Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tags: caliphate, West Bank, Islam
Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) supporters calling for a worldwide Islamic state have marched through Gaza for the first time.
About 3,000 demonstrators waved black flags and shouted slogans calling for a global Islamic government Thursday.
Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to establish a caliphate that would govern the world according to Islamic law. The group is banned in several countries, including Russia, Germany and some Arab states.
The group says it uses nonviolent means but is seen as ideologically close to Jihadist groups.
The group's activities are outlawed in the West Bank. This week, 20 group members were arrested in the West Bank city of Hebron.
The members of Hizb ut-Tahrir oppose the Islamic Hamas, which rules Gaza.
Hizb ut-Tahrir was established in 1952, in then-Jordanian-controlled Jerusalem, by Sharia court judge Taqi al-Din al Nabhani, from the village of Ijzim, near Haifa. The party's goal is the reestablishment of an Islamic caliphate to govern the whole Muslim world under Islamic law - and eventually to bring the entire world under Islamic rule. The caliphate, a title that had been claimed by Ottoman sultans since the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate, was formally abolished by Turkey's founding father Kemal Ataturk in 1924.
In its half-century of existence, Hizb ut-Tahrir has developed into an international Islamist organization known to be active in 45 countries. It has particularly active branches in Indonesia and Uzbekistan, and has made inroads into the Pakistani community in the United Kingdom.
Its branches do not maintain an armed, insurgent wing. But the movement also does not stand in elections. Rather, Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to agitate and educate, gaining supporters for the idea of restoring the caliphate. The intention is to leave violent action - such as the destruction of Israel, which the party supports - to the conventional armed forces of the restored caliphate.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Senator Barak Obama has come a long way since René Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who famously said, “cogito ergo sum”—“I think, therefore I am.” With Obama, cogito ergo sum has metamorphosed into videor ergo sum, “I am being seen, therefore I am.”
To be fair, however, Senator Obama is simply riding the waves of what I call “Photo-Op Democracy.”—let’s call it “POP Democracy.”
POP Democracy makes nonsense of the “rule of the people.” Of course, one might say the people no longer think, and that this is what makes Obama the media’s presidential candidate.
But it’s not enough for Obama to be seen; he must also be heard. He must utter such mindless slogans as CHANGE or YES WE CAN! Such slogans appeal to youth. They arouse their hormones or overcome their boredom or discontent with humdrum reality. The immature can plug anything they want into CHANGE and YES WE CAN without a moment’s thought about history, about statecraft, about political reality or about Islamic imperialism. Just wish, just hope, just dream—and presto! That’s it kids, that’s all that’s necessary in this spinning world of make-believe.
Yes, Obama is becoming a spin artist. POP Democracy is also “SPIN Democracy.” For example, to make himself appear as a realist vis-à-vis a Iran, he dithers about “tough” negotiations, or “carrot-and-stick” diplomacy with Tehran. Obama is clueless about the revolution that has taken place in that clerical regime, whose mullahs had children walk over and explode mine fields during Iran’s bloody war with Iraq.
SPIN Democracy inevitably producers mindless politicians. After meeting President Shimon Peres, Senator Obama said: “He’s gorgeous!” Mrs. Peres must have felt the same way when Shimon courted her by reading passages from Marx’s Das Capital! Perhaps Obama would say, after meeting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “He’s charming!”
But again, let’s be fair: Didn’t President George W. Bush refer to Islam as a “religion of peace” after 9/11? Is it any wonder that 9/11 has become meaningless in America? Did the President ever think of educating the American people (and the media) about Islamic imperialism or about the war Iran has been waging against the U.S, since 1979?
Still, it’s shocking that a Muslim (according to Islamic law) may become America’s next president. Who will then be seen, and who will then be heard? And what will happen to those who say Cogito Ergo Sum?
Subject: Paul Eidelberg gets IT!!!
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:16:22 -0400
[This is important--for Israelis as well as Americans
I listened to Paul Eidelberg on your July 28th show and he's saying everything that I've been telling people for a year now. Obama is DANGEROUS, Professor Eidelberg hit it when he said who Obama will put into his cabinet when he becomes President. I've been thinking that for the last year, most idiots over here have NO CLUE who these people are that Obama will place in his cabinet. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS, not only to us here but, to ISRAEL AS WELL. Obama talks in code, Professor Eidelberg is right on when he says that Obama uses "change" as an inocuous phrase, but in fact, those of us that are students of history know that this is anything but harmless. If you listen to this guy he's always offering something to people in other words "elect me I'll give you something" that is socialism my friends and how it rises to power. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Musolini did it, now Obama is doing it. Thank GOD for Professor Eidelberg a man that is not AFRAID to say it like it is. He thinks a civil war is coming and so do I, I told you when I wrote you about Corsi, that short of taking up arms against these elitists nothing can be done to stop their socialist agenda from taking hold. This must be the same atmosphere that preceded the French Revolution in France. For those of us in tune with what's going on we all feel something brewing under the surface, but unfortunately most people are MORONS and can't see what's happening. They're buying into Obama's dangerous rhetoric, and following blindly to their demise. I have a plan on what I will do when the Obama government comes knocking on my door, most idiots on the other hand have no clue what's going on. The media over here is just an arm of the socialist agenda that Obama is pushing for. Pravda comes to mind as to how this media over here has become. Professor Eidelberg is right on about Iran too, how can one negotiate with animals that have openly said they want to kill you? Answer, you can't. Israel will have to go it alone I think to stop the new Hitler in Iran. Obama will not help Israel, this is a man who would not even visit our troops in Germany when he was there, he hates the military and hates Israel:--don't be fooled like these phony jews over here in the states have been. The irony is that Obama wants to placate Ahmadinejad and the "jews" over here think that's ok, it amazes me that they really don't seem to give a damn about Israel whether it lives or dies. These liberal jews are phony, like John Stewart or Seinfeld that make fun of their heritage to make money. Rather sickening.
[color emphasis mine. lw]
Read the Paul Eidelberg broadcast transcript at http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-and-new-american-revolution.html
Read about the Coming Civil War at http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2008/01/civil-disobedience-or-civil-war-why-we.html
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
[This] Golden Oldie is from ten years ago this month. July 1998.
Saying that Israel is judged by a double standard is a waste of time. We know it. They know it. So in this cartoon I tried to wring a wry laugh out of the unfair and ugly situation.
A classic goal of much of Jewish Humor.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Many of the rulers believed that religious unity was important and Catholics were intermittently persecuted. Eventually the rulers became Christian and Latin became the official language. Emperor Herclius commanded Jew to accept Christianity within a year or leave. Jews had became numerous, Hadrian had transplanted 50,000 Jewish families to the peninsula. Some 90,000 converted and the remainder were severely persecuted.
LESSER KNOWN HIGHLIGHTS OF JEWISH INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE COMMON ERA
ANTI-SEMITISM: MEDIEVAL TO RENAISSANCE EUROPE
Much confusion reigns among many Jews, especially in Israel, concerning Senator Barack Obama, should he become America’s next president.
Obama-watchers are worried about is Middle East advisers. Prominent among them is Professor Bzigniev Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. Brzezinski helped orchestrate the fall of America’s ally, the Shah of Iran and the ascendancy of the Ayatollah Khomeini, whose Islamic revolution now threatens Israel and the West.
There is something insidious about Brzezinski—a clue to what underlies Senator Obama’s ascendancy in the Democratic Party. Brzezinski, like George Soros, a billionaire who backed both Obama and Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries, is a globalist opposed to the sovereignty of the nation state. This attitude conflicts with Judaism, but not with Islam, and sheds light on Brzezinski’s notorious anti-Israel record, a record bordering on Jew-hatred.
That Senator Obama includes among his advisers former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, reputedly an orthodox Jew, is hardly reassuring. Kurtzer not only advocates a Palestinian state with eastern Jerusalem as its capital. He is serving a politician who recently told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that he advocates a contiguous Palestinian state, hence one connected with Gaza. This would destroy the geographic continuity of the Jewish state and fatally undermine its security.
Also mentioned among Obama’s advisers is former Secretary of State James Baker, a transparent anti-Semite, who, together with ex-congressman Lee Hamilton, formed the Iraqi Study Group. These political geniuses would have us believe that negotiations can persuade Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to halt Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. As proud Americans, they ignore Ahmadinejad’s stated objective of a world without America—and of course without Israel—hence a world without Christianity and Judaism.
Senator Obama has adopted this see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, and speak-no-evil policy, except that he would qualify the word “negotiations” with the adjective “tough.” He seems to believe that the word “tough” will make him appear as a hard-liner, rather than another muddle-headed Jimmy Carter.
Obama’s Middle East advisers, like Obama himself, lack the intellectual integrity or moral courage to face up to the enormity of evil entrenched in Tehran—an evil rooted in Islam itself, as Dr. Wafa Sultan of Syria and Lebanese-born Brigitte Gabriel have emphasized. You do not negotiate with Muslims committed to your destruction. What is there to negotiate about—the date or manner of your destruction?
In any event, Obama’s choice of advisers must also be understood in terms of domestic politics, and American politics has new levels of significance. Let’s begin on the surface.
Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries because he outflanked her on the left side of the political spectrum. Of course, he also cultivated a reputation of opposing the war in Iraq, and this multiplied the number of youth that supported his candidacy. Since he was opposed to the war, he had to choose Middle East advisers persons opposed to a preemptive U.S. attack on Iran as the way to stop its development of its nuclear weapons program. But any pundit sees this. Let us therefore examine a second level of the Obama phenomenon.
Everyone knows, by now, that Senator Obama is a glib speaker. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that his slogan of CHANGE is vacuous: he does not articulate a set of basic political principles, nor does he have a well-known record of legislative accomplishments from which one might deduce his basic convictions. Although his voting record in the Senate stamps him a leftist, he strikes many people as an enigmatic phenomenon, which can attract as well as repel.
His 20-year attendance at the church of Jeremiah Wright—an anti-American pastor and unabashed Jew-hater—is suggestive, but his campaign for the presidency has compelled him to equivocate about his guru and then reject him. Obama is nothing if not an ambitious politician whose first priority is to be elected. Nothing new here; but that he should have so long admired an anti-American pastor leads me to the heart of the matter, and this goes beyond Obama.
Pundits fail to explore the significance of a very simple fact: a vote for Obama is also a vote for the Democratic Party. Unless one understands the revolutionary change that has taken place in the Democratic Party, one will not understand the Obama phenomenon. That revolution involves both domestic and foreign policy.
Of course, domestic politics will be Obama’s primary concern if he wants a second term in the White House. Even if he should ignore the soft approach of his Middle East advisers on Iran, a hard policy would be trumped by his need to win congressional support for his domestic program, and that means the program of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party has long been committed to Big Government, hence big bureaucracy, welfare state subsidies, high taxation, weakened private sector and diminished entrepreneurial energy.
But today’s Democratic Party is also committed to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism requires America’s retreat from national sovereignty on the one hand, and from superpower status in world affairs on the other. This agrees with Obama’s trite presidential campaign slogan, CHANGE. Now let us illustrate the political revolution that has taken place in America by means of a very new Democratic Party headed by Barack Obama.
It will be sufficient for this purpose to examine how the House of Representatives voted on a bill concerning Islamic Jihad, a bill that conveys the ideological nature of the conflict between America and Islamic terrorism.
On May 8, 2008, Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan attempted to add an amendment on the “terror lexicon” of a House committee bill on intelligence funding (House Resolution 5959).
Hoekstra’s amendment condemned efforts by the State Department, the National Counter Terrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security to recommend a “terror lexicon” that prohibits use of words such as “Jihad,” “jihadist,” “Islamist,” “mujahadeen,” “caliphate,” etc.
On July 16, 2008, the bill was presented to the full House of Representatives for debate and adoption, including Congressman Hoekstra’s amendment. The amendment stated that: “None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases ‘jihadist’, ‘jihad’, ‘Islamo-fascism’, ‘caliphate’, ‘Islamist’, or ‘Islamic terrorist’ by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government.”
The amendment passed by the margin of 249-180 (with 10 abstentions). All of the 180 Representatives that voted against Hoekstra’s amendment are Democrats!
This suggests that these Democrats have been tainted by moral or cultural relativism. Relativism not only undermines a strong sense of national pride and identity; it also conduces to a soft and non–judgmental attitude toward acts of Islamic terrorism. Moral relativism saps moral outrage and dulls memory even of the monstrous deeds perpetrated by Muslim terrorists: the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan; the suicide bombing of Jewish school buses in Jerusalem. Even 9/11 is going down the memory tube, judging from the votes of 180 Democrats.
Relativism corrupts the mind, eviscerates patriotism. For the first time in American history, the Democratic Party vilified America’s Commander-in-Chief while the country was at war. Democrats were thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy, were thus prima facie guilty of treason.
Radical leftwing Democrats will ride on the coattails of Senator Obama in the November 2008 elections. In addition to their powerful influence on domestic policy, they will persist in a policy of appeasement of Islam, a policy that endangers Israel’s existence. Moreover, since Obama has said he will pull American troops out of Iraq within 16 months—an invitation for Iran to move in—I fear that the next Congress, if controlled by the Democrats, will legislate America’s defeat in Iraq and its virtual surrender to Islam.
What also needs to be emphasized, however, is that an insidious political revolution is taking place in America, a revolution pursued under Obama’s seemingly innocuous slogan of CHANGE. That change may well be nothing less than regime change—a change that will eventually terminate American civilization. I say this with two developments in mind: the economic ascendancy of a nuclear-armed China and the resurgence of Russian imperialism, undermining the U.S. by supplying Iran with S-300 long-range anti-aircraft missiles to thwart any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
And so, awing presidency may undo the American Revolution of 1776. At stake is the Judeo-Christian heritage underlying that magnificent Revolution.
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel Nation Radio, July 28, 2008.
Friday, July 25, 2008
“Ehud Olmert -- The Perfect Role Model for the Israeli Left”
A thoroughly-incompetent failure
Willingly led our country into disaster
Caused national suffering, loss, destruction, and death
Completely useless and derelict in all duties
Corrupt, unprincipled and self-serving
Totally irresponsible and answerable to nobody
Manipulative and deceitful
Sadistically persecuted our nation's patriots
Shamelessly betrays our nation and people
Sells our country out to foreign interests
Treasonously fraternizes with terrorists
A demoralizing defeatist and appeaser
Gives aid and comfort to our enemies
Compromises our country's security and puts us in grave personal danger
Arrogantly refuses to accept any blame or consequence
Eager to repeat past follies and catastrophes on a larger scale
-- but despite all these grievous crimes and shortcomings...
Impossible to remove from power!
Makes you wonder whether Israel is in fact a democracy—something Prof. Paul Eidelberg — a graduate of the University of Chicago — has shown to be a myth.
[color emphasis mine. lw]
Thursday, July 24, 2008
A reader's comment at IsraelJustice.com re what is happening in Israel:
"From reading the headlines I begin to believe Israel is not a jewish state, at least not one where jewish citizen all have the same rights. Maybe it is time to follow the Solomon example, two states Israel and Judea one for jews and one for Olmert "
Thursday, July 24, 2008
TRIAL OF DISSIDENT LEADS TO ARMY CLOSURE OF JEWISH COMMUNITY
Date added: 7/24/2008
KFAR SABA -- Police prosecutors in the trial of Rivka Meirchik, languishing for a fourth month in jail, have used the case to prove Arab land ownership of the Jewish community of Shvut Ami despite the ruling by Kfar Saba Magistrate Clara Rejiniano that the indictment does not include trespassing.
In the latest development, the army reportedly fenced off the area of Shvut Ami in mid-July and declared it a closed military zone. Eye witnesses told Israeljustice.com that signs outside the fence read "Private Property," and "Closed Military Zone." Eyewitnesses also said that the army had burnt all the furnishings of the house and the synagogue belonging to the Jewish residents.
Police prosecutor Nili Dayan brought witnesses during Meirchik's trial to prove that Shvut Ami belongs to Badria Amar, who testified that neither she nor her family have lived in the structure on the land for four decades. She also testfied that they had not tended the land, include olive and pomegranate trees, for more than 11 years.
Amar is the complainant against Meirchik, who was arrested by the police on April 2 in Shvut Ami. But Amar testified that she last visited the land in October 2007.
"She's [Amar] the complainant," Dayan said on July 9. "We're talking about land that is not registered. In order to prove trespassing, we need to prove ownership and the physical presence [of Amar] or not does not affect this. I don't want it to come to that [to a Supreme Court hearing on ownership]."
During the trial, the prosecution tried to prove Amar's ownership of the land with Jordanian maps dated to the early 1930's and Jordanian possession tax documents presented by an expert witness from the military prosecutor's office, Rinat Levine.
"I have no complaints [against Meirchik]," Amar said in cross-examination. "If there's a trial, why do I need complaints?"
The defense has said that the prosecution used the trial of Ms. Meirchik to set a precedent to indict Jews living in Shvut Ami for trespassing.
"They took this complainant [Amar] and tried to wrap her in this incident that she knew nothing about," Public Defender Aliza Kashkash, said. "All her complaints to the authorities were previous complaints [against other people]."
"Find a way to bring all these people to trial," Kashkash told Dayan.
Dayan responded that she was using Ms. Meirchik's trial to pave the way for multiple indictments.
"This is exactly the way," Dayan said.
Police have also charged Meirchik with assaulting a police officer and disturbing the police after officers ordered Meirchik and four other young women to leave Shvut Ami.
Police Commander Shmuel Hirshler testified that he announced to the girls that this was a closed military zone and that they were in violation of a military order. But Kashkash said that the order was invalid because it was dated Feb. 21 and the fact that it was not presented to the girls.
"At any stage, they never presented the order and there's a problem with this because of the date," Kashkash said. "So it [the eviction] was illegal."
The prosecution concurred that there were problems with the legality of the eviction order.
"That's why we didn't indict on violating the order," Dayan said.
With regard to the assault charges, Kashkash said that the police officers gave conflicting testimony as to where and how the alleged assault occurred.
Ms. Meirchik is also charged with refusing to cooperate with police identification procedures including fingerprinting and photographing.
"The defendant chose not to testify, to remain silent and to ignore the authority of the court for ideological reasons," Kashkash said. "This must be taken into account."
Ms. Meirchik, who refused to cooperate with police conditions for her release and is being held until the conclusion of judicial proceedings, has already spent close to four months in the Neve Tirza prison, most of it in solitary confinement.
The next hearing is scheduled for August 6.
MORE ISRAELI INSANITY . . .
Defense Attorney Dov Even Or has petitioned the Supreme Court against President Shimon Peres for failing to respond to a pardon application for two Jewish security guards. The brothers, Dan and Yitzhak Halamish, are serving seven and eight months sentences for shooting in the air to disperse a group of Bedouins who camped and threatened them near their community of Maalei Rehavam. On July 23, the army declared the former Shedma Israeli army camp a closed military zone to Jews. A small group of Jews who arrived at the camp in the Judean desert, located close to the road that... Read More
Another reader's comment at IsraelJustice.com re what is happening in Israel:
"Olmert's daughter (& her fellow travelers) is permitted her reign of left wing terror by harassing soldiers and coddling terrorists.
"In the land of Israel this is considered ideologically appropriate behavior. However, Nadia Matar is dragged into court for 'insulting' a public offical. Why? Because she is on the 'wrong' ideological side of the spectrum.
"This type of appeasement behavior is par for the course for a regime which lets loose on the public captured ! terrorists, and pardons ! scores of others.
"In the topsy turvy world which passes for Israeli leadership only one of two outcomes are possible. Either Nadia and her supporters will win, or the leadership will win. If the leadership comes out on top, rest assured it will be a victory for our enemies, and then we can all say goodbye to what is left of our Jewish homeland. We will have no one to blame but ourselves if we do not stop them."
And another . . .
"In regard to the current report involving the police's failure to investigate properly the alleged shots fired at Beduin trespassers in Judea & Samaria, this is par for the course.
"There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence whereby Jewish rights in Judea & Samaria are non existent.This is no accident.There are orders from the political elite to make the lives of Jews in the heartland ! of our homeland as miserable as possible.
"It is not an understatement to suggest that the supposed Jewish police forces act as protectors of the Arabs, and as harassers of the Jews.
"The current situation is absolutely intolerable. It will come to a point-and soon- that the nationalist Jews will take the law into their own hands. Could any sane and rational person blame them if this happens? Certainly not me! "
And a couple more . . .
"I thank the person who, via his weekly newsletter to his family & friends, mentioned your site and got me interested in it. I am currently working with several "ideological/political" prisoners (Daniel Pinner, Shmuel Zetham, a few of the 21 expelled from Judea and Samaria, etc.), trying to raise funds for them and their families, publicize their cases, arrange for jail visitations, etc. Most of these prisoners are in jail for reasons other than their protests against the expulsion (e.g., arrested for illegal gun possession but getting the third degree because of where they live). I would be glad to send you some material on some of these prisoners that I have been posting on various lists, if you request.
Y'shar Koach, your site presents a much-needed service to the Jews of Israel and outside of it!"
"This site caught my eye because of its simple name and mission - Israel Justice. What has been missing in Israel since the disaster of the Oslo Accords has been pure justice for Jewish nationalists and their interests. Anyone who stands up for Jewish rights in our homeland is eventually hunted down for 'ideological' crimes. The laundry list of those persecuted is growing by the day.
"The authorities have become pathological in their hatred of nationalist Jews, (religious & secular) and this hatred culminated in the destruction of 23 ! Jewish communities and thousands of lives, all in order to please our most implacable foes. The brutality at Amona soon followed. The slippery slope appears unstoppable, or not.
"Therefore, nothing is more imperative now for Israel's survival as a Jewish state, not as an Israeli state, than for justice to me meted out to those seeking to undermine Jewish rights in Israel.
"I am doing all I can to effectuate these goals in a myriad of ways. Enough said."
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
U.S. Generals assigned to see to it.
What chance do you-all give to "security between Israel and 'the future Palestinian state?'"
I give it as much of a chance as that of Islam becoming a peaceful, all-accepting and tolerant ideology.
That is, nil, zero, none.
Therefore, the following is an exercise in futility.
'US generals in Israel in turf battle'
Jul. 23, 2008
YAAKOV KATZ and HERB KEINON , THE JERUSALEM POST
A report expected to be released by the United States security coordinator to Israel will reveal a turf war going on between two American generals sent by the State Department to the region, Israeli defense officials said Wednesday.
Author of the report Gen. (ret.) James Jones was appointed security envoy to Israel and the Palestinian Authority by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following the Annapolis Conference in November.
While earlier media reports have claimed that the document will slam Israel for its policies in the territories, Israeli defense and diplomatic officials told The Jerusalem Post this week that the report would instead reflect the tension between Jones and another American security envoy operating in the region - Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton.
The US currently has three generals here doing three different tasks, a situation that Israeli diplomatic officials have said naturally invited a degree of tension and "turf battles."
The first general is Lt.-Gen. William Frazier, who is charged with the operational task of prodding both the Palestinians and the Israelis to fulfill their road map obligations.
The second is Dayton, whose job can be described as one of "applied logistics." He has been described as the "force provider," the individual charged with training and equipping the Palestinian forces so that they are capable of carrying out security duties.
Then there is Jones, whose role is of a more strategic nature. He is mandated with analyzing what both Israel and the Palestinian's security needs will be when a Palestinian state is formed.
"There is tension between Jones and Dayton," a senior defense official told the Post. "The report needs to be looked at as part of an American domestic power struggle and is less about Israel and its policies in the territories."
Since his appointment less than a year ago, Jones has made several visits to Israel and met with all of the senior Israeli defense officials, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak, head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau Amos Gilad, OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yosef Mishlav.
IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, currently in the US, met with Jones in Washington on Tuesday.
According to the defense official, the report would focus on the failure to establish an effective PA security apparatus and as a result likely conclude that the chances of reaching a peace deal with the Palestinians by the end of 2008 were slim.
"The report will have more criticism for the diplomatic echelon in Israel and the US," said another security official who recently met with Jones. "It will also criticize Dayton since the report will conclude that law-enforcement institutions - which Dayton was supposed to help create - do not really exist."
Israeli diplomatic sources said they did not know when Jones would issue his report, but they did not get the impression during a meeting with him 10 days ago that the report would be particularly critical of Israel.
The thrust of the report, the officials said, would be to define the future security relationship between Israel and a future Palestinian state, and what would be needed both for Israel and the new Palestinian state's security needs.
1. gen. keith dayton's record
as the american in charge of training fatah's men in gaza, gen. keith dayton was responsible for supplying them with over 15,000 rifles, that were taken, without a shot being fired, by hamas. if a private soldier loses just ONE rifle, he faces a court martial, so what effect did the loss of gaza and 15,000 rifles have on gen. dayton's military career? and why is he now in charge of training and equipping more fatah fighters, with even heavier weapons, to "strengthen" ramallah? who will "face the music" when those are also turned against israeli civilians?
tom - canada (07/24/2008 04:20)
read it all at
Copyright 1995- 2008 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
The so-called "friendship" between the United States and Israel is a "Demand and Comply" relationship, where the U.S. State department demands and expects Israel to comply to satisfy the U.s.'s Moslem-Arab clients.
We are well aware of the Bush administration's love-feast with the Saudis and its preference for them and Egypt at the expense of Israel.
An Obama presidency would be worse.
State Dept. complaints irk Israeli officials
By Barak Ravid
Senior officials in the U.S. State Department, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have repeatedly complained to Israel recently over relatively minor Palestinian issues that it would have ignored until a few months ago, Israeli officials say. Complaints about settlement construction or army operations that kill Palestinian civilians have always been the norm. But Israeli officials are worried by the State Department's new tendency to intervene in a much broader range of issues.
One such case occurred two weeks ago, when the daughter of Palestinian parliamentarian Hanan Ashrawi sought to visit Israel. At one time, she had lived in East Jerusalem and had permanent resident status, but after several years of living in the United States, her residency had lapsed.
She therefore asked the State Department to intervene, which resulted in Israel giving her a laissez-passer to come here and arrange her status. However, she was warned at Ben-Gurion Airport that she had two weeks to do so.
Via her mother, a personal friend of Rice, the younger Ashrawi complained to the State Department again over this dictum. Within minutes, Israeli sources said, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch had phoned senior Israeli officials to demand they intervene. The surprised Israelis responded that these procedures are required by law.
Another case was Washington's demand that 10 Gazan Fulbright scholars be allowed to enter Israel for visa interviews at the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem. However, Israel refused, saying they had been blacklisted for security reasons.
Rice personally intervened. In addition, an Israeli official said, the consulate leaked the story to the New York Times to embarrass Israel.
Israel suggested that the interviews be conducted at the Erez border crossing with Gaza, and Washington eventually agreed. Now, the students are waiting for the consulate to approve their visas.
Yet another case involved an eviction order issued to an East Jerusalem family over nonpayment of rent. Officials from the U.S. consulate visited the family and sent a telegram to Washington, and the State Department demanded that Israel prevent the eviction. The stunned Israelis responded that the eviction had been upheld by the High Court of Justice. Moreover, they said, this was an internal affair.
A senior Israeli official said that the person behind this growing American criticism is the U.S. consul in Jerusalem, Jacob Wallace. "Every week, he receives dozens of complaints from Palestinians and transfers them to Washington without examination," the official said. "He's really inflaming the atmosphere, causing public relations damage to Israel and even may damage our relations with the U.S."
An embassy spokesman responded that the embassy considers its relationship with the Foreign Ministry "excellent."
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Click on the above
. . . and be sure to read the COMMENTS following the article for the majority opinions regarding Arabs as "Israeli-Arabs" and the cowardly Olmert government of Israel so willing to sacrifice Jewish lives to please the "nations*."
*The accursed "Quartet"--not the people of the "Quartet" nations, but their governments and most of all the so-called "United Nations," the UN.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Mideast: Lebanon honors a thug who likes to smash the skulls of 4-year-old children, Israel appeases the terrorist group it pledged to destroy and the heirs of Masada are now willing to trade live terrorists for dead Israelis.
Napoleon is credited with the line, "If you say you're going to take Vienna, take Vienna." Halfhearted or inept efforts to defeat your enemies will come back to bite you, as will attempts to appease those who would destroy you.
Freed Lebanese prisoner Samir Kantar greets the crowd on his arrival from an Israeli prison last Wednesday as Hezbollah prepared to receive the bodies of 200 soldiers during an exchange of prisoners with Israel in Naqoura, Lebanon.
Israel returned five Lebanese prisoners and the bodies of 200 Lebanese and Palestinian fighters in return for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers.
Last Wednesday, Israel received the corpses of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, two Israeli soldiers whose capture by Hezbollah in 2006 prompted Israel's 34-day war against the terrorist group in which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledged Hezbollah's demise.
Instead of ending the threat on Israel's northern border and aiding Lebanese democracy, the Israeli defeat allowed Hezbollah to reinforce its claim of being the only armed Arab force capable of standing up to Israel.
Since then, Hezbollah has leveraged its success into de facto control of the Lebanese nation, rearming beyond its prewar levels.
Just as U.N. Resolution 1559 failed to disarm Hezbollah's militia, U.N. Resolution 1701 has failed to keep Hezbollah from rearming.
Earlier this month, an Israeli security cabinet meeting heard three hours of briefings from Military Intelligence, Mossad and General Security Services officials that Hezbollah now has 40,000 short- and medium-range missiles stockpiled just north of Lebanon's Litani River.
Olmert said the swap "will bring an end to this painful episode." But it will only lead to more pain as an emboldened Hezbollah plots its next move on behalf of its Iranian masters. Israel's enemies know it need not keep Israeli hostages alive for fear of retribution.
Among the terrorists freed by Israel was Samir Kuntar, who was serving multiple life terms for a 1979 attack in which the then 16-year-old came ashore near Nahariya, a town along Israel's coast, with three other terrorists. Among the victims of the raid was a 4-year-old girl whose skull Kuntar crushed against a rock with his rifle butt.
Equally repulsive was the hero's welcome that Kuntar received in Lebanon. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Fuad Saniora greeted Kuntar at the airport, with Suleiman, the Hezbollah-approved compromise candidate for president, calling him and four other terrorists released by Israel "the freed heroes."
Kuntar did not grow remorseful in Israel's custody. Dressed in military fatigues, one of his first stops was the grave site of another terrorist, the infamous Imad Mughniyeh, killed by a car bomb in neighboring Syria. Kuntar, giving a Nazi salute, pledged:
"We swear to God . . . to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that Allah bestowed on you."
Mughniyeh was among those indicted in the U.S. for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a U.S. Navy diver was killed. Robert Stethem was brutally beaten, murdered and dumped on an airport tarmac in Beirut.
Before 9/11, Mughniyeh was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any living person, starting with the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, killing 63 people. Six months later, he was the mastermind behind the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans.
This spectacle shows just how far the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon has slid into the abyss since the Cedar Revolution showed such promise in 2005 after the assassination by Syrian operatives of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Millions took to the streets to demand Syrian withdrawal of its occupying army.
Today, child-killers have flowers strewn in their path.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
By Agence France Presse (AFP) Monday, July 21, 2008
via Jihad Watch
AMMAN: King Abdullah II was urged on Sunday to pardon a Jordanian soldier who is serving a life sentence for killing seven Israeli schoolgirls in 1997. "After around 12 years in prison, Ahmad Dakamseh deserves your majesty's special pardon," a group of 70 Islamists, unionists, lawyers, human rights activists and former officials said in a signed letter to the king. In March 1997, Dakamseh fired an automatic weapon at a group of Israeli schoolgirls as they visited Baqura, a scenic peninsula on the Jordan River near the Israeli border, killing seven and wounded five others as well as a teacher. "Following the recent release of Arab prisoners, we hope to see Dakamseh free again," they said, referring to Israel's prisoner swap with Lebanon's Hizbullah last week. The signatories Islamic Action Front secretary general Zaki Bani Rsheid, former prime minister and intelligence department director Ahmad Obeidat, Jordan Bar Association head Saleh Armouti, and Hani Dahleh, president of the Arab Human Rights Organization. "The current political stage requires a policy that would make people happy and ease their socio-economic and political pressures. Pardoning Dakamseh will have a great effect on people," the letter said. - AFP
COMMENT: Not holding murderers in prison would deprive the Moslem Arabs of using them as bargaining chips for kidnapped and murdered Jewish soldiers. So, what should be done with the murderers found guilty of murdering Jews--if prison is not the best remedy?
(The last question is meant to be rhetorical. If you cannot come up with a suitable answer, ask me via a Comment to this post.) lw
Equating what happened to the Jews of Europe with the "noxious non-people" the so-called "Palestinians."
Ship sponsored in part by Carter Center to challenge Israeli blockade of Gaza Port
from IMRA - Independent Media Review and AnalysisWebsite: http://www.imra.org.il/
"According to Holocaust survivor and crew member Hedy Epstein, in the event that they can get through to Gaza they will 'open the port, fish with the fishermen, help in the clinics, and work in the schools.'
"What Epstein hopes to do on this journey is to 'remind the world that we will not stand by and watch 1.5 million people suffer death by starvation and disease.'"
"' . . . we will not stand by and watch 1.5 million people suffer death by starvation and disease.'"
Equating what happened to the Jews of Europe with the "non-nation and a loathsome people*" the so-called "Palestinians."
The Jews of Europe never did to their persecutors what the Hamas Gaza murderers did to the Jews of Israel.
*Paul Eidelberg http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2007/12/no-palestinian-state-debkafile-bush.html
"Free Gaza" initiative to try and enter Gaza by sea and open port
from MAAN NEWS AGENCY
Date: 19 / 07 / 2008 Time: 14:58
Bethlehem – Ma'an – A small shipping vessel will set sail for Gaza from Cyprus on 5 August expecting to be illegally detained as it enters Gazan waters.
The waters off the Gaza Strip are patrolled by Israeli naval vessels, and Israel enforces a "Fishing Limit" that is 6 nautical miles (11.1 km) from the Gaza shore. These restrictions on access and borders are enforced despite the 2005 Israeli "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip.
There will be 60 people aboard the "Free Gaza" vessel including a Holocaust survivor a survivor of the Palestinian Nakba, and members of the international Palestinian diaspora.
The crew intends to travel into the Gaza strip, past the international waters boundary, the 1996 Oslo accords boundary (20 nautical miles from the Gaza coast), the 2002 Bertini agreement boundary (12 nautical miles and 22.2 km from the Gaza coast) and the current "Fishing Limit" imposed by the Israeli navy since October 2006.
Legally, the group says there should be no problem passing each of these lines since Israel disengaged from the Gaza strip in 2005 and should no longer its control airspace and territorial waters.
The initiative hopes to draw attention to the continued de facto occupation of Gaza. In an interview with Ma'an on Saturday, a spokesperson for the group in Israel said that the crew expects to be stopped by the Israeli navy shortly after they cross from international waters into Gazan territorial waters, which according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, extend 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from an area's shoreline.
While Israel has not signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, they did sign the Bertini Agreement in August 2002 with the UN, which stated that Gazan territory extended the full 12 nautical miles from the shore.
In June 2005, Israel unilaterally "disengaged" from Gaza and withdrew all troops to the 1967 borders. In theory, Gazans control the entire Strip, excluding approximately 650 meters along the eastern border which is called a buffer and "no go" zone.
The trip organizers think one of four things will happen to the ship: it may be stopped as it crosses or approaches the barrier marking the international waters boundary, in which case the crew is prepared to stay on board for at least two weeks in protest of the illegal halt of passage. The second possibility envisioned by the organizers is that the ship will be allowed to pass into the area, and will be stopped in the territorial waters. In this eventuality the crew expects to be arrested, and the ship dragged to shore.
A third possibility is that the ship will be sunk by the navy.
The final option is that the ship actually makes it through to the Gaza port near Gaza City in the north of the Strip.
According to Holocaust survivor and crew member Hedy Epstein, in the event that they can get through to Gaza they will "open the port, fish with the fishermen, help in the clinics, and work in the schools."
What Epstein hopes to do on this journey is to "remind the world that we will not stand by and watch 1.5 million people suffer death by starvation and disease."
Coordinator of the Popular Committee Against the Siege, Palestinian Legislative Council member and lawyer Jamal Al-Khudari said that he hopes the arrival of the ship in Gaza will mean an end to the siege. He emphasized that the ship has a right to enter the local waters and Gazans have the right to host their guests without Israeli intervention.
Opening a port in Gaza would allow residents to export agricultural products, and gain control over the goods and material brought into the region. Currently, all crossing points are controlled by Israel and Egypt. The truce between Hamas and Israel was supposed to see the blockade and restriction on essential goods lifted, but food, medical supplies, cement and fuel are still only trickling in.
The ship was invited to Gaza by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Medical Relief Society, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, and support for the initiative was provided in part from Carter Center in the US and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Israel is at war with a cunning, determined, and ruthless foe—Islam. It would be bad enough if Israel’s ruling elites were merely cretins and cravens, but they are also traitors to Judaism. Hence I call them evil.
To betray Judaism is to betray the ethics Israel bestowed on mankind, and not only ethics, but also monotheism, the ultimate source of Western civilization., of philosophy and science. Nietzsche knew whereof he spoke when he said: “Wherever the Jews have attained to influence, they have taught to analyze more subtly, to argue more acutely, to write more clearly and purely: it has always been their problem to bring people to ‘raison.’”
But now the Jews, led by a shameless prime minister, are surrendering to the enemies of civilization, a barbaric religion animated by murderous hatred. Here is what Churchill said of this religion in 1899:
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. (Emphasis added.)
Of course, Churchill did not foresee the decline of Christianity in Europe, today inundated by Muslims.
Yes, but if only Israel had a Churchill! The threat now confronting Israel by of Islam recalls the threat that confronted England by Nazi Germany. Allow me, therefore, to cite some of Churchill’s war speeches, as I have done on a previous occasion—and would that these words were read by American statesmen.
Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as England’s Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. Three days later, in a speech to the House of Commons, Churchill declared: “You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny …. That is our policy. You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
In a world broadcast, May 19, 1940: “…Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. ‘As the Will of God is in Heaven, even so let it be.’”
In the House of Commons, June 18, 1940 (after England’s terrible losses at Dunkirk): “I expect the battle of Britain is about to begin…. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. The whole might and fury of the enemy must soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he must break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted …. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”
In a world broadcast, April 27, 1941: “I have thought in this difficult period, when so much fighting and so many critical and complicated maneuvers are going on, that it is above all things important that our policy and conduct should be upon the highest level, and that honour should be our guide.”
In Guildhall, November 7, 1941: “I have never given any assurances of a speedy or easy or cheap victory. On the contrary, as you know, I have never promised anything but the hardest conditions, great disappointments and many mistakes. But I am sure that at the end all will be well for us in our island home, all will be better for the world, and there will be that crown of honour to those who have endured and never failed which history will accord to them for having set an example to the whole human race.”
In a world broadcast, May 10, 1942: “Is it not far better that demonstrations of thousands of people should gather in Trafalgar Square demanding the most vehement and audacious attacks, than that there should be the weepings and wailings and peace agitations which in other lands and other wars have often hampered the action and vigour of Government.”
Perhaps some readers will see a vast difference between Hitler’s war against Great Britain and Islam’s war against Israel. But Hitler’s war, like Islam’s, was triggered by a policy called “territory for peace.”
By appeasing the Nazis, the democracies betrayed Czechoslovakia. Today, the democracies, by appeasing Islam, the successors of the Nazis, are betraying not only Israel but Western civilization. Hence Israel needs a Churchill to replace its ignominious Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for I dare say only minuscule Israel, inspired by the spirit of Entebbe, can inspire America and save the West from perdition.
Anyone familiar with the simplest basis of deals in the Middle East knows well that the moment one of the parties shows that it is facing pressure, the price tag goes up, and the greater the pressure is, the higher the price tag.
A people that has no patience, and that wants everything now without the ability to suffer the pain of living in the poor, deprived, hungry, thirsty, sick, split, and radical environment that surrounds us, cannot survive in the oh-so-old Middle East, where the Shiites are still fighting for supremacy in Islam, 1,400 years after it was taken away from them, and where terms such as democracy, human rights, minority rights, freedom of women, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion are but a distant dream, much more distant than our impatience.
Mideast survival guide
We need patience, ideology, and endurance to survive in Middle East
YNET Published: 07.19.08, 14:45 / Israel Opinion
Our enemies read us, hear us, and understand us better than we understand our own self-liquidation process, which we are engaging in with our very own hands.
Our enemies see before them a people that is panic-stricken, emotional, prone to tears, corrupt, hedonistic, reckless, and individualistic; a people subscribing to a grab-what-you can mentality, lacking historical roots, lacking ideology, devoid of values, lacking a sense of solidarity, wanting everything now, and willing to pay any price without taking into account the results of its reckless behavior.
Our enemies see media outlets that took sides, invested endless broadcasting hours and limitless newspaper pages in order to produce a media melodrama out of a wife’s tear and a mother’s sigh, thus creating public opinion with the sense that we should pay any price for an immediate achievement. Yet who appointed the media to determine our national priorities like that? Who determined that it is appropriate to secure the return of two fallen soldiers in exchange for a living murderer? Did anyone in the media think about the future implications of the pressure exerted by the media on our submissive government? Anyone familiar with the simplest basis of deals in the Middle East knows well that the moment one of the parties shows that it is facing pressure, the price tag goes up, and the greater the pressure is, the higher the price tag. Our media and public conduct every time we are facing our enemies – those in Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip – shows them that they greater the pressure they exert, the higher the price we shall be willing to pay for easing the pressure, whether it is missile pressure or psychological pressure.
Our media and public panic created a situation whereby we, with out very own mouths, are boosting the price of any deal to the point we cannot accept it.
This was our foolish conduct vis-à-vis Hamas in Gaza, vis-à-vis Hizbullah in Lebanon, and vis-à-vis Syria, as every day we hear in the media the “sages of Zion” reciting like a parrot the mantra: “Everyone knows what’s the price of a ceasefire/return of the hostages/peace with Syria,” and when our enemies hear it, why should they demand less than what that fool says “everyone knows”?
Our clock is different
Besides that, our clock is different than that of our enemies: Around here, an average government serves for three years, and therefore it wants to do something in that time and operates out of a sense of pressure that the other side quickly recognizes.
The Muslims, in line with the Koran, believe that Allah is on the side of those who have patience, and patience is found here on two levels: Time and suffering. Allah helps those who do not rush and patiently wait for their dreams to be realized, and in addition, are willing to patiently contend with the suffering inherent in the struggle and expectation for the victory that shall come, God willing. Nasrallah taught all of us some lessons, big time.
A people that has no patience, and that wants everything now without the ability to suffer the pain of living in the poor, deprived, hungry, thirsty, sick, split, and radical environment that surrounds us, cannot survive in the oh-so-old Middle East, where the Shiites are still fighting for supremacy in Islam, 1,400 years after it was taken away from them, and where terms such as democracy, human rights, minority rights, freedom of women, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion are but a distant dream, much more distant than our impatience.
Only a people that is instilled with ideology, possesses a sense of mission and confidence in the righteousness of its path, and feels it is part of a historical process and is willing to suffer and pay the price of survivability in blood, sweat, and tears – only such people can survive in the Middle East. This region is no place for post-Jewish spineless people who are necessarily, sooner or later, also post Zionists.
Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a member of the Arabic-language department and Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University
Thursday, July 17, 2008
July 17th, 2008
From The thoughts and writings of Prof. Eugene Narrett
In the late fourth century CE, Bishop Ambrosius of Milan and Syria and, about fifty years later, Augustine of Hippo in North Africa formulated the official position of the Roman church on the Jews. They should not all be killed, they argued, but small numbers of them kept around in degraded and weak stature so as simultaneously to prove the origins of the Jokerist redeemer and as evidence of how, as a result, the Almighty had rejected them as the chosen people and taken their Promised Land. This principle informs Rome to this day of the Quartet whose leader Tony Blair recently came out as a Catholic.
Humiliate the Jew: this is the ugly, murderous and self-destructive essence of “the West” to this day. It is embodied in the person of Tony Blair, newly come-out as a Catholic and leader of the Quartet’s unrelenting assault on Jewish sovereignty in the Promised Land. On July 16 Israeli security services saved his life from his Arab friends, playing their role in Edom’s game of humiliate the Jew.
Humiliate the Jew is the essence of the mis-named “captive exchange” in which the bodies of soldiers Regev and Goldwasser were returned to Israel in exchange for freeing dozens of Jew-murderers (“terrorists”) and two hundred bodies of same. The chief among the freed killers pledges to resume attacking Jews.
It was clear from the first that the soldiers probably had been killed, or were expected to be killed. While there was constant, if hollow talk of Gilad Shalit and getting him back, Regev and Goldwasser rarely were mentioned though their return was part of the highly touted UN resolution 1701 which terminated the one-sided war of Iran-Hez bollah against Israel, a war the perennial regime of Edom’s subcontractors refused to fight. Do you remember? In response to the attack, murder and abduction of border guards and to four thousand rockets showered on Israel, the regime refused to mobilize the reserves (the major part of the IDF), refused to invade the non-state of Lebanon and contented its with ‘surgical bombing’ after batteries already had fired at Israel. When American diplomats announced that Israel had four days left to finish its “work,” Olmert sent small forces a few kilometers across the border on a no-win photo op. The result: casualties for nothing and Hizbollah has rebuilt and increased its strength under the benign eyes of EU and UN observers, as many of us predicted would happen.
And we remember the admission by IDF Deputy Chief of Intelligence, General Ya’akov Amidror that “because of agreements with the international community it was decided to let the enemy strike first.” Who made these “agreements” and what were the carrots and sticks used to seal it? Perhaps someone will tell us what the next “agreement” is to immobilize and degrade Israel.
Ishmael is the proximate but not the main problem: Edom is....
Read the rest of this entry »
[read the rest of this and other essays at www.israelendtimes.com e. narrett, WW III: the War on the Jews (2007) at www.lightcatcherbooks.com ]
The socialists who founded modern Israel were committed not to a Jewish state so much as to a secular democratic state. The economic goals of socialism, however, require a concentration of political-economic power in government. Socialism therefore eventuates in state capitalism—the control of a nation's wealth by political commissars.
However democratic Israel may be from a sociological perspective, it is ruled by rotating oligarchy that has truncated and emasculated the Jewish state.
The oligarchy is ensconced in the cabinet. There, cabinet ministers control various sectors of the economy, and do so less with a view to economic efficiency than with a view to enlarging their own personal or partisan power.
One researcher notes that the rate at which the salary of Knesset Members (MKs) increases is three times that of the average Israeli. In addition to salary, MKs are paid for car upkeep, lodging in Jerusalem, entertainment expenses, and special health care benefits for themselves and their families. Also, an MKs pension is payable at age 40 rather than 60 or 65, as for ordinary mortals, and the pension is computed on the basis of his entire salary, including such items as automobile or travel expenses and clothing allocations. Incidentally, MKs can make 25,000 phone calls per year at no charge—and not only while serving in the Knesset, but for life!
Israel’s reputed democracy is a fiefdom, not to say a thiefdom. This fiefdom is perpetuated by the very design of Israel’s political institutions. Changing the prime minister will not change the oligarchic and corrupt character of Israeli government.
All honor to Israel's socialist founders! Credit them for their material accomplishments and the ingathering of a million Jews. But the parliamentary system they created—proportional representation of fixed party lists competing in a single countrywide constituency with an electoral threshold that allows parties to multiply like mushrooms—is a political monstrosity. This “system” fragments the nation. It renders it impossible to achieve national unity or to cultivate Jewish national pride and purpose—preconditions of Jewish survival.
To survive, Israel must have a government whose structure and goals are distinctively Jewish. (Here I will be accused of advocating a theocracy, even though in Judaism there is no ruling class, no "clergy" and no "laity.") One does not have to be an observant Jew, or even Jewish, to understand that Israel cannot survive in a hostile Arab sea unless its government consist of Jews proud of their Jewish heritage.
From the very outset, however, Jewish self-effacement was distinctive of Israel's socialist leaders. David Ben-Gurion penned this piece of Jewish self-denial for posterity: "An Arab should also have the right to be elected President of Israel."
Not that the Likud is so different. Its erstwhile spiritual mentor, Vladimir Jabotinsky, anticipated Ben-Gurion with this piece of democratic flapdoodle: "In every Cabinet where the Prime Minister is a Jew the Vice-Premiership shall be offered to an Arab, and vice-versa."
I have often said that the Likud is merely the rightwing of the Labor Party. Kadima proves it.
To end on a positive note, however, let me offer five measures required to obtain an efficient as well as authentic Jewish government:
(1) Replace multi-party cabinet government with a presidential system, one that excludes Knesset members from the cabinet.
(2) Introduce constituency or multi-district elections to make Knesset members individually accountable to the voters.
(3) Enforce Basic Law: The Knesset, which prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the state.
(4) Democratize the mode of electing the Supreme Court, now a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
(5) Introduce serious Jewish studies in the public school curriculum.
That’s right: we need a Jewish state in Israel.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Besides the disgrace of making IDF soldiers valuable targets for kidnapping and later killing by the Moslem forces (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, etc.) by the cowardly Olmert government, this shows what it takes to become a hero of the jihad: kill yourself a 4-year old Israeli girl, her father, her baby sister and a policeman.
This how it happened (from Debkafile December 27, 2005):
Thousands of copies of this photo, which was secreted from Ashkelon’s Hadarim prison, were eagerly seized by ordinary Palestinians on the West Bank for whom Marwan Barghouti is something of an icon. The Fatah leader, jailed for life for the murder of five Israelis in terrorist operations, appears on the left. With him is another lifer, Samir Kuntar, a Druze from the Lebanese village of Baaklin, who is serving time for the 1979 Nahariya bloodbath.
One night in April 26 years ago, Kuntar and three accomplices landed at the Israeli coastal town of Nahariya from the sea, seized Danny Haran, 28, and his daughter Einat, 4, from their home. They shot Danny dead and smashed the child’s head on a rock. Danny’s wife Smadar survived but while hiding in a closet from the killers, she accidentally smothered to death their 2-year old daughter, Yael. Police Sgt. Eliahu Sassar rushed to the rescue and was shot dead. . . .
Continued at ... http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1127
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
It would be silly for Barack Obama and his advisers not to recognize that there are many people in this country who are anxious about his Muslim background, his Muslim name, and his Muslim supporters getting out the vote for someone whom, they, at least, in this country, and abroad, are convinced is deeply sympathetic to Islam and to its aims. This does not go away by declaring oneself a Christian. And it does not go away after the election, whether Obama wins -- in which case the anxiety only increases -- or if he loses, and plans to run four years from now.
It is humanly understandable. How strange it is to think of a President Barack Obama after Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others of that ilk. The fact that Obama is mentally superior to Bush and morally superior to Clinton cuts little ice among those who, like the King in "Now We Are Six" who did "want a little butter for his bread," would in these disturbing (or "great" kraussian times) want just a little cultural continuity, even in the names of our presidents. Many don't like such sudden shifting, even nymic shifting, under their feet.
His views on Islam we do not clearly know, but we have a right to suspect they are not clear to him either. He has not done enough studying or thinking or consulting except with the usual esposito-armstrong-rashidi apologists (that is, the venal, the stupid, and the islamochristian Arab propagandist). He has no idea about the scandal of MESA Nostra (which google, and consult for detail Martin Kramer's analysis of the teaching about Islam and the Middle East in this country). He should begin with, say, The Dhimmi and Islam and Dhimmitude and then for textual analysis of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, the books of Robert Spencer -- pay no attention to the "conservative" publishing house and stick unswervingly to the contents. And it would be wonderful if Obama could start looking at websites conducted by former Muslims, who are so knowledgeable, helpful and impassioned in a way that inspires.
His remarks, or almost asides, about Islam, are clouded by sentimentality and childhood memories: sentimentality in particular about an absent father (and the search for "roots" and for "identity," by now a banal theme, but one that was all Barack Obama had to work with when, at a little over thirty, he decided My Life So Far is worth a book). He learned a little more, or thinks he did, in that most unrepresentative of Muslim countries, more easygoing and not-entirely-Muslim Indonesia -- compare Indonesia to Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Indonesia, with its Hindus in Bali, its Christians in the Moluccas, still enjoys the afterglow of the post-Dutch nationalist leaders who really were secular, such as Suharto and Sukarno, or were sui generis, as is the truly Muslim "moderate" Wahid. Wahid had been greatly affected by his time as a student in Baghdad, when he befriended, and was befriended by, an Iraqi Jew working in the same office, who was one of the very last Jews in Iraq, and someone who apparently made a deep impression on Wahid for the better.
Until Obama has spent a few days on the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and applied his mind to them -- he has a good mind, but the wrong instincts about the world -- and until he has at least consulted, in person or on paper, the most piercing commentators on Islam (both non-Muslims and defectors from the Army of Islam now living in this country, such as Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali), he should remain silent.
For so far those who read the tea-leaves have good reason to worry about his understanding. Yes, he is against the war in Iraq, and claims, not quite accurately I’m afraid, that he has been so steadily. In fact, once the war began he wavered, and after he was against it he was for it and then he was against it again. But that is not enough. We need to know why he was against it. Was it because we merely anger Muslims, and we must do nothing to do that, but must instead come to some conceivable accommodation with them, one largely based on throwing others -- i.e., Israel and possibly the Christians of the Middle East -- to the wolves by forcing them to give up their legal, moral, historic rights, whatever those rights might be? (We hardly hear about those rights. All we hear about is strangely-neutral “processing” as in “peace-processing,” as if the “process” itself will lead with certainty to a “solution” -- which again implies that there is a discrete “problem” to which there is a “solution,” a most naïve, and some might cruelly suggest naively American, notion).
He thinks that every enemy can be “talked to” and “without preconditions,” and that the mere fact of this talk is a Good Thing. No. Sometimes such talk legitimizes a regime on its uppers. Sometimes such talk allows a regime to engage in tactics of delay, delay, delay -- see the regime in Khartoum, hoping always to get in another good month or six of mass-murder, before it happens to call it a day; see the regime in Teheran, that hopes to buy time to finish the “project” about which we all know. If it is engaged in “talks,” the American government is unlikely -- so those who rule the Islamic Republic of Iran correctly conclude -- to do what it must and should have done six months or a year ago. Now it seems to be both waiting to see if permanently imperiled and brave little Israel will take on the difficult task -- one that would be so much easier for the Americans to do, with their vast airpower and spy satellites and other resources. They seem to want the Israelis to do this for the Infidels of this world, as it has before. And at the same time, they’re trying to pressure Israel not to do so, for supposed fear of the “headache” this would cause American military planners, who already have their “hands full” in the Middle East. So Israel has to risk being decapitated, because Admiral Mullen and others, having been bogged down in Tarbaby Iraq through the sole folly of the American government, might suffer a “headache.”
But Obama doesn’t talk about any of that, as he might, and score all kinds of unanswerable points. No, instead he talks about “talks.”
At least Obama should understand why people are made nervous, and why he has to say, and then do, very dramatic things to show not only that he is not a Muslim, but that he truly -- unlike Bush, and unlike McCain up to now -- studied, and grasps, the meaning and menace of Islam.
For if he doesn’t, and if he does nonetheless manage to become President, those who do know all about Islam will make mincemeat of him. And all kinds of things that should be done will not be done. Above all, those who are most interested in reducing the use of fossil fuels because of their desire to deprive those conducting Jihad of the Money Weapon, will continue not to have sufficient influence, at the very moment when, if their "concerns were addressed," they could constitute a powerful ally of alarmed environmentalists, in a Grand Alliance to cut back the use of fossil fuels. And that alliance might be just what the doctor ordered, in order to efface or diminish left-right attitudinizing and hostility, as both sides work, with different emphases and promptings, toward exactly the same goal: a reduction in the world-wide use of fossil fuels. It would help if Obama, anointed champion of that left, would articulate why the "war on terrorism" is actually a Jihad and that among the instruments of that Jihad is not only terrorism but also Da'wa, and demographic conquest, and -- undergirding all three of the others -- the Money Weapon.
Yes, Obama can point out -- unless McCain beats him to the punch -- that the Money Weapon is so much more effective, at this point, than terrorism in promoting the goal of removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. And he can grandly reach out, he with his "improbable" life story and his race-and-nation-bestriding impulse, to create that Grand Alliance that will "harness the energies" of "both left and right." But Obama can't do it if he doesn't recognize Arab and Muslim oil revenues as a Money Weapon, and is unable to connect that instrument of Jihad, the Money Weapon, to support for other instruments of Jihad, including Da'wa, and demographic conquest and, yes, that terrorism to which such dangerously exclusive, even monomaniacal, attention has been given by the benighted Bush Administration.
Everything connects. Or, to put it in a way that the Obama campaign might like, and as a way of proving that I once was forced to study the rudiments of another, "foreign," language, just as candidate Obama says more Americans should: Tout se tient.
[Tout se tient - everything holds together.lw]
Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2008 7:39 AM
Read COMMENTS at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021770.php#more
Monday, July 14, 2008
Two Unlikely Allies Come Together in Fight Against Muslims
Click on the above to read the article!
[Caveat! Beware! This comes from the New York Times, which is prejudiced as concerns non-Leftist Jews as well Hindus who do not knuckle under to Moslems]
By DEAN E. MURPHY
Militant Jews and Hindus in New York find common bond in anti-Muslim feelings; Jews in Brooklyn, who are members of Meir Kahane's organization advocating expulsion from Israel of all Arabs, rallied to aid of Hindu fundamentalists, whose Web site was closed down by server because of violent views expressed; members of both groups intend to return to homes in Israel and India to fight what they see as encroaching threat of Islam;
photos June 2, 2001
MORE ON MEIR KAHANE AND: JEWS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT, CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, DEMONSTRATIONS AND RIOTS, COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET, COLORADO (USA), NEW DELHI (INDIA), NEW YORK CITY, ANNANDALE, NEW YORK (USA), ASIA, AYODHYA (INDIA), QUEENS (NEW YORK), LONG ISLAND (NEW YORK), INDIA, BROOKLYN, FIFTH AVENUE (NEW YORK), MANHATTAN (NEW YORK)
Friday, July 11, 2008
Obama's supporters like to compare him to JFK. I'm not sure why Obama supporters think that comparing their candidate to the man responsible for the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War and who backed the Baath Party in Iraq that would eventually put Saddam in power is such a selling point. But there you have it.
Still let's look at JFK's qualifications and Obama's. In his 20's JFK was commanding a PT boat in the Pacific. In his 20's, by his own admission, Obama was busy doing drugs in New York and creating a phony story of being "oppressed by the man" before moving to Chicago to learn at the feet of Reverend Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright. By the time JFK ran for President in 1960 he had served three terms in Congress and was on his second term in the US Senate.
Obama officially announced his candidacy for President two years after he was sworn in and his unofficial candidacy goes back much earlier than that.JFK had written a bestselling book but it was a book that had started out as his thesis and was written about the follies of appeasement.
Obama by contrast penned a whiny memoir filled with hate for white people and himself. Where JFK's book served to establish his credentials on national policy, Obama's book was meant to make us feel sorry for him.The irony is that Obama is running on his biography. The problem is he doesn't have one. What he has is an elaborately fictionalized narrative that turns his own life into a vehicle for self-promotion with himself in the starring role. Obama's biography is a hollow facade just as he is.
Where JFK was a flawed leader, Obama isn't a leader at all. Where JFK had a record, Obama barely shows up. Where JFK was concerned with policy, Obama is concerned with self-esteem.Like any charismatic figure eager to create a cult of personality around himself, Obama has found success by convincing his followers that their fate and their future depends on him. He has proclaimed himself as the Messiah of Hope and Change without the experience or the ability to deliver any of it. But the one thing he has learned in the course of his brief political life is that a lack of substance can be compensated for with another coat of polish. But when the heat is turned up, Obama begins to run at the edges and melts.
READ THE WHOLE THING . . .
Monday, July 7, 2008
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written about 500 B.C.E., is the oldest military treatise in the world. Even now, after twenty-five centuries, the basic principles of that treatise remain a valuable guide for the conduct of war.
Perhaps Sun Tzu may be of interest to the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, in view of the Arab Terrorist War which erupted in September 2000. Since then more than 1,600 Jews have been murdered and many thousands more have been wounded and maimed by Arab terrorists.
Referring to the IDF’s limited response to this Arab terrorism, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, “self-restraint is strength”! At first glance one might suspect that Mr. Sharon had been inspired by the Sermon on the Mount. It may well be, however, that he derived that dictum from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—or rather, from a misreading of that treatise. Sun Tzu would have a general exhibit, at first, “the coyness of a maiden”—to draw out the enemy—but thereafter he would have him emulate the fierceness of a lion.
Instead, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is emulating a pussy cat. Instead of destroying the enemy—especially Arab arrogance—he is following the policy of self-restraint, allowing the haters of Israel more time to denounce the Jewish state and halt its offensive. If Olmert had a stitch of courage, he would order the IDF to demolish the enemy to an extent that seared into Arab consciousness the lesson: Don’t mess with Israel.
Of course, when the forces of the enemy exceed your own or occupy superior ground, then self-restraint is prudence. But when this situation is reversed, self-restraint is weakness. In fact, Sun Tzu goes so far as to say, “If fighting is reasonably sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbids it.” This means that the IDF, more precisely, Chief of General Staff should disregard the timidity of the Olmert government and destroy the enemy!
Sun Tzu insists on this principle. In referring to various ways in which “a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army,” hence on his people, Sun Tzu cautions a ruler against “attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom.” Although “In war, the general receives his commands from the sovereign,” “he will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.” Sun Tzu emphasizes that there are even occasions when the “commands of the sovereign must not be obeyed.”
Of course, this would violate the principle of military subordination to civilian authority—a principle Israel’s political elites would proclaim to preserve their democratic reputation, especially in the United States. Never mind Jewish casualties or sacrificing Jewish soldiers on the alter of PR.
Sun Tzu did not have to worry about journalists and humanists who make the rational conduct of war impossible, and who therefore prolong the killing. When U.S. Admiral Bull Halsey said, “Hit hard, hit fast, hit often,” he was merely echoing Sun Tzu’s advice.
We read in the Torah, “When you go forth to battle against your enemies” (Deut. 20:1). The sages ask: “What is meant by ‘against your enemies’”? They answer: “God said, ‘Confront them as enemies. Just as they show you no mercy, so should you not show them any mercy’”
Sun Tzu would therefore be appalled by the alacrity with with Israeli governments engage in cease fires or “hudnas,” which allow Arab terrorists to regroup and accumulate more and deadlier weapons, Sun Tzu calls for the uninterrupted attack. He unequivocally opposes a protracted war: “There is no instance,” he says, “of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.” But protracted war is the inevitable result of the supposedly humanitarian policy of self-restraint pursued by Israeli governments. And notice how Washington is always preaching self-retraint—Hiroshima and Dresden notwithstanding.
The Art of War: Part II
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Israel some years ago, while teaching officers at Bar-Ilan University, I learned that Israel’s Command and Staff College did not teach Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), one of the greatest military scientists. It shows, as it showed so glaringly in the Second War in Lebanon.
Clausewitz’s classic On War is as valid for insurrgent warfare at is is for nuclear war. For example, contrary to democratic humanists (including not a few general officers of the Israel Defense Forces), Clausewitz warns, “… in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst.”
The IDF has nonegtheless been imbued with the absurd principle that “self-restraint is strength”! Imagine winning a war against Jihadists by adhering to this principle. Yet this has been the guiding principle of one Israeli government after another, at least since Arafat’s Terror War broke out in September 2000, a war still going on eight years later.
It’s quite obvious that Israeli governments lack the will to win this war: to utterly vanquish the enemy in the shortest possible time. It’s obvious that Israeli governments do not understand the basic principles of war and therefore multiply the number of Jewish casualties. Let’s elaborate on the teachings of Clausewitz.
Clausewitz defines war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. Violence is the means; submission of the enemy to our will the ultimate object.” For as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action.
The ultimate object of war is political. To attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed. Disarming the enemy “becomes therefore the immediate object of hostilities. It takes the place of the final object and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.” In other words, first disarm the enemy, subject him to your will. The political comes later.
Clausewitz warns: “Philanthropists may readily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst.”
Not that Clausewitz advocates indiscriminate slaughter. He warns, however, that “he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application.” “Let us not hear of Generals who conquer without bloodshed. If a bloody slaughter is a horrible sight, then that is a ground for paying more respect to War, but not for making the sword we wear blunter and blunter by degrees from feelings of humanity, until someone steps in with one that is sharp and lops off the arm from our body.”
It follows that a Governmment that regards moderation or self-restraint as a principle of war is suffering from mental degeneracy, and that any general who passively obeys such a government is a coward who cares not for the welfare of his soldiers or his people. ASny general worthy of his country’s uniform knows that to defeat the enemy his power of resistence must be utterly crushed. Period.
Meanwhile, the prime minister—if he is a statesman and not a hack politcian—must solidify the confidence and determination of his people. The pelople must believe in the justice of their country's cause and understand the importance of victory as well as the consequences of defeat. The statesman must display wisdom, decisiveness, and clarity.
Above all the statesman must have, in his own mind, a clear view of his post-war goal or political object. The political object will determine the aim of military force as well as the amount of force or effort to be used.
Here is where Olmert, following Sharon, spells disaster. His political object is a Palestinian state. For which he needs a “negotiating partner”—Mahmoud Abbas being his current choice. It was because he advocated Palestinia state for which he needed a “negotiating partner” that Sharon did not destroy the entire Arab terrorist nework in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This is why he employed limited means: targeted killings and destruction of a few Arab houses and bomb factories—but never a full-scale attack to win the war and so devastate the enemy as to eradicate the enemy’s desire to wage war for a hundred years—as the Allied powers did in Germany and the United States in Japan.
Had Sharon destroyed the enemy, as could have been done in two weeks after 9/11, any international howl that might erupt would have subsided in two weeks, and the people of Israel would once again walk upright, proud and confident in Israel’s future.
Sophisticates speak of “post-heroic warfare” and the need to win hearts and minds. Whose hearts and minds? We need statesmen and generals who care infintely more about the hearts and minds of our own people than the hearts and minds of our enemies, incliuding those misleading called “civilians.”
Again I am reminded of General George S. Patton, the most feared, most successful, and most erudite American general in the Second World War, who wrote: “When the enemy wavers throw caution to the winds… A violent pursuit will finish the show. Caution leads to a new battle.” “War means fighting. Fighting means killing … Find the enemy, attack him, invade his territory and raise hell while you are at it.”
Audacity! Audacity! Audacity! was the motto of Frederick the Great which Patton made his own. The motto among Israel’s ruling elites is Caution! Caution! Caution! — or should I say Timidity! Timidity! Timidity!
[color emphasis mine. lw]
NOTE by lw: Audacity, more audacity, always audacity.
[Fr., De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace.]
-Georges Jacques Danton,
during the French Revolution