Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Martin Indyk: A Commentary on Post-Modern Education*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

To avoid misunderstanding, I must say at the outset that I am not interested in Martin Indyk per se, if only because I do not regard him as worthy of my attention. But since pundits take Indyk seriously, perhaps they may be enlightened if I use him to reveal the basic cause of Israel’s and America’s malaise. Hence, a brief bio of Indyk is necessary, for which Wikipedia will suffice.

Indyk was born in 1951 to a Jewish family in England, but grew up and was educated in Australia. He graduated from the University of Sydney in 1972 and received a PhD in international relations from the Australian National University in 1977. He immigrated to the United States and later gained American citizenship in 1993.

He has taught at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He also served as special assistant to U.S. President Bill Clinton (whose administration, according to military theorist and former U.S. Army Colonel Ralph Peters, was “the most cowardly administration in history,” having failed to react vigorously to terrorist attacks on U.S. forces abroad, a failure leading to 9/11.)

Returning to Clinton adviser Martin Indyk, he also served as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the United States National Security Council. While at the NSC, he served as principal adviser to the President and the National Security Advisor on Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Iran, and South Asia. He served two stints as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

Writing in the New York Times, and interviewed by Israel Army Radio on April 22, Indyk blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the rift with the Obama administration. He went so far as to say “Israel has to adjust its policy to the interests of the United States.” Since I am anything but a fan of Netanyahu, this report should not be deemed a defense of Bibi.

Notwithstanding Indyk’s education and his experience in the American executive department, he appears abysmally ignorant of facts documented in American sources and confirmed by U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye and former Chief of U.S Air Force Intelligence George Keegan that dollar for dollar, Israel gives more to the U.S. than the U.S. gives to Israel—to say nothing of the overt and covert U.S. military aid to Israel’s enemies, including the Palestinian Authority.

Like his Washington handlers, Indyk has long advocated a Palestinian state, even though one does not require military expertise to arrive at a former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conclusion that such a state would endanger Israel’s existence. This is why Netanyahu insists that an Arab Palestinian state must be demilitarized and barred from forming alliances with any Arab regime.

Never mind that no Palestinian leader would survive a day if he accepted such terms. Consider only the fact that Indyk wants Israel to negotiate with the PA, whose mentality and behavior have been shaped by Islamic scriptures permeated by murderous hatred of “infidels,” especially Jews. Hence, I am not impressed by Indyk’s academic credentials and experience in the Clinton government, no more than George Orwell was impressed by the British intelligentsia of the 1930s which held posts in the Chamberlain government.

When Indyk served as Clinton’s ambassador to Israel, Israeli conservatives called him a “court Jew.” Such labels are not helpful. We know court Jews in America bend over backwards to avoid the canard of “dual loyalty.” Israel pays a price for this “political correctness.”

For a Democrat like Clinton, whose presidential campaign funding depended very much on Jewish donations, his appointment of Indyk was “religiously” as well as “politically” correct. And since Yasser Arafat was reportedly the most frequent foreign guest at the Clinton White House, Indyk’s endorsement of a Palestinian state made him a virtual ally of Arafat.

But what is “political correctness” if not a label descriptive of someone who willfully avoids taking a candid position on controversial political issues? To put it plainly, “political correctness” is a euphemism to describe a person lacking intellectual integrity or moral courage. But this label short-circuits serious thought about the factors that have shaped Indyk’s mentality.

Would it be proper to regard him simply as ignorant of the bellicose and mendacious nature of Arab-Islamic culture? But how is this possible given his fields of study at various universities? Can it be that his mentors were dominated by moral or multicultural relativism—the same doctrine that has influenced Barack Obama?

Like other “politically correct” democrats, Indyk tends to “mirror image”—sees Arabs as he sees him own peace-loving face in a mirror. This may explain his inability to take the bellicose nature of Arab-Islamic culture seriously. Perhaps he imbibed the academic doctrine of “conflict resolution,” which reinforces the natural bent of diplomats—a doctrine that ignores the enormity of evil in the world? There are legions of such people in academia—especially at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities, where moral relativism and pacifism flourish.

This might explain why Indyk ignored Arafat’s remark that “peace for us means the destruction of Israel.” It might also explain why a person tainted by multicultural relativism cannot factor into his evaluation of Islam the significance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vow to “wipe Israel off the map,” even though that Muslim leader sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to walk across and thereby explode Iraqi minefields in the Iraqi-Iranian war. (By the way, Ahmadinejad he was a recent guest of Columbia University!)

Hence, it is reckless folly to dismiss Ahmadinejad’s maledictions as mere rhetoric, as smug academics teach their students. The genocidal imprecations of Arabs and Muslims vis-a-vis Israel and America underlie what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have called the “clash of civilizations"—which means, to any person unaffected by academic obscurantism: It’s either them or us.” Does Indyk deem these renowned scholars ignoramuses or “extremists”?

Even more important on a practical level than Lewis and Huntington is Ralph Peters mentioned earlier. In two books, Fighting for the Future and Beyond Terror, Peters cautions us not to negotiate with terrorists—and the Palestinian Authority is nothing if it not a terrorist organization bent on Israel’s annihilation. I assume the learned Mr. Indyk has read the PA’s genocidal charter. If so, he seems to construe it as mere rhetoric for the masses.

Let me therefore urge him to study the extraordinary erudition and worldwide experience of Michael Radu, especially Radu’s recent book Europe's Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West. What’s left of Europe is a “ghost”—nations disembodied by the multicultural relativism of their ruling elites (academics and politicians, judges and journalists). No wonder Barack Obama has been called an “empty suit.”

Of course, my remarks will have no impact on those who take civilization for granted. Like overindulged children, our decision makers and diplomats do not really understand—because they have not been taught to understand—how much hard work and stamina, how much self-sacrifice and heroism, are required in each generation to defend civilization against its enemies. Read Lee Harris to learn why. Or think of how much it cost in blood and treasure to save Europe from barbarism in the wars of the last century—a barbarism no less monstrous than that promised by totalitarian Islam.

Perhaps Ralph Peters, Michael Radu, and Lee Harris are beyond Mr. Indyk’s limited comprehension. I doubt men of their “politically incorrect” views are required reading at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities. I wonder if any academic today—despite all the drivel about academic freedom—can remain at his post if he were to explain, in scholarly terms, using Islamic documents, why it is futile and fatal to negotiate with the self-professed enemies of Israel and America, be they Fatah Palestinians or Iranian mullahs.

Since Martin Indyk surely does not want America and Israel to become mere “ghosts,” I wonder what he would say after reading Raymond Ibraham’s essay on the Islamic art of dissimulation, “taqiyya,” a military doctrine best revealed by Ibrahim in the Winter 2010 edition of the Middle East Quarterly (http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war).

Some readers may accuse me of arrogance by criticizing a man of Indyk’s academic and governmental background. But I feel obliged to do so not because I am a former officer in the U.S. Air Force who studied under Leo Strauss, a classical political scientist without equal in the twentieth century. No: you don’t need to be a soldier or a scholar to discern the enormity of evil confronting America and Israel. So I am not impressed by America’s erstwhile ambassador to Israel. Indeed, he reminds me of Nietzsche’s remark about German intellectuals: “great learning and great stupidity often go well together under the same hat.”

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 26 April 2010,

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Understanding the Jewish Psyche

Excerpts from Echoes of the Holocaust

by Rebecca Bynum

A Review of Jihad and Genocide

by Richard L. Rubenstein

. . . In addition to being a student of history, Rubenstein is also a student of psychology. He doesn’t write history in terms of disembodied historic forces playing upon hapless individuals. His history is driven by men of flesh and blood whose actions are psychologically conditioned by their worldview and experience.

. . . . The most poignant aspects of Rubenstein’s body of work concerns the meek acceptance of the Jews of their fate at the hands of the Nazis and not only acceptance, but active collaboration in some cases, born of the denial of reality coupled with the hope for the survival of a remnant.

In The Cunning of History, he writes:
One of the elements conditioning the compliant Jewish response to the process of extermination was their own history. The last time Jews had taken up arms against an enemy was during the Judeo-Roman Wars of 66-70 C. E. and 131-35 C.E. On both occasions, they fought valiantly and lost disastrously. Those who during the first Judeo-Roman was had counseled submission and surrender were installed by the victors as the religious and political leaders of the Jewish people. The religious leaders of the European diaspora for almost two thousand years were the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees and rabbis who rose to political and religious dominance only after they had been selected by the Romans as their "loyal and non-seditious agents." Thus, diaspora Judaism began in the aftermath of catastrophic military defeat and survived by developing a culture of surrender and submission in consequence of that defeat. Until the bloody wars with the Romans, the Jews had been a violent, troublesome, rebellious nation. Their transformation from a warrior people of the sword into a submissive people of the book led by plebian scribes and scholars took several generations. By the year 200 C.E., Jewish character had undergone one of the most radical psychological and cultural transformations in history. Rabbinic Judaism is the result of that transformation. It shaped Jewish character and conditioned Jewish responses in the diaspora for two thousand years. Long after Western Jews were secularized and considered themselves "emancipated" from their ancient traditions, they continued as an organized community to respond to overlords as had those who surrendered to the Romans. No matter how grave the provocation, the Jewish Community instinctively avoided violent response. They sought to avert hostile action by bribery, petitions for mercy, or appeals to the religious or moral sentiments of their adversaries. [2]

That is why during the Holocaust the Germans were able to incorporate the existing Jewish leadership and organizations into their bureaucracy and thereby to direct Jews to cooperate in their own extermination.

In the Warsaw Ghetto and in Lodz, Poland, the Jewish council, or Judenrat, did not resist German directives even when the Germans demanded the "selection" of 10,000 Jews a day for deportation. Jewish bureaucrats made the selection; Jewish police rounded up the victims. [3]

When resistance was finally organized in the Warsaw Ghetto, they were forced to shoot the leader of the Jewish police along with several others in order to overthrow and replace the existing Jewish Council. Regarding Europe today, at a time of sharply increasing antisemitic attacks and a growing atmosphere of persecution, it is hard to discern any organized and active Jewish resistance. We see instead an emphasis on "interfaith dialogue" along with increased emigration from Europe on the part of young Jews who see the writing on the wall for their children. Last year during Israel's brief war in Gaza, a small demonstration in Malmo, Sweden in favor of Israel was attacked by a screaming mob of Arabs and Swedish leftists, who threw bottles and firecrackers as the police passively looked on and did nothing. The mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, insisted to The Sunday Telegraph that he was opposed to anti-Semitism, but added: "I believe these are anti-Israel attacks, connected to the war in Gaza. We want Malmo to be cosmopolitan and safe for everybody and we have taken action. I have started a dialogue forum. There haven't been any attacks on Jewish people, and if Jews from the city want to move to Israel that is not a matter for Malmo. [4]

Meanwhile, Malmo’s synagogue employs full time security guards along with rocket-proof glass for the windows, and the Jewish kindergarten is equipped with thick steel doors. This pattern is repeating all over Europe and Great Britain.And even after the Holocaust and in the face of the most strident genocidal rhetoric, the denial on the part of both Jewish organizations and secular Western governments continues.

Read the whole thing!

Lots More There


[2] Rubenstein, Richard L., The Cunning of History: The Holocaust and the American Future (Perennial, an imprint of Harper Collins, 1975, reprint 2001) pg. 70
[3] Ibid. pg. 74
[4] Meo, Nick “Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise an Anti-Semitic hate crimes” The Sunday Telegraph Feb. 21, 2010

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Are you a "Good" Jew or a "Bad" Jew?

Subject: I am a bad Jew (as defined here)

This was written by Rami Kaminski, MD, founder and director of the Institute for Integrative Psychiatry in New York City--from Prof Paul Eidelberg:

For centuries, we lived in Berdichev.

In the brutal Ukrainian winter of 1941, SS soldiers arrived there and rounded up eighty-seven members of my family – babies, young adults, octogenarians – stripped them naked, marched them to a nearby ditch, and executed them. Their lifeless bodies fell silently into a mass grave.

Like most Jews in Europe, my family "cooperated" with the Final Solution. They did not resist or fight back.

Six million Jews were slaughtered in a period of four years. They received little sympathy while they were still alive and hunted down like animals.

There was no public outcry because the Holocaust fit the world's narrative for Jews during the past 2000 years: a people destined to be persecuted and slaughtered.

During their two millennial in the Diaspora, Jews were not known to resist. There are few recorded instances in which Jews turned against their host nations or retaliated against their murderers.

Instead, the survivors – if there were any – were expelled or left for another place. The murdered were regarded as "good" Jews. They accepted their fate helplessly, without resistance.

This narrative of the Jews has played out on the historical stage with boring monotony: Jews get killed because they are Jews. Nothing novel about it.

After the Holocaust, however, the world, disgusted by this particularly ghoulish period of history, accorded some sympathy for the Jews.

Media commentary about the ongoing Gaza War reveals the world has now reverted to its pre-Holocaust perspective.

Today, the only good Jew is a powerless Jew willing to become a dead one.

The Zionist Revolution is to blame. It changed everything. Jews re-created their own country. The Arabs attacked the new Jewish state the day after independence and promised to complete Hitler's genocide. In succeeding decades, the Arabs attacked again and again.

Strangely, the Jews, many of them refugees from Arab nations, adopted a surprising, new tactic: they fought back.

With Zionism, the Jews stubbornly refused to follow the centuries-old script. They refuse to be killed without resistance. As a result, the world has become increasingly enraged at their impertinence.

The recent events in Gaza and Mumbai make this plain.

In 2005, Israel eliminated all Jewish presence in Gaza making it "Jud[enrein]," and handed it over to the Palestinians.

Left behind were synagogues and thriving green houses. The Arabs looted and destroyed them literally the day after Israel 's withdrawal was complete.

Where these structures once stood, the Palestinians built military bases and installed rocket launchers to shell Israeli civilians.

To date, some 7,000 missiles have fallen on Israeli cities and towns, killing and maiming dozens, and sowing widespread terror.

Medical studies reveal nearly all Jewish children in the communities bordering Gaza suffer from serious, trauma-induced illness.

The Gazan Palestinians then elected Hamas to lead them. Hamas proceeded to kill or imprison their political rivals, and its leaders, true to the Hamas charter, were unabashed in clearly stating their aims: they will not stop until they achieve their Final Solution, kill all the Jews, take over the land of Israel, and establish a theocracy governed by Islamic law.

As killing Jews for being Jews has been a national sport for centuries, Islamic militants are justified in believing they are merely fulfilling historical tradition in Argentina, India and Gaza. Surely the Jews in Mumbai did not occupy Gaza. They were tortured and killed just for being Jews. And predictably, in the eyes of the world, they immediately became good Jews, just like my murdered family in Bertishev.

Good Jews would wait until Hamas has weapons enabling its members to achieve their ultimate goal of absolute mass murder. Those enraged by Israel 's defensive military action insist Hamas uses only "crude" rockets, as if Qassams were BB guns, and military inferiority were somehow equivalent with moral superiority.

In fact, Hamas now has Iranian-supplied Grad missiles which have landed on Be'er Sheva and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.

Westerners have had only sporadic exposure to the indiscriminate killing in the name of "holy war" which Israel has lived with for years. Memories of 9-11, Madrid, and London have dimmed.

This is not because the Islamic militants made a careful choice of weapons. They simply have not yet acquired nuclear bombs. Once they do, the West will develop a less detached view about the Islamics' professed intentions for the "infidels."

The only enlightened people in the civilized world who actually get it are the Israelis. They've not had time for detached philosophical pondering. They've been too busy confronting the reality of Islamic fundamentalism.

Soon, Iran will have nuclear weapons. It will give them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Today, Jews must take a position: either be "good" Jews willing to be slaughtered without resistance, or be "bad" Jews who defend themselves at the cost of being pariahs of our enlightened world.

Good Jews would wait for another six million to be murdered, and pick up to leave for another country to start the cycle again. The bad ones refuse to go calmly into the ditch.

I confess: I'm a bad Jew.

What are you?

Thursday, April 1, 2010

American Jews and Israel

(an overheard conversation)

DG: Rahm Emanuel reportedly said, “I’ve had it with Israel.” I think a lot of Jews now feel that way. They’re tired of worrying about Israel, unendingly, from crisis to crisis . The Palestinians are the heroes of our victim-adoring age; accordingly, many liberal Jews have come to believe the Palestinian “Nakba” revision, the lies that turned a miracle into another Jewish blood libel.

But whatever their politics, modern Jews have little sense of history. I speak about the ‘48 war, and the lies about it that are now believed by too many Jews. For most U.S. Jews, the ‘48 war is an old and perhaps boring story. They saw “Exodus”; they don’t want to see it again. They don’t realize that history is the present, and that [post-Zionist] revisionist history is central to the attack on contemporary Israel. It is one of the manifold attempts to bring it down, first morally and then physically.

JP: Did you stay in touch with others from Aliyah Bet?

DG: Yes. I was one of the founders of the now defunct American Veterans of Israel organization. I held office and attended their reunions in Israel and the States. But that was then. Most of us are dead now, and I haven’t had a drink with an old shipmate in years.

Bob Levitan, our captain, participated indirectly in the breakout from Acco. With his Leica, he took ID-type photos of all the Irgun and Lehi prisoners, and these were later used in the phony ID cards issued to them prior to their escape.

JP: What similarities, if any, do you see between American Jewish attitudes in the 1930s and 1940s and today?

DG: In the 1930s and ’40s, American Jews sanctified FDR. Now they are equally loyal to Obama. Despite their growing awareness of the Holocaust, during World War II American Jews for the most part stayed silent – very few mass protests and very little covert action. “FDR will save the Jews.”

My fear is that too many contemporary Jews are preparing to repeat this pattern. They will not embarrass the great and good Obama with their selfish concerns for what they view as a victimizing country – Israel – that no longer deserves their loyalty. Too many will follow Obama’s lead and stay silent while Israel is weakened or even destroyed.

(not really an overheard conversation)

JewishPress.com Posted Mar 29 2010


Dr. David Gutmann: An American-Zionist Hero
Phyllis Chesler
Chesler Chronicles

via Solomonia

Read the whole thing . . . Click here

What Needs Saying (What Bibi Should Say)

Paul Eidelberg

In response to the infamous Goldstone Report, Israel’s Prime Minister should quote that marvelous poet and literary critic Matthew Arnold who wrote: “As long as the world lasts, all who want to make progress in righteousness will come to Israel for inspiration…”

In response to European anti-Semitism, Prime Minister Netanyahu—with Genesis 12:1-3 in mind—might quote South African author Olive Schreiner: “The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed him have written out their own curse.”

Finally, how would you feel if you heard Mr. Netanyahu quote British historian and statesman Thomas B. Macaulay who declared, in a debate in 1833 in the British House of Commons over whether Jews should have their legal and political disabilities removed by law:

In the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown in Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome, this condemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid temple ... their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and poets.

Ah, if only Mr. Netanyahu—when speaking of Jerusalem—had the wit to quote Macaulay in the presence of Barack Obama!

Monday, March 22, 2010

The Worst Case Scenario*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

On March 19, the day after this report was nearing completion, Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post’s brilliant political analyst, published an article entitled “Obama’s war on Israel.” My present report goes a bit further. No reflection on her perspicacity. I just want to pursue the logic of Obama to its ultimate logical conclusion, even if he is a fraud or an Alice in Wonderland, as some believe.

In deference to Glick, however, who takes Obama seriously—as one should—I will begin by quoting a salient aspect of her timely article. She writes:

On [March 12], Obama ordered his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum. First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo. Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967. Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than half a million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called “right of return” …

Only an idiot would fail to see in this ultimatum that Obama, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Seeing this, the Arabs have no need to engage in negotiations, which suggests to me that Obama is tacitly inviting them to eliminate Israel by war! Ponder this: Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Nor is this all.

At the outset of his presidential campaign, I wrote that Obama’s slogan of CHANGE really meant “Regime Change.” A few months after the election, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton reported that Obama is the first post-American president of the United States.

Accordingly, Obama’s policy of distancing America from Israel and drawing the US closer to the Muslim world is a logical, political, and metaphysical consequence of his anti-American mentality. Even if Obama lives in fairyland, the stakes are too high to use ordinary criticism when speaking of such a president—holder of the most powerful office in the world.

Obama’s anti-America and anti-Israel objectives are evident not only in his political statements and policies, but also in the attitude of some of his political appointments and advisers—court Jews as well as non-Jews. Among the latter, suffice to mention former President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a crypto-Marxist. To this anti-Semite add Obama’s appointment of Samantha Power to the National Security Council, who proposed a US invasion of Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Now ponder Obama’s disparagement of the American Declaration of Independence—whose “Higher Law” doctrine is rooted in the Torah. I deem this a war on America metaphysically equivalent to his war on Israel. If we juxtapose his early Muslim upbringing and current Muslim appeasement, logic indicates that Obama’s war on Israel and America is nothing less than a war against Western civilization in favor of Islam’s global ascendancy. Here is further evidence.

Obama’s (absurd) reference to America as a Muslim state, his adulation of Islam at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University (the Harvard of the Middle East), his demotion of Judaism in his Inaugural Address, his indifference to Ahmadinejad’s maledictions “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” his bowing to Saudi King Abdullah—these and other signs are indicative of an insidious global agenda.

It will not do to describe Obama as a closet Communist or to reveal his Muslim sympathies. We know of his anti-American and anti-Israel gurus such as Marxist Saul Alinsky, terrorist Bill Ayers, PLO-supporter and Saudi-connected Rashid Khalidi, “Nation of Islam” Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, or “God damn America” preacher Jeremiah Wright—to mention only a few of Obama’s charming mentors.

Professor of international relations Angelo Codevilla warns that Obama is conducting a “self-discrediting [hence anti-American] diplomacy toward Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China.” Add Syria, which aids insurgents in Iraq and ships Iranian missiles to Iran’s client Hezbollah in Lebanon. Obama is not only appeasing enemies and punishing friends; he is disarming America morally and militarily. Let me reiterate his “war on Israel.” Israel is not only America’s most steadfast ally, supplier of advanced technology and incomparable intelligence. Israel is the only outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. The loss of Jerusalem would ignite Islam’s long smoldering ambition to establish a Muslim world order.

Admittedly, every American administration since Nixon and Kissinger has pressed Israel to risk its existence—it’s called taking “risks for peace”—by conceding geostrategic assets to the PLO, the wiliest spearhead of Islam. The American government, conned into believing the PLO represents “moderation,” secretly and openly bankrolled this Fatah-led mafia during the past two decades. Of course, this is nothing compared to the Carter-Brzezinski subversion of the Shah of Iran, which facilitated the Iranian Revolution the return of the Parisian-exiled Ayatollah Khomeini to Teheran.

America’s ruling class—its policy-making, opinion-making, and military elites—is now being led by an Islamophile, an enemy of America. This ruling class, thanks to America’s misnamed “higher” education, is not only ignorant of the true nature of Islam; it is also ignorant of, or has never internalized, the classics of statecraft and war. Tainted by multicultural relativism, this backward ruling class cannot even see that while there are “moderate Muslims,” Islam is anything but moderate. This ruling class cannot address the fact that what it misleadingly calls Muslim “extremists” increasingly dominates Islamdom. Indeed, these Islamic-true Muslims are spreading throughout American democracy where they exploit a mindless liberalism or tolerance of “diversity.”

Thus, to paraphrase Codevilla, when a Muslim shouts “Allahu Akhbar,” as did U.S Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan as he shot 51 colleagues as Fort Hood, Texas, the official reaction revealed the stupefied and pusillanimous character of America’s ruling class—politicians and journalists and even high-ranking military officers. After the shootings, President Obama warned against “jumping to conclusions,” and Army Chief of Staff George Casey added, “it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here.” Codevilla comments: “Never mind that Hasan identified himself on his business card as “SoA” (a soldier of Allah).

Official obscurantism makes Obama’s appeasement of Iran all the more fearful. Armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, Iran could control the oil resources of the Middle East, emasculate Europe, totally collapse the American economy, and even resurrect the Persian Empire—the startling conclusion of Robert Baer, former CIA operative in the Middle East.

An American president who praises Islam and displays contempt for America’s Founding Fathers now constitutes an existential threat to Western Civilization.

This worst case scenario will be dismissed as scare-mongering. But whoever thought PLO chief Yasser Arafat, an Arab terrorist expelled from Lebanon, holed up in Tunis, without Iranian oil or arms, without even a minute fraction of Iran’s population and territory—who ever dreamed that this villain would become a mortal threat to Israel by gaining worldwide support for a PLO state in Israel’s heartland—and with the endorsement of Binyamin Netanyahu?! If the despicable PLO could accomplish this objective, it would be foolhardy to dismiss my worst case scenario.

As many scholars have warned, the West is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam. We are in a world war having metaphysical significance. This war will not be won or even waged by democracies steeped in multicultural relativism. The trial of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders exemplifies the decadence of such democracies. Recall how they treated the gallant Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who dared tell the truth about Islam in her book The Rage and the Pride. Recall how a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for her alleged violations of the Swiss criminal code and requested the Italian government to either prosecute or extradite her. Recall how an Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial on charges of "defaming Islam" in her book The Force of Reason, most notably for her reference to Islam as "a pool that never purifies." But there is more.

Note Europe’s permissive immigration laws, the influx of millions of prolific anti-Western and economically ruinous Muslim immigrants—a sociological disaster documented by Michael Radu, Europe’s Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West (2009). Fearful of the canard of “racism,” and animated by a perverted humanitarianism that permits the immigration even of Muslim terrorists expelled by Arab countries, England and Europe are committing national and cultural suicide.

This madness is invading the United States and it has anti-Semitic consequences for Israel. A countermovement to preserve Western Civilization is urgently needed. I will discuss this matter in a future article. Some people may want to send this article to Caroline Glick.

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, March 22, 2010.

Paul Eidelberg

Read Caroline Glick's article A revolutionary proposal

. . . and the foregoing post: When the U.S. is once again "punishing" Israel . . .
. . . it is a time to remember

Saturday, March 20, 2010

When the U.S. is once again "punishing" Israel . . .

. . . it is a time to remember

"In case we forgot who Begin was . . .

from Prof. Paul Eidelberg in Israel comes the following:

What M.Begin said to the US when it was unhappy with the annexation of the Golan

Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.

In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement. It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public. Mr. Begin complained that the U.S. had punished Israel three times in the past six months. Israel was no "vassal state" or a "banana republic." He also hinted of anti-Semitic overtones in some of the punitive measures taken by the United States. Text:

Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has "punished" Israel.

On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor "Osirak" near Baghdad. I don't want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.

Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us - and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.

Not long after, in a defensive act - after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.

You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase "body-count". We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable - as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.

We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.

Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.

A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the "Golan Heights Law."

Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.

What kind of expression is this - "punishing Israel"? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don't behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?

Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with "punishments". He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.

You have no right to "punish" Israel - and I protest at the very use of this term.

You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.

You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.

I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No "sword of Damocles" is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.

The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America - and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.

We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections - and threaten us that if we don't consent you will suspend the memorandum.

You have imposed upon us financial punishments - and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.

This is therefore a violation of the President's word. Is it customary? Is it proper?
You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do - to "hit us in our pocket"?

In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us "terrorists" - and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: "This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket" - and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.

To hit us in the pocket - this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.

First, the slogan was sounded "Begin or Reagan?" - and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.

Then the slogan was sounded "We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States." What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers - and they have a right and a duty to support it.

Some say we must "rescind" the law passed by the Knesset. "To rescind" is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than "rescind" their faith.
We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.

If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Weinberger - and later Mr. Haig - said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.

The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us - and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?

As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.
As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right - that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no - and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.

Our intention was not to embarrass you.

As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.


ALSO, see

A revolutionary proposal


DEBKAfile Special Report March 20, 2010, 6:54 PM (GMT+02:00)
via Israpundit
Obama recalls bunker-buster bomb kits to bar Israeli strike on Iran -

Obama recalls bunker-buster bomb kits to bar Israeli strike on Iran

Advanced BLU-100 recalled by President Obama

Shortly after Vice President Joe Biden's Israel visit ended on March 11 in high dudgeon over the approval 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, US president Barack Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munition- JDAM already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. This step, the pointer to a US arms embargo for preventing Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites, is first revealed here by debkafile's military sources.

US military sources describe the consignment as consisting of 387 JDAM kits for attachment to the warheads of 2,000-pound BLU-109/MK-84 or the 1,000-pound BLU-110/MK-83 bunker-busters for their conversion into smart bombs. On March 13, debkafile disclosed that the Obama administration was pondering withholding from Israel military hardware that could be used for an Israeli attack on Iran.

In late February, we reported that defense minister Ehud Barak had submitted to defense secretary Robert Gates a list of the items Israel required urgently to stand up to a four-front assault by Iran and its allies - mainly air force ordnance, certain types of missile and advanced electronic devices. Barak made it clear that all these items must be present in Israel before the outbreak of hostilities. The requests were so urgent that the minister proposed that if Washington was reluctant to hand them directly to Israel, they could be stored for the interim in the big American emergency depots in Israel's Negev.

The 387 DJAP kits were due for delivery at one of the Israeli Air Force's Negev bases in March. Because of his concern over the US president's step to divert the shipment, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided to take the defense minister with him to Washington next Monday, March 22 and have him present at the meeting with Obama which the US media reports has been fixed for Tuesday (the day after his address to the AIPAC annual conference).

Together they will ask for the delayed munitions to be released and handed over as part of any general understandings they may reach.

debkafile reports that the pair of Israeli Gulfstream Vs converted to spy planes sighted over Budapest on March 17 may have been an Israeli signal of its concern over White House measures for keeping the means of attacking Iran out of its hands. The long-haul flights, demonstrating the Israel Air Force's ability to cover the distance to Iran, took the aircraft over Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania as well as Hungary. The two planes carried out maneuvers over Budapest international airport with no attempt at concealment. Because they fly in pairs, Western aviation experts say the electronic measures aboard are able to detect the functioning of electronic devices, radar stations, communications centers and cell phones on the ground, locate them and relay the data for warplanes to destroy them. Two years ago, in June 2008, Israel deployed more that 100 Air Force F-16 and F-15 warplanes over Greece and the Aegean Sea in a big exercise designed to showcase its long-range capabilities.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 20, 2010,

Friday, March 19, 2010

There Never Were "Two" Jerusalems . . .

The 'Two Jerusalems' Myth
Eli E. Hertz
March 17, 2010

Palestinians have nurtured a myth that historically there were two Jerusalems - an Arab 'East Jerusalem' and a Jewish 'West Jerusalem. 'Jerusalem was never an Arab city; Jews have held a majority in Jerusalem since 1870, and 'east-west' is a geographic, not political designation. It is no different than claiming the Eastern shore of Maryland should be a separate political entity from the rest of the state.

In 1880, Jews constituted 52 percent of the Old City population in East Jerusalem and were still inhabiting 42 percent of the Old City in 1914. In 1948, there were 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem, with 65,000 Arabs. A joint Jordanian-Israeli census reported that 67.7 percent of the city's population in 1961 was Jewish. A 1967 aerial photo reveals the truth about the area called 'East Jerusalem': it was no more than an overcrowded walled city with a few scattered neighborhoods surrounded by villages.

Although uniting the city transformed all of Jerusalem into the largest city in Israel and a bustling metropolis, even moderate Palestinian leaders reject the idea of a united city. Their minimal demand for 'just East Jerusalem' really means the Jewish holy sites (including the Jewish Quarterand the Western Wall), which Arabs have failed to protect, and the return of neighborhoods that house a significant percentage of Jerusalem's present-day Jewish population. Most of that city is built on rock-strewn empty land around the city that was in the public domain for the past 42 years. With an overall population of nearly 750,000 today, separating East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem is as viable and acceptable as the notion of splitting Berlin into two cities again, or separating East Harlem from the rest of Manhattan. Arab claims to Jerusalem, a Jewish city by all definitions, reflect the "what's-mine-is-mine, what's-yours-is-mine" mentality underlying Palestinian concepts of how to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. That concept is also expressed in the demand for the 'Right of Return,' not just in Jerusalem -Israel's capital, but 'inside the Green Line' as well.

For more articles: http://www.naomiragen.com/

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

What They Are Saying About the Jews

Referring to the "COMMENTS" section of the most excellent "Gates of Vienna's" Mohawk the Model http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawk-model.html , I could not resist adding to the commentaries the introductory portion of the piece reprinted below--until THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION--with a link to this post.

I recommend to you to read the Jew-bashing comments that abound in the later section of the COMMENTS.

Please be aware, so as to not mistake the intent of this--my-- writing, that it is patterned after Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"--Google it to see what he was about and my much poorer intention.

[quoting my--urbanadder22's--Comment]

As this Comments section has in part turned into a Jew-bashing Fest, I thought I'd come back and join in that long-honored endeavor.

Jews are considered, at times, white, more of the time as non-white--this, as has been said by someone here, regardless of how white their skin color. (Actually "white" is more "pink." for all pigment-poor people.)

Jews are not Europeans, it is held by some. True enough, if you accept the fact that they originated somewhere "between the rivers," that is in present-day Iraq. (And you accept the fact that all Jews [except converts] are descended from Abraham who came from "Ur of the Chaldees.")

For more than two thousand years, Jews have lived in Europe (there were Jews living in the Roman empire before the final expulsion of them from what the Romans dubbed Palaestina).

The Ancestors of today's Europeans have occupied Europe longer than that, you might well say. True enough, but the orgins of Europeans oft point back to Asia.

As I am pressed for time, I cannot go into the pre-history of the Germanic tribes, the Goths, Celts, etc., but their origins are often ascribed to be East of today's Western Europe (think Scythians, and the offspring of European women sired by Huns, Mongols, and the like.)

Anyhow, our problem are the Jews, today's Jews: overachievers, Leftists, Communists, anti-Israel, pro-Israel, etc.

The Jews are, and remain, a problem (for many in the world). The ultimate solution to the Jewish problem (not the final one, that was tried and only partially succeeded) remains--for some white Europeans and for Moslems of all shades and colors.

So what to do with those annoying Jews who are behind all the mischief in the world?

Rounding them up and killing them on an industrial scale is not feasible--as I said, it was tried and still, despite the nations refusing to grant refuge to the Jews en masse, they prevail.

I will offer the ultimate (more drastic than the "final") solution to the Jewish problem. In the vein of Dean Swift (Jonathan to those familiar with is other works), I humbly throw out (or up) this proposal for the consideration of those who want their world free of Jews (Judenrein as the Arabs like to make their parts of the world).


Oops, how time flies (tempus fugit) when you become engrossed in problem-solving!

So, I'll get right to the solution--the ultimate solution to rid almost 99% (or even more, I have no time to check):

Boiled down to its essence, the world of the whites (European whites that is--wherever they might dwell in the world) will be clean of Jews.

Depriving them of citizenship in all countries, except for one--to which I'll get in a couple of seconds--is the first step. The next is rounding them up (you can no longer used circumcision of the males as a criterion of who is and who is not a Jew), and then expulsion--but to where?

I am rushing to the end now. The German Nazis went through these same steps, except they killed the Jews themselves, wholesale, and my plan will absolve all, except those who ache for it, of guilt for the Jews' disappearance from the world.

Quickly now, push all Jews into Israel--whether these Jews support the Jewish State or not--and blockade the seas bordering, and seal the borders, of that land.

Then aid the Iranian mullah regime in finally completing their nuclear weapon program. At least, do nothing to slow them down--and, as they insist their nuclear effort is strictly for peaceful purposes (they are never specific how they plan to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map), aid them in that effort.

If Israel and its Jews should dare to try and do anything against Iran's nuclear program, the air space of U.S.-controlled Iraq must be denied them. Proposals were made by such as Brzezinski not to hesitate to shoot down the Jews' planes should they try to overfly on missions to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. Obama would most likely acquiesce so as to show Iran and its mullahs that he is on their side--"ugly wind direction towards Moslems" or some such promise that he made.

Should that Iranian "wipe 'em off the map plan" not materialize for one reason or another, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza could be left to lob missiles and rockets into Israel, with any Israeli retaliation not only being decried, but the insertion of U.S. troops--under UN auspices if need be--could block such aggression by the Jews.

I do not have the time to go into further details, but the point is that once you have all the Jews in Israel, the Arabs and Iranians can be left to complete the ultimate solution.

This should satisfy not only the out-and-out Jew-haters but such as our own Afonso Henriques, who expressed the feeling that lurks in--I was going to say "all"--but I will leave it at "so many of us." When he says bluntly " . . . it's not that I don't like Jews. I truly never met any. But my impression is that they for sure did not fit in here in the past, and I don't want them to come here again."

We most all agreed up to this point that we don't like Jews, that they do not fit in, etc.

As an aside, Afonso Henriques would be interested in some recalcitrant Jews who can be found in Galicia at a site written in what we call Gallego: á rúa Xudea de Galicia http://ruaxudea.blogspot.com/
or the Spanish http://judiosenelnortedesefarad.blogspot.com/
and especially http://ruadajudiaria.com/
wherein is a heartwarming photo with the caption "Crianças da mocidade portuguesa fazem a saudação nazi. Foto de Bernard Hoffman (Life Magazine, EUA)."

Do not peruse, especially the last-mentioned site, too much, because it does contain cosas that relate to the Nazi activities as concern los malditos judios.

The point of this being that you Iberians did not want the Jews in your countries when you had them--and you sure as shootin' don't want 'em back now. But there are still remnants, as I have pointed out in the foregoing, there. My modest proposal as quickly outlined above would solve that problem.

Now as to the rewards--for ridding the world of Jews--that await you, that in reality you are reaping already. It is the replacement of a comparatively handful of Jews by masses of Islamics (Moros as they are called in Spain).

It is a bargain well deserved by the soft-hearted (and -headed) white Europeans.

As I once pointed out in my "Letter to the Germans" MOSLEMS ARE NOT JEWS!
(I think it is reprinted in my "Islamic Danger Redux"), the Jews that contributed (or not, depending on your point of view) to German culture (Heine, Mendelssohn, etc.) have been replaced by unassimilable Islamic hordes. As the Jews would say about that event that has befallen, and is befalling, the Europeans, "Mazel Tov!"

(By the way, no need to worry about the American Jews, my plan includes them as well as the declining European Jewish population.)

Before you report me for antisemitic attacks and going against the Google (Blogspot) Terms Of Service, read on:

As I have often been attacked for satire, I must again point to Swift's "A Modest Proposal:"

Jonathan Swift's masterful satire, "A Modest Proposal," [mockingly!] proposes to solve the devastating poverty in Ireland by selling poor children as food for wealthy families. Swift goes on to explain how this would solve all of Ireland's problems from domestic abuse to poverty. Swift 's Projector explains his proposal in depth, in many ways treating these children as nothing more than a new type of livestock. Towards the end, however, Swift lists numerous reforms that could help the country. This list makes a change in tone. However, these reforms differ from Swift's "modest proposal" because instead of the poor sacrificing their children, it would involve the rich sacrificing some of their luxuries.


For those still fuming about what I propose for the Jews of the world, this is as far removed from what I want as is Swift's proposal for feeding poor children to the wealthy of Ireland, and in that way, solving the poverty problem in that island.

Here is a Summary of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"


The full title of Swift's pamphlet is "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick." The tract is an ironically conceived attempt to "find out a fair, cheap, and easy Method" for converting the starving children of Ireland into "sound and useful members of the Commonwealth." Across the country poor children, predominantly Catholics, are living in squalor because their families are too poor to keep them fed and clothed.

The author argues, by hard-edged economic reasoning as well as from a self-righteous moral stance, for a way to turn this problem into its own solution. His proposal, in effect, is to fatten up these undernourished children and feed them to Ireland's rich land-owners. Children of the poor could be sold into a meat market at the age of one, he argues, thus combating overpopulation and unemployment, sparing families the expense of child-bearing while providing them with a little extra income, improving the culinary experience of the wealthy, and contributing to the overall economic well-being of the nation.

More . . . http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/modestproposal/summary.html

Monday, February 22, 2010

"F**king Israelis, F**king Jews... they should be wiped off the face of the earth"

--Rowan Laxton, high-ranking diplomat and "Middle East expert" at the British Foreign Office

But we can . . .

NOTE: BE SURE TO READ It's called being a light unto the nations FROM Internet Haganah
Reprinted at the very end of this here post . . . and the expanded original article
I Can't Help Admiring Israel's Nerve - Melanie Reid - Times-UK

From Naomi Ragen at http://www.naomiragen.com/:

It’s disgusting that the BBC and other British news outlets are making up stories about the participation of Israelis and Jews in the assassination of al- Mabhouh in Dubai. If they were involved, they should get a Nobel Prize for Peace. But no one has proved that. The fact that this venal terrorist had five foreign passports doesn't seem to interest anyone, as Tom Gross points out. My thanks to Tom Gross for this information and for everything he does to make sure the truth has a fighting chance in the quagmire that is British "journalism."


By Tom Gross

We all know that journalists (including some at highly-regarded newspapers) often makes things up, but rarely have we witnessed such a mix of misinformation, disinformation and innuendo passed off as fact, as we have in recent days in the reports dealing with the death of Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh. (Some of this admittedly can be attributed to the complete failure of the Israeli government - whether or not Israel had anything to do with the matter - to provide an effective response to the media.)

For example, the story in yesterday's (London) Sunday Telegraph that British immigrants to Israel had their passports removed and copied at passport control at Tel Aviv airport, is highly implausible. Passports are not taken from immigrants at Tel Aviv airport. This has never been the practice. I have checked with several recent immigrants and they have confirmed that this is not so.

The Telegraph story, written by a London-based correspondent, has all the signs of being planted by anti-Israel elements at the British Foreign Office (of which there are many - witness, for example, the reinstatement last year of Rowan Laxton, a high-ranking diplomat and "Middle East expert" at the British Foreign Office, even after a London court had found him guilty of racially aggravated harassment for saying "F**king Israelis, F**king Jews... they should be wiped off the face of the earth" in a crowded London gym).

But other media lapped up the Telegraph story. For example, Sky News ran it all day yesterday on its ticker tape at the foot of the screen, probably doing great damage to future British tourism to Israel by falsely reporting that British passports would be removed and copied at Ben Gurion airport.

(Among other nonsense published in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday was the claim that "Tzipi Livni, the head of the opposition Kadima Party in Israel, was another Mossad high-flier. She was posted to Paris as a kidon, carrying out ruthless operations against Arab terrorists." See the second note here: www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000975.html)


Even worse was the story in yesterday's London Sunday Times by its notoriously unreliable reporter Uzi Mahnaimi, claiming that the paper had evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had personally ordered the hit on Mabhouh, and even providing quotes attributed to Netanyahu when he supposedly gave such orders. The Sunday Times story was then splashed all day as the lead story on the websites of papers like Ha'aretz, which is so full of contempt for the elected government of Israel that it will publish almost anything to paint Netanyahu in a bad light.

A comparable motive is true in Britain in the case of The Daily Mail, who were determined to attack Gordon Brown's government and thus on Friday published an anonymous story (without any author's byline, or quoted persons in it) claiming that the British government "knew in advance that Israel was going to use British passports". The Daily Mail claimed in its story that they had been told this by a serving member of the Mossad. Again, this is virtually inconceivable since serving members of the Mossad do not speak to journalists but The Daily Mail's report was treated seriously and rebroadcast around the world as lead item by major TV stations.

Even The New York Times and International Herald Tribune got in on the act on Friday, telling readers that Israel has engaged in 40 Dubai-type assassinations in recent years - again claims made without a shred of evidence, and highly unlikely to be true.

The French media have also regurgitated the stories of the British media, leading to French Prime Minister François Fillon, who was in Syria this weekend, to declare - in front of President Assad of all people! - "we are against this form of assassination; whoever orders them should be punished. Like the British and the Germans we have asked Israeli authorities to explain themselves."


At the same time that they blamed Israel, these very same British and American media made very little of the fact that every day last week their own governments killed terrorists in Afghanistan (and elsewhere).

Given the level of censorship they are imposing on their Afghan coverage (censorship that news broadcasters like the BBC fail to tell viewers about), they almost never mention the civilians their armies are killing. (The almost three dozen civilians - mainly women and children - killed by a NATO strike yesterday are being reported in some media, but similar strikes last week were largely ignored by the same media so eager to paint the death of a leading Hamas terrorist as some kind of "master crime". Preliminary reports indicate that Dutch forces were in charge of the area where the civilians died yesterday, but instead EU foreign ministers are preparing today to condemn Israel, not Holland.)

(Having milked all it could out of its reports in recent days that British citizens' passports were used, The Times of London's main online world news headline today reads "Dubai hit squad 'used diplomatic passports'" - which is the opposite of what The Times was claiming last week.)

Mabhouh had five different passports with him in Dubai: there seems to be no media coverage or interest in which countries' passports he was using.


(This next part of the note was sent in a slightly difficult form to some people on Friday, but not to most of you.)

The governments of Jordan and Egypt (where Mabhouh previously spent a year in prison in 2003) had sought Mabhouh for some time. Some Arab media have reported that the operation against Mabhouh may have been carried out by a rival Palestinian group and the photographed individuals have nothing to do with it.

Indeed it is not even clear that the nine photographs that the Dubai authorities have released to the media actually portray real people. (Have they been heavily retouched, for example? Is each one a composite of several faces?) The photos have been shown repeatedly in news broadcasts and plastered on the front page of newspapers around the world in the last 48 hours [it is now almost a week], but not a single person has come forward to say they recognize any of them, even from high school days, despite front page headlines such as Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper saying "If you recognize any of these people, call us".

(Even if Israel was responsible for Mabhouh's death, it doesn't mean the photos produced by Dubai had anything to do with it. Almost no one is questioning whether this evidence is really evidence at all.)

Unlike the anti-Israeli elements of the Western media that have rushed to blame Israel (creating a public furor and thereby forcing the hands of the British, Irish and French governments to summon their respective Israeli ambassadors), the Arab media are suggesting that the truth is far more complicated.

For example, the Arab world's leading and arguably its most reliable newspaper, Al Sharq Alawsat, ran these stories:
* UAE Tipped Jordan of Palestinian Suspects whilst they were in the Air - Sources
* Palestinian Dubai Murder Suspects are Hamas Members - Palestinian Security Official
* This article in al-Hayat (Arabic only) also examines Palestinian involvement (with assistance from Arab and Western intelligence agencies) into Mabhouh's death.



I have received dozens and dozens of emails as a result of my Dubai dispatch last week and apologize that I don't have time to answer all of them. I attach below several articles on the subject, which I believe are all worth reading. They put forward some points of view not found in many other parts of the media, including in the case of The Daily Mail, Times and Telegraph items, in the rest of the coverage in those same papers. The authors of these articles (Alan Dershowitz, Douglas Murray, Haviv Rettig Gur, Noah Pollak and Richard Littlejohn) are all long time subscribers to this email list. (Melanie Reid is not.)

-- Tom Gross




Nice job, shame about the syrups By Richard Littlejohn Daily Mail (extracts from his column - the rest of the column is about other matters)

February 19, 2010

When it was reported that Mossad had stolen the identities of British passport holders to carry out a covert operation in Dubai, it didn't add up.

Why would Israeli intelligence implicate British Jews living in Israel? And given that Mossad has access to the most sophisticated assassination techniques in the world, why were the alleged assassins wearing the kind of ill-fitting nylon wigs and comedy moustaches last seen being sported by bank robbers in The Sweeney, circa 1975?

None of it makes sense outside of the kaleidoscope universe of Middle East espionage. Was this double-bluff, triple-bluff, blind man's-bluff?

Even one of the men who had his identity stolen doesn't believe it was Mossad. I shouldn't think we'll ever know, which suits everyone involved. The diplomatic 'row' between Britain and Israel is a dog-and pony show, which will soon blow over.

Ultimately, whoever killed him, a notorious terrorist is dead.

Works for me.



BBC blasted for 'bigoted fear-mongering'
By Haviv Rettig Gur
The Jerusalem Post
February 22, 2010


The New York-based American Jewish Committee blasted the BBC on Sunday for airing an accusation that Jews around the world assist in supposed Mossad assassinations.

The AJC said in a statement that it was "dismayed that a guest on BBC Radio 4 was allowed to state unchallenged" that the Mossad relies on Jews for assassination plots.

"This baseless accusation crosses every red line between legitimate public discussion and bigoted fear-mongering," said AJC executive director David Harris. "In less than a minute, the BBC has cast a shadow on the lives of Jews worldwide."

BBC Radio 4's PM program interviewed Gordon Thomas, author of Gideon's Spies, a book about the Mossad, about the January 20 assassination of Hamas military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

Local authorities and many international media outlets believe that the killing of Mabhouh, who bought rockets for Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip,
was carried out by the Mossad.

In explaining the Mossad's operating methods outside Israel, Thomas told PM host Eddie Mair, "They have a whole backup system called 'asylum.' These are people, local residents, Jewish people, who help the Mossad. It is estimated to be in the world about half a million; some people say a million; I tend to say it's about half a million, all of them Mossad people."

"Of course, Mr. Thomas is irresponsible in making such unfounded assertions on a radio program heard around the world," said Harris, "but even more shocking is BBC, a premier public broadcaster with a far-reaching global network. How can the interviewer allow such aspersions to be cast on a community without the reporter calling the so-called expert to order?"

The comments also drew condemnation from observers of the BBC.

"Unfortunately, such ugly and nonsensical statements on the BBC come as no surprise. The BBC often handpicks interviewees who are likely to say such things as part of a wider pattern to demonize the State of Israel," said Tom Gross, a former Middle East correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph and a Middle East analyst who has long been critical of BBC coverage of the

The AJC called on the BBC "to examine this disgraceful transmission, apologize to Jews around the world and remove from its archive the slanderous words."

Reached for comment, the BBC press office in London said, "This interview was part of a wider piece about the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh which involved contributions from a number of people including Gordon Thomas, an author of a book about [the] Mossad.

"The sentiments expressed by Gordon Thomas were clearly his own opinions. They came at the end of the interview when it was being wrapped up and there was no time to come back on them."


[Tom Gross adds: Last night, in a speech in London, former senior British army officer Col Richard Kemp, who was a commander in Afghanistan, said international media including the BBC are being exploited by "dark forces" who want to harm Israel and were "motivated by anti-Semitism".]



BBC broadcast: 'One million Jews help Mossad'
By Douglas Murray
Daily Telegraph blogs
February 18, 2010

Amid all the excitable nonsense being talked about dead Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh I think the BBC has topped the lot. In an interview broadcast on Radio 4's PM programme last night broadcast (at 17:35 mins) one interviewee explained that up to one million Jews worldwide might be on hand to assist Mossad in executions. That would mean about one in every dozen Jewish people worldwide is a secret assistant to assassins.

Now I must have more than a dozen or so Jewish friends. So which is it? Maybe I know two? It makes you think doesn't it?

The next time I am at a friend's child's bar mitzvah the likelihood is that on at least 10 separate occasions during the day I'll be helping myself at the buffet beside, or dancing opposite, someone who secretly helps in assassinations. Which will certainly make me more circumspect about my dance moves, not to mention barging in at the buffet queue.

Most people are terrible at keeping secrets, and Jews are no different from anyone else in this regard. So the idea that up to a million of them keep this secret knowledge strikes me as not just one of the most ridiculous, but in the present climate one of the most dangerous, ideas for the BBC to pump into circulation. Yet it typical of the lather nearly all the press have got into with this Dubai business.

If anyone is interested in a more balanced and factual view of things, can I heartily recommend the indispensable Tom Gross here (www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001090.html), not least the section "Has Israel been set up?"


Thank you too to all the other journalist subscribers to this list who also linked to my previous Dubai dispatch, such as Stephanie Gutmann on The Daily Telegraph website (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100026841/the-last-words-on-the-dubai-hit-the-mossad-etc/ ) -- and Melanie Phillips on The Spectator website:



If Israel killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, did it have the right to?
By Alan Dershowitz
February 18, 2010


If Israel killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Did It Have the Right To? I don't know whether Israel did or did not assassinate the leader of the Hamas military wing, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. But assuming for argument's sake that the Mossad made the hit, did it have the right to engage in this "extrajudicial assassination?"

Not all extrajudicial killings are unlawful. Every soldier who kills an enemy combatant engages in an extrajudicial killing, as does every policeman who shoots a fleeing felon. There are several complex legal questions involved in assessing these situations.

First, was the person who was killed a combatant, in relation to those killed him? If Israel killed Mabhouh, there can be absolutely no doubt that he was a combatant. He was actively participating in an ongoing war by Hamas against Israeli civilians. Indeed, it is likely that he was killed while on a military mission to Iran in order to secure unlawful, anti-personnel rockets that target Israeli civilians. Both the United States and Great Britain routinely killed such combatants during the Second World War, whether they were in uniform or not. Moreover, Hamas combatants deliberately remove their uniforms while engaged in combat.

So if the Israeli Air Force had killed Mabhouh while he was in Gaza, there would be absolutely no doubt that their action would be lawful. It does not violate international law to kill a combatant, regardless of where the combatant is found, whether he is awake or asleep and whether or not he is engaged in active combat at the moment of his demise.

But Mabhouh was not killed in Gaza. He was killed in Dubai. It is against the law of Dubai for an Israeli agent to kill a combatant against Israel while he is in Dubai. So the people who engaged in the killing presumptively violated the domestic law of Dubai, unless there is a defense to such a
killing based on international principles regarding enemy combatants. It is unlikely that any defense would be available to an Israeli or someone working on behalf of Israel, since Dubai does not recognize Israel's right to kill enemy combatants on its territory.

If it could be proved that Israel was responsible for the hit - an extremely unlikely situation - then only Dubai could lawfully bring Israelis to trial. They would not be properly subjected to prosecution before an international tribunal. But what if a suspect was arrested in England, the United States or some other western country and Dubai sought his extradition? That would
pose an interesting legal, diplomatic, political and moral dilemma. Traditional extradition treaties do not explicitly cover situations of this kind. This was not an ordinary murder. It was carried out as a matter of state policy as part of an ongoing war. A western democracy would certainly have the right and the power to refuse to extradite. But they might decide, for political or diplomatic reasons, to turn the person over to Dubai.

Turning now to the moral considerations, which might influence a decision whether to extradite, the situation is even murkier. The Goldstone report suggests that Israel cannot lawfully fight Hamas rockets by wholesale air attacks. Richard Goldstone, in his interviews, has suggested that Israel should protect itself from these unlawful attacks by more proportionate retail measures, such as commando raids and targeted killing of terrorists engaged in the firing of rockets. Well, there could be no better example of a proportionate, retail and focused attack on a combatant who was deeply involved in the rocket attacks on Israel, than the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Not only was Mabhouh the commander in charge of Hamas' unlawful military actions at the time of his death, he was also personally responsible for the kidnapping and coldblooded murder of two Israeli soldiers several years earlier.

Obviously it would have been better if he could have been captured and subjected to judicial justice. But it was impossible to capture him, especially when he was in Dubai. If Israel was responsible for the killing, it had only two options: to let him go on his way and continue to endanger Israeli civilian lives by transferring unlawful anti-personnel weapons from Iran to Gaza, or to kill him. There was no third alternative. Given those two options, killing seems like the least tragic choice available. I leave to others, more expert in these matters, whether if Israel ordered the killing, it was strategically the right thing, or whether they carried
it off in an intelligent manner. But as to the legal and moral right to end the threat posed by this mass murderer, the least bad alternative would seem to be his extrajudicial killing.



We're all thrilled by Mossad the movie Of course we should condemn extrajudicial murder, but I still can't help admiring Israel's nerve
By Melanie Reid
The Times (of London)
February 18, 2010

Steven Soderbergh, evidently, was only kidding when he said that there would be no Ocean's 14. He's plainly been hard at work filming in a hotel in Dubai, as we can see from the trailers running on News at Ten. With Mossad operatives filling in as movie extras.

Now I know we really, really shouldn't joke about these things. I should be wearing black and have a long face and be uttering pieties about the disgraceful "extrajudicial" killing of the Hamas military chief Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, apparently by Israeli agents.

All nice people, quite rightly, are adopting the proper moral stance and expressing outrage and disgust at this affront to international law and justice. But the rest of us ... well, we simply can't wait until the movie comes out. Largely thanks to the blurry CCTV pictures, there is an element to the assassination in Dubai that is appallingly irresistible. What the secret agents did - and, critically, what we saw them do - was compelling and breathtaking in its cleverness.

It was also, in the darkest sense, comic - hence the feeling of Ocean's 11,
12 and 13.

That the agents were using fake identities, one of them being that of Paul Keeley, 42, a bewildered Kent-born odd-job man who was living in Israel, just added to the sense that this was too good to be true. Where were George Clooney and Brad Pitt? To see the images of tubby tennis players bimbling across the hotel lobby and into the lift with the Danny Devito-like figure of Mr al-Mabhouh, and then following him so that they could note down his room number, was to know that this was an incomparable heist; a case of life imitating art imitating life. That it was a rare glimpse into the shadowy world of international espionage makes it all the more seductive.

Now everything I write, of course, is on the understanding that the Israelis refuse to comment on allegations that they are responsible for the killing. But their motive, it is said, is that Mr al-Mabhouh is rumoured to have played a key role in smuggling Iranian-funded arms to Islamist militants in Gaza, and may have been on his way to Iran. And just because the Israelis haven't said that they did it doesn't mean for a minute that they weren't responsible.

It is an unfashionable thing to say, but I have a considerable admiration for the Israeli way of doing things. They want something, they get it. They perceive someone as their deadly enemy, they kill them. They get hit, they hit back. They don't waste time explaining or justifying or agonising; nor do they allow their detractors to enter their country and then afford them generous welfare payments. They just act. No messing. No scruples. Not even a shrug and a denial, just a rather magnificent refusal to debate anything.

This absolutism, based on their history, carries its own moral weight; one that is rather electrifying in a Western world grown flabby with niceties. Clearly, the Israelis could defend their policies if they wanted to, but they quite simply can't be bothered. It's a waste of breath. One admires them for that, too.

I've felt this way ever since the Entebbe raid in 1976, an occasion when the Israelis showed Hollywood a thing or two. After two Palestinians and two Germans had hijacked an aircraft on a flight that had originated in Israel, the Israeli army simply swooped in, killed the hijackers and freed all but three of the hostages. It was decisive, bloody and clever.

Lieutenant-Colonel "Yoni" Netanyahu, the older brother of the present Prime
Minister, Binyamin, was the only commando killed in the fighting.

They also outdid fiction after the massacre at the Munich Olympics in 1972, when they hunted down 11 Palestinians who were responsible and eliminated them wherever they were in the world. Aided by fake passports and disguises, Mossad agents employed methods including a booby-trapped telephone, a bomb planted in a bed and a raid in Beirut in which the present Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, dressed as a woman. Nobody caught it on CCTV, but on the ground that human nature can never resist this kind of stuff, Steven Spielberg made it into the Oscar-nominated 2005 movie Munich.

Maybe, as the West becomes increasingly gentle and polite, and pays those monthly direct debits to Amnesty International, we need the Israelis to remind us that the world is not made according to our template. Maybe that is why we are drawn towards tales of uncompromising, ruthless derring-do. How else to explain the veneration of the SAS, the worldwide glut of books and movies on covert operations?

One last point. Usually, in comedy heist movies, no one gets killed. Somewhere a family is weeping at the death of Mr al-Mabhouh and no one takes any pleasure from that. But the people who die in Mossad operations tend to be, like the Hamas leader, morally compromised. There's a side to us that acknowledges that some assassins' victims may have had it coming to them. So we're appalled, but not so appalled that we don't look forward with relish to the sequel. Ultimately, this is less about siding with the Israelis than loving winners.



A Dubai Victory
By Noah Pollak
Commentary magazine (Contentions blog)
February 18, 2010

It's fascinating to watch the world try to turn the Dubai assassination into a debacle for Israel - all because the team members were captured on CCTV and the British and Irish authorities are making a momentary stink about the use of forged British and Irish passports.

You, the reader of this post, will be captured on CCTV a dozen times today simply going about your business. The people calling the operation "sloppy" and a "debacle" seem to actually believe that the Mossad is unaware that there are video cameras in airports and hotels today, or that the passport photos of the agents would not be revealed to the public. Really.

More important, the fact of the matter is that the team got into Dubai, rubbed out a bad guy, and got out. No drama, nobody was captured, and nobody knows the real identities of the team or where they are now. Given the extraordinary risk and complexity of the operation, that's a win in my book. And now the Iranians, Syrians, and their terrorist clients have been given another reminder that their people aren't safe anywhere - e ven in the heart of the Arab world.

And as for the people who are whining about "passport fraud" misdemeanors while ignoring the felony staring them in the face: what do you say about the fact that the terrorist in charge of illegally smuggling missiles from Iran to Hamas apparently had an open invite to hang out in Dubai? This isn't a problem?

The Israelis either deal with high-level terrorists discreetly, or they leave them alone to go about their work, which means more and better arms in Gaza and Lebanon, which means a more destructive war down the road for the Arabs who live in these combat zones. Those who are pretending to be scandalized by the Dubai assassination tend to be the same people who pretend to care deeply about Palestinian civilians. I wonder if they're aware of their own hypocrisy.

I Can't Help Admiring Israel's Nerve - Melanie Reid - Times-UK

I should be wearing black and uttering pieties about the disgraceful "extrajudicial" killing of Hamas military chief Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who is rumored to have played a key role in smuggling Iranian-funded arms to Islamist militants in Gaza. All nice people, quite rightly, are adopting the proper moral stance and expressing outrage and disgust at this affront to international law and justice. But the rest of us...well, we simply can't wait until the movie comes out. What the secret agents did was compelling and breathtaking in its cleverness.
It is an unfashionable thing to say, but I have a considerable admiration for the Israeli way of doing things. They perceive someone as their deadly enemy, they kill them. They get hit, they hit back. This absolutism, based on their history, carries its own moral weight; one that is rather electrifying in a Western world grown flabby with niceties. Clearly, the Israelis could defend their policies if they wanted to, but they quite simply can't be bothered. It's a waste of breath. One admires them for that, too. Maybe we need the Israelis to remind us that the world is not made according to our template.

"It's called being a light unto the nations"--Internet Haganah

Also see Sultan Knish's Israel's Last Chance of Survival


Final Thought (On the Death of a Hamas Murderer): Tough Sh*t!