Thursday, January 31, 2008

UN human rights czar backs plan that seeks end to Zionism

Arbour backs plan that seeks end to Zionism
UN human rights czar supports controversial pan-Arab charter

Steven Edwards
The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

UNITED NATIONS - Louise Arbour, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, has thrown her support behind a major pan-Arab human rights charter that commits to the elimination of Zionism.

Some critics say the wording is code for the destruction of Israel, but in a statement from her Geneva headquarters, the former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada welcomes the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which will come into force in mid-March.

"Regional systems of promotion and protection can further help strengthen the enjoyment of human rights, and the ... charter is an important step forward in this direction," Ms. Arbour says.

While the document demands respect for a host of internationally recognized human rights, its references to Zionism concern leading human rights activist groups, including Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists and UN Watch.

The charter's preamble speaks of "rejecting all forms of racism and Zionism," alleging they violate human rights and threaten international peace and security.

Article 2 of the 53-article document says "all forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination" should be "condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination."

"These provisions cannot be dismissed as harmless rhetoric," says a letter UN Watch sent Monday to Ms. Arbour asking her for a "clarification" of her support for the charter.

The term Zionist Entity is routinely used in the Middle East and beyond by countries and groups that do not recognize the Israeli state or its right to exist.

The Arab world felt its own charter would better reflect its cultural heritage than do international protections such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

An initial 1994 version fell short of international standards in many areas, while the current version dates to revisions begun in 2004.

At that time, a newsletter issued by Ms. Arbour's office shortly after her appointment as UN high commissioner for human rights called the charter's Zionism references a "contentious issue."

Amnesty International said in a paper the charter should use international human rights standards as a point of reference "rather than focusing on a particular ideology or ideologies."

A spokesman for Ms. Arbour's office said it planned to address the UN Watch letter in the near future.

Ms. Arbour issued her statement after the United Arab Emirates on Jan. 15 became the seventh country to ratify the charter, thereby triggering a two-month countdown before the measures take force.

Among other issues questioned by international human rights groups, the charter says certain rights can be suspended in the event of a national emergency.

On marriage, the charter stipulates it can only be between a man and a woman.

Women, who face religion-based discrimination in many Islamic countries, are guaranteed equal rights "within the framework of the positive discrimination established in favour of women by the Islamic Shariah, other divine laws, and by applicable laws and legal instruments."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

To Save Israel:
Think Jewish With the Help of Classical Political Science

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

According to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (Kings and Wars), Chapter 1: “Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon entering the Promised Land:

A. To appoint a king, as [Deuteronomy 17:5] states: “appoint a king over yourselves;”

B. To wipe out the descendants of Amalek, as [Deuteronomy 25:19] states: “Erase the memory of Amalek;”

C. To build [God’s] Chosen House, as [Deuteronomy 12:5] states: “Seek out His Promise and go there.”

Since the present writer is not a Talmudic scholar, anything I say regarding the above is solely for heuristic purposes.

A. The first mitzvah, to appoint a king, requires Jews to topple the Ehud Olmert Government. This Government is a democratically elected despotism that is betraying our people, dividing our God-given land, and violating our civil rights to the extent of placing Jewish girls in prison with drug addicts and prostitutes. (Public outrage should explode that Olmert should liberate Arab terrorists and imprison teenage Jewish children for putting up tent on a Jewish hilltop!)

Let’s be serious about how to stand up for these Jewish heroines: Replace Israel’s unJewish and sham democracy with a system of government consistent with Jewish law. The closest thing to kingship is a popularly elected president. (Note: When there is no Sanhedrin and no prophet to elect a king of Israel, the power reverts to the People.)

Massive civil disobedience will be required to accomplish this goal. Non-parliamentary nationalist groups should form a strategy board possessing the know-how—elaborated elsewhere—to compel the Olmert clique to resign and force the Knesset to take the following course of action (of which space permits only the barest outlines):

1. Since only a Member of the Knesset, accordingly to Basic Law: Government, is eligible to be Prime Minister, and since the law does not require any other MK to be a member of the Cabinet, simply amend the law to exclude any other office-holder from being a cabinet minister. (This will eliminate the divisive, inept, and corrupt system of multi-party cabinet government.)

2. The Prime Minister will nominate cabinet ministers—a team united by shared goals and values. Their appointment must be approved, however, by an absolute majority of the Knesset.

3. Since cabal and corruption may tarnish the approval of cabinet appointments because of the excessive number of parties in the Knesset resulting from Israel’s parliamentary system—where party slates compete in a single countrywide election on the basis of proportional representation—this system must be replaced by regional or constituency elections. Knesset Members, instead of being subservient to party machines or party leaders in the Cabinet, will then be accountable to the voters. This will empower the people and render the Knesset independent of the Government—a precondition of institutional checks and balances.

4. Abolish the existing office of the president, designate the Prime Minister as the Nation’s President, and endow him with Executive powers.

5. Divide the nation into 80 single-member plurality election districts of roughly equal population. Provide for 40 compensatory Knesset seats drawn proportionally from national lists using a 5% threshold. (See how this is done in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany.)

6. The Knesset will then call for new elections.

This will yield the equivalent of a king, who will be elected by the People for a fixed (renewable) tenure of four years.

Simultaneously, the People will be empowered in the Knesset by having elected MKs in constituency elections.

B. Abrogate Oslo and destroy the Palestinian Authority with its entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. Provide measures and incentives for accelerating the present exodus of Arabs from Jewish land.

C. Rebuild the Temple.

The above is intended to get Jews to think. What is said above is a minute fraction of what the author has in mind. For further details, consult my publications or website.


The author is the founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy dedicated to the improvement of Israel's system of governance.

See the FCD website:

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Needed: Jewish Statesmanship*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Let us first define statesmanship. Statesmanship is the application of philosophy to action. Jewish statesmanship is simply the application of Jewish philosophy to action. Jewish philosophy is grounded in the rationality and ethics of Jewish law.

Second, let us define the Jewish statesman. The Jewish statesman is first and foremost an educator whose power is less political than intellectual and moral. The Jewish statesman must therefore be well educated in the heritage and history of the Jewish People. This is a formidable task, since the knowledge Jews have accumulated during the past four millennia is vast and unsurpassed.

Jews have excelled in virtually every discipline, especially in the domain of law. Consider Jewish law (Halakha) only so far as concerns the relations between man and man (in contradistinction to the relation between man and God). That we should discuss Jewish law is appropriate if only because Jewish law is the one thing that has preserved the Jewish people and their national identity.

Like other legal systems, Jewish law has various branches, for example, civil and criminal law, public and administrative law. Preserved records of Jewish legal knowledge includes 7,000 volumes or 300,000 instances of case law dealing primarily with the social and economic problems of Jewish communities dispersed throughout Europe and North Africa. This repository of legal knowledge is available to statesmen. It can teach him important principles of Jewish governance.

First, Jewish law will teach him that no one is above the law; indeed, that God Himself is bound to observe the laws of the Torah (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashana 1:3a). The Jewish statesman will therefore reject the Latin maxim Princeps legibus solutus est — the ruler is not bound by the law. A relic of this maxim was adopted by the Knesset in a 1949 ordinance which declares that “No act of legislation shall diminish the rights of the State, or impose upon it any obligation, unless explicitly stated.” (Interpretation of Ordinance, Section 42.)

This assertion of the supremacy of the State conforms to fascist doctrine. It is the basic shortcoming of Theodor Herzl’s book The Jewish State, which constitutes the ideological foundation of the present State of Israel.

All honor to Herzl, but he was not fully aware of the ramifications of his secular Zionism. According to secular Zionism, the land of Israel belongs to the State. This is the operating principle of the Likud Party no matter what its constitution says about the Land of Israel. God has decreed that the Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish People, to the Nation of Israel, and no party that betrays this truth is worthy of any support, direct or indirect.

The State is nothing more than a trustee of the Nation. The State or its government has no right to give away any part of the Land of Israel. To deny this is to advocate the evil doctrine of Statism. Western civilization rejects this doctrine; it recognizes a law higher than the laws of the State, as we see in the American Declaration of Independence.

To its credit, the New Jewish Congress inaugurated in Jerusalem in November 2007 wants to correct the fundamental error on which the present State of Israel is based. A government headed by a truly Jewish statesman will be committed to the correction of this fatal error. He will recognize that Jewish law precludes this fatal error.

Second, Jewish law will teach our statesman that the individual must never be sacrificed for the sake of the state. He will therefore reject the policy of self-restraint against Arab terrorists.

Third, Jewish law will teach him how to promote justice and the common good. He will not tolerate the denial of civil rights so common in present day Israel—a democratically elected despotism that expels Jews from their homes. Both secular and religious parties were complicit in this vicious crime—even more reason for the New Jewish Congress to shun politicians who fail to emphasize the need to change Israel’s SYSTEM of governance on every public forum.

Fourth, since our Jewish statesman will be learned in Jewish history, he will know that Jewish law is not static but dynamic, that Judaism reconciles permanence and change. He will know that Jews survived the vicissitudes of the past because, thanks to their great Rabbis, they learned how to adapt to changing circumstances and still adhere to the Torah, mankind’s first written Constitution. Our Sages were Torah men, not small party pragmatists.

Fifth, our Jewish statesman will know that only the Torah can unite the Jewish People, and not simply because of the Torah’s world-inspiring wisdom. The Torah’s many-faceted system of law can harmonize the social and economic relations of Jews who have diverse ethnic backgrounds by providing them with proven and venerable methods of resolving their differences.

As Professor Menachem Elon, former Vice-President of Israel’s Supreme Court, has written: “it is precisely in all the branches of Jewish law … that it is possible ... to arrive at a common language and understanding among various elements of the people who differ in their religious and social outlook.” Since a vital objective of Jewish statesmanship is to promote national unity, our statesman must be sensitive to the potentially unifying influence of Jewish law.

Sixth, Jewish law provides a rational and ethical foundation for representative government. However, to avoid the tendency of doctrinaire democrats who, like Judge Aharon Bark, would assimilate Judaism to democracy, the Jewish statesman will assimilate democracy to Judaism. Accordingly, he will derive freedom and equality, democracy’s two cardinal principles, from the Torah’s conception of man’s creation in the image of God. This will provide these two indiscriminate principles of democracy with ethical and rational constraints.

Finally, although our statesman, educated in Jewish wisdom, will have learned from such masters of Jewish law as Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon that thorough knowledge of the Torah requires scientific knowledge such as mathematics and physics. It follows that “Jewish identity” is not a sufficient condition for Jewish statesmanship. Israel’s religious parties have “Jewish identity.” However, because of their long dependence on secular parties, they lack the breadth of vision and spiritedness required for Jewish statesmanship.

Regrettably, the narrowness and timidity of Israeli politics have infected the religious parties. Without denying their important accomplishments, the religious parties often use Torah for politics rather than politics for Torah. The Jewish People require statesmen who strive for the unity of thought and action prescribed in the Torah. Exemplary personal character, however, is not a sufficient prerequisite for Jewish statesmanship. Also required are well-designed political and judicial institutions—a subject I have spoken of many times. Here I will emphasize two points.

Since the Land of Israel belongs to the Nation, to the Jewish People, Israel’s system of government must empower the People and foster National Unity. To empower the people, those who make the laws must be individually elected by and accountable to voters in constituency elections. This means we must abolish the electoral system that compels citizens to vote for fixed party slates, which effectively disenfranchises the people; and we must eliminate proportional representation, which fragments the Nation.

To promote national unity we must abolish the divisive and corrupt system of coalition party government and replace it with a Unitary Executive or Presidential system of government. Hence, it is would be a serious error to support a politician who does not emphasize the necessity of these reforms on public forums.

To have genuine Jewish leadership, we must not only have wise and courageous leaders. We must also have well-designed political and judicial institutions based on the principle that the Land of Israel belongs to the Nation, not to the State. This is what the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy has been talking about for many years. I’m happy to report that the New Jewish Congress agrees with this assessment. It deserves your support.

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 28, 2008.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Bush in Jerusalem: An Intellectual and Moral Travesty

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has assigned some 10,000 police and security personnel to protect President George W. Bush, who has come to Israel to promote peace between Jews and Arab Palestinians. What an absurdity!

The Olmert government has ordered Israeli security forces to close all entries from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to prevent Palestinian terrorists in these areas from killing the American President, who is committed to establishing in these same areas a Palestinian state. Can anything be more absurd?

Apart from those living in the world of make-believe, no one really expects genuine peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Even Middle East expert Dr, Daniel Pipes, who supported the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979, has admitted the treaty has been a failure. Let me review his November 21, 2006 article “Time to Recognize Failure of Israel-Egypt Treaty.”

To begin with: “Ninety-two percent of respondents in a recent poll of one thousand Egyptians over 18 years of age called Israel an enemy state. In contrast, a meager 2% saw Israel as ‘a friend to Egypt.’” [Meanwhile, their Palestinian brethren are openly committed to Israel’s annihilation, in evidence of which, enough to mention the election of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya as the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister two years ago.]

In Egypt, “hostile sentiments express themselves in many ways, including a popular song titled ‘I Hate Israel,’ venomously antisemitic political cartoons … and terrorist attacks against visiting Israelis. Egypt’s leading democracy movement, Kifaya, recently launched an initiative to collect a million signatures on a petition demanding the annulment of the March 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.”

Moreover, “the Egyptian government has permitted large quantities of weapons to be smuggled into Gaza to use against Israeli border towns. Yuval Steinitz, an Israeli legislator specializing in Egypt-Israel relations, estimates that fully 90% of PLO and Hamas explosives come from Egypt.

“Cairo may have no apparent enemies,” says Pipes, “but the impoverished Egyptian state sinks massive resources into a military build up. According to the Congressional Research Service, it purchased $6.5 billion worth of foreign weapons in the years 2001-2004, more than any other state in the Middle East.… [In fact] Egypt has the tenth largest standing army in the world, well over twice the size of Israel’s.”

Dr. Pipes avows that the Israel-Egypt treaty harmed Israel in two ways. First, it made sophisticated American arms available to Egypt. Second, it intnsified anti-Zionism. Pipes lived nearly three years in Egypt in the 1970s, before Anwar Sadat’s dramatic trip to Jerusalem in late 1977. He notes that although Israel was plastered all over the news, anti-Zionism hardly figured in conversations. “Egyptians seemed happy to delegate this issue to their government. Only after the treaty, which many Egyptians saw as a betrayal, did they themselves take direct interest. The result was the emergence of a more personal, intense, and bitter form of anti-Zionism.”

Pipes then points out that the same pattern of hostility “was replicated in Jordan, where the 1994 treaty with Israel soured popular attitudes. To a lesser extent, the 1993 [PLO-] Palestinian accords [with Israel] and even the aborted 1983 Lebanon treaty prompted similar responses. In all four of these cases, diplomatic agreements prompted a surge in hostility toward Israel.”

“Defenders of the ‘peace process, answer that, however hostile Egyptians’ attitudes and however large their arsenal, the treaty has held; Cairo has in fact not made war on Israel since 1979. However frigid the peace, peace it has been.”

To this Pipes replies: “if the mere absence of active warfare counts as peace, then peace has also prevailed between Syria and Israel for decades, despite their formal state of war. Damascus lacks a treaty with Jerusalem, but it also lacks modern American weaponry. Does an antique signature on a piece of paper offset Egypt’s Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and Apache attack helicopters?”

“I think not,” says Pipes. “In retrospect, it becomes apparent that multiple fallacies and wishful predictions fueled Arab-Israeli diplomacy:

* Once signed, agreements signed by unelected Arab leaders would convince the masses to give up their ambitions to eliminate Israel.

* These agreements would be permanent, with no backsliding, much less duplicity.

* Other Arab states would inevitably follow suit.

* War can be concluded through negotiations rather than by one side giving up.

“The time has come,” says Pipes, “to recognize the Egypt-Israel treaty usually portrayed as the glory and ornament of Arab-Israel diplomacy ­as the failure it has been, and to draw the appropriate lessons in order not to repeat its mistakes.”

No wonder Dr. Pipes’ is no longer a member to the Institute of Peace to which he was appointed by President Bush a few years ago. His assessment of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty makes utter nonsense of the President’s current peace mission to Israel. This mission may secure Ehud Olmert’s job as prime minister despite the Winograd Report. Most assuredly, it will not bring peace to Israel.

To the contrary, the intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice underlying the collaboration of the Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert can only endanger Israel’s existence.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

The farce called democracy

David Wilder [Hebron, Israel]
January 09, 2008

A couple of days ago a few young people were arrested for pasting posters of Bush, Peres and Olmert wearing Kafiyas, in Jerusalem. Today, three others were arrested for distributing information about our 'moderate piece partner,' Fatah, to foreign journalists. (It should be remembered that moderate Fatah security forces were responsible for the murder to Achikam Amichai and David Rubin two weeks ago.)

Israeli democracy at its best.

This is, of course, nothing compared to the police brutality used against demonstrators against Oslo during the dark days of the Rabin-Peres regime. But fear not, the present opposition has just begun, and too, the rallying forces of those bent on quashing any and all opposition Olmert's follies.

This is not the only example of Israeli despotism. In a week and a half the Supreme court is scheduled to again meet concerning Beit HaShalom in Hebron. The justice heading the supreme court panel of three judges is the court's president, Dorit Beinish. Beinish was reported to have met with the American ambassador to Israel a few weeks ago. The subject of their discussion: Judea and Samaria. This is a judge? This is a justice on the supreme court? This is the equivalent of the Chief justice of the supreme court? No, no, and no. Beinish is a politician, of the worst kind, who is utilizing her position on the high court of justice to espouse and implement her own political ideologies, without any hint of law or justice.

However, the problem is not only on the Israeli side. Our prestigious visitor's country has it's problems too.

U.S. presidents are experts in involving themselves in Israeli political activity. George W's daddy can be held responsible for knocking Yitzhak Shamir out of office. George Sr. refused to allow Israel to hit back when we were being bombed by Saddam, during the first Gulf war. He realized that Shamir's 'inaction' wouldn't play well in Israel. He rewarded Shamir's patience by intentionally refusing to grant Israel (Shamir) necessary load guarantees, which played up by the media, led to Shamir's defeat and Rabin's victory in 1992. We are still eating the fruits of Shamir's defeat today.

During the 1996 election between Peres and Netanyahu, then President Clinton came to Israel for a special 'conference' during which he addressed the Israeli public, saying, 'you have to choose between peace and the alternative.' The American president was, for all intents and purposes, campaigning for Peres. So much for foreigners not getting involved in internal Israeli politics.

And so it is today. It is quite customary that a foreign leader, when visiting Israel (or other countries for that matter), meet the premier, the president, the defense and foreign minister, and usually also the leader of the opposition. George W, however, refuses to meet opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu and hear his objections to the Annapolis process, which includes dividing Jerusalem, expulsion of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, and creation of another terror state in the Middle East.

Bush's short conversation with Shas leader Eli Yishai has already made headlines. Would Shas really pull out of the government as a result of negotiations? "Meet the chairman of Shas," said Olmert to the American president, who shook Yishai's hand warmly. Bush had done his homework. Bush said he understood he needed to talk to Yishai the next day to convince him to stay in the government, and Olmert translated. Yishai smiled.
"We will definitely talk about it," Yishai said. []

I have no doubt that Bush will attempt to 'lean on' Yishai, and who knows, maybe even pay a surprise visit to Rav Ovadiah Yosef, who determines Shas policy. Yishai isn't the only politician in Bush's sights. Avigdor Lieberman can't be far behind. He is also threatening to walk out of the Olmert circus should 'core issues' Jerusalem, borders and refugees be discussed. And these are the exact topics Bush is pressuring Israel to negotiate away.

Bush is pushing. He is determined to be the father of the state of Palestine prior to the conclusion of his presidency. Olmert is feeling the heat – lots of heat. He knows that in three weeks, with the release of Winograd, his position in Kadima and as prime minister is in jeopardy. The only way he can save himself is to prove that he, and only he, can be the savior of Israel, palestine and the piece process. This being the case, both will know no limits; whatever it takes to achieve the goal is legitimate. The ends justify the means.

This is the farce called democracy.
Bush expedites Saudi smart bomb deal


Amid Israeli security concerns and in an apparent effort by US President George W. Bush to go to Riyadh next week bearing gifts, the Bush administration has moved up by a day the date on which it will formally notify Congress of plans for a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Although the administration had originally planned to inform Congress of the deal on January 15, it will now do so on January 14. Bush, according toofficials familiar with the issue, will be in Saudi Arabia on the 15th and wants to be able to tell the Saudis he is pushing the issue and working for its passage.

After receiving formal notification of the proposed arms deal, including details of what the package includes, Congress will have 30 days to disapprove. If itdoes not do so, the plan will go through.

Israel has expressed concern over inclusion in the deal of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMS), commonly referred to as "smart bombs." Nevertheless, it has not actively fought the sale.

The Post has also learned that Israel's defense establishment has expressed interest in receiving two new, advanced models of the JDAM in order to retain its qualitative edge over the Saudis, who would receive the standard smart bomb kit. One of the models Israel is interested in has a laser-guided system, and the other is protected from electronic-warfare systems and jamming. Both are manufactured by Boeing Co. in the US.

A joint resolution opposed to the sale has already been drafted in the House, and attracted 35 co-sponsors. Likewise, some 235 congressmen have signed letters saying they would opposed the sale unless there were guarantees that the JDAMS would not be used against US troops or Israel.

The Bush administration has said that it viewed the sale as necessary to counteract Iran's increasing military threat. Notification of the sale now fits in well with what Bush himself has said is a major theme of his trip to the region: assuring US allies of Washington's commitment to facing down Iran. In addition to visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Bush will also go to Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt.

State Department notification to Congress of the sale was already delayed once, in December, because some House members wanted more time to study the plan.

One Israeli official said it was "interesting" that Bush felt the need to go to Saudi Arabia bringing "gifts," while here, both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas felt the need to give Bush a "present" in terms of an agreement to commence talks on "core issues" of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

While Israeli officials could not confirm that the arms sale would be raised during Olmert's talks with Bush, it has been a point of consternation in Israel.

Due to these concerns, Israel and the US have engaged in a number of high-level discussions in recent months over what military platforms Washington could provide Israel in exchange for Israel lowering its objection to the deal.

In June, OC IDF Planning Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan and head of the MOD's Diplomatic-Security Bureau Amos Gilad traveled to Washington for talks at the Pentagon, during which their request to purchase the F-22 stealth bomber was rejected. In response, the IDF has asked for the newly-developed, advanced JDAM models.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Color and bold emphasis mine. lw

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

From Where Did Bush Get His “Vision”?

By Gary Cooperberg

A Voice from Hebron by Gary M. Cooperberg

January 7, 2008 — What do you suppose would have happened had we had leaders with genuine self respect and sincere love for Zion? First of all there never would have been such a thing as an Arab citizen of Israel, let alone member of Knesset. Arabs who wanted to live in peace here as resident aliens with full human rights but no civil rights, would be welcome as long as they recognized Jewish sovereignty and agreed to live by our laws.

The first intifada would have been quashed before it even began, as rock throwers would have been be shot on sight. Such a policy, although seemingly ruthless, would have saved countless lives, for both Jews and Arabs. It would also have saved the state a fortune in monies spent to repair damages resulting from Arab attacks as well as providing so many cars with rock proof windows. Why should it be necessary to provide bullet proof buses for public transportation rather than remove those who shoot at buses?

Oslo would never have seen the light of day as no normal leader would consider sitting with the likes of an Arafat and presenting him with parts of the Land of Israel as a gift. The Gaza giveaway would certainly never have happened and we would not be facing Kassams every day. Had we made it clear that we will never negotiate our homeland for any reason, then George Bush would never have hallucinated the so called “Road Map” as it would be clear to everyone that carving up the tiny Jewish State to appease terrorist murderers would be unthinkable.

The only way to “negotiate” with terrorists is to destroy them completely. Otherwise we strengthen them and make it so much more difficult to destroy them later. Today the Jewish State has a policy of strengthening Abu Mazan. This policy has resulted in the murder of Jews and the acceptance of terror as a legitimate form of “protest” (when performed by Arabs). As such our government has turned captured murderers loose as a policy!

For a Jewish Prime Minister to welcome discussion on the dismemberment of his country is an act of treason. To declare that such a stance is holy is blasphemy. A Jewish Prime Minister should never be afraid to tell any American President that the exclusive sovereignty of the state of Israel is not open to negotiation. If the Arabs feel the need to create yet another Arab state there is no room in the state of Israel to do so. If the President feels so strongly about the need to create such a state let him do it in Texas. That state has much more room to do so than does tiny Israel.

And, although a visit from an American President is always a great honor, a true self respecting Israeli leader would demand that the President bring Pollard with him as a precondition for such a visit. Instead our present Prime Minister is busy thinking of ways to grovel before the President by dismantling Jewish communities and promising to build an enemy state on Jewish soil. This will not bring us closer to peace, rather it will guarantee chaos and war and needless loss of life.

Mr. Bush seems to think that he will be the great “peace maker” since he feels that both Olmert and Abu Mazen trust him. Nobody trusts him. Olmert and his ilk are terrified by the office of President. And Abu Mazen and his ilk have learned how to use democratic terms and negotiations to use the American President to accomplish far more than they could by war to attain their goal to destroy the Jewish state.
Were Bush truly a G-d fearing man, never mind a “friend” of Israel, he would never dare suggest that Israel divide her homeland. Such a stance is in direct conflict with the Will of G-d. Unless he rewrites his “roadmap” to coincide with that of the Bible, his efforts will only result in tragedy... not peace.

Project Shofar is dedicated to spreading these truths wherever it is possible to do so. It is sounding the alarm, to Jew and Gentile alike,to open our eyes to the G-dly process that is presently underway, and work to support it. We dare not stand idly on the sidelines.

If you would like to support the concepts espoused by the Voice from Hebron, and the physical work of Project Shofar, click the "Make A Donation" below to donate now by credit card.

(Click here and scroll to the bottom of the page if button link is non-responsive)
Or, you can send a tax deductible contribution to:
Project Shofar, Inc.
P.O. Box 181191
Casselberry, FL 32718
Thank you for your support of Project Shofar!

Gary makes regular speaking tours to the states and strives to reach out to all who express an interest in the ongoing process of Zionist Redemption, Jew and Gentile alike. An observant Jew, Gary will not enter into a church sanctuary, but will be happy to address groups in a social hall or other secular location. Should you wish to invite him to your area feel free to send him an email at




US Embassy intervenes to silence Sderot protest during Bush visit via purse strings?‏

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

The Embassy didn't contact Batya Katan, the Sderot activist organizing the protest who also happens to be a central actvist in Gaydamak's "Social Justice" party in Sderot, they contacted Gaydamak's office. Katan told Haaretz (Hebrew edition) that she wanted to protest to Bush that in contrast to his harsh response to the destruction of the Twin Towers he prevents a harsh Israeli response to the ongoing attacks on Sderot. "I feel like he is holding us hostage to his policies and timetable."

Sure democracy, freedom of speech and public protest are values closely held by the United States and President Bush fervently believes that these values should be spread across the world. But hey - there is a time for democracy and then there's - a presidential visit.]
Gaydamak tells supporters to drop anti-Bush demonstration
By Lily Galili Last update - 01:58 08/01/2008

Billionaire politician Arcadi Gaydamak has instructed his supporters in Sderot to call off a planned protest in Jerusalem against U.S. President George W. Bush during his upcoming visit to Israel. The instruction comes at the request of a senior American official. In a phone call from the American Embassy to Gaydamak's bureau, the official said that such a demonstration would embarrass the president.

Gaydamak told Haaretz that Bush's visit attested to the president's "earnest wishes to resolve the extremely problematic situation in the Middle East." Gaydamak said he had been informed that Sderot residents would protest to "attract [Bush's] attention to the extremely difficult situation they have been forced to live under." He added: "I myself have taken an initiative to dissuade the citizens of Sderot from organizing such a demonstration, so as not to disturb the visit and the important work laid out for President Bushduring his stay in Israel."
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Capital Punishment

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

With the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign in full swing, the issue of capital punishment has again surfaced in America. Again we hear social scientists echoing Amnesty International’s contention that capital punishment “has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.”

Whether the death penalty will deter would-be murderers depends on three factors:

(1) The potential murderer must know in advance that, if he commits murder, there is a very high probability of his being apprehended, and soon after the perpetration of his crime.

(2) He must know in advance that, having been caught, he will receive a speedy trial at which he is almost certain to be convicted.

(3) He must know in advance that, having been convicted, he will be executed without protracted delays.

I dare say that the combination of these three factors—if made a conspicuous aspect of social reality—will prevent a large majority of murders committed in any society. To put it in the form of an equation: the number of murders in any society is inversely proportional to the certainty and celerity of the culprit’s apprehension, conviction, and execution.

Unfortunately, none of these factors operate to a significant extent in contemporary democratic societies. This explains, to a large extent, their high murder rates.

Twenty years ago it was reported that roughly 67% of the murders committed in the United States go unsolved. Only half of all suspects arrested are convicted. Moreover, not only is it rare for any convicted murderer to be executed—and then only after long stays or delays—but the median sentence for murder is six years!

Things have not changed much since then, which is why the law mandating capital punishment is not very effective in deterring murder. This is also a reflection, however, on America’s judicial system, more pointedly, on the judges’ conception of human nature, of good and evil, of moral responsibility—all of which is influenced by the doctrine of moral relativism propagated by the social sciences.

One of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, Gouverneur Morris, declared: “Insofar as our judicial institutions may accelerate the performance of duties, promote the cause of virtue, and prevent the perpetration of crimes, in that same degree ought it to be estimated and cherished.” This leads to a deeper level of the issue.

Those who claim the death sentence does not deter murder are fond of using statistics to bolster their position. They find that the murder rate in countries with capital punishment does not differ significantly from that of countries where capital punishment has been abolished. Or they discover that the murder rate in a particular state does not increase after its abolition of capital punishment.

The fallacy here is a bit subtle. To begin with—and excluding Israel, where the murder of Jews by Arab terrorists has become more or less acceptable to Israel’s government—some criminologists forget that a people’s attitude toward murder does not readily change even after a generation. The fact that civilized people have regarded murder, from time immemorial, as the most heinous of crimes is a moral and psychological deterrent. This deterrent does not evaporate with the abolition of capital punishment.

Indeed, the law requiring the death sentence for premeditated murder is perhaps the most significant and solid manifestation of civilization, of a civilized society’s abhorrence of those who obliterate an innocent life. Fortunately, abhorrence of murder has not been entirely eroded in this era of triumphant secularism, except among Israel’s ruling elites, who have released more than 7,000 Arab Jew-killers or who tolerate the murder of Jews as the price of “peace.”

Even though various countries have abolished capital punishment, the moral if not religious inhibition against murder is still largely operative (except among countless Muslims, who exalt homicide bombers and who danced in the streets after 9/11).

One cannot put civilization in a laboratory to test the deterrent effect of capital punishment in the short time perspective of superficial social scientists.

The preceding is not intended as an argument for capital punishment, concerning which the present author has various reservations. But those claiming that the death penalty does not deter murder might just as well contend that no form of punishment deters crime—in which case society might as well empty its prisons.

More significant for consideration by serious people is the obscene violence—the cheapening of life—portrayed in the cinema and on television, where even murderers are sometimes glamorized.
Studies in the U.S. indicate that many young children watching TV cannot distinguish between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys—a nice commentary on the moral relativism or equivalence that permeates virtually every level of education in the democratic world.

Perhaps the place to begin to deter murder is to examine critically the prevailing doctrines of our universities—the doctrine of those who educate youth. But let us also bear in mind those who set an example to youth by selectively patronizing Arab terrorists. One is coming to Israel to talk to Mahmoud Abbas
ISM - The International Solidarity Movement

America's Extreme Left Wing Student Army

Lionheart writes,

Foreword: I thought I would repost this article "The ISM Terror Connection" that I was involved with concerning America's foremost Left Wing Student Army - The International Solidarity Movement

Every concerned American citizen should think long and hard about what your government allows upon your College campuses.

We all agree with free speech anywhere within our societies because this is a corner stone of democracy, that same free speech that 'unseen forces' are trying to take away from me.

But if you go onto College campuses and recruit young College students to your Extreme Left Wing cause, then this takes you beyond the free speech arena and places you well and truly in the context of an organisation that recruits for Foreign Terrorist Organisations, namely Hamas.

I am sure that in American you have laws for just such terrorist recruiting organisations considering you are engaged in a 'War on Terror', so how then can this organisation be slipping past your radar screen.

The modus operandi of the International Solidarity Movement is to invade American college campuses with their propoganda aimed at demonising Israel and painting a picture of oppressed Palestinians. This Islamic engineered propoganda obviously effects some of the young impressionable students that hear it, who are young idealists who want to try to do their bit to make the World a better place, so are easy prey for the predators wanting to lure them into their Left Wing Extremist Army.

Once in the fold they are indoctrinated by the Islamic engineering process of poor Palestinians and big bad Israelis and their American supporters.

They are then sent off on a tour of duty to Israel and the West Bank to be used and trained in the art of urban warfare by their Islamic Palestinian handlers.

They riot and support terrorism within Israel against innocent Jewish communities.

Once they have completed their tour of duty they then return to America as trained indoctrinated Extreme Left Wing guerilla soldiers with a complete hatred for America and what it stands for in the World.

The training, radicalising and recruiting process of this Extreme Left Wing Army starts off upon U. S College campuses because the International Solidarity Movement is given a free reign upon your institutes of higher learning under the banner free speech.

How do American parents feel about their children being exposed to this propoganda when they are supposed to be in a safe environment to expand their education ready for the future, I am sure that considering the amount of money paid in college fees they expect these institutes to be protected from such Islamic terrorist supporting and recruiting groups that endanger their childrens lives - Look at Rachel Cory as a prime example of an innocent student recruited, radicalised, sent off to Israel and then killed in the line of duty of defending Palestinian terrorist tunnels.

Even worse is that there has even been a case of a College Professor recruiting two of his students to the cause of the International Solidarity Movement during his lessons and then sending them off to the West bank.

There cannot be a more sinister case of infiltration into Americas education system than this with the International Solidarity Movement and their associated groups.

The links to International Islamic terrorism through this organisation and their willingness to support Palestinian terrorism cannot be ignored.

I spent less than 24 hours with this group in Israel and ended up in the West Bank with terrorists and their AK47 machine guns.

Is this what you expect for your children when you send them off to college?

To be placed in the position of being confronted with this Islamic terror supporting Extreme Left Wing organisation and recruited into their Army, an Army of guerilla soldiers trained in the art of urban warfare by their Islamic Palestinian friends?

To read more about this group and its actions and links to Islamic terrorism check - Stop the ISM

Frontpage Mag - The ISM Terror connection
Lee Kaplan - Dafka

As a front group for Palestinian terrorists, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) sends young people from all over the world to the training fields of the West Bank and Gaza to learn from terrorists and to aid them logistically. Stop the ISM has now obtained photographs of ISM leaders and organizers holding AK-47 assault rifles. The images show some of the ISM women disguised as Jews living in the West Bank and in the company of an Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorist.

One of our volunteers in the United Kingdom for Stop the ISM managed to infiltrate the ISM late last June in the Holy Land where the ISM operates in direct support of terrorists. Our volunteer (who prefers to remain anonymous to avoid retaliatory attacks) has had prior experience going undercover for the police in the UK. The photos and intelligence he brought back are proving invaluable to intelligence agencies watching the ISM and have been in official hands for over a month prior to this publication.

Unfortunately, neither U.S. Homeland Security nor the Israeli security agencies have to date regarded the ISM as a serious threat. Some of these ISM people in these photos managed to escape; nevertheless, arrests have been made, and more are forthcoming.

In April 2003, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that "ISM members take an active part in illegal and violent actions against IDF soldiers. At times, their activity in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip is under the auspices of Palestinian terrorist organizations." The ISM always tries to maintain the veneer of a “peace group”; however, ISM founders Adam Shapiro and his wife, Huwaida Arraf, and Norcal ISM’s leader Paul LaRudee, a man who Stop the ISM recently succeeded in getting deported from Israel as a security threat, began revealing their true colors recently by going to Lebanon to act as “human shields” for the Hezbollah.

Up to now, the ISM has been permitted to use our colleges and universities to find recruits to send to the Middle East to interfere with Israeli soldiers and border police. For example, every Friday, the ISM organizes riots in the West Bank. ISM members openly boast about having been arrested for vandalizing and destroying Israeli security fences and equipment. In March 2003, fugitive Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya was arrested in a house the ISM rented in Jenin. Two suicide bombers from the UK met with the ISM in Gaza before blowing up Mike’s Place, a bar in Tel Aviv, killing three people and wounding more than fifty in the process.

Here at home, ISM appears to blatantly violate 18 USC Code 2339a, a statute banning going overseas to aid terrorist groups. The government has also failed to enforce felony passport laws that are continually being violated by ISM activists. This allows the ISM to function across international boundaries. Rico Statutes in the US are routinely violated too through a campus network. Emiliano, an American ISM activist in these photos, was sent to the West Bank with money given to him by New York ISM as a “grant.” That means a conspiratorial subversive group is paying to send subversives to riot in an allied country in this War on Terror. When I called the San Francisco office of the FBI three times to alert them about information in this article, I was disconnected twice and the third time given a voice recorder for the duty agent. Nobody called back.

Our Stop the ISM volunteer arrived at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv two months ago where he was immediately recruited by an ISM activist named Emiliano, who was there from the United States. A young man like our volunteer, Emiliano approached our man on arrival at the airport and asked where he was going. When our volunteer replied, “Jerusalem,” Emiliano joined him on a bus and struck up a conversation with him, recommending a youth hostel in the Israeli capital near the Damascus Gate. Destination: The Faisal Youth Hostel in East Jerusalem.

Continue reading: ISM Terror connection
Posted by Lionheart at 3:24 AM 3 comments Links to this post

Posted by Lionheart at 3:24 AM January 8, 2008

Sunday, January 6, 2008


[Translated from the Hebrew]

by Dov Even Or, Adv.

January 6, 2008

1. The government of Ehud Ulmert betrays its citizens and my claim is not based on opinions, intentions or analyses made by members of the government, but on its acts and deeds that are committed publicly; therefore this government is illegal, its decisions do not bind, and it is the right of every citizen not to obey them.

In order to avoid being labeled (right wing, extremist or as representative of certain interests), I will base my opinion only on facts and pure legal analysis.

2. Lack of protection for the citizens of the Western Negev

a. For the past seven years, this area has been targeted by Kassam rockets and fortunately, the number of casualties has been low; half of the citizens have left Sderot and the life in it resembles a border town’s in the Wild West. The kibbutzim of the area live in a state of war.

b. The answer of Ulmert’s government is that “we cannot shield our citizen’s homes completely, the State is not bound to offer total protection and we shall react against terrorist organizations ‘in due time’”, etc.

c. Before discussing the political consequences of this policy, we need to clarify certain issues: it is the responsibility of a democratic government to offer maximum protection to its citizens; this is the reason why in a democracy Party A is preferred over Party B, because the voters thought that it would assure more (than the other party) individual and national security. Therefore the statement of the Prime Minister that the government does not have the responsibility to offer maximum protection to the public is a bold breach of the rules of a democratic regime and contempt towards the individual (who has already cast his/her vote for this government). This declaration of the Prime Minister has not remained in the air; it is already implemented daily in the field, i.e. there isn’t even minimal protection for the citizens of the Western Negev; moreover, part of the population lives in houses devoid of shielded rooms, and is left to the mercy of Heaven while the rockets land in the area.

3. Individual security in the daily life:

a. The responsibility of the democratic government is to assure individual security in the daily life not only against an outer enemy beyond the border, but also against theft, crimes and violence within the borders. It is undoubted that the Israeli Police has stopped protecting the citizens at least not in real time (when the event occurs). For car theft and housebreaks, the Police do not even arrive at the scene. (The citizen is invited to come to the Police station and put in a complaint or a declaration of theft.) Policemen do not patrol the streets anymore, and when a girl/woman or any other citizen is attacked, the victim depends on the kindness of passers by (if there are any and if they agree to help).

b. The Police claim that they do not have enough budget to perform regular Police assignments along with inner security tasks (such as fighting terrorists and setting up road blocks, etc.). This means that the government knowingly abandons the individual and instead of demanding the Police to perform its initial tasks, it demands it to take care of inner security, which is the responsibility of the IDF or any special unit that does not exist at all. The result is neither protection against terrorists and terrorist attacks, since the police has nothing to protect the citizens with, nor protection from thieves, robbers and ‘just’ perverts

4. Debt collection from the individual not via courts of law (via administrative orders).

a. By principle, it is unacceptable that the individual should be demanded to bring his complaints only to court, but the State would be ‘allowed’ to skip this obstacle and get its due by force! If the reason of this claim is that the legal system is slow and collapsing under its burden, then the culprit is the regime that does not allot enough funds to appoint more judges and more state attorneys. But the State has found a ‘brilliant’ solution: the courts will keep collapsing, the individual will wait forever for the verdict and in the meantime, the State will bypass the obstacle race track by allowing managers of public service institutions to collect the so called ‘debt’ by issuing special rules.

b. The Minister of Finances has empowered the mayors to collect their debts by administrative orders based on a wrong and illegal interpretation of the law. That’s how it happened that the directors of Bituach Leumi, Mas Hachnasa and other heads of authorities have empowered their subordinate civil servants to collect debts this way and they have started ‘partying’. If you haven’t paid a parking ticket, even if the ticket is beyond its limitation, the authorities will confiscate all your bank accounts.

And what is more serious, the mayors have authorized private contractors to collect their ‘debts’. These people have hired muscle men to go to the houses of the citizens in pairs and refuse to leave the apartments without the money for a meager fee of NIS 400-600 as payment for their services!!

This is a classical situation of ‘Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?’ (1Kings 21, verse 19 from the King James’ Bible)

5. Protection for the residents of Judea and Samaria:

a. It is a well-known fact that Ehud Ulmert and most of the members of his government are interested in returning most of the Judea and Samaria territories, in establishing another Arab state between the Jordan and the sea and in dividing Jerusalem into two cities! The ministers have the right to think so, but they are not allowed to carry out their aspirations without explicit consent of the people (of the Jewish citizens only!!) This is not the right place to explain in detail why a government cannot legislate a law of ‘evacuation-compensation’, because the consented annulment of the Constituent Assembly in 1949 has created a vacuum in legislation that has not been filled ever since (Former Judge Michael Heshin thinks the same). No fundamental law can be legislated without the consent of the people!!

b. The Ulmert government is not planning to ask for the consent of the people for the evacuation of Judea and Samaria. It acts in illegal and horrible ways to cause the flight of the Jewish citizens in the direction of the ‘green line’ due to daily dangers. The government, out of premeditation and knowingly turns the lives of the citizens in Judea and Samaria into a ‘Russian Roulette’ operated by murderous gangs.

c. What is going on there? Jews are demanded to turn over their guns to the Police due to insignificant incidents and they remain unprotected. They travel by night on dark roads without any means of protection, and if they are attacked, they have very slight chances to save themselves. The identification of Arab cars from East Jerusalem with Israeli numbers has stopped. They move around freely throughout Judea and Samaria. If a terrorist attack occurs, the car disappears in one of the villages and it cannot be located any more. Massive arming of Abu Mazen’s ‘Security Forces’ with individual weapons, special jeeps and armored vehicles was carried out eventhough everybody knows that they do police work during the day and attack the Jews at night.

The two soldiers that walked on a field trip along the Telem stream near Hebron on December 28, 2007 were murdered in a premeditated attack by a murder gang that belonged to the Palestinian ‘Security Forces’ and the off-road vehicle they were driving was donated by the USA or the European Union. They had accurate information about the presence of ‘Israelis’ in the area. (It is clear how they obtained information, but this is the topic of another article…)

How is it possible that weapons are taken away from the Jewish citizens and given away so generously and without surveillance to the Arabs? This state of things is kept and encouraged by Ulmert’s government. Why should the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria be faithful to this government, which has abandoned them to die?!

There is a limit to every action and the deeds of Ulmert’s government have gone too far, so far that they have put us in mortal danger. (this statement is not just a phrase, it is the honest truth!) Therefore, we, the citizens (of course, whoever agrees to this move) will not put our fate into the hands of the courts of law, because they won’t be able to save us, we won’t wait for election day and let them wash our brains with political stuff to convince us choose between Ehud A and Ehud B (all with the help of the Arab citizens who wouldn’t part with us, but also wouldn’t recognize our right to a Jewish State). We won’t ‘go gentle into that good night’, but will take our fate into our own hands because we want to live!

The State of Israel was not established in order to belong to all its citizens and not as a pan-Arab state (‘the new Middle East’); the fact that the throne is occupied by the one who aims to destroy us makes us resort to civilian rebellion to prevent a military uprising, and if this doesn’t help, there will be no barrier to stop the anger!!

Yours truly,

Dov Even Or, Adv.

Saturday, January 5, 2008


In Defense of Rabbi Wolpe
Prof. Paul Eidelberg

On January 2, 2008, Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe told a conference of rabbis in Tel-Aviv that “Government leaders should be hanged for negotiating with the Palestinians” (Jerusalem Post, January 3).

The conference was attended by rabbis who oppose transferring parts of the Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority.

Rabbi Wolpe denounced “The terrible traitor [Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert, who gives these Nazis weapons, who gives money, who frees their murderous terrorists, this man, like Ariel Sharon, collaborates with the Nazis …” (ibid.)

Of course, Wolpe’s denunciation of Olmert and Sharon also applies to Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak, as well as many other Israeli politicians that have collaborated with the PLO-Palestinian Authority.

The reader should bear in mind that since the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993, Palestinian terrorists have murdered no less than 1,500 Jewish women, men, and children, 1,000 of whom were murdered under the premiership of Ariel Sharon. Since Oslo, Israeli prime ministers have also released more than 7,000 terrorists, and some 300 more Jews were murdered as a consequence thereof.

Hence, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that various Israeli prime ministers have been complicit in murder. Under Israeli law, however, murder is not a capital offense. The only crime punishable by death is treason. Before citing the law on treason, let us quote some further statements of Rabbi Wolpe at the Tel Aviv conference as reported by The Jerusalem Post.

“[Olmert’s punishment], and the punishment of [Vice Premier] Haim Ramon, and the punishment of [Foreign Minister] Tzipi Livni, and all these people like [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak, should be hanged from the gallows.”

This last remark came during the conference when news circulated that one of the terrorists who killed two off-duty soldiers the previous week in the Hebron Hills was a PA security officer.

Interestingly, among those attending this conference of rabbis were MK Arye Eldad (National Union/National Religious Party) and former MK Elyakim Ha’etzni, who apparently “joined in the accusations that Olmert was responsible for the deaths of the two Israelis.”

As far as the present writer knows, neither Eldad nor Ha’Etzni (an attorney) agreed with Rabbi Wolpe that the government ministers mentioned above should be hung. Consider, however, Israel’s Penal Law on treason. Sections 97, 99, and 100 prohibit the following acts:

1. the category of acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel—section 97(a);

2. the category of acts which "impair the integrity" of the State of Israel— section 97(b);

3. the category of acts under section 99 which give assistance to an "enemy" in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4. the category of acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

The punishment prescribed in the Penal Law for the first three kinds of acts of treason is death or imprisonment for life.

Viewed in this light, an objective assessment of the Penal Law on treason together with laws related to Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, may very well vindicate Rabbi Wolpe’s bold denunciation of Israel’s government leaders.

Friday, January 4, 2008


Paul Eidelberg, President
Yamin Israel Party

Yamin Israel is often asked why it does not form an alliance with nationalist elements of the Likud. After all, doesn’t the Likud represent “the trunk of the nation.” as one prominent Likud member has emphasized?” Hasn’t Yamin Israel always sought to form a united front of nationalist groups? Aren’t Likud hawks like Moshe Arens tried-and-true nationalists?

These questions reminded me of an article I wrote in 1989, “Cops and Coddler.” It was during the first Intifada, and in power was a Shamir-led national unity government. A slightly shortened version of the article follows:

On 6 February 1989, Prime Minister Shamir declared, “The time has come for the world to finally understand that Eretz Yisrael can only belong to the State of Israel. Anything else is inconceivable.”

Four day later, Shamir’s statement was contradicted by his Foreign Minister, Moshe Arens: “Just what part of the territories Israel would retreat from ... and just where the secure boundaries for Israel are, that’s a subject for interpretation; it bears directly on the permanent settlement.”

The question arises: Is Shamir being undermined by his lieutenants, or is this a game of “hard cop/soft cop” vis-à-vis Washington and the Palestinian Arabs? Consider the following reports:

18 January 1989. Briefing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mr. Arens said: “Israel ought not cleave to all its former positions on the Middle East dispute” (Jerusalem Post).

19 January 1989. “[The radical leftwing] Mapam Party’s central committee yesterday praised Moshe Arens for his moderate statements, terming them ‘the beginning of recognition of the national aspirations of the Palestinians.’ Mapam’s Yair Tsaban told The Jerusalem Post, ‘today, when I look for a ray of hope I find it with Shamir and Arens.’”

20 January 1989 “When the Foreign Minister, Moshe Arens, came out against cleaving to ‘all our past positions’, and spoke approvingly of respect for ‘Palestinian aspirations’, it was assumed that he was speaking for the premier, too” (Editorial, Jerusalem Post).

3 February 1989. “Pressed to say whether he had any doubt about who should be the sovereign in the area, Arens said: ‘I think this is the end of our press conference.’ ... ‘Would you go beyond Camp David?’ a reporter asked. ‘That’s enough’ the foreign minister said” (The Nation). [To his credit, Mr. Arens had voted against the 1978 Camp David Agreement.]

10 February 1989. Interviewed by The Jerusalem Post, Foreign Minister Arens said: “Any country might contribute to the peace process, if it has goodwill, if it’s truly interested in the stability of the area and if, in addition to that, it has something to contribute... I think the Soviet Union falls into that category.”

3 March 89. “Likud MK Ehud Olmert, the cabinet minister responsible for Arab affairs, told the Knesset that there had been 150 terrorist and hostile acts committed in Israel during the previous three months that could be attributed to Israeli Arabs” (Jerusalem Post). [If Israeli Arabs engage in terrorism, why should Arens encourage the myth of peace with Palestinian Arabs?]

13 March 89. Foreign Minister Arens stated recently that “we must accommodate the Palestinian’s legitimate (national) rights,” otherwise “Zionism’s insistence on a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael is immoral” (The Nation, emphasis added)

30 May 1989. “Calling on the U.S. not to give the Arabs false hopes, Foreign Minister Moshe Arens yesterday assured the Knesset that there would be no return to the 1967 borders, no Palestinian state, no transfer of Jews and no crimping of the rights of Jews to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel and live there within safe borders” (Jerusalem Post).

Obviously, these press reports cannot but confuse public opinion in Israel and erode public support for Jewish retention of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. If Shamir’s Foreign Minister, a reputed hawk, can equivocate about the ultimate status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, what can be expected of Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who unequivocally advocates “territory for peace”? [On Rabin, consider the following reports]:

30 January 1989. “Rabin’s decision to release prominent Palestinian leader Faisal Husseini could play an important role in furthering [Labor’s own peace] initiative. It is felt that [Husseini’s] intimate ties with the PLO and his key role in the intifada—the reasons why he has been kept in administrative detention—make him a valuable potential partner” (Jerusalem Post). [Juxtapose what he said of the Soviet Union.]

31 January 1989. “The Defense Ministry ... freed Faisal Husseini, whom Rabin had branded one of the most dangerous PLO operatives in the West Bank” (The Nation).

Compare Rabin’s sensitivity to the Arab cause with his callousness toward the Jewish cause. Thus, on 2 February 1989, Rabin declared. “Anyone not prepared to endure stone throwing should not live in the territories” (The Nation).

Finally, consider this remarkable report of 15 June 1989 [which, presumably, was cleared with Foreign Minister Moshe Arens]. Yossi Ben-Aharon, Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, said that “[the government] is not afraid of Palestinian self-determination ... and that the [Shamir] peace initiative can provide them with ‘nine out of ten parts’ of self-determination” (Jerusalem Post).

But having given the Palestinian Arabs “nine out of ten parts” of self-determination, is it not obvious that the cops and coddlers now ruling Israel will then be in no position to press for Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza? This being so, Mr. Shamir’s statement, that “The time has come for the world to finally understand that Eretz Yisrael can only belong to the State of Israel” is a piece of braggadocio.

The above 1989 article conveys why Yamin Israel is not enthusiastic about nationalists like Mr. Arens. By the way, interviewed by The Jewish Journal on 21 April 2006, Mr. Arens opposed the idea of making members of the Knesset individually accountable to the people in constituency elections. Israel’s system of government, he said, has “functioned very well.” Indeed, it has, having rendered the people of this nation powerless. So much for Likud nationalists and the so-called trunk of the nation.

Thursday, January 3, 2008


Demophrenia: A Psychological Analysis of Israel’s Malaise*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Foundation for Constitutional Democracy**

From its inception in 1948, the government of Israel, regardless of which party or coalition was at the helm, has been afflicted by a mental disorder I call "demophrenia."

Demophrenia is a deeply rooted malady of national and even of world-historical significance. It involves a compulsive application of democratic principles to moral problems and ideological conflicts which are impervious to, and even intensified by, those principles—especially the principle of equality.

Demophrenia is most advanced in Israel because its government—despite its oligarchic structure—is animated by a democratic mentality in conflict with the moral and territorial imperatives of Zionism, and also ineffectual against the anti-democratic mentality of Israel's Arab inhabitants and neighbors.

The pathological nature of demophrenia will be better understood by reviewing certain characteristics of schizophrenia.

Some schizophrenics, like those afflicted by demophrenia, may be able to deal efficiently with various parts of reality. In principle, however, schizophrenics suffer from a lack of harmony between the three psychological elements that form the personality, namely, the intellect, the emotions, and the will.

Confronted by hostile or discordant aspects of reality, schizophrenics exhibit escapism, mental decrepitude, and emotional apathy or impotence. Although demophrenia exhibits all these characteristics, the disease is far more complex and profound, and more difficult to recognize, if only because it involves the dominant mentality of our age.

Many secular, and not a few religious, Jews cannot cope with Arab animosity. Otherwise they would not advocate the logically suicidal and escapist policy of "territory for peace." The policy is logically suicidal because it requires Israel to relinquish land whenever the Arabs threaten war. Underlying the escapism of this policy reflects a lack of Judaic self-confidence. This escapism is rooted in Jewish assimilation to the secular and egalitarian mentality of our age.

In contrast, Islamic mentality is not only religious, but its most humble adherents are incredibly proud. Referring to the Arabs of pre-state period, Professor Gil Carl AlRoy saw that the illiterate Muslim, living in squalor and filth, looked upon the Jew with his water toilets, soap, Beethoven and Bach, and actually felt naturally superior to the Jew as the English aristocrats would in olden days have felt toward Cockneys.

Ironically, many secular Zionists pitied the Arabs. Because Jews are the perennial victims of injustice, how could they not sympathize with the demands of Arabs who purvey themselves as victims of injustice? Demophrenics tend to identify with their enemies and feel compelled to yield to their demands even when, by so doing, they jeopardize their own interests.

Of course, their enemies couch their demands in democratic terms—as "rights" or as "legitimate rights"—knowing that such language disarms the political and intellectuals leaders of pluralistic, that is, of demophrenic regimes. Demophrenic personalities never challenge the alleged rights of their enemies. Instead, they try to "understand" their enemies, to "see things from their point of view."

This seemingly empathic, but really condescending, attitude incites their enemies to even greater hatred, especially if the hatred is rooted in a religious ideology. Arab hatred of Jews permeated by contempt. Let me explain.

A demophrenic Jew is imbued with the moral egalitarianism and cultural pluralism inherent in this democratic era. Wishing to live in peace with others, the demophrenic urges on Muslims an attitude of tolerance, of mutual respect and equality. This demophrenic attitude, however, tacitly denies the validity of any religious ideology that claims to possess the absolute truth, and whose followers see no logical reason why they should tolerate error or live in peace and equality with “infidels.”

Hated by their enemies, Israel’s demophrenic politicians and intellectuals begin to identify with their enemies. The moral egalitarianism of this democratic age deprives them of any rational basis for pride. In fact, moral equivalency diminishes their mental capacity to hate their enemies on the one hand, and to love their own people on the other—at least to the extent of wreaking vengeance on Arabs who have assaulted their people.

Lacking pride, the hatred directed at them by their enemies imbues Jews with feelings of guilt. Feeling of guilt prevents them from upholding their own rights or from making any demands on their enemies. They prefer to appease their enemies either by meekness or by acts of kindness.

Animated, or so they think, by reason, demophrenics cannot understand why reason, graced by benevolence, fails to overcome the malice and violence of their enemies. Obviously this kind of mentality emasculates them. Their very instinct of self-preservation is bungled, in consequence of which they hesitate to use force, let alone lethal force, to quell the lethal violence of their enemies.

Demophrenic governments or personalities—especially if their people have long suffered persecution—have a fear-driven desire to be loved and accepted, and nothing so much disturbs them as hate-filled rejection. Even when their assailants falsify reality and defame them, they refrain from speaking the truth and exposing their slanderers as wicked liars. Like blind-deaf-mutes, they see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

Because Israel's demophrenic government cannot face the truth, it is constantly the victim of lies. Yearning for the acceptance and approval of the nations, it is repeatedly condemned by the United Nations.

The lack of pride manifested by the government of Israel must be juxtaposed to the well-known overweening pride of Muslims who cannot abide equality with infidels, and must lord it over them whenever possible. Hence, for Israel's government to think that its own self-effacement will humble Arab pride betrays not an error in judgment—which experience might correct—but a syndrome. It is not a Jewish a syndrome but democratic or equivalency syndrome, one that renders it impossible to dissolve the Arab-Israel conflict.

It needs to be emphasized that Israel's political leaders are psychologically incapable of transcending, at least in action, the egalitarian horizon of secular democracy. They are aware of Islamic hatred, but they find it incomprehensible. Lacking religious faith themselves, these secularists have no conception of what belief in Allah demands of the faithful.

One of those demands is murderous hatred of the Jew. But inasmuch as those afflicted by demophrenia are incapable of religious hatred, they continue to think that Arab hatred can be appeased, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, Israel has for many years been plagued with governments consisting of demophrenic personalities. These people, like schizophrenics, are not amenable to reason if only because their mentality is strait-jacketed by the limitations of a democratic mode of thought, the dominant mode of the age.

So long as Israel is ruled by demophrenic personalities—and they dominate not only the government but also various media of education—precious Jewish blood will be shed in Eretz Yisrael.


*Based on my book Demophrenia: Israel and the Malaise of Democracy (1994). To purchase the book, send $24 or 80 shekels payable to the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, POB 23702, Jerusalem 91236 Israel. For information on related publications, send an email to

**To help the Foundation’s important educational work in Israel and abroad, please make a tax deductible contribution to the Foundation at the above address.


for further illumination of the puzzle of Israel's lame defense against the jihad:

Olmert's National Policy of Guilt

Please click on the above and then on the links in that post to further understanding of why Israel has sunk from a power feared by the Arab Moslems to acting as their punching bag.


See if you can get to any of the posts linked in this post from the now-censored Islamic Danger blog:

or Bush and his Saudi Pals put one over on the bowed-down, shuffling Ghetto-Jew Ehud Olmert and his retinue

"United States: State Sponsor of Judeophobia" by Pamela Geller

A terrible line was crossed at Annapolis.
[we were referred to the foregoing site by ]

For the prime source of the stench, we must look to Sick of the "Sowdis?" So are we! [Click for this link here. This post is now available also at the Islamic Danger to Americans blog--as]

Background for this post:

Some of these posts have migrated to as-yet uncensored venues. The rest will be transferred to accessible blogs as soon as this can be accomplished. Please bear with me in the meantime. Leslie White.

Emet m'Tsiyon: The Arab Invaders Practiced Population Transfer

Olmert's National Policy of Guilt
Also, see

Wednesday, January 2, 2008


and how to shape the world towards a solution

The following is a Comment on Israpundit's article "Why I hate Annapolis: What was agreed to at Annapolis will destroy Israel" by Ted Belman, originally appearing at as Comment # 22


Israel is not fighting an isolated Arab entity–the self-styled “Palestinians”–but the entire Islamic world, the so-called ummah. The Moslem Arabs and other arabized Moslems, as well as Moslem Iranians, Pakis, Indonesians, etc. will never recognize nor accept Israel as a Jewish state–on land they consider forever Islamic, as it once was occupied by Moslems. The hatred of Jews is codified in the Moslem’s koran and was initiated by Mohammed who raged in fury when he could not get the Jews to accept his “verkackte” [shitty, yid. ed.] ideology masquerading as a new “religion.”

There can never be a “peace” between Israel and the Arabs–Abbas’ Fatah etc., Hamas or whoever represents the “Palestinians.” These occupiers of Yesha [Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. ed.] are but the shock troops and cannon fodder of the Islamic world. The U.S. is not, and never was, a “friend” of Israel’s. It used Israel as a bulwark against the Soviets’ Arab client states during the cold war. Now, with the Saudi-infiltrated government in Washington–and in the embassies and consulates abroad–Israel is being used as a bargaining chip by the mentally defectives ruling from Washington to try and make the “Middle East” into a bunch of U.S.-friendly Islamic “democracies.”

That this attempt by Washington will fail cannot be understood by those who do not see all of Islam–the ideology with its tenets clearly stated in the koran and other Islamic scriptures–as the enemy of the non-Islamic world. The belief that it is only a few “fundamentalists” or “misguided” Moslems who are the enemy, espoused by Bush–for whatever reasons–does not recognize that the Saudis are the purveyors of the most fundamentalist and Jew-hating school of Islam, that of the Wahhabis.

With the closest U.S. “allies” and “friends” in the Middle East being Saudi Arabia and Egypt and in Southern Asia Pakistan and Karzai Afghanistan, the U.S. is playing a losing game. The non-Islamic world could only come out ahead in this game by allying itself with, and supporting, Israel and India in their struggle against the Islamics.

Unfortunately India and Israel are both suffering with Moslem-placating governments of the Left, and thus, unless viciously attacked by Moslems and responding disproportionally, are little use in the West’s as yet unrecognized struggle against the Islamic demographic and overt onslaught.

Israel has shown that it can defeat Islamic armies as has India in its open warfare with Pakistan. A change in the goverments of Israel and India is mandatory to defeat Islamic intentions. Both countries need leaders who are willing and eager to punish the Islamic enemy so severly and repeatedly that he will realize the hopelessness of ever achieving his goal of killing the Jews of Israel and subjugating and converting the “kufar” of India, and thusly making their countries part of the Islamic world.

Comment by urbanadder22 — December 4, 2007 @ 6:13 am

[close quote]


for India's overhwelming defeat of Pakistan, see

as to India's perennial resistance to Islam, in spite of repeated invasions, betrayals, and conversions to Islam , see

Applicable Additional Material

1. Newsweek: COVER STORY: PAKISTAN, Where the Jihad Lives Now:
Pakistani leaders created the Islamist monster that now operates with near impunity throughout the country. Militant Islamist groups that were originally recruited, trained and armed by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) have since become Islamabad's deadliest enemies. Twice they have nearly succeeded in assassinating Musharraf, who was once among their strongest supporters. In the last six years extremists have killed more than 1,000 Pakistani troops.

a. A Pakistani comments on the foregoing Newsweek story:
(i) The Western societies believe in the twisted interpretations of Islam and the prevalent environment appears to be more conducive for the advancement of their interest, which also requires maligning Islam. The word ???Jihad??? for instance, is completely misunderstood by the Non Muslims. Its implication is vast and is not confined to war, which, in any event, can only be waged against an aggressor. The Muslims of Pakistan believe in the same meaning of ???Jihad??? and condemn the incidents of suicide bombings occurring in the country. They believe that a true Muslim cannot go for the act of suicide bomb blast but they are detracted and misused by some miscreants, working for interest of some other nations. The Government of Pakistan has clear policy in fighting with these terrorists and majority of the public supports it.
(ii) "Extremism in the religions is everywhere in the world. Brahmans in Hindu religion, and Jews are the suitable examples. As India and Israel both are committed in violation of basic human rights in Occupied Kashmir and Palestine respectively. But the so-called civilized nations pay no heat to restrict them in their deeds. It is only Pakistan, which consistently reminded the international community and United Nations to pay role in finding equitable solution for a lasting peace in Palestine and Kashmir. "
--Hamid (Pakistan)

c. Leslie White says: the foregoing comment contains two argumentative devices employed by Islamics: Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque

Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch defines “Taqiyya” as the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers.

(i) In the aforementioned Comment by Hamid (Pakistan), Taqiyya is exemplified by his insisting that "jihad" is much more than how it is used by the West, that is, a violent war against non-Moslems. The "wider" definition of jihad in this Islamic dissimulation is that "jihad" is more of an inner, spiritual struggle wherein Moslems attempt to improve themselves. This is just so much bullshit.

(ii) As to the informal logical fallacy of Tu Quoque, here is an example of typical Islamic "Tu Quoque," which in Latin means "You, also" or "You're another," posted by the hapless Hamid of Pakistan: "Extremism in the religions is everywhere in the world. Brahmans in Hindu religion, and Jews are the suitable examples. As India and Israel both are committed in violation of basic human rights in Occupied Kashmir and Palestine respectively . . . ."
As Fitzgerald would have it: Graduates of the Tu-Quoque Academy (whose diplomas are still written in Latin) like to refer airily to “fundamentalists on all sides” who pose an equal threat to one another, and how important it is to “rein in the crazies” that “every society” and “every religion” throws up.

Update and Correction! 11:18 PM November 4, 2007

We had erroneously reported (from memory) an exchange at a message board having to do with the trustworthiness of Indian alliance with the Jewish state of Israel.

After locating the actual message board and the conversation, we have to set the record straight as follows:

2.The following discussion took place between several East Indians at Intellibriefs:

ssk said...

How to tackle jihadi terrorism in India?

1) Let's us fight back. Form groups of like minded hindus, unite together, be prepared and keep a watch on mullas in your area.

We must form organisations that are independent of political and public scrutiny. Such organisations will only work for the benefit of hinduism and Bharat. All dirty tricks can be used to enforce hindu's interests.

2) Indian hindus should work with LTTE and teach pakistan what exactly terrorism is.

3) Enough of this non-violence non-sense.

4) Next India should again divide pakistan in two or three parts taking benefit of its internal racial conflicts such as wazirstan and sindh and dispute with Afghanistan and Russia. This will break back of this terrorist nation for another 30-40 years.

5) India should also not spare China who has basically supported pakistan in order to distract India from becoming a world power.

India should unite pacific nations, support taiwan, south korea, vietnam, cambodia, japan and indonesia to fight against china. India should play politcal and military support to these small nations who are afraid of china's imperialism.

6) Finally, Iran. Many Iranian spies have entered India as Iranian students. The Varanasi blasts were handiwork of Iranian spies, ISI and SIMI.

To take revenge on these middle eastern scums.. join Israel, give them logistic and political support.

This is the only chance Indian civilisation can ever become a true world power in the world.

VISH said...

SSK is absolutely right. Hindus have to get their asses moving. We have been sitting lazy and timid for too long.

They talk about the spirit and resilience of Mumbai. I say: The spirit is not in the resilience. The spirit is in the REVENGE.

Look at Israel, how it has smashed Lebanon. We have to do this to Fuckistan to teach all these scums a lesson for time immemorial.

Jai Hind!

Anonymous [1] said...

People say Narendra Modi did Genocide in Gujrat of muslims.
Lets show people what genocide is.

First all hindu youth should come together and topple the bloody government of congress-leftist.

then all anti-hindu communist parties should be banished from India.
India should support Hindu LTTE and destroy bloody christian Sinhali and then use Sri Lanka as a proxy state for carrying out Terrorism in Pakistan and China.
We are majority Bloody Mohd of Gazni plundered Somnath temple 17 times and built city with lood.

We should unleash hordes of Hindus on all non hindu monuments and use the loot for the benifit of poor hindu tribals preventing them from becoming christian.
India has third largest army in world after America and China.
Howerver our army is voluantary.

We should make service in armed forces compulsary and unleash our poppulation on bloody islamic countries. If fucking nomads from desert could conquer Asia we can conquer the world.

Lets make the entire world our Bharatvarsha like Arjuna conquered entire India in Mahabharata for Yudhisthira lets conquer entire world for Hinduism.

Jai Hind

Anonymous [2] said...

Hindu forces are just like a plump with no inner exersion.

Lets take example of Sunita williams. All indians made hue and cry ober her pretending her to be indian but truth is that she is 100% cristian .

Indian army is the third largest but can we say that this is "hijron ki fauj hai" only showing the bravery killing the innocent peoples. How can u expect them to fight with the armed forces of srilanka or china.

So my suggestion is that stop day dreaming and feel the real situation. You r born to be ruled eiher by English or today by America. Aligning india with the terrorist nation like Isreal can only do the harm as Jews can never be loyal to anyone as their history says thats why they have been crushed in past and should be crushed in future.

NOTE: This Anonymous [2] appears to be a sower of dissension and doubt. His tack is at odds with the course of the ongoing conversation. He is not a Hindu--note his "You r born to be ruled eiher by English or today by America." You, not we. And then he goes into a typical Moslem rant stressing the "perfidy of the Jews."

"Jews can never be loyal to anyone as their history says thats why they have been crushed in past and should be crushed in future."

Now, I do not know to what he was referring when he cites "their history" and "that's why they have been crushed in past [sic]."

This--let's call him a Moslem-- would have been justified questioning the "loyalty of Jews" had he referred to what happened to the Christians of Southern Lebanon and the so-called "settlers" in the now-demolished Jewish "settlements" in Sinai (I believe) and the Negev (if I remember correctly) and of course Gaza, where Jews were encouraged to make the desert bloom--which they did--only to be betrayed by other Jews--specifically Ariel Sharon and when that one became incapacitated by Ehud Olmert who today still rules Israel.

But he probably was referring to the clashes that Mohammed had with the Jewish tribes of Arabia.

Nevertheless, returning to the recent past, I asked myself "Who are these 'Jews' who betray those that believe their word and depend on them?" The answer is they are not "all Jews" but specifically "Israeli Jews" --certainly not all of them, nor most of them--but the Moslem-placating Leftist Elite that has ruled Israel for far too long.

"It is not "Jews" that cannot be trusted by the Indian Hindus, but, as is the case with their own Indian government, the Moslem-placating Leftists that are at the helm."
--Leslie White

More Indian thought and opinion from

3. "Unless we citizens of Bharat(India) know what is Islam, we will never realize the purpose of creation of Pakistan on Indian land. If the citizens remain ignorant they will invite further aggression of Islam in this land. Islam is the mission of spreading Arabic culture by killing original Hindu culture"
- Shri Gopal Godse, Feb 2nd 2001

. . . . The river Indus (Sindhu), on the banks of which our pre-historic Rishis composed the Vedas is the Boundary of our Bharatvarsha i.e. Hindusthan. My ashes may be sunk in the Holy Sindhu River when she will again flow freely under the aegis of the flag of Hindusthan. That will be the sacred day for us. It hardly matters even if it took a couple of generations for realizing my wish. Preserve the ashes till then, and if that day would not dawn in your lifetime, pass on the remains to posterity for translating my desire into reality.If and when the Government lifts ban on my statement made in the Court, I authorize you to publish it."
4-11-1949, Nathuram Vinayak Godse

Note: The Indus River (Sindhu) flows in what today is Islamic Pakistan.

[NOTE: Although we do not agree across the board with everything espoused by Hindu Unity, we are on the same page as far as vigorously resisting Islam and its brutal attacks against India and the West are concerned. Where we differ is in keeping a solid, united front of all factions that oppose the assault of Islam. That is, we believe that at this time our primary enemy is Islam and its supporters, period. lw]

NOUN: A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin tu quoque, you also : tu, you + quoque, also.

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser.