighboring states intent on acquiring territory for themselves. If they hadbeen victorious, a Palestinian state would not have emerged, and there still wouldhave been plenty of refugees. (Recall that half the population of Kuwait fled Iraqidictator Saddam Hussein’s “liberation” of that country in 1990.) Indeed, assumingthat Palestinian nationalism had awakened when it did in the late 1960s and 1970s,the Palestinians might now be dispatching suicide bombers to Egypt, Syria, andelsewhere.

Let us imagine Israel had disappeared in 1967, instead of occupying the West Bankand the Gaza Strip, which were held, respectively, by Jordan’s King Hussein andEgypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Would they have relinquished their possessionsto Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and thrown in Haifa and Tel Aviv for goodmeasure? Not likely. The two potentates, enemies in all but name, were united onlyby their common hatred and fear of Arafat, the founder of Fatah (the PalestineNational Liberation Movement) and rightly suspected of plotting against Arabregimes. In short, the “root cause” of Palestinian statelessness would havepersisted, even in Israel’s absence.

Let us finally assume, through a thought experiment, that Israel goes “poof” today.How would this development affect the political pathologies of the Middle East? Onlythose who think the Palestinian issue is at the core of the Middle East conflictwould lightly predict a happy career for this most dysfunctional region once Israelvanishes. For there is no such thing as “the” conflict. A quick count reveals fiveways in which the region’s fortunes would remain stunted—or worse:

States vs. States: Israel’s elimination from the regional balance would hardlybolster intra-Arab amity. The retraction of the colonial powers, Britain and France,in the mid-20th century left behind a bunch of young Arab states seeking to redrawthe map of the region. From the very beginning, Syria laid claim to Lebanon. In1970, only the Israeli military deterred Damascus from invading Jordan under thepretext of supporting a Palestinian uprising. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s,Nasser’s Egypt proclaimed itself the avatar of pan-Arabism, intervening in Yemenduring the 1960s. Nasser’s successor, President Anwar Sadat, was embroiled inon-and-off clashes with Libya throughout the late 1970s. Syria marched into Lebanonin 1976 and then effectively annexed the country 15 years later, and Iraq launchedtwo wars against fellow Muslim states: Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990. The war againstIran was the longest conventional war of the 20th century. None of these conflictsis related to the Israeli-Palestinian one. Indeed, Israel’s disappearance would onlyliberate military assets for use in such internal rivalries.

Believers vs. Believers: Those who think that the Middle East conflict is a“Muslim-Jewish thing” had better take a closer look at the score card: 14 years ofsectarian bloodshed in Lebanon; Saddam’s campaign of extinction against the Shia inthe aftermath of the first Gulf War; Syria’s massacre of 20,000 people in the MuslimBrotherhood stronghold of Hama in 1982; and terrorist violence against EgyptianChristians in the 1990s. Add to this tally intraconfessional oppression, such as inSaudi Arabia, where the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect wields the truncheon of statepower to inflict its dour lifestyle on the less devout.

Ideologies vs. Ideologies: Zionism is not the only “ism” in the region, which isrife with competing ideologies. Even though the Baathist parties in Syria and Iraqsprang from the same fascist European roots, both have vied for precedence in theMiddle East. Nasser wielded pan-Arabism-cum-socialism against the Arab nation-state.And both Baathists and Nasserites have opposed the monarchies, such as in Jordan.Khomeinist Iran and Wahhabite Saudi Arabia remain mortal enemies. What is theconnection to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Nil, with the exception of Hamas, a terrorarmy of the faithful once supported by Israel as a rival to the Palestine LiberationOrganization and now responsible for many suicide bombings in Israel. But will Hamasdisband once Israel is gone? Hardly. Hamas has bigger ambitions than eliminating the“Zionist entity.” The organization seeks nothing less than a unified Arab stateunder a regime of God.

Reactionary Utopia vs. Modernity: A common enmity toward Israel is the only thingthat prevents Arab modernizers and traditionalists from tearing their societiesapart. Fundamentalists vie against secularists and reformist Muslims for the fusionof mosque and state under the green flag of the Prophet. And a barely concealedclass struggle pits a minuscule bourgeoisie and millions of unemployed young menagainst the power structure, usually a form of statist cronyism that controls themeans of production. Far from creating tensions, Israel actually contains theantagonisms in the world around it.

Regimes vs. Peoples: The existence of Israel cannot explain the breadth and depth ofthe Mukhabarat states (secret police states) throughout the Middle East. With theexceptions of Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf sheikdoms, which gingerly practice anenlightened monarchism, all Arab countries (plus Iran and Pakistan) are butvariations of despotism—from the dynastic dictatorship of Syria to theauthoritarianism of Egypt. Intranational strife in Algeria has killed nearly100,000, with no letup in sight. Saddam’s victims are said to number 300,000. Afterthe Khomeinists took power in 1979, Iran was embroiled not only in the Iran-Iraq Warbut also in barely contained civil unrest into the 1980s. Pakistan is an explosionwaiting to happen. Ruthless suppression is the price of stability in this region.

Again, it would take a florid imagination to surmise that factoring Israel out ofthe Middle East equation would produce liberal democracy in the region. It might beplausible to argue that the dialectic of enmity somehow favors dictatorship in“frontline states” such as Egypt and Syria—governments that invoke the proximity ofthe “Zionist threat” as a pretext to suppress dissent. But how then to explain themayhem in faraway Algeria, the bizarre cult-of-personality regime in Libya, thepious kleptocracy of Saudi Arabia, the clerical despotism of Iran, or democracy’senduring failure to take root in Pakistan? Did Israel somehow cause the variousputsches that produced the republic of fear in Iraq? If Jordan, the state sharingthe longest border with Israel, can experiment with constitutional monarchy, why notSyria?

It won’t do to lay the democracy and development deficits of the Arab world on thedoorstep of the Jewish state. Israel is a pretext, not a cause, and therefore itsdispatch will not heal the self-inflicted wounds of the Arab-Islamic world. Nor willthe mild version of “statocide,” a binational state, do the trick—not in view of the“civilization of clashes” (to borrow a term from British historian Niall Ferguson)that is the hallmark of Arab political culture. The mortal struggle between Israelisand Palestinians would simply shift from the outside to the inside.

My Enemy, MyselfCan anybody proclaim in good conscience that these dysfunctionalities of the Arabworld would vanish along with Israel? Two U.N. “Arab Human Development Reports,”written by Arab authors, say no. The calamities are homemade. Stagnation andhopelessness have three root causes. The first is lack of freedom. The UnitedNations cites the persistence of absolute autocracies, bogus elections, judiciariesbeholden to executives, and constraints on civil society. Freedom of expression andassociation are also sharply limited. The second root cause is lack of knowledge:Sixty-five million adults are illiterate, and some 10 million children have noschooling at all. As such, the Arab world is dropping ever further behind inscientific research and the development of information technology. Third, femaleparticipation in political and economic life is the lowest in the world. Economicgrowth will continue to lag as long as the potential of half the population remainslargely untapped.

Will all of this right itself when that Judeo-Western insult to Arab pride finallyvanishes? Will the millions of unemployed and bored young men, cannon fodder for theterrorists, vanish as well—along with one-party rule, corruption, and closedeconomies? This notion makes sense only if one cherishes single-cause explanationsor, worse, harbors a particular animus against the Jewish state and its refusal tobehave like Sweden. (Come to think of it, Sweden would not be Sweden either if itlived in the Hobbesian world of the Middle East.)

Finally, the most popular what-if issue of them all: Would the Islamic world hatethe United States less if Israel vanished? Like all what-if queries, this one, too,admits only suggestive evidence. To begin, the notion that 5 million Jews are solelyresponsible for the rage of 1 billion or so Muslims cannot carry the weight assignedto it. Second, Arab-Islamic hatreds of the United States preceded the conquest ofthe West Bank and Gaza. Recall the loathing left behind by the U.S.-managed coupthat restored the shah’s rule in Tehran in 1953, or the U.S. intervention in Lebanonin 1958. As soon as Britain and France left the Middle East, the United Statesbecame the dominant power and the No. 1 target. Another bit of suggestive evidenceis that the fiercest (unofficial) anti-Americanism emanates from Washington’sself-styled allies in the Arab Middle East, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is thissituation because of Israel—or because it is so convenient for these regimes to“busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels” (as Shakespeare’s Henry IV put it) todistract their populations from their dependence on the “Great Satan”?

Take the Cairo Declaration against “U.S. hegemony,” endorsed by 400 delegates fromacross the Middle East and the West in December 2002. The lengthy indictmentmentions Palestine only peripherally. The central condemnation, uttered in profusevariation, targets the United States for monopolizing power “within the framework ofcapitalist globalization,” for reinstating “colonialism,” and for blocking the“emergence of forces that would shift the balance of power toward multi-polarity.”In short, Global America is responsible for all the afflictions of the Arab world,with Israel coming in a distant second.

This familiar tale has an ironic twist: One of the key signers is Nader Fergany,lead author of the 2002 U.N. Arab Human Development Report. So even those whoconfess to the internal failures of the Arab world end up blaming “the Other.” Giventhe enormity of the indictment, ditching Israel will not absolve the United States.Iran’s Khomeinists have it right, so to speak, when they denounce America as the“Great Satan” and Israel only as the “Little Satan,” a handmaiden of U.S. power.What really riles America-haters in the Middle East is Washington’s intrusion intotheir affairs, be it for reasons of oil, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction.This fact is why Osama bin Laden, having attached himself to the Palestinian causeonly as an afterthought, calls the Americans the new crusaders, and the Jews theirimperialist stand-ins.

None of this is to argue in favor of Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bankand Gaza, nor to excuse the cruel hardship it imposes on the Palestinians, which ispernicious, even for Israel’s own soul. But as this analysis suggests, the realsource of Arab angst is the West as a palpable symbol of misery and an irresistibletarget of what noted Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami has called “Arab rage.” Thepuzzle is why so many Westerners, like those who signed the Cairo Declaration,believe otherwise.

Is this anti-Semitism, as so many Jews are quick to suspect? No, but denyingIsrael’s legitimacy bears an uncanny resemblance to some central features of thisdarkest of creeds. Accordingly, the Jews are omnipotent, ubiquitous, and thusresponsible for the evils of the world. Today, Israel finds itself in an analogousposition, either as handmaiden or manipulator of U.S. might. The soft version sighs:“If only Israel were more reasonable…” The semihard version demands that “the UnitedStates pull the rug out from under Israel” to impose the pliancy that comes fromimpotence. And the hard-hard version dreams about salvation springing from Israel’sdisappearance.

Why, sure—if it weren’t for that old joke from Israel’s War of Independence: Whilethe bullets were whistling overhead and the two Jews in their foxhole were runningout of rounds, one griped, “If the Brits had to give us a country not their own, whycouldn’t they have given us Switzerland?” Alas, Israel is just a strip of land inthe world’s most noxious neighborhood, and the cleanup hasn’t even begun.

2005-01-10T07:43:00.000-05:00

The 'Zionist enemy' -- and her supporters -- is in denial yet again

By Charles Krauthammer

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ Has no one learned anything?

On Sept. 13, 1993, I was on the White House lawn watching the signing of the Oslo accords. I also watched the intellectual collapse of the entire Middle East intelligentsia ?€” journalists, politicians, "experts" ?€” as they swooned at the famous handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin and refused, that day and for years to come, to recognize what was obvious: that Arafat was embarking not on peace but on the next stage of his perpetual war against Israel, this one to be launched far more advantageously from a base of Palestinian territory that Israel had just suicidally granted him.

Why was this so obvious? Because Arafat said so ?€” that very night (in an Arabic broadcast to his own people on Jordanian television) and many times afterward. The Middle East experts refused to believe it. They did not want to hear it. Then came the intifada. Thousands of dead later, they now believe it. The more honest ones among them even admit they were wrong.

Now Arafat is dead, Mahmoud Abbas is poised to succeed him and the world is swooning again. Abbas, we are told, is the great hope, the moderate, the opponent of violence, the man who has said the intifada was counterproductive.

The peacemaker cometh. Once again, euphoria is in the air. Once again, no one wants to listen to what is being said.

Elections for the new Palestinian leader are on Sunday. Conveniently, this being a Palestinian election, we already know the winner. How has President-to-be Abbas been campaigning?

Dec. 30: Abbas, appearing in Jenin, is hoisted on the shoulders of Zakaria Zbeida, a notorious and wanted al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist. Abbas declares that he will protect all terrorists from Israel.

Dec. 31: Abbas reiterates his undying loyalty to Arafat's maximalist demands: complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines, Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and ?€” the red-flag deal-breaker ?€” the "right of return," which would send the millions of Palestinians abroad not to their own country of Palestine but to Israel in order to destroy it demographically.

Jan. 1: Abbas declares that he will never crack down on Palestinian terrorism.

Jan. 4: Abbas calls Israel "the Zionist enemy." That phrase is so odious that only Hezbollah and Iran and others openly dedicated to the extermination of Israel use it.

What of Abbas's vaunted opposition to violence? On Jan. 2 he tells Hamas terrorists firing rockets that maim and kill Jewish villagers within Israel, "This is not the time for this kind of act." This is an interesting "renunciation" of terrorism: Not today, boys; perhaps later, when the time is right. Which was exactly Arafat's utilitarian approach to terrorism throughout the Oslo decade.

Some of the American and Israeli responses to Abbas are enough to make you weep. Spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Israel: "We don't think it is useful to focus on every statement by every official; what's important is the process." Official in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office: "Words don't count in the Middle East; what counts are actions."

Have we learned nothing? In the Middle East, words are actions. Never more so than in an election campaign in which your words define your platform and establish your mandate. Abbas is running practically unopposed, and yet, on the question of both ends and means, he chooses to run as Yasser Arafat.

During the decade of Oslo, Arafat's every statement of hatred, incitement and glorification of violence was similarly waved away. Then bombs began going off in cafes and buses, and the Middle East wise men realized he meant it all along. Now once again they are telling us to ignore the words. Abbas does not really mean it, they assure us. This is just electioneering. We know his true moderate heart. Believe us.

Why? On the basis of their track record? And even more important, you do not conduct foreign policy as a branch of psychiatry. Does Abbas mean the things he says about Israel now? I do not know, and no matter what you hear from the experts ?€” the same people who assured you that Arafat wanted peace ?€” neither do they.

But we do know this: In Abbas's first moment of real leadership, his long-anticipated emergence from the shadow of Arafat, he chooses to literally hoist the flag of the terrorist al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Can Abbas turn into a Sadat, who also emerged from the shadow of a charismatic leader, reversed policy and made peace with Israel? I'll believe it when I see it. And hear it.

2004-12-07T13:30:00.000-05:00

Israel's Morality and the World's MyopiaBy Daniel Gordis Any discussion of the manner in which Israel has conducted its armed conflict with the Palestinians over the past four years demands, first and foremost, clarity about the nature of the conflict and what is at stake. Israel is at war -- not against "militants," or against those who would seek to "liberate" the Palestinian people. Israel is engaged in a war for her survival, against well-armed and increasingly well-trained, highly disciplined groups of terrorists, who are wholly up front about their agenda. Their agenda is not the liberation of the "territories" that were captured in June 1967 in a war that Israel did not want. Their agenda, as Hamas and Hizballah (among others) freely admit, is the eradication of the "Zionist entity" from what should be, in their minds, an exclusively Muslim Middle East. This is not the Chechens against Russia. All the Chechens seek is independence. Were they granted that, there is every reason to expect that Chechen terrorism against Vladimir Putin's Russia would cease. The same is true with the Basques in Spain. But not with Israel. The only way that Israel could bring an end to the terrorists' attempt to destroy any semblance of normalcy for Israeli life would be to cease to exist. Israelis understand that, and they know full well that any other country fighting for its very existence would be enraged at being judged as Israel has been judged, particularly by Europe, in the last four years. How this War Began Israelis also remember when this war began -- immediately after Ehud Barak called Yasir Arafat's bluff. Barak offered the Palestinian people the state and the independence they had always said their decades-long terrorist campaign had been designed to bring them. But in Barak's agreement, Israel would have continued to exist. And that, in the end, Arafat could not abide. So he, and a multiplicity of loosely aligned terrorist organizations that include, but is not limited to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizballah, Fatah, Force 17, and the El-Aksa Martyrs' Brigade sought to bring Israel to its knees by terrifying an entire population into submission. It is still said, ludicrously, that Arafat couldn't sign the Camp David package because Barak's deal was not good enough. The West Bank, according to some accounts, would have been divided into three cantons, with Israelis retaining control over passage from one to the other. Perhaps. The picture is unclear. But let us suppose that that claim is true, and that Arafat had genuinely wanted a deal. The most effective thing he could have done would have been to tell the tens of thousands of Palestinians who then had the right to enter Israel to sit on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway and on the highway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. He could have invited CNN, whose presence would have made it impossible for the IDF to use force to disperse the crowds. And Arafat could have put the map of Barak's proposal on the back page of the front section of the New York Times and showed the world why he could not sign. Israel would have been forced to concede, and the maps would have been altered. No Peace in our Lifetime But that was not Arafat's agenda. Thus, most Israelis now understand that there will not be peace. Not in our lifetimes, and probably not in the lifetimes of our children. There may be a cessation of hostilities -- some years more violent and some years less -- but we now know that to live here means to live and to raise our children in a permanent state of war. That sentence, that "fate," has created anguish, despair, sadness, and even hatred in Israeli society. And given that despair, and the offer that was rejected, what is striking is the restraint that Israel has exercised. Who else, knowing that no matter what else we may do, we will always be at war, would exercise such restraint? In Israel, the Kahanist notion of transferring Palestinian populations out of the disputed territories is still considered racist and out of the question. Shutting off the water or electricity or phones of these populations for months on end, to force them to begin to exert pressure on the terrorists, has never been seriously suggested. Has Israel ever considered eradicating a town after it has knowingly harbored a suicide bomber who then killed dozens of innocent civilians? Nor has Israel chosen to fight the war exclusively from the skies, thus reducing the danger to its own troops. Would any other country, fighting for its life and knowing that the fight will never end, exhibit such moderation? The World Ignores Israeli Restraint The world, of course, ignores that restraint. It focuses not on American tactics in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the Russians' war against Chechnya, or the atrocities in the Sudan. Instead, it focuses on the mistakes that, admittedly, have been made by Israel. The conduct of a small minority of soldiers at roadblocks has been reprehensible (and judicial proceedings are under way against many of them). The commandeering of some Arab homes by troops is unquestionably distasteful, though sometimes probably unavoidable. Innocent Palestinians, including children, have been caught in the crossfire, and Israeli troops have sometimes been careless and, occasionally, malevolent. Israelis know that, and most are embarrassed by it. But that the terrorist organizations have chosen to use civilian neighborhoods as their bases is rarely mentioned. No one has dared accuse Israelis of "eye-for-eye" tactics, blowing up buses or wedding halls or restaurants, for such an accusation would be ridiculous. When terrorists fled into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Israeli troops surrounded the church, but didn't storm it. Compare this to the Americans' treatment of mosques in Najaf or Falluja, when their patience with Moqtada Al-Sadr ran out, or what we know would have been the case had Jews been hiding in a church or a synagogue and it had been Palestinians pursuing them. All of this escapes the critical eye of a watchful West. So, too, does the IDF's consistent determination to do better. The unsuccessful attempt in September 2002 to kill the Hamas chief, Ahmad Yassin, which Yossi Klein Halevi discussed in his piece in this series, had a history. Israel used a half-ton bomb because it acknowledged that in its killing of Hamas chief Salah Shehade two months earlier, it had erred. Then, the IDF chose a one-ton bomb, which did kill Shehade, but which also killed fourteen bystanders, including children. The reaction in Israel was swift, and visceral. Israelis were ashamed and appalled. When Yassin escaped two months later, whatever disappointment was felt that he survived was vastly exceeded by a certain pride that we'd learned, that we had not made the same mistake again, and that despite our desire to kill Yassin, we'd placed the value of innocent life first and foremost. We also noted that the world took no notice of this changed tactic. In April 2002, when Israel pursued terrorists into the casbah in Jenin, we did so on the ground, in door-to-door fighting, to avoid causing unnecessary collateral casualties. Fourteen of our soldiers were killed in one day. But the world -- instead of pointing to the difference between Israel's handling of the battle and what would have happened anywhere else -- accused Israel of a massacre. European papers reported the massacre as fact, not as allegation. Kofi Annan, when asked about Israel's denials, responded, "Can Israel be right and the whole world wrong?" But when a UN investigation proved that there had been no massacre, and that Israel had been right, did Annan apologize? Not a word. Did European papers print retractions? By and large, they did not. Myopia about the Separation Fence The myopia of the world's judgment of Israel's morality is most obvious with regard to the separation fence currently under construction. As the Israeli political right correctly understands, the fence is a de facto way of ceding land. If the fence were built, and if it worked, there would be no need for Israeli forces to cross and to be a presence in the daily lives of Palestinians. It would, of course, also dramatically cut down on terror. But the world, buying wholesale into a Palestinian disinformation campaign designed to make the building of the fence impossible, refers to the "apartheid fence," rather than to the attacks that led to its construction or the diminution in Israeli military presence that it heralds. Why, incidentally, do the Palestinians oppose the fence? Because the fence would effectively end much of the conflict (although the Kassam rocket attacks do portend that even the fence will not be a complete solution). And, as we know, the end of the conflict is the last thing that the Palestinians want. The fence has, unquestionably, caused hardship for Palestinians. Some of that is inevitable, given the way in which the two populations are intermingled across the West Bank and around East Jerusalem. And some of the route was ill planned. But compare the ruling of the International Court of Justice at The Hague with that of the Israeli Supreme Court. The ICJ demanded that Israel remove the wall in its entirety. Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the fence was legitimate in principle, and it agreed with the army that its purpose had been security, not an attempt to steal Palestinian land. But still the court demanded that part of the fence be moved to address the hardships it imposed on the Palestinian population. The court of international opinion, however, seems not to have noticed the extraordinary phenomenon of the Supreme Court of a country at war ruling in favor of the population seeking to destroy it. Outside observers wrote that "even the Israeli Supreme Court argued that the fence is immoral." But the point was precisely the opposite. Even under conditions of war, conditions that are unlikely to end any time soon, Israel's democratic apparatus continues to function, even to the point of protecting the interests of those waging war on the country in which the court sits. Here, too, Israel placed the interests of innocent (or not-so-innocent) civilians ahead of its own security interests. And this, too, the world has ignored. Israel's Vigorous Debate about its Conduct of the War This democratic ethos of Israeli society points to yet another unique dimension of the conflict. In what could not be a more radical difference between Israel and the Palestinian Authority waging war on it, Israel is a country in which a vigorous and open debate about how to balance the needs for security with Jewish humanitarian values continues. Despite my own belief that, in all, our conduct of the war has been restrained, not every Israeli agrees. Some Israeli young men have refused to serve over the Green Line, and recently, several had their military service cut short, with no serious repercussions. A much publicized group of pilots announced that they would no longer fly certain missions that they considered morally problematic. Driving Israel's highways, one can often see protesters holding signs that say "hayalim amitzim lo maftzitzim," or "Brave Pilots Don't Bomb." Whether or not one agrees, we have a right to take pride in a democracy in which such issues are openly debated, where freedom of the press reigns, where the Talmudic tradition of virtually unlimited debate on issues of morality continues. Where are the Palestinians arguing in their streets for a cessation to the bombings, to the Kassam rockets, to the shootings, so that their lives can be restored to normal? On the security fence, one sees hundreds of instances of graffiti accusing Israel of apartheid-like policies, demanding that the fence be removed. But where are the graffiti calling for an end to the terror that brought the fence in the first place? Or the graffiti that note that, if only Arafat had continued to negotiate, none of this would have happened? That voice, sadly, is not heard. At this writing, Ariel Sharon is leading an attempt to have Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip and a handful of settlements on the West Bank. And what has been the reaction from Gaza? A barrage of Kassam rocket fire that has killed Israeli children and consumed entire Israeli towns with fear, all designed to make the pullout impossible. Because pulling out of Gaza would show the world that Israel is not interested in holding on to these territories forever, something the Palestinians are desperate for the world not to see. Because pulling out of Gaza would give Israel a more manageable line of defense, which the Palestinians do not want. And because pulling out of Gaza would force the Gazans to recognize that their poverty and their suffering are not the products of Israeli policy, but predated Israel's conquest of the land in 1967 and will follow it as well. How did Israel seek to counter the Kassam barrages? By Operation "Days of Penitance" in October 2004 -- again on the ground, again with casualties -- and not from the air, which would have been safer, but which would have undoubtedly caused much more collateral damage. Despite the many complexities of the Israeli-Arab conflict in general, and of the current conflict with the Palestinians in particular, certain basic facts are clear: Israel tried to create a Palestinian state. When that offer was met with a war of terror, Israel tried to build a fence that would keep the terrorists on one side and its soldiers on the other. When the fence was treated as an "apartheid fence," Israel tried to pull out of Gaza, which the Palestinians are now seeking to make impossible. The world calls Israel racist, but the only population that Sharon is considering moving is the Jewish population in Gaza, not the villages that openly harbor the terrorists who seek to kill our children. And all this unfolds within the context of a democratic society that -- in keeping with thousands of years of Jewish tradition -- passionately argues whether our responses have been too draconian, or insufficiently considerate of the Palestinians (some complicit and some not), who have sadly been caught in the crossfire of a tragedy unleashed by their own leaders. Israel's Moral Campaign against Terror Yossi Klein Halevi argues (in another article in this symposium) that Israel's victory in this war on terror may some day be seen as one of the greatest victories of Jewish history. That may well be true. But Israel's conduct of this war will also be seen, I suspect, as one of the most moral campaigns against terror, a sickening phenomenon that is likely to grip the Western world to an ever greater extent over the next few years. Unfortunately, Israel is often a barometer of what the Western world will next face. When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in June 1981, condemnation was virtually universal. Today, the Western world knows that Israel may have saved the world from disaster. The same is true with the battle against Islamic terror. As the battle spreads, and as Westerners in Britain, France, Spain, and the United States experience ever more terror firsthand, the world will come to admire the restraint and fortitude with which Israel has fought for her life. Ultimately, I believe, Israel's conduct of this war -- with all its warts -- will be a model toward which much of the currently critical world will one day aspire. (c) 2004 Daniel Gordis You are welcome to forward this e-mail if you would like, but only in its entirety and unedited, including the information below. However, this material may not be published in print or posted on a web site without the express, written consent of the author. You can subscribe to the list at www.danielgordis.org (see the box on the top left of the screen) or at www.topica.com/lists/gordis. You can also subscribe by sending a BLANK email to: gordis-subscribe@topica.com. Topica will automatically send you a confirmation message to which you must reply. Unsubscription information is included automatically in each newsletter.

2004-12-07T13:23:00.000-05:00

GAZA: AN OCCUPIED TERRITORY or LAND OF ISRAEL?Fact: In October 1946, Kfar Darom (a current settlement in the Gaza Strip) and ten other Jewish communities were established, in order to avert the British plan of disengaging the Negev from the Jewish State. Fact: Kfar Darom was established on the site of the 3rd-4th century Talmudic Jewish town of Kfar Darom. The Jewish farmer, Tuvia Miller, planted an orchard in Kfar Darom, which was destroyed during the 1936-39 anti-Jewish pogroms. The newly established 1946 Kfar Darom was uprooted following the 1948 Egyptian military invasion. Would the 1967 rebuilt Kfar Darom be uprooted by the Jewish State? Fact: Gaza and Tiberias substituted Jerusalem during 135-600 AD- as a pilgrimage site - following Jerusalem's decimation by Rome. Fact: Gaza's Jewish community was uprooted during the 1929 anti-Jewish riots, which annihilated the Jewish community of Hebron. Fact: The Castil family headed a large of Jewish refugees from Spain (1492), who bolstered the Gaza Jewish community. The traveler Ovadia of Bartenura documented the 1488 Gaza Jewish community. Fact: The Ottoman Empire facilitated settlement of Jews in Gaza. Fact: The 17th century Gaza Chief Rabbi, Israel Najarah, composed the hymn "Ya Ribon Olam" and was buried in Gaza. Fact: The eerie Shabtai Zvi declared himself a Messiah at the Gaza synagogue. Fact: The Gaza synagogue was located on the hilltop, which is currently named by Arabs, Khart Al-Yahood (the Jewish neighborhood). The synagogue was destroyed, in 1831, by Egypt's Ibrahim Pasha. Fact: The known travelers Georgio Gucci (1384) and Meshulam of Voltera (1481) praised Gaza's Jewish community for its wine production and wealth. Fact: The Old Testament refers to Gaza as an integral part of the Land of Israel: Abraham was punished for his disengagement from Grar (today's Dir Al-Balakh, Genesis 21); The tribe of Judah inherited Ashdod, Ashqelon and Gaza (Joshua 15:47, Judges 1:18); King Solomon and King Hezekiah controlled Gaza (Kings A 5:4 and 18:7). Jonathan the Maccabee liberated Gaza in 145 BC, Simon the Maccabee settled Gaza and King Alexander Yanai-Janeus renewed Jewish presence there in 96 BC. Fact: Rome's Constantinus The Great failed to convert and uproot Gaza's Jewish community (4th century). Fact: Rarely have nations agreed to trade away land for peace. Never have nations agreed to disengage themselves from their Cradle of History in return for peace. Can a nation disengage itself from its roots without dooming its future?

2004-12-05T13:52:00.000-05:00

Ending the Arafat eraBy Yoram EttingerWashington Times, OpEd, Nov. 30, 2004 A prerequisite for the emergence of a moderate Palestinian regime is the elimination of the rogue Palestinian regime. A precondition for the holding of a free Palestinian election, and for the attainment of a durable Israeli-Palestinian accord, is the uprooting of the regime, which has ruthlessly dominated the Palestinian scene since 1964. The "old Palestinian regime" has been the role model of international terrorism, inter-Arab treachery, serial non-compliance with agreements, hate-education, corruption and suppression of Palestinian human rights. Just like Taliban and Ba'ath terrorism, Palestinian terrorism has not been a personalized problem (Yasser Arafat), but rather a regime problem (PLO/PA/Hamas). Japan and Germany were transformed into peaceful nations, upon the drastic dismantling of their rogue regimes. None of the old guard top officials was allowed to participate in the new regimes. The entire old guard was disenfranchised, in order to pave the road for moderate leaders, minimize intimidation and facilitate free election. Abu Mazen has been the de facto No. 2 in the PLO since 1989, while he and Abu Ala' have been Mr. Arafat's top confidants at the helm of the Fatah, PLO and PA regimes since the late 1950s. They starred in the Palestinian cell of the Muslim Brotherhood â€” the mentor of Hamas terrorism â€” and were forced to flee Egypt for terrorism. In 1959, they joined Mr. Arafat in establishing the Fatah organization, and were accorded a safe haven in Damascus. However, in 1966 Fatah executed Syrian intelligence officers, and was chased out of Syria. In 1968-70, the late King Hussein provided the Fatah-led PLO with logistic and operational platforms to terrorize Israel. But in 1970 the PLO attempted to topple the Hashemite regime through terrorism, triggering a bloody strife and PLO's expulsion from Jordan to Lebanon. Abu Mazen and Abu Ala' were there, consulting Mr. Arafat. During 1970-82, the PLO perpetrated a series of civil wars in Lebanon, with Abu Mazen's and Abu Ala's active participation. The PLO's subversive operations caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, leading to Syrian occupation of Lebanon and to the demise of its Christian population. The latest chapter of PLO's inter-Arab treachery occurred in 1990, when the organization spearheaded Iraq's plunder of Kuwait â€” a country which hosted the Fatah since 1959, absorbed 400,000 Palestinians, enabled them to rise to top business and civic positions, and imposed a surcharge tax for the PLO. Subsequently, Kuwait has severed all contacts with the PLO/PA leadership, expelling most of its 400,000 Palestinians. In 1972, Abu Mazen handled the financial aspects of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. He steered pre-1989 PLO ties with ruthless East European regimes and the Soviet Union, wrote a thesis on Holocaust Denial at Moscow University, co-managed PLO hijacking of Western planes during the early 1970s and the murder of U.S. ambassadors in 1972. A few days following the signing of the 1993 Oslo accord, Abu Mazen, Abu Ala' Dahlan and Rajoub engineered a series of PA-Hamas understandings. In fact, Dahlan and Rajoub head PA 'security' units, which have exceeded Hamas' terrorism. According to the understandings, PA/Hamas joint strategy (Israel's elimination) would be advanced by tactical accords with Israel, by diplomacy and by terrorism. In addition, they stipulated that Palestinian unity would supersede any agreement with Israel, calling for an end to PLO-Hamas fighting, while urging escalation of anti-Israel 'resistance.' Palestinians nickname Abu Mazen, Abu Ala', Dahlan and Rajoub 'Mr. 20 Percent' for the kickback, which they extort for doing business in the PA. The four senior PLO leaders led â€” under Mr. Arafat â€” the PA propaganda machine, which hailed the September11thterrorism, praising Saddam Hussein's and Osama Bin Laden's anti-U.S. operations. They have introduced, along with Mr. Arafat, the anti-United States and anti-Jewish hate-education to PA schools, mosques and media, which has constituted the engine of homicide bombing. They have assisted Mr. Arafat in masterminding unprecedented hate-education, terrorism, deception, systematic and violent abrogation of commitments, repression of Palestinians and corruption. The Palestinian Authority is not the solution; it is the problem. Legitimizing top leaders of the PA, such as Abu Mazen, Abu Ala', Dahlan and Rajoub â€” in defiance of their horrific track records â€” constitutes a victory of wishful thinking over moral clarity. The suggestion that the four are moderate compared with Mr. Arafat, is to suggest that the Boston Strangler was moderate compared with Jack the Ripper. It sends a devastating message to terrorists: Not only can you get away with murder, but you shall be rewarded. It energizes global terrorism, deters moderation, precludes free Palestinian elections and undermines the cause of peace. In 1993, wishful thinking smothered Israeli and Western policy-makers. It provided Mr. Arafat with unprecedented legitimacy, triggering unprecedented terrorism. How many innocent lives will be sacrificed on the altar of Abu Mazen and Abu Ala'? Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is an editor and consultant who lives in Jerusalem.

2004-11-24T08:53:00.000-05:00

Why Did We Drink a Toast to Mark Arafat's Death

"I wish to offer you my condolences on the death of Arafat…"
Arieh Golan in an interview with Ahmed Tibi on Kol Israel, Network B.
To hear the entire interview click here http://he.manhigut.org/content/view/1011/0

A small coast guard boat of the Israeli police left port at dawn, on its way to a place outside Israeliterritorial waters. There, in the open sea, a small box, containing ashes and dust of bones, was opened. The contents of the box were scattered in every direction. At the end of its mission the boat returned to its home port.

This was in 1961. The ashes were those of Eichmann, arch-murderer of the Jews. This was during the Mapai era, before the reversal of values of Oslo.

If Eichmann had been caught today, it is reasonable to assume that an enthusiastic band of Israeli admirers would have accompanied his coffin on its way to the airport, and Arieh Golan would have contacted his supporters and expressed his condolences in a live broadcast. After all, what's the difference between Eichmann and Arafat, apart from the former's greater efficiency? In the sixty years that have elapsed since the end of the Second World War, Arafat was responsible for the murder of more Jewishcivilians than anyone else in the world.

A few minutes before he was put on the helicopter to Paris, Arafat managed to sign an order for the transfer of money to the various murder organizations. There is virtually no Israeli who doesn't have a relative or friend who was murdered on the orders of that arch-murderer, but the media give the impression that he was one of the founders of Zionism.

What is the meaning of this mental illness that has afflicted us in the last decade? How have we lost our most basic natural instinct, that of distinguishing between friends and enemies? How long will a zebra survive in the African Savanna if it forgets who is a leopard?

It all began with that evil handshake on the White House lawn between Rabin and the enemy of his people. In just one moment the distinction was destroyed between good and evil, between a murderer and a freedom fighter. We Jews are no longer the good guys in the story – we are just the last of the white colonists who are still holding on to the occupied country of the poor Palestinian natives. There on the lawn we agreed in fact to the enemy's claim.

Apparently, in an act of good will, Arafat condescended to permit us to remain in the territories we had stolen from his people before 1967. In the face of the entire world the Israeli leader gave up the greatest asset we possessed – justice. In the Oslo decade we entered an era of reversal of values, of moral vertigo. We signed that we agreed to being the bad guys in the story.

Most Israelis possess traditional Jewish values, even if they are not religious. They did not become confused by the madness that overtook Israeli leaders and a thin social layer that wishes to discard its Jewish identity. There'll always be some rabbis who will adopt the official line and purify the reptile, but they form an insignificant minority. From the time of the drowning of the Egyptians, the hanging of Haman, and up to the death of the German arch-enemy, sane Jews knew how to rejoice over the death of evil people.

In the post-modern period, that has abandoned the concepts of good and evil (and leaves the stage of history to evil only), in a madness of reversal of values, when it seems that an entire nation has lost its faith in its own righteousness, it was right and important to create a clear anchor of sanity. We are holding on to good, and combating evil, and rejoice when evil is defeated. We sorrow for the Jews who were killed because we didn't destroy that evil many years ago. We give thanks to the Creator who removed that murderer from the world. We shall drink a toast to the lives of all the Jews who will continue to live because of this.

2004-11-24T07:30:00.000-05:00

The IRS Chain GangBy Evan Coyne Maloney



******************

Note: This article does not have to do with Israel.  I apologize, but it's such

a wonderful piece by Evan (see http://brain-terminal.com for his website), that

I just had to post it.  Please check out his website.

(actually, it does have relevance in Israel as the tax burden there is quite high

and Israelis would do well to read this article)

******************



The IRS Chain Gang

By Evan Coyne Maloney

Posted: 23 November 2004



When someone asks about your job, you might say, "I work for..." and

then name some organization. But in reality, you're working for

yourself. It's your money you take home, and that money enables your

survival. In the past, people survived by hunting animals, cultivating

land, building shelters and fabricating garments. You can still do that

today, but you probably don't want to. You'd rather get a job so you can

pay someone else to hunt, farm, build and sew for you.



But you probably won't get anyone to do these things unless you give

them something they want. In a simple barter economy, if you need

firewood and you can only offer cotton in exchange, it might be hard to

find someone willing to make that trade. You'd need someone with

firewood who also wants cotton. That's why barter is inefficient and

money is useful.



Money lets you trade cotton for firewood indirectly. You sell the

cotton, get some money, and then use it to buy firewood. If the guy with

the firewood wanted steak and not cotton, then money is useful to him in

a way that your cotton isn't; he could use the money from you to buy

steak. Money enables many more trades because there are exponentially

more combinations of potential trading partners. While barter

effectively requires each person in the trade to act as both buyer and

seller, with money, you only need to be one or the other.



Money, Prosperity & Taxes

-------------------------

Because it allows more trading opportunities, money helps create greater

prosperity. Think about it: you wouldn't trade with someone unless you

felt you'd be better off afterwards. If you wouldn't benefit in some

way, why would you bother trading in the first place? Well, the person

on the other end of the deal feels the same way. He wouldn't trade

unless he also gains. So, by definition, when people willingly enter

into a fair trade--assuming they have proper information and are acting

rationally--everyone involved is better off. Therefore, the more fair

trades that a given society encourages, the more prosperous the society

becomes.



That's also why economies with greater tax burdens can't grow as fast as

those with lower taxes. When governments take money from citizens, it

reduces the number of transactions those citizens can make, thereby

limiting the gains made through trade.



Taxes, unlike voluntary transactions where everyone benefits, are

mandatory. I don't know any people--no matter how noble or civic-minded

they may be--who can honestly say they feel better off when they look at

their pay stub and see how much of their work is being taken by the

government. Taxation is a necessary cost of maintaining an orderly

society that's capable of defending itself, so we tolerate it. But it's

also a cost that should be minimized, because taxation crowds out the

private transactions that lead to prosperity.



Someone else may end up better off thanks to your tax dollars, but it's

a zero-sum game. Whatever gains are enjoyed by the recipient(s) of your

money is directly offset by your loss of that money. In a private

exchange, the parties execute a trade only when they both stand to

benefit; there are two winners in the deal. But when the government gets

involved, your money is simply shifted somewhere else. That's why

government spending--even though it may result in economic activity--can

never lead to prosperity the way that private transactions do. If both

parties benefit from a private exchange, there is an overall gain.

Multiply that by billions of transactions every day, and you begin to

see how an economy can grow. But with government spending, where each

winner is balanced by a loser, it's always a wash; there is no growth,

just a change in the location of taxpayer money.



Slaves to the IRS

-----------------

You don't get to choose whether you pay taxes. If the government decides

you should pay taxes and you don't, I hope you have a good lawyer. Evade

your taxes, and you'll lose your freedom. So in a way, taxation is a

form of quasi-slavery that society imposes on itself. Every taxpayer is

a partial slave to every voter.



What if, instead of paying taxes in money, the government forced you to

work on a chain gang in order to pay taxes? If you have to work until

5PM every day, but everyone else gets to go home at noon, would that be

fair?



Although an income tax seems like a confiscation of your money, it is

really a confiscation of your time. After all, you earn your income by

sacrificing your time. If you work 40 hours each week, and you pay 50%

of your income in taxes, that means you work 20 hours a week for

yourself and 20 hours for the government. Sure, you don't notice, but

that's only because you spend your 20 government hours sitting at the

same desk, drinking the same coffee, and talking to the same co-workers

that you do during the 20 hours each week you spend working for

yourself.



Back on the Chain Gang

----------------------

Imagine it wasn't like that. Imagine, instead, that you worked your 20

government hours each week busting rocks on that chain gang. Some of the

other folks on the chain gang only have to bust rocks for 10 hours a

week, because their tax rate is 25%. You spend twice as much time on the

chain gang.



That's how the graduated income tax discriminates. (Proponents like

calling it a "progressive" tax, because that sounds like progress, and

how could progress be bad?) By setting different rates for different

people, the government forces some citizens to sacrifice more of their

lives on the IRS chain gang. If taxation is partial slavery, why should

some slaves be more partial than others?



People who favor a graduated tax say it's fair because it makes people

pay more as they earn more. True, but that would be the case under a

flat tax as well. Suppose there's one tax rate, at 20%. Someone making

$50,000 a year pays $10,000; another person making $250,000 pays

$50,000. According to my calculations, $50,000 is more than $10,000 by

about $40,000. Even under a flat tax, higher earners pay more. What

progressive tax advocates really want is for the high earners to pay

more than more, to penalize them for their success by making them spend

disproportionately more time on the IRS chain gang. That doesn't sound

fair to me.



It's been said that simple democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting

on what to have for dinner. That's why democracy must be coupled with

individual rights to maintain a just society. These rights protect the

individual against the tyranny of the majority. But when the majority

can vote to seize more of your life than mine, the system is not

equitable.



To ensure a vibrant economy, taxes should be minimal. And to ensure a

just society, the graduated income tax should be abolished.

2004-11-17T04:49:00.000-05:00

He Conned the Worldby Patrick D. O'Brien

Sunday, November 14, 2004

The passing of arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat this week is bittersweet to

me. I'm glad he's gone, because he was a vile, murderous criminal. But

I'm also frustrated, if not surprised, at how so much of the world

hails this wicked man as a venerable, heroic leader.

He muscled his way into world politics and diplomatic recognition

through mass murder, destruction and terror. He lied, stole and destroyed.

Doesn't anyone care about that? Doesn't anyone think about learning the historical

facts of this man's life before lavishing praise on him?

Yasser Arafat was no hero. He was a reprehensible monster who lived

longer, and who died easier, than any of the innocent people who were

murdered in his ignoble name.

His real name, by the way, was Rahman Abdul Rauf Al-Qudwa Al-Husseini.

He was born in Cairo, Egypt in 1929, and raised in Gaza. His uncle was

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who was the grand mufti of Jerusalem after the

start of the British mandate, and the de facto leader of Palestinian

Arabs -- and this is where Yasser Arafat's story really starts.

Al-Husseini hated Jews passionately. He was a cohort of Adolf Hitler

himself, traveling to Europe to recruit Muslims in the Balkans to

massacre Jews during World War II. He was the architect of a then nascent ideology of

anti-Semitic Palestinian Arab militancy. He instigated riots and pogroms against

Jews and instigated the Arabs to kill their Jewish neighbors. This included a massacre of

Jews praying at the Western Wall. He wanted all Jews out of the Holy Land. In short, he was the

prototypical Arab Palestinian terrorist, and he passed his pernicious legacy on to his nephew,

Yasser Arafat, who became the archetype.

That is Yasser Arafat's background. Not a whole lot of people outside

of Jews, history buffs and Arabs know or care about it, but we all know

about his record since he became a key player on the geopolitical

stage. And most seem quite content to impute to him a spurious image of

statesmanship and heroism in lieu of his long career of brutal violence and

inveterate dishonesty.

Why is that? Are the evil crimes this man has perpetrated so easily

forgotten? Or if they are not forgotten, why then, do they appear to have been

forgiven?

I can't help but think he's been forgiven when I read fawning praise from world

leaders like:

Jacques Chirac: After a final visit at the Paris hospital where

Arafat died, Chirac proclaimed, "I came to bow before President Yasser

Arafat and pay him a final homage. With him disappears a man of courage

and conviction who for 40 years incarnated the Palestinians' fight for

recognition of their national rights."

Nelson Mandela: "Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding

freedom fighters of this generation, one who gave his entire life to the cause of

the Palestinian people."

Jimmy Carter: "He was the father of the modern Palestinian

nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate,

Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland." And, "[He provided]

indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement."

Kofi Annan: Arafat "symbolized... the national aspirations of

the Palestinian people." (And that's actually unintentionally truthful.) In signing

the Oslo accords "he took a giant step towards the realisation of this vision. It is

tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled." Mr. Annan ordered the United Nation's flags to

fly at half-mast, as well. Seriously, he did.

Vladimir Putin: "...a great political leader of international

significance... who devoted his whole life to the rightful cause of the

Palestinians."

You're all insane, the whole lot of you. And there are more that I'm

just not going to bother quoting. Five was enough. I do have to show some gratitude,

however, for my man, Israeli Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, who accurately described Arafat as

the "founding father of terrorism," and who said it was "good that the world is rid of

him.... The sun is shining in the Middle East." At least someone had the courage to tell the truth.

Yasser Arafat was an upstart thug who contrived a country called

"Palestine" from land owned by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (Judea/Samaria, or the West

Bank).

This land was taken by Israel in its 1967 defensive war against five Arab states.

That's what sometimes happens when you lose an offensive war -- you have to give up land when

you sue for peace. Arafat tried to seize control from Jordan's King Hussein in 1971. He

failed and much of his terrorist organization, the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), was

rushed by the Jordanian military and he was expelled. He has since (up until last week, at least)

dedicated his life to a committed program of Arab terror against the Jewish state. Thousands

have died in his twisted vision of Arab entitlement. I lay the blame not only on him, but also on

the European states and the UN, which time and again showed him and the PLO that terrorism produces

beneficial results, pays dividends and earns rewards.

Arafat oversaw the terror attack at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich,

Germany, which resulted in the death of Israel's entire Olympic team. He personally

ordered, by telephone, the execution of two US diplomats in Sudan in 1973. Israel has reams

of confiscated Palestinian Authority documents linking him to the terrorism of Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (now renamed

Martyr Yasser Arafat Brigades), Islamic Jihad and others.

This man had so much blood on his hands, it would be a wonder if he'd

ever seen his own fingernails over the past forty years.

So what did Yasser Arafat and the PLO receive as just punishment for

these horrible deeds of violence, savagery and terror? Well, you can

see the glowing terms of warm affection with which world leaders are

now eulogizing him, but he got more than that. So much more. He got

the PLO to become the first -- and only -- terror organization to gain UN

recognition. He secured for Palestinian Arab "refugees" the world's only

exclusive refugee welfare system: the United Nations Relief and Works

Agency (UNRWA), which derives the majority of its funding from the

United States. He got fabulously rich -- who knows how much money

he stole from the people he claims to represent and where that money

is now? (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Suha. And I see Mahmoud and

Ahmed hiding behind you.)

He won a Nobel Peace Prize. He became the progenitor of modern

Arab terror, who showed that if you lied well enough, if you killed

spectacularly enough, and if you did it long enough, the world

would take notice and reward you for it. He proved that a man

could single-handedly invent a people, with a nonexistent nation

and a history for them, and through a protracted campaign of highly

publicized violence against civilians, convince the whole world that

he was really just an angel with a dirty face. That's what Arafat and

the PLO were given as their recompense for (very) bad behavior.

He was a bad, bad man, and I'll shed no tear for such an evil

miscreant. He promoted the murder of Jews, and reveled in the

commission that murder, while pretending to condemn it. He

happily carved deep wounds in the hearts of thousands upon

thousands of Israelis, wounds that will never fully heal. He was

responsible for the deaths of plenty of Americans also. Where is the

effusive outpouring of emotion for these people and their families? Where was the

justice their spilled blood cried out for while this terrible man yet drew breath?

Shame on you, Jacques Chirac. Shame on you, Pope John Paul II. Shame on

you, Jimmy Carter. Shame on you, Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela. Shame

on you all! You are all complicit in the continuing legitimization of

the modern cost/benefit terror that Yasser Arafat pioneered and refined.

Yasser Arafat didn't conceive the idea of Arab Jew-hatred and terrorism

to achieve political ends -- that's been around since Muhammad was

possessed by heaven knows what to devise the hate manual known as the

Qur'an. He sure did perfect it, though. And anyone who thinks that

things will get any better now that he's gone is deluded, naive or

hopelessly ignorant. For one thing, his heir apparent, Mahmoud Abbas, is a Holocaust

denier and is on the record as supporting terror. And also of importance is the fact

that two generations of Palestinian Arabs have been raised under the hellish parental

guidance of the PLO and its version of Islam. These kids were brought up in a hateful

culture of death, which glorifies violence and fondly holds up death as life's

ultimate reward. In other words, all the pieces are in play for Arafat's cruel and bloody designs to continue unabated. It's all well and good

to utter some wistful words of remembrance for the smiling killer who led these people --

nowhere -- and then thoughtlessly assume that there's a chance at peace now that he's finally dead,

but those of us who are close to this whole mess know better.

The majority of Palestinian Arabs consistently support the "liberation"

of Israel through murder/suicide terror attacks on Israeli civilians.

That is the fact of the matter. They are thoroughly convinced that they

are entitled to all of Eretz Yisrael, and that they have the

right to take it by any means available to them (preferably by the

indiscriminate violence sanctioned by Islam). And with the way the world rewarded

Yasser Arafat, the PLO, and all other terror groups killing innocent Jews all these years

for their wicked cause, it's not hard to understand why.

Yasser Arafat fooled the world into thinking that he was a man. He made

everyone believe that he was a legitimate leader, a partner for peace

and a noble warrior for freedom. He was really just an evil monster who

made a lifelong career of killing Jews with impunity, out of racism,

lust for power and plain baseness. Some of us realize that and are not

afraid to say so. He was a bad man and history will bear that out.

I pity the earth that will be laden with his bones.

otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of

author.

2004-11-12T02:26:00.000-05:00

Arafat the Monster

Excellent article by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe

2004-11-10T08:10:00.000-05:00

Arafat's Bedroom Farce

Excellent article by Daniel Pipes!

2004-11-09T22:29:00.000-05:00

Sources: Suha Arafat rejects $2 million settlement from Palestinian Authority

By Arnon Regular

Suha Arafat has rejected a $2 million financial settlement from Palestinian figures acting on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, according to French sources, who are becoming increasingly impatient with the wife of the deeply comatose Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat.

The settlement was aimed at persuading Suha Arafat to allow completion of the tests that would finally determine the chairman's death. Contacts between Suha Arafat and the Palestinian financiers began as soon as it became clear that Arafat would have to be flown to France for emergency medical treatment.

The French have been exasperated by Suha Arafat's refusal, permissible under French law, to allow others access to he husband's room in the Percy Military Hospital near Paris.

According to the sources, contacts between Suha Arafat and the Palestinian Authority were renewed on Monday night, with the arrival in Paris of Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, former prime minister Mahmoud Abbas, and Nabil Sha'ath. After exhaustive negotiations, Suha Arafat agreed to allow Qureia, accompanied by the head of the chairman's personal guard, to enter his room. The visit went ahead yesterday afternoon.

French officials who have been following Yasser Arafat's treatment were astonished to discover that Suha Arafat's constant companion and financial adviser was none other than Pierre Rizk, who headed the intelligence service of the Phalanga during the Lebanese civil war and was in close personal contact with the guerrilla group responsible for the massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camp in 1982.

Rizk has been spotted in or near Percy Hospital in recent days. Since Rizk holds power of attorney for Suha Arafat, French and Palestinian officials have been in constant contact with him over Suha Arafat's financial demands, which she says are designed to ensure the financial future of her and her daughter. The outcome of these contacts is still not clear.

Rizk, a Maronite Lebanese, is well known to Israeli officials, and has spent long periods in Israel where he met with government officials and private business figures. Israelis who have met with him in person describe him as a colorful figure, and say that he is something of a womanizer.

Because of his position within the Phalangas, he has extensive contacts with several international intelligence agencies. Living in Paris since his exile from Lebanon, Rizk is an international businessman with operations in Europe and the United States.

In 1999, Rizk won a legal suit he filed in the U.S. courts against the PA. The suit, which created quite a stir in financial circles in the PA, was based on a promise made to Rizk by Yasser Arafat just before the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, that he would be granted the license to develop the communications infrastructure in the West Bank.

Rizk obtained a note, signed by Arafat, in which he undertook to award the contract to International Technology Integrated (ITI), a company incorporated in the U.S. At the same time, it now appears that Arafat was handing out similar notes to many other people and companies, promising them jobs, tenders and contracts in his future government.

In practice, none of these promises were ever fulfilled. Unlike other disappointed parties, Rizk decided to sue Arafat for violating his word, and was awarded $18 million. As a result, American banks froze $80 million of the PA's money, threatening its stability. The crisis was eventually ended when the PA sent envoys Paris to negotiate a settlement.

2004-11-07T04:11:00.000-05:00

Adieu, Yasser Arafat

By Uri Dromi

A decade ago, as chief spokesman for the Israeli government, I went with then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin to Cairo for the signing of an agreement on the handing over of Gaza and Jericho to the Palestinians. Like my boss, I was fully committed to the peace process, but even during those heady early days of Oslo, I was quickly coming to suspect that the now-ailing Yasser Arafat was a leader who would never be capable of making peace with us.

The signing, in May 1994, was to have been no more than a formality, but the night before the ceremony, it suddenly appeared as if there might not be an agreement at all. While the Israeli and Palestinian security chiefs hugged each other most amicably upon meeting in the corridors of Cairo's Ittihadia Palace, the politicians' discussions inside the chambers were going astray.

Once in a while, a door would slam and a fuming Arafat would storm past us advisers. Each time, our host, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, followed after him, going out of his way to mend fences. Finally, just before dawn, all seemed to be settled. We parted ways to catch some sleep before the ceremony.

We reconvened a few hours later in front of a festive crowd assembled in Cairo's convention center. Then, with the whole world watching on television, Arafat did the unbelievable.

At first, the ceremony seemed to proceed as planned. Arafat solemnly signed the voluminous agreement, after which he returned to his place on the podium, alongside the other dignitaries.

In turn, Rabin picked up his pen and started signing. Suddenly he stopped, his face reddened and he muttered something inaudible. Yoel Zinger, the Israeli legal adviser, rushed to the stage. A commotion started; the crowd grew restless. Nobody new what was happening.

We soon found out. Yasser Arafat, at a historic moment that was meant to bring his people closer than they had ever been to fulfilling their dream of statehood, simply couldn't help himself.

It turned out that he had only feigned signing all the pages of the agreement — he had actually skipped some. Rabin furiously threatened to leave, and Mubarak, the insulted host, confronted Arafat and, as later rumors had it, gave him a piece of his mind in solid Arabic.

Arafat refused to yield. Standing there in his uniform, his hands defiantly crossed over his chest, he claimed that certain things concerning Jericho had not actually been agreed upon. Only after a long, unscheduled break did he finally succumb and sign the agreement.

Now a bit of breast beating is in order. Though I am now one of the many Israelis who has become disillusioned by the outbreak of the second intifada, back then I was fully committed to the Oslo Accords and, as Rabin's spokesman, I played a role in painting a more positive picture of the peace process. And so it was that I rationalized Arafat's behavior that day as being a message to his people that he had tried everything for them before he signed the compromise.

Alas, it wasn't all.

A few days after the ceremony in Cairo, Arafat gave a speech in Johannesburg at a local mosque. Believing he was among friends only, he talked about the agreement he had just signed: "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Qureish.... You remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce.... But the same way Muhammad had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort."

For those not versed in Islamic history, the agreement, also known as the al-Khudaibiya agreement, was a 10-year peace treaty between Mohammad and the tribe of Qureish. After two years, when Mohammad had improved his military position, he tore up the agreement and slaughtered the Qureishites.

So much for Arafat's idea of honoring agreements he signed with Israel.

That Arafat is no Nelson Mandela is now understood by all but the most naive. To his credit, he has carried his people from obscurity to the center of international attention. But he has proved himself unable to rise to the historical occasion, unable to make the switch from revolutionary leader to nation builder. He just hasn't been able to turn to his people, especially those living in the refugee camps, and admit that this is it — that this is the best deal they'll ever get, that they need to forget forever the hope of returning to their homes in Jaffa and Haifa.

By not being able to do so, Arafat has become in the eyes of most Israelis the embodiment of our worst fear: the threat of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees fighting until the very end for their old homes — in other words, for the end of the Jewish state. That is why most Israelis have believed that as long as Arafat is the Palestinian leader, we have no partner for peace.

Now that Arafat seems to be on the way out — if not from life, then at least from any meaningful leadership of the Palestinian people — the big question is whether he has been the sole obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or whether he simply has been representing a phenomenon common to all Palestinian leaders.

Is there, I wonder, anyone among all those Palestinian figures, smartly dressed in business suits, who also means business? Can we at last sit down with people who, instead of double-talking, will for once keep their word?

Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

Uri Dromi, director of international outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute, was chief spokesman for the Israeli government under Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

2004-11-07T04:08:00.000-05:00

Key Dates in the life of Yasir Arafat

known to many as the "father of modern terrorism"

(prepared by http://www.camera.org/)

-- Aug 4, 1929: Arafat born in Cairo. Muhammad Abdel Rahman Abdel Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini is fifth child of prosperous merchant, Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini.

-- 1933 : Arafat's mother dies. He and his infant brother are sent to live with uncle in Jerusalem.

-- 1948: Arafat runs arms to Palestine.

-- Late 1950s: Arafat co-founds Fatah, the "Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine."
-- Jan. 1, 1965: Fatah's first attempted attack in Israel fails. They had attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier.

-- July 5, 1965: A Fatah cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.

-- 1965-1967: Numerous Fatah bomb attacks target Israeli villages, water pipes, railroads. Homes are destroyed and Israelis are killed.

-- July 1968: Fatah joins and becomes the dominant member of the PLO, an umbrella organization of Palestinian terrorist groups.

-- Feb. 4, 1969: Arafat appointed Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO

-- Feb. 21, 1970: SwissAir flight 330, bound for Tel Aviv, bombed by PLO-group PFLP in mid-flight, killing 47.

--Sept. 6, 1970: TWA, Pan-Am, and BOAC airplanes hijacked by PLO terrorists.

-- September 1970: In operation known as "Black September," Jordanian forces battle PLO, driving them out of Jordan, after the group's violent activity threatened to destabilize the kingdom. The terrorists flee to Lebanon.

-- Sept. 5, 1972: 11 Israeli athletes killed at the Munich Olympics by PLO-affiliated terrorists.

-- March 1, 1973 : Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans (including the United States' ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel) and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.

-- April 11, 1974: 18 residents of Kiryat Shmona in Israel killed in their apartment building by Palestinian terrorist who infiltrated from Lebanon.

-- May 15, 1974: School in Ma'alot attacked by Palestinian terrorists who infiltrated from Lebanon. 26 Israelis, including many children, were killed.

-- June 9, 1974 : Palestinian National Council adopts "Phased Plan," which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory evacuated by Israel, to be used as a base of operations for destroying the whole of Israel. The PLO reaffirmed its rejection of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a "just and lasting peace" and the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

--Nov. 13, 1974: Arafat, wearing a gun, addresses U.N. General Assembly

-- 1982: Having created a terrorist mini-state in Lebanon destabilizing that nation, PLO expelled after Israel responds to incessant PLO missile attacks against northern Israeli communities. Arafat relocates to Tunis.

-- Oct. 7, 1985 : Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. Wheelchair-bound elderly man, Leon Klinghoffer, was shot and thrown overboard. Intelligence reports note that instructions originated from Arafat's headquarters in Tunis.

--Dec. 12, 1988: Arafat claims to accept Israel's right to exist.

-- Sept. 1993: Handshake with Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, inaugurating the Oslo Accords. Arafat pledged to stop incitement and terror, and to foster co-existence with Israel, but failed to comply.

Throughout the years of negotiations, aside from passing, token efforts, Arafat does nothing to stop Hamas, PFLP, and Islamic Jihad from carrying out thousands of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. With Arafat's encouragement and financial support, groups directly under Arafat's command, such as the Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, also carry out terror attacks.

-- Oct. 21, 1996: Speaking at a rally near Bethlehem, Arafat said "We know only one word - jihad. Jihad, jihad, jihad. Whoever does not like it can drink from the Dead Sea or from the Sea of Gaza." (Yediot Ahronot, October 23, 1996)

-- April 16, 1998: In a statement published in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, Arafat is quoted: "O my dear ones on the occupied lands, relatives and friends throughout Palestine and the diaspora, my colleagues in struggle and in arms, my colleagues in struggle and in jihad...Intensify the revolution and the blessed intifada...We must burn the ground under the feet of the invaders."

-- July 2000: Arafat rejects peace settlement offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, which would have led to a Palestinian state.

-- Sept 2000: New "intifada" is launched. Arafat continues to incite, support and fund terrorism.

Below are some of the attacks since Sept 2000 perpetrated by groups under Arafat's command:

-- May 29, 2001: Gilad Zar, 41, of Itamar, was shot dead in a terrorist ambush by Fatah Tanzim.

-- May 29, 2001: Sara Blaustein, 53, and Esther Alvan, 20, of Efrat, were killed in a drive-by shooting south of Jerusalem. The Fatah Tanzim claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- June 18, 2001: Doron Zisserman, 38, shot and killed in his car by Fatah sniper fire.

-- Aug 26, 2001: Dov Rosman, 58, killed in a shooting attack by Fatah terrorist.

-- Sept 6, 2001: Erez Merhavi, 23, killed in a Fatah Tanzim ambush shooting near Hadera while driving to a wedding.

-- Sept 20, 2001: Sarit Amrani, 26, killed by Fatah terrorist snipers as she was traveling in a car with her husband and 3 children.

-- Oct 4, 2001: 3 killed, 13 wounded, when a Fatah terrorist, dressed as an Israeli paratrooper, opened fire on Israeli civilians waiting at the central bus station in Afula.

-- Nov 27, 2001 - 2 killed 50 injured when two Palestinian terrorists opened fire with Kalashnikov assault rifles on a crowd of people near the central bus station in Afula. Fatah and the Islamic Jihad claimed joint responsibility.

-- Nov 29, 2001: 3 killed and 9 wounded in a suicide bombing on an Egged 823 bus en route from Nazereth to Tel Aviv near the city of Hadera. The Islamic Jihad and Fatah claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Dec 12, 2001 - 11 killed and 30 wounded when three terrorists attacked a bus and several passenger cars with a roadside bomb, anti-tank grenades, and light arms fire near the entrance to Emmanuel in Samaria . Both Fatah and Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Jan. 3, 2002: Israelis intercept the Karine-A, a ship loaded with 50 tons of mortars, rocket launchers, anti-tank mines and other weapons intended for the Palestinian war against the Israelis. The captain admits he was under the command of the Palestinian Authority.

--Jan 15, 2002: Avi Boaz, 71, an American citizen, was kidnapped at a PA security checkpoint in Beit Jala. His bullet-riddled body was found in a car near Bethlehem. The Fatah's Al-Aksa Brigade claimed responsibility for the murder.

--Jan 15, 2002: Yoela Chen, 45, was shot dead by an Al Aqsa Brigade terrorist

-- Jan 17, 2002: 6 killed, 35 wounded when a Fatah terrorist burst into a bat mitzva reception in a banquet hall in Hadera opening fire with an M-16 assault rifle.

-- Jan 22, 2002: 2 killed, 40 injured when a Fatah terrorist opened fire with an M-16 assault rifle near a bus stop in downtown Jerusalem.

-- Jan. 27, 2002: One person was killed and more than 150 were wounded by a female Fatah suicide bomber in the center of Jerusalem.

-- Feb 6, 2002 - A mother and her 11 year old daughter were murdered in their home by a Palestinian terrorist disguised in an IDF uniform. Both Fatah and Hamas claimed responsibility.

-- Feb 18, 2002 : - Ahuva Amergi, 30, was killed and a 60-year old man was injured when a Palestinian terrorist opened fire on her car. Maj. Mor Elraz, 25, and St.-Sgt. Amir Mansouri, 21, who came to their assistance, were killed while trying to intercept the terrorist. The terrorist was killed when the explosives he was carrying were detonated. The Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Feb 22, 2002: Valery Ahmir, 59, was killed by terrorists in a Fatah drive-by shooting north of Jerusalem as he returned home from work.

-- Feb 25, 2002: Avraham Fish, 65, and Aharon Gorov, 46, were killed in a Fatah terrorist shooting attack south of Bethlehem. Fish's daughter, 9 months pregnant, was seriously injured but delivered a baby girl.

-- Feb 25, 2002: Police officer 1st Sgt. Galit Arbiv, 21, died after being fatally shot, when a Fatah terrorist opened fire at a bus stop in the Neve Ya'akov residential neighbhorhood in northern Jerusalem. Eight others were injured.

-- Feb 27, 2002: Gad Rejwan, 34, of Jerusalem, was shot and killed by one of his Palestinian employees in a factory north of Jerusalem. Two Fatah groups issued a joint statement taking responsibility for the murder.

-- March 2, 2002: A suicide bombing by Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem killed 11 people and injured more than 50.

-- Mar 5, 2002: 3 were killed and over 30 people were wounded in Tel-Aviv when a Fatah terrorist opened fire on two adjacent restaurants shortly after 2:00 AM.

-- Mar 5, 2002: Devorah Friedman, 45, of Efrat, was killed and her husband injured in a Fatah shooting attack on the Bethlehem bypass "tunnel road", south of Jerusalem.

-- Mar 9, 2002: Avia Malka, 9 months, and Israel Yihye, 27, were killed and about 50 people were injured when two Fatah terrorists opened fire and threw grenades at cars and pedestrians in the coastal city of Netanya on Saturday evening, close to the city's boardwalk and hotels.

--March 21, 2002: An Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade suicide bomber exploded himself in a crowd of shoppers in Jerusalem, killing 3 and injuring 86.

-- March 29, 2002: Two killed and 28 injured when a female Fatah suicide bomber blew herself up in a Jerusalem supermarket.

-- March 30, 2002: One killed and 30 injured in an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

-- April 12, 2002: Six killed and 104 wounded when a female Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade suicide bomber blew herself up at a bus stop on Jaffa road at the entrance to Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda open-air market.

-- May 27, 2002: Ruth Peled, 56, of Herzliya and her infant granddaughter, aged 14 months, were killed and 37 people were injured when a Fatah suicide bomber detonated himself near an ice cream parlor outside a shopping mall in Petah Tikva.

-- May 28, 2002 - Albert Maloul, 50, of Jerusalem, was killed when shots were fired by Fatah terrorists at the car in which he was traveling south on the Ramallah bypass road.

-- May 28, 2002 - Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorists killed Netanel Riachi, 17, Gilad Stiglitz, 14, and Avraham Siton, 17, three yeshiva high school students playing basketball.

-- June 19, 2002: Seven people were killed and 37 injured when a Fatah suicide bomber blew himself up at a crowded bus stop and hitchhiking post in the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem.

-- June 20, 2002: Rachel Shabo, 40, and three of her sons - Neria, 16, Zvika, 12, and Avishai, 5 - as well as a neighbor, Yosef Twito, 31, who came to their aid, were murdered when a terrorist entered their home in Itamar, south of Nablus, and opened fire. Two other children were injured, as well as two soldiers. The PFLP and the Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- July 25, 2002: Rabbi Elimelech Shapira, 43, was killed in a Fatah shooting attack near the West Bank community of Alei Zahav.

-- July 26, 2002: St.-Sgt. Elazar Lebovitch, 21, of Hebron; Rabbi Yosef Dikstein, 45, of Psagot, his wife Hannah, 42, and their 9-year-old son Shuv'el Zion were killed in a Fatah Al Aqsa Brigade shooting attack south of Hebron. Two other of their children were injured.

-- July 30, 2002: Shlomo Odesser, 60, and his brother Mordechai, 52, both of Tapuach in Samaria, were shot and killed when their truck came under Fatah fire in the West Bank village of Jama'in.

-- Aug 4, 2002: 2 killed and 17 wounded when a Fatah terrorist opened fire with a pistol near the Damascus Gate of Jerusalem's Old City.

-- Aug 5, 2002: Avi Wolanski (29) and his wife Avital (27), of Eli, were killed and one of their children, aged 3, was injured when terrorists opened fire on their car as they were traveling on the Ramallah-Nablus road in Samaria. The Martyrs of the Palestinian Popular Army, a splinter group associated with Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Aug 10, 2002: Yafit Herenstein, 31, of Moshav Mechora in the Jordan Valley, was killed and her husband, Arno, seriously wounded when a Fatah terrorist infiltrated the moshav and opened fire outside their home.

-- Sept 18, 2002: Yosef Ajami, 36, was killed when Fatah terrorists opened fire on his car near Mevo Dotan, north of Jenin in the West Bank.

-- Oct 29, 2002: Three people, including 2 fourteen year olds, were shot to death by a Fatah terrorist.

-- Nov 10, 2002: Revital Ohayon, 34, and her two sons, Matan, 5, and Noam, 4, as well as Yitzhak Dori, 44 - all of Kibbutz Metzer - and Tirza Damari, 42, were killed when a Fatah terrorist infiltrated the kibbutz, located east of Hadera near the Green Line, and opened fire.

-- Nov 28, 2002: 5 killed and 40 wounded when two Fatah terrorists opened fire and threw grenades at the Likud polling station in Beit She'an, near the central bus station, where party members were casting their votes in the Likud primary.

-- Apr 24, 2003 - 1 was killed and 13 were wounded in a suicide bombing outside the train station in Kfar Sava. Groups related to the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the PFLP clamied joint responsibility for the attack.

-- May 5, 2003 - Gideon Lichterman, 27, was killed and two other passengers, his six-year-old daughter Moriah and a reserve soldier, were seriously wounded when Fatah terrorists fired shots at their vehicle in Samaria.

-- May 19, 2003: 3 were killed and 70 were wounded in a suicide bombing at the entrance to the Amakim Mall in Afula. The Islamic Jihad and the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades both claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Aug 29, 2003: Shalom Har-Melekh, 25, was killed in a Fatah shooting attack while driving northeast of Ramallah. His wife, Limor, who was seven months pregnant, sustained moderate injuries, and gave birth to a baby girl by Caesarean section.

-- Jan 29, 2004: 11 people were killed and over 50 wounded in a suicide bombing of an Egged bus no. 19 at the corner of Gaza and Arlozorov streets in Jerusalem. Both the Fatah-related Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Mar 14, 2004: 10 were killed and 16 wounded in a double suicide bombing at Ashdod Port. Hamas and Fatah claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- May 2, 2004: Tali Hatuel, 34, and her daughters - Hila, 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, and Merav, 2 - of Katif in the Gaza Strip were killed when two Palestinian terrorists fired on an Israeli car at the entrance to the Gaza Strip settlement bloc of Gush Katif. Fatah and Islamic Jihad claimed joint responsibility for the attack.

2004-11-02T13:15:00.000-05:00

Sanity Check: Letter to the editor of the NY Times

Dear Sir/madam:

Steve Erlanger, in his article about the Carmel Market bombing on November 1st stated that the 16 year-old suicide bomber's mother condemned the attack. The boy's mother did not did not condemn the attack; she condemned only the fact that her 16 year-old son was recruited to do the job. In fact, the boy's mother comments demonstrate her full support of such attacks, killing and maiming Israeli innocents, provided the attacks are carried out by responsible adults. As Mr. Erlanger quoted the mother she said only: "It's immoral to send someone so young. They should have sent an adult who understands the meaning of his deeds." This simple moral distinction is crucial to understanding how and why this child ended up wasting his life and destroying so many others.

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-11-01T10:42:00.000-05:00

Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush

By: Yigal Carmon*

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state")(2) to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."(3)

Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks.(4) This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce.(5) The Islamist website Al-Islah explains: "Some people ask 'what's new in this tape?' [The answer is that] this tape is the second of its kind, after the previous tape of the Sheikh [Osama bin Laden], in which he offered a truce to the Europeans a few months ago, and it is a completion of this move, and it brings together the complementary elements of politics and religion, political savvy and force, the sword and justice. The Sheikh reminds the West in this tape of the great Islamic civilization and pure Islamic religion, and of Islamic justice..."(6)

Another conspicuous aspect of the tape is the absence of common Islamist themes that are relevant to the month of Ramadan, which for fundamentalists like bin Laden is the month of Jihad and martyrdom. Noticeably absent from the Al-Jazeera tape was his usual appearance with a weapon, and more importantly the absence of references to Jihad, martyrdom, the Koran, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Crusaders, Jews, and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad on the duty to wage Jihad against the infidels. For the followers of the Al-Qa'ida ideology, this speech sends a regressive and defeatist message of surrender, as seen in the move from solely using Jihad warfare to a mixed strategy of threats combined with truce offers and election deals.

The following are the relevant excerpts from the speech; for the full excerpts visit the MEMRI TV Project at http://www.memritv.org:(7/)

"Oh the American people, I address these words to you regarding the optimal manner of avoiding another Manhattan, and regarding the war, its causes, and its consequences. But before this, I say to you: Security is one of the important pillars of human life, and free men do not take their security lightly, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him explain why we did not attack Sweden, for example. Clearly, those who hate freedom have no pride, unlike the 19 [suicide hijackers of 9/11], may Allah have mercy on them. We have been fighting you because we are free men who do not remain silent in the face of injustice. We want to restore our [Islamic] nation's freedom. Just as you violate our security, we violate yours.

"But I am amazed at you. Although we have entered the fourth year after the events of 9/11, Bush is still practicing distortion and deception against you and he is still concealing the true cause from you. Consequently, the motives for its reoccurrence still exist...

"We had no difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration, because it resembles the regimes in our [Arab] countries, half of which are ruled by the military, and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents with whom we have had a lot of experience. Among both types, there are many who are known for their conceit, arrogance, greed, and for taking money dishonestly.

"This resemblance began with the visit of Bush Sr. to the region. While some of our people were dazzled by the U.S. and hoped that these visits would influence our countries, it was he who was influenced by these monarchic and military regimes. He envied them for remaining in their positions for decades, while embezzling the nation's public funds with no supervision whatsoever. He bequeathed tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his son and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of the war on terrorism.

"Bush Sr. liked the idea of appointing [his] sons as state governors. Similarly, he did not neglect to import into Florida the expertise in falsifying [elections] from the leaders of this region in order to benefit from it in difficult moments.

"We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

* Yigal Carmon is the President of MEMRI.

Endnotes:(1) Al-Jazeera (Qatar), October 27, 2004.(2) "Wilaya" refers specifically to a U.S. state; it would never refer to an independent country. The term for such a country is "Dawla."(3) https://www.qal3ati.com/vb/showthread.php?t=115812 (4) To illustrate this principle, he uses Sweden as a model of a country that was never attacked by Al-Qa'ida.(5) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 695, April 15, 2004, "Osama Bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty with Europe, Says Al-Qa'ida 'Will Persist in Fighting' the U.S." http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP69504(6) www.islahi.net/vboard/showthread.php?t=116432(7) To view the full tape aired on Al-Jazeera or read the transcript, visit http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=312 .

2004-10-31T04:27:00.000-05:00

ARAFAT: FATHER OF MODERN-DAY TERRORISM

Yasser Arafat, who reportedly is now breathing his last, is considered the father of modern terrorism. He is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israeli citizens, the deaths of untold numbers of Arabs and the killing of more than 100 U.S. citizens. Among the Americans were two diplomats, whose cruel murders in Sudan Arafat ordered by radio from his Beirut headquarters.

In 1995, Ariel Sharon said, "I don't know anyone other than Arafat who has as much civilian Jewish blood on his hands since the time of the Nazis."

Arafat's official biography on the Nobel Prize website glosses over his terrorist past, writing only, "In 1958 he and his friends founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary, organising Fatah raids into Israel from Jordan. It was also in 1964 that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was established, under the sponsorship of the Arab League, bringing together a number of groups all working to free Palestine for the Palestinians. The Arab states favoured a more conciliatory policy than Fatah's... Arafat developed the PLO into a state within the state of Jordan with its own military forces. King Hussein of Jordan, disturbed by its guerrilla attacks on Israel and other violent methods, eventually expelled the PLO from his country. Arafat sought to build a similar organisation in Lebanon, but this time was driven out by an Israeli milit! ary in vasion. He kept the organization alive, however, by moving its headquarters to Tunis..."

In fact, however, this long period was one of blood and murder orchestrated by Arafat. The PLO under his leadership conducted plane hijackings, bombings, and other acts of violence against Israel. In fact, the beginning of terror sky-jackings has been attributed to Arafat and the Fatah. Two years ago, after an Israeli plane was almost shot down in Kenya, then-Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned, "Sky-jacking terrorism first began against Israeli targets abroad by Arafat and Fatah in the late 1960's, and it very quickly became an international plague. We face exactly the same situation now. The terrorism of firing missiles against civilian airlines is now beginning against Israeli planes, but it can easily spread to other areas..." Arutz-7 reported at the time that though there had been "transportation" skyjackings in which criminals wished to reach Cuba, the first terrorist-extortion hijacking o! f an a irliner apparently occurred when Palestinians hijacked an El Al airliner to Algiers in July 1968. Two years later, Palestinian terrorists hijacked four jets almost simultaneously; the passengers were released after three weeks, and the planes were blown up.

The PLO under Arafat was also responsible for the massacre of 26 people, mostly children, in the Netiv Meir school in Maalot in May 1974. Another PLO organization perpetrated the Munich Olympics slaughter, killing eleven Israeli athletes in 1972.

In Lebanon, Arafat's forces killed hundreds of thousands of Christians, destroyed Christian villages, and burned churches, as detailed here. See also this article by a Lebanese Christian.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, wrote [Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2002], "... I am not surprised to see that Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well during my years at the top of Romania's foreign intelligence service. I became directly involved with Arafat in the late 1960s, in the days when he was being financed and manipulated by the KGB... Gen. Sakharovsky asked us in Romanian intelligence to help the KGB bringing Arafat and some of his fedayeen fighters secretly to the Soviet Union via Romania, in order for them to be indoctrinated and trained. During that same year, the Soviets maneuvered to have Arafat named chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, with public help from Egypt's ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser. When I first met Arafat, I was stunned by the ideological similarity between him and his KGB mentor. Arafat's broken record was that American "imperial Zionism" was the "rabid dog of the world," and there was only one wa! y to d eal with a rabid dog: "Kill it!" ... Arafat and his KGB handlers were preparing a PLO commando team headed by Arafat's top deputy, Abu Jihad, to take American diplomats hostage in Khartoum, Sudan, and demand the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy... Just six months earlier Arafat's liaison officer for Romania, Ali Hassan Salameh, had led the PLO commando team that took the Israeli athletes hostage at the Munich Olympic Games...

"On March 2, 1973, after President Nixon refused the terrorists' demand, the PLO commandos executed three of their hostages: American Ambassador Cleo A. Noel Jr., his deputy, George Curtis Moore, and Belgian charge d'affaires Guy Eid. In May 1973, during a private dinner with Ceausescu, Arafat excitedly bragged about his Khartoum operation. "Be careful," Ion Gheorghe Maurer, a Western-educated lawyer who had just retired as Romanian prime minister, told him. "No matter how high up you are, you can still be convicted for killing and stealing." "Who, me? I never had anything to do with that operation," Arafat said, winking mischievously.

"In January 1978, the PLO representative in London was assassinated at his office. Soon after that, convincing pieces of evidence started to come to light showing that the crime was committed by the infamous terrorist Abu Nidal, who had recently broken with Arafat and built his own organization. "That wasn't a Nidal operation. It was ours," Ali Hassan Salameh, Arafat's liaison officer for Romania, told me. Even Ceausescu's adviser to Arafat, who was well familiar with his craftiness, was taken by surprise. "Why kill your own people?" Col. Constantin Olcescu asked. "We want to mount some spectacular operations against the PLO, making it look as if they had been organized by Palestinian extremist groups that accuse the chairman of becoming too conciliatory and moderate," Salameh explained... Arafat has made a political career by pretending that he has not been involved in his own ! terror ist acts. But evidence against him grows by the day. James Welsh, a former intelligence analyst for the National Security Agency, has told U.S. journalists that the NSA had secretly intercepted the radio communications between Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad during the PLO operation against the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, including Arafat's order to kill Ambassador Noel..."

Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri revealed in their 1997 biography, Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat, that Arafat was born in August 1929, in Cairo - and not in Jerusalem or Gaza, as Arab sources often claim.

2004-10-25T23:23:00.000-04:00

Haim Harari: A View from the Eye of the Storm

I won't repost the entire article here, but this is an excellent (long) read for those wanting a good perspective of the Middle East. Below is a pointer to the article - worthwhile!!!

http://www.jimlynch.com/blog/index.php?p=877

2004-10-23T23:08:00.000-04:00

Kerry: Sacrificing Israel

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post Friday, October 22, 2004; PageA25
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53015-2004Oct21.html

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is torebuild our alliancesso the world will come to our aid, especially inIraq. He repeats thisendlessly because it is the only foreign policy ideahe has to offer. Theproblem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just howhe proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face isunlikely to so thrill theallies that French troops will start marching downthe streets of Baghdad.Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just beingcynical in pledging tobring in the allies, knowing that he has no way ofdoing it. Or you canbelieve, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. Andhe has an idea how to doit. For understandable reasons, however, he will notexplain how on the eveof an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arabstates endlessly railabout in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) isthe area of mostfriction with U.S. policy? What single issue mostisolates America from theoverwhelming majority of countries at the UnitedNations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the restof the world in exchangefor their support in places such as Iraq? The answeris obvious: giving into them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyonefamiliar with the code words ofMiddle East diplomacy can read between the lines.Read what former Clintonnational security adviser Sandy Berger said in"Foreign Policy for aDemocratic President," a manifesto written while hewas a senior foreignpolicy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, theUnited States must re-engagein . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. .. . As we re-engage inthe peace process and rebuild frayed ties with ourallies, what should aDemocratic president ask of our allies in return?First and foremost, weshould ask for a real commitment of troops and moneyto Afghanistan andIraq."

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America"re-engages" in the "peaceprocess" in return for troops and money inAfghanistan and Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process."We know what "peaceprocess" meant during the eight years Berger servedin the Clinton WhiteHouse -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat wasinvited more often thanany other leader on the planet. It meant believingArafat's deceptions aboutpeace while letting him get away with the mostvirulent incitement to andunrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constantpressure on Israel tomake one territorial concession after another -- inreturn for nothing.Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched avicious terror war thatkilled a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely whatthe Europeans, theRussians and the United Nations have been pressuringthe United States to dofor years. Do you believe any of them have Israel'ssafety at heart? Theywould sell out Israel in an instant, and they arepressuring America to doprecisely that.

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israelipolicy? After all, isn'tBush the first president ever to commit the UnitedStates to an independentPalestinian state? Bush's sin is that he alsoinsists the Palestiniansgenuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt,dictatorial terroristleadership of Yasser Arafat.

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violencecontinues and whileArafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle Eastpolicy. That policy -- isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right todefend itself both byattacking the terrorist infrastructure and bybuilding a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada andproducing an astonishing 84percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties.

John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community ofnations." There is noissue on which the United States more consistentlyfails the global test ofinternational consensus than Israel. In July, theU.N. General Assemblydeclared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a voteof 150 to 6. Indefending Israel, America stood almost alone.

You want to appease the "international community"?Sacrifice Israel.Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of"peace." Applyrelentless pressure on Israel to make concessions toa Palestinianleadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000)it will never make peace.

The allies will appreciate that. Then turn aroundand say to them: We'redoing our part (against Israel), now you do yours(in Iraq). If Kerry iselected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one.

2004-10-12T08:04:00.000-04:00

True Speech Versus Free Speech

By Phyllis Chesler
The Jewish Press
October 11, 2004

Dear President Brodhead:

Greetings!

I am writing to you as a member of Duke`s extended family of scholars. Asyou may know, my archives reside at Duke University as part of adistinguished collection of feminist intellectuals and activists. Indeed, myarchives were Duke`s first major acquisition in this area.

You have in your possession a treasure trove of my research, published andunpublished manuscripts, interviews, course curricula, and worldwide civilrights activism from the early 1960`s on. Duke acquired my papers in 1992and I have continued to hand over materials ever since. Other importantacquisitions that followed mine include those of Kate Millett, Alix KatesShulman, Merle Hoffman, Robin Morgan, and others.

I am also one of 107 signatories to a letter recently sponsored by theWyman Institute for Holocaust Studies addressed to Secretary of State ColinPowell on behalf of the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, (HR 4230), whichwould have the United States monitor and combat anti-Semitism world-wide.

Other signatories include current and former Senators, Congressmen,Ambassadors, theologians, and educators including the Reverend Dr. JosephHough, Jr., President of the Union Theological Seminary, Dr. Harold W.Attridge, Dean of the Yale University Divinity School, Dr. Maxine ClarkeBeach, Dean of the Drew University Theological School, Sister Rose Thering,author James Carroll, and R. James Woolsey, Jack Kemp, Jeanne Kirkpatrick,Cynthia Ozick, Richard Perle, and Gary Wills.

I understand that Duke University will be hosting a Palestinian SolidarityMovement (PSM) conference. I also understand that you and certain facultymembers believe that doing so constitutes your commitment to free speech andacademic freedom. Ironically, Duke will be supporting a group (which is alsoknown as the International Solidarity Movement), which does not believe infree speech or democracy and which endorses violence, mass murder,Jew-hatred, and homicidal-suicide terrorism.

But, you might say, America prides itself on extending its civil rights,including that of free speech to racist groups and to their hate speech. Letme respectfully suggest that, post 9/11, America may no longer do so withoutrisking grievous consequences both in terms of lives lost and truthabandoned.

President Brodhead: Would you proudly host a Nazi Party or Ku Klux Klanconference in the name of academic freedom? Given your commitment to theFirst Amendment, would you still allow the meeting to take place behindclosed doors with no press allowed? I understand that this is what thePalestine Solidarity Movement conference planners have demanded. As youknow, a free and vigorous press is one of our protections against tyranny.What issue cannot bear the cleansing light of scrutiny?

But why is Duke giving any intellectual credibility to what is bound to bea hate-fest? Under President Rudenstein, Harvard, which like Duke is also aprivate institution, resolved that it would not allow any hate-speechconferences. The Harvard Divinity School also returned United Arab Emiratemonies from the Sheikh Zayed Foundation no doubt earmarked for suchpurposes. Perhaps Duke can consider doing this as well. The PSM/ISM areprecisely the kinds of groups that European governments, beginning withGermany, have begun to monitor in terms of their terrorism potential. Why isDuke granting them an aura of intellectual respectability?

In my view, the masked and hooded members of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas,Islamic Jihad, Al Fatah, and the al-Aqsa`s Martyrs Brigade which the PSMand their allies support are far more dangerous than the Nazis or the Klanever were. Their terrorism against civilians, especially in Israel, but alsoworldwide, is both state-sanctioned and trans-national. Their propagandaagainst Jews and Israelis is based on doctored footage, photo-opportunityjournalism, and sophisticated post-Orwellian lies.

The Palestine Solidarity Movement and their allies chant "Death to theJews," and "Death to America," at what they describe as peace rallies; theycharacterize the mass murder of civilians as "resistance to oppression;"they preach the destruction of Israel and the murder of all infidels inArabic but then, in English, French, and German, claim that they have beenmisunderstood, that they really meant the opposite of what they said.

President Brodhead: Until now, I have been proud to be associated withDuke. However, as a Duke family member, I am distressed by Duke`s decisionto host the PSM conference but I am even more distressed by Duke`s failure,so far, to fund and host very different kinds of programs in this area.

Some academics and educators might say that PSM`s/ISM`s hate speech andlies are only words and cannot hurt anyone. They might also say thathonoring diverse and controversial words are precisely what Americanuniversities should do. At some other time in history, and perhaps in termsof other subjects, I might agree with you. However, the level ofhate-propaganda against Israel and Jews is surreal, global, sophisticated,and deadly.

During this latest Palestinian-led and Arab and Iranian-backed Intifada(2000-2004), such propaganda has both led to and yet rendered invisible thehighest civilian body count in Israel`s history. In American demographicterms, by now America would have suffered approximately 45,000 civiliandeaths at the hands of terrorists and approximately 280,000 civilianswounded, often seriously, and for life. More than half would have been womenand children. Only Israel`s unilateral creation of a security barrier hasbegun to staunch the flood of Israeli blood.

The Islamists, whom the PSM supports, torture and impoverish their ownpeople, sacrifice their own children, practice slavery, and commit genocide.They terrorize their own citizens, especially intellectuals, women, andhomosexuals. Nevertheless, many "politically correct" academics haveromanticized these barbarians even the billionaire bin Laden and themulti-millionaire Arafat as humiliated and impoverished freedom fighters.

I have written about this betrayal of the truth and of the Jews in mytwelfth and latest book: The New Anti-Semitism. The Current Crisis and WhatWe Must Do About It. Most "politically correct" academics, includingfeminists, have joined left-alliances which single out only Israel forimaginary crimes and misdemeanors. They say that Israel is an Apartheid andNazi state; it is not. But, as one of Duke`s pioneer feminists, let meindeed briefly focus on Apartheid as a feminist issue.

Islam today is the largest practitioner of both gender and religiousApartheid in the world. Women who live under Islam are, variously, murderedoutright in honor killings and oppressed by forced veiling, segregation,sequestration, stoning to death for alleged adultery, female genitalmutilation, polygamy, forced marriage to men old enough to be theirgrandfather, and by domestic and sexual slavery.

Women have few, if any, civil, legal, or human rights under Islam today. Inaddition, under Islam, all non-Muslims Christians, Jews, Assyrians, Hindus,Zoroastrians, animists have historically been viewed and treated assubhuman and accorded "dhimmi" status. Today, except for the small countryof Israel, all 22 nation states in the Arab Muslim Middle East are Judenrein(free of Jews); Christians there remain at serious risk.

You will probably not hear anyone at the PSM conference address Apartheidin this way and to fail to do so is to fail the requirements of objectivityand scholarship. "Free" speech is not always "true" speech. Universitieshave an obligation to teach the truth as much as they may also wish to modeltolerance for all speech, including that which bears no relationship to thetruth. Thus, in the interests of free, true speech, may I suggest that Duke:

Allow the media in to cover the PSM conference.

Allow the conference to be taped so that you and others will see what isbeing said.

Sponsor a pro-democracy and pro-Israel conference, one which reflects awide spectrum of opinion, not only that of the left-wing Israeli Oslo andGeneva accordianists. This should be an inter-faith and inter-disciplinaryeffort. The Jewish community should not be expected to monitor Jew-hatredand educate against it by themselves. In addition, such a conference shouldfeature Arab Christians, as well as Lebanese Maronite Christians who are thedescendants of Phoenicians and pre-date the Arab conquest of Arabia.

Sponsor an international conference on Gender and Religious Apartheid.

Sponsor a conference on the feminist challenge to and transformation ofpatriarchal religions. As yet, perhaps due to funding limitations, none ofmy extensive work as a feminist activist within Judaism and within Israel,especially as a co-leader of the Women of the Wall struggle in Jerusalem,has been made available to scholars or Duke students nor has any of my workas an anti-racist activist not only on behalf of minorities of color butalso on behalf of Jews been made available.

We live in dangerous times. Keeping a low and "neutral" profile, trying toplease and appease all sides -- especially the most violent side is unwise.One must take a stand against radical evil and injustice. I hope and praythat you will do exactly that.

All the best,

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D.

Update: After I sent this letter, I called both President Brodhead and JohnBurness, Duke`s Senior Vice President for Public Affairs. I also continuedto call the directors of the Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Duke who havenot yet returned my calls. (I am told that they are both overwhelmed andlimited in what they can do since they are largely funded by Duke.)

Vice President Burness called me back and we had an amiable conversation onspeaker. Four days after I first published my letter, I received a writtenresponse from VP Burness. According to the letter. the media may indeedregister and attend the conference. However, the student group which issponsoring the conference has prohibited the use of cameras and taperecorders; the administration`s hands are, pro forma, tied.

Although the letter does not refer to it, in our phone conversation VPBurness stated that the university was not banning protestors, that theyexpected some protest and were making the necessary arrangements for safetyand security. However, VP Burness writes that he "cannot dispute (my) pointthat free speech is not always true speech." He does quote PresidentBrodhead`s view that "All ideas are not equal, but it is a foundationalprinciple of American life that all ideas should have an equal opportunityto be expressed." In addition, VP Burness states that the PalestineSolidarity Movement and the International Solidarity Movement are "separate"organizations, albeit with overlapping members and leaders. He also outlinesother Freeman Center programming at Duke between October 15-17, and a "yearlong" series of lectures which might better present the "Israeli" point ofview.

I spoke with Rachel Fish of the David Project who confirmed that TheFreeman Center is sponsoring a peace concert and a speakout which willfeature the victims of terrorist violence. However, Fish told me, "they donot want any Jewish Israeli victims speaking and they do not want anyspeakers to blame Arabs or Muslims for the terrorism. To do so would beviewed as politically incorrect and insensitive." In addition, the FreemanCenter initially invited only the Geneva Accordianists Avram Burg and YossiBeilin to speak.

As of this writing, only Burg will be speaking. After demanding to be heardand agreeing to fund themselves, two members of the David Project will alsobe presenting at Duke. Based on several sources I have also learned that theConservative Student Union at Duke has invited Daniel Pipes to speak onOctober 14. They did so months ago as a way of protesting the presence ofthe PSM on campus. The Freeman Center is now also co-sponsoring Pipes`sspeech.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., is the author of twelve books including her latest,The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It. Sheis working on a new book about the importance of independent thinking forPalgrave-Macmillan (St. Martin`s). She may be reached through her websitehttp://www.phyllis-chesler.com/.

2004-10-08T01:27:00.000-04:00

A TIME TO SPEAK (Ecclesiastes 3:7)

MESSAGES ABOUT ISRAEL

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.

Material in these messages may be circulated, posted, cited and quoted. Readers who so use this material are requested to note the source and not make changes in the wording.

Complimentary subscriptions are available by request to speak@actcom.co.il

All the messages to date are on A Time To Speak's website:
www.israel.net/timetospeak

Special Message On Website
TWELVE BAD ARGUMENTS FOR A STATE OF PALESTINE
texts in English and in Hebrew

===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Vol. IV:9 (No. 45)
September 2004 - Elul 5764/Tishri 5765
AT JEOPARDY -- Part I
In modern usage "at jeopardy" means to be exposed to or in imminence of death, loss or injury. But the derivation of the word is the French "jeu parti [divided game]" that is on the verge of being decided one way or the other. In this sense, Israel has been put at jeopardy by its own authorities, leaders, and molders of opinion, but the outcome is not yet decided and can go right or wrong.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Listen you rulers of Jacob,
You leaders of the House of Israel,
For you ought to know what is right.
-- Micah 3:1
It is said that Golda Meir blocked General Ariel Sharon from becoming Chief-of-Staff of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], because "The first time he doesn't get his way he'll put tanks around the Knesset [parliament]." After a long political career of hopping among convictions and parties he did manage to become Prime Minister, and seems bent on proving how well Golda understood him.
The people of Israel from their most ancient days did not tolerate autocratic rule. From the moment of its modern rebirth it has been a democracy -- and indeed the only democracy in a region of dictatorship and tyranny. That democracy has survived more than a half-century of military attacks, terrorism, almost worldwide hostility, and more than a few domestic misjudgments, but it is now threatened by its own Prime Minister and his henchmen.
Israeli voters cast their ballots not for individual candidates but for party lists, taking their choice among the variant platforms of numerous parties. Usually, the party that wins the most seats in the Knesset forms a government, with its party leader as Prime Minister. This means that when the present incumbent blusters "The people elected me" that is in fact not true. The public elected a platform, that he has no right to subvert as strikes his fancy.
Sharon is not now merely lapsing into the common political failure of neglecting the points and pledges of an election campaign. He is trashing the points and pledges and dredging up in their place those of a defeated opposition party massively rejected by the voters. This is a betrayal so gross that it puts at jeopardy the principles of democracy and the political compact between electors and elected that is indispensable to a free and self-governing society.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
This betrayal is perpetrated on behalf of a scheme he calls "hitnatkut [disengagement or separation]". A wag has suggested that those who find the Hebrew word hard to remember can just as well say "it-not-good". The elements of the scheme are:
1] Israel will abandon all hold on, control of, or claim to the entire Gaza Strip and parts of biblical Judea-Samaria. It is more than hinted that this will be followed by similar abandonment of much more of the historic Land of Israel.
2] The Jews who reside in these parts will be uprooted, by force if necessary. The flourishing communities they have built, with the support and encouragement of the government, will be razed or turned over to the triumphant PLO/Hamas.
3] Unlike the proponents of the Oslo Accords, the champions of hitnatkut do not parrot the specious slogan "land for peace". They surrender to the enemy is totally unilateral, without seeking any empty words or promises in exchange.
The abandoned land will be taken over by the enemy, who will have complete and unfettered control to turn it into bases for its jihad for the destruction of Israel.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Sharon cannot boast that this bizarre enterprise is his own inspiration. Amram Mitzna, when he was briefly head of the Osloid Labor Party, touted the virtue of unconditional flight, and Sharon ridiculed it. So did enough voters to send Mitzna into quick retirement. Now Sharon strives to foist a similar notion it on the nation, with all the gentlemanly finesse that earned him his old nickname of Bulldozer.
As evidence of his assertion of wisdom beyond question, he could cite some accumulated credits of his tenure in office:
1] He mimics the rhetoric of the enemy by referring to Judea-Samaria-Gaza-Golan as "occupied territory"; a silly blunder that the former Attorney General hastened to correct. [See Issues 6 & 8]
2] The terrorist regime that Oslo planted in the Land of Israel slaughters or gravely injures thousands of Israeli men, women, children and babies. The incumbent Prime Minister wreaks vengeance on empty buildings. Occasionally, a few terror-chiefs are picked off, leaving their places open for new incumbents. Occasionally, bases and weapons of attack are removed, and their places left available for the installation of replacements.
3] As a defense against jihad-murder, there is to be a fence that turns Israel into a ghetto cut off from the heart of its historic homeland. Beyond the fence, jihad may reign. This is comparable to draping Israel with a mosquito net full of holes, instead of draining the swamps where johad breeds. Within Israel, there is endless dither over the routing, re-routing, and re-re-routing of the net, while abroad it inspires a frenzy of denunciation for friend and foe.
(A statistical drop in the number of terror attacks actually perpetrated is cited as evidence that the fence works, but in fact it does not inhibit attempts at terrorism. The drop in achieved terror is due to the vigilance, valor and skill -- and all too often self-sacrifice -- of the IDF and Border Police.)
The terrorists in that Oslo planted in the Gaza Strip to not need to scale a fence to bring damage, injury and murder to Sederot, a town in the adjacent western Negev. They just fire missiles. While it mourns its dead children, Sederot is offered equipment to detect incoming missiles.
4] Sharon accepts, endorses and professes loyalty to a Roadmap drawn by a foreign Quartet, based on principles dictated by Saudi Arabia. This pernicious design violates all past pledges that no imposed solution would be inflicted on Israel, and there would be no invention of a PLO state. [See Issues 19, 23, 28, 29 & Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine]
If enforced, it will reduce Israel to an unviable remnant of itself, a virtual vassal of overlords comprising the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the US Department of State.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
One of Sharon's closest advisers and his favored emissary to both the United States and the PLO is his personal attorney Dov Weissglass. Counselor Weissglass simultaneously continues his legal and business career, with a clientele that includes Arafat's treasurer and other PLO luminaries.

Israel Resource News Agency now reports that Weissglass stands to profit from a prospective PLO-run gambling casino for tourists in southern Gaza -- once the Jews now residing there have been dragged away.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
BULLDOZER DEMOCRACY

"But if you chance to be placed in some superior situation,
will you presently set yourself up for a tyrant?"
-- Epictetus (Rome, 1st century)
Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance.
-- I Samuel 2:3
Whoso is hating reproof is brutish.
-- Proverbs 12:1
From these accomplishments, Sharon now proceeds to his hitnatkut, on behalf of which he breaks faith with the public, splits the country when it desperately needs unity, wrecks his own party, and hacks at the integrity of society and government. He places Israel at greater jeopardy from without by strengthening and encouraging its enemies, and at new jeopardy from within by violating the basic tenets of democrary, and misuses his office to suppress freedom of speech and dissent, and punish lawful opposition.

1] To show that the registered members of his party support his hitnatkut, Sharon ordered a referendum in which they could vote "Approve" or "Against". He promised that he would abide by the outcome. When the outcome was 60-to-40 for "Against", he threw it out.

There are now demands from many quarters for a nationwide referendum on so fateful a decision, but this Sharon refuses. His own staff admits that there will be no referendum because he might lose again. It is not clear why a second rejection would pose any problem for him, since the expressed will of the public is null and void when it does not coincide with his own will.

2] When he had to present hitnatkut to his own cabinet it seemed likely to be rejected. So he picked two of the ministers who were certain to vote against it and kicked them out of the cabinet before the vote was held. By this means he eked out his "majority approval".

3] Uzi Landau, a Likud cabinet member who stands firm against It-Not-Good, is invited by the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) to speak at a dinner in New York in December. Sharon forbids him leave the country, because he "opposes the most important policy decision and acts against it in the Knesset and public."

4] Sharon, backed up by Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz, tried but failed to stop Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger from taking part in the traditional High Holy Day prayers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in biblical Hebron, lest the worshippers pray for something politically incorrect.

5] The Prime Minister and his henchmen spread dark charges of criminal plots by the opposition, though thus far the Security Services can find no substance to the charges. Criticism is redefined as "incitement", so anyone who expresses the wrong opinion is at jeopardy of "investigation" and even of "administrative detention", which is indefinite incarceration without charge or trial. Freedom of expression can be squelched under an odd law against "insulting a public official". It is questionable whether a public official will be prosecuted for insulting the citizens.

6] The Israel Prisons Authority is considering "creative alternatives" for mass detention of persons who oppose the hitnatkut -- regardless that opposition to a Prime Minister is not yet against the law. One suggestion is to turn hotels into temporary prisons

As to residents of the communities that Sharon once encouraged and patronized and now dooms to destruction, they must abandon their homes before the deadline he sets. Even passive non-violent resistance is to be punished by prison terms of three-to-five years and forfeiture of all personal belongings.

A long-time enthusiast for the Oslo Accords finds the Bulldozer's tactics offensively anti-democratic, as reported by IsraelNationalNews, 8 September 2004:
"Former senior Labor figure Uzi Baram, known to be towards the left end of the spectrum within his party, provided some surprise support today for the position that Prime Minister Sharon is promoting his policies in an undemocratic manner. Speaking on his Knesset channel television program today, Baram said, 'Sharon's behavior is scandalous; there is no other word. He went to the Likud referendum and promised the nation that he would abide by its results; then he went to the Likud Central Committee and was defeated there as well; and yet he continues along his merry way. I may be personally in favor of his position, but my democratic sense totally opposes it.'
"Baram also attacked the Israel Institute for Democracy for its silence on this issue, and thus weakening the concept of party government. 'If the majority in the Likud would be in favor of disengagement and the Prime Minister would oppose it, the Israel Institute for Democracy would crucify him . . . Is this the way it should be?'"
* * * * * * *
The beginning of the words of his mouth is folly.
And the latter end of his mouth is mischievous madness.
-- Ecclesiastes 10:13
Why does Sharon deem hitnatkut so imperative for Israel that he must ram it through at the cost of perverting a lively democracy into an oppressive and coercive dictatorship? What are the arguments on its behalf?

1] In his own words:
a] When a Knesset member of his own party asked a question about his policy, he explained to her, "You wouldn't understand."
b]When confronted with his own published exhortations against yielding land and uprooting communities, he attributes his flip-flop to "changed data". [See Issues 39 & 40]
c] He avers that he cannot keep his campaign promise of "painful concessions for peace" because the other side does not want peace. Therefore, he can only ahieve the painful concessions.
2] Is hitnatkut forced on him by outside pressure?
Sharon announced it as policy and only afterwards maneuvered for the President of the United States to approve it with no noticeable enthusiasm. Then Sharon used this maneuver to warn that We Must Do It Because Our Best Friend Wants It.

3] Will it appease the enemy and temper its lust for destruction?
It is seen as a victory for terrorism and therefore an encouragement to continue it. Whenever Israel makes concessions or withdrawals, they are interpreted as signs of weakness and capitulation to violence, and that inspires more violence to get ;more concessions and withdrawals.

Hamas makes this appraisal: "The disengagement from Gaza is proof of our victory. The fact that Sharon is willing to withdraw unconditionally is basically equivalent to raising a white flag and retreating. Only by force are we able to teach the other side what to do.”

Among the residents of PLO-land, 74 percent consider the Sharon plan a victory for the PLO, and 77 percent endorse more jihad-slaughter of Israelis.

4] Will it make Israel more secure and its residents more safe?
Land and cities given over to the control of the PLO are always turned into bases for terrorism. Israel cannot take any action against those bases without terrible cost in lives and the hysterical rage of the outside world.

Israel's earlier flight out of its security zone at the border of Lebanon did much to inspire the subsequent Oslo War. It also left Hezbollah free to put in place a wall of 12,000 missiles within range of northern and central Israel. This inhibits Israel from taking any real action against Hezbollah, no matter how many murders it commits.

The flight out of Gaza leaves PLO-Hamas free to put in place a similar wall of missiles, aimed at southern and central Israel. This will inhibit any real action against it, no matter how many murders it commits.

5] Will it reduce foreign pressure for more concessions to the Arabs?
On one day, Sharon says that hitnatkut replaces the Roadmap. On another day, he says that there will be no more uprooting of Jewish communities until the Roadmap is implemented. There is no such ambivalence on the part of the Quartet, that is relentless in its insistence upon full compliance by Israel to all its demands.

The U.S. Administration calls hitnatkut "jump-starting the Roadmap" and demands more and wider withdrawals. The President reiterates his dedication to "the good cause of the Palestinian people" and stands before the United Nations castigating Israel for "humiliating" them. Secretary of State Colin Powell faults the Intifada on the grounds that is delays the creation of a Palestinian State.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair refreshes his popularity with his own party with promises of some harder kicks to force Israel along the Road.

Speaker of the Knesset Reuven Rivlin asked French government officials what they thought of Sharon's premise that after hitnatkut Europe would give Israel a respite from pressure for 15 years. They laughed. Maybe 15 months? Laughter. Maybe 15 days? Laughter. He could not get a commitment even for 15 minutes.

6] Will Egypt monitor security in Gaza once it is judenrein?
Whenever Egypt controls Gaza, it uses it as a base for military attacks and terrorism against Israel. The Egyptians were driven out in the Sinai Campaign of 1956, but returned by grace of the Eisenhower-Dulles Administration. It was driven out again in the Six Day War of 1967. It signed a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1978 to regain control of the Sinai, but it still connives and conspires and rants against Israel. It is absurd to argue or imagine that it will deter rather than abet attacks on Israelis.

Egypt smuggles weapons and munitions and explosives to the PLO-Hamas in Gaza by way of tunnels from the Sinai. The IDF is repeatedly sent in to find and close those tunnels, and soldiers have died in those actions. If hitnatkut goes through, Egypt will no longer need the tunnels. It can openly roll in the weapons of destruction.

Avi Dichter, director of Israel's Security Service, at a meeting with Sharon and high-level military officers warned: If Israel pulls out of the Philadelphi corridor on the Gaza Strip-Egyptian border, it will open the door to an avalanche of advanced weapons the like of which was prevented from reaching the Palestinians in all four years of their warfare against Israel.
7] Can it be reversed if it is tried and does not work?
The Oslo Accords were presented as provisional and experimental. If the other side did not honor its commitments, all could be reversed. No commitment was ever honored, and nothing was ever reversed. The difference with hitnatkut is that the other side is free of even sham commitments.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The upper-echelon of the military officers, who are responsible for the lives and safety of their men and the citizens they protect, have failed to dent Sharon's obstinacy. From "Saron Prepares for Evacuation Under Fire," DEBKAfile, 19 September 2004:
"[. . . .] Sharon . . . finally admitted that which the military, security and police chiefs . . . as well as DEBKAfile -- have been saying for months: the unilateral evacuation of some 9,000 Israelis living in the Gaza Strip cannot be accomplished, if at all, without a substantial cost in military and civilian lives. Conditions on the ground, say these authorities, make disengagement unfeasible.

"But the conclusion they elicited from the Prime Minister was unexpected. I am sticking to my disengagement guns and not budging one whit from my timetable, he told the ministers and army chiefs: it is up to the military to make it possible, they had better start preparing for evacuation under enemy fire.

"As reported previously by DEBKAfile, the Palestinians are in the midst of massive preparations, including training special operations units and procuring fresh supplies of upgraded weapons, for hammering the evacuating forces and Gush Katif evacuues and making the operation a bloodbath. [. . . .]

"Until now, Sharon and defense minister Shaul Mofaz said that if the evacuation cannot be accomplished without an unacceptable level of bloodshed, then it will not be implemented at all. But now, Sharon appears determined to go forward regardless.

"With the onus of a predictable disaster on their heads, Israel's military and security chiefs explain: If this plan goes ahead, it will not be disengagement but total war, a tornado of terrorist attacks, gunfire and missiles blasting the Gaza Strip, the western and southern Negev and Gush Katif. Instead of pulling back, the army will be forced to drive back into the large sections of the Gaza Strip controlled by Palestinians in order to subdue their war offensive.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
There is a cruel dilemma for those who respect the rule of law, but find it unendurable that the IDF that has so valiantly secured the life of Israel and their fellow Jews should be misused to render any part of the Land of Israel judenrein.
One view is summed up in a statement, as reported by IsraelNationalNews, DATE:
"A statement signed by over 150 public figures calls upon IDF soldiers and police officers to refuse to carry out orders to expel Jews from their homes. The statement, published in the weekly B'Sheva newspaper issued today, stresses that such orders are patently illegal and effectively negate the right of Jews to live anywhere in Israel.
"Among the signatures are those of Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's father, Professor Ben-Tzion Netanyahu; the minister's brother Ido Netanyahu; Education Minister Limor Livnat's brother Noam Livnat; and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's legendary comrade-in-arms from the 1950s-era Commando Unit 101, Meir Har-Tzion.
"Others on what is called the 'preliminary' list of signatories are two former directors of the Prime Minister's Office, Uri Elitzur and Yossi Ben-Aharon, as well as a long list of public figures, scientists and former mayors and members of the Knesset.
"The statement reads, in part, as follows:
'We declare that expulsion and uprooting are national crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as manifestations of despotism and capricious evil aimed at negating the right of Jews - just because they are Jews - to live in their land.

'We call upon the officials that were commanded to prepare the infrastructure for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland, and to all the officers, soldiers and police as well, to listen to the voice of their national and personal conscience and not participate in actions which will sully it and for which they will feel sorry for the rest of their lives.

'We appeal to the intended targets of the expulsion orders not to cooperate with the expulsion apparatus, not to accept compensation, and to actively oppose the destruction - though without attacking fellow Jews, even as they come to destroy [your] homes.

'We call upon the government of Israel not to give the police and IDF these flagrantly illegal orders, which are forbidden to give and forbidden to fulfill, and to thus prevent an irreparable split within the nation and the IDF.'"

An alternate view is expressed by Carolyn Glick of the Jerusalem Post, herself one of the most cogent and forceful opponents of Sharon's plan and his tactics:
"The misplacement of responsibility for acts by the government onto loyal officers, young soldiers and policemen, and the derogation of the authority of the state over its citizens and office holders, is troubling. One cannot place on the back of a soldier the responsibilities that are held by the prime minister and the defense minister and maintain that one is acting morally, for acting thus is an abdication of moral responsibility of citizens in a democracy to petition their government to change policies they oppose.

"Our soldiers and officers in the IDF are the only guarantors of our survival and we must never view them as part of the political debate. This demands that they also remain outside of the political debate."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The Disengagement Authority has sent 1,700 letters to residents of Jewish communities slated for obliteration. The letters assure the recipients that the DA understands the "ramifications" of eviction from their homes, and promises: "We will do all we can to help you in the most sensitive, fair and professional manner that we can."
Some of those letters were addressed and sent to people who have been murdered by the terrorists who are slated to inherit their communities.

2004-10-06T01:12:00.000-04:00

UNRWA'S HAMAS EMPLOYEES

Sorry about the poor formating, but I thought it important enough to repost here. For a better formatted online version, go to http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/UNRWAs_Hamas_Employees.asp

Communique: 5 October 2004 [View this article online] [Discuss this topic on BackSpin]
UNRWA'S HAMAS EMPLOYEES
Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,
Peter Hansen (pictured at right), Commissioner-General of the UN agency in Gaza and the West Bank, made a startling admission in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday (10/4):
I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime... we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another.
With this statement, Hansen verified what Israel has long contended $B!=(B the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), rather than performing a neutral humanitarian role in Palestinian regions, is actually infested with terrorists who use international funds and UN safe havens to facilitate attacks on Israeli civilians.
Hansen attempted to draw a distinction between UN employees who identify with Hamas 'politically,' as opposed to 'militant' Hamas members, but that distinction has been categorically rejected by the United States and the European Union, both of which blacklist all branches of Hamas, and freeze all Hamas assets, without exception.
Despite the gravity of this matter, Hansen's admission that Hamas members are on the UN payroll has $B!=(B as of now $B!=(B received scant media attention. The Associated Press, for example, buried Hansen's statement in an article that focused primarily on IDF air strikes, and the New York Times has yet to even acknowledge Hansen's admission.
This error of omission is particularly troubling in light of Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns such as Sderot.
Hansen has long been accused of anti-Israel bias. In the wake of the 2002 Jenin operation, Hansen gave interviews falsely describing 'wholesale obliteration... a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history,' 'helicopters... strafing civilian residential areas,' and 'bodies... piling up' in 'mass graves.' Some of this carnage Hansen even claimed to have seen 'with my own eyes.'
KASSAM TRANSPORT, HISTORY OF ABUSE
Hansen's admission of UN/Hamas links came amidst a controversy over suspicious use of a UN ambulance in Gaza, with some claiming that footage from an airborne drone (pictured at right) shows Palestinian terrorists hiding a Kassam rocket in the vehicle. (View the film here.)
Regardless of whether this specific incident constituted abuse, the UNRWA $B!=(B under Hansen's watch $B!=(B has been responsible for numerous documented acts of abetting Palestinian terrorism, including:
$B!(B May 2004: Armed Palestinians are filmed (at left) using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists and, possibly, remains of fallen Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
$B!(B Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicts three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities (such as throwing firebombs at a public bus), Israel detains at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.
$B!(B Dec. 2002: A Shin Bet report indicates that numerous UNRWA facilities in the West Bank and Gaza had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.
$B!(B Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, reveals that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed members of Fatah who were on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish settlements. In addition, Nahd admits he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12 kg explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.
$B!(B August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confesses to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance, and that he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages among Hamas members in various Palestinian towns.
$B!(B February 2002: Alaa Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confesses during interrogation that he had carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.
FUNDED BY WESTERN DEMOCRACIES
The infiltration of the UNRWA by Palestinian terrorists is all the more disturbing given the funding structure of this international 'humanitarian' organization. As David Bedein reports:
The salaries of UNRWA workers are paid through contributions that UNRWA receives from 38 contributing countries. The U.S. provides 30% of that budget, Canada contributes 4% of that budget, and the European countries contribute well over 55% of that budget. In other words, the western democracies of the world pay the salaries of the Hamas terrorists on the payroll of UNRWA.
Upon hearing Hansen's admission of Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, a spokesperson for Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs said, 'we are deeply concerned, and will immediately seek clarification from Mr. Hansen directly and from UN authorities.'
Canada's contribution to UNRWA is $10 million a year, and total US support to UNRWA is approximately $100 million per year. This, despite the fact that the use of US taxpayer funds for foreign refugees who have engaged in acts of terrorism is illegal under the amended Section 301(c) of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act.
A conference of UN donor countries to discuss ongoing aid to Palestinians is slated to meet in Norway on November 30.
ACTION ITEM:
As indicated above, Peter Hansen's startling admission of Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll has received almost no press coverage.
HonestReporting urges subscribers to contact the major news outlets, using, if you wish, the short sample letter printed below.
$B!(B The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com$B!(B Washington Post: letters@washpost.com$B!(B Boston Globe: letter@globe.com$B!(B Chicago Tribune: [click here]$B!(B Atlanta Journal-Constitution: letters@ajc.com$B!(B Los Angeles Times: letters@latimes.com$B!(B San Francisco Chronicle: letters@sfchronicle.com$B!(B Seattle Post-Intelligencer: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/letters.asp
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear Editor,
This week (Oct. 4), the Commissioner-General of the UN agency in Gaza and the West Bank, Peter Hansen, admitted that 'there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll.' I was disturbed to find that this highly newsworthy item did not make its way into your paper in a prominent fashion, particularly in light of Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns like Sderot.
Hansen's statement acknowledges the illegal use of US taxpayer funds for members of a terrorist organization. (The US contributes approximately $100 million/year to the UNRWA.) With the upcoming Nov. 30 conference of UN donor countries to discuss ongoing support of Palestinian projects, we should all be concerned about UNRWA's admission of Hamas members on its payroll.
Sincerely yours,
(your name) * * *
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.
HonestReporting
This HonestReporting communique was sponsored in honor of John Schlossberg.(To sponsor an upcoming communique, click here.)

========== ABOUT HONESTREPORTING ==========
The HonestReporting documentary film "Relentless: The Struggle For Peace in Israel"has now been seen by thousands of people at over 700 public screenings across the globe. For info on a screening in your area, or to order your personal copy, visit Relentless online.
HonestReporting welcomes you to submit media critiques for possible inclusion in future communiques. Be sure to include a URL of the article you are critiquing, and send to: action@honestreporting.com.
Encourage your friends to join HonestReporting. Send a friendly info message.
HONESTREPORTING INFO SHEET to print out, post on bulletin boards, photocopy and distribute. Get the word out to schools, places of worship, community centers.
Privacy Guarantee: HonestReporting will never share your e-mail address or personal details with anyone. Our web servers feature the latest hack-proof technology.
======================================
HonestReporting involves considerable research and manpower costs. Your donations are greatly appreciated and will help Israel win the media battle. "Middle East Media Watch" (DBA HonestReporting) is a section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, contributions to which are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes. Please send contributions to:
HonestReporting 400 South Lake Drive Lakewood, NJ 08701-3167
Or you can donate online with your credit card, using our secure server.
======================================
HonestReporting has 100,000 members worldwide, and is growing daily. Campus - http://www.israelactivism.com/hrcampus/Canada - http://www.honestreporting.ca/Spanish - http://prensaveraz.com/ Italian - http://honestreportingitalia.com/ French readers may want to visit http://www.col.fr/news/desinformation/
(C) 2004 HonestReporting - Permission granted to post and redistribute. E-mail: action@honestreporting.com
======================================

2004-09-25T21:09:00.000-04:00

Letter to the editor of Reuters

Fri, September 24, 2004

Dear Mr. Glocer,

I read Atef Sa'ad's reportage of the recent terrorist bombing in Israel in utter disbelief. Mr. Sa'ad spared no opportunity to point out charming details in uncritically sympathetic portrayal of the murderess and her family. Somehow, though, Mr. Sa'ad could find no room at all in his column to talk about those murdered and maimed in the attack, or their families.

Regardless of Mr. Sa'ad's personal sympathies, Rueters has shown shockingly bad judgment in allowing this article to go to print as it did. The rank inversion of victim and terrorist seems to know no bounds in your lexicon, which refuses even to includes the word "terrorist". There is only so much that can be blamed on the "occupation". You may recall that Israel captured French Hill form the Jordanian's, not the Palestinians, in 1967, when Egypt was screeching about pushing the Jews into the Sea.. Jordan was beseeched by Israel not to enter the war. Jordan refused and along with the other Arab armies, sought Israel's destruction.

This mentality has not changed. This middle class teenager, headed for university and living in a two storey home replete with furniture, clothes and appliances walked into a residential neighborhood intent on murdering and maiming as many people as possible. Raised on a diet of unadulterated hate and co-opted to murder civilians by Mr. Arafat's minions. This girl apparently didn't care a fig for her own family, either, not even have the decency to say or write 'goodbye' to anyone. But Mr, Sa'ad would prefer to paint Israel as the aggressor and deny all humanity to the victims of a terrorist campaign that specifically targets civilians.

Enough already.

Sincerely,

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-09-09T13:59:00.000-04:00

Letter to editor of AP: a plan to reduce child casualties...

Dear Sir/madam,

This AP photo below appeared in various papers today (9/9/04)? Can explain why the 'militant', whom your photographer photographed wiring explosives in Gaza's Jabalya refugee camp during an IDF operation, is surrounded by children smiling for the camera? Except for the mask camouflaging the face of the 'militant' and the caption indicating the actual circumstances under which the photograph was taken, it might have been captioned "having a fun time; wish you were here". When militants -and perhaps photographers- shoo children away from such activities, rather than exploiting their innocent curiosity, there will definitely be fewer civilian casualties. Less engaging pictures, but fewer dead children. Sound like a plan?

A Palestinian militant on Thursday wiring an explosive device inGaza's Jabalya refugee camp during an IDF operation. (AP)

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-09-08T11:19:00.000-04:00

Communique: 7 September 2004 [View this article online]

SPECIAL REPORT: SYRIA

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

The horror of terrorism again shook the world this week, as the Beslan slaughter of innocents revealed another nation under siege by a cold-blooded killers. Russian President Vladimir Putin immediately linked the Beslan attack to 'the worldwide network of terrorism' and demanded a more determined response to the threat: 'We showed weakness, and the weak are beaten.'
Hamas rallyHow must the free world now exhibit strength? Though news reports generally fail to convey just how, political and intelligence leaders acknowledge that a key requirement is uprooting that worldwide terror network ― which uses the nation of Syria as a central hub of activity.

Syria, since 1979 a perpetual member of the U.S. State Department's list of nations sponsoring terrorism, continues 'to provide political and material support' to Hamas and 'to permit Iran to use Damascus as a trans-shipment point for resupplying Hizballah in Lebanon.'

Earlier this year, a leading Syrian dissident and the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's WMDs claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons were hidden in Syria. Additionally, a number of Iraqi officials ― including members of Saddam's family ― were granted refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi dictator's regime, and many of the foreign fighters responsible for attacks against coalition troops are believed to have entered Iraq through Syria.

In a comprehensive report on Syrian support of Hamas in Israel, Gary Gambill, editor of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, summarized:

Since the mid-1990's Damascus has been the operational headquarters of the Hamas military wing and a nexus for the transfer of external funds to Hamas operatives in the territories. Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon have become major conduits for funneling weapons and explosives to Hamas and safe havens for training hundreds of its operatives... most of the deadly Hamas suicide attacks [of 2001-2] have been linked to Damascus.

And the Syria-Hamas link remains in place. In the aftermath of last week's double suicide bombing in Be'er Sheva, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon pointed his finger at the Hamas leadership in Damascus, which most likely directed the attack: 'Anyone responsible for terror against us shouldn't sleep soundly at night.' ANTI-ISRAEL CAMPAIGNSyria has long made opposition to Israel and the democratic West a top priority. When the U.N. Security Council overwhelmingly voted in favor of a December 2002 resolution condemning the al Qaeda-led hotel bombing in Kenya and the attempted missile attack on an Arkia Israeli Airlines flight, Syria voted against the resolution. Why? The Syrians 'could not accept the repeated mention of Israel in the text.'Syria has waged three wars against Israel, invaded Israel's borders, supported Hizballah terrorists in southern Lebanon for nearly three decades, and ― as documented by Gambill, Eyal Zisser, Amos Gilad and others ― actively enabled ongoing terror against Israeli civilians via Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Hamas's top political leader, Khaled Mashaal, lives in Damascus under the protection of the Syrian regime.

The Syrians have a stockpile of ballistic missiles about ten times that of the Iraqi arsenal under Saddam Hussein, and have proximity and geography on their side. Former Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens concluded in 2002 that in the immediate future, 'the [missile] threat that Israel most likely will have to contend with' is that of Syria.OCCUPIED LEBANONBut Syria ― a totalitarian, Stalinist regime since 1963 ― is not just a neighborhood bully toward Israel. The Syrians have maintained over 17,000 troops within Lebanon since 1976, when Syria shuffled its military across the border to help quell a year-old Lebanese civil war (which continued for another 15 years). Since then, Syria has dominated Lebanon's politics and controlled that nation's official structures, all the while claiming its presence was necessary to ward off 'radical action emanating from Israel.'But this rationale is clearly absurd. In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, in fulfillment of its obligations under U.N. Resolution 520 to respect 'the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon.' Unshaken in its resolve to control Lebanon, Syria has remained the power broker there. Just last week, Syria won a political victory as Lebanon's puppet parliament put off real elections, and instead pushed through a constitutional amendment that extends the expiring presidential tenure of Syrian lackey Emile Lahoud by a full three years. As Boston Globe editors wrote, 'Syrian bosses made a mockery of Lebanese independence.'Finally, the United Nations has said 'enough.'By a vote of 9-0 with six abstentions, the U.N. Security Council moved on Thursday (Sept. 2) to block Lahoud's false appointment, and once again called for 'free and fair presidential elections' to restore Lebanese sovereignty. The precursor to this determined expression of international discontent was the United States' own 'Syria Accountability Act,' passed in May of last year, which placed sanctions on the Syrian regime for failing to fulfill its obligation to cease occupying Lebanon.

Bashar AssadBut Syrian leader Bashar Assad's cronies in the Lebanese Parliament ignored the U.N. motion on Friday (Sept.3), and as The New York Times reported, 'rubber-stamped Syria's order to keep its handpicked president in office.'

The implications of this matter reach far beyond Lebanon's shores. The Jerusalem Post commented that the U.N.―Syria conflict is 'a microcosm of the broader issue':

With Western resolve, Lebanon can be turned into a test case for the introduction of new rules of the game in a region contaminated by the kind of terror activity that Syria habitually condones, encourages, and harbors.

In the wake of this week's Russian school massacre, the Russian foreign minister visited Israel and expressed his solidarity with those fighting against the terrorist bands and nations that support them:

Terrorism has no nationality ― it is an international evil. We will do everything in our power to strengthen the global coalition against terror, in which Israel and Russia are very active.
Given recent developments, HonestReporting encourages subscribers to promote greater awareness of the Syrian menace ― using the key points above ― to urge your news outlets, community and elected leaders to keep the pressure on Syria, lest more terror strike the Mideast and the world.

HonestReporting

2004-09-06T20:50:00.000-04:00

Give Them the Death They Revere

by Arlene Peck
September 06, 2004

The Arabs are bombing, murdering, mutilating, raping and wreaking havoc all over the Judeo/Christian world. Israel has nothing to do with it - nothing!

The front pages of the Los Angeles Times have been completely filled with the latest catastrophic actions of savage, barbaric Arabs who tortured and slaughtered hundreds of school children and their mothers during the past few days in the horrific school bombings in Russia.

Children! Babies who were forced to drink their own urine, because they were tortured and denied water and food for over two days in 95 degree heat . One six-year-old child was reported to have been killed by having a bayonet thrust through his little body when he had the audacity to ask for water from these "brave men" who were holding them hostage. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, over twenty of these small children were shot in the back by snipers on the roof-tops as they were trying to run to the safety of their mothers' arms.

The Muslims are experts in killing babies. I remember the massacre of the school in Maalot in 1974. More so, while covering the war in June of 1982 in Lebanon, I saw what cowards these vermin were. They excel in bombings and terror attacks on subways, planes and schools. But when they are in a real combat situation and have to fight, then they disappear or run with their hands in the air, waving white flags before the first shot is fired.

They have also taken two French journalists as hostages, in order to influence French domestic laws. This is especially interesting, since Mr. Jacques Chirac and France, since 1967, have gone out of their way to alienate their Western allies and openly side with the Arabs in the name of a special relationship and understanding of the Arab world.

The kidnappers want to pressure the French to change their laws banning the headscarf in public schools. Otherwise, they are going to use the journalists to make a political statement. Folks, this is only the beginning. Within five years, the required fashion in Paris will be burqas.

Page two in the Times one day last week continued with a story of how a female "suicide" bomber wearing an explosive device stuffed with metal bolts killed at least nine people in a Moscow subway station and injured about a hundred more. This, in addition to the two airplanes that the Muslim fundamentalists blew up a few days earlier, also in Russia. About a hundred innocent people were killed in those two attacks alone. I can't even look at the television and see the nightly death toll of our soldiers in Iraq. We are paying a great price with our soldiers' blood to bring freedom and democracy to this modern day Babylon.

The reality is that if we don't root out terrorism in all it's manifestations, wherever it is, the nightmare that right now we are just watching on the evening news will eventually reach our shores, as well as the other free nations around the world.

Somewhere buried in the LA Times was a story about how these same subhuman savage "militants", this time those who had killed twelve Nepalese workers, wanted more - more concessions and more blood! Later in the day, I received a graphic video of them beheading these poor civilians. We are dealing with a mentality that only understands force.

The Russians aren't known for being very politically correct. If I were living through the horror they've gone through these past few days, I'd pressure my government into sending a "laser-guided missile" into every one of those mosques where they plan, train and finance these attacks with a note attached reading, "Never again!"

In fact, now would be a perfect time to drop leaflets on the mosques that serve as planning and training centers for the terrorists that from now on, the next thing dropped on them are missiles dipped in pig's blood. No more 'restrained action' - as Israel is regularly advised by our government, the EU and UN. When the next terrorists action happens, just do it!

Somebody has to do something.

The effort against fundamentalist Islam must be worldwide. Whether it's Afghanistan, Russia, the Philippines, the United States or Israel, it is the freedom of every individual that is at stake here. When are we going to wake up?

Even now, our lives are being disrupted on a daily basis. This week, the Los Angeles airport was shut down because of a 'terrorist' threat. As I vented my anger to my kid, she said, "Mom, how do you know it's Arabs who are behind this?"

Yeah right, it's probably a gang from Norway or Finland. Of course it's the Muslims. Name me one other group that is bent on destroying our lives as we know them?

I haven't even begun to get around to the holocaust caused by these same Muslim fundamentalists, who are rampaging, raping and killing hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Christians and black Africans because they refuse to bow to their god, Allah.

It doesn't matter where they are. It all boils down to the fact that the Judeo/Christian, free world is at war with an evil, vicious, seventh-century barbaric Islamic culture. These people kill indiscriminately. The Islamist Muslims don't care who they target. Children, old people, people riding on buses, teenagers going to discotheques, eating in pizza parlors - all are fair game. Even other Muslims.

I think that the world is finally realizing that it's not just Israel who is the target. It's anyone who isn't them, who isn't a fundamentalist Muslim.

Interestingly enough, while watching the slaughter in the Russian school unfold on the news stations, I was speaking on the phone with a technician about a computer glitch that I had. We had been speaking for a couple of days and he sounded like a very nice man. He was a Muslim man from Iran who had left that country thirty year ago. He told me how badly he felt about the ongoing horrors being played out on the television as we spoke. Yet, when I asked him what he did personally to speak out about the actions that he apparently found so disturbing by those in his culture, he was silent.

I asked what was being said about the attacks by those in his mosque. He was quiet and then said, "What can I do, as one person?: You have a newspaper column. You have a voice."

That, folks, seems to be the attitude of them all.

Ironically, most people here that I've spoken with don't even comprehend that this is a long-term problem that has been foisted upon us by 1.3 billion people. My daughter said, "Mom, my friend, Selena is an Arab and isn't like that."

Well, that's quite possible. Maybe there are millions of them that are like her friend Selena. Yet, where is the outcry from the Muslim community? The newspapers and television are filled with the outrages caused by her culture. Show me one mosque or protest by those peaceful Muslims. One.

Yet, these barbarians are quick to dance in the streets and pass out candy to all their children at the joy of seeing the carnage in Israel or any other part of the civilized, Western world. I fully expect to turn on the television and see them dancing on the rooftops in Iraq, Iran and Gaza, celebrating the dead babies in Russia.

The only way we are going to defeat this element is with truth. The first step is to cut the political correctness over this issue. Enough is enough. Secondly, we need to help Israel complete the security barrier as soon as possible, despite the United Nations' objection. Finally, we need to implement the same policy regarding "rooting out terrorism in all its forms, wherever it is," whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, the Sudan, Iran, Syria or Israel. We should not be applying a double standard when it comes to eliminating this evil around the world.

2004-09-01T08:32:00.000-04:00

Letter to the editor of the International Herald Tribune

Dear Sir/madam:

Jonathan Cook's article "Nonviolent protest offers little hope for Palestinians" reflects a naiveté, an arrogance and ignorance of history that, combined in one journalist, are truly breathtaking. Mr. Cook appeals to the Israeli raids on militants during the recent "lull" in suicide bombings as evidence that Israeli tactics do not take into account "peaceful" protest. Garbage. The recent "lull" in suicide bombings was hardly the result of a strategic or tactical shift, demanding a strategic response; the Israelis just got better at stopping the bombers; the raids helped a lot. Also, the Israelis started to build a wall. Of course, Mr. Cook cannot admit that the completed portions of the wall have actually saved scores of Palestinian and Israeli lives. Instead, Mr. Cook complains, that "once the wall is completed, most avenues for peaceful resistance to the occupation will be blocked for good." That is highly doubtful. What is certain is that most avenues for the bombers will be blocked by the wall.

But here's the maddening part of Mr. Cook's diatribe: In the same breath with which Mr Cook calls bus bombings, "immoral" he excuses them as necessary because the Palestinian's do not currently enjoy the unthinking, unequivocal "steadfast support of leftist Israelis". It is a simple fact that the majority of Israelis, not just the Left, supported the notion of Palestinian statehood, when a genuine peace seemed achievable. However, all trust was shattered when the Palestinians resumed blowing up Israeli commuter busses whenever they had the opportunity. Mr. Cook seems to have handily forgotten that the current wave of the Intifada came on the heels of an unprecedented peace offer by the Israelis. No other nation in history has offered to share sovereignty over its historical capital for the sake of peace. It was precisely due to the shocking and violent betrayal of the Israeli Left by the Palestinians that Mr. Sharon was elected by a landslide. Despite the fact that the Arabs and Palestinians have violently rejected every single option that did not conform to their most maximal demands, Mr. Cook turns history on its head and claims "it is the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who are the missing peace partners". What idiotic claptrap.

Sincerely,
Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-08-29T18:27:00.000-04:00

Why I'm Moving to Israel

Sunday, August 29, 2004
Erica Chernofsky

When I tell people I spent the last year of my life studying abroad in Israel (search), they usually look at me funny and respond politely.

When I tell them I'm planning to move there permanently in August, the flabbergasted look on their face demands an explanation.

I'm a 21-year-old student at NYU majoring in journalism. I have blonde hair and blue eyes and a boyfriend. I come from the average American family, and look like the average American girl. So why am I leaving the land of opportunity to live, permanently, in a land ravaged by war?

A rabbi once told me that when God took Abraham to Canaan (search) and showed him the land, promising it to Abraham's future generations, He also showed him every Jew that was ever to be born. The rabbi went on to explain that, according to the legend, when a Jew stands in the exact spot where thousands of years ago Abraham first beheld him, he becomes intimately and eternally bound to the land.

Like many Jews, I had been to this land, now called Israel, numerous times, to see the holy sights and visit the home of my forefathers. And while I felt a connection, and perhaps had the feeling of "coming home" that many Jews boast of, I never viewed the country as anything more than a place of religious and historical significance to visit every once in a while.

But two summers ago, when I visited Israel with my family, something was different. I suddenly felt a visceral need to identify with the people and the culture, and so I decided to spend a year abroad studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (search). The only explanation, albeit fantastical, that I can offer is that perhaps that summer I stood in the very place where Abraham first regarded me, so many years ago, and my soul anchored itself in the sacred soil.

I was overcome with the realization that there was a country whose land had been promised to me, where millions of my people lived, yet their lives were so different from mine. I wanted to see that land and that life, learn about it, be part of it.

I quickly became part of life in Israel. I got used to having my bag checked every time I went into a store or restaurant, I got used to seeing my Israeli soldier friends walking around with huge M-16's on their shoulders. I mastered haggling with the taxi drivers. Taxis, not buses--that was the rule my parents, and many of my friends' parents, issued before we left. With all the suicide bombings on buses, it just isn't worth the risk. And though I don't travel on buses, I'll admit I still feel frightened walking by a bus, or sitting at a red light in a taxi with a bus in the next lane. It's just too hard to get the television images of blown-up buses out of my head.

Two weeks after I arrived, I was lucky enough to land an internship at The Jerusalem Post, which was an invaluable opportunity for me as a young journalist. There, I was thrown right into the thick of things, with no choice but to learn quickly. On my very first day, I wrote an article that appeared in the newspaper, and while it wasn't front-page news, it was my debut into the world of journalism.

The internship was my first step into the "real world." The Post staff treated me like a full-fledged reporter, giving me assignments and deadlines and sending me around the country to gather information. It was great training, and it was often fun.

But, living in Jerusalem was also often very stressful.

I remember one night that was particularly nerve-racking. It was a Saturday night. My parents' plane had just taken off after a brief visit, and all my friends were on a weekend get-away hiking in the Golan. I was in my dorm at Hebrew University when I got a phone call from a friend in the Israeli army. He said he couldn't talk, but he wanted to warn me not to leave my dorm that night.

"Why?" I asked.

"Because we're on our way to Jerusalem right now to look for a terrorist who's on the loose, who according to intelligence is planning on blowing himself up in Jerusalem tonight."

I was terrified. I was all alone. I couldn't call my parents, and I was scared to leave my dorm. I had never before experienced such real fear and danger.

But in Israel, that sense of fear and danger is the norm. In Alaska, it's normal to wear snow boots all year round. In New York, that would be absurd. In Israel, the snow boots are simply bulletproof vests.

Life is about adjusting, and I'm still struggling with the adjustment.

When I told my best friend that I was going to Israel for a year, she couldn't believe it. She couldn't understand why I was going to spend a year of my life in a country filled with angry extremists who would jump at the chance to kill me.

She was correct in that what we see on TV is scary--images of the burned frames of blown-up buses or cafes, the Israeli military in the slums of the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.

But the majority of the cafes in Israel are modern, popular places where Israelis spend their evenings or lunch breaks, and many Palestinians are not the suffering, impoverished people we see on TV. Many live in mansions in developed Arab villages.

I explained all of this to my friend as best I could, but I didn't say what I was really thinking: Honestly, how safe is it to live anywhere these days? Today, terrorism is a global threat. How many New Yorkers were scared to go to work at the World Trade Center on that Tuesday morning in Sept. 2001? But today, everybody is wary, everywhere in the world. The point is that we still go on living. Not just existing, but actually living. We can't live life scared to go around every corner, or none of us would ever leave the house.

It's no different in Israel. Living means putting the fear behind you.

Of course, managing the fear is a personal battle. On the one hand, no one wants to forget the three-year-old child killed by a Palestinian rocket while he was walking to nursery school with his mother. On the other hand, we do want to forget. We want to move on and not dwell on all the sorrow and tragedy.

Yet while their survival requires Israelis to harden their hearts to the pain, to take a deep breath and push the grief out of their minds, doing so is slowly turning Israel into a very hardened country. I fear once I live there, I might harden with it; so while some may worry that I will lose my life, I worry more about losing my heart.

It is Israel's mostly futile effort to block out the pain of all the death that is causing them to lose the media war. The Palestinians bring the journalists and cameras into their homes, showcasing their anguish for the world.

Everyone can remember the last time they saw an Israeli bulldozer destroying a house, or an Israeli tank plowing through a Palestinian village. But rarely do we see the footage of the Israeli mothers, wives and children crying for lost relatives. We hear the names of the dead, but rarely do we see the victims who remain maimed and crippled. They do exist, but Israel avoids revealing its vulnerable side.

So instead, Israelis appear tough and military.

Oddly, once I arrived in Israel, I felt further from the war-torn country I was familiar with than when I was at home, watching suicide bombings and shootings on the news every day. There I was, living in what is technically considered East Jerusalem, and I was oblivious to the danger around me. Despite the terror, bombings and deaths, there is a living side to the country, and that's the Israel I became a part of.

And that's my answer to those who can't understand my decision to live in Israel, exactly what Israelis want the world to remember: People are actually living life there. It's not a third-world regime. It's not Afghanistan or Iraq. It's a modern democracy, just like the United States, trying to exterminate terrorism. The roads are paved, there are prestigious hospitals and universities, and they even have The GAP and IKEA.

But none of that makes news, so we don’t see it--hence the flabbergasted looks when I say that after spending a year in Israel, I’m moving there permanently this summer.

So while perhaps it was my religious beliefs that led me to explore the country in the first place, it was the country itself, the people, the culture and the life, that kept me there.

Erica Chernofsky will graduate from NYU with a degree in journalism in January, 2005, completing her last semester at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She was an intern with Foxnews.com this summer, and moved to Israel earlier this month.

2004-08-24T23:32:00.000-04:00

Egyptian Government Weekly promotes 'Blood Libel' (again)

As you probably know, Samir Ragab is the editor in chief of the government-owned daily Al Gomhuriya and a confidant of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Ragab is also the chairman of the Egyptian Gazette, an English-language newspaper published in Cairo and Mayo, the weekly newspaper of the ruling National Democratic Party, issued on Mondays. Mr. Ragab is also the chairman of the board of directors of Aqidati, a religious Egyptian weekly magazine published by the Al-Tahrir foundation, which is linked to the ruling National Democratic Party.

One would think that a gentleman of such august stature and political savvy might be expected to review what is published under his masthead. Hussam Wahba, a columnist for Aqidati recently wrote an article based upon blood libels and accusing Judaism of promoting ritual murder! It was published in Al-Gomhuriya, August 10, 2004. The following are excerpts from the article:

The Content, as translated, is owned by The Middle East Media Research Institute ("MEMRI").

On the Main Entrance to the Knesset it is Inscribed : 'Compassion Toward a Non-Jew is Forbidden'"… The Jews forgot that their primary constitution, on which they rely, is full of intellectual religious terrorism against all other nations. Aqidati decided to wage a battle against International Zionism in order to expose the extent of terrorism that exists in the Zionist doctrinal mind. The truth of the matter is that the Jews themselves do not deny [the existence of] Zionist terrorism. Whoever visits the Israeli parliament known as 'The Knesset' will notice at the main entrance a sentence written on the wall saying: 'Compassion towards a non-Jew is forbidden, if you see him fall into a river or face danger, you are prohibited from saving him because all the nations are enemies of the Jews and when a non-Jew falls into a ditch, the Jew should close the ditch on him with a big boulder, until he dies, so that the enemies will lose one person and the Jews will be able to preserve their dream of the Promised Land, the Greater Israel!'

"This sentence is taken from the Jewish Talmud which is holier that the Torah itself, and was described by the Israeli Ministry of Education in the lexicon that it published at the beginning of this year for primary school students in Israel as: 'The Talmud is the oral Torah which Moses received from his Creator. It contains commandments, which every Jew must perform. The Talmud is the holy book of the Israelites and its sanctity equals or even surpasses that of the Torah…'"

The Jews' Sacred Obligation to Murder 'Goyim'

" Dr. Muhammad Abdalla Al-Sharqawi says in his book 'The Talmudic Scandals' that the Talmud … exposes the hidden aspects of the Jewish psyche… The Jewish Rabbis came up with it as a result of the deep distress over [their] exile and fragmentation, which cultivated in the Jewish psyche hatred and loathing and a raging need for vengeance and tyrannical control over non-Jewish nations. To this day Jewish life is based to a great extent on the Talmudic dictates and principles…

"Dr. Al-Sharqawi adds that if we examine the Talmudic attitude toward other, non-Jewish nations, we will find it to be as close as can be to a desire to completely annihilate the 'Goyim' – the non-Jewish nations. For instance, the Talmud says: 'Murdering a non-Jew whenever possible is an obligation. A Jew is a sinner if he can murder non-Jews but does not do so. And a Jewish priest who blesses a person [Jew] who brings evidence that he murdered one or more non-Jews is a blessed priest. Murdering non-Jews pleases God, because the flesh of non-Jews is the flesh of donkeys and their sperm is the sperm of animals.'

"The Talmud also says 'Kill anyone who is not Jewish even if he is pious. The Jews are prohibited from saving from death any member of the other nations, or rescue him from a ditch in which he fell, because that would mean saving an idolater, even though he is pious.'

"Also, the Talmud says that 'it is righteous for a Jew to kill a non-Jew with his own hands, because whoever kills a non-Jew is offering a sacrifice to God…'

"The Talmud also contains instructions to the Jew that if the non-Jew is stronger than him, he should do anything in his power to bring about his death even in an indirect manner and to pin the blame on a non-Jewish nation; this may cause a conflict between two non-Jewish nations to the point of fighting and destroying each other. Then, God will reward any Jew who contributed to the conflict between the two nations with eternal life in Paradise…

" The Talmud did not only deal with killing non-Jews, but permitted the violation of their honor [i.e. women] and property, when it says: 'The Jew is not in the wrong if he rapes a non-Jewish woman, because non-Jewish women are permitted…'

" Dr. Al-Sharqawi concludes by saying: 'All this proves the principle that the killing of non-Jews by Jews is a sacred obligation that the Jew should carry out whenever he can, because, according to the Talmud, his arm is connected to his body for the sole purpose of killing and not for recreation.'"

The Jewish Ideology of Conflict" Dr. Muhammad Abu Ghadir, the former head of the Hebrew Language Department in Al-Azhar University , points out that the Jews believe wholeheartedly that violence and blood are the only things that safeguard their lives. Their rabbis, throughout history, were successful in convincing them that non-belligerence with the surrounding world would lead to their destruction and that the only way for the Jews to stay alive is to follow the dictates of their holy books concerning the obligation to carry on the conflict with all other nations and to intensify the conflict with relatively weak nations.

"When they see a nation stronger than them, every Jew has a daily obligation to make every effort so that this nation should be weakened to the point that in the end it collapses, or at least becomes weaker than the Jewish nation, so that they may then eliminate it completely.

"The books of the Jewish religion say that in ancient times God addressed his Jewish worshiper, saying: 'You must have an enemy, and if you do not have one, create one so that you can defeat him and kill him and gain God's goodwill and His reward.' If we examine the word 'killing' in the books of the Jewish religion, we find that it is repeated tens and hundreds of times, which indicates to us the enormity of terrorism in Zionist religious thought, especially when we realize that 80% of the religious verses demand of the Jews to kill non-Jews, and even the sentences and the verses that do not talk about killing, and talk about, for instance, God giving the land to the Jews and not to others, you can find between the lines a clear call to the Jews to use all kinds of ploys and tricks to annihilate non-Jews who live on this earth, so that the Jews may take control over it…"

'The Talmudic Dictates Urge Jews to Draw the Blood of Muslims and Christians for Religious Rituals'

" Dr. Jama al-Husseini Abu Farha, instructor in theology at the University of Suez , points out that what the media shows us every day about Israeli conduct in the occupied territories is no different than what their history shows us about their inhumane practices towards humanity as a whole. One need only point out that they are 'blood suckers' according to the Talmudic dictates, which urge them to murder and draw the blood of Muslims in particular, and Christians even more so, and to use this blood in religious Israeli rituals.

"Jewish terrorism reached the point of underscoring that the Ten Commandments - as they claim - assert the right of Jews to plunder and steal non-Jewish money and to see their blood, honor and properties as fair game and to lend them money at [high] interest so long as they do not convert to Judaism."

'The Word Jew in English Means Trickery, Deceit and Deception'

"Zionist terrorism is not confined just to their religious doctrines; even their language reflects their radicalism and their terrorism. The Hebrew language includes many proofs of the truth of Zionist terrorism. The word 'Jew' … is used in the English language to mean 'trickery, deceit and deception,' all of which signify cunning and slyness. It is strange that the Jews know this very well but did not try to object to it. The Oxford dictionary says that there are words related to the word 'Jew,' among them 'cheat,' 'offensive,' and 'grasping,' and all of them mean greedy, covetous, cheating, counterfeiting, aggressive, and annoying. This link between the word 'Jew' and all these meanings certainly reflects the image of the Jewish way of thinking from an English point of view, and it is undoubtedly a bad image which does not reflect the opinion of one person only but [rather] the opinion of anyone who speaks English…"

Disseminating Blood Libels"Since admission is the highest form of evidence, we will present to the reader a letter of confession written by the Jewish Rabbi known as 'Neophytos the Convert [to Christianity]. The letter has to do with the Jews slaughtering non-Jews, draining their blood, and using it for Talmudic religious rituals. Neophytos called his letter 'The Secret of the Blood'; in it he said that 'from a young age, the Jewish Rabbis teach their students how to use non-Jews' blood to treat illnesses and for sorcery…

"'The Rabbis use this blood in various religious rituals, among them weddings when an egg is smeared with blood and the married couple eats it the night of the wedding, which gives them the power to deceive and trick anyone who is not Jewish. Also, the Rabbis use the blood of the non-Jewish victim to treat some illnesses that afflict the Rabbis. They mix some of the blood with the blood of a circumcised baby, then brush it on his throat in order to purify him, and also anoint their temples with it to commemorate the destruction of the Temple every year; [it is also used to] anoint the chests of their dead so that God will forgive them their sins; it is also mixed in the holiday bread and in many other Talmudic rituals.'

"Therefore, these rituals that were mentioned in the Talmud and which reflect the truth about the present Jewish terrorist way of thinking are certainly implemented from time to time, while they do not hesitate to distort the image of Islam and describe it as a terrorist faith."

Mr. Ragab may be contacted at: samirragab@eltahrir.net

This is truly bizarre material to be disseminating in the 20th century. Hussam Wahba's bizarre assertions, provided under the cover of scholarly reportage, are false and foul. The statements Wahba makes on his own, as well as those he quotes from Dr. Muhammad Abdalla Al-Sharqawi, Dr. Muhammad Abu Ghadir and Dr. Jama al-Husseini Abu Farha are utterly fantastic.

Perhaps Mr. Ragab might comment on why any government-owned publication of Egypt, Israel's supposed "peace partner", especially any publication subject to Mr. Ragab's oversight, would propagate such loathsome falsehoods?

Sincerely,

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-08-23T07:11:00.000-04:00

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America: 75th Anniversary of Hebron Massacre

http://www.camera.org/

Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team:

August 24, 2004 marks the 75th anniversary of the 1929 Hebron Massacre, in which 67 Jews were brutally murdered by their Arab neighbors. Arab mobs were incited by various false rumors, e.g. that Jews were murdering Arabs and that Jews were plotting to harm the Al Aqsa Mosque and other sites holy to Muslims. Attacks against Jews began in Jerusalem and spread throughout Palestine.

Please encourage the media to report on the anniversary of this tragic event.
It is interesting to note that the same type of incitement that provoked the August 1929 attacks was used again by Palestinian leaders in 2000 to launch the current wave of violence.

Anniversaries of events important to Palestinian Arabs are often noted in news reports, year after year, but rarely do we see mention of anniversaries of events important to Israelis.

Here is a succinct account of the 1929 Hebron Massacre.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron
1929 Massacre
"A long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem became steadily more violent until, on August 23, 1929, a mob of Arabs inflamed by false rumours that two Arabs had been killed by Jews started a murderous attack on Jews in the Old City. The violence quickly spread to other parts of Palestine. The worst atrocities were in Hebron and Safed , where massacres of Jews occurred. In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews and wounded many others using clubs, knives and axes. The lone British policeman in the town was overwhelmed and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations). Most of the other Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbors. The surviving Jews were evacuated from the town. A few dozen families returned in 1931 but the community never reestablished itself and there were no Jews remaining in Hebron [until after Israel gained control of Hebron in the 1967 War]."
Media contacts and more informational links about the 1929 Hebron Massacre are at the bottom of the alert.

With thanks,
Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA

Other Informational Links:

From www.PalestineFacts.org: http://tinyurl.com/3bobz
"From 1922 through 1928 the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was relatively peaceful. However, in late 1928 a new phase of violence began with minor disputes between Jews and Arabs about the right of Jews to pray at the Western Wall (Kotel) in Jerusalem. These arguments led to an outbreak of Arab violence in August 1929 when Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, fomented Arab hatred by accusing the Jews of endangering the mosques and other sites holy to Islam. Observers heard Husseini issue the call: Itback al-Yahud 'Slaughter the Jews!'
On August 22, 1929 the leaders of the Yishuv met with the British Deputy High Commissioner to alert him of their fears of a large Arab riot. The British officials assured them that the government was in control of the situation. The following day the Riots of 1929 erupted throughout the Palestine Mandate, lasting for seven days.
On Friday, August 23, Arab mobs attacked Jews in Jerusalem, Motza, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa, and other parts of the country. The Old City of Jerusalem was hit particularly hard. By the next day, the Haganah was able to mount a defense and further attacks in Jerusalem were repulsed. But, the violence in Jerusalem generated rumors throughout the country, many carrying fabricated accounts of Jewish attempts to defile Muslim holy places, all to inflame the Arab residents. Villages were plundered and destroyed by Arab mobs. While attacks on Jews in Tel Aviv and Haifa were thwarted by Jewish defenses, there were Jewish deaths in Hebron, where 67 Jewish men and women were slaughtered and Safed, where 18 Jews were killed, as well as scattered other losses totaling 133 Jewish deaths, with more than 300 wounded.
The Arab violence in Hebron was one of the worst atrocities in the modern history of Israel. On the afternoon of Friday, August 23, 1929 Jerusalem Arabs came to Hebron with false reports of Jews murdering Arabs during the rioting there, even saying thousands of Arabs had been killed. Despite the fact that Jews and Arabs in Hebron had been on good terms, a mass of frenzied Arab rioters formed and proceeded to the Hebron Yeshiva where a lone student was murdered. The next day, the Jewish Sabbath, the killing continued as an Arab mob of hundreds surrounded homes where Jews sought refuge, broke in and murdered scores of Jews in a bloody rampage.
The dead Jews that day included Eliezer Dan Slonim, a man highly esteemed by the Arabs. He was the director of the local English-Palestine bank whose many clients were Arabs, and was the sole Jewish member of the Hebron Municipal Council. He had many friends among the Arab elders, who had promised to protect him. Twenty-two people died in Slonim's house that day including his wife and two young children.
By the end of the riot, during which the British police did nothing to protect the Jews or stop the violence, sixty-seven Jews were dead and hundreds wounded. The survivors were isolated in a police station for three days while the Arabs rampaged through their houses, stealing and destroying Jewish property, unmolested by the British authorities. At the end of the three days the Jews were sent to Jerusalem, exiled from their homes for the crime of being a victim of the Arab riot. Hebron's ancient Jewish quarter was empty and destroyed. For the next 39 years no Jew lived in Hebron, not until after it was liberated by the Israeli military during the Six Day War in 1967."
Other articles on the 1929 Hebron Massacre:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html

http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5764/5764summ/THESTORY.PDF
[If the above ou.org link does not work, go to http://tinyurl.com/4ow8k
You will need Adobe Acrobat to read this pdf document ]
*****
MEDIA CONTACTS:(Keep this list handy!)TELEVISIONABC News (212) 456-2800 Go to website to submit comment.http://abcnews.go.com/service/help/abccontact.htmlNightline: nightline@abcnews.com (202) 222-7000CBS News (212) 975-4321 Go to this website and submit comment. www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtmlCNN: (404) 827-1500cnn@cnn.com Public.Information@turner.comlateedition@cnn.com Wolf Blitzer: wolf@cnn.comReliable Sources: Reliable@CNN.com (202) 898-7575

C-Span: (202) 737-3220 http://www.c-span.org/
viewer@c-span.org
Booknotes: 202-626-4600
booktv@c-span.org Fox News Channel (212) 301-3000 Letters: comments@foxnews.com oreilly@foxnews.com (Bill O'Reilly) hannity@foxnews.com (Sean Hannity) foxreport@foxnews.com (Shepard Smith)special@foxnews.com (Brit Hume) beltway@foxnews.com (Fred Barnes)
feedback@foxnews.com (Fox News Live)newswatch@foxnews.com (media critic:Fox News Watch)MSNBC: (201) 583-5000 opinion@msnbc.comhardball@msnbc.com (Hardball with Chris Matthews) countdown@msnbc.com (Countdown with Keith Olbermann) joe@msnbc.com (Scarborough Country)abramsreport@msnbc.com (the Abrams Report)RADIONPR: (202) 513-2000Ombudsman: Jeffrey Dvorkin: jdvorkin@npr.orgVP News, Bruce Drake: bdrake@npr.orgAll Things Considered: atc@npr.orgOn the Media: onthemedia@wnyc.org Radio talkshow hosts :

Monica Crowley, WABC Radio: Monica@wabcradio.com

Al Franken, the O'Franken Factor ( Air America ): 1-866-303-2270
submit comment online at: www.airamericaradio.com/bin/resContactUs.cfm?issueId=9
You can submit comment for all Air America shows here.

Dick Gordon, The Connection (617) 353-5327Submit comment online at: www.theconnection.org/contactus/

Don Imus: imus@msnbc.com 1-800-370-4687
Laura Ingraham: suggestions@lauraingraham.com 1-800-743-4443
Rush Limbaugh: rush@eibnet.com 1-800-282-2882
Steve Malzberg, WABC Radi 212-613-3800
Michael Medved: (submit comment online at: http://www.michaelmedved.com/contact.shtml ) 1-800-955-1776
Janet Parshall: submit show topics to rebekah@jpamerica.com 1-800-343-9282
Dennis Prager: dennisprager@dennisprager.com 1-877-243-7776
Michael Savage: paulreveresociety@yahoo.com 1-800-449-8255

NEWSPAPERSBoston Globe: (617) 929-2000 Letters-to-the-editor: letter@globe.comOmbudsman: ombud@globe.com Foreign Editor: James Smith: jsmith@globe.comChicago Sun-Times: (312) 321-3000Letters-to-the-editor: letters@suntimes.comForeign News Editor: Katie Wadington: kwadington@suntimes.com Chicago Tribune: (312) 222-3232Letters-to-the-editor: ctc-tribletter@tribune.com Ombudsman: publiceditor@tribune.comEditor: Ann Marie Lipinski: alipinski@tribune.comForeign Editor: Colin McMahon: cmcmahon@tribune.comCleveland Plain Dealer: (216) 999-4800 Letters-to-the-editor: letters@plaind.comEditor: Douglas C.Clifton: dclifton@plaind.com Fort Worth Star Telegram: www.dfw.comletters@star-telegram.comLos Angeles Times: (213) 237-5000 Letters-to-the-editor: letters@latimes.comOmbudsman: readers.rep@latimes.comEditor: John S. Carroll: john.carroll@latimes.comForeign Editor: Marjorie Miller: marjorie.miller@latimes.comMiami Herald: (305) 350-2000Letters-to-the-editor: heralded@herald.comWorld Editor: Juan Vasquez: worldnews@herald.com (305) 376-3624 New York Sun: (212) 406-2000 Letters-to-the-editor: editor@nysun.com Comments: newsdesk@nysun.com NY Times: General number: (212) 556-1234 comments: (888) 698-6397Letters-to-the-editor: letters@nytimes.com Public Editor Dan Okrent: public@nytimes.comForeign Desk: foreign@nytimes.comOrlando Sentinel: (407) 420-5411Letters-to-the-editor: insight@orlandosentinel.com Ombudsman Manning Pynn: mpynn@orlandosentinel.comEditor: editor@orlandosentinel.comPhiladelphia Inquirer: (215) 854-2000Letters-to-the-editor: inquirer.letters@phillynews.com Editor: editor@phillynews.comForeign Editor: foreign@phillynews.comRaleigh News & Observer: (919) 829-4517Letters-to-the-editor: forum@newsobserver.comExecutive Editor Melanie Sill: msill@newsobserver.comPublisher: oquarles@newsoberver.comSan Diego Union-Trib: (619) 299-3131Letters-to-the-editor: letters@uniontrib.comForeign Affairs Editor David Gaddis Smith: david.smith@uniontrib.com San Francisco Chronicle: (415) 777-1111Letters-to-the-editor: letters@sfchronicle.comReaders' Rep: readerrep@sfchronicle.comSouth Florida Sun-Sentinel: Letters-to-the-editor: letters@sun-sentinel.com

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: (314) 340-8000
Letters-to-the-editor: letters@post-dispatch.com
International News Wire Editor: (314) 340-8298
Main news editor , Steve Parker: (314) 340-8287 Star-Ledger: (973) 392-4040Letters-to-the-editor: eletters@starledger.comOmbudsman Charles Harrison: readerrep@starledger.comor charrison@starledger.comUSA Today: (703) 854-3400 Letters-to-the-editor: editor@usatoday.comWorld Editor: Elisa Tinsley: etinsley@usatoday.comWashington Post: (202) 334-7512 Letters-to-the-editor: letters@washpost.comombudsman@washpost.com (202) 334-7582 Foreign Desk: foreign@washpost.comMedia Critic Howard Kurtz: KurtzH@washpost.com MAGAZINESNewsweek: (212) 445-4000Letters-to-the-editor: letters@newsweek.comInternational Editors: Editors@newsweek.comTime magazine: (212) 522-3817 Letters-to-the-editor: letters@time.comEditor: James Kelly: james_kelly@timemagazine.comUS News & World Report: (202) 955-2000 Letters-to-the-editor: letters@usnews.com

Wire Services

Associated Press (AP) : info@ap.org
To subscribe to CAMERA's E-Mail Team alerts, send a note with your name, address, email, telephone number and how you heard about the alerts to leegreen@camera.org

2004-08-20T00:46:00.000-04:00

From the Arab Press: Don't Blame Zionism For The Violent Arab Culture

14:46 Aug 13, '04 / 26 Av 5764

The journalist and former Kuwaiti Communications Minister, Dr. Sa'ad Bin-Tafla, said that violent tendencies in Arab culture have deep roots and are not a product of the conflict with Zionism.

"I believe we are all responsible for this culture and Zionism and Imperialism have no part in it," Bin-Tafla declared in a recent interview with Jordanian television, "It is incorrect to say that violence is the result of the occupation. The French occupation left Algeria after a million victims fell, and then 100,000 Algerians were slaughtered by other Algerians, in the name of Islam, within less than ten years. That is to say, sadly, more than even Israel could have killed during the period of the intifada. This violence has cultural roots, unconnected to the occupation....

"The number of killed in Algeria and those killed by other Arab regimes is greater than the number of Palestinians killed by Israel..." the former Kuwaiti minister explained, adding, "There is a culture of violence that existed before the Americans arrived in Iraq and the Gulf, and even before the Israeli occupation in Palestine; before the American occupation in Afghanistan...."

Bin-Tafla stated, "the slaughter, the destructive abuse, the anarchy and the bloodshed do not approach in any way the legal definition of Jihad or resistance. It is anarchy and terrorism and is indicative of frustration and a culture of collective suicide reminiscent of whales [which beach themselves]. Such a culture stems from objective and personal reasons."

Bin-Tafla traces the source of much of the frustration among Arab youth to "an extremist religious stream" in the Islamic world. "It tells [the youth], 'You must achieve one of two things - martyrdom or victory,'" the Kuwaiti journalist explained, "It prettifies the culture of violence and describes it as resistance and Jihad."

Bin-Tafla also lays the blame on the Arab media: "Unfortunately, many in television, radio and print media... pushed these youth towards frustration and caused them to die needlessly, killing others with them, and to divide the world into black and white."

2004-08-17T22:24:00.000-04:00

Letter to the editor of Associated Press

Dear Sir/madam:

In Barry Schweid's article "Powell has kind words for Arafat", the headline completely mischaracterized Mr. Powell's words. Moreover, Mr. Schweid himself utterly misrepresented Mr. Arafat's leadership.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the Palestinian leader "occupies a unique place in the minds of hearts of his people" and that he " ..is the embodiment of their desires and wishes," he was being diplomatic, at most. An extreme example will clearly illustrate my point: It could just as easily be said that Hitler, after all, also "occupied a unique place in the hearts and minds of his people and was "the embodiment of their desires and wishes".

More disturbing was Mr. Schwied's observation that "ever since"Arafat took over leadership of the PLO in 1967 "he has renounced the terror tactics that the PLO used for decades and has agreed to coexistence with Israel" is an utter falsification. For every statement Mr. Arafat ever made about accepting Israel's existence, dozens can be found calling for the Israel's destruction. Arafat, personally and through his Al-Aqsa Brigades, has promoted and glorified terrorist tactics at every turn and continues to do so. Arafat has clearly failed in every respect to transform himself from a terrorist kingpin to any kind of statesman. The only thing remaining unclear is whether Mr. Schweid's monstrous representation otherwise is born of a truly stupefying ignorance or a malicious disregard for the truth; neither has any place in respectable journalism.

Sincerely,

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-08-16T14:16:00.000-04:00

Jordan is Palestine

Benny Elon Presented "Jordan is Palestine" Plan to Prince Hassan MK Benny Elon, whom Prime Minister Sharon fired from his position as Tourism Minister because of his opposition to the disengagement/expulsion plan, presented his "Jordan is Palestine" plan to Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan.

Elon disclosed to Arutz-7 today that his meetings with Hassan and other Jordanian officials took place several months ago in Jordan, while he was still a Cabinet minister. He said that the Prince said that his country would be hard-put to accept such a plan because it doesn't trust Israel: "They saw what happened in Lebanon [with the sudden abandonment of the Southern Lebanese Army - ed.] and with the collaborators in Yesha [Judea, Samaria and Gaza]," and also that Israel always gave precedence to diplomatic initiatives with the Palestinian Authority as opposed to with Jordan.

Despite this reaction, MK Elon feels that if and when the U.S. agrees to recognize Jordan as "the representative of the Palestinians, and treats Israel-Jordan as the democratic axis in this region," including significant economic aid to Jordan, "our neighboring kingdom's leadership will view this plan much more sympathetically."

MK Elon headed Yeshivat Beit Orot in Jerusalem before entering politics, and succeeded the murdered Rehavam Ze'evi as head of the Moledet Party. The Elon peace plan, entitled "The Right Road to Peace," calls for the residents of the refugee camps to be resettled in Arab countries, while other Arabs living in Yesha will become Jordanian citizens. "The first to go [to Jordan] will be the terrorists, of course," Elon said, "while those with property here and who have been living here for generations - they held Jordanian citizenship up until 1988, when King Hussein took it away - will continue to live in Judea and Samaria, but with renewed Jordanian citizenship."

MK Elon will depart tomorrow for the United States, where he will continue to promote his plan among American leaders. He will also meet there with Jewish and Christian leaders in an attempt to increase their awareness of the dangers and negative ramifications of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Holy Land.

The Elon Plan, which is being mailed to all Jewish residents of Yesha this week, calls for the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, which Elon says is an "entity without a future, whose existence precludes the end of the conflict." The plan also calls for Israel to take absolute steps to end Palestinian terrorism, including the collection of all weapons, dismantling of terrorist hotbed refugee camps, and the expulsion of terrorists and their accomplices.

The next step in the Elon Plan is international aid to Jordan in recognition of its role as the only representative of the Palestinian people and to help it absorb a certain amount of refugees. In this connection, Haggai Segal reports that Jordan has greatly restricted, over the past few days, the granting of entry visas to Arab citizens of Judea and Samaria - leaving thousands of Arabs stranded at the bridges and entrances from Israel to Jordan. According to the plan, however, Israel will be sovereign over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with Arab residents receiving Jordanian citizenship.

The last stages of the plan involve an internationally-funded completion of the "exchange of populations" that began in 1948 between Jews of Arab countries and Arabs in Israel. This will include the complete absorption of the former refugees in the various countries. Israel and Jordan will then declare the end of the conflict between them and will establish full and friendly relations.

The plan makes clear that a small, sliced-up and crowded Palestinian state in the areas of Judea and Samaria, aside a threatened and narrow Israel - such as envisioned in the Road Map plan - is a sure recipe for war in the near future.

MK Elon explained that he distributed his plan to the residents of Yesha because, "We saw, during our campaign against the disengagement plan for the Likud Party referendum, that this population has fantastic quality. The determination and the dedication and talents of these people who, by going from house to house, actually changed public opinion [a reference to the fact that the plan enjoyed majority support amongst the Likud membership until the Yesha residents went from house-to-house over the course of 2-3 weeks, leading to a 60%-40% victory against the disengagement - ed.]."

"I believe that if this population studies the plan, and gets to know it, and makes comments on it - we, the [right-wing] politicians, were not able to come up with an agreed-upon plan, but maybe this public will be able to. Just like the Oslo Plan fell, and the Road Map fell, and Sharon and his disengagement will fall - the public will come to us and ask us, 'What do you propose?' - and then, we must not hesitate or stutter! We must have a serious plan, one that is on the table and known, and that is what will win."

Segal asked, "Your problem, however, is not in convincing the Israelis, but rather in persuading Jordan to agree to take on the role you're assigning it."

Elon: "This is something I learned from Arik Sharon. First we have to convince the Israelis, then the Americans, and only then - everyone else. It's inconceivable that we keep looking for a partner, checking what they'll agree to, and building our positions based on that - as [Yossi] Beilin did. I believe that in Jordan we have with whom to talk." Here he disclosed that he had met with Hassan, and that the meeting was "not at all bad." Relating to the understandable Jordanian fear that a surplus of Palestinians will overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom, Elon said, "There is no reason for us to view the situation as if the Palestinian state will be formed there; rather, for us, the Jordanian government as it now stands is much better than any Palestinian Authority that could arise there... In short, Hassan made it clear that under certain circumstances, he could agree to this plan - and that Jordan was originally not even in favor of detaching itself from the Palestinians, as King Hussein did in 1988."

Asked whether he had discussed his plan with Prime Minister Sharon, MK Elon said, "Yes, and more than once. I reminded him that he himself had said many times that Jordan is Palestine. He said that now, however, we have a tactical need for Jordan, in that it does much of the work of protecting our border. This is of course good, but we need to have a comprehensive strategic plan that will end the conflict - as the only one who gains from its perpetuation is Arafat, not Israel. We must know that the British gave up 78% of its mandate - the historic Land of Israel - in order to create a Palestinian state on it; this is much to be regretted, but it is inconceivable that on the remaining 22%, yet another Palestinian state should be formed. We have to know and make it clear - first of all to ourselves - that Sharon wants to return us to the Green Line. He says he wants to preserve the settlement blocs, but really he is fooling everyone, including, possibly, himself; pay no heed to his act of getting upset at Olmert for saying it aloud."

2004-08-16T07:44:00.000-04:00

WHY THE LEFT HATES ISRAEL:

A SPEECH BY DON FEDER TO THE HAMPSHIRE COLLEGEREPUBLICANS(Amherst, Mass.)FEBRUARY 20, 2003

Let me begin by putting this in historical perspective. If you go back tothe years immediately following World War II, American liberals were amongIsrael's best friends.Israel's independence was secured with the active support of Harry Truman,perhaps the era's quintessential liberal. Eleanor Roosevelt, AdlaiStevenson, The New York Times all werestalwart supporters of the Jewish state.

>From the liberal perspective, the Jews had impeccable credentials. Theywere, after all, a certified victim group (one out of every three havingjust been murdered by the Nazis).

If that weren't enough, Zion was resettled by progressives of the Kibbutzmovement. Among mainstream liberals of the period, sympathy for Israel wasboundless.

Of course, liberalism of the 40s and 50s was a far cry from the liberalismof today. This was before the creed was corrupted by Marxism andmulticulturalism when liberalism couldstill be distinguished from leftism. From the end of World War II until thelate 1960s, liberalism was optimistic, individualistic, anti-totalitarianand pro- American.

Today, just as the nature of liberalism has mutated, so has its attitudetoward Israel.

While there are a few exceptions, today, Israel's enemies are foundprimarily on the left and in those institutions most closely identified withthe new American liberalism -including the news media, academia and the mainline Protestant churches.

I'd like to take a few minutes to examine each, and consider how theirhostility toward Israel -- which at times borders on the pathological -- ismanifested. Then I'll come tothe heart of my thesis: What it is about Israel that drives the Left nuts .

First, the news media of which I was a member for over 20 years. DespiteArab propaganda about the U.S. media being controlled by Jews’ control ofthe fourth estate isn'treligious or ethnic, but ideological. The media is overwhelming liberal - areality routinely reflected in biased coverage on a broad range of issues.How liberal? According to a surveyof Washington bureau chiefs and congressional reporters, in the 1992election, 89 percent voted for Bill Clinton, compared to 7 percent forGeorge Bush Sr., and 2 percent for Ross Perot.

What little support Israel has in the media comes almost exclusively fromconservatives Fox News, The New York Post, the editorial pages of The WallStreet Journal, The Washington Times, syndicated columnists like Cal Thomasand Charles Krauthammer and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. It'saxiomatic: The more liberal a media outlet, the moreantagonistic it is toward Israel. The anti-Israel lynch mob is led by TheNew York Times,The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, CNN, network news departments, talkshow hosts like PhilDonahue and anchors like Peter Jennings.

On November 21st of last year, ABC's Nightline had a segment titled"Desperate Acts: Suicide Bombers," which compared Japanese kamikaze pilotsof World War II with Palestinianhomicide bombers.

Ted Koppel informed us that, "The level of anger among many Palestiniansagainst the Israeli military is so profound that there, too, suicide bombersare often elevated to heroicstatus."

For the left, anger and frustration justify almost anything, unless, ofcourse, it's anger and frustration by white males. Come to think of it, theGermans too were angry andfrustrated in the early 1930s. They'd lost a war and over a million men,were humiliated by the Versailles Treaty and went through economic andpolitical upheaval during the GreatDepression. Perhaps the level of anger among many Germans was why stormtroopers and the SS were elevated to heroic status.

If they're angry with the Israeli army, then why are the victims ofPalestinian terrorism overwhelmingly civilians: toddlers eating ice creamcones, children sleeping in theirbeds, women shopping, and elderly Holocaust survivors attending Passoverseders? Between September 2000 and Feb. 18, 2003, 38% of Palestinianfatalities were noncombatants.However, during the same period, noncombatants accounted for 77% of Israelifatalities. There are civilian casualties on both side, but (unlike theIsraelis) the Palestiniansintentionally target noncombatants.

The "level of anger" (actually hatred), referred to by Koppel, precedes theso-called occupation of the West Bank, and even the establishment of theState of Israel, by decades.(There were pogroms in Hebron in the 1920s and '30s. The Grand Mufti ofJerusalem helped Hitler carry out the Holocaust.)

Anti-Semitism is inculcated at all levels of Palestinian society. It's inthe textbooks, in the government-controlled media and in sermons from themosques.

But the myth -- (beloved of Arab propagandists) endlessly repeated by usefulidiots like Koppel - is that setting off nail-packed bombs on busy streetsand dragging 13-year-oldboys to caves and stoning them to death, is the "only means" thePalestinians have to respond to the "brutal Israeli occupation."

Speaking of which, it's almost impossible to hear a news report aboutviolence in Israel without a reference to "the occupied West Bank" or "theoccupied territories."

When the Germans overran most of France in 1940, it was legitimate to speakof occupied France. After all, France had been a sovereign nation forhundreds of years. Prior to theGerman invasion, it had a government that exercised authority within definedborders.

When was the last "Palestinian nation"? Who was its ruler? Where was itscapital? What are its more notable achievements in art, literature andscience?

As my friend Joe Farah, an Arab-American, points out, "Palestine is as realas Never-Never Land". From the destruction of the Second Jewish Commonwealthin the firstcentury AD until the Israeli liberation in 1967, there was never a sovereignstate on the land the media designates the "occupied territories." Israeldidn't take the West Bank away from the Palestinians. It reclaimed it fromJordan, which had illegally occupied it for the previous 19 years.

There is no distinct Palestinian language, religion or culture. There are 22Arab states in the region whose inhabitants are virtually identical to thePalestinians. If Arafatistan is ever established, that will give them 23Arab states. Do you think they'll be satisfied then? Don't count on it.

By using the term "occupied territories" (instead of "disputed territories")the media implicitly takes sides - against the so-called "occupiers" andwith those who supposedly are being "occupied."

CNN founder Ted Turner is a priceless human resource. There is no internalmonitor on his mouth. Turner is so dumb that he says things others in themedia are thinking, but havethe good sense not to proclaim publicly.

Thus, in an interview last year with the left-wing British publication TheGuardian, Turner expounded: "The Palestinians are fighting with humansuicide bombers; that's allthey have. The Israelis, they've got one of the most powerful militarymachines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are theterrorists? I would make a case that bothsides are involved in terrorism." By the way, this brilliant analysis isfrom the same deep thinker who told us that "poverty" caused the World TradeCenter attack.

Let's see: Al Qaeda hijacks a plane and murders 3,000 Americans. Americaresponds by bombing its host country, Afghanistan. Based on Turner's logic,America and Osama binLaden are each involved in terrorism. What choice did Al Qaeda have? Afterall, America has one of the most powerful military machines in the world.Who can blame Bin Laden for strikingback with the only means at his disposal?

Or, take another favorite media expression, "the cycle of violence." LastSeptember, after two homicide bombings in a single day, Israel moved intoArafat's compound in Ramallah. On the NBC Nightly News on September 19, TomBrokaw sadly intoned, "It sounds so familiar, a cycle of violence that seemsto be escalating all over again."

Cycle of violence? Who started the violence? Who perpetuates it? Which sideglorifies murder? Which sides says the other is sub-human? Hamas andArafat's security forces spreadbody parts around a Jerusalem pizzaria or blow up a Tel Aviv disco. Israelresponds by sending its security forces to Ramallah or Nablus to dismantlethe terroristinfra-structure. For the media, action and reaction aggression andself-defense both are part of "a familiar cycle of violence." Ladies andgentlemen, this is moral equivalency at its worst.

However, the media actually look objective and fair-minded next to thereligious left. Whether the issue is social policy, economic policy orforeign policy, the mainline Protestant churches are reliably leftist.During the Cold War, the U.S. Council of Churches and its affiliates wereinveterate apologists for the Evil Empire, advocates of disarmamentat any price and opponents of U.S. military intervention to stem thecommunist advance. In the 19th century, the Church of England was describedas "the Tory party at prayer."

Today, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the PresbyterianChurch and their ilk could aptly be designated as Noam Chomsky and HowardZinn at prayer. Given liberalism's antipathy toward Israel, you would expectthese churches to be anti-Zionist,and you would not be disappointed.

Typical of this mindset was a statement issued by the National Council ofChurches in October 2000 that declared, "We decry the severity of theIsraeli response, and condemn their disproportionate use of force. Themassive and one-sided loss of life and infliction of injury and propertydamage belie the Israeli claim to legitimate self- defense."

Or, consider this from a report by Churches for Middle East Peace (composedof the usual suspects) in June, 2001, "Few things have done more to destroythe hope and pursuit ofpeace through negotiations than Israel's unrelenting settlement activity."

These relentless Jewish "settlements" comprise roughly 2% of the land on theWest Bank, most are contiguous with pre-1967 Israel. Just to put the matterin perspective, sincethe '67 war, Israelis have established 144 settlements in the area - rangingfrom communities of a few trailers to thriving cities. At the same time, theArabs have built 267 newsettlements.

It never ceases to amaze me that 250,000 Jews living amidst 2 million Arabson the West Bank "destroys the hope and pursuit of peace," but 1 millionIsraeli Arabs living among 5million Jews in pre-1967 Israel does not, or that Churches for Middle EastPeace has endorsed a principle which would have delighted the Nazis makinga designated territory(in this case Biblical Israel) "judenrein," free of Jews.

In October, 2000, the United Methodist Church confessed, "We recognize thecurrent popular protest is an expression of deep Palestinian frustrationover the ongoing disrespect,dehumanization and denial of their basic human and national rights by anunjust political system." That "unjust political system" (Israel's) happensto be the only democraticsystem in the Middle East, one that's had 4 changes of government in thepast 10 years. Arabs sit in the Israeli Knesset, next to Jewish socialists,rightists and Orthodox Jews.

In a 2002 statement, the Episcopal Church USA observed, "The unbreakablecycle of violence which was set in motion by Ariel Sharon's provocativevisit to the Temple Mount inJerusalem, has led to a tragic loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives." Now,really. Even officials of the Palestinian Authority admit that the currentjihad was planned formonths before Ariel Sharon's "provocative visit" to what just happens to beJudaism's holiest site. The visit was an excuse for the latest intifada. Itdid not precipitate it.

In a March 2002 letter to Sharon, an official of the Presbyterian ChurchUSA, babbled, "While we do not condone the acts of violence by certainPalestinian extremists (notterrorists, but extremists), we are appalled that Israel, in response, hascontinued to punish the entire Palestinian population and its leaders whohave been your government'spartners in the peace process." Newsflash circa 1944: "The Allies continueto punish the entire German population and its leaders - who were itspartners in peace at Munich."

Just because Palestinian society celebrates the slaughter of Jewishchildren, just because Arafat's own Fatah and Tanzim militias joyfullyparticipate in the murders, just because a plurality of Palestinians saythat even if Israel withdrew from every inch of the territories and gavethem a state with East Jerusalem as its capital, they would still wantthe slaughter to continue until the Jewish state was utterly obliteratedIsrael has responded harshly. As my grandmother would say -- Go figure!

Which brings us to the colleges and universities. There is no place inAmerica where leftism is more entrenched than on the campus. The number ofRepublicans on the average liberal arts faculty could be counted on thefingers of one hand. David Horowitz, of the Center for the Study of PopularCulture, says that in the month after 9/11, there were over 150anti-war demonstrations at colleges and universities, almost every one ledby faculty members.

The newest weapon of the anti-Israel academic left is divesture - the demandthat educational institutions sell their stock in corporations doingbusiness with Israel. On morethan 50 campuses including Harvard, Columbia and Yale - faculty petitionscalling for divesture are being circulated.

The current campaign echoes that of the apartheid era and equates Israelwith South Africa. But Israel is a democracy, the only one in the MiddleEast, where all citizensenjoy equal rights.

In Egypt, a dictatorship, Coptic Christians are regularly persecuted andoccasionally murdered. In the Sudan, more than two million have been killedand four million displaced,and slavery is rampant, in a war prosecuted by its Islamic government.Lebanon has become a virtual satellite of Damascus, with 30,000 Syriantroops occupying the country. InSaudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy Christianity can't even be practiced inprivate, and imams on the government payroll regularly call for the murderof Christians and Jews.

Not one of these nations is the object of a divesture campaign. Then again,they're merely dictatorships (most anti-American), engaged in persecution orwholesale murder for political or religious reasons. No big deal.

By the way, the American people have a perspective on Israel and thePalestinians that is diametrically opposed to that of the media, academicand clerical elites. According to ajust- released survey by McLaughlin & Associates, 71% of Americans believeArafat's Palestinian Authority should not be granted statehood (against 13%who believe it should). Bya 2-to1 margin, the America public believes that if such a nation isestablished, it would be a terrorist state. And, by a 3-to-1 margin (61% to19%), Americans believe thatthe long-term goal of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority is thedestruction of Israel.

When it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, the American peopleessentially are of one mind and the left, once again, is out of its mind.Why? In a world full of genocidalregimes and terrorists states that pose a mortal danger to America, why isthe left obsessed with Israel? I would like to suggest five reasons.

Reason #1: Israel is pro-American.To cite but one example, in the UN General Assembly, Israel votes withAmerica more than any other nation. Well, you may say, isn't that becauseIsrael is a major recipient ofour foreign aid? But so is Egypt, and it rarely votes with us at the UN orsupports our foreign policy initiatives.

Israel is an American ally because it shares our values: democracy, respectfor human rights, religious tolerance, the free market and an open society.

But its very support for America makes it suspect in the eyes of the left,which is intrinsically anti-American. Since the left views America as themajor repository of evilin the world, it stands to reason that it would have essentially the sameview of our embattled allies. Just as it considers America a corrupt,repressive, racist bully, itfollows that those nations/governments aligned with us are seen as similarlytainted. In other words, the left hates Israel for the same reason the lefthates America.

Reason #2: Arafat and this thugs, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are seen asanother national liberation movement the Middle East equivalent of the VietCong and Sandinistas.

Prior to World War II, the stated goal of Marxism was liberating oppressedclasses workers and peasants. When that enterprise failed spectacularly(witness 30 million deadin the Soviet Union and 50 million murdered in the People's Republic ofChina), Marxists moved on to national liberation freeing oppressed peoplesfrom colonial exploiters.

For the left, Palestinians and Israelis fit this paradigm perfectly. ThePalestinians are living on land they claim as their's but don't fullycontrol. We are told that they'reoppressed, subjugated, denied a nation of their own. Liberals don't examinethe validity of that claim. They don't ask how the Palestinians got there.They don't look at theirrecord with the limited self-government they have. They don't ask what willhappen to the rest of Israel once its border is 8-miles wide at its narrowwaist and with the Palestiniansarmed with rockets and mortars -- controlling the high ground of Judea andSamaria -- allied with Syria, Iran and Iraq.

All they know is the Palestinians are "an indigenous people." The Israelisare denying them self-determination. That's all they want to know.

Actually, if Ariel Sharon wore fatigues and had a three-day growth, he'dprobably improve his standing with the left.

Reason #3: Along the same lines, the Middle East conflict is seen as a powerstruggle between a Third World people and a transplanted European colonialpower. Thanks to multiculturalism, the left believes that morality isdetermined by ethnicity and income. Compared to Israelis, most Palestiniansare relatively poor. For the left, poverty is a mark of virtue.

It's quite true that Israeli society reflects the Western values mentionedearlier, notwithstanding that today many Israelis are Sephardim: Jews whosefamilies have lived inthe region for millennia.

Whether it's strikers vs. corporate executives, cops vs. accused, thehomeless vs. the middle class, black vs. white, oil companies vs. caribou,the left invariably sides withthose it perceives as victims. For liberals, life is an endless psychodramapitting horrible "haves" against saintly "have-nots."

Israel does indeed have the heavy weapons. On the other hand, thePalestinians have the support of the entire oil-rich, populous,armed-to-the-teeth Arab world. Are the Saudioil sheiks who support the destruction of Israel the wretched of the earth?Is Saddam Hussein, who pays a bounty to the families of suicide bombers? AreSyria, Iraq and Iranpowerless? When viewed in isolation, the Palestinians appear to be theunderdog. However, when they are properly perceived as an advance column forthe Moslem Arab world, they arehardly an embattled people.

Reason #4: Israel is a Jewish state.The left is notoriously hostile to religion. (This includes the religiousleft, which long ago abandoned salvation for social action.) Not allreligion, but Western religion. Islam, which is viewed as a Third Worldreligion, a religion of the downtrodden has become the liberals' specialpet, ironically, given that its agenda isn't exactly synonymous with that ofthe National Organization for Women and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates andDefenders.

On the other hand, just as conservative Christians are drawn to Israelbecause they see Biblical prophecy therein confirmed, the left is repulsedfor the same reason.

In an era of science and socialism, the God of the Bible, the God ofChristians and Jews, was supposed to disappear. But, more than any otherphenomenon, the existence of themodern state of Israel after 2,000 years of exile, despite overwhelmingodds - challenges that assumption.

Thus many on the left, who also view the founding of Israel as an injustice,would be happy to see all of the Jews pack up and move somewhere else. Theidea of a Jewish state offends their universalism. For a nation to be aMoslem state is fine. But for a country to be a Jewish state is just tooparticularistic.

Reason #5: It is an article of faith for the left that all people arebasically good, that conflict arises from misunderstandings and thateverything can be resolved bynegotiations.

Liberalism thus may be contrasted with Christianity and Judaism.Christianity holds that man is inherently sinful - a condition which may berectified by faith and grace.

Judaism believes that man has both a good and evil inclination - but, as theBible says, from birth man's heart is inclined toward evil. Liberalismbelieves in innate goodness,that man is basically virtuous and corrupted, not by his nature, but bysociety.

How does this worldview apply to the Middle East? The left blames Israel forfighting terrorism with military force, instead of with diplomacy.

Since Israel is in a position to surrender territory, it stands to reasonthat if the violence is continuing, it's because Israel hasn't given upenough.

What exactly has Israel given to the Palestinians? Since the signing of the1993 Oslo Accords, it has turned over to the Arabs all of Gaza and 40percent of the West Bank including areas with 80 percent of the populationas well as Hebron, Judaism's second holiest city.

In return, Israel has gotten over 600 dead and 4,000 wounded (based on ourpopulation, that is the equivalent of 38,000 dead Americans and 230,000wounded), the destruction of the Tomb of Rachel, and a worldwide wave ofanti- Semitism.

Diplomacy only work when both sides are sincere, when each is committed todemocracy and the rule of law. (Arafat is sincerely committed to thedestruction of Israel.).

Negotiations with totalitarians, tyrants and thugs lead to Munich and WorldWar II, lead to the 1973 Paris Peace Accords (the grave of South Vietnam,Cambodia and Laos), lead to ouranti-nuclear agreement with North Korea, which we now know Kim Jong Ilviolated all along, lead to Oslo. Nations have been buried with a scrap ofpaper.

Actually, the left wouldn't mind Israel so much if it wasn't an Americanally, if it wasn't a democracy with Western values, if it wasn't a Jewishstate, if its opponents weren't an indigenous, Third World people and if itwas willing to give them whatever they want and trust in their word forIsrael's future security.

Since the opposite is the case, the liberal-left's hostility toward Israelwill only deepen. Given the liberal degeneration over the past six decades, it could not have been otherwise.

2004-08-15T22:55:00.000-04:00

UN & ISRAEL MELANIE PHILLIPS DIARY

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/

The defining issue, Melanie Phillips, July 21, 2004

The world terror supporters' club, aka the UN, has told Israel to tear down its security barrier. This follows the ruling by the terror court, the ICJ, that the barrier is illegal (see below). Neither of these decisions is binding, but they are intended to build up the global demonization of Israel as a pariah state, the necessary prelude to its destruction. Meanwhile, in the US where Christian support for Israel is so strong, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has equated Israel with apartheid South Africa and called for universal divestment from it.

These developments all signal a world that is descending ever deeper into a terrifying moral darkness. If the Jews have always been a society's pit canaries whose fate is an early warning of that society's wider collapse, Israel is surely the canary in the mine of the world. The way it is being treated bespeaks a mortal sickness. Israel is the victim of a continuing, half-century attempt to annihilate it. Yet its attempts to defend itself are denounced and vilified, its activities are misreported and distorted, it is judged by malign double standards to paint it falsely as a rogue state – and all the while those doing so look the other way while a genocide is perpetrated in Sudan, sanitized even in today's papers as merely a 'humanitarian' catastrophe. The moral inversion involved was captured in a remark by Mark Steyn in yesterday's Telegraph:

'The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organization, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency.'

This is the same UN that has now pronounced that Israel should not defend itself against the war of exterminatory mass murder being perpetrated against its citizens. This treatment of Israel goes far beyond the fate of that particular region. The obsessive malice with which it is vilified and libeled, and the tacit and even explicit encouragement of the war of mass murder against it, while atrocities in Africa are not only ignored but their perpetrators given a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, for heaven's sake, shows that not just the UN but the world order it represents are bust, broken, bankrupt.

For faced with this obscene parody of a world body that is supposed to promote and uphold peace and justice but actually ignores, promotes and upholds genocide, mass murder, tyranny, terrorism and endemic corruption, the democracies of the west not only ignore such evidence but profess to believe that the UN is a moral exemplar without whose imprimatur wars are illegitimate and whose every utterance or action possesses unchallengeable moral authority. But the correct -- indeed, the only -- moral response to the UN would be to shut it down. While the world is run by tyrannies --and despite the US veto at the UN, it is so run -- tyranny, terrorism and genocide will of course continue unabated, and the victims of these atrocities will be regarded at best with indifference and at worst demonized as villains in order to protect the guilty. That is the twisted and lethal phenomenon of which Israel is both victim and symbol.

The scale of this moral inversion is so huge, so profound and so fundamental that the Presbyterian Church decision has provoked an incandescent protest by Dennis Prager, a US talk-show host who thought Christianity was on the side of good but now finds it has been hijacked to serve the cause of evil. Prager spells out the nature of this obscenity:

'It takes a particularly virulent strain of moral idiocy and meanness to single out Israel, not Arafat's Palestinian Authority, or terror-supporting, death-fatwa-issuing Iran, or women-subjugating Saudi Arabia, for condemnation and economic ruin. One of the most decent societies, one of the most liberal democracies in the world, is fighting for its life against Islamic fascists who praise the Holocaust and publicly call for the annihilation of Israel -- and the Presbyterian Church calls for strangling Israel!

'Apartheid state?' This Goebbels-like Big Lie, concocted by the world's anti-Israel and anti-American Left and by those who want Israel destroyed, is now an official doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. Israel is a nation whose population is one-quarter non-Jewish Arab, with the same rights, including voting and its own political parties, as Jewish citizens; a nation whose second official language is Arabic, the language of those who wish to annihilate the Jewish country; a nation that occupies a tiny sliver of land known as the West Bank only because Jordan, overwhelmingly composed of Palestinians, invaded Israel in 1967 in order to destroy it and thereby lost its ownership of the West Bank.' And then Prager draws a conclusion as stark and bleak as it is true:

'This is one of the morality-clarifying issues of our time. To single out Israel for economic strangulation while that good nation fights for its life is an act of such immorality that holding that view precludes one from the title "good" or "God-fearing," for if they are true to God, I am false to Him. If they are good, I who support Israel am bad. If their Bible teaches them to strangle Israel and support Yasser Arafat, I am guided by a different Bible. They have drawn a line. It is now time for good people, Presbyterians specifically, Christians generally, to distance themselves vigorously and publicly from this morally sick church. And it is time, once again, for Jews to realize that the enemies of the Jews in our day are to be found on the Christian Left while their friends are far more often on the Christian Right.'

Israel is the defining moral issue of our time. Not because its situation is the worst in the world -- the genocide in Sudan is clearly in a different league. But because the way the world is treating it exemplifies a global moral sickness in which truth, goodness and the victims of an annihilatory madness are ignored, dehumanized or attacked, while lies, wickedness and their perpetrators are appeased, endorsed and supported.

2004-08-02T06:35:00.000-04:00

A View from the Eye of the Storm

Though this is very long, it'll be worthwhile.
By far, the most transparent description of the present world
conflicts. Please, please read. It is a must. You will not regret it.

HAIM HARARI, a theoretical physicist, is the Chair, Davidson
Institute of Science Education, and Former President, from 1988 to
2001, of the Weizmann Institute of Science.

During his years as President of the Institute, it entered numerous
new scientific fields and projects, built 47 new buildings, raised
one Billion Dollars in philanthropic money, hired more than half of
its current tenured Professors and became one of the highest
royalty-earning academic organizations in the world.

Throughout all his adult life, he has made major contributions to
three different fields: Particle Physics Research on the
international scene, Science Education in the Israeli school system
and Science Administration and Policy Making.

A View from the Eye of the Storm

Talk delivered by Haim Harari at a meeting of the International
Advisory Board of a large multi-national corporation, April 2004:

As you know, I usually provide the scientific and technological
"entertainment" in our meetings, but, on this occasion, our
Chairman suggested that I present my own personal view on events
in the part of the world from which I come. I have never been and
I will never be a Government official and I have no privileged
information. My perspective is entirely based on what I see, on
what I read and on the fact that my family has lived in this
region for almost 200 years. You may regard my views as those of
the proverbial taxi driver, which you are supposed to question,
when you visit a country.

I could have shared with you some fascinating facts and some
personal thoughts about the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, I will
touch upon it only in pas sing. I prefer to devote most of my
remarks to the broader picture of the region and its place in
world events. I refer to the entire area between Pakistan and
Morocco, which is predominantly Arab, predominantly Moslem, but
includes many non-Arab and also significant non-Moslem minorities.
Why do I put aside Israel and its own immediate neighborhood?
Because Israel and any problems related to it, in spite of what
you might read or hear in the world media, is not the central
issue, and has never been the central issue in the upheaval in the
region. Yes, there is a 100 year-old Israeli-Arab conflict, but it
is not where the main show is:

* The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel.
* The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel.
* The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel.
* Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel.
* Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel.
* Assad the Father did not kill tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma in Syria because of Israel.
* The Taliban control of Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with Israel.
* The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had nothing to do with Israel,
and I could go on and on and on.

The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally
dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so
even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and an independent
Palestine would have existed for 100 years.

The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the
Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than
the U S and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They
have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. These
22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a
combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal
to half of the GDP of California alone.

Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond
belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding
in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women
is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human
rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque
fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission.
According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals
and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books
translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little
Greece alone translates. The total number of scientific publications
of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth
rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the
social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening
in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next
wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at
some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.

It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground
for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement,
suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region
blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western
Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything,
except themselves.

Do I say all of this with the satisfaction of someone discussing the
failings of his enemies? On the contrary, I firmly believe that the
world would have been a much better place and my own neighborhood
would have been much more pleasant and peaceful, if things were
different.

I should also say a word about the millions of decent, honest, good
people who are either devout Moslems or are not very religious but
grew up in Moslem families. They are double victims of an outside
world, which now develops Islamophobia and of their own environment,
which breaks their heart by being totally dysfunctional. The problem
is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of
the terror and of the incitement but they also do not stand up
against it. They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies
to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many
others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are
afraid to express their views.

The events of the last few years have amplified four issues, which
have always existed, but have never been as rampant as in the
present upheaval in the region. These are the four main pillars of
the current World Conflict, or perhaps we should already refer to it
as "the undeclared World War III".

I have no better name for the present situation. A few more years
may pass before everybody acknowledges that it is a World War, but
we are already well into it.

The first element is the suicide murder. Suicide murders are not a
new invention but they have been made popular, if I may use this
expression, only lately. Even after September 11, it seems that
most of the Western World does not yet understand this weapon. It is
a very potent psychological weapon. Its real direct impact is
relatively minor. The total number of casualties from hundreds of
suicide murders within Israel in the last three years is much
smaller than those due to car accidents. September 11 was
quantitatively much less lethal than many earthquakes. More people
die from AIDS in one day in Africa than all the Russians who died in
the hands of Chechnya-based Moslem suicide murderers since that
conflict started. Saddam killed every month more people than all
those who died from suicide murders since the Coalition occupation
of Iraq.

So what is all the fuss about suicide killings? It creates
headlines. It is spectacular. It is frightening. It is a very cruel
death with bodies dismembered and horrible severe lifelong injuries
to many of the wounded. It is always shown on television in great
detail. One such murder, with the help of hysterical media coverage,
can destroy the tourism industry of a country for quite a while, as
it did in Bali and in Turkey.

But the real fear comes from the undisputed fact that no defense and
no preventive measures can succeed against a determined suicide
murderer. This has not yet penetrated the thinking of the Western World. The U.S.
and Europe are constantly improving their defense against the last
murder, not the next one. We may arrange for the best airport
security in the world. But if you want to murder by suicide, you
do not have to board a plane in order to explode yourself and kill
many people. Who could stop a suicide murder in the midst of the
crowded line waiting to be checked by the airport metal detector?
How about the lines to the check-in counters in a busy travel
period? Put a metal detector in front of every train station in
Spain and the terrorists will get the buses. Protect the buses and
they will explode in movie theaters, concert halls, supermarkets,
shopping malls, schools and hospitals. Put guards in front of every
concert hall and there will always be a line of people to be checked
by the guards and this line will be the target, not to speak of
killing the guards themselves. You can somewhat reduce your
vulnerability by preventive and defensive measures and by strict
border controls but not eliminate it and definitely not win the war
in a defensive way. And it is a war!

What is behind the suicide murders? Money, power and cold-blooded
murderous incitement, nothing else. It has nothing to do with true
fanatic religious beliefs. No Moslem preacher has ever blown himself up. No son of an
Arab politician or religious leader has ever blown himself. No
relative of anyone influential has done it. Wouldn't you expect some of the religious
leaders to do it themselves, or to talk their sons into doing it, if
this is truly a supreme act of religious fervor? Aren't they
interested in the benefits of going to Heaven? Instead, they send
outcast women, naïve children, retarded people and young incited
hotheads. They promise them the delights, mostly sexual, of the next
world, and pay their families handsomely after the supreme act is
performed and enough innocent people are dead.

Suicide murders also have nothing to do with poverty and despair.
The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa. It never happens
there.

There are numerous desperate people in the world, in different
cultures, countries and continents. Desperation does not provide
anyone with explosives, reconnaissance and transportation. There was
certainly more despair in Saddam's Iraq then in Paul Bremmer's Iraq,
and no one exploded himself. A suicide murder is simply a horrible, vicious weapon of
cruel, inhuman, cynical, well-funded terrorists, with no regard to
human life, including the life of their fellow countrymen, but with
very high regard to their own affluent well-being and their hunger
for power.

The only way to fight this new "popular" weapon is identical to the
only way in which you fight organized crime or pirates on the high
seas: the offensive way. Like in the case of organized crime, it is
crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and it is crucial
to reach the top of the crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate
organized crime by arresting the little drug dealer in the street
corner. You must go after the head of the "Family".

If part of the public supports it, others tolerate it, many are
afraid of it and some try to explain it away by poverty or by a
miserable childhood, organized crime will thrive and so will
terrorism. The United States understands this now, after September
11. Russia is beginning to understand it. Turkey understands it
well. I am very much afraid that most of Europe still does not
understand it. Unfortunately, it seems that Europe will understand
it only after suicide murders will arrive in Europe in a big way.
In my humble opinion, this will definitely happen. The Spanish
trains and the Istanbul bombings are only the beginning. The unity
of the Civilized World in fighting this horror is absolutely
indispensable. Until Europe wakes up, this unity will not be achieved.

The second ingredient is words, more precisely lies. Words can be
lethal. They kill people. It is often said that politicians,
diplomats and perhaps also lawyers and business people must
sometimes lie, as part of their professional life. But the norms of
politics and diplomacy are childish, in comparison with the level of
incitement and total absolute deliberate fabrications, which have
reached new heights in the region we are talking about. An
incredible number of people in the Arab world believe that September
11 never happened, or was an American provocation or, even better, a
Jewish plot.

You all remember the Iraqi Minister of Information, Mr. Mouhamad
Said al-Sahaf and his press conferences when the US forces were
already inside Baghdad. Disinformation at time of war is an accepted
tactic. But to stand, day after day, and to make such preposterous
statements, known to everybody to be lies, without even being
ridiculed in your own milieu, can only happen in this region. Mr.
Sahaf eventually became a popular icon as a court jester, but this
did not stop some allegedly respectable newspapers from giving him
equal time. It also does not prevent the Western press from giving
credence, every day, even now, to similar liars. After all, if you
want to be an antisemite, there are subtle ways of doing it. You do
not have to claim that the holocaust never happened and that the
Jewish temple in Jerusalem never existed. But millions of Moslems
are told by their leaders that this is the case. When these same
leaders make other statements, the Western media report them as if
they could be true.

It is a daily occurrence that the same people, who finance, arm and
dispatch suicide murderers, condemn the act in English in front of
western TV cameras, talking to a world audience, which even partly
believes them. It is a daily routine to hear the same leader making
opposite statements in Arabic to his people and in English to the
rest of the world. Incitement by Arab TV, accompanied by horror
pictures of mutilated bodies, has become a powerful weapon of those
who lie, distort and want to destroy everything.

Little children are raised on deep hatred and on admiration of
so-called martyrs, and the Western World does not notice it because
its own TV sets are mostly tuned to soap operas and game shows. I
recommend to you, even though most of you do not understand Arabic,
to watch Al Jazeera, from time to time. You will not believe your
own eyes.

But words also work in other ways, more subtle. A demonstration in
Berlin, carrying banners supporting Saddam's regime and featuring
three-year old babies dressed as suicide murderers, is defined by
the press and by political leaders as a "peace demonstration". You
may support or oppose the Iraq war, but to refer to fans of Saddam,
Arafat or Bin Laden as peace activists is a bit too much. A woman
walks into an Israeli restaurant in mid-day, eats, observes families
with old people and children eating their lunch in the adjacent
tables and pays the bill. She then blows herself up, killing 20
people, including many children, with heads and arms rolling around
in the restaurant. She is called "martyr" by several Arab leaders
and "activist" by the European press. Dignitaries condemn the act
but visit her bereaved family and the money flows.

There is a new game in town: The actual murderer is called "the
military wing", the one who pays him, equips him and sends him is
now called "the political wing" and the head of the operation is
called the "spiritual leader". There are numerous other examples of
such Orwellian nomenclature, used every day not only by terror
chiefs but also by Western media. These words are much more
dangerous than many people realize. They provide an emotional
infrastructure for atrocities. It was Joseph Goebels who said that
if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. He is now
being outperformed by his successors.

The third aspect is money. Huge amounts of money, which could have
solved many social problems in this dysfunctional part of the world,
are channeled into three concentric spheres supporting death and murder. In the
inner circle are the terrorists themselves. The money funds their
travel, explosives, hideouts and permanent search for soft
vulnerable targets. They are surrounded by a second wider circle of
direct supporters, planners, commanders, preachers, all of whom make
a living, usually a very comfortable living, by serving as terror
infrastructure. Finally, we find the third circle of so-called
religious, educational and welfare organizations, which actually do
some good, feed the hungry and provide some schooling, but brainwash
a new generation with hatred, lies and ignorance. This circle
operates mostly through mosques, madrasas and other religious
establishments but also through inciting electronic and printed
media. It is this circle that makes sure that women remain inferior,
that democracy is unthinkable and that exposure to the outside world
is minimal. It is also that circle that leads the way in blaming
everybody outside the Moslem world, for the miseries of the region.
Figuratively speaking, this outer circle is the guardian, which
makes sure that the people look and listen inwards to the inner
circle of terror and incitement, rather than to the world outside.
Some parts of this same outer circle actually operate as a result of
fear from, or blackmail by, the inner circles. The horrifying added
factor is the high birth rate. Half of the population of the Arab
world is under the age of 20, the most receptive age to incitement,
guaranteeing two more generations of blind hatred.

Of the three circles described above, the inner circles are
primarily financed by terrorist states like Iran and Syria, until
recently also by Iraq and Libya and earlier also by some of the
Communist regimes. These states, as well as the Palestinian
Authority, are the safe havens of the wholesale murder vendors. The
outer circle is largely financed by Saudi Arabia, but also by
donations from certain Moslem communities in the United States and
Europe and, to a smaller extent, by donations of European
Governments to various NGO's and by certain United Nations
organizations, whose goals may be noble, but they are infested and
exploited by agents of the outer circle. The Saudi regime, of
course, will be the next victim of major terror, when the inner
circle will explode into the outer circle. The Saudis are beginning
to understand it, but they fight the inner circles, while still
financing the infrastructure at the outer circle.?

Some of the leaders of these various circles live very comfortably
on their loot. You meet their children in the best private schools
in Europe, not in the training camps of suicide murderers. The Jihad
"soldiers" join packaged death tours to Iraq and other hotspots,
while some of their leaders ski in Switzerland. Mrs. Arafat, who
lives in Paris with her daughter, receives tens of thousands Dollars
per month from the allegedly bankrupt Palestinian Authority while a
typical local ringleader of the Al-Aksa brigade, reporting to
Arafat, receives only a cash payment of a couple of hundred dollars,
for performing murders at the retail level.?

The fourth element of the current world conflict is the total
breaking of all laws. The civilized world believes in democracy, the
rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech
and free press, among other liberties. There are naïve old-fashioned
habits such as respecting religious sites and symbols, not using
ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of
dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs.
Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was there such total
disregard of all of the above as we observe now. Every student of
political science debates how you prevent an anti-democratic force
from winning a democratic election and abolishing democracy. Other
aspects of a civilized society must also have limitations. Can a
policeman open fire on someone trying to kill him? Can a government
listen to phone conversations of terrorists and drug dealers? Does
free speech protects you when you shout "fire" in a crowded theater?
Should there be death penalty, for deliberate multiple murders?
These are the old-fashioned dilemmas. But now we have an entire new
set.

Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition
storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do
you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests
hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide
murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every
woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide
bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you,
standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid
terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an
arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another,
always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and
in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to
face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone would openly stay
in a well-known address in Teheran, hosted by the Iranian Government
and financed by it, executing one atrocity after another in Spain or
in France, killing hundreds of innocent people, accepting
responsibility for the crimes, promising in public TV interviews to
do more of the same, while the Government of Iran issues public
condemnations of his acts but continues to host him, invite him to
official functions and treat him as a great dignitary. I leave it to
you as homework to figure out what Spain or France would have done,
in such a situation.

The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions
about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment. It is trying
to play ice hockey by sending a ballerina ice-skater into the ring
or to knock out a heavyweight boxer by a chess player. In the same
way that no country has a law against cannibals eating its prime
minister, because such an act is unthinkable, international law does
not address killers shooting from hospitals, mosques and ambulances,
while being protected by their Government or society. International
law does not know how to handle someone who sends children to throw
stones, stands behind them and shoots with immunity and cannot be
arrested because he is sheltered by a Government. International law
does not know how to deal with a leader of murderers who is royally
and comfortably hosted by a country, which pretends to condemn his
acts or just claims to be too weak to arrest him. The amazing thing
is that all of these crooks demand protection under international
law and define all those who attack them as war criminals, with some
Western media repeating the allegations. The good news is that all of this is temporary, because
the evolution of international law has always adapted itself to
reality. The punishment for suicide murder should be death or arrest
before the murder, not during and not after. After every world war,
the rules of international law have changed and the same will happen
after the present one. But during the twilight zone, a lot of harm
can be done.

The picture I described here is not pretty. What can we do about it?
In the short run, only fight and win. In the long run ? only educate
the next generation and open it to the world. The inner circles can
and must be destroyed by force. The outer circle cannot be
eliminated by force. Here we need financial starvation of the
organizing elite, more power to women, more education, counter
propaganda, boycott whenever feasible and access to Western media,
internet and the international scene. Above all, we need a total
absolute unity and determination of the civilized world against all
three circles of evil.

Allow me, for a moment, to depart from my alleged role as a taxi
driver and return to science. When you have a malignant tumor, you
may remove the tumor itself surgically. You may also starve it by
preventing new blood from reaching it from other parts of the body,
thereby preventing new "supplies" from expanding the tumor. If you
want to be sure, it is best to do both.

But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to
realize that you are in a war, and this may take Europe a few more
years. In order to win, it is necessary to first eliminate the
terrorist regimes, so that no Government in the world will serve as
a safe haven for these people. I do not want to comment here on
whether the American-led attack on Iraq was justified from the point
of view of weapons of mass destruction or any other pre-war
argument, but I can look at the post-war map of Western Asia. Now
that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist
states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian
colony. Perhaps Sudan should be added to the list. As a result of
the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iran and Syria are now
totally surrounded by territories unfriendly to them. Iran is
encircled by Afghanistan, by the Gulf States, Iraq and the Moslem
republics of the former Soviet Union. Syria is surrounded by Turkey,
Iraq, Jordan and Israel. This is a significant strategic change and
it applies strong pressure on the terrorist countries.
It is not surprising that Iran is so active in trying to incite a
Shiite uprising in Iraq. I do not know if the American plan was
actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the resulting
situation???

In my humble opinion, the number one danger to the world today is
Iran and its regime. It definitely has ambitions to rule vast areas
and to expand in all directions. It has an ideology, which claims
supremacy over Western culture. It is ruthless. It has proven that
it can execute elaborate terrorist acts without leaving too many
traces, using Iranian Embassies.. It is clearly trying to develop
Nuclear Weapons. Its so-called moderates and conservatives play
their own virtuoso version of the "good-cop versus bad-cop" game.
Iran sponsors Syrian terrorism, it is certainly behind much of the
action in Iraq, it is fully funding the Hizbulla and, through it,
the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it performed acts of terror
at least in Europe and in South America and probably also in
Uzbekhistan and Saudi Arabia and it truly leads a multi-national
terror consortium, which includes, as minor players, Syria, Lebanon
and certain Shiite elements in Iraq. Nevertheless, most European
countries still trade with Iran, try to appease it and refuse to
read the clear signals.

In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial
resources of the terror conglomerate. It is pointless to try to
understand the subtle differences between the Sunni terror of Al
Qaida and Hamas and the Shiite terror of Hizbulla, Sadr and other
Iranian inspired enterprises. When it serves their business needs,
all of them collaborate beautifully.

It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of the outer
circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of terror. It is
important to monitor all donations from the Western World to Islamic
organizations, to monitor the finances of international relief
organizations and to react with forceful economic measures to any
small sign of financial aid to any of the three circles of
terrorism. It is also important to act decisively against the
campaign of lies and fabrications and to monitor those Western media
who collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or
ignorance.

Above all, never surrender to terror. No one will ever know whether
the recent elections in Spain would have yielded a different result,
if not for the train bombings a few days earlier. But it really does
not matter. What matters is that the terrorists believe that they
caused the result and that they won by driving Spain out of Iraq.
The Spanish story will surely end up being extremely costly to other
European countries, including France, who is now expelling inciting
preachers and forbidding veils and including others who sent troops
to Iraq. In the long run, Spain itself will pay even more.

Is the solution a democratic Arab world? If by democracy we mean
free elections but also free press, free speech, a functioning
judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free
international travel, exposure to international media and ideas,
laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance
of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and
children, then yes, democracy is the solution. If democracy is just
free elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be
elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most
inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to a certain
extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the ground is not
prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition
democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving
the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an
immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have
worked in China.

I have no doubt that the civilized world will prevail. But the
longer it takes us to understand the new landscape of this war, the
more costly and painful the victory will be. Europe, more than any
other region, is the key. Its understandable recoil from wars,
following the horrors of World War II, may cost thousands of
additional innocent lives, before the tide will turn.

2004-07-30T11:52:00.000-04:00

You're Not in Kansas Anymore
By Judy Lash Balint
FrontPageMagazine.com July 29, 2004

For the fledgling Christian Allies Caucus of Israel's Knesset it was quite a coup. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is the first US lawmaker to be hosted by the group whose prime goal is to strengthen ties with pro-Israel Christian groups around the world.

Last week, at a special meeting in the Knesset, the senator from Kansas addressed Israeli parliamentarians as well as representatives of most of the Christian groups operating in Israel.

Brownback was effusive in his support of Israel--not so unusual for a visiting US legislator. What was so notable that it caused the diverse group of Israeli Knesset members to sit up and take notice, were the senator's emotional and heartfelt references to his faith as the basis of that support.

The senator spoke about his upbringing on a Kansas farm where the Bible formed the bedrock of his early education. "Ancient Israel was, and is, a living reality in my home. Its spirituality, wisdom, poetry, its majesty inspired and encouraged me all my life. You have helped form my soul and I thank you for it," Brownback told the forum.

He explained how American support for Israel today comes from Christians raised on the Bible who appreciate the miracle of the revival of the modern state of Israel.

After a brief analysis of the state of the common fight against terror mounted by Israel and the U.S, Brownback returned to his emotional message.

" I love you and the people of America love you. We love the values you have given us that cost you so much to protect for thousands of years.. We love your spirit of determination and calling. We love your heart's desire for peace."

In words rarely heard in the halls of the super-politicized Knesset, Brownback repeatedly referred to God's plan for the land and people of Israel.

"The last time I was in Israel, I looked out the window of my hotel and saw the flag of Israel with the Star of David and the thought entered my mind, "God does keep His promises!" That flag which had been absent in this land for nearly 2,000 years was now flying again. What an awesome God we serve," Brownback exclaimed.

There were nods of agreement among the Christians in the audience, and a flicker of a smile crossed the face of Christian Allies Caucus co-chair, MK Yair Peretz .

The American senator admonished Israel not to be led astray by "the culture wars..[that] embrace relativism, redefine right and wrong, good and evil....The history of your survival and continued existence is filled with examples of what happens to a people when they walk away from God's sacred laws," he warned.

Finally, in the most stunning and humble remarks ever uttered by a foreign lawmaker to the Knesset, Brownback said: "As a Christian, I thank you for my faith that is rooted in yours. And as a Christian, I deeply, deeply apologize for the pain and bloodshed and deafness to suffering that we have hoisted upon you and your ancestors. May this never, ever happen again!"

The Christian Allies Caucus that sponsored the Brownback visit is the brainchild of MK Yuri Shtern of the rightist National Union Party, who co-chairs the effort to reach out to Christians with an unlikely ally, MK Peretz, of the populist Sephardi religious party, Shas.

At the Brownback briefing, Peretz was the only legislator who used the services of an English-Hebrew translator.

Shtern, a former activist who spent years in the struggle for free emigration from the former Soviet Union, views the Christian Allies Caucus as a way to both further Israel's relations with the Christian world, and to thank pro-Israel Christians for their support in recent years.

"We need their help to fight the delegitimation of Israel that is really becoming stronger and stronger," says Shtern.

"Israel has no better friend in the world than the United States, and that is in no small part due to our Christian friends in America, and we hope to see the same happen in Europe, and elsewhere," he adds. Shtern termed the Caucus a "political upgrade" of relations between Israel and its Christian supporters throughout the world. "We will not be demanding that Christians adopt any particular political viewpoint on the conflict here," said Shtern in clarifying the goals of the caucus. "We simply are reaching out to the Christians to support Israel on the basis of our fundamental right to live here in peace and security."

Knesset members of several political parties were in attendance for the Brownback speech. A number of the Israeli legislators wandered in late, and it was obvious that the senator couldn't quite figure out who these casually dressed people were.

Following the sustained applause after his remarks, almost all of the Knesset members engaged in dialogue with the senator. Freshman Likud MK Gila Gamliel, the youngest Knesset member, told Brownback that Israel's main problem is its status as the lone democracy in the region and US pressure for disengagement.

National Union Knesset member Gilad Cohen wondered out loud if there was real US pressure or whether it was just that Prime Minister Sharon tells Israel that such pressure exists.

The event received significant media coverage in Israel, and highlighted the evolving relationship between Israel and the organized pro-Israel Christian world.

The Jerusalem Summit organization helped initiate the Caucus last January and the World Jewish Congress recently signed on as an official endorser .

Reaction amongst Christians in Israel and abroad has been positive. Well known Christian broadcaster Janet Parshall says, "In a very formal way, the Caucus means there will now be the recognition of the work that Christians have done in support of Israel. That is a monolithic step forward, and it gives us, I think, an open door in a more broad fashion to articulate our support for the nation of Israel."

David Parsons, Public Relations Director for the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem and a member of the Caucus notes, "This is another sign that the Israelis and the Jewish people are now genuinely reaching out to Christians. Christians have offered a hand of support and friendship for many years and they’re taking it."

2004-07-29T14:05:00.000-04:00

Letter to the editor of the Boston Globe

Dear mEditor:

Regarding the article about the tragic killing of a 15 year old Gazan, you almost got the point--but not quite.

When Palestinian terrorists shot 4 members of a Palestinian family, who were objecting to the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade's placement of a Qassam rocket launcher on the road in front of their house in Beit Hanoun (Gaza), they were trying to protect their land and their home. You forgot to mention that the Al-Za'nin family did not want the rockets fired against Israel from their home's vicinity because of Israel's likely military response aimed at the source of the rocket-fire. Such is frequently and sadly the case when Palestinians cruelly place their weapons in the midst of civilians. As you did report, when the terrorists shot at the family, two nephews sustained injuries and a third nephew, 15 year old Hassan Al-Za'nin, was killed. Such indifference to the rights of children!

Dr. Carol Fineblum
Needham, MA

2004-07-29T06:32:00.000-04:00

BBC FINALLY FINALLY wrote a sympathetic report on Israel, regarding the Jews living in Gaza, with a nice photo display... ALLOWING THEM TO SPEAK OUT....so the instructions below tell people to write to the BBC to express their disappointment.... please look at the article, at http://bbc-gaza-settlers.notlong.com.

2004-07-23T06:19:00.000-04:00

Palestinian Descent into Chaos

by Daniel PipesNew York SunJuly 20, 2004
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1965
http://daily.nysun.com/standard/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=NYS/2004/07/20&ID=Ar00902&Section=Foreign

"There is a crisis. There is a state of chaos." That's what Ahmed Qureia said after announcing his resignation from what some call the Palestinian Authority's prime ministry. "We have an absolute state of chaos," echoes the mayor of Jenin, a West Bank town. That chaos, growing since Yasir Arafat initiated the Oslo War in September 2000, has prompted the PA to declare a state of emergency; it could signal the end of the PA itself.

According to an April poll of the Gaza-based General Institute for Information, 94 percent of Palestinians believe that a state of lawlessness and chaos prevails in Palestinian Authority territories. As Palestinian security forces have fragmented and dissolved, armed groups of unknown identity have taken their place, using strong-arm tactics against a hapless population. The Jerusalem-based Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group finds that "weapons possession has become socially legitimized in Palestinian society."

In gang-dominated Nablus, for example, some deaths have resulted from spiraling criminal activity and reckless accusations of "collaboration" with Israel. But, Reuters explains, most casualties involve mistaken identity or plain bad luck. In two typical stories dating from February 2004, "Amneh Abu Hijleh, 37, entered a pharmacy to buy cough syrup for her infant daughter only to be shot dead in a botched abduction. Firas Aghbar, 13, was killed when he walked into a gang battle on his way to the barber for a birthday trim."

As explained by the Washington Post, "the Palestinian Authority is broke, politically fractured, riddled with corruption, unable to provide security for its own people and seemingly unwilling to crack down on terrorist attacks against Israel." One unnamed Fatah member estimates that 90 percent of gang activity is carried out by Palestinian Authority employees.
In February, for example, one Palestinian police officer died and eleven were wounded when rival police factions fought each other within the confines of Gaza's police headquarters. Things climaxed on July 16, as Al-Fatah terrorists ambushed and seized Gaza's police chief for several hours; and then some recently-sacked Palestinian policemen abducted the director of military co-ordination in the southern part of Gaza.

The UN's Middle East envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, has offered choice comments on the spreading anarchy, telling the Security Council that "Clashes and showdowns between branches of Palestinian security forces are now common in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian Authority legal authority is receding fast in the face of the mounting power of arms, money and intimidation." He also reached the startling conclusion that "Jericho is actually becoming the only Palestinian city with a functioning police."

This descent into chaos prompts four observations.

The PA has joined other parts of the Greater Middle East (Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan) in the general trend toward lawlessness.
Mr. Arafat predicted in 1994 that "Either we build a Singapore in our country or fall into the trap of the tragic Somali model." He thus acknowledges that the PA's slide to Somali-like anarchy symbolizes his own failure.
The Islamic proverb, "Better a thousand days of tyranny than one day of anarchy," has an element of truth, for life in the PA territories has truly become hellish.
Although Mr. Arafat launched the Oslo war nearly four years ago with the intent to destroy Israel, he is, ironically, destroying not Israel but his own proto-government.

The question now facing Palestinians is whether they have learned the right lessons from their bitter experience. That for once they are not blaming Israel for their problems gives some reason for optimism. Cox News Service notes that, "as the disorder spreads, Palestinian intellectuals and politicians are increasingly looking past Israel as the usual scapegoat and admitting they share a part of the blame." National Public Radio quotes a Palestinian saying that the PA is in trouble "because many people are being killed or kidnapped or robbed. … We are all accusing the government of not doing anything." A poll by the Gaza-based General Institute for Information finds that just 29 percent of Palestinians hold Israelis responsible for the PA's failure to enforce law and order.

This is a good start. But to emerge from their political predicament requires Palestinians coming to terms with the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. So long as they resist this change of heart, the Somali model remains their fate.

To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1965#comment
To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php (Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services: Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles): http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases): http://www.campus-watch.org/subscribe.php Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (monthly publication): http://meib.org/maillist_survey.htm

You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.

2004-07-18T23:55:00.000-04:00

Letter to Ha'aretz

Dear Mr. Levy,

Your main point, expressed in
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/452564.html, is very well taken. We are
often more charitably inclined when judging the transgressions we commit
against others than we are when judging others who offend us. Indeed, we
are often much more sensitive to offenses against us than we are to the
offenses that we commit against others. In an ideal world, with all things
being equal, such imbalance is wrong. That being said, however, the
overstatement of your case does it a great disservice. When one chooses
cases that presume to be analogous to the situation at hand, but in fact are
obviously distinguishable one also detracts from an important and truly
valid point.

For example, the first case - which compared the bulldozer operator to a
cold-blooded terrorist, is inapposite. The distinguishing factors are
obvious: A terrorist's declared purpose is to murder and thereby terrorize.
For instance, those who shot Mr. Klinghoffer in his wheelchair aboard the
Achille Lauro in 1985 did so with malice aforethought. The militants who
ambush and machine gun pregnant mothers and their young daughters, (like the
Hatuel family in May of this year (while videotaping the events,) should not
be compared with Israeli Defense Forces operating in a theatre of combat, as
though the two were moral equals. Suicide bombers and others who
deliberately target unarmed civilians are simply not on the same moral
ground as forces engaging militants to defend against and prevent such
atrocities. We do not know whether the bulldozer operator heard or
understood what Mr. Halfalla's wife was screaming. Your article provided no
proof for the insinuation that Israeli bulldozer operator who buried Ibrahim
Halfalla while demolishing his home did so with full knowledge that Mr.
Halfalla was inside and with intent to kill him. Such knowledge and intent
should not be presumed. Now, if the account of Palestinian security and
medical personnel (who remain anonymous in all the accounts) is presumed
accurate and if the bulldozer operator indeed had such knowledge and intent
and if there were not relevant, extenuating security circumstances, he
clearly should face trial in a civil court for wrongful death and in
criminal court for murder. Examples of our reckless disregard for the
humanity of another, even our enemies, (maybe especially our enemies) do
deserve our consideration. For in the grand scheme of things, it is only our
morality, based upon our heritage that every single human being is created
in the Divine image.

The second example, of the University professor and his son, shot in the
midst of a pitched gun battle in Nablus, is also problematic. The difficulty
with using either of these cases as paradigmatic is that the IDF has
admitted that both of these were tragic mistakes and has apologized. Indeed
the story of the professor received prominent press. Now, this does not make
these instances any less tragic, but it seriously undermines the contention
that: "Palestinian victims - and their numbers, as everyone knows, are far
greater than ours - don't even merit newspaper reports, not even when the
chain of events is particularly brutal, as in the examples above. This is
not an intellectual exercise but an attempt to demonstrate the concealment
of information, the double morality and the hypocrisy."

In both accounts, the "concealment of information and the double morality"
on the part Israelis has not been demonstrated, so much as assumed. The
chain of events in both these cases is not clear; and, because the history
of Palestinian claims is so badly checkered, the argument is further
undercut. The regularity with which Palestinian 'eye-witness accounts' have
been proven to be not just inaccurate, but deliberate and highly cynical
fabrications or manipulations of fact is part of the problem. The accounts
about Mohammed Al Dura's death, the "massacre" in Jenin, the deaths of Asmaa
Moghayer and her brother, Ahmed and the manipulation of the now infamous
photograph of Tuvia Grossman are just a few of the myriad, glaring examples
that come to mind. Add this to the fact many of the of the Palestinian
casualties are the direct result of terrorists deliberately ensconcing
themselves within the civilian population and the fact that many (though, of
course, not all) of the Palestinian casualties were not simply innocent
bystanders when they were killed.

Again, this is not to undermine your central point, that racism has no place
and that we risk losing our very souls -and all moral suasion regarding our
own claims- when we become insensitive to the humanity of others and trample
upon them.

At the same time, the argument is really not well served when every issue is
thrown into the same cholent. The idiotic and inexcusably racist comments
attributed to an individual minister are simply not on a par with roads that
may, at present, be traveled by Jews but not Arabs. The latter condition is
not explained by racism as much as it is due to the fact that in the
relevant areas Jewish drivers are much more regularly shot at by Arabs than
the other way around. To simply argue under current conditions that all
distinctions are racist goes way too far and undercuts the validity of an
important point. And finally, to simply accept and gratuitously pass along
the allegation that settlers tried to poisoned a well near Hebron, for the
sake of a rhetorical flourish, actually weakens the argument; yes, some
settlers have done some bad things. However, settler spokesmen have angrily
denied this heinous allegation. Moreover, police officers who went to
investigate the matter did not manage to find anything in the well. The
facts should be examined quite thoroughly and openly before an accusation
like this is given credence.

I hope that you are well and will consider my comments in the constructive
spirit in which they are offered.

Sincerely,

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-07-13T11:00:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe

The Op-Ed by Baruch Kimmerling on the International Court of Justice's
Ruling and Israel's Fence is contemptible for its intemperance in describing
the nature of the barrier that Israel has been forced to construct between
itself and the source of the terrorist bombers.

Professor Kimmerling differs with the Israeli Supreme Court's clear
understanding that the fence is a necessary defensive measure that might be
adjusted to allow the humanitarian needs of Palestinians; instead of a
non-violent last resort to counter the most lethal of the Palestinian 'last
resorts', the professor sees the fence as only a sinister, cynical
manipulation. For Professor Kimmerling "[t]he pretext for building the fence
was security and the desire to keep suicide bombers out of Israel." These
bombers have murdered and wounded thousands of Israeli citizens, both inside
and outside the 1967 armistice lines, since the collapse of the Oslo peace
accords. For Kimmerling, these tragedies are but a pretext.

However, in perusing Professor Kimmerling's work, one finds that this
sociologist sees a grand conspiracy in every action taken by the Israeli
government. It is no surprise that, for Kimmerling, the actual fact of
terrorist bombings seems of little moment.

Niceties, such as historical facts, seem to be acknowledged by the good
professor only when they fit his own moral sensibilities. In an article of
March 27, 2001 professor Kimmerling noted that "[s]ince 1967, millions of
Palestinians have been under a military occupation, without any civil rights
with, and most lacking even the most basic human rights. The continuing
circumstances of occupation and repression give them, by any measure, the
right to resist that occupation with any means at their disposal and to rise
up in violence against that occupation. This is a moral right inherent to
natural law and international law."

After justifying the Palestinians' use of "any means at their disposal" with
one sweeping and inaccurate sentence, as a moral right, consonant with
natural and international law, the professor does pause to observe that
"[I]ndiscriminate Palestinian terrorism against civilian populations in the
heart of Israel is immoral, and has a boomerang effect. It increases anger
and hatred in the Jewish community and blocks the possibility that an
empathetic, rational view can be taken of rightful Palestinian demands. The
terrorism also serves as a political tool, consciously used by cynical
politicians on the right, and lately by some leading army commanders, to
torpedo any possibility of agreements between Israel and the Palestinians."

In sum, for professor Kimmerling, indiscriminate terrorism is bad for moral
and tactical reasons. However, the unstated corollary of professor
Kimmerling's postulate is that 'discriminate terror' - against, say, Jews
living in the disputed territories, is just fine. This, perforce, must be
contrasted with what professor Kimmerling describes as the "personal
terrorism" used by the Israeli army against militant field commanders. That,
of course, is bad. No wonder then, that Professor Kimmerling would condemn
the building of a fence that interferes with the exercise of what he
perceives as the moral and natural right of militants to rise up in violence
and use any means at their disposal to cleanse the land of those he deems
'occupiers'.

However, one might be justifiably suspect of both Professor Kimmerlings
characterization of facts and his conclusions, since the professor is the
one who seems to manipulating pretext and context. Telling, for instance, is
Professor's condemnation of former Israeli Prime Minister Barak, whom the
professor chided for being a "secular revolutionary" unable to give up
certain quaint Jewish symbols. .. Such as "the remnants of a Jewish temple
that might or might not be buried under a central Muslim mosque on the
Temple Mount." (Ha'aretz October 4, 2000). Kimmerling's willingness to
undermine the most basic archeological facts in order to mock the best
peace-making efforts of a Prime Minister who did not share the good
professor's view of the world seems, at best, "dodgy" as professor
Kimmerling might put it.

Now, all this may be no surprise coming from an Israeli academic who has
vehemently attacked Bennie Morris for seriously re-thinking his own
post-Zionist views, in light if current indisputable realities. What is
remarkable is that the Boston Globe chose to give voice only to an Israeli
sociologist who seems so bent on blaming Israel for all the ills of the
Middle East that he wantonly warps basic historical and moral realities. The
blindness of Professor Kimmerling, and the ICJ for that matter, was clearly
underlined by today's bus bombing, in the heart of Tel-Aviv, for which
Yasser Arafat's Al-Aqsa brigades claimed proud credit. The Globe's choice of
Professor Kimmerlings particular voice for commentary on issues of fact and
legality is tendentious in the extreme.

Sincerely,

Elihu D. Stone
Sharon, MA

2004-07-13T06:49:00.000-04:00

The building of the Israeli fence

To: United Nations, EU Parliament, EU Court of Justice
Subj: The building of the Israeli fence

When Israel builds a fence to keep out terrorists, the UN and EU are up in
arms because it makes it difficult for terrorists to kill more Jews.

When terrorists shoot (point blank!) an 8-month-pregnant Jewish woman and
her 4 little girls, there is absolute silence from your organizations.

Further, what of the many Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs that
inside the fence (e.g. residents of Umm El Fahm) are now able to
live normal lives and commerce without terrorists roaming their towns and
the IDF forced to engage them?

What of the many other fences across the globe separating conflicted
peoples that are a valuable tool to stop aggression? E.g. Kashmir

Your hyprocrisy, one-sidedness, and lunacy is disgusting.
Perhaps "the fuhrer" did win Europe afterall.

"Zig-Hile"

Andrew Warren
Sharon, MA

2004-07-12T09:41:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor of the NY Times

Dear Editor:

Kudos to your journalist, David Berger, on his comprehensive and factual reporting of the Israel Supreme Courts decision regarding the securiity fence.

As he noted, the Court vehemently supported the legitimacy of the fence in order to secure the lives of Israeli citizens. The fundamental, second ruling of the high court - upholding the fence's legal justification- is the point. The Court did not "side with the Palestinians" but only rerouted the fence in small part to alleviate the potential suffering of some Palestinians - a decision that could only come from democratic Israel. Can you imagine an Arab court granting Jews protection? Imagine.

The court went far beyond that, issuing a landmark ruling that upholds the security fence's essential validity, the justices saying, "We examined petitioners' arguments, and have come to the conclusion, based upon the facts before us, that the Fence is motivated by security concerns.,, not the political one".

Take pride in the quality of your professional staff. We would hope that all newspapers could do the same.

Dr. Carol Fineblum
199 Rosemary St Needham, MA 02494 781-444-4420

2004-07-12T07:24:00.000-04:00

'I used to be against the fence, now I'm for it'

By YAAKOV KATZ

Sami Mcarah, a 29-year-old Arab Israeli resident of Jaffo got off a
bus at Tel Aviv's old bus station just minutes before a bomb went
off on Sunday that killed one woman and injured 30 others.

"I used to be opposed to the security fence, but now I support it,
and I'm going to start a foundation to support the fence's
construction" Mcarah told Israel Radio.

"The terrorist had no intention just to hurt Jews, but he went out
to kill as many people as possible. The Palestinians are stupid for
what they're doing, they're not achieving anything and in the end
they will only turn us Israeli Arabs against them," said Mcarah.

Mcarah, wounded by shrapnel to his leg, said he rushed over to a
woman he saw on the ground and tried to help her. He said he took
her pulse but she was already dead, "The images in my head will
never go away, although I feel lucky that I have a new life after
surviving the second terror attack."

The attack is the second one Mcarah has been through. In 1995,
Mcarah got off the number 5 bus on Dizingoff street just seconds
before it was blown up by a suicide bomber.

Mcarah is the chairman of a non profit organization called Equal
Peace, that works toward creating equality between Arabs and Jews.

He is married with 2 children and is a Chef at a restaurant near the
old bus station where Sunday's attack took place.

2004-07-12T07:13:00.000-04:00

The following message went to the DNC --find Contact Us on their website.

It was initiated by a letter from Naomi Regan.

PLEASE READ NOW!
To the DNC:
As alife-long democrat, I am appalled to read the recently unearthed information that Senator Kerry may neither be pro nor even neutral toward Israel.With his wife pouring millions into the Tides Foundation, active supporter of the far left organization, CAIR (which has connections to Hamas, and whose members include proven terrorists).
A Google search for Tides Foundation --capitalresearch.org/news/news.asp?ID=174&t=6 - will show you where the grant money goes.
Tell his wife to stop this support! Votes are at stake!
Either the Senator publicly disavows his connection -distant as it is--to Hamas or we look elsewhere for leadership.
Please respond.

2004-07-06T16:21:00.000-04:00

It is likely that Israel will consider bringing Palestinian Authority
Chairman Yasser Arafat to trial, much as it did with Nazi leader Adolph
Eichmann for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This would entail a
proper judicial process in the Israeli courts.
Reading Ariel Natan Pasko's recent commentary on Arafat leads to the
following facts and conclusions:

Israel Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, "There's no
difference between Barghouti and Arafat, they're exactly the same, with one
difference, Arafat is responsible for many more Israelis murdered in terror
attacks. Israel's court system recently found Marwan Barghouti, founder of
the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (later outlawed as a terrorist organization by
the US) and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, guilty of
direct involvement in the murder of five Israelis. The Tel Aviv District
Court acquitted him of 33 other attacks. As leader of the Fatah-Tanzim
terrorist organization, Barghouti was on trial for overseeing dozens of
terror attacks. The judges explained their decision to acquit Barghouti of
most of the cases on the basis of Israel's legal system, which they said,
prevents the conviction of a leader of a terrorist organization for acts
carried out by members of the group, if he himself is not directly involved,
even though it may be known that the leader encouraged them to carry out the
attacks and provided his associates with the finances to carry out the
attacks. They said the law was far from satisfactory, but they were bound by
the law as is. Since when is an accomplice to serial murder ignored?

Because Barghouti did not have direct contact with the people who
perpetrated the attacks, the court, a western model of fairness, declared
that he be acquitted. And yet, they admitted that he masterminded murders of
innocent civilians. Israeli forces captured Barghoti in April 2002 in a
building only 500 meters from Arafat's Mukatah compound. His nephew, Ahmed
Barghouti, also captured then, received thirteen life sentences last year by
the Ofer Military Court, for his part in the terrorist murder of 12 Israelis
and the wounding of dozens of others. Barghouti has recently boasted, "After
we attain a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, there will be greater
things for which to strive...There is no room for more than one state
between the Jordan and the Mediterranean."
Arafat has also called for Jihad against Israel and its demise many more
tmes. Arafat - as head of Fatah - who personally ordered the terror attacks
and authorized the funds later used by Barghouti for the attacks, hasn't yet
been tried. The judges said Barghouti's orders for terror attacks were
sometimes "based on instructions" from Palestinian Authority Chairman
Arafat.

Even though Israel has found documentation that directly links Arafat to the
arms purchases and funding of terror activities, which have killed 1,500
Israelis, he has not been held responsible. Do his fairly regular calls of
"Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" mean nothing?

Put Arafat on trial for crimes against humanity, i.e. against Jewish
children, against diplomats whose murders he ordered in the Sudan, and all
the other
victims of his decades old serial murder spree in the name of Palestinian
independence. Israel should put Arafat on trial like Barghouti, with one
exception,
Barghouti got life sentences. Perhaps Arafat should be hanged like
Eichmann.

Dr. Carol Fineblum 199 Rosemary St Needham, MA 02494 781-444-4420

2004-07-06T13:53:00.000-04:00

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,
The legality of the Israeli security fence remains in the media spotlight, with two binding rulings issued by the Israeli Supreme Court last week, and an upcoming (July 9) 'advisory opinion' expected from the World Court at The Hague. At stake are two questions:

● Is the proposed route of the fence fair to both Israelis and Palestinians?
● More fundamentally, is the very construction of the security fence justified under international law?

Addressing the first question, the Supreme Court ruled that the fence should be re-routed in certain regions around Jerusalem to address humanitarian concerns. The army immediately complied.

Media reports were quick to convey this portion of the ruling. The Washington Post granted it front-page status, and the Associated Press issued a broadly-published report.

But these same media outlets were remiss in bringing to readers' attention the much more fundamental, second ruling of the high court ― upholding the fence's legal justification as a security measure.

AP sets the tone for their article with the opening phrase:

Israel's Supreme Court sided with the Palestinians in a precedent-setting decision Wednesday, ordering the government to reroute part of its West Bank separation barrier near Jerusalem because it causes too much suffering.

And the Washington Post mentions the court's fundamental acceptance of the fence only as an afterthought ― in paragraph 18 of a 19-paragraph article ― stating that the court "did not find that the barrier was being constructed for political reasons, as Palestinians have alleged."

Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak

Indeed, the court went far beyond that, issuing a landmark ruling that upholds the security fence's essential validity, and denies Palestinian claims that
[t]he security arguments guiding respondents disguise the real objective: the annexation of areas to Israel. As such, there is no legal basis for the construction of the Fence.

This was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court:

We examined petitioners' arguments, and have come to the conclusion, based upon the facts before us, that the Fence is motivated by security concerns ... Petitioners, by pointing to the route of the Fence, attempt to prove that the construction of the Fence is not motivated by security considerations, but by political ones. They argue that if the Fence was primarily motivated by security considerations, it would be constructed on the "Green Line," that is to say, on the armistice line between Israel and Jordan after the War of Independence. We cannot accept this argument. The opposite is the case: it is the security perspective ― and not the political one ― which must examine a route based on its security merits alone, without regard for the location of the Green Line.

Yet the Washington Post downplays, and the Associated Press completely omits, this crucial part of the court's ruling.

Comments to Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Comments to AP: feedback@ap.org
[The New York Times' Joseph Berger, on the other hand, should be commended for accurately representing the court's full ruling by his second sentence: "The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel asserted that Israel has a genuine security reason for building the barrier and can expropriate land in the West Bank for it."]

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN ACTION

Last week's Supreme Court ruling demonstrated, perhaps better than any event in the recent past, the power of Israeli democratic process to address security vs. human rights concerns. The judges themselves emphasized the dilemma they faced:

Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli society...We are aware of the killing and destruction wrought by terror against the state and its citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state's struggle against those rising up against it easier.

This Israeli democratic process was in sharp contrast to a development on the Palestinian side last week. A Palestinian Authority organ called the 'Supreme National Committee for the Protection of the Right of Return' determined that Palestinians living in refugee camps should not have the right to vote in local elections. The PA daily paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida explained why:

The committee justified its objection as protecting the unique status of the refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank, considering them testimony to the crime that the occupation state made against our nation for 56 years. The committee warned of the dangers of integrating the refugee camps into the urban housing units. [via PMW]

That is, the PA plans to deny democratic voting rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, so that this impoverished population can continue to be used by the Arab ruling class as a weapon to fight against Israel, as 'testimony to a crime.'

Consider the irony: The Israeli court issues a ruling out of concern for Palestinian human rights, while the PA's own ruling sets back Palestinian human rights.

This is the same Fatah-led P.A. under whose authority a public lynching of an alleged 'collaborator' occurred on a Qabatiya street last week (pictured at right).

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen compares the Israeli Supreme Court decision with the U.S. Declaration of Independence's assertion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Writes Cohen:

The Israeli Supreme Court did something similar, although with more explicit language. "There is no security without law," it wrote.
Bear this decision in mind, please, when next someone refers to the Israelis as "Nazis" or otherwise talks about the nation as if it were a thuggish dictatorship ...

The early Zionists wanted Israel to be a light unto other nations. The other day, it was.

As legal issues surrounding the Israeli security fence continue to make headlines, HonestReporting encourages subscribers to write letters to your local media outlets, emphasizing Israel's democratic struggle to balance security needs with human rights.

HonestReporting

David Gerstman contributed to this HonestReporting communique.

Visit our weblog ― MediaBackSpin.com ― for frequent updates
on media coverage of the Mideast conflict.

2004-07-06T11:59:00.000-04:00

Paris Fashion

The spring 2004 fashions have arrived in the chic boutiques of Paris, and along with 50s-style full skirts and prim lace collars, anti-Semitism is back in fashion. In France this season, Jew-hating is all the rage, literally.

Attacks against Jews and their property have escalated to an alarming extent. The French Jewish community (at 600,000, the second-largest Jewish population outside of Israel) is living in a state of anxiety. Hostile acts against Jews are posted weekly on the Web site of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (www.crif.org), and on www.consistoire.org/incidentsfr.html, a government hate-crime report center. Here are just a few examples from the last few weeks:

A 14-year-old boy wearing a yarmulke came out of the Ourq metro station and was followed by two young men. They called him a "dirty Jew" and robbed him in front of a crowd of witnesses. The men knocked the boy down, beat him on the head and broke his nose. The boy begged for help from passers-by, who simply walked away.

In central Paris, a teacher from a Jewish school was beaten up by young men, who ripped the Star of David from the teacher's neck and trampled her. They called her a "dirty Jew" and lit her hair on fire. They also told her, "We're going to burn all you Jews."

A group of four young men interrupted a class in the auditorium of the University Medical School of Saint-Antoine in Paris. They yelled, "We're going to kill all the Jews" and, "We're armed and we're going to take you all down."

When a Jewish student confronted the men they beat him and robbed him. The professor who was teaching the class said nothing and the men walked out without a care while the class looked on in silence. The dean of the University has been told of the situation but has not yet responded.

On the walls of the Rue Des Rosiers (in the Marais, the Jewish quarter), once again there are signs of the Star of David in yellow paint accompanied by the slogan, "And don't forget the showers of Zyclon," referring to the gas used in Nazi death camps.

Also in Paris, a 12-year-old girl coming out of a Jewish school was attacked by two men. They beat her, held her down and slashed her face with a box cutter. They carved a swastika into her face and walked away. Her parents have filed a police report.

A swastika carved into the face of an innocent Jewish girl proves how anger directed at Jews in France has moved beyond mere hate-speech and racist vandalism. The symbols of hate have jumped from desecrated tombstones and subway walls to the actual skin of Jews.

Unlike the last big wave of anti-Semitism in France, the people who are committing these crimes today are predominantly first-generation descendants of immigrants from the former French colonies in North Africa - Muslim Arabs.

Radicalized Islam is taking root all over Europe, encouraged by the international Arab press, the successes of Al Qaeda and sympathy for the Palestinian intifada. This malignant hatred is fueled by the Internet, where thousands of French, European and Arabic-language sites give voice to and connect cyber-haters in Internet chat rooms. Virtual Jewish blood is flowing from ever-growing e-mail lists while live screaming for Jewish blood is heard at pro-Palestinian/anti-American demonstrations on the Grands Boulevards of Paris.

A 12-year-old Jewish girl walking home from school in Paris is not an Israeli in "occupied territory," but these days she might as well be. She is defenseless and we must step forward to protect her. This new generation of anti-Semites, "Arabullies," are also virulently anti-Israel.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, if one speaks in support of Israel at French dinner parties, one is shouted down. Even at my own dinner table, when I told a guest of my fears about living in Paris in such a climate of anti-Semitism, he insisted, "There is no anti-Semitism in France, don't be ridiculous."

When I told him about everything I had read about the rising tide of anti-Jewish hatred, he told me I was being "influenced by the Jew lobby" and that whatever I was reading was "Jewish propaganda."

When I told him that among other papers, I was reading The New York Times, he said, "You know, The New York Times is a Jewish paper and Jews control all the media."

He said it with a smile, even knowing that I am a Jew. What made his comments especially chilling is that he is on the Catholic Board of Education of Paris.

So this spring in Paris, like every spring, the fashion runways are a jumbled mix of styles, as each designer angles to dominate the nouveau look of the season. This season, I'm afraid the designers of bigotry and hate are already having a good year. In fact, those long, belted black leather Waffen SS oats look an awful lot like Gucci's sexy new fall line. I wonder what will be modeled on the Paris runways next spring - striped pajamas? Starched black shirts?

Europeans have always had a soft spot for this fascist garb; I just hope America doesn't follow suit.

2004-07-06T06:11:00.000-04:00

Dear Editor:

You missed the point in your reporting Israel's Supreme Court's Security Fence decision.

The Court vehemently supported the legitimacy of the fence in order to secure the lives of Israeli citizens. Your emphasis would totally ignore this democratically-derived decision to protect citizens while also protecting the rights of several Palestinians whose lands were involved in only a small fence space.

The much more fundamental, second ruling of the high court - upholding the fence's legal justification- is the point. Read it over and report the facts correctly.

Israel's Supreme Court did not "side with the Palestinians" but only rerouted the fence in small part to alleviate the potential suffering of some Palestinians - a decision that could only come from democratic Israel. Can you imagine an Arab court granting Jews protection? Imagine.

The court went far beyond that, issuing a landmark ruling that upholds the security fence's essential validity, the justices saying, "We examined petitioners' arguments, and have come to the conclusion, based upon the facts before us, that the Fence is motivated by security concerns.,, not the political one".

For whatever reason, you have omitted or minimilized the meaning of the court's ruling.

Dr. Carol Fineblum
199 Rosemary St Needham, MA 02494 781-444-4420

2004-06-23T20:30:00.000-04:00

LESS SUPPORT FOR WITHDRAWAL & ARABS THAN THOUGHT: ANALYZING THE NUMBERS

A study carried out by the University of Haifa's National Security Research Center is sending shockwaves through Israel, as political views traditionally relegated to the margins of the political spectrum appear to be nearing a level of public consensus.

For one thing, the study shows that Israeli Jews are not very pleased with the presence of a hostile or potentially-hostile Arab minority in its midst: A full 63.7% believe in what is known as transfer, and said that the government should encourage the emigration of Israeli-Arabs from Israel. 55.3% believe the Israeli-Arab population constitutes a threat to Israel's security, while 45.3% even favor eliminating Israeli-Arab rights to be elected to the Knesset and to participate in elections.

A fairly clear consensus was also found among Israeli Jews on two other issues: foreign workers and targeted assassinations. 72.1% want to see restrictions on the entry of foreign workers into Israel, with 54.2% saying that the country's economy is suffering because of the jobs taken by foreign workers.

Widespread support of Israel's counter-terror methods was recorded. Nearly 80% of Jews support Israel's policy of killing terrorist leaders; even 11.6% of Israeli-Arabs support this policy.

Contrary to popular perception that the overwhelming majority is in favor of ceding territory, 44.1% of Jews - and 21% of Arabs, including Druze - are against handing over any part of Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) even in the theoretical framework of a comprehensive peace agreement. A bit less, 39.8%, are against the dismantling of even one Jewish community under a peace arrangement. Surprisingly, 22.4% of Arabs agree with them.

Almost half - 47.7% - say that Israel must object to the establishment of a Palestinian state as a pre-condition for a peace arrangement. One out of seven Israeli-Arabs feels the same.

In what is possibly the most surprising finding of all, Dr. Daphna Kanati, who co-directed the study, said that if national elections were held today, close to 30% of the public would support a Kach-like party - outlawed for its extreme right-wing views. She said that this figure had not yet been publicly released. She herself, however, told Israel National Radios Eli Stutz and Yishai Fleisher that the most surprising statistic for her was the high percentage of Jews - over two-thirds - who support transfer.

Dr. Kanati said that the purpose of the study was to study right-wing extremism, at which a point a discussion evolved as to what defined extremism: "Its funny," Fleisher said, "you keep using the word 'extremism,' yet your figures show that 60% of Israeli Jews are interested in the Arabs leaving the country."

Dr. Kanati: "Are you basically saying that if the majority supports something that we would have defined as extremism, then it becomes normal!?"

Stutz: "Yes!"

Dr. Kanati did not agree, saying that extremism is defined according to international standards of democracy. Stutz commented that this would not be accurate, as calls for transferring a population must be judged according to varying conditions in a country: "For instance, it could well be that the majority of Germans would not have called for the transfer of Nazis, while those who would have wanted to transfer them would have been called, by your definition, extremists."

The study, carried out last month, surveyed 1,016 Israelis through telephone interviews, and "as opposed to other surveys, this one shows the 'real Israel,'" Dr. Kanati said. "Researchers went to great lengths to sample segments of the population usually glossed over by pollsters due to the difficulty in eliciting responses from them. These include the proportionate numbers from the hareidi-religious community who are usually wary of unsolicited telephone pollsters; new immigrants from Russia who are hard-pressed to answer lengthy telephone questions in Hebrew - we had Russian speakers speak with them; and residents of Yesha, who have a general distrust of the press and academia following unpleasant experiences involving the use of statistics to manipulate public opinion."

The simple fact that we released results differentiating between Jewish and Arab responses is a step that many fail to take," said Dr. Kanati, "but it is crucial when trying to examine the true consensus within a segment of society.

Some of the statistics seemed to contradict each other. For instance, half of the Jews polled expressed "support for a withdrawal from Yesha." Yet, another question found that 40% feel that "not even one settlement must be dismantled" - meaning that 60% would agree to demolishing at least one. Dr. Kanati admitted that the phrasing of the question affects the answer - and also added that, "In general, poll questions about withdrawals cannot be relied upon too much, because they are, by their nature, inexact. The question cannot specify how much of a withdrawal, for instance, or from which areas and under which conditions. In addition, the answers can change based upon whether there was recently a terror attack, and the like."

2004-06-23T08:29:00.000-04:00

One Small Step: Is the U.N. finally ready to get serious about anti-Semitism?

BY ANNE BAYEFSKY

Monday, June 21, 2004, 11:15 am EDT

(Ms. Bayefsky delivered this speech at the U.N. at a
conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for
Tolerance and Understanding, sponsored by the United Nations
Department of Information, this morning.)

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you at this first
U.N. conference on anti-Semitism, which is being convened
six decades after the organization's creation. My thanks to
the U.N. organizers and in particular Shashi Tharoor [the
undersecretary-general for communications and public
information] for their initiative and to the
secretary-general for his willingness to engage.

This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship between
Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low. The U.N.
took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according
to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment
to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of
nations large and small. Today, however, the U.N. provides a
platform for those who cast the victims of the Nazis as the
Nazi counterparts of the 21st century. The U.N. has become
the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism -- intolerance
and inequality against the Jewish people and its state.

Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for
this state of affairs rendered their own countries
Judenrein, they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging
concern about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket. From 1965,
when anti-Semitism was deliberately excluded from a treaty
on racial discrimination, to last fall, when a proposal for
a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism was withdrawn
after Ireland capitulated to Arab and Muslim opposition,
mention of anti-Semitism has continually ground the wheels
of U.N.-led multilateralism to a halt.

There has never been a U.N. resolution specifically on
anti-Semitism or a single report to a U.N. body dedicated to
discrimination against Jews, in contrast to annual
resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam
and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Instead there
was Durban -- the 2001 U.N. World Conference "Against
Racism," which was a breeding ground and global soapbox for
anti-Semites. When it was over U.N. officials and member
states turned the Durban Declaration into the centerpiece of
the U.N.'s antiracism agenda -- allowing Durban follow-up
resolutions to become a continuing battlefield over U.N.
concern with anti-Semitism.

Not atypical is the public dialogue in the U.N.'s top human
rights body -- the Commission on Human Rights -- where this
past April the Pakistani ambassador, speaking on behalf of
the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference, unashamedly disputed that anti-Semitism was
about Jews.

For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti-Semitism
is about intolerance and discrimination directed at Jews --
both individually and collectively. It concerns both
individual human rights and the group right to
self-determination -- realized in the state of Israel.

What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It
means refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating
sessions of regional groups held daily during U.N.
Commission on Human Rights meetings. It means devoting six
of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General
Assembly to Israel. It means transforming the 10th emergency
session into a permanent tribunal -- which has now been
reconvened 12 times since 1997. By contrast, no emergency
session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, estimated to
have killed a million people, or the ethnic cleansing of
tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, or the death of
millions over the past two decades of atrocities in Sudan.
That's discrimination.

The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In
November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report
on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to
Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against
Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently,
the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for
destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the
arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel
successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi
with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced
Israel for an "extrajudicial" killing. But when faced with
the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on
extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than
3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr.
Annan chose silence. That's discrimination.

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not
only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More
than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's
human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40
years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been
a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the
civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China,
or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept
as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought
600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every
year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25
reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but
not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates
punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation
of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique
of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is
demonization of the Jewish state.

As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and
their cause are deified. Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29
as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian
People -- the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine
mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al nakba
or the "catastrophe" of the creation of the state of Israel.
In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the
concentration camps celebrated, was described by
Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of
grief."

In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood
along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the
state of Israel, for a moment of silence "for all those who
had given their lives for the Palestinian people" -- which
would include suicide bombers. Similarly, U.N. rapporteur
John Dugard has described Palestinian terrorists as "tough"
and their efforts as characterized by "determination,
daring, and success." A commission resolution for the past
three years has legitimized the Palestinian use of "all
available means including armed struggle" -- an absolution
for terrorist methods which would never be applied to the
self-determination claims of Chechens or Basques.

Although Palestinian self-determination is equally
justified, the connection between demonizing Israelis and
sanctifying Palestinians makes it clear that the core issue
is not the stated cause of Palestinian suffering. For there
are no U.N. resolutions deploring the practice of
encouraging Palestinian children to glorify and emulate
suicide bombers, or the use of the Palestinian population as
human shields, or the refusal by the vast majority of Arab
states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their
societies and to offer them the benefits of citizenship.
Palestinians are lionized at the U.N. because they are the
perceived antidote to what U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called
the great poison of the Middle East -- the existence and
resilience of the Jewish state.

Of course, anti-Semitism takes other forms at the U.N. Over
the past decade at the commission, Syria announced that
yeshivas train rabbis to instill racist hatred in their
pupils. Palestinian representatives claimed that Israelis
can happily celebrate religious holidays like Yom Kippur
only by shedding Palestinian blood, and accused Israel of
injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood.

U.N.-led anti-Semitism moves from the demonization of Jews
to the disqualification of Jewish victimhood: refusing to
recognize Jewish suffering by virtue of their ethnic and
national identity. In 2003 a General Assembly resolution
concerned with the welfare of Israeli children failed
(though one on Palestinian children passed handily) because
it proved impossible to gain enough support for the word
Israeli appearing before the word children. The mandate of
the U.N. special rapporteur on the "Palestinian
territories", set over a decade ago, is to investigate only
"Israel's violations of . . . international law" and not to
consider human-rights violations by Palestinians in Israel.

It follows in U.N. logic that nonvictims aren't really
supposed to fight back. One after another concrete Israeli
response to terrorism is denounced by the secretary-general
and member states as illegal. But killing members of the
command-and-control structure of a terrorist organization,
when there is no disproportionate use of force, and arrest
is impossible, is not illegal. Homes used by terrorists in
the midst of combat are legitimate military targets. A
nonviolent, temporary separation of parties to a conflict on
disputed territory by a security fence, which is sensitive
to minimizing hardships, is a legitimate response to
Israel's international legal obligations to protect its
citizens from crimes against humanity. In effect, the U.N.
moves to pin the arms of Jewish targets behind their backs
while the terrorists take aim.

The U.N.'s preferred imagery for this phenomenon is of a
cycle of violence. It is claimed that the cycle must be
broken -- every time Israelis raises a hand. But just as the
symbol of the cycle is chosen because it has no beginning,
it is devastating to the cause of peace because it denies
the possibility of an end. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us
that crimes are not committed by abstract entities.

The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers in
mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews. They are
the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach a
new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers. They
are the television producers and official benefactors in
authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture
and distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty
world conspirators.

Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in
response to two suicide bombings which took place in
Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: "Once
again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in
the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to
such methods." "The Secretary General condemns the suicide
bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of
civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any
cause." Refusing to name the perpetrators, Mr.
Secretary-General, Teflon terrorism, is a green light to
strike again.

Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels
anti-Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root
cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of
Palestinian land. According to U.N. revisionism, the
occupation materialized in a vacuum. In reality, Israel
occupies land taken in a war which was forced upon it by
neighbors who sought to destroy it. It is a state of
occupation which Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought
to end through negotiations over permanent borders. It is a
state in which any abuses are closely monitored by Israel's
independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation
which is the responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish
self-determination among Palestinians and their Arab and
Muslim brethren -- who have rendered the Palestinian
civilian population hostage to their violent and
anti-Semitic ambitions.

There are those who would still deny the existence of
anti-Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of
motivations in U.N. corridors including commercial
interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human
rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of
individual careers. U.N. actors and supporters remain almost
uniformly in denial of the nature of the pathogen coursing
through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud
the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the
organism will take with it both the good and the bad.

The relative distribution of naiveté, cowardice,
opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to
Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through
their mother's body in their home in northern Israel while
she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat's
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these
combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N.
chambers are the same.

The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its
agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential
agent of equality or dignity or democratization.

This conference may serve as a turning point. We will only
know if concrete changes occur hereafter: a General Assembly
resolution on anti-Semitism adopted, an annual report on
anti-Semitism forthcoming, a focal point on anti-Semitism
created, a rapporteur on anti-Semitism appointed.

But I challenge the secretary-general and his organization
to go further -- if they are serious about eradicating
anti-Semitism:

* Start putting a name to the terrorists that kill Jews
because they are Jews.

* Start condemning human-rights violators wherever they
dwell -- even if they live in Riyadh or Damascus.

* Stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back
against their killers.

* And the next time someone asks you or your colleagues to
stand for a moment of silence to honor those who would
destroy the state of Israel, say no.

Only then will the message be heard from these chambers that
the U.N. will not tolerate anti-Semitism or its consequences
against Jews and the Jewish people, whether its victims live
in Tehran, Paris or Jerusalem.

Ms. Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and
an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School.

2004-06-21T14:22:00.000-04:00

[apologies for the poor editing and bad linebreaks - but it's interesting anyway]

In February,
HonestReporting documented the media's failure to describe the
close relationship between the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades ― one of the
most deadly Palestinian terrorist organizations ― and Yassir Arafat's
ruling Fatah party. While major news outlets regularly claimed mere
'loose ties' between the two groups, the overwhelming evidence
indicated a strong, and highly troubling, bond.
This problem continues ― an
AFP
wire report on June 13 described the Al Aqsa Brigades as 'a
radical and largely autonomous offshoot of Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement,' and
AP (June 15) described them as a 'violent offshoot of
Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement.'

Ahmad Qurei

But yesterday (June 20), Palestinian Prime Minister
Ahmad Qurei openly acknowledged that the Al Aqsa Brigades are no mere 'offshoot'. In an interview with the London-based
Asharq al-Awsat
newspaper, Qurei said:

"We have clearly declared that the Aksa Martyrs Brigades are
part of Fatah... We are committed to them and Fatah bears
full responsibility for the group."

So most media outlets have had it dead wrong for some time.
HonestReporting has

stated that this is not a mere semantic matter, but rather cuts to
the very heart of the conflict:

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.

With Qurei's open admission of a Fatah-Al Aqsa Brigades bond, any
media outlet whose copy continues to deny that bond is blatantly
misrepresenting Palestinian reality. As such, their readership cannot
possibly understand the tough line Israel must take with the current
PA, which is in clear violation of the
road map's
demand for dismantling terrorist organizations ― not promoting them from within.
For good measure,
Qurei also admitted that Yassir Arafat continues to call all the
shots ― road map violation #2:

"There is nothing called 'prime minister' and 'interior
minister,'" [Qurei] said. "There is a Palestinian establishment
called the Palestinian Authority and it is headed by President
Yasser Arafat."

HonestReporting encourages subscribers to monitor your local media
for ongoing denial of the bond between the ruling Palestinian Fatah party and
the Al Aqsa Brigades ― responsible for 23

major terrorist attacks in the past three years, and labeled a
terrorist organization by the
U.S. State Department.

Moreover, shouldn't Qurei's statement be making headlines? Write to
news agencies, urging coverage of the PA's confirmation that it 'bears
full responsibility' for the Al Aqsa terror organization:

●

Contact info for

print news media

●

Contact info for
TV
& radio news media

2004-06-15T11:20:00.000-04:00

France, Land of Hatred

By Olivier Guitta

The American Thinker

June 7, 2004

While French President Chirac has been claiming for the past two years that France is not anti-Semitic, he nonetheless convened emergency talks with Jewish leaders in December 2003, to reassure them after the burning of a Jewish school. Right after this meeting, one of the participants, France's Chief Rabbi, Joseph Sitruk, declared that Jews should be wearing French-style caps, not the explicitly and obviously Jewish kipa, to blend in more and to avoid triggering violence against them.

A flurry of events in the past two weeks show how mistaken Chirac and his government are. Last week, a young Jewish student coming out of his school in suburban Paris was stabbed by an aggressor yelling “Allah Akhbar” (“God is great,” in Arabic). Last week one of a Boulogne Rabbi's sons was beaten-up by six Muslim youths waiting for him outside his home.

Anti-Semitism in France is alive and kicking, and getting worse by the day. The state and other French institutions are unfortunately playing a major role in the spreading of this hatred. In the school system, two examples show the absurdity of the situation. First, here is what you can find in a French schoolbook issued by the Ministry of Education:

“A day of final exams in the occupied West Bank; Palestinian students cannot concentrate because of the noise of the tanks; some Palestinians arrested by the Israeli Army were released only the day of the exam and have no chances of passing the test.”

The accompanying study activities for French students are to answer this question: “By whom are the Palestinians occupied?” and to write a letter to one of the Palestinians, telling him to go on with the resistance and keeping hope.

By teaching this blatant Anti-Zionism, the French authorities are fanning the flames of the constant anti-Semitic activities occurring in schools throughout the country.

The second example is: last December, an 11-year-old Jewish boy was repeatedly beaten by two of his Muslims schoolmates, who insulted him by yelling, “Dirty Jew. Hitler should have finished the work….”

What was the reaction of the French authorities?

They said that this “incident” -- that is the word the French media uses to refer to a violent attacks, even murde -- was not anti-Semitic, because such insults as “dirty Jew” are now very common and could be compared to what “jerk” was a few years ago. They added that if the boy were not Jewish, we would not have heard about it.

This reaction is typical of a government that does not recognize the problem, and does not go after the real culprits: principally, young males of the French Muslim community.

What role does the print media play in this environment of hatred?

Another “incident” occurred in December 2003, when a young Jewish disc jockey was killed by a Muslim neighbor, who slit his throat twice and mutilated his face. The murderer, going back to his apartment, reportedly said, “I killed my Jew. I will go to heaven.”

No major French newspaper covered this story. Not really surprising, because blaming a Muslim for a Jew's death does not go over too well in France.

What about the publishing world?

The translator, along with the intended publisher, of an American book called Islam Unveiled, by Robert Spencer, have been receiving numerous death threats and insults like “dirty Jew pig.” Do you see a pattern here? This book, based on evidence found in the Koran, demonstrates how terrorists like bin Laden simply obey the Muslim holy book. Due to this physical threat, the book will not be published in France, so the Islamists have won.

On the other hand, there has been no problem publishing a book in France called Dream of Palestine, by a fifteen year-old Egyptian girl. The third largest French publishing house decided that this novel, describing the exactions of “bloodthirsty Jews, who assassinate children and old people, profane mosques and rape Arab women,” and having as the hero a suicide bomber killing five Israelis, would fit perfectly in their catalog.

Another newly-published book, by a respected French philosopher called Jean Claude Milner, explains that by killing the Jews, Hitler did the work needed for Europe to modernize.

What about mainstream TV?

On French state TV, during a very popular program, on December 1, a famous stand-up comedian called Dieudonne decided it was time for a virulent Anti-Semitic act. He came on stage, disguised as a religious Jew wearing Army fatigues…. Here is a quick sample of his “performance”:

“I converted to Judaism not really because of political reasons but rather by professional interest, you know what I mean…Like me, convert to Judaism and join the Axis of Good, the US-Zionist Axis.”

He finishes by saluting the Nazi way and yells “Israel, heil !” By playing on the usual clichés of anti-Semitism -- references to money -- and adding a large dose of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, Dieudonne got a standing ovation from his audience.

There is no use hiding behind that new fashionable term “anti-Zionism” because it is just a false pretext. As Dr Martin Luther King said it, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”

How does the Muslim community react to that wave of anti-Semitism, which is orchestrated by their own members?

Muslim institutions claim that they are the real victims of racist attacks. They even invented a word for it: "Islamophobia." But the statistics prove them totally wrong. According to the official French Ministry of Interior figures, there were, in 2002, four times more anti-Semitic acts than anti-Muslim acts. This statistic is even more relevant when you take into account that there are about 10 times more Muslims than Jews in France.

So when Prime Minister Raffarin denounced the Islamophobia trend in a speech on October 17, 2003, he was just endorsing the Muslim view that they are the only victims of racism, and that anti-Semitism is non-existent.

Are we really in 2004? The constant Jew-bashing in French schools, books and media -- most of it attributable, indirectly, to the French authorities -- has turned into a campaign of violence, which is not going to stop anytime soon. France has become a country where it is fashionable and acceptable to attack Jews, but Muslims are untouchable. France, boasting of being the Land of Human Rights, is violating them daily.

What France should never forget is that in history it always starts with the Jews. But then who will be next?

2004-05-25T16:07:00.000-04:00

Rafiah Tunnel Vision

By Elliot Chodoff

The vehemence of the worldwide condemnation of Israel for the IDF operation into Rafiah this week surprised even some veteran Israeli commentators. The UN Security Council resolution, the US abstention, President Bush’s statement that the operation did not serve Israel’s security interests, along with condemnations from European and other world leaders, fueled a media-led debate over the wisdom of the scope of Operation Rainbow, as the Rafiah incursion has been dubbed by the IDF.

It is telling that the cries of “unacceptable,” to quote Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, are applied to IDF operations in Rafiah, but the terrorist murders of a Jewish family in the same area are greeted with a thundering silence. The one-sidedness of the world response is matched only by the feigned or actual ignorance of the many commentators who describe the operation as a pretext to invade Rafiah, kill innocent civilians and wantonly demolish homes.

To begin to set the record straight, we must go back some 10 years when the IDF, following the dictates of the Oslo Accords, withdrew from the Palestinian population centers in Gaza including Rafiah, and handed over control to the Palestinian Authority of Yasir Arafat. According to the terms of the agreement, Israel would remain in control of the international border with Egypt, and transit of people and goods were subject to Israel border oversight. Almost immediately, tunnels were begun to be dug under the 50 meter wide patrol strip separating Rafiah under Palestinian Authority control and that part of the city found on the Egyptian side of the border.

During the optimistic years of the Peace Process, Israeli security experts looked on with concern as a network of tunnels were dug under their noses, with the support of local PA warlords and under the direction of powerful family heads in Rafiah. These tunnels provided an open route to smuggle goods, drugs, weapons, ammunition and terrorists across the border, avoiding Israeli border control. Over the years, these tunnels provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal income to the local families and a concomitant amount in kickbacks to the local strongmen. Simultaneously, the underground arsenals of the terrorist organizations grew to frightening proportions.

With the outbreak of the fighting in September 2000, the IDF command in Gaza was faced with a difficult dilemma: how to reduce the flow of weapons and ammunition to the terrorist organizations that were now engaged in a shooting war with Israel? The obvious solution, an incursion into Rafiah to locate and destroy the tunnels, was rejected for fear of inflicting civilian casualties. Instead, a “tunnel unit” was established made up of engineering corps officers and NCO’s in an attempt to find creative solutions to the tunnel problem. After two years of research and analysis, they came up empty handed.

In the aftermath of Operation Defensive Wall in April 2002, a series of incursions into Rafiah located a number of tunnels. Their destruction marked a limited success for the IDF, but the victory was short lived. Given the fact that an operating tunnel can net some $50,000 a day for the family head who commissions and owns it, the incentive to dig more and deeper tunnels far overshadowed the cost of losing them. Tunnels were dug deeper, some reaching depths of 10 meters and more (over 30 feet), children were employed to dig around the clock, and when poor conditions led to tunnel collapse and the death of a child, there were plenty more to take his place.

Under these circumstances, and with clear evidence of massive quantities of munitions crossing the border through the tunnels, the decision was made to launch Operation Rainbow. Its objective, the elimination of the tunnels and the cessation of the weapons smuggling that has been the lifeblood of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, is not punitive but military and preventive.

There is no question that the Palestinian civilian population in Rafiah is suffering during the IDF operation, as any civilian population would when it finds itself in a war zone. The fact remains that the IDF has done much to attempt to alleviate the civilian suffering as best it can during battle, including assisting residents in acquiring food and water (an act that cost two IDF soldiers their lives last week) as well as attempting to keep noncombatants out of the line of fire (two were shot and killed by terrorists as they attempted to leave the combat zone according to IDF instructions).

Paradoxically, the scale of forces used in the operation, over two infantry battalions supported by an armored battalion, was necessitated by the fact that the terrorists in Rafiah are so heavily armed thanks to the tunnel smuggling network. To use less force in Rafiah would be tactical folly for the IDF, which would probably suit the UN and other critics just fine. After all, Israeli casualties, civilian and military, are perfectly acceptable to them.