Saturday, March 29, 2008


(hint: click on the word MASADA for more on that)

(who else but Israel?)
(celebrating 60 years since the return*)
(where else but Israel?)

by Steven Plaut

Fun Page for Jews
Guess who the joke's on?
(got a mirror handy?)
*"The land of Israel belongs to God, and He has decided to give it to the Jewish nation, in accordance with the covenant sealed on Mount Sinai, a covenant that no other nation was willing to undertake. After a long exile, we've returned home. We bear no malice toward anyone and seek no harm to anyone. But we will not surrender any portion of our land to foreign powers, and if foreigners rise up against us to destroy us, we will fight against them and, with God's help, we will destroy them."
--Martin Wasserman

Those Who Bless Her (Israel) Will Be Blessed, And Those Who Curse Her Will Be Cursed (Genesis 12:2-3)

How Will the So-Called "Palestinian" Arabs Treat the Israeli Jews After Any Peace Deal?
Click Masada 2000 (scroll way down to see it at left-hand side) first to see how they treat each other!
Caroline Glick slams Israel for prosecuting Israelis acting in self defense - ignoring evidence‏

Column One: Israel's accountability problem
Mar. 27, 2008

On April 10 two brothers are scheduled to begin serving prison sentences for a crime they never committed. Yitzhak and Daniel Halamish were convicted of aggravated assault and were sentenced respectively, to seven and eight months in jail.

The two men, who live in Ma'aleh Rehavam south of Bethlehem, were arrested on February 22, 2004. The day before their arrest, the brothers were serving as IDF-trained and armed security guards in their community. They were called by Baruch Feldbaum, the head of security at the neighboring Sde Bar community, to assist him in dispersing an illegal gathering of Beduin in land adjacent to Sde Bar.

Feldbaum's concern over the gathering was heightened because Beduin shepherds are suspected of having carried out a number of unsolved terrorist murders in the area. These include the murder by stoning of 14-year-olds Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ish-Ran on May 8, 2001. Feldbaum feared that the Beduin were conducting surveillance of the community ahead of a future attack.

Armed with their IDF-issued M-16 rifles, augmented in Yitzhak's case by a handgun, the Halamish brothers rushed to the scene. Once they arrived the two were surrounded by some 20 rock and club-wielding Beduin. In an attempt to disperse the hostile crowd, and enable the Halamish brothers to escape unharmed, Feldbaum shot a warning shot into the ground. Yitzhak Halamish similarly shot a warning shot in the air with his handgun. The two brothers then pushed their way out of the crowd.

Later in the day, the Beduin filed a complaint with the police against the three guards. They alleged that Feldbaum and the Halamish brothers all shot at them with their rifles and beat them with their fists.

The issue of who was telling the truth was not a purely subjective question of whom to believe. When the police arrested the Halamish brothers, they also seized their rifles. The Halamish brothers had both denied ever shooting their rifles at the scene. Had the police wished to objectively weigh the credibility of the two sides, they could have conducted ballistic tests of the rifles to determine whether or not they had been used. But they did no such thing. Rather, they indicted Feldbaum and the Halamish brothers for aggravated assault and sent them to trial.

Feldbaum was found guilty based on his admission that he shot his rifle. He was sentenced to nine months in prison. His sentence was later reduced to six months community service by then president Moshe Katsav.

Given their denials of ever shooting their rifles, the Halamish brothers were convicted based on the Magistrate Court judge's decision to believe the Beduins' accusations and reject their defense. In his ruling, Judge Amnon Cohen did not take the police's decision not to conduct ballistic tests of their weapons into consideration. His convictions were upheld on appeal to the Jerusalem District Court. The Supreme Court refused to consider the case. Attorney Yoram Sheftel, who represented the brothers on appeal, focused his arguments on the police's refusal to conduct ballistic tests of their rifles. According to Sheftel, in standard criminal cases, police refusal to examine potentially exculpatory evidence is grounds for an automatic dismissal of charges. In convicting the Halamish brothers and upholding their convictions, Sheftel argues that the courts ignored standard criminal procedures.

Today, with the courts closed to them, the Halamishs' only hope for avoiding prison is a presidential pardon.

Supporters of the Halamish brothers have launched an interesting campaign to
lobby for clemency. They have asked for US citizens to call the office of
Israel's military attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington and demand
that the IDF advance their pardon requests with the Justice Ministry and
Beit Hanassi. Since the Halamish brothers were effectively acting as
soldiers while performing their security responsibilities, their supporters
contend that the IDF is honor-bound to defend them.

But the campaign doesn't stop there. Supporters have also asked US citizens
to contact their Congressmen and ask them to send inquiries about the case
to the embassy. Finally, they have asked US citizens to contact the State
Department and complain that the State Department's Human Rights report on
Israel is silent on the government's abuse of Jewish civil rights.

THE NOTION of running a campaign for an Israeli presidential pardon of
Israeli citizens in the US is alarming for what it says about the Halamish
supporters' perception of Israeli democracy. Specifically, as Datya Yitzhaki
from Pidyon Shevuim who has spearheaded the campaign argues, they believe
that domestic pressure will have no impact on either Israeli political
leaders or on the justice system because in their view the
Olmert-Livni-Barak government feels no need to account for its actions to
Israeli citizens. Indeed, they contend that the only force that can hold the
government and the legal system accountable is international pressure and
fear of international condemnation.

Organizations like Women in Green and Pidyon Shevuim who are running the
campaign cite as precedent the case of Tzvia Sariel. Sariel, 18, was
arrested last December on assault charges. She was accused of attacking
Arabs who entered her community of Eilon Moreh on December 4. Sariel was
incarcerated for three and a half months.

On March 5, the allegedly assaulted Arabs appeared in Kfar Saba Magistrate
Court and recanted their accusations against Sariel. One claimed that since
he is illiterate, he had no idea what he was signing when he signed his
complaint against her. Yet, despite the fact that the prosecution's case
fell apart in front of her, trial judge Nava Bechor ordered a continuance
until April 4 and sent Sariel back to prison for another month.

An outcry ensued and activists in the US began calling the embassy and the
State Department. On March 19, Bechor dismissed charges against Sariel and
sent her home. Her supporters believe that without their US campaign, Sariel
would still be sitting in prison for a crime that she didn't commit.

Depressingly, activists fighting against civil rights abuses of right-wing
opponents of government policies are probably on to something. Through their
own actions, Israel's leaders show daily that they are willing to ignore
strategic imperatives and their domestic political opponents. Their actions
show that indeed, the only pressure that seems to get them to change course
is international pressure.

Take Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for example. Since assuming office two
years ago, Livni has repeated at countless public appearances that Israel
supports a "two-state solution." By couching her government's support for
the establishment of a Palestinian state in these terms, Livni implicitly
(and often explicitly) argues that Israel - which has existed for 60 years
and whose legitimacy is rationally inarguable - can only exist legitimately
if a Palestinian state is established. By making this assertion Livni
effectively places Israel's right to exist on the negotiating table.

And yet, for his part, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has
repeatedly repudiated Israel's right to exist. By agreeing to negotiate the
"two-state solution" with a man who rejects Israel's right to exist, Livni,
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and their colleagues
are effectively saying that what reality exposes, and Israel's citizenry
supports, is irrelevant. The Palestinians alone can confer legitimacy on
Israel. And of course, as Abbas has made clear repeatedly, they never will.

In a speech this week to the foreign press corps, Olmert similarly
demonstrated that the only support he is interested in securing is foreign
support. During his remarks, Olmert claimed that he wishes to conduct
negotiations with the Syrian regime towards the surrender of the Golan
Heights to Syria. Olmert's statement came just days after President Shimon
Peres publicly opposed such negotiations on strategic grounds. In remarks
Sunday during a joint press appearance with visiting US Vice President
Richard Cheney, Peres explained that Israel has no interest in conducting
negotiations with Syria because, "If the Golan is given back, it will boost
Iran's influence in Lebanon and the territory will effectively be under
Iranian-Syrian control." But when he spoke approvingly of talks aimed at
surrendering the Golan Heights to Iranian-Syrian control, Olmert was not
concerned with strategic realities. He was similarly unconcerned with what
the Israeli public - which opposes such negotiations - believes is in
Israel's national interest.

When Olmert made that statement he was interested in what the international,
overwhelmingly anti-Israel media would think and write about him personally.
And so he went on record supporting an initiative that undercuts Israel's
national interests.

Finally, there is Barak's behavior in advance of Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice's arrival in Israel on Saturday night. When Rice was in
Israel on March 4, she pressured the Olmert-Livni-Barak government to
abandon efforts to secure southern Israel from Hamas's missile campaign in
favor of a cease-fire with the Iranian proxy movement. Eager to please her,
the government ordered IDF units to beat a speedy retreat from Gaza.

Today, although the government continues to restrain the IDF, the cease-fire
is a joke. Over the past two weeks alone, the Palestinians have launched
more than a hundred rockets and mortar shells at Israel. They have further
augmented their attacks with sniper fire against Israeli farmers tending
fields along the border with Gaza. Hamas is openly using the respite to
replenish its arsenals and expand its control over the lives of Gaza's
citizens. Moreover, unopposed by Israel, Hamas has succeeded in forcing
Egypt to release Hamas terror masters from jail, and has convinced Fatah to
negotiate the reestablishment of a unity government with Hamas.

Rice is expected to continue pressuring Israel to let Hamas continue to
attack at will. She is also expected to attack Olmert, Livni and Barak for
the IDF's counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria.

In an effort to preempt her assault, Barak announced this week that Israel
will allow the PA to import armored personnel carriers from Russia and
deploy hundreds of Fatah forces in terror-infested Jenin. He also agreed to
ease travel restrictions on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

Barak knows full well that these actions will imperil Israel's security. His
own people refer to the moves as "calculated risks." He knows full well that
opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu was right when he warned on Wednesday
that "those weapons will be turned against IDF soldiers." He knows that by
curbing counter-terror operations he will imperil Israeli civilians. But
here too, Israel's inherent right to self-defense and the government's
sovereign duty to secure the country and its citizens is ignored by the
government in order to win points with foreigners whose interests are far
from identical to Israel's.

THE HALAMISH brothers' supporters are not people who reject Israel's
legitimacy. They certainly would never deny its right to defend itself.
Indeed, they are among the most vocal opponents of foreign onslaughts
against Israel.

It is a sad commentary on the state of Israeli democracy that patriotic
Israelis have come to the disheartening view that their only chance of
receiving justice in Israel is to take their campaign to foreign
governments. By inducing them to feel this way, the Olmert-Livni-Barak
government is taking another step towards the delegitimization of Israeli
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Friday, March 28, 2008


which is


It is worth recounting—as depicted in the Muslim sources—the events that antedated Muhammad’s reputed poisoning at Khaybar*.

Muhammad’s failures or incomplete successes were consistently recompensed by murderous attacks on the Jews. The Muslim prophet-warrior developed a penchant for assassinating individual Jews, and destroying Jewish communities—by expropriation and expulsion (Banu Quaynuqa and Nadir), or massacring their men, and enslaving their women and children (Banu Qurayza). Just before subduing the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza and orchestrating the mass execution of their adult males, Muhammad invoked perhaps the most striking Koranic motif for the Jews debasement—he addressed these Jews, with hateful disparagement, as “You brothers of monkeys.” Subsequently, in the case of the Khaybar Jews, Muhammad had the male leadership killed, and plundered their riches. The terrorized Khaybar survivors—industrious Jewish farmers—became prototype subjugated dhimmis whose productivity was extracted by the Muslims as a form of permanent booty. (And according to the Muslim sources, even this tenuous vassalage was arbitrarily terminated within a decade of Muhammad’s death when Caliph Umar expelled the Jews of Khaybar.)

In Muhammad’s Spittin’ Image
By Andrew G. Bostom Friday, March 28, 2008
*These allegations are part of a central antisemitic motif in the Koran which decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews (Koran 2:61/ 3:112) for slaying the prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah. This motif is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78 which describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), or simply apes, (i.e. verses 2:65 and 7:166), having been “…cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). The related verse, 5:64, accuses the Jews—as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did in a January 2007 speech, citing Koran 5:64—of being “spreaders of war and corruption,” a sort of ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Koranic curse (verses 2:61/3:112) upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets, including Isa/Jesus (or at least his “body double” 4:157-4:158), is updated with perfect archetypal logic in the canonical hadith for example here, and here): following the Muslims’ initial conquest of the Jewish farming oasis of Khaybar, one of the vanquished Jewesses reportedly served Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), which resulted, ultimately, in his protracted, agonizing death. And Ibn Saad’s sira account maintains that Muhammad’s poisoning resulted from a well-coordinated Jewish conspiracy.

The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison. She [a Khaybar Jewess, Zaynab Bint al-Harith] poisoned the goat putting more poison in the forelegs…The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth...The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith [and]…handed her over to the heirs of Bishr Ibn al-Barra [who the Jewess had also poisoned, leading to his rapid death] who put her to death. This is the approved version …The Apostle of Allah lived after this three years, till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the poisoned morsel I took at Khaybar…
Obama's Secretary of Defense?

He has a long history of blaming Israel and America's Jews for the failure to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. He is co-chair of Obama's campaign and a military adviser to Obama. He has been mentioned as a possible Secretary of Defense if Obama wins the presidency. His name is General (ret) Tony McPeak.

Is Obama clueless when it comes to Israel and does he deliberately surround himself with anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic advisers?
Comments (1)

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The new Guardians of Israel

Hashomer Hayisraeli Hahadash

Our World: The new Guardians of Israel
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 24, 2008

Read it at IMRA - Independent Media Review Analysis -
Arab-American Activist Says Obama Hiding Anti-Israel Stance

Especially see Reply #2
Islamist terror apologist nominated as GOP in Colorado House District 6: bizarre!!

from ACT
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884Virginia Beach, VA 23456

comment by Jerry Gordon

We got an email from “Rona” in Denver with a chilling, bizarre story. A story that is a cautionary tale about how far radical leftist Islamists will go to enter the political process here in the US. This is occurring in a Colorado State House District No. 6 race in a predominately Jewish and Democratic district. Ms. Rima Barakat Sinclair has insinuated herself into the GOP nomination by a slim 25 to 23 votes. Barakat has used every trick in the taqiyya playbook and is on the steering committee of a national group called euphemistically, Muslims Intent on Learning and Action (MILA) with the objective of placing themselves in the political process. Barakat, according to the “View from a Height” blog by Joshua Scharf engages in artful dodging. Witness this comment:

Mrs. Barakat Sinclair is a local Muslim activist, who 1) works to discredit Israel and for its destruction, 2) has a stated goal of getting Muslims involved in the political process, and 3) builds alliances with mainline and liberal American churches, and leftist political organizations. When engaged in anti-Israel propaganda, she usually goes by Rima Barakat. When engaged in broader political work, she goes by Rima Sinclair, as she did at the Assembly.
When asked questions about terror, she responds with moral equivalence, and then proceeds to outright fabrications. In order to discredit MEMRI, practically the only English-language source covering Arab Friday sermons broadcast on state media, she magnifies small discrepancies into malicious conspiracies. She claimed, on air, that the Hamas Charter does not call for the destruction of Israel.

Watch her in this local Denver CBS interview during the Second Lebanon War in August 2006 calling Israel “babykillers”.

But look how she got started nationally:

Her activities may not always have been so benign towards America herself. She served as a translator for CNN during the opening weeks of the Iraq War, a time when American and British soldiers and Marines alike were disgusted by the network’s coverage (”A Front-Row Seat to the War in Iraq,” Rocky Mountain News - April 14, 2003).

The Democratic field in Colorado House District is ‘crowded’. So does that mean that Ms. Barakat could possibly cop the prize and thumb her nose at Jewish constituents if, incredibly, she wins? This could be ultimate Chutzpah. Stay tuned. Rona is right this is a story of national interest and illustrative of what the next wave of radical leftist Islamists in our midst will do to gain control over our political system.

Email from Rona:

Rima Barakat Sinclair is a leftist pro-Palestinian activist. By misrepresenting herself as a conservative, she won the REPUBLICAN nomination by 25-23 votes in a key Denver district, which has the largest per capita Jewish population in Colorado! She is pulling a Bloomberg, bypassing the crowded field of Democrat candidates by running as a Republican.

I think this story has much more than just local interest, at the very least from the point of view of Muslims using taqiyya as a strategy to gain influence from within the political system.
She is a member of the Steering Committee of MILA, Muslims Intent on Learning and Action, a group with the purpose of getting Muslims involved in the political process.

My concern is not that she will win the seat but that this is a real perversion of our democratic process. It’s not only that she is lying about her positions - that’d hardly be a first in politics - it’s that she is, IMO waging jihad dressed up as a Republican candidate.

Please read and help to spread this story by posting on your blog and/or circulating it, if you agree it’s an important story.

View from a Heights by Joshua Sharf, March 13, 2008

The Republicans in [Colorado] State House District 6 in Denver are about to make a terrible mistake.

At their Assembly on March 1, they nominated a terror apologist, and an avowed enemy of Israel, with no credible conservative credentials as their candidate to succeed Rep. Andrew Romanoff. Her name is Rima Barakat Sinclair.

Mrs. Barakat Sinclair is a local Muslim activist, who 1) works to discredit Israel and for its destruction, 2) has a stated goal of getting Muslims involved in the political process, and 3) builds alliances with mainline and liberal American churches, and leftist political organizations. When engaged in anti-Israel propaganda, she usually goes by Rima Barakat. When engaged in broader political work, she goes by Rima Sinclair, as she did at the Assembly.

When asked questions about terror, she responds with moral equivalence, and then proceeds to outright fabrications. In order to discredit MEMRI, practically the only English-language source covering Arab Friday sermons broadcast on state media, she magnifies small discrepancies into malicious conspiracies. She claimed, on air, that the Hamas Charter does not call for the destruction of Israel.

She doesn’t merely write. She acts. John and I asked her about MILA, Muslims Intent on Learning and Action, a group with the potentially laudable purpose of getting Muslims involved in the political process, on Backbone Radio on KNUS, December 3, 2006. Instead of simply answering that the group’s purpose was as stated, Mrs. Barakat Sinclair lied, claiming that she was only a member, who showed up to meetings, but otherwise had no position with the group. MILA’s own newsletter lists her as a member of the Steering Committee, in charge of PR. Typically a PR Chairman uses opportunities such as free radio to discuss her group’s activities, not to avoid doing so.

Her activities may not always have been so benign towards America herself. She served as a translator for CNN during the opening weeks of the Iraq War, a time when American and British soldiers and Marines alike were disgusted by the network’s coverage (”A Front-Row Seat to the War in Iraq,” Rocky Mountain News - April 14, 2003).

In order to get the nomination, she represented herself at the District Assembly as pro-life. However, she has been quoted publicly contradicting that, “Sinclair, too, shares concerns about homeland security. She also likes parts of the Democrats’ social platform. ‘I would like to have a president who is pro-choice,’ she says.”(”Colorado Muslims Aspire to Become a Political Force” - Rocky Mountain News - August 14, 2004)

In fact, a Google search for Mrs. Barakat Sinclair turns up no op-ed, letter to the editor, or press release, on any subject other than Israel or the Middle East. While it may be fine to have a cause, this monomaniacism seems to have precluded her from any public statements on issues likely to be of interest to Colorado voters in a state legislative election. There is simply no public evidence of a conservative mindset, however defined, or any evidence that she has thought deeply or even at all about such issues as education, immigration, water, health care, taxes, energy, regulation, or individual liberty.

The irony is that she probably could have gotten on the crowded Democratic ballot merely by being honest. On the Republican side, she had to travel in cognito.

This is going to be a difficult year for Republicans, especially Republicans running in heavily Democrat districts such as the 6th. We should have no illusions about the difficulty of capturing that seat. But we also shouldn’t write it off and hand our nomination to someone’s identity politics, who has misrepresented her true intentions.

Republicans deserve a candidate who has a coherent conservative philosophical grounding for his policy views. They deserve a candidate who has spent years thinking and writing about relevant issues and governing approaches. Republicans deserve a candidate who is in step with their party’s unwavering opposition to radical Islam and support of our democratic ally Israel.
Fortunately, the nomination is not yet set in stone, and there is still a chance to petition a more appropriate candidate onto the ballot.

Such a candidate would be able to help build party strength, keep it viable in a difficult season, promote ideas and philosophies we all care about, and perhaps even help in some small way the candidates for statewide and national office.

What we don’t need is a Barakat in Sinclair’s clothing.

Monday, March 24, 2008


Believe it

though he acts as if he were

who's that?

Clue: He is tainted with "Nation of Islam," "Louis Farrakhan, (Jew-Hater)," connection to "Palestinian' Arabs*, and sitting for 20 years listening to a preacher that is no friend to Jews, and now . . .

. . . it's . . . well, see

* Victor Davis Hanson: The Obama Crash and Burn

Thanks to Sheikh Yer'Mami's Winds of Jihad

* 2nd Obama-linked pastor under fire for racist talk:

Minister called U.S. mayors ’slave masters,’ blacks who protect white men ‘house n-ggers’

“The N-word is not in the African-American community a bad word. It’s a term of endearment. And I don’t see it as derogatory or defensive, offensive.”
That’s cool! Think I’m go get away with it bro?

By Aaron Klein

All the above from

About Winds Of Jihad (from whence comes the foregoing news) Click on it! It's worth your while!

What do other people think about Obama and the sermons at his church?

"There is a reporter who was at one of those ‘hate’ sermons with Obama was sitting in the church. He said Obama nodded his head in agreement to all that Wright said. To believe Obama now would be foolish. History is what we should look at. His actions of going to that church for 20 years speak volumes."
--Comment by dianeremarx at

Comment by Sara
March 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I find this whole thing sickening.
I find it odd that Senator McCain is forgiving of Senator Obama, saying “We all make mistakes”. But no one seemed to notice that Senator Obama is not asking for any forgiveness. In fact he’s completely unapologetic for his affiliation with such hate-mongering racists as Reverend Wright. In fact Mr. “do-no-wrong” Obama is so infallible, he has instead accused everyone else of not understanding the difference between “understandable anger” and “hatred”… Now we’re all supposed to feel guilty for questioning his judgment.

… I’m sorry, but I know “Hate” when I hear it; and Senator Obama has remarkably bad judgment

Comment by Andrew
March 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
There is no possible human way that a person would attend a church for TWENTY YEARS that had such a hateful bigoted message in nearly everything that was said unless they believed some of it… Obama was lying through his teeth when he denounced the remarks of his pastor… the pastor has been making those marks for the entire 20 years Obama has been attending the church… if he really disagreed with them, he would have left the church long, long ago…not denounced them once the media found out

From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Image from archives of Ali Abunimah)

Indebted for photo to Sheikh Yer'Mami's winds of Jihad

Joe Grey Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
>>”From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech.

Comment at




Sunday, March 23, 2008

Why Are American Jews So Anti-Gun?
By Eric King
Thu. Mar 20, 2008

Hawaiian Kane

Sent: 3/21/2008 8:39 PM to

Why Are American Jews So Anti-Gun?
By Eric King
Thu. Mar 20, 2008

With the Supreme Court opening this week the first extensive examination of the constitutional right to bear arms in nearly 70 years, now seems a pretty good time to ask a question that’s been perplexing me for nearly as long: Why is that American Jews are so overwhelmingly anti-gun?

I’ve been stumped by this communal aversion to firearms ever since I was a 6 year old, back in 1947. While flipping through old Life magazines one day in my grandparents’ living room in the Bronx, I came across photographs taken at the liberation of concentration camps. I saw the pictures of bodies stacked like cordwood, and was stunned.
"Mommy, why are all those people dead?" I asked.

My mother, a brilliant and subtle woman, thought for a moment and said, "The bad Germans called Nazis killed them." To which, of course, I asked, "Why did the Nazis kill them?"

"They killed them because they were Jews," she replied.

Although I was only 6 and not yet sure of my identity or its meaning, I asked, "We’re Jews, aren’t we?"

"Yes," answered my mother.

"Mommy," I asked, without missing a beat, "do you and Daddy have a gun so we can protect ourselves if the Nazis come for us?"

"This is America," my mother reassured me. "That can’t happen here."

All across America little Jewish boys and girls got the same answer, and pretty much all of them accepted it. That answer, though, didn’t satisfy me — and to this day I wonder how it is that Jews in America, despite no small amount of antisemitism, have so strongly devoted themselves to the belief that "it" couldn’t happen here.

During the 1960s I encountered Holocaust survivors who told me that just as American Jews felt secure from genocide, German Jews had felt similarly secure before the Nazis’ rise to power. The average Jew in Berlin during the mid-1920s would have thought you were crazy if you had said it was possible that within 20 years most European Jews would be systematically exterminated by the German government.

So that there is no misunderstanding, let me be completely clear: I have never felt, and do not now, that there is some imminent likelihood of genocide against Jews — or, for that matter, any other group — in America. I just never saw the wisdom of assuming that 50 years from now, or even 20, this couldn’t change.

I also never saw the wisdom in going out of my way to avoid protecting myself. Most of my fellow American Jews, though, have been doing just that — and what’s more, fighting to prevent others from arming themselves. As best as I can tell, this American Jewish aversion to firearms has its origins back in the Eastern Europe of yesteryear, where a centuries-long history of difficult experiences gave rise to what is best described as the "shtetl mentality."

A great many American Jews had great-grandparents who originally came from shtetls or ghettos in Europe. One of the major hazards of living in another people’s country was that occasionally a few Cossacks would get drunk, ride over to the nearest shtetl, rape a few women, maybe murder a man who protested rather than begging for his life, and then ride off into the sunset.

It had to be inescapably clear to these Jews that dozens of able-bodied and sober men would surely have been a match for eight or 10 drunk Cossacks. It would have been easy, even for Jews not trained in arms, to kill the Cossacks and bury them someplace.

It is obvious, though, why they did not: Had they had done so, swarms of Cossacks would have massacred every Jew in every shtetl within 100 versts. Defense was just not an option.

The women raped and the men murdered were seen as the price Jews paid for surviving as a people. Since no Jew likely considered the possibility that without some major provocation the Cossacks would someday try to kill them all, it seemed like a reasonable, if awful, compromise.

Such a compromise must have taken a devastating and horrific psychological toll on the people forced to make it. In order to maintain self-respect, people in such a condition had to explain it as the result of something that made them better than their oppressors. This was the notion that they voluntarily — rather than of necessity, as was actually the case — eschewed the use of weapons because they understood that violence was evil, while their tormentors did not. It was the key to survival, and to self-respect.

Today’s American Jews, despite being far removed from the shtetl, still carry this shtetl mentality with them, despite the fact that it has long since lost its utility. American Jews are overwhelmingly in favor of gun bans, and are disproportionately represented in the leadership positions of the movement to ban private ownership of firearms.
This shtetl mentality is tellingly absent among Israelis, and another look back at history helps explain why.

Many American Jews are the direct descendants of immigrants who left the ghettos and shtetls with the shtetl mentality intact and came to the United States between 1885 and 1925. They raised their children, who in turn raised their children, to believe that all weapons were wrong because all violence was wrong — even though the conditions in America were different, the horrible compromise of Europe was behind them, and their survival and self-respect no longer depended on a willingness to defenselessly sit by while members of the community were raped and murdered.

The Jews who remained in Europe, on the other hand, were confronted by the Holocaust. The ones who survived saw that the rules had changed, and many of them immigrated to Israel. They saw that not all violence was wrong, that violence could be used to preserve the Jewish people, and that the defensive use of weapons was necessary for the survival of the community.
The result has been a greater acceptance of individual use of weapons for personal defense.
Israelis, in short, have learned a lesson that far too few American Jews have yet to grasp: For Jews, the phrase "assault rifle" is a misnomer — the correct term, once the shtetl mentality has been transcended, is "Jewish defense rifle."

Eric King is a writer living in Berkeley, Calif.
Thu. Mar 20, 2008

Originally published at
Scroll down to read COMMENTS there!
Worth reading!
Here's a good one:
Maynard said:
I think that the problem goes deeper than the shtetl mentality. I really believe that Jews, as a group, have a suicidal-self genocidal tendancy. How else to explain things like the Jewish community in Minneapolis voting overwelmingly for Keith Ellison? Or the Jews who want to negotiate with Hamas? How does a group that wants to exterminate you compromise? Do they say OK, we won't kill you today but will tomorrow? Until we, as Jews, recognize that we have this problem, we will always face extermination that comes from internal actions rather than external.
Sat. Mar 22, 2008

Why Are American Jews So Anti-Gun?
Eric King Thu. Mar 20, 2008
With the Supreme Court opening this week the first extensive examination of the constitutional right to bear arms in nearly 70 years, now seems a pretty good time to ask a question that’s been perplexing me for nearly as long: Why is that American Jews are so overwhelmingly anti-gun?Read more

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Fitzgerald: How could anyone in his right mind not be on the side of Israel?

The Israelis, or a majority of them, know their true situation. It is their government, from which so many Israelis are now so obviously disaffected, that refuses to know. But that government is wrong. Soberly recognizing the permanent meaning, and menace, of Islam, and acting and planning accordingly, and helping or insisting that other countries, including the United States, recognize the real nature of the threat that Israel faces, is not a counsel of despair. Nor is helping those other countries, including the United States, to understand that the Jihad against Israel is a Lesser Jihad, one of many whose sum is the worldwide Jihad, a "struggle" by Muslims, using various instruments that go beyond, and are more effective, than terrorism, to remove all obstacles to the spread and then to the dominance of Islam.

Everywhere Islam must triumph. Everywhere, eventually, Muslims must rule. It may take a century, or two. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it never comes to be. What matters is the fact of the promptings, that will not go away unless the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira either disappear, or are modified, or interpreted away, or are received as texts from which one may pick and choose. Until then, the immutable and uncreated Qur'an remains, the literal Word of God, outside of history.
Continue reading "Fitzgerald: How could anyone in his right mind not be on the side of Israel?"

Posted by Hugh at 7:44 AM Comments

Monday, March 17, 2008

Poll of "Palestinians": want state with laws set by religion [Islam]

Monday, March 17, 2008

Public Perceptions Towards Liberal Values in Palestine

[Excerpts selected by IMRA*]

II. Main findings
...IV. Religion and the state

78% of respondents would prefer to live in a state governed by religion
rather than a secular state.

When asked what should be the main source of the law, giving as options
civil law, the Quran and the Sunna, and both at the same level, 51% answered
either both at the same level or civil law.
88% of respondents also rejected the idea that women should be able to
travel alone without permission from their nearest male relatives.

...When asked what country they would like Palestine to be modeled after,
respondents most commonly answered other Arab countries; 14% answered a European
country, and 4% the United States. A full 26% said no country.

71% are in favor of reconciliation between Arabs and Jews, with majorities
of all categories of respondents agreeing, except those supportive of Hamas, among
which only 44% agree.

Respondents are evenly divided on whether they could imagine a Jew as their
neighbor in the event that all settlers were to leave Palestine; only 42% could imagine
a Jew as a citizen of a Palestinian state.

How do you identify yourself?
A Palestinian first 29%
A Muslim first 41%
An Arab first 5%
A human being first 23%
Other 1%
Figure 24: In your opinion, what is the main cause behind religious
extremism in the oPt?
10% Poverty and unemployment
2% Fear of modernity
10% Influence of religious leaders (religious discours
19% Israeli occupation
14% The enmity the west has towards Islam
14% Low education
6% Moral decadence
10% Corruption
16% There is no religious extremism

Figure 26: Religion is the source of all laws
Totally reject (n=103) 7%
Reject (n=61) 4%
Neutral (n=116) 8%
Accept (n=203) 14%
Totally accept (n=1007) 68%

Figure 27: People are the source of all laws
Totally reject (n=162)11%
Reject (n=118)8%
Neutral (n=164)11%
Accept (n=264)18%
Totally accept (n=765)52%

Figure 33: Do you support or oppose that Christians be equal to Muslims in
all rights and
Support 91% Oppose 9%
Figure 35: Would you agree with the following: a Christian president?
Yes 33% No 67%
Figure 37: Selling alcohol to adults should be a private issue
Totally reject (n=989) 67%
Reject (n=113) 8%
Neutral (n=61) 4%
Accept (n=83) 6%
Totally accept (n=232) 16%

Figure 41: Women can travel alone without permission from
Totally reject 81% Reject 7%
Neutral 3%
Accept 3% Totally accept 5%

Figure 42: Would you agree with the following? a female president?
Yes 42% No 58%

Figure 48: Do you think that democracy is good for Palestine?
Definitely yes 47% probably yes 30%
Probably no 9% Definitely no 14%

Figure 50: Do you think that democracy will work in Palestine?
Definitely yes 20% probably yes 42%
Probably no 18% Definitely no 19%

Figure 52: Can European democracy be a model for Palestine?
Definitely yes 6% probably yes 22%
Probably no 24% Definitely no 48%

Figure 55: Who today in Palestine best represents liberal principles?
Fateh 27% Hamas 5% Other 8% Nobody 60%

Figure 58: Are you for reconciliation between Arabs and Jews?
Yes 71% No 29%

Figure 59: The best way to reach a settlement with Israel is through.
Military Means 23% Negotiations 56% Both 21%

Figure 60: Taking into consideration that there are all settlers are out of
Palestine, can you
imagine a Jew as a neighbour? Yes 50% No 50%

Figure 61: Taking into consideration that there are all settlers are out of
Palestine, can you
imagine a Jew as a Palestinian citizen? Yes 42% No 58%

Figure 62: Would you side with a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian even
if the Palestinian
was wrong?
Only if the non-Palestinian is right 34%
I will not interfere 11%
I will always side with the Palestinian regardless 54%

A survey commissioned by Friedrich Naumann Foundation - for Liberty in
cooperation with the Freedom Forum - Palestine
conducted by
Near East Consulting
January, 2008
Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty, the liberal German civic education
organization commissioned an opinion poll on "Liberal Values in the
Palestinian Society". This opinion poll was carried out by "Near East
Consulting", a renowned and highly qualified research institute based in

The survey was carried out from the 25th of September till the 18th of
October 2007. A total of 1608 (out of a total of 1900 calls) respondents
were selected in both regions.

*IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Saturday, March 15, 2008



. . . Barack Obama's candidacy is all the rage in the Arab Gulf states.

A friend from the Gulf tells me her young relative was so excited about the Democratic candidate that he tried to donate money over the Internet, as he'd heard so many young Americans were doing. Then he found out he had to be a U.S. citizen to do so. Another young woman, visiting from next-door Saudi Arabia, said that all her friends in Riyadh are “for Obama.” The symbolism of a major American presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein, who went to elementary school in Indonesia, certainly speaks to Muslims abroad.

That's an interesting way to make a point lost on most American commentators: Barack Obama's father was Muslim and therefore, according to Islamic law, so is the candidate. In spite of the Quranic verses explaining that there is no compulsion in religion, a Muslim child takes the religion of his or her father.

The point of course is not that Obama is really a Muslim, because in America he is whatever he says he is. American ideas about such things as choice, religion, freedom of expression – including the freedom to choose your own faith – are different from the rest of much of the world. For us, a man is whatever religion he wants to practice, or not practice. But for Muslims around the world, non-American Muslims at any rate, they can only ever see Barack Hussein Obama as a Muslim.

It's useful keeping in mind that difference between how Americans see our lives and our actions and how others see us, given that one of the chief conceits of the Obama campaign is that a president of his biological identity will redeem our reputation around the world after George Bush enflamed the better part of humanity by invading two Muslim countries.

Or, as as Fareed Zakaria put it:

We're moving into a very new world… For America to thrive, we will have to develop a much deeper, richer, more intuitive understanding of them and their peoples. There are many ways to attain this, but certainly being able to feel it in your bones is one powerful way.

Perhaps this is the only obvious strategy available to a presidential candidate whose Washington experience to date has afforded him little time to grasp the niceties of policy-making. And indeed there's already evidence that some Middle Easterners, or the people in whose part of the world the United States has expended vast human and material resources over the last six years, are not impressed with Obama.

Over at From Beirut to the Beltway, Abu Kais gives low scores to a recent Obama recent speech about Lebanon.

From Now Lebanon:

“Washington must rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans,” [Obama] added. He also said that the US must cooperate with its European and Arab allies to sponsor an inter-Lebanese consensus on a stable and democratic Lebanon.
To which Abu Kais replies:

What kind of diplomacy that has not been tried before by the “Europeans and Arab allies” will help Lebanon? I am not going to defend the Bush administration's policy in Lebanon. It may reek of “empty slogans” at times, but how does talking to criminals create solutions? And pray explain how supporting the Hariri tribunal, as Obama said he does, can be reconciled with chatting up the ones who killed him?

Continue reading at


His pastor is a virulent antisemite. He associates with and lauds Louis Farrakhan, the Nation-of-Islam leader who called Judaism a "gutter religion," and, along with the Obama Pastor Wright, visited Ghadaffi in Lybia.

Obama's Incredible Denial Concerning His Pastor

In settings where the preacher stays indefinitely, as at Trinity, the decision to join a church is typically more thoughtful and intentional, particularly where the preacher has a style that's noteworthy in content and delivery. That clearly fits the description of Pastor Wright. Obama has no choice but to associate himself with the content of Pastor Wright's sermons. They were the defining characteristic of that church. The Obama family picked it, and they've stayed for 20 years. It's their church, and any denial of that association is incredible.

Clarice Feldman

I still like my question - when does the reconciliation begin? Barack's wife is angry, his minister is foaming, yet we are supposed to elect Barack as Mr. Sunshine and Unity. Why aren't the people closest to him sunny and united?
I really can't imagine how he might justify bringing his kids to listen to that, and it doesn't explain why, over twenty years, he has not moved his minister towards a more reasonable position (or moved himself towards a more reasonable minister). But it is not awful spin.

"When does the Obama reconciliation begin?"
Clarice Feldman


“Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people. I hope for loosening up aid restrictions to the Palestinian people.” }} more…


Probably, it is a wishful thinking to expect liberal American Jews to abandon their ossified devotion to the Democratic Party and hold their noses while voting in 2008 election for the Republican John McCain, a strong supporter of Israel and the best defender of the Free World, which, like Israel, faces the threat of the radical Islam. Obama's mesmerizing, glib and meaningless protestations of support for Israel makes him Carter's copycat
Obama and Carter and Israel

By Roman Brackman

What Can I Do about the Crisis Facing Israel and the Jewish People?

What Can I Do about the Crisis Facing Israel and the Jewish People?

One very important thing that all of us can do is to counter the endless lies and distortions of Israel’s history and character that appear in the press, mass media, on the Internet, and even in scholarly journals. These distortions and outright falsehoods are a major reason why Israel is in such deep trouble, and in danger of “going under.” Because the entire world has been led to believe an inaccurate, grossly distorted “narrative” of the conflict, the government of Israel feels it has no choice but to make concessions to the demands of its enemies, in order to appease world opinion. But these concessions imperil Israel’s existence.

[italics mine. lw]


The Israelis are not colonialists or alien “settlers” in the Land of Israel with no past connection or relationship to the country; on the contrary, we Jews have lived in Israel for at least 3,200 years if not longer. This is far longer than most peoples have lived in their present national homelands. Our two glorious temples, wonders of the ancient world, were there for a thousand years. King David’s kingdom endured for more than 400 years; later, there was the independent Jewish state of the Maccabees. Jews had lived in the Land of Israel in large numbers for at least 1,800 years before the Arabs conquered it in 635 C.E. Moreover, while hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from their land or put to death in it by foreign conquerors, there have been at least some Jews living there almost continuously for 3,200 years.

There has never been a distinctive “Palestinian” Arab people or an Arab “Palestine” state or nation; while it is true that some Arabs have lived in the Land of Israel for many centuries, they have never been ethnically or culturally distinct or different from the Arabs who live in other lands, including the original Arab homeland, the Arabian Peninsula. The Jews, however, are a people who originated in the Land of Israel and never had any other national homeland.

During over a thousand years of Muslim rule, “Palestine” was rarely the name even of an administrative district, let alone a nation. Arabs referred to the entire land that now comprises Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the “occupied territories” as “al-Shams” (Syria), which they regarded as one country.

While the Land of Israel, also called “Palestine” by Romans and Europeans, was densely populated in ancient times, its population steadily declined during over 1,000 years of Muslim rule. In the 19th Century, Israel/Palestine was very thinly settled. There was very little agriculture, and extensive abandoned and uninhabited “waste” lands. Most of the population, such as it was, lived in dire poverty. Brigandage was such an established and accepted way of life that it was impossible to travel on the roads without the payment of large bribes to the leading men of each village along the way. The roads themselves were no more than unpaved footpaths. Villages fought wars with each other. Nomadic Bedouin tribes frequently raided villages and even larger towns. The inhabitants of the few larger towns (there were no real cities) had to cower behind thick walls and locked gates every night for security.

The Arab population of Israel/Palestine only began to grow in the late 19th and 20th centuries, at the same time that Jews began to resettle the land. Jewish immigrants brought with them modernized agriculture, including the growing of oranges, which had been previously unknown; a market for Arab agricultural goods; employment at Jewish farms and factories; modern hospitals and medicine that saved thousands of Arab lives; the draining of swamps that had caused thousands of deaths from malaria and other insect-born diseases; and vastly expanded Arab education funded by Jewish taxes.

The Arab population of Palestine has grown extensively, from under 500,000 in 1891 to over 3,600,000 today, partly because of increased life expectancy brought about by the economic and scientific progress introduced by Jewish immigrants/settlers, but also in part because of extensive immigration to Palestine from many Arab countries.

As a result, many of the Arabs who call themselves, or who are called by other Arabs “Palestinians,” have ancestors who originated in Egypt, Syria, what are now Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and other Arab countries. These Arab countries ought rightfully to give these “Palestinians” citizenship, but refuse to do so.

The Arabs, including and especially the Palestinian Arabs, , have been the aggressors throughout the nearly 100 years of the Arab-Israel conflict. This “one long war” began with the communal violence that convulsed Palestine between 1920 and 1948, even before Israel was founded.

Palestinian and other Arabs organized and carried out massive pogroms against the Jews of Palestine in 1920, 1921 and 1929, waged a sustained terrorist campaign against them from 1936 through 1939, and a full-scale Jihad against them in 1947-48. Thousands of Palestinian terrorist/guerillas, the regular armies of six Arab states, and “volunteers” from throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds all participated in this aggressive war. Before the 1947-48 Arab attack against the Palestinian/Israeli Jews there had been few if any displaced Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs were not innocent bystanders in the war that made them refugees. They initiated the war in which some, although not all, of them fled from parts of Israel in 1948. They killed over two thousand Jews in that war. The six invading Arab states killed over 4,300 more Jews.

The Israelis defended themselves as best they could against these unprovoked attacks. But they did not expel the Palestinian Arabs. Many Arab leaders as well as ordinary Palestinian Arabs have admitted that Arab leaders urged the Arabs living in Palestine to flee, promising them that Arab armies would soon defeat the Jews and allow them to return to their homes. Despite this bad advice, many Palestinian Arabs never left Israel, and became Israeli citizens, with full rights of citizenship. Today there are over one million Arab citizens and residents of Israel - more than there were in 1947, before Israel was established.

Following this first major Arab-Israel war, the Arab states induced the United Nations to keep the Palestinian Arabs refugees and their descendants in “refugee camps” (actually segregated towns) for generations. All of the Arab states except Jordan denied the Palestinian Arabs citizenship and equal rights. Arab governments and the refugee camp administrations taught the Palestinians that it was their Arab duty to wage war against Israel in order to gain back the homes in what is now Israel where (some) of their ancestors had lived before 1948. This segregation and indoctrination of the Palestinian refugees, as well as their descendants to the third, fourth and all later generations, is the true origin of Palestinian terrorism, not Israeli “oppression” or “occupation.”

Also following the Arab-Israel war of 1947-49, the Arab nations refused to sign peace treaties with Israel, sponsored Palestinian Arab terrorist raids into Israel in which hundreds of Israelis were killed, and waged war by economic boycott and propaganda as well. Last but not least, Egypt waged war by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and in the Gulf of Aqaba (also called the Gulf of Eilat by Israelis). These acts of war severely damaged the Israeli economy in addition to causing widespread loss of life and injury to Israel’s citizens.

Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks on, and raids into, Israel have been continuous since 1949. Whatever reprisal raids and counterterrorist operations Israel has conducted over these years against the Palestinian terrorists have been reluctant responses to aggression against Israeli civilians and soldiers–not deliberate attacks on Arab civilians, as Arab spokesman and much of the press in the West have misrepresented them.

Israel only “occupied” the so-called “occupied territories” in 1967 as a necessary act of self-defense, in response to a whole series of acts of aggression by the Arab world: two and a half years of Palestinian Arab terrorist raids sponsored by Syria; decades of Syrian shelling of Israeli border villages from artillery positions on the Golan Heights, the forced removal of United Nations peacekeepers from the Sinai by Egypt’s President Nasser: a reinstatement of the Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba: the mobilization of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies along Israel’s three borders, and public declarations of war on Israel by Egypt’s Nasser, the government of Syria and other Arab regimes. Israel “occupied” these territories only as a means of forestalling the publicly proclaimed, imminent Arab invasion, and to stop the Jordanian shelling of Israeli Jerusalem. This Jordanian barrage had killed 17 Israelis and wounded many more before Israel moved to occupy the “West Bank,” (more accurately known as Judea and Samaria).

Israel has now withdrawn from 90% of the territories that it occupied in 1967, including all of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza region, large parts of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”), and part of the Golan Heights. But these very substantial concessions have failed to persuade the Arab world to make peace with Israel.

All of the other Arab-Israeli wars were also initiated or heavily provoked by Arab states, usually working in tandem with the Palestinian Arab terrorist groups whom they sponsored. Egypt forced a war with Israel in 1956 by sponsoring Palestinian terrorist raids deep into Israeli territory for more than two years, and by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an unprovoked surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur (the timing was surely no coincidence). Israel invaded Lebanon in 1981 only after years of Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks originating in that country; Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, but was forced in 2006 to deal with renewed terrorist attacks into its territory from Lebanon -this time, by a Lebanese, not a Palestinian, terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Israel quickly withdrew from Lebanon again following a ceasefire.

Jewish settlements established since 1967 outside the pre-Six Day War ceasefire lines are not “illegal.” The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, issued in 1922 with the unanimous support of the League member states and with the additional support of the United States (although it was not a member of the League), requires that the administration of Palestine “shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes” (article 6). The International Court of Justice has ruled in a similar case (that of Southwest Africa) that the Mandate documents issued by the League of Nations remain international law, even though the League itself was disbanded in 1946, and its responsibilities transferred to the United Nations. The UN Charter(Article 80) states that the “rights of peoples” in the League of Nations Mandate documents remain in force, as well as the documents themselves.

The Israel “occupation” of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is also legal according to international law, for three reasons: 1) Israel only occupied these territories in a defensive war; 2) her enemies continue to wage an aggressive war of terror from these territories, requiring a continued Israel military presence in them for self-defense. 3) Israel has a better title to these territories than any other nation, since the League of Nations Mandate document for Palestine, which has never been rescinded, specifies that the administration of these territories “shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,” The British Mandatory power ceased when the State of Israel was born but the rights of the Jewish people to the land remain intact, since they are a “sacred trust of civilization,” as defined by the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 22. These permanent rights are enshrined in the Trusteeship Chapter of the UN Charter [Chapter XII, Art. 80]

There are many, many additional salient facts about the conflict that supporters of Israel should learn in order to combat the campaign of defamation and slander waged against her throughout the world. Here we have had space only to summarize a few of the most important points. But learning even these few important facts makes a useful start for those who wish to be activists in correcting the lies and distortions about Israel’s history and character. They make important “talking points” for responding to these lies and distortions, whether in the mass media, on the Internet, at lectures and public meetings, or in private conversations.

We need to remember Benjamin Franklin’s observation during the American Revolution: “if we don’t hang together, then most assuredly we shall hang separately.” We Americans, whether Jewish, Christian and even Muslim, cannot separate our own freedom and security from that of Israel.

John Landau contributed to this article.

[Bold emphasis mine. —ed (of ]

# #

Contributing Editor Rachel Neuwirth is an internationally recognized political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy. She is president of .

from and thanks to

First posted by papundits on March 14, 2008


Because so many of us have lost faith in the righteousness of our own struggle for survival, and have accepted the lies of our enemies, the government and people of Israel have been increasingly yielding to the demands of our enemies and false friends without even putting up a struggle. In order to survive, we must win a victory over the sickness of our enemies; but before we can do that, we must heal ourselves.

For some Jews, their psychological sickness has progressed to the point of outright identification with the enemies of our people, and active participation in their ideological, propaganda and political assault on us. These Jews have actively taken sides with the enemy, at least on the level of ideology, communications and propaganda -- perhaps in the belief that "if you can't beat them, join them." These Jews constitute an internal Jewish fifth column that threatens us more severely than all our external enemies combined. The anti-Israel and anti-Jewish Jews among us are like a dagger pointed directly at the heart of Israel and the Jewish people.

Thousands of Jewish journalists, academics, filmmakers, artists and "intellectuals" in the United States, Canada, Europe, and within Israel itself have actively participated in the campaign of vilification and lies against Israel. There is even a "minyan" of Jewish reporters working for the notorious al-Qaeda mouthpiece al-Jazeera. These Jewish haters of Zion have a greater impact and credibility than any other group of anti-Israel propagandists. Who, after all, would believe that Jews would lie about their own people and institutions? And their impact is greatest on their fellow Jews, of course; they have sapped the will of Israelis to resist the demands of their enemies, and the will of the American and other Diaspora Jews to stand behind Israel, by persuading them that Israel 's cause is not just.

On The Present Danger Facing Israel And All Jews
By Rachel Neuwirth
from American Thinker

Friday, March 14, 2008

Jerusalem Post editorial slams US for treating settlement activity like terror

A skewed process
Editorial - THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 13, 2008
Received via

Israel is reportedly bracing for a "skewed" report from Lt.-Gen. William Fraser on Israeli and Palestinian implementation of their road map obligations. What is likely "skewed," however, is not just one report, but the whole US approach to achieving Arab-Israeli peace.

Since the government recently announced it would expand a settlement inside the security barrier near Jerusalem, Israel expects to be criticized in the Fraser report.

Meanwhile, though the Palestinian leadership in Gaza has been openly orchestrating the bombardment of Israeli cities, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is not being held responsible for this, so US criticism of the Palestinians is expected to be muted.

The micro problem with this approach is that there is no symmetry between settlements and terrorism, on either the moral or strategic levels. It is a moral travesty that building homes is compared to murdering innocents. But even if settlement expansion can be seen as problematic, it makes little sense to treat all settlements equally, as if there were no difference between expanding existing towns that are contiguous with Israel and inside the security barrier, and settlements situated amidst the Palestinian population.

While the US seems to pretend that there is no line between "good" and "bad" settlements, a clear distinction should be made between settlements that are entirely consistent with a two-state solution and those designed to block such an eventuality.

But all this is trivial compared to the macro problem, which is that the US makes no distinction between the respective distances Israel and the Palestinians are from making the two-state approach work, and instead looks for ways to criticize both sides no matter what, in an attempt to appear "evenhanded."

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the Israeli public and political system have moved dramatically from a consensus that a Palestinian state would be an anathema, to an equally broad consensus that regards it as acceptable, even a necessity. At the same time, the Palestinians have if anything become more radicalized since 1993, and have not begun to prepare themselves for a two-state approach, let alone embrace it.

The lack of movement on the Palestinian side is illustrated not just by the complete rejection of Israel by Hamas, but by the nonexistence of a Palestinian peace camp that accepts Israel's basic legitimacy. While Yasser Arafat, and now Mahmoud Abbas, claimed to have accepted Israel's "right to exist," both continued to champion the "right of return," an obvious back-door method to achieve Israel's destruction.

Almost no Palestinian will accept that the Jewish people have any national or historical rights to a state alongside Palestine; almost no Israeli will reject the right of Palestinians to build a peaceful and democratic state alongside Israel. This gargantuan gap is what prevents peace.

Pretending that Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the lack of peace is not just misleading and unfair, it is actively harmful to the cause of peace, because it lets those who are obstructing peace off the hook. Nor is this "skewing" limited to the Israeli-Palestinian sphere.

Another major impediment to peace is the free ride given to the non-radical Arab states. These states are considered to be doing their part because they are not directly helping Hamas (though much of Hamas's funding comes from these countries, and Egypt refuses to stop the weapons flow to Gaza), and because they have a standing offer to make peace once Israel has settled with the Palestinians.

The Arab stance that they are patiently waiting for peace, however, should not wash. These states could, if they led the way rather than insisted on following, quickly tip the current Palestinian trend from radicalization to moderation.

The non-radical Arab states do not lift a finger to encourage and exemplify normalization with Israel partly because the international community - including Israel - does not demand it of them, and does not blame them for perpetuating the conflict. The other reason these states do not help is because they are afraid that Iran will succeed in becoming a nuclear power, and that in such a world it would be very dangerous to take a step that seems to support the US or Israel.
In short, while the US is busy counting outposts and settlements, and acting as if Israel is holding up the works, the real obstacles to peace lie elsewhere. So long as these real obstacles do not become the focus of Western policy, the "peace process" will continue to be a dismal failure.


Although the term "Palestinian" was bestowed on a "non-people," a collection of Arabs, most of them from places other than the "Mandate of Palestine," prior to 1948, it was used to designate the Jews living in the Mandate of Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel.

In the mid-1960s, the Arab and Moslem world, eager to have a reason to destroy Israel, started to refer to the Arabs occupying the territories re-captured from Jordan and Egypt as "the Palestinian people."

It is a "people" without a history, unless you are foolish enough to validate their claim--these Arabs mostly from Syria, Iraq, Egypt--of descent from the extinct "Philistines"--a non-semitic people though to have originated in the Greek isles.

They, the self-dubbed "Palestinians," even refer to themselvs as "Falasteens," in an attempt to validate their descent from these "sea people"--the pleshti (Heb.)

--Leslie White
That Unpleasant Affair On Camus Street

by Hugh Fitzgerald (Jan. 2008)


Raymond. A, a 17-year-old Jewish man, who wears a skullcap, was waiting on Shabbat for someone to open the door of the building where he lives, on the rue Albert Camus, when around twenty young people described as being of North African and Black origin attacked him violently at the face and the body after pronouncing his name.

One of the aggressors, Raymond reported, was a red-haired man who did not cease swearing on the Koran while beating his victim. --from this news article

The police will have to step up patrols in neighborhoods known to be Jewish, and to guard Jewish sites. They will more and more have to guard Christian churches, from those intent on vandalizing the statuary (as happened to a statue of the Virgin and Christ in a church in northern France) and paintings -- not only because of their Christian imagery but simply because they are paintings.

How much money does the French state spend now in protecting non-Muslim sites? How much will it have to spend in the future? How much money does the French state spend now on the free education, free health care (and obstetrical care), free or subsidized housing, for the millions of Muslim immigrants who fiddle the system for everything it is worth, and more, and whose male children spend their days vandalizing the property of non-Muslims (the usual thousand cars a day, or in moments of heightened tension, the figure goes up to many thousands)? How much damage is done to the educational system, once the pride of France, the product of careful thought by nineteenth-century pedagogues (every little town has a "Jules-Ferry" school, to honor the most famous one), because undisciplined and even violent Muslim students intimidate not only non-Muslim French students, but the teachers too, refusing to read about, inter alia, Voltaire, French Kings, the Holocaust, World War II, or anything that they think is purely a matter for Infidels, or might evoke sympathy for Jews, or might be associated with anti-Islamic attitudes (Voltaire is disliked because of his play "Mahomet"). How much has life in France been degraded, by the fact of large-scale Muslim immigration?

And what intelligent Frenchman, today, would or could disagree with the observation that:

The large-scale presence of Muslims in European countries has led to a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for its Infidel indigenous inhabitants (and for non-indigenous immigrants who are not Muslims) than would be the case without such a large-scale presence?

Only those who are psychically marginal, that is on the maddened Far Left and on the antisemitic Far Right (their obsession with Jews prevents them from recognizing, or caring, about the threat from Islam) would disagree with that statement.

All others will agree -- some readily, and some, still, most reluctantly. But they will agree.

And so will those in Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. But the councils -- and counsels -- of the ruling elites will continue to pretend otherwise. For if they did not do so, they would have to do two things:

First, they would have to admit that those same elites had made a terrible error during the past thirty years, when they allowed in so many Muslim immigrants, without adequately informing themselves -- the warnings were there, in France as elsewhere, from Western scholars of Islam, such as Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, and from such well-known intellectuals as Jacques Ellul -- on the unexamined theory that these were merely "economic immigrants" like any others, that they would either be Gastarbeiter (those Turks who were all going to move back to Turkey from Germany) or, in any case, would simply become upstanding loyal citizens, and their children and grandchildren too, to the Infidel nation-state, to its legal and political institutions, to its ideas about human freedom and individual autonomy. That has happened, but only among those who have either jettisoned Islam (sometimes openly, sometimes quietly) altogether, or -- not quite sure of themselves, and with the possibility open that they, or their descendants, may "get religion" once again -- have become "cultural Muslims" (a way of saying: I don't believe the religious stuff,, but I continue to identify with, and thus may even inadvertently promote, the "civilization of Islam") or "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, again with the same problem, that the laic father, if he doesn't make a clean break as an apostate, may give rise to a reverting-to-full-fledged-Islam son.

Second, those same elites would have now to realize that they have a permanent and terrible problem on their hands. And they are trying not to do that, because they don't have any idea even as to how to begin to talk about this properly, or to lead those whom they presume to protect and instruct to see things rightly.

How, after all, since it is those elites -- political and media elites -- that have done the damage to those people they now must help to inform, and since those elites do not know how to start talking about the kind of measures, other than those of securing the sites most likely to be subject to Muslim attack, and to monitoring and interrupting the plots of Muslim terrorists (which is a gigantic effort, involving many man-hours of police, lawyers, judges), and cannot face the matter of Da'wa, or ending Muslim immigration, or removing all Muslim non-citizens without necessarily going after other non-citizens (an intelligent, but to some hard to explain selective enforcement), and making it impossible for outside Muslims to pay for mosques, madrasas, and campaigns of Da'wa (seizing money that comes from Saudis abroad if the Al-Saud fail to stop the practice), and finally, discussing rationally the rational behavior of the Czech government when it attempted, in 1946, to remove forever from its midst the security threat posed to it, as the evidence from 1938-1945 demonstrated, by three million Sudeten Germans, resulting in the Benes Decree that, at the very least, offers an example of a liberal, tolerant, wise democracy, led by two cultivated and civilized European statesmen, Benes and Masaryk, doing what they had to do to protect their own people, their own nation, their own way of life.

Consider the costs of mosques. Mosques in Iraq have been sites where forces gather to fire on American soldiers. They have been weapons depots. They have been repositories for explosives used in roadside bombings. Not once, not a hundred times, but thousands of times.

In the "Palestinian"-occupied territories, mosques fulfill the same function. They are also places to which "Palestinians" have run when being pursued by Israelis.

In Bangladesh, mosques have been natural centers of anti-Hindu agitation, and one can find on-line the pictures of a hapless Hindu pleading for his life, as he is beaten to death by Muslim worshippers apparently whipped up by a particularly effective imam in a particularly bloodthirsty khutba.

In Italy, in France, in Great Britain, in Germany, the police and other security services have found mosques with false ceilings, in which counterfeit passports and other useful documents have been found. They have found guns, grenades, devices for making explosives. All of this -- in mosques.

Why shouldn't mosques be under surveillance? Why shouldn't every last khutba be taped? Why shouldn't there be agents taping those who attend those mosques where it is discovered that certain things are said, or done, when mosques have such a record as this? There is no distinction in Islam between religion and politics. Islam is all-encompassing. Infidels must stop being mesmerized by the word "religion" and understand this.

Of course, one need not require a mosque to be whipped up to want to kill a passing Infidel. One need not need a mosque in which to plot or plan. One need not have a mosque in which to hide false papers and weapons. Of course not. So monitoring mosques, or demanding that madrasas show what they teach (what happened to the demand for the textbooks, and syllabi used, in that Saudi Academy near Washington, D.C.?), is only part of what must be done.

The disruption to any conceivable achieved or achievable social cohesion or harmony, when adherents of Islam, are present in large numbers, is great and is permanent. For how, in Infidel lands, without undoing ultimately our own legal and political institutions, and abandoning the solicitousness for individual rights, can we deal with, possibly adjust to, since they have no intention of adjusting Islam to accommodate anyone else, those who are taught to believe in the right of Islam to dominate everywhere, and of their duty to ensure that that comes about, by removing all barriers to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam, are present in large numbers, and allowed to demand, and receive, even from the security services, outward shows of appeasement and accommodation? Islam was created to rule. It is the faith of conquerors, and it justifies and promotes conquest by them. Islam was designed not to be one among many faiths, not merely to hold out the promise of a surer path to some Paradise than that provided by other faiths, but to prevail, so that its writ may run everywhere on the earth, so that everywhere Islam dominates, and Muslims rule everywhere. The fact that some clever propaganda of the "I Am A Muslim" type appears on YouTube, designed to convince the unwary that Muslims are just the all-American boy next door -- carefully left out is any discussion of what is in the head of that boy-next-door, of what Islam inculcates and what he presumably believes, or that it is right for us to assume he believes, from what the texts provide, and what the tenets derived from those texts, and the attitudes derived from those tenets, tell him to believe, cause him to believe, should cause Infidels to be more rather than less wary.

Islam can be likened to a permanently un-immiscible liquid. It cannot mix with Non-Islam, anywhere, without bad results for the Non-Muslims. There are 1350 years of history to demonstrate that. Even now, with Muslims constituting 1% of the population (and half of those being non-orthodox "Black Muslims") there are textbook publishers who have rewritten history, and state school boards that have not only accepted but demanded such a rewriting to placate Muslims, and as the already ignorant American young are presented with a deliberately false view of Islam and of Islamic conquest, the understanding necessary to withstand Islam's propagandists, and the rich profusion of what they offer -- the distraction, irrelevancies, the gobbledygook, the nonsense, and especially, the lies, lies, lies -- will have its effect.

And the cost of dealing with all this? Or, to bring this article back to where it began, the cost of monitoring mosques and madrasas? The cost of guarding every airport, train and bus station, the cost in man-hours for every Infidel to show up an extra hour early, the security rigmarole, the guards at Christian and Jewish schools or churches or synagogues, the cost of guarding speakers, the extra cost now of guarding bridges, and roads, and government buildings, and historic sites, all of them conceivable targets for Muslims who, as all Muslims are instructed to, wish to further the goals of Jihad, but choose, unlike their “peaceful” brethren who do so through Da'wa and demographic conquest, but do so using the instrument of violence. The cost of guarding non-Muslims, all over the Western world, their houses of worship, their schools, their means of transportation, keeps going up. And the cost of monitoring Muslims, their mosques, their madrasas, their stores and meeting-places, keeps going up.

What is the cost of this? One writer estimates that every additional Muslim in this country costs $100,000 a year, every year, to the taxpayers -- the Infidel taxpayers. Suppose his figure is off? So what? There is some considerable amount, we all know, that everywhere in the Western world has to be spent, and will have to be spent in larger and larger amounts, merely to monitor the Muslim population. That is because of what is believed by that population, what, that is, is to be found in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

Is it impossible for Infidels to take this in? And is it impossible for them to then construct an immigration policy that, taking that into account, will no longer make the great privilege of living in their own lands, lands whose art, whose science, whose political and legal structure, are all flatly contradicted by Islam, no longer available to those who, in calling themselves Muslims, tell us that we are justified in assuming, when they so call themselves, that they believe in what is contained in the texts, texts that we are free to investigate for ourselves, and discover their -- for us, for our future -- permanent and disturbing significance.

The elites in the Western world do not impress. They failed, they are still failing, to recognize the urgency of anthropogenic global warming. They failed, they are still failing, to recognize the collapse of public education, one not to be rectified by such making-a-silk-purse-out-of-a-sow's-ears efforts such as that "no-child-left-behind" program that merely makes the best students into a persecuted minority, doomed to be kept back by the leveling tendencies apparent everywhere in American society (except, of course, when it comes to money, and then as far as differences go, the sky's the limit).

The day of recognition, the day that fateful anagnorisis comes, is being delayed by those elites. They prate. Sarkozy prates about "integration" and "government-funded mosques." Blair used to prate about "extremists" who "hijacked a peaceful religion" which he, Tony Blair, found truly inspirational (he kept a Qur'an in his pocket). They prate about this, they prate about that.

And so do our Presidential candidates. They prate and they blather. Meanwhile, Islam marches on.

To comment on this article, please click here.

To help New English Review continue to publish informative and thought provoking articles such as this one, please click here.

If you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Hugh Fitzgerald, click here.
Hugh Fitzgerald contributes regularly to The Iconoclast, our Community Blog. Click here to see all his contributions, on which comments are welcome.

Hugh Fitzgerald's Articles at New English Review: