The Jew in Yellow

Martin Indyk: A Commentary on Post-Modern Education*

2010-04-27T19:20:00.000-07:00

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,

Understanding the Jewish Psyche

2010-04-08T18:24:00.000-07:00

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

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/58633/sec_id/58633

[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

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

2010-04-07T23:17:00.000-07:00

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?

American Jews and Israel

2010-04-01T18:47:00.000-07:00

(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)

from
ISRAEL’S REBIRTH ‘A BORING STORY’ TO U.S. JEWS.
AN INTERVIEW WITH AMERICAN ZIONIST HERO DR. DAVID GUTMANN
JewishPress.com Posted Mar 29 2010

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/03/29/dr-david-gutmann-an-american-zionist-hero/?singlepage=true

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)

2010-04-01T16:52:00.000-07:00

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!

The Worst Case Scenario*

2010-03-22T01:50:00.000-07:00

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
http://futureisrael.org/
http://www.foundation1.org/
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/04/urgent-public-message-from-prof.html

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

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

2010-03-20T23:39:00.000-07:00

. . . 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.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1981-1982/91%20Statement%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20on%20US%20Measure

ALSO, see

A revolutionary proposal

http://the-jew-in-yellow.blogspot.com/2010/03/revolutionary-proposal-from-melanie.html

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,

There Never Were "Two" Jerusalems . . .

2010-03-19T02:33:00.000-07:00

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/

What They Are Saying About the Jews

2010-03-02T19:53:00.000-08:00

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).

THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION

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.

http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/conner2.html

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"

Summary

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

"Fking Israelis, Fking Jews... they should be wiped off the face of the earth"

2010-02-22T18:27:00.000-08:00

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

But we can . . .

FILE THIS UNDER "NO TEARS FOR TERRORISTS"
_____________________________________
NOTE: BE SURE TO READ It's called being a light unto the nations FROM Internet Haganah
http://israel.internet-haganah.com/archives/001704.html
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."
--Naomi
---------------------------------------------------------------

REPORTING 007: SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

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)

MAKING THINGS UP?

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."

IGNORING THEIR OWN COUNTRIES' "MURDERS"

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTHING KNOWN FOR CERTAIN ABOUT MABHOUH'S DEATH

(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
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=19921
* Palestinian Dubai Murder Suspects are Hamas Members - Palestinian Security Official
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=19905
* This article in al-Hayat (Arabic only) also examines Palestinian involvement (with assistance from Arab and Western intelligence agencies) into Mabhouh's death.
http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/110096>

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

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

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

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

FULL ARTICLES

WAS THIS DOUBLE-BLUFF, TRIPLE-BLUFF, BLIND MAN'S-BLUFF?

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.

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

THE BBC "SHOULD EXAMINE THIS DISGRACEFUL TRANSMISSION, APOLOGIZE TO JEWS AND REMOVE FROM ITS ARCHIVE THE SLANDEROUS WORDS"

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

www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=169316

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
region.

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".]

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

"AMID ALL THE EXCITABLE NONSENSE BEING TALKED ABOUT DEAD HAMAS COMMANDER MAHMOUD AL-MABHOUH I THINK THE BBC HAS TOPPED THE LOT"

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:
www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5784131/another-genocidal-murderer-wiped-out-britain-knows-whos-really-guilty.thtml

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

"OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO CAPTURE HIM AND SUBJECT HIM TO
JUDICIAL JUSTICE. BUT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO, ESPECIALLY IN DUBAI."

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

www.hudsonny.org/2010/02/if-israel-killed-mahmoud-al-mabhouh-did-it-have-the-right-to.php

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.

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

WHERE WERE GEORGE CLOONEY AND BRAD PITT?

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.

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

"IT'S FASCINATING TO WATCH THE WORLD TRY TO TURN THE DUBAI ASSASSINATION INTO A DEBACLE FOR ISRAEL"

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

END NOTE

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

Caroline Glick on Sarah Palin in the Jerusalem Post

2010-02-13T22:55:00.000-08:00

Column One: Sarah Palin’s friendship
By CAROLINE GLICK
12/02/2010 16:01

Hers is the strongest single American voice opposing Obama’s foreign policy, supporting Israel and denying Iran nuclear weapons.

US President Barack Obama is an inept, incompetent leader. More than his failure to pass his domestic agenda on health care and global warming despite his Democratic Party’s control over both houses of Congress, Iran’s announcement on Thursday that it is a nuclear power and has the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium is a testament to Obama’s feckless incompetence. Even his most ardent supporters are admitting this.

Take The New York Times. In a news analysis Thursday of Obama’s failure to prevent Iran from advancing with its nuclear program, David Sanger wrote that for the US president, the last year has been “a year in which little in his dealings with Iran has gone the way that the White House expected.”

Since Obama first announced his wish to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a Democratic presidential candidates’ debate in the spring of 2008, the 44th US president’s only strategy for dealing with Iran has been to appease its leaders. And as of Tuesday, he still believes that ingratiating himself with the regime is his best bet.

On Tuesday, Obama wouldn’t admit that appeasement has failed, even as all of Iran’s top leaders said they were expanding their illicit uranium enrichment activities. The most he would do was acknowledge that the regime’s leaders “have made their choice so far, although the door is still open.”

As for sanctions, well, Obama said it will take “several weeks” to put those together at the UN.

The distressing truth is that Obama’s aim has never been to prevent Teheran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. His whole “sanctions-if-engagement-fails” strategy is just a ruse. The Obama administration has never intended to place biting sanctions on Iran. As one senior administration official told The New York Times, the purpose of the sanctions talk is to get the Iranians to agree to negotiate. As he put it, “This is about driving them back to negotiations, because the real goal here is to avoid war.”

Got that? As far as Obama is concerned, Iran with nuclear weapons isn’t the main concern. Israel using force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the main concern.

US PRESIDENTS have a far freer hand in foreign policy than they have in domestic affairs. A president’s ability to implement his domestic agenda is constrained by Congress. Congress has much less of a say in foreign policy. But the main constraining factor for a US president in both domestic and foreign affairs is public opinion.

Over the past year, Obama failed to pass his domestic agenda even though he enjoyed governing majorities in both houses of Congress, because the public opposed his agenda. So, too, if the public is able to express its opposition to his foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Israel and Iran, he will be unable to sustain it.

To date, in light of his sinking approval ratings, the main thing Obama has had going for him is that since the presidential election, his political opponents have lacked a leader capable of uniting his opponents around an alternative path. Over the past week, that leader may have emerged.

On Saturday, former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin gave the keynote address at the Tea Party Movement convention in Nashville, Tennessee. As she did in the presidential campaign, Palin electrified her audience in Nashville by credibly channeling the populist impulses of American voters. In her signature line she asked, “So how’s that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?”

Palin excoriated Obama on his handling of US foreign policy. Among other things, she noted that a year into his quest to appease dictators, America’s international standing is in shambles. “Israel, a friend and a critical ally, now questions the strength of our support,” she added.

Palin bellowed that on issues of foreign policy, there is no room for self-delusion. As she put it, “National security, that’s the one place where you’ve got to call it like it is.” And then, “We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America’s friends from her enemies and recognizes the true nature of the threats that we face.”

If her address wasn’t enough to convince Americans – and specifically American Jews – that Palin thinks supporting Israel and standing up to Iran are the keys to US national security, then there was her interview on Fox News Sunday. Asked how Obama can win reelection in 2012, Palin responded, “Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do.”

And if that still isn’t enough, there is her lapel pin. The politician who leads the populist opposition to Obama decided to make her most important speech since the 2008 election wearing a pin featuring the US flag and the Israeli flag.

Palin, who is considering a run in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, is using her public platforms to reassemble the coalition of security hawks, social conservatives and blue collar workers that propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980. Her support for Israel serves her in building support among both security hawks and social conservatives.

Unlike Obama’s empty protestations of support for Israel, Palin’s support is obviously heartfelt and therefore will not diminish while Obama remains in office. And as Palin becomes stronger, her ability to influence the US debate in a manner that constrains Obama’s freedom to intimidate Israel into allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will rise.

In spite of Palin’s extraordinary support for Israel, the American Jewish community overwhelmingly rejects her. As Jennifer Rubin noted in her article, “Why Jews hate Palin,” in Commentary magazine, Jews disapproved of Sen. John McCain’s choice of Palin as his running-mate by a 54 to 37 percent majority. The sneering broadsides published against Palin by leading American Jewish writers are legion.

In her article, Rubin gives a number of reasons for American Jews’ rejection of Palin.

On the one hand, American Jews, who overwhelmingly self-identify as Democrats and disproportionately identify as liberals, oppose Palin for the same reason they oppose all social-conservative Republicans – because she isn’t a liberal Democrat. What makes American Jews’ rejection of Palin unique is its emotional potency. Rubin argues that the visceral hatred that many American Jews express towards Palin is effectively an issue of class hatred, or snobbery. They are four generations removed from the sweatshops where their great grandparents labored on New York’s Lower East Side. And they don’t like this woman with a funny accent who went to University of Idaho, guts fish and shoots moose.

This may be true. But if it is, American Jews might want to rethink their loyalty to their social class. As the demonstrations against Ambassador Michael Oren at UC Irvine, against former prime minister Ehud Olmert at University of Chicago, against Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon at Oxford, as well as the disinvitation of Prof. Benny Morris at Cambridge and the celebrity of Harvard’s anti-Semitic Prof. Steve Walt show clearly, the bastions of intellectual elitism where American Jews feel most at home have become the repositories of the most virulent hatred of Jews in America and the West today. Liberal standard bearers like Hollywood have had no compunction about giving prestigious awards to movies like Paradise Now, which glorified murderers of Jews in a manner unmatched since the days of Leni Riefenstahl. Elite media outlets like The Atlantic monthly are only too happy to publish the rantings of newly fashionable critics like Andrew Sullivan.

Liberal Democratic Jewish voices, like Leon Wieseltier at The New Republic, are aware that there is a problem with the rampant anti-Semitism in their camp. And they fear that as a consequence, American Jews may take a second look at Palin with her Israeli flag lapel pin. As Wieseltier wrote this week, “A day does not go by when I do not do my humble part to prevent such a transformation [of American Jewry from liberals to conservatives] from coming to pass.”

THE FACT of the matter is that for Israel’s sake such a transformation can’t happen quickly enough. It isn’t that American Jews have to change their social agenda, but they must recognize that today, sadly, there is not meaningful bipartisan support for Israel in the US Congress. The 54 lawmakers who wrote Obama a letter last month asking him to force Israel to open up Gaza’s borders were all Democrats. Opposition to passing sanctions against Iran, and opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, are only politically significant among Democrats.

In her speech at the Tea Party Conference, Palin said, “We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”

The fact of the matter is that Obama came to many of his anti-Israel sensibilities through his professor friends – Rashid Khalidi, John Mearshimer, Samantha Power, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and, of course, the late Edward Said. Americans interested in national security – and particularly American Jews who support Israel – should be the first ones to second Palin’s statement.

Sarah Palin’s emergence as the mouthpiece of populist opposition to Obama presents Israel’s supporters – and particularly Israel’s Jewish supporters – with an extraordinary opportunity and an extraordinary challenge. Palin’s coupling of support for Israel with her populist domestic agenda marks the first time that support for Israel has been treated as a core, populist issue. The opportunity this presents for American Jews who care about Israel is without precedent.

But of course, to make the best use of this opportunity, American Jews who support Israel have to disappoint Wieseltier. They have to acknowledge that the Left has rejected their cause and increasingly, rejects them.

Obama’s failure to prevent Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program, and his stubborn refusal to support an Israeli move to deny Iran the ability to threaten Israel and global security as a whole, place Israel and core US national security interests in unprecedented jeopardy. His fellow Democrats’ willingness to support him as he maintains this perilous course means that the Democratic ship has abandoned Israel, and strategic sanity.

Palin’s future in politics is unknowable. But what is clear enough is that today hers is the strongest single American voice opposing Obama’s foreign policy and the loudest advocate for supporting Israel and denying Iran nuclear weapons. For this she deserves the thanks and support of American Jewry.

caroline@carolineglick.com

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=168501

Fitzgerald: If Iran's Nuclear Project is to be attacked, who should do the attacking?

2010-02-11T18:48:00.000-08:00

Israel? Why? Why not?

from Jihad Watch

Fitzgerald: If Iran's Nuclear Project is to be attacked, who should do the attacking?

It seems likely that, in the next week, the Islamic Republic of Iran will meet whatever challenge is posed to it by those who wish to march and express their dissent and discontent. The Revolutionary Guards seem ready to repress the dissenters, whatever it takes, no matter how peaceful and justified those dissenters may be.

They will no doubt be suppressed with a cruelty and violence that the most sinister members of Savak, under the late Shah, could only envy but not dare to emulate. It is likely that all these hopes and dreams for the fall of the regime are seen to be merely projections of those used to the idea that Hollywood Endings are real, that not only does Good Always Triumph, but does so in time for you to leave the theatre and beat the implacable meter maid before she tickets you, or to be safely at home at a reasonable hour, or after the movie go out to dinner, or something else (it's your night out, you decide). That's not the way it happens. The Bolsheviks held a large part of the earth's land mass in thrall for more than seventy years, and that was without many True Believers left after the first few decades. But for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the True Believers are those who believe truly in Islam, and Iran has tens of millions of such people; the hold of Islam is far stronger, reinforced by practically everything in societies suffused with Islam, than Communism ever could have been.
. . . . continue reading . . . .

Posted by Hugh on February 10, 2010 3:43 PM 13 Comments Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us ARTICLEURL Buzz up!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/fitzgerald-if-irans-nuclear-project-is-to-be-attacked-who-should-do-the-attacking.html
Comments at the above URL

PA Minister: "Nobody Has the Right to Declare the End of Jihad" (MEMRI)

2010-02-11T16:38:00.000-08:00

PA Minister of Religious Endowments Mahmoud Al-Habbash said in a sermon broadcast on PA TV on Jan. 7: "Nobody - whoever he may be - can ever abolish Jihad or say that it has come to an end. Jihad continues to Judgment Day." "There is not a single one of us who does not participate in the resistance. We all participate in resistance. Even a woman who sits at home, raising her children, is conducting resistance because she is preparing the ammunition of the future." "It is inevitable that the day will come when we will fly the flag of our independent Palestinian state over every inch of our soil and over the minarets and the domes of Jerusalem."

Click . . . PA Minister: "Nobody Has the Right to Declare the End of Jihad" (MEMRI)

Is "Jew!" an expletive? an insult!

2010-02-08T01:10:00.000-08:00

In English, it is a short word that can be spat out at one: Jew! Likewise in French: Juif! In Russian: Zhid! In German "Jud!" In Spanish, the impossible to spit out "Judio!" the Italian equally un-spit-out-able "Giudeo" And, of course, the Arabic yahood! The last-named definitely not a term of endearment.

In any language, it can be used to modify a noun such as -bastard or -boy.

It can be an equivalent of the forbidden n----- word, although that word when used among themselves, and even used when addressing a Caucasian, can be nothing worse than the equivalent of "man" or "human being."

But back to the word "Jew" or "Jew!"

Its origin was of course "Yehuda," the name (in Hebrew) of one of the twelve sons of Jacob. In English this was translated into "Judah."

"Yehuda" pronounced fast--swallowing the "e" ends up as Yudah and is easily transformed into the German Jude or Jud (the "J" in German is pronounced as is the English "Y."

The Romans called the area apportioned to Yehuda's descendents, the tribe of Yehuda or Judah (the remnant Southern part of the divided Israel-Judah kingdoms) as "Judea." As a matter of fact, all of the area inhabited by the descendants of the ancient Hebrews and the "Children of Israel" was the Roman province of Judea.

So, if you like a Romanized name, you could call yourself a "Judean." As the Romans were far from friends to the inhabitants of Judea, that appellation does not sit well with us. The Spanish "Judeo" (khudeo) derived thus from the Latin.

"I am a Judean." may sound better--more patrician--to the Anglicized ear than "I am a Jew," but it is not only pretentious but also Romanized and abhorrent to the memory of those valiant Jews who died or suffered in the revolts against the Roman occupiers.

Referred to as Yehudim, those whose ancestry hailed from Roman Judea from whence they were exiled by the Romans, ended up as "Juden" in German. In the singular the German"Jude" or "Jud" (German "J" is pronounced as English "Y"). If "Jud" is pronounced by an English speaker, the transformation to "Jew" is apparent.

In German-origin Yiddish, the descendants of the inhabitants of Yehuda referred to themselves as Yid--singular (plural Yidden)--hence the Russian Zhid.

The question posed still remains: is being called "Jew" an insult or the proper name for Jewish ethnicity?

This question is the subject of What does it mean to say 'Jew'?

By Cara Hogan Advocate Staff

[quote]

What do you think of when someone says "Jew"?

Does it echo of anti-Semitic epithets or conjure a sense of pride associated, say, with the state of Israel?

The National Endowment of the Humanities has awarded a $50,400 grant to [Cynthia Baker] a professor at Bates College in Maine to research the word - from its first appearance thousands of years ago through its usage today.

***

[Professor Baker] said ancient Jews did not seem to adopt the term. "In the Talmudic literature, the rabbis almost never refer to Jews," said Baker. "We have thousands of pages of manuscripts of these people who we would call Jews, and they never use the word."

***

She said that during a fiveweek research program in what had been the Jewish ghetto in Venice, she was struck by the words for Jew in Italian, either ebreo or giudeo. That got her thinking how in English, three words - each with a different connotation - apply to Jews.

"Why Hebrew, why Israelite, why Jew?" said Baker. "Who gets to decide in what context and circumstances lead to the different choices of terms from different periods?"

She observed that, while in the past gentiles have used the word Jew in a pejorative fashion, Jewish people today are claiming the word with pride.

***
"In early Zionist usage, sometimes Jew was a term of pride," said Baker. "But there was a dichotomy between the muscular Hebrew and the effete, neurotic anti-Semitic character of the Jew. It was the Hebrew in his land with his muscles and his gun that was going to finally vanquish that Jew of the anti-Semitic stereotype."
More there, read the whole thing at
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/news/2010-02-05/top_news/002.html

Would you rather be called "a Hebrew?"

From The Jewish Daily Forward:

Hebrew vs. Jewish

By Philologos

Not only, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, was "Hebrew" vigorously promoted as a substitute for "Jew" in a number of countries, but in some of them it actually carried the day, as well. This was the case in Russia and Italy, where yevrei and ebreo became the standard words for "Jew." The same thing wasn’t that far from happening in English, either. One only has to think of such American Jewish institutions as Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Hebrew Free Loan Society, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and so on to be reminded of how many Jews 100 years ago preferred being called "Hebrews" by Christian America.

Strictly speaking, the distinction these Jews wished to make was different from Horwitz’s. "Hebrew" vs. "Jew" seemed to them a question not of a religious vs. a secular identity but of a genteel and respectable nativeness vs. a scruffily suspicious foreignness. A "Hebrew" was for them an American Jew who spoke or aspired to speak a proper English, to adopt American ways and to be outwardly no different from his Christian neighbors; since these neighbors went to church Sunday, there was nothing "un-Hebrew" about going to synagogue Saturday. The same held true of such countries as Russia and Italy. A yevrei or ebreo was a Russian or Italian in good standing, fully accepted in liberal Russian or Italian society; a zhid or a giudeo was a looked down-upon outsider. And yet inasmuch as the Hebrew, yevrei or ebreo was definitely a non-Orthodox Jew who did not make too much of his religion, there was a decided element of "secularity" in the term, after all.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11238/

Want to be called a "Hebrew" instead of a "Jew?"

Think that then they can't call you a "dirty" or a "f---ing" Jew? How about when they shorten the aristocratic Hebrew into "Hebe?" Easy to modify with the derogatory adjectives.

See? Makes no difference. Call me what you will--Jew or Hebrew (fogeddabout "Hebe"), but you f--k with me and you might be looking at (or feeling ) your newly torn other a---ole.

(The foregoing last phrase applies to antisemites.)
_________________________________________
END NOTES FOR "JEW" and "Hebrew"

Jew

Originally from Yehuda (Judah), which in Latin became Iudea (Judea). In Hebrew, a person from Yehuda was a Yehudi, which today is the Hebrew word for a Jewish person.The Latin Iudea was altered in the languages of Europe. In France, it is Juif, in Germany, Jud, in English, Jew.
--Bill
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080303075834AAB9yaD
　
Y becomes J in Germanic languages as old English is basically a German dialect y i and J were interchangable then the frankified Normans invaded and brought the zh sound for J from French which became the English J.
--upyr1
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080303075834AAB9yaD
　
It's from "Yehudi" = Hebrew. Yehudi->Jehudi->Judean->Jew.Meaning, from the tribe of Judah, son of Jacob.
--Maurog
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080303075834AAB9yaD

　
From Hebrew vs. Jewish http://www.forward.com/articles/11238/

By Philologos
　
ivri, "Hebrew," in the Bible refers to an ethnic group rather than to a religion; but yehudi, "Jew," whose original meaning is "Judean," occurs in the Bible only once, in the Book of Esther, and was hardly ever used in later rabbinical literature, where the accepted term for "Jew" was yisra’el, "Israelite."
http://www.forward.com/articles/11238/

From Judaism 101
Origins of the Words "Jew" and "Judaism"
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

The original name for the people we now call Jews was Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" (in Hebrew, "Ivri") is first used in the Torah to describe Abraham (Gen. 14:13). The word is apparently derived from the name Eber, one of Abraham's ancestors. Another tradition teaches that the word comes from the word "eyver," which means "the other side," referring to the fact that Abraham came from the other side of the Euphrates, or referring to the fact Abraham was separated from the other nations morally and spiritually.

Another name used for the people is Children of Israel or Israelites, which refers to the fact that the people are descendants of Jacob, who was also called Israel.

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim.

***

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Nonie Darwish, Infidels, Moslems, and Islamization

2010-02-01T03:01:00.000-08:00

.
Nonie Darwish, Now They Call Me Infidel

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

A. Introduction

Nonie Darwish was born in Cairo. Before immigrating to America in 1978, she worked as a journalist in Egypt. She left Islam and became a Christian. She now leads a group called “Arabs for Israel” and lectures around the country. She pointedly remarked, “I chose the culture of life and not the culture of death. I chose the culture of freedom and not the culture of tyranny. I chose America.”

Nonie Darwish is a brave and insightful woman. She is familiar with the classic techniques of tyranny, and she tells us Islam poses the greatest danger to the United States—indeed to civilization. Hence I want to convey some of the most salient points of her book, Now They Call Me Infidel, which was published in 2003. And I wonder why Israeli prime ministers lack her courage and wisdom?

B. Islamic Culture in Egypt

1. “Throughout my childhood,” she writes, “we were bombarded with calls to war and songs praising President Nasser. Arab leaders were treated as gods and they acted as gods. Fear of Allah was transferred to fear of the dictator” (33).
2. “Everyone around me was so fatalistic… Social classes in Egypt were very stratified. We never mingled as equals. Furthermore, it was very hard if not impossible to move from the class you were born in” (35).
3. “…when Elizabeth Taylor converted from Christianity to Judaism, her films were prohibited in the Arab world. So Egyptians never saw her film Cleopatra. Few Westerners can comprehend the degree to which hatred of Jews permeates every aspect of Arab culture” (p. 39).

Here let me interject an observation of Bernard Lewis. Lewis observed that hated of Jews increased after the March 1979 signing of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty. If so, there is a great deal of nonsense broadcast by Israeli and American opinion-makers and policy-makers about promoting peace in the Middle East. It seems to me they simply lack the courage to tell the truth about the murderous ethos of Arab-Islamic culture.

4. Returning to Darwish, she boldly declares: “I could not accept a culture that was willing to orphan its own children in its obsessive hatred of Jews, that was ready to sacrifice lives and the health of the family structure over a few miles of land. Egyptians acted as though the West Bank and Gaza were taken from them, even though they were never Egyptian land” (41).

5. Hatred of Israel, she says, was “fueled by that arrogance of power and petrol dollars of the Arabs. [Israel] could do nothing to please this culture, other than cease to exist” (42).

6. Darwish asks: “What was wrong in allowing a few million Jews to live among us in peace? Arab land was plenty. They had only a small sliver of land, in some places only thirty kilometers wide…. But the hatred of Jews and anti-Semitism was frighteningly prevalent in our society. At the same time I did not know—and no one in the Arab world did—that Israel had a history on that small strip of land going back thousands of years. Nor did we know that Jerusalem was the point of origin for two great religions, Judaism and Christianity, religions that existed before Islam even began. … We were taught that ‘Zionists’ were foreign infidel invaders bent on taking Muslim land and our destruction, and that they must be destroyed” (49).

7. At this point Darwish makes a profound remark about Muslim culture that should be taught in Israeli schools. She notes that Egyptians have been indoctrinated with the belief that Egypt’s problems are “a result of the evil of the outside world. Egyptians [are] never told that it was their responsibility to solve their own problems. The villain was always an outside force. The scapegoating [especially of Jews] was true on the national front and it was true on the personal level as well. The concept of taking responsibility for oneself [is] completely foreign… in Muslim culture …” (50).

8. Darwish then draws an important conclusion worthy of political scientists that have studied Aristotle. She says: “An outside enemy was necessary to foster Arab cohesion and keep the Arab public preoccupied with news of dangers and threats. Thus, the press kept up a constant bombardment of stories that blames Israel for all the troubles within the Arab world. The effect was to decrease the pressure and deflect criticism of Arab governments” (95).

9. Especially significant is her point that “In Arab culture, being truthful is not only considered to be naïve and stupid, but is also considered—believe it or not—rude” (119). Of course, this “was very different from American culture, where people talk freely about their shortcomings and pain without shame” (121).

10. “Western-style soul searching or examination of beliefs is almost unheard of in Arab culture. And no subject is more sacred and protected from analysis or criticism than the Koran or Islam. Muslims can get violently angry if that is done. To a lesser extent, if a family member, tribe, nation, or culture is perceived to be under attack, then excuses … misrepresentations, and outright lies are the only honorable thing to do. Remember, this is a culture based on pride and shame” (122). Now let’s consider some of Darwish’s observations about Islam in America.

B. Islam in America

1. She writes: “My escape from radical Islam to the open arms of America did not last long. As we moved deeper into the 1980s …, I began to see gradual change among the Muslims around me. To my surprise, the radical aspects of Islamic culture from which I had escaped were starting to grow in power right here in America” (131). “Most Muslims,” she says, “have little education in Islam. Why? Such education would end Muslim leadership’s total control over the minds and behavior of the masses…. Muslims are safe as long as they are loyal followers and obedient to the national goal of jihad against the non-Muslim infidels, especially the Jews next door.” (135).

2. Darwish then points out that “In the Muslim world there are no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims. Some practice, some don’t, and the ones who don’t may have views as radical as those who do practice” (135).

3. She contends that “The values of Muslim society as it is constituted at the present, cannot survive in a democracy where individuals would have right to question, debate, change religions, or choose to have no religion at all” (136).

4. However, she adds a word of caution. She cites a Muslim leader who said, “Thanks to your democratic laws we shall invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you” (144).

This Islamization is happening in England and in Europe. Darwish fears that this could happen in America. She said this some five years before Barak Obama entered the Oval Office. Darwish surely knows that Obama is a Muslim by Islamic law. Perhaps former UN Ambassador John Bolton had this in mind when he spoke of Obama as having the first post-American foreign policy. It seems that the Obama administration is the first post-America government.

C. Israel’s Ruling Elites

1. Now let me shift to Israel. Ever since Yitzhak Rabin became Israel’s first Israeli-born prime minister, Israel has drifted into a post-Zionist dispensation. With Rabin’s Oslo Accords, Israel drifted into a post-Jewish dispensation. I see this in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s endorsement of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. I am not at all impressed by his qualification that the new state be demilitarized and it recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The mere fact that he would give Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, to the Arabs, marks him, in my eyes, as a post-Jewish prime minister.

2. But inasmuch his predecessors, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert were also committed to this truncation of Israel, they too may be deemed post-Jewish prime ministers. Indeed, I dare say that Israel’s government has always been post-Jewish by the mere fact that, like Herzl, its founding father, Israel’s ruling elites relegated the Torah to the home and the synagogue and thus separated the Torah from public law and statecraft—following the footsteps of Christianity.

3. Now recall Darwish’s Muslim leader who said “thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.” Israel’s leaders could say: “Thanks to our secular laws we will dominate you.” This is why the Jewish philosopher Yitzhak Breuer said that secular Zionism poses the greatest threat to Judaism in history.

4. But Israel’s secular elites will not succeed, because it is not in their power to achieve the hidden goal of Israel’s government—to relegate the Torah to the dust heap of history.

Iraq wants to turn ancient Jewish tomb into mosque

2010-01-21T20:32:00.000-08:00

from y net news.com "jewish world"

Israeli professor informed Iraqi authorities engaged in erasing Jewish characteristics off Prophet Ezekiel's tomb located south of Baghdad

by Smadar Peri

Some 2,500 years ago the prophet Ezekiel presented his Prophecy of Dry Bones, which according to various interpretations hailed the salvation of the Jewish people. According to recent reports, Iraq is currently trying to remove the Jewish traces from the prophet's tomb and turn it into a mosque.
_________________________________________________
No Compensation
Iraq refuses to compensate Jews / Doron Peskin
Organization claiming to represent Iraqi Jews who immigrated to Israel says property worth $100 billion confiscated by authorities. Government says Jews were not forced to leave, sold their property before departing
Full story
__________________________________________________
Ezekiel the Prophet, whose prophesy was recorded in the Book of Ezekiel, lived in Babylon at the time of Solomon's temple. Tradition has it that he is buried in the village of Al Kilf, south of Baghdad, and followers of the three monotheistic religions continue to visit his tomb to this day.

"I received information from a senior Iraqi scholar pertaining to the local authorities' intention of turning the tomb into a mosque under the guise of 'preservation' of the holy site," says Professor Shmuel Morre, former head of the Arabic Language and Literature Department in the Hebrew University.

"The man who provided me with the information stressed that the Iraqi antiquities department has been under heavy pressure to erase any proof of the Jews' connection to Iraq," he notes.

Iraq also contains the tombs of the Ezra the Scribe, the Prophet Jonah and King Zedekiah. According to Prof. Morre, who himself was born in Iraq, his colleague informed him that local authorities have already began erasing Hebrew inscriptions off Ezekiel's tomb in order to turn the site into a mosque.

'Stop Islamization'

For hundreds of years the tomb has been under the care of leaders of the Jewish community in Iraq.

Currently the country contains only eight Jews. The rest have become Muslim or are in hiding for fear of being murdered by terrorists upon embarking on a Jewish pilgrimage.

Manager of the "Justice for Jews" organization Shlomo Alfassa has approached US government authorities in Washington following the reports and demanded to "stop the Islamization of the Jewish prophet's tomb."

[COMMENT: What with the Islamic-friendly Obama Administration, good luck with that! Leslie White]

An application has also been made to the UNESCO headquarters, which is responsible for maintaining the religious character of holy sites.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3832780,00.html

Berbers and Jews of North Africa

2010-01-13T00:14:00.000-08:00

IMAZIGHEN (BERBERS) AND JEWS AND THE FORGOTTEN JEWISH REFUGEES FROM THE HATRED OF ARAB-ISLAMIC LANDS
TV debate on Berber-Israel friendship association

http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2010/01/imazighen-berbers-and-jews-and.html

Obama's Lies and Islamic Dissimulation (Lies and More Lies)

2010-01-06T23:54:00.000-08:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg writes from Israel:

In view of Obama’s many distortions of history, please read this essay on Taqiyya—dissimulation—and ponder whether the occupant of the White House is a practitioner of this insidious doctrine, the key to understanding Islam’s war on Western civilization in general, and on the United States and Israel in particular.

How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of WarDefeating Jihadist Terrorism
by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari'a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a "beautiful trick."

Prof. Paul Eidelberg,
President, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy
Jerusalem

Deception and Dissimulation

The Liar (shown above with his so-beguiling smile) promised that would be "transparent" and "open" about everything that he would later foist off on us--e.g. The Obamacare boondoggle.

He never openly disavowed Islam, the opposite as a matter of fact (in Cairo). His "Christianity" that he now professes was that of the antisemitic, racist, Black Liberation Theology type, as espoused by the antisemite and white-American-hater "Rev." Jeremiah Wright.

A Low And Dishonest Decade

2010-01-04T02:18:00.000-08:00

By Caroline Glick

Upon returning from Cairo on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "It’s time to move the peace process forward."

The most sympathetic interpretation of Netanyahu’s proclamation is that he was engaging in political theater. It was a low and dishonest statement uttered at the end of what has been, in the immortal words of W.H. Auden, "a low and dishonest decade."

Everyone with eyes in their heads knows that there is no chance of making peace with the Palestinians. First of all, the most Israel is willing to give is less than what the Palestinians are willing to accept. But beyond that, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is controlled by Iran.

For its part, Fatah is not in a position to make peace even if its leaders wished to. Mahmoud Abbas and his deputies know that just as Hamas won the 2006 elections in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Hamas would win elections today. To maintain even a smudge of domestic legitimacy, Fatah’s leaders have no choice but to adopt Hamas’s rejection of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state. Clearly, now is not the time "to move the peace process forward."

No less than what it tells us about Netanyahu, his statement is notable for what it tells us about Israel. Our continued willingness to ensnare ourselves in the rhetoric of peace processes demonstrates how little we have progressed in the past decade.

In 1999, Netanyahu was ejected from office by an electorate convinced that he was squandering an historic opportunity for peace between Israel and its neighbors. A majority of Israelis believed that Netanyahu’s signature policies of demanding that the Palestinians abide by their commitments to Israel, and maintaining the IDF’s security zone in south Lebanon were dooming all hope for peace.

His successor, Ehud Barak, promised to remove IDF troops from Lebanon and forge a final peace with the Palestinians and with Syria within a year. After winning the election, Barak famously promised a swooning crowd at Rabin Square that the "dawn of a new day has arrived."

Barak lost no time fulfilling his campaign promises. He withdrew the IDF from south Lebanon in May 2000.

He launched talks with Syria in December 1999. For four months he begged Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to accept the Golan Heights, stopping only after Assad harshly rebuffed him in March 2000.

And in July 2000 at Camp David, Barak offered Yasser Arafat Gaza, 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem in exchange for peace. After Arafat rejected his offer, Barak sweetened it at Taba in September 2000, adding another 5% of Judea and Samaria, the Temple Mount, and extra lands in the Negev, only to be rejected, again.

Barak made these offers as the wisdom of appeasement exploded before his eyes. Hizbullah seized the withdrawal from Lebanon as a strategic victory. Far from disappearing as Barak and his deputy Yossi Beilin had promised it would, Hizbullah took over south Lebanon and used the area as a springboard for its eventual takeover of the Lebanese government. So, too, with its forces perched on the border, Hizbullah built up its Iranian-commanded forces, preparing for the next round of war.

Similarly, Barak’s desperate entreaties to Assad enhanced the dictator’s standing in the Arab world, to the detriment of Egypt and Jordan.

To the extent he required encouragement, the ascendance of Hizbullah, Syria and Iran made it politically advantageous for Arafat to reject peace. Buoyed by their rise, Arafat diverted billions of dollars in Western aid from development projects to the swelling ranks of his terror armies. Instead of preparing his people for peace, he trained them for war.

Arafat responded to Barak’s beggary at Camp David and Taba by launching the largest terror offensive Israel experienced since the 1950s. The Palestinians’ orgiastic celebration of the mass murder of Israelis was the final nail in Barak’s premiership, and it seemed at the time, the death-knell of his policies of appeasement.

A year and a half after he took office, the public threw Barak from power. Likud leader Ariel Sharon - who just a decade earlier had been taken for dead - was swept into power with an electoral landslide. To the extent the public vote was for Sharon, rather than against Barak, the expectation was that Sharon would end Barak’s appeasement policies and defeat Arafat and the terror state he had built in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. But this was not to be.

Rather than abandon Barak’s policies, Sharon embraced them. He formed a unity government with Labor and refused to fight. He didn’t fight after 22 teenagers were massacred outside the Dolphinarium nightclub in June 2001. He did not fight after the September 11, 2001, attacks and the Palestinian celebrations of the slaughter in New York and Washington.

Sharon did not order the IDF to fight until the carnage of March 2002 that culminated in the Seder massacre at Netanya’s Park Hotel forced his hand. Had he not ordered the IDF to dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructures in Judea and Samaria at that time, he faced the sure prospect of being routed in the Likud leadership race scheduled for November of that year.

Operation Defensive Shield was a textbook example of what you get when you mix weak politicians with a strong society. On the one hand, during Defensive Shield, the IDF took control of all the major towns and cities in Judea and Samaria and so enabled Israel to dismantle Palestinian terror networks by remaining in place in the years that followed.

On the other hand, Sharon refused to allow the IDF to launch a parallel operation in Gaza, despite repeated entreaties by the army and residents of the South. Most important, Sharon barred the IDF from toppling the PA or even acknowledging that it was an enemy government. And he maintained that the Palestinian jihad began and ended with Arafat, thus absolving all of Arafat’s deputies - who were then and today remain deeply involved in the terror machine - of all responsibility.

In acting as he did, Sharon’s signaled that he was not abandoning appeasement. Indeed, he made clear that his aim was to re-embrace appeasement as his national strategy as soon as it was politically feasible.

Most Israelis explained away Sharon’s behavior in his first term as the price he was forced to pay for his coalition government with Labor. So when in 2003 Sharon, Likud and the political Right won an overwhelming mandate from the public to lead the country without the Left, the expectation was that he would finally let loose. He would finally fight for victory.

Instead, Sharon spat on his party, his coalition partners and his voters and adopted as his own the policies of the Left that he had condemned in his campaign.

To implement those policies, Sharon dismantled his government and his party and formed a coalition with the same Left the nation had just overwhelmingly rejected.

The past decade’s major policies: the withdrawal from Gaza, the construction of the security fence, the acceptance of the road map peace plan, the Annapolis Conference, Operation Defensive Shield, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead all shared one central feature. They were all predicated on ignoring the lessons of the failure of appeasement in 2000.

Whereas Defensive Shield’s strategic success was owed to Israel’s decision to maintain control over the territory the IDF seized in the fighting, in launching the wars with Hizbullah and Hamas, Sharon’s successor, Ehud Olmert, ignored that success and chose instead to emulate the operation’s failures.

To further his government’s appeasement policies, Olmert refused to order the IDF to seize south Lebanon or Gaza. By the same token, like Sharon in Defensive Shield, Olmert announced at the outset that he had no interest in defeating Israel’s enemies. He limited the goals of the campaigns to "teaching them a lesson." And of course by not seeking victory for Israel, Olmert enabled both Hizbullah and Hamas to claim victory for themselves.

By opting not to defeat Hizbullah or Hamas, Olmert communicated the message that like Sharon before him, his ultimate strategic aim was to maintain the political viability of appeasement as a national strategy. He was fighting to protect appeasement, not Israel.

As we move into the second decade of this century, we need to understand how the last decade was so squandered. How is it possible that in 2010 Israel continues to embrace policies that have failed it - violently and continuously for so many years? Why, in 2010 are we still ignoring the lessons of 2000 and all that we have learned since then?

There are two main causes for this failure: The local media and Sharon. Throughout the 1990s, the Israeli media - print, radio and television - were the chief propagandists for appeasement. When appeasement failed in 2000, Israel’s media elites circled the wagons. They refused to admit they had been wrong.

Misleading phrases like "cycle of violence" were introduced into our newspeak. The absence of a security fence - rather than the presence of an enemy society on the outskirts of Israel’s population centers - was blamed for the terror that claimed the lives of over a thousand Israelis. Palestinian propagandists and terrorists such as Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti were treated like legitimate politicians. Palestinian ties to Iran, Syria, Iraq and the nexus of global jihad went unmentioned or uncommented upon.

At the same time, opponents of appeasement - those who had warned of the dangers of the Oslo process and had spoken out against the withdrawal from Lebanon and a potential withdrawal from the Golan Heights and Gaza - were not congratulated for their wisdom. They remained marginalized and demonized.

This situation prevails still today. The same media that brought us these catastrophes now derides Likud ministers and Knesset members who speak out against delusion-based policies, while suddenly embracing Netanyahu who - with Barak at his side - has belatedly embraced their pipe dreams of appeasement-based peace.

Then there is Sharon. The man who built the settlements, who removed the PLO from Lebanon, who opposed Oslo, Camp David and the withdrawal from Lebanon; the man who opposed the security fence and pledged to remain forever in Gush Katif. As Israel’s leader for most of the past decade, more than anyone else Sharon is responsible for Israel’s continued adherence to the dishonest, discredited and dishonorable dictates of appeasement.

Whether due to his alleged corruption, his physical enfeeblement, his fear of the State Department, or his long-held and ardent desire to be accepted by the Left, Sharon betrayed his voters and his party and he undermined Israel’s ability to move beyond failure.

Auden’s "low and dishonest decade" was the 1930s. It was the West’s obsession then with appeasement that set the world on course for the cataclysm of World War II.

As Israel enters the new decade, we must redouble our efforts to forestall a repeat of the cataclysm of the 1940s. Disturbingly, Netanyahu’s call for a fraudulent peace process shows that we are off to an ignoble, untruthful start.

Friday, January 1, 2010

Muslim World Today

Netanyahu versus Einstein

2009-12-31T00:01:00.000-08:00

Paul Eidelberg

In a message honoring the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto, Albert Einstein declared:

The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.

The Constitution of the Palestinian Authority calls for “The complete liberation of Palestine and the economic, political, military and cultural elimination of Zionism.” Only fools would fail to see in these words the genocidal objective of the Palestinian Authority. Is not the meaning of this Arab imperative “clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding”?

Did not the Palestinian Arabs repeatedly hear Yasser Arafat chanting Jihad against Israel and elect him as their Fuhrer? But then, should they not be held collectively responsible for the brutal murder and maiming of more than 10,000 Jews perpetrated by their government, now headed by Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas? And should they not be punished, as Einstein said of the German people, “if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely”?

Is it not clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding that the Palestinians have used Arab children as human bombs to butcher Jewish men, women, and children?

Is it not clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding that Palestinians have taught generation after generation of Arab children to hate Jews and exalt those who kill them?

Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu would reward these Palestinians with statehood!

Albert Einstein was a gentle man, very much inclined to pacifism. But above and beyond his desire for peace was his desire for justice.

United States Wants "Clarification" of the Taking Out of Three "Palestinian" Terrorists

2009-12-30T06:11:00.000-08:00

from Israpundit

Washington, not J’lem, needs to issue clarifications

By DAN DIKER, JPOST

The United States’ recent request for a public clarification from National Security Adviser Uzi Arad following the IDF’s killing of three wanted Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades terrorists in Nablus is unusual and raises questions.

Arad’s reported need to explain to his US counterparts the defensive nature of the IDF operation several days after the Iranian-backed terror cell’s murder of Rabbi Meir Chai, a father of seven, seems exceptional. This IDF operation was no different than hundreds of other actions against Palestinian terror groups that have murdered well over 1,000 Israeli civilians since the Palestinian Authority launched the Aksa war of terror in 2000.

As a rule, the US has not asked Israel for public clarifications on antiterror operations. Clearly, close communications are important. There are multiple security and intelligence channels between Israel and its closest ally that have been and should be used to handle these types of security queries. The Israeli Embassy in Washington, the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, the US consulate in Jerusalem, military attaches and representatives of respective intelligence agencies are appropriate addresses.

But in this extraordinary case, the US demanded a public clarification on behalf of the PA. This clearly represents heightened US sensitivity to Palestinian protests over the IDF’s “unjust” incursion into Area A of Judea and Samaria/the West Bank, where the PA has overall security responsibility, to net the Fatah-associated terror cell that resulted in its elimination.

THIS IS where it seems more appropriate that the US issue clarifications to Israel. At least one of the Aksa Brigades commanders - Annan Sabuh, who was found with two M16 automatic rifles and two other firearms - had been part of the amnesty program for former Fatah-affiliated terror group commanders and operatives that was predicated on turning in all weapons. The amnesty program was implemented in no small part at the behest of the United States and its security reform program, which began under Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton in 2005.

Notwithstanding IDF praise for PA public policing improvements in some West Bank cities and for PA security actions against Hamas, the American-trained and -funded Palestinian security forces under the command of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have either refused or been unable to uproot the terror infrastructure of the Fatah-associated Aksa Martyrs Brigades. Similar to the three recently neutralized terrorists, thousands of additional Aksa Martyrs operatives and other Fatah militia members have gone into “retirement” via the amnesty agreement with the PA security forces and their US security coordinators, but many operatives still store weapons in their homes. US security officials may also be aware that some Fatah terror operatives have even been sheltered in PA security installations to remove them from Israel’s most wanted list.

Fayyad has also coopted some Aksa commanders by assigning them to senior positions in the PA security forces, such as Abu Jabbal, a senior PA security forces officer in Nablus. The increased US commitment in 2009, equaling some $130 million to upgrade the PA forces to nearly 3,500 men, has failed to address the very problem of the continued existence of Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades and other armed Fatah factions that resulted in the recent murder of Chai. It is well known in senior Fatah security echelons that the limited capacity and political will of PA forces require the IDF to assume between 70 percent and 80% of the security operations against the extant terror infrastructure in the West Bank.

ASSERTIONS BY some US officials as to the effectiveness of PA security forces must also be reassessed in view of recent Aksa Martyrs actions against the Palestinian leadership. Aksa operatives fired shots recently at Anan Atiri, deputy to the incoming governor of Nablus, after publishing leaflets labeling the governor a traitor. The group has also publicly labeled Fayyad an American agent and has published threats against him. Add this to the fact that Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades shot at outgoing Nablus Governor Jamal Muheissin on November 26, and that in May it published a leaflet there accusing PA President Mahmoud Abbas of participating in assassinations in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

In view of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades’ direct challenge to the US-backed PA Security forces, it would seem appropriate for to Israel to receive clarifications from the United States as to how these robustly funded and well trained paramilitary forces plan to finally uproot the Fatah and Hamas terror infrastructures that continue to claim the lives of Israeli civilians while physically threatening the PA leadership that is supposed to be securing the foundation for independence.

The United States might also clarify to the Palestinian leadership that in the aftermath of the tragic and violent Iranian-backed Hamas takeover of Gaza following Israel’s 2005 withdrawal, Israelis are not inclined to assume major security risks in line with Palestinian “red line” demands for a second complete Gaza-type withdrawal, particularly in Area C of the West Bank, which houses the strategically vital Jordan Valley and its 3,000-foot protective hills overlooking Israel’s major coastal cities.

To be sure, Israel will become even more risk-averse if the Palestinian Authority proves incapable of completely uprooting the entire terror infrastructure in the areas under their agreed upon jurisdiction.

The writer is director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a senior policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

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

For the Murder of the Rabbi for which the three Arabs paid, see Apropos of the terrorist murder of Rabbi Meir Chai

For why "Barack* and Barak**" are responsible for the murder of Rabbi Meir Chai, see
Barack and Barak -- B. Obama and Ehud B.-- to Blame for Rabbi's Murder
________________________
*Barack O
** E Barak

Barack and Barak -- B. Obama and Ehud B.-- to Blame for Rabbi's Murder

2009-12-29T12:26:00.000-08:00

from Israel National News

[J]ournalist David Bedein reminded Arutz Sheva's audience that the Al Aksa Martyrs formally joined Fatah's security forces at the Fatah convention in August. Fatah receives military training from US military forces with the full approval of Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Bedein noted that as a journalist, he recently submitted a query to the Minister of Defense and directed a similar question to the US authorities. In his queries he noted that despite their claims otherwise, the Al Aksa Martyrs are a terror group whose men receive financial aid which the US gives the group.

He has not received an answer to the query.

Bedein's description of the matter means that the United States (headed by President Barack Obama), with the Israeli government's passive agreement, has indirect responsibility for training and funding the terror force which murdered Rabbi Meir Chai.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135198

GLOBAL FORUM FOR COMBATING ANTISEMITISM

2009-12-28T17:37:00.000-08:00

Machine-Translated from the Spanish at L.Y. Conde's Judios en el Norte de Sefarad
http://judiosenelnortedesefarad.blogspot.com/

Conference of PILAR RAHOLA in GLOBAL FORUM FOR COMBATING ANTISEMITISM, Jerusalem 16 Dec. 2009. For any additional information, the website of this important forum is:
http://www.gfantisemitism.org/Pages/default.aspx 12/2009 [NOTE: Not much there. lw]

[translated from the Spanish by "bing" --a raw translation, no editing nor cleanup. Want me to edit and clean-it-up? Leave me a COMMENT here to that effect. If I get a sufficient number of these, I shall do just that.]

[Pilar Rahola speaking]

Monday night in Barcelona. In the restaurant, a hundred lawyers and judges. Gathered to hear my views on the Middle East conflict. Know that I am a heterodox, ship in the wreck of the single-minded prevailing in my country, on Israel. Want to hear me. Someone reasonable as I say, do why risk losing credibility, defending the bad, the guilty parties? I tell the truth is a broken mirror, and we all have some piece. And caused his reaction: "all you create experts in international politics, when talking about Israel, but actually know nothing." Do you dare to speak of the conflict in Rwanda, Kashmir, Chechnya? "." Not. They are lawyers, its terrain is geopolitics. But with Israel dare. Worldwide dares. Why? Why Israel is under the permanent magnifying glass media and distorted image, pollutes the brains in the world. And why is part of the politically correct, why seems solidarity, why leaves free talk against Israel. And thus people cultivated, when read about Israel are willing to believe that Jews have six arms, in the middle ages believed all kinds of atrocities. On the Jews of yesteryear and the Israelis today, anything goes.

The first question, then, is why so many intelligent people when speaking about Israel, idiot. The problem we who not demonizamos to Israel, is that there is no discussion of the conflict, there is the banner; not ideas we we cross, we paste with slogans; not enjoy serious information, suffer hamburger, fast food, full of prejudice, propaganda and simplismo journalism. Intellectual thinking and international journalism, has resigned in Israel. Does not exist. Therefore, that when you try to go beyond the single thought, becomes suspicious, unsupportive and reactionary, and is immediately segregated. Why?

Years ago that I try to answer this question: why? Would why of all conflicts in the world, just like it? Why does criminalizes a small country, struggling to survive? What why triumphs lies and informative, handling so easily? What why throughout, is reduced to a simple mass murderers imperialists? Why the reasons of Israel are never there? Why are there never blame Palestinian? By what Arafat is a hero, and Sharon a monster? Ultimately, why, being the only country in the world threatened with destruction, is the only that no one considers victim?

I do not believe that there is a single answer to these questions. Just as it is impossible to explain fully the historical wickedness of anti-Semitism,
It is not possible to explain the current imbecilidad of the antiisraelismo. Both drink sources of intolerance, lying and prejudice. If, moreover, that the antiisraelismo is the new form of anti-Semitism, we conclude that they have changed the contingencies, but deeper, myths of medieval Christian anti-Semitism, both of modern political anti-Semitism remain intact. And these myths have resulted in the story about Israel. For example, the medieval Jewish that killed Christian children to drink his blood, connects directly to the Israeli Jew who kills Palestinian children to stay their lands. They are always innocent children and dark Jews. For example, the Jewish bankers who wanted to dominate the silent on European banking as the myth of the protocols, connects directly to the idea of Jews from Wall Street to dominate the world from the White House. The domain of the press, the finances, the universal conspiracy, everything that you configured the historical hatred against Jews, domain today empties into hatred Israelis. In the subconscious, therefore late Western anti-Semitic DNA, which creates an effective breeding ground. But what late in the conscious? What why today comes with so much virulence a renewed intolerance, now centered, not on the Jewish people, but in the Jewish State? From my point of view, it has historical and geopolitical, reason among others the bloody Soviet role for decades, Arab interests, European anti-Americanism, the energy dependence of the West and the growing Islamic phenomenon.

But also arises from a set of defeats that suffer as free societies and empties into a strong ethical relativism.

Moral defeat of the left. For decades, the left raised the flag of freedom, there where there is injustice, and was the repository of utopian expectations of society. He was the great construction company for the future. While the murderous evil of Stalinism sank these utopias and left to the left as the naked King, stripped of costumes, has preserved intact its halo of struggle, and still mark patterns of the good and the bad guys of the world. Even those who would never vote left-wing positions give great prestige left-wing intellectuals, and allow to be them which monopolize the concept of solidarity. As they have always done. Thus fighters against Pinochet, were the freedom fighters, but Castro, victims are expelled from paradise of heroes, and converted in CIA agents, or undercover fascists. I remember perfectly, as young, combative University of Franco's Spain reading Solzhenitsyn was anathema... And thus the man raised the cry from the black hole of the Stalinist Gulag, it could not be read by antifranquistas fighters, why there were leftist dictatorships or victims fighting them.

This historic betrayal to freedom, reproduced at present, with mathematical precision. Also today as yesterday, that left forgives totalitarian ideologies, falls in love with dictators, and in their offensive against Israel, ignores the destruction of fundamental rights. Hates rabbis, but falls in love with magnets; shouts against the IDF, but welcomes the terrorists of Hamas; cries by Palestinian victims, but despises the Jewish; victims and when shocked by Palestinian children, does only it if you can blame the Israelis. Never denouncing culture of hatred, their preparation for death, or slavery suffered by their mothers. And while stands the Palestinian flag, burning the flag of Israel. A year ago, at the AIPAC in Washington, Congress did the following questions: "do what deep pathologies away to the left of his moral commitment?" What should we see in Paris or Barcelona demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships? why is there no demonstrations, against the enslavement of millions of Muslim women? What why not manifested in the use of child bombs in conflicts where Islam is involved? "why the left is only obsessed in fight against two of the strongest democracies of the planet, and which have suffered most bleeding attacks, U.s. and Israel?"… Why the left dreamed utopias stopped dreaming, broken in the Berlin wall of their own failure. You no longer have ideas, but slogans. Already does not advocate rights but prejudices. And greater prejudice of all is the anti-Israel. I acknowledge, therefore, clearly: the primary responsibility for new anti-Semitic hatred, disguised as a antiisraelismo, comes from those who would have to defend freedom, solidarity and progress. Far from it, defend despots, forget their victims and silent before medieval ideologies that want to destroy civilization. The betrayal of the left is a real betrayal of modernity.

Defeat of journalism. We have a more informed than ever world, but we have a better informed world. On the contrary, the information highways connect us with any point of the planet, but not connect us with the truth, nor with the facts. Current journalists do not need maps, why have Google Earth, do not need to know history, why have Wikipedia. Historical journalists who knew the roots of conflict, still exist, but are a species endangered, devoured by this journalism that offers fast-food news readers who want information fast-food hamburger. Israel is the most guarded world and yet, the place of the least understood world. Of course, also influences big lobbyists of the petrodollar, whose influence in journalism is subtle but deep pressure. Any more media knows that if he speaks against Israel, will have no problems. But what will happen if criticises an Islamic country? Certainly, then complicate life. Let us not confuse us. Part of the press writes against Israel, would be reflected in an acute Goethe phrase: "no one is more slave which have for free, without it". Or also in another, more cynical of Mark Twain: "First know the facts and then distorsióna them as you want".

Defeat of critical thinking. All this can add ethical relativism that defines the current time, and being based, not the negation of the values of civilization, but their normalization. What is modernity? Personally explain with this small story: if I lose on a desert island, and like to establish a democratic society, would need only three books: the tables of the law, which established the first code of modernity. "Not kill, do not steal,..." founded the modern civilization. Roman criminal code. And the Bill of rights. And with these three texts should begin. These principles, which speak for us as a society, are relativizados, even by those who claim to defend them. "Not kill"..., depends on who would be the target, think those who, for example in Barcelona, demonstrated with shouts for Hamas. "Live human rights", depends on a who apply and therefore not concerned million women slaves. "Non mentirás"..., depends on whether the information is a weapon of war in favour of a cause. Social critical mass has thinned, and at the same time, has fattened ideological dogmatism. In this double yaw, strong currency values have been replaced by a thought weak, vulnerable to manipulation and Manichaeism.

Defeat of the United Nations. And with it, a rotunda defeats international agencies that should ensure human rights, and that have become broken in the hands of despots dolls. The UN only serves to make islamofascistas as Ahmadinejad or dangerous demagogues like Hugo Chavez, a planetary speaker from where spitting his hatred. And, of course, to systematically attack Israel. Also against Israel, the UN lives better.

Finally, defeat of Islam. Islam lights today suffer violent attack by a totalitarian virus that attempts to curb his ethical development. This virus uses the name of God to perpetrate the most unimaginable horrors: stoned women, enslave them, use pregnant and young people with mental retardation as human bombs, train in hatred, and declare war on freedom. Let us not forget, for example, that us kill with mobile satellite connected... with the middle ages...

If Stalinism destroyed left, and the Nazis destroyed Europe, Islamic fundamentalism is destroying Islam. And also, like other totalitarian ideologies, an anti-Semitic DNA. Islamic anti-Semitism is perhaps the most serious intolerant phenomenon today, not in vain affects more than 1,300 million educated, massively, hatred the Jew.

Israel is located at the crossroads of these defeats. A reasonable left a serious journalism and a dignified UN, orphan and tolerant Islam, Israel orphan orphan suffer violent paradigm of the 21st century: the lack of strong commitment to the values of freedom. Nothing is strange. Jewish culture embodies as none, the metaphor of a concept of civilization today suffering attacks by all sides. You are the thermometer health worldwide. Provided that the world had totalitarian fever, you have suffered. In medieval Spanish, in the Christian persecutions in the Russian progroms in European fascism in Islamic fundamentalism. The first enemy of totalitarianism has always the Jew. And in these times of dependence and social confusion, Israel embodies in meat, the Jew of always.

A pariah nation among Nations, for a pariah people between peoples. That is why the anti-Semitism of the 21st century has dressed the effective costume of the antiisraelismo. All the criticism against Israel is anti-Semitic? Not. But all current anti-Semitism has dump in prejudice and demonising against the Jewish State. A new dress for an old hatred.

Said Benjamin Franklin: "where mora freedom, there is my homeland". And added Albert Einstein: "life is very dangerous." "Not for people who do evil, but that sit to see what happens". This is the twofold commitment here and now: not sit never to see pass evil and Always defend homelands of freedom.

Thank you.

Pilar Rahola
16/12/2009

Published in the original Spanish by L. Y. Conde at http://judiosenelnortedesefarad.blogspot.com/

ABOUT PILAR RAHOLA:

She is a Catalan--from Catalonia in Spain, capital is Barcelona.

She is a writer, journalist, former member of the Spanish Parliament

She is not Jewish.

BUT . . .

.- For many years she has been closely following the Middle East question and is an expert on the political, fiscal, and social geography of the area. She has travelled more than twenty times to the area. She is a fervent fighter against media distortion and the current criminalisation of the state of Israel. The battle against anti-Semitism has become one of her priorities. This struggle is reflected in dozens of speeches and articles.

.- Her speech "The Jews and the flies" at UNESCO in Paris in May 2003 was one of the first European texts that denounced, with regard to Israel, the left and the role of journalists, whom she accused of promoting the current wave of anti-Semitism. It was translated into many languages.

.- She is also the author of a reference text "On behalf of Israel", published in a jointly authored book, in Catalan by Ediciones 3y4, and in Spanish by Editorial Certeza, 2004, with numerous translations.

.- Speech at the Annual Meeting of the American Jewish Committee, in Washington, in 2003: "Europe´s Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism. The Chamberlain Syndrome". Numerous translations.

.- Speech at the Karen Hayesod Congress, Dead Sea, Israel, in November 2003: "The blind eye of Europe. The protocols of the information sages". Numerous translations.

.- She has given many speeches at universities in Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Israel, and Chile. And she has given many in American cities, among them Miami, San Diego, and Palm Beach, and in Puerto Rico too, and in the legislative palaces of Uruguay and Panama. She has participated in the sessions against intolerance in Sao Paulo, supported by the Observatory against Intolerance of Sao Paulo University.

.- She was awarded the "Javer OLAM" distinction (world friend), 2004, given by the Chilean Jewish Community on Yom HaShoa (Holocaust Day), for her struggle against anti-semitism. She was Honorary Lecturer in 2004 at the Kristallnacht commemoration in Paraguay, in the presence of the President of the Republic.

.- Homage of the AMIA´s Directive, in Argentina, 2004, for her struggle against terrorism.

.- "Panarra de l´any" prize, 2004, given by the Gremi de Flaquers, Barcelona, for her sensitivity to the problems of the sector.

.- Doctor of the Arts and Science of Communication honoris causa, University of Santiago de Chile, for her struggle on behalf of fundamental rights, June 2004.

.- Honorary member of the "Comunidad Mujer" (Community of Women), a group of Chilean women´s leaders, June 2004.

.- First prize 2005, Barcelona Comercio, awarded by the Fundación Barcelona Comercio (Barcelona commercial Foundation), an umbrella group of the city´s commercial organisations. Awarded for her defence of neighbourhood trade.

.- CICLA prize 2004, together with Manuel Tennembaun and Mordejai Arbei, awarded in 2005. Given in the Jerusalem Hebrew University by the Iberian American Communities in Israel. This prize is given to outstanding people and institutions for their support of the Jewish people, the state of Israel and mankind.

.- Honour Member of University of Tel Aviv, 2006.

.- Golden Menora Price 2006, with Simone Weil, given by French B´nai Brith

.- Scopus Price 2007, the best price given by Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

.- APEI Price for yours articles, given by "Asociación Profesional Española de Informadores de Prensa, Radio y Televisión".

.- Honour guest in the AIPAC's Policy Conference, 2008.

.-Senador Angel Pulido, 2009, given by "Federación de Comunidades Judías de España".

.- Mass Media Award, 2009, given by American Jewish Committee, for her fight bias to Human Rights.

HER BIOGRAPHY can be found at
http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/BIO/default.cfm

Some of her work regarding Jews can be found at The Jew in Yellow (this blog) at http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2007/12/hello-welcome-to-jew-in-yellow.html--scroll down to

CHECK OUT Islamic Danger FU that's FOR YOU

NOTE: Yes, I know that what follows has pieces repeated, often more than once. It needs editing. I will do that as soon as I get to it. It's always a tradeoff between what has to be put out there and what can be cleaned up when there's less pressure to keep up the fight.
Leslie White

"Articles : Anti-semitism Che and a nazi, in the mirrorTwo protagonists at the extremes: Ché Guevara and David Duke"

[NOTE: There's one article in Spanish--scroll right past that, if you do not read Spanish]

ALSO

See . . .

Spanish anti-Semitism is alive in the Left
by Pilar Rahola

Pilar Rahola, Former Member of Parliament of the Spanish Republican Left : "Judeophobia Explains the Pro-Palestinian Hysteria of the European Left"
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=pilar+rahola&d=4743722708112339&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=9640038e,b67e1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilar_Rahola

Apropos of the terrorist murder of Rabbi Meir Chai

2009-12-26T23:44:00.000-08:00

.
“The degraded one says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Apropos of the terrorist murder of Rabbi Meir Chai, a father of seven from Samaria, I ask once again: “Why is Netanyahu still in Office?”

How many Jews have been murdered by Arab terrorists as a result of Israel’s spineless and intellectually stultified prime ministers?

Why is there no rational method of removing such timid and unteachable prime ministers from office? What enables them to remain in office or be re-elected despite their abysmal political records?

How many years must Israel persist in the inane policy of self-restraint — read “cowardice” — and suffer its consequences, the murder of our loved ones and the degradation of our country?

Why can’t Israel’s political and intellectual leaders recognize the most palpable fact — a fact manifested over and over again during the course of 1,400 years of Islamic history — that you cannot make peace with the disciples of Muhammad, who have slaughtered more than 200 million people during those fourteen centuries?

This is the one crucial (and horrific) fact which no prime minister of Israel — certainly not a Harvard-educated prime minister like Binyamin Netanyahu — has been able to assimilate, which is why I deem them unteachable.

Bear in mind that the mentor of Shimon Peres, Professor Y. Harkabi, set forth all you need to know about the militant and mendacious character of Islam in his book Arab Attitudes to Israel. Yet this same academic advocated negotiations with the disciples of Muhammad for the purpose establishing a PLO state in Israel’s heartland? Ponder this schizophrenia, which permeates all too many of Israel’s (as well as America’s) political and intellectual elites, and you will not be surprised to learn that Israel’s Harvard-education prime minister is a clone of these idiots.

The Jewish sages said that the atmosphere of Israel makes one wise. But this they said of Israel when Israel worshipped God and was not led by fools who say in their hearts there is no God.

To ask, as I have— “Why is Netanyahu still in office?” — is to suggest that there is no political accountability among those who hold office in Israel. This lack of accountability can be traced not only to Israel’s poorly designed political institutions, which I have discussed ad nauseam, but also to fools or degraded leaders who say in their hearts there is no God.

Ahmadinejad and his Mullah Masters: “Death to Israel”

2009-12-18T14:27:00.000-08:00

Incitement to Genocide

“‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ are not only words written on paper but rather a symbolic approach that reflects the desire of all the Muslim nations.”
http://www.aftab.ir/news/2007/oct/04/c1c1191492912_politics_iran_hossein_shariyat_madari.php October 4, 2007

While certain Western commentators on Iran seek to whitewash Ahmadinejad’s statements on Israel, pro and anti-regime Iranians (and others in the region) have no doubt that the Iranian president is referring to the destruction of Israel, according to Iranian blogs and forums. There are close to 180,000 Persian-language blogs, and Iranians constitute 53 percent of Internet users in the Middle East.

from: What Iranian Leaders Really Say
about Doing Away with Israel:
A Refutation of the Campaign to Excuse
Ahmadinejad’s Incitement to Genocide
by Joshua Teitelbaum

http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

• Over the past several years, Iranian leaders – most prominently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. While certain experts have interpreted these statements to be simple expressions of dissatisfaction with the current Israeli government and its policies, in reality, the intent behind Ahmadinejad’s language and that of others is clear.

• What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said – and how it has been interpreted in Iran – is that the Iranian president was not just calling for “regime change” in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad punctuates his speech with “Death to Israel” (marg bar Esraiil), this is no longer open to various interpretations.

• A common motif of genocide incitement is the dehumanization of the target population. The Nazi weekly Der Stürmer portrayed Jews as parasites and locusts. Ahmadinejad said in a speech on February 20, 2008: “In the Middle East, they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime.”

• Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, has made statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad. On December 15, 2000, he declared on Iranian TV: “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.”

• Michael Axworthy, who served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, notes that when the slogan “Israel must be wiped off the map” appeared “draped over missiles in military parades, that meaning was pretty clear.”

• There is an ample legal basis for the prosecution of Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.

[COMMENT: But as we are dealing with killing Jews here, don't hold your breath waiting for the "International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court" to take any action.]

Chanukkah 2009

2009-12-11T06:36:00.000-08:00

HAPPY HANUKKAH

Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is celebrated by Jews for eight days, commencing on the 25th day of the month of Kislev (November/December). This year (2009) Hanukkah begins on the eve of December 11.

Is it a festival TO CELEBRATE AND REMEMBER A VICTORY IN BATTLE?

Not really. The eight lights are lit to celebrate a miraculous happening.

The victory was necessary for it to happen.

The victory was that of the Jews over the Hellenist Syrians in 165 BCE.

Following their victory, the Maccabees, sons of the Priestly Hasmonean family which led the Jews in their revolt against the Syrian overlords, entered the Holy Temple in Jerusalem defiled by the Syrian invaders, cleansed it and dedicated it anew to the service of God. Then, in memory of their victory, the Maccabees celebrated the first Hanukkah. (Hanukkah is the Hebrew term for "dedication").

The Talmud, the body of Jewish oral law, relates how the Judean heroes, led by Judah Maccabee, were making ready to rededicate the Temple and were unable to find enough undefiled oil to light the lamps. However, in one of the Temple chambers, they finally came upon a small cruse of oil which, under normal circumstances, would have lasted only one evening. Miraculously, this small amount of oil kept the Temple lights burning, not for one night, but for all the eight nights until new oil fit for use in the temple could be obtained. This is the miracle commemorated by the kindling of the Hanukkah lights.

The miracle would never have occurred, had the Temple in Jerusalem remained defiled and in the foreign (non-Jewish) hands that had sacrificed a pig in the Holy of Holies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus

Why was there no Islamic presence in Jerusalem at this time? No mention of the Islamic conquerors of the Greeks in Judea? Well, guess what: the events described in the "hanukkah story" took place some 700 years before there was such a thing as a "Moslem," an "Islam," an Arab "prophet" that called himself "Mohammed."
________________________________________

The U.S. and "No Jews Allowed in Judea!"

2009-12-10T15:33:00.000-08:00

[quote from Gerald Honigman]

Secretary of State Clinton made a hasty visit to North Africa—both Egypt and Morocco—to kiss Arab leaders’ derrieres for her previous "mistake." Her crime? She dared to praise Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s temporary halt to allowing more Judeans—Jews—to live in Judea, a place where they lived and owned land for millennia up until their slaughter by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. Over a million Arabs—many hostile to Israel and supporters of those who would see it destroyed and its people slaughtered—can live in the Jewish State without fear, but how dare Jews live in a small part of Judea.

***

Secondly, I’m concerned over Netanyahu’s offer too...so Arabs have company in this corner. Who knows what he actually offered if Hillary gave him some praise. She’s definitely no fan of Jewish leaders who act like they still have their private parts intact...regardless of what too many card playing Jewish grandmas like to think. Israelis did not vote Bibi into office to elect yet another yes massah stooge for an American State Department which fought against Israel’s very existence from the getgo and remains hostile and largely Arabist in orientation to this very day.

***

Think of it...There was Hillary in "Arab" North Africa [The majority of North Africans are "Berbers", not Arabs] . And what was she up to? Reassuring Arabs that Israel will remain a 9-15 mile wide sub rump state, perpetually at their mercy under threat of invasion, terrorism, and being severed in half. Israel is simply expected to forget about the establishment of real and secure borders—not previously imposed armistice lines—that the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 called for after the 1967 fighting which started as a result of an Arab blockade of Israel and other hostile acts.

***

Neither the Arabs’ more honest Hamas nor the Arabs’ latter day Arafatian Fatah’s Abbas has any intention of recognizing a state of the Jews nor allowing it to exist in peace—regardless of who is doing the whitewashing. to such enemies, Israel owes nothing except exponential payback.

[More]

Excerpts from http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=604

Taken from the book The Quest for Justice in the Middle East by Gerald A. Honigman

http://q4j-middle-east.com/index.html
　
　
　

What Iranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel:

2009-12-05T20:03:00.000-08:00

What Iranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel: A Refutation of the Campaign to Excuse Ahmadinejad’s Incitement to Genocide
- Joshua Teitelbaum

Download Full Report

Looking Back at the Peace Plan of a "black" President

2009-11-26T23:12:00.000-08:00

from Dry Bones, comes this analysis of how a black president wanted to keep an area "racially pure:"

No Jews Allowed
　

Obama's plan for Peace on the West Bank is not new.
The Nazis invented two words for it.
"Judenfrei" refers to "freeing" an area of all of its Jewish citizens.
"Judenrein" (literally "clean of Jews") was also used.
This had the stronger connotation that the area had been cleansed of Jewish blood.
-more

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-jews-allowed.html

The reverse of this Obama edict to keep lands under Arab occupation "cleansed" of Jews, is the suicidal plan to keep Arabs in Israel--the "enemy within"--as a burgeoning population sector with full Israeli citizenship and the dream of becoming a majority in a "Judenrein" "Palestinian" state.

See They Must Go

Jews and Sarah Palin

2009-11-20T01:16:00.000-08:00

Leftist Jews have a new target for their outrage, Sarah Palin, another fundamentalist Christian who supports Israel. Among Sarah Palin’s sins are that she shoots wolves and protects the unborn, to which Israeli literary figure Naomi Ragen has responded, would leftist Jews like her better if she shot children and nurtured wolf cubs?

--"The Jews, Palin, and Liberal Politics" By Abraham H. Miller
via Israpundit
from Israel Hasbara Committee . . .

It is also not surprising that in response to the pressure of leftist Jews, the pusillanimous leaders of Jewish organizations, whose sympathies incline toward the left, disinvited Palin from speaking at a Jewish organization rally, held outside the United Nations (September 23, 2008), protesting Iran’s quixotic, genocidal President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As Caroline Glick notes in the Jerusalem Post of September 23, 2008, these leaders decided that it is more important to put Barack Obama in the White House than to stand up to the man who promises the world a Second Holocaust.

And if one looks at the backgrounds of some of these leaders, they reveal a menage of self-loathing Jews who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Arabs and against Israel at critical moments that threatened Israel’s very survival.

While the Palin controversy rages in the Jewish community, I have received numerous anti-Palin emails from liberal Jewish women: several even asked me to contribute money to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin’s name, as a slap in the face to Palin’s pro-life politics.

As Iran pursues its nuclear program touted as the new Final Solution, the most critical issue on the minds of these liberal Jewish women is one that puts the deaths of the unborn ahead of the lives of six million Israeli Jews already delivered from the womb.

With attitudes like these, Jews need not fear the Islamic Jihadists and the Ahmadinejads of the world; Jews only need to fear the real enemy of the Jewish people�their co-religionists who are incapable of seeing the world from any vantage point other than one that is permanently and mindlessly anchored at the left end of the political spectrum.

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

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, and a former counter-terrorist consultant to the National Institute of Justice.

A Lesson from Ben Hecht

2009-11-18T02:49:00.000-08:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

A propos of the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council regarding Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza, and in view of the endorsement of this infamous report by the UN General Assembly, whose anti-Semitic or Israel-bashing tendencies are notorious, it behooves Jews to heed these words of Ben Hecht’s Guide for the Bedevilled (1944):

“The Jewish apologists are avidly and pathetically content on stating the case for the Jew by contradicting his enemies….They feel only that anything an anti-Semite says must be contradicted and disproved—and they rush forward with statements that Jews [are humanitarians].

“These denials, contradictions and affirmations are a preposterous waste of time. Jewish diplomacy has been wasting its time in this fashion for almost twenty centuries, offering alibis and mitigating circumstances—for what? Is there anything of which a Jew can be guilty that could match the unsavory and contemptible antics of his accusers? Apologies to whom? To that judge with blood-caked hands who sits leering from the bench? To that enfeebled and chaotic brain that calls itself an anti-Semite? Or to that smug and highty-tighty bystander, World Opinion—a gentleman who hasn’t been able to find his buttocks with both hands since he was given an alphabet to play with?

“You would think that the Jews would wake up to this one fact about themselves—that their defensive position is the chief delight and arsenal of the anti-Semite. But never comes such awakening. There have been some who have opened their eyes. Heinrich Heine woke up one day and filled the world with a burst of bitter laughter. This ‘greatest of their poets’ announced that, whatever the Jew was, the spectacle of the monstrosities who call themselves Germans setting themselves up as his judges and superiors was one which must see the Devil and all his friends laughing.

“But Heine is only a Jew—not a Jewish spokesman. The Jewish spokesmen are a little too stunned with calamity to make epigrams. Their very egoism bids them look to themselves for answers, rather than to their enemies. And they answer, scientifically, vaingloriously, despairingly. That they are arguing with lunacy, that they are titillating sadists, but they manage only to inflame their accusers by revealing their wounds—never daunts their propaganda.

“And in this struggle to disprove the anti-Semite by presenting themselves as a noble, worthy, and even wondrous people, the Jews fall into a trap that leaves their enemies cackling. For even these have enough cunning to punch holes in such contentions. The mere fact that the Jews are to be found on this earth is enough to deny their cries that they are noble or remotely wondrous. No people known to history is that—not even the Americans.

“There are two very unwise things to do in this world. One is to proclaim the fact that you are in distress—and expect your plight to bring Samaritans rushing to your side. An occasional Samaritan will arrive—but accompanied always by three hooligan sadists intent on the sport of increasing your misery. The other is the business of advertising your virtues. The ‘Jewish propaganda machine’ is more or less devoted to both schemes, and the results continue, century in and out, to be the same. In a world that admits only victors, the Jews have persisted as advertising themselves as victims only. This the Jews are not. I am not writing of those murdered but those alive. No man alive is a victim. It is not only stupid but dangerous to pronounce himself one….

“Such, to a large degree, is the effect of the Virtue-Apologist propaganda of the Jews. The bystander—not necessarily an anti-Semite—on hearing the overpraise attached to the name Jew, ignores it a little irritably, and bethinks himself at once of Jews he knows he wouldn’t be found dead with.

“My own attitude toward the Jews is that they need no defense—and that defending them is the major disservice I can do to them. They are and always have been the children of the world—and they look to me as good as the rest of their playmates. And, now and then, a little better.

“If there is anything special in the Jewish make-up, it lies in the ancient and still undissipated egoism of the Jew. Here is the quirk of which the anti-Semites make always a great noise. I wish only that the accusations were true—that Jews are dangerous, that they are a world menace (to the Germans), that they cannot be assimilated by Nordic peoples. (Is this really a charge or a complaint?) I wish too that there were complete truth in the accusation that the Jews are an implacable barrier to the philosophy of rampant nationalism.

“There is only one truth in all these charges. No Jew, were he given a Swastika to wear on his sleeve, could exist in the Hell made by the Germans. Not even a bad Jew. There is enough of Elijah left in him to make of him the eternal Underground against tyranny.

“It behooves the Jews to embrace this truth in the charges of his enemies with gratitude and a grin”

Why Jews Don’t Hate Muslims that Hate Them*

2009-11-02T02:35:00.000-08:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Have you ever wondered why many Jews in Israel live in denial about Arab hatred? Have you been puzzled by their inability to face the obvious fact that the Arabs want to destroy them? I’ll limit myself to only reasons: (1) Israel’s failure to understand Islam’s love of death; and (2) Israel’s own love of life.

That Islam loves death was evident in the Iranian-Iraqi war, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to death by having them walk across Iraqi minefields. This necrophilia infects Palestinians who use children as human bombs.

Israel’s love of life generates Hesed or kindliness. An excess of kindliness, however, leads to foolishness and even self-righteousness. Israelis can’t fathom the depth of Arab hatred. “Why should Arabs hate us? We’re so generous. Look what we did for them in the ‘West Bank.’ We established a system of primary and secondary schools that greatly multiplied the number of Arab children attending classes. We built their first universities. We established new hospitals and nursing schools for them. Infant mortality was greatly reduced, and their standard of health was improved beyond recognition. And don’t forget how we constructed roads as well as water and electric power facilities and introduced modern methods of agriculture. Thanks to us, their income far exceeded their kinsmen in the Arab world. So why should they hate us?”

The self-righteousness or feeling of moral superiority of so many Jews has stupefied them. They simply don’t understand that hatred comes natural to Arabs—it’s a cultural phenomenon. Ehud Barak offered Arafat 97% of Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem, but the Arabs said NO! Arab hatred of Jews trumped Arab statehood. Did this change Barak’s attitude toward the Arabs? Not a bit. Did it affect Sharon or Olmert or Livni or Peres or Netanyahu on the issue of a Palestinian state? Not at all. These patronizing and benighted Jews think like capitalists: “Make the Arabs wealthy and they’ll junk jihad and become peace-loving bourgeoisie like us.”

Peres once said we can learn nothing from history. So this genius doesn’t remember the British Peel Commission report of 1937, which concluded that, "Although the Arabs have benefited from the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary, improvement in the economic situation in Palestine has meant the deterioration of the political situation.” Arab hatred of Jews trumps Arab prosperity.

Leon Uris understood this. In his novel, The Haj, Uris has the famous Orde Wingate say:

The Arabs will never love you for what good you’ve brought them. They don’t know how to really love. But hate! Oh God, can they hate! And they have a deep, deep, deep resentment because you [Jews] have jolted them from their delusion of grandeur and shown them for what they are—a decadent, savage people controlled by a religion that has stripped them of all human ambition ... except for the few cruel enough and arrogant enough to command them as one commands a mob of sheep. You [Jews] are dealing with a mad society and you’d better learn how to control it.

The novel’s central character Haj Ibrahim says this to a Jewish friend:

You [Jews] do not know how to deal with us. For years, decades, we may seem to be at peace with you, but always in the back of our minds we keep up the hope of vengeance. No dispute is ever really settled in our world. The Jews give us a special reason to continue warring.

Uris has the cultured Dr. Mudhil elaborate:

We [Arabs] do not have leave to love one another and we have long ago lost the ability. It was so written twelve hundred years earlier. Hate is our overpowering legacy and we have regenerated ourselves by hatred from decade to decade, generation to generation, century to century. The return of the Jews has unleashed that hatred, exploding it wildly ... In ten, twenty, thirty years the world of Islam will begin to consume itself in madness. We cannot live with ourselves ... we never have. We are incapable of change.

Later in the novel, Dr. Mudhil remarks: “Islam is unable to live at peace with anyone.... One day our oil will be gone, along with our ability to blackmail. We have contributed nothing to human betterment in centuries, unless you consider the assassin and the terrorist as human gifts.”

Some pundits may call Uris a “racist.” They lack the novelist’s clear-headed understanding of Arab culture. Unlike apologists, Uris appreciates the tragedy of a few insightful Arabs who know they are trapped in the decadence of “a culture of hate.” Hate incites murder. In all the lands Islam conquered, Muslims replaced indigenous places of worship—Christian, Jewish, Persian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu—with Mosques. This could not be done without enormous bloodshed—estimated at 270 million victims! Those who speak of Islam as a religion of peace are either ignoramuses or on the Saudi payroll.

What happens to a culture in which hate is a chronic principle? When that principle gains ascendancy, as it has in Islam, it tends to close the Muslim’s mind. It breeds intolerance. It precludes self-criticism and undermines any incentive to understand and learn from non-Muslims. And of course it leads to murder.

Contrast Judaism. Hesed or kindliness is a fundamental Jewish principle. Kindliness prompts the Jew not only to help but also to understand and learn from non-Jews. (In the Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 94b, Rabbi Judah the Prince, compiler of the Mishna, unhesitatingly declares in favor of a Gentile astronomical theory over that of the wise men of Israel.) The kindliness of the Jew enlarges his mind and makes him tolerant toward others. Accordingly, whereas Jews speak of righteous Gentiles whose place in heaven is assured, Muslims designate as evil everything that is not Islam and consign all infidels to hell.

But the kindliness of Jews can be as irrational as Arab hatred. This was evident among several Jews in Gush Katif. They showered with kindness the robotic Jews that had come to destroy their homes. The Sages warn us not to carry the Hesed too far.

The irrational kindness of many Jews is symptomatic of a national disorder quite evident among Israel’s ruling elites—their inability to hate with passion Israel’s genocidal enemies. Contrast another kind of Jew. In The Kuzari, Judah Halevi quotes King David: “I hate them, O God, that hate you” (Psalms 129:21). The haters of God, the Kuzari explains, refers to “those who hate God’s people, God’s covenant, or God’s Torah …”

Hatred, however, is futile if it does not issue in action. In Psalm 18:38-43, Israel’s greatest king writes: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and returned not until they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they are not able to rise; ... I pulverized them like dust in the face of the storm...”

The Sages teach: “There is a time to kill, in the time of war, and a time to heal, in the time of peace.… There is a time to love, in the time of peace, and a time to hate, in the time of war” (Kohelet Rabbah 3:1). Consider the verse, “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’” (Tanchuma, Shoftim 15).

Consider the mercy the Israel Defense Forces showed the Arabs in Operation Cast Lead, warning them to leave their targeted homes where arms were stored. Colonel Richard Kemp (the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan), said: "From my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I do not think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civil casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF … in Gaza."

Israel was nonetheless denounced in the world’s media and accused of committing war crimes by the UN Human Rights Council. Now Hamas is rearming, regrouping, and receiving billions from democratic America and Europe, champions of humanism.

By failing to hate Israel’s implacable enemies and to act accordingly, self-righteous and merciful Jews unwittingly become the cruel enemies of their own people.

__________________

*Transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 2, 2009.

Also see how the depth of Arab-Moslem hatred contributed and still contributes to the murder of Jews at "Kill the Jews, Wherever You Find Them!" and why too many Jews refuse to see Islam as the murder-machine it is at Why Jews Would Rather Die Than Face Islam's Jew-Hatred.
__________________

Also check out . . .

A LARGE SAMPLE OF WHAT ISLAM SAYS ABOUT JEWS

"Kill the Jews, Wherever You Find Them!"

2009-11-01T01:42:00.000-07:00

--said the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem"
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/mohammedism/mohammedism6h.html

-- This pleases God, history and religion. this saves your honor. Allah is with you'"

Even before this foul companion of Hitler spoke those words, his "Palestinian" Arabs had been doing this--with fervor.

The Hebron Massacre of 1929

In August of 1929, Arabs instigated violence in the Jerusalem area that spread to most of Palestine. The violence began in Jerusalem and soon spread to Hebron, Motza, and Safed, all old Jewish communities in Palestine that supposedly lived in harmony with their Arab neighbors, rather than Zionist settlements.

In Hebron, the Jewish community which had been there for hundreds of years, refused the help proffered by the Haganah underground when it seemed that Arab agitation was beginning. They trusted their neighbors.

[. . . and what a mistake that was! lw]

Continued at http://www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm

Eyewitness to History - Hebron, August 1929
The Hebron Pogrom of August 1929. submitted by Shlomo Hersh. The following are eyewitness accounts ... The Arabs spoke openly, shamelessly, and fearlessly of the massacre of the Jews to be ...
www.professors.org.il/docs/eye.htm

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني‎, often printed with the French transliteration al-Husseini,[1] 1895/1897 - July 4 1974), a member of the al-Husayni clan of Jerusalem, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in the British Mandate of Palestine. From 1921 to 1948, he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and played a key role in opposition to Zionism and an state for the Jews living in the Palestine region.

As early as 1920, he was active in both opposing the British in order to secure the independence of Palestine as an Arab State and led violent campaigns against Jews[2] opposing the establishment of a National home for the Jewish people in Palestine. His oppositional role peaked during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, wanted by the British, he fled Palestine and took refuge successively in the French Mandate of Lebanon, the Kingdom of Iraq, Fascist Italy and finally Nazi Germany. In Germany he met dictator Adolf Hitler in 1941.[2] He asked Hitler to back Arab independence and requested that Nazi Germany oppose, as part of the Pan-Arab struggle, the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine (the future creation of Israel).[3] . In 1947, he requested funds, on humanitarian grounds, from Ahmed Belbachir Haskouri, the right-hand man of the caliph of Spanish Morocco; the latter, in turn, did not hesitate to raise and send those funds. During the 1948 Palestine War he represented the Arab Higher Committee and opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah's ambitions for expanding Jordan by capturing Palestinian territory.

After the 1948 War and the subsequent Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership were discredited in the eyes of some, and he was eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization and lost most of his remaining political influence.[4] Al-Husayni died in Beirut, Lebanon in 1974.[none to soon]

Recent Nazi documents uncovered in the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Military Archive Service in Freiburg [3] by two researchers, Klaus Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers indicated that in the event of the British being defeated in Egypt by Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps the Nazis had planned to deploy a special unit called Einsatzkommando Ägypten to exterminate Palestinian Jews and that they wanted Arab support to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state. In their book the researchers concluded that, "the most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem.'[135]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini, appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by Sir Herbert Samuel the High Commissioner of British Mandatory Palestine in 1921, played a central role in introducing the ideology and tactics of the National Socialism of Adolf Hitler into the Arab World. In a career that spanned more than 5 decades, el-Husseini contributed to the development of Nazi style organizations in Arab capitals, acted as a conduit for money confiscated from Jews by the Nazi's during World War II to be used to finance anti-Jewish and anti-Israel activities, and lived in Berlin during the war years where he headed a Nazi-Muslim government in exile.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/mohammedism/mohammedism21.html

The mufti "invented a new form of Jew-hatred by recasting it in an Islamic mold," according to German scholar Matthias Küntzel. The mufti's fusion of European anti-Semtism—particularly the genocidal variety—with Koranic views of Jewish wickedness has become the hallmark of Islamists world-wide, from al Qaeda to Hamas and Hezbollah. During his time in Berlin, the mufti ran the Nazis' Arab-language propaganda radio program, which incited Muslims in the Mideast to "kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion." Among the many listeners was also the man later known as Ayatollah Khomeini, who used to tune in to Radio Berlin every evening, according to Amir Taheri's biography of the Iranian leader. Khomeini's disciple Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still spews the same venom pioneered by the mufti as do Islamic hate preachers around the world.

Muslim Judeophobia is not—as is commonly claimed—a reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main "root causes." It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel's creation.

The Mufti of Berlin
Arab-Nazi collaboration is a taboo topic in the West
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400532495168894.html

The Nazi Origins of Modern Arab Terror
Chuck Morse
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/3/154714.shtml

. . . and how does this all relate to today's "Middle East situation" and the idiotic "Peace Process?"

We go back to the Daniel Schwammenthal article in the Wall Street Journal:

"Karl Rössel's exhibition "The Third World in the Second World War" was supposed to premier on Sept. 1 in the "Werkstatt der Kulturen," a publicly funded multicultural center in Berlin's heavily Turkish and Arab neighborhood of Neukölln. Outraged by the exhibition's small section on Arab complicity in Nazi crimes, Philippa Ebéné, who runs the center, cancelled the event. Among the facts Ms. Ebéné didn't want the visitors of her center to learn is that the Palestinian wartime leader "was one of the worst and fanatical fascists and anti-Semites," as Mr. Rössel put it to me."

After canceling the exhibition, Ms. Ebéné clumsily tried to counter the impression that she had pre-emptively caved to Arab pressure. As a "non-white" person (her father is Cameroonian), she said, she didn't have to fear Arabs, an explanation that indirectly suggested that ordinary, "white," Germans might have reason to feel less safe speaking truth to Arabs.

Berlin's integration commissioner, Günter Piening, initially seemed to defend her. "We need, in a community like Neukölln, a differentiated presentation of the involvement of the Arabic world in the Second World War," Der Tagesspiegel quoted him as saying. He later said he was misquoted and following media criticism allowed a smaller version of the exhibit to be shown.

***

"I am not a Mideast expert," Mr. Rössel [the censored Exhibitor] told me [Mr. Schwammenthal], but "I wonder why the people who so one-sidedly regard Israel as the region's main problem never consider how the Mideast conflict would have developed had it not been influenced by fascists, anti-Semites and people who had just returned from their Nazi exile."

Mr. Rössel may not be a "Mideast expert" but he raises much more pertinent questions about the conflict than many of those who claim that title.

Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400532495168894.html

The Yellow Badge
Click on the above

Those J Street Blues

2009-10-29T14:38:00.000-07:00

Expert Warns: Peres Puppeteering J-Street
by Gil Ronen
Follow Israel news
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134130

American Jews X-ing Out J Street
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Follow Israel news
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134080

J Street's Spiritual Conceit
by David M. Weinberg
Follow Israel opinion
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9118

J Street - Another Vanity Production of the Disreputable Renegade Jew George Soros - the man who pulled the strings to get Obama where he is today!

Hymie Zoltsveis on October 20, 2009 [comment at]
http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/what-where-why-and-what-next/#comment-956

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 (From Atlas Shrugs Blog)J Street is a Dead End as rats jump shipThe vile anti-Jewish J Street is being shunned by K street, Congress, and anyone with an ounce of basic human decency. Only Obama sanctioned this stain on humanity. Another revolting notch in the belt of the enemy in the White House. Daniel F sent this:

They’re heading for the exits at anti-Zionist George Soros’s vanity production, J Street. The Weekly Standard has the latest tally of politicians who no longer want their names associated with the ersatz outfit’s "conference" being held next week. The list is growing. And the JPost reports that Israel’s Ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, has declined J Street’s invitation too, citing concerns that "certain policies of the organization…may impair the interests of Israel."

Looking back, this is the unwinding of the unwarranted street cred Obama bestowed on the sham leftwing group at his meeting with Jewish leaders in July. Recall, as punishment for questioning his Israel policies, Obama excluded the venerable (and conservative) Zionist Organization of America to make room for his benefactor Soros.

The Weekly Standard is keeping tally:
The list of senators and representatives that have withdrawn their names from the host committee now stands at eleven, including both Democratic and Republican members. J Street has also cancelled a panel, rescinding invitations to three speakers whose "use and abuse of Holocaust imagery," first noted on this blog, was deemed potentially "offensive to some conference participants" by J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami. How many more people will bail on this "pro-Israel" conference before it starts on Sunday?

The full list of members who’ve pulled their support from J Street:
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Rep. John Salazar (D-CO)
Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)
[and more . . . check http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/what-where-why-and-what-next/ ]

Supporting the Obama drive to impose a "National" Socialism on the United States . . . is . . .

George Soros: Self-Hating Jew, former "acting" Nazi is a powerful supporter of Barack Hussein Obama
nee György Schwartz

The sorry tale of George Soros
By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/mason_soros.php3

And . . .

. . . trying to Shut Up the Jews Who see the Obama people for what they are: Enemies of Israel, we have . . .

Trying to Shut Up Jews Who Know Where Obama Stands . . .
The Obama "Smear Busters"
http://www.obamasmearbusters.com/
who among other lies claim that Obama's speech in Cairo was "Pro-Israel"

In Cairo . . .

Obama said: "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-speech-cairo-israel

The Entire Speech can be read at . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html

and from the horse's . . . ah . . . mouth:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

also . . .
President Obama's Cairo speech text - USATODAY.com

Why Jews Would Rather Die Than Face Islam's Jew-Hatred

2009-10-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

Tough Questions for Israel and Its Supporters
from Bill Warner's Political Islam
October 28, 2009

When America entered the war in Vietnam, Ho Chi Min said that it would be a long war and that the communists would win by using propaganda in the media and the universities. He was correct.

It is time to take stock in the war between Israelis and the Palestinians and deal with some forbidden subjects. Israel is losing the propaganda war, hasbarah, and for a very good reason.

Israel is not in the hasbarah game, unless one counts belated responses to the Palestinians’ propaganda offensives. Pierre Rehov, a Moroccan French Jew, is a documentary filmmaker. He claims that the Palestinians have made over 50 propaganda movies, while Israel has done only 8. Of those eight, Mr. Rehov made six.

Why don’t Jews and Israel want to deal with propaganda? Simple. It would mean talking about Islam. Jews and Israel must face the facts that the Koran and the Sunna (the actions and words of Mohammed) are filled with invectives against the Jews. At first the words were complimentary, but when the Jews of Medina rejected Mohammed as a prophet they were all enslaved, exiled, murdered and robbed—all acts of jihad. These were not historical acts, but perfect examples of Islamic action towards Jews—models prescribed for Muslims to follow up to the present time. To illustrate the severity of this predicament, statistically speaking, in the Koran of Medina 10.6% of the text is devoted to Jew hatred, whereas, only 6.8% of Mein Kampf is devoted to Jew hatred.

The language and actions of Palestinians and all Muslims in general are directly approved by Islamic political theological doctrine. Not only the language, but also policy is set by the Islamic political doctrine. To repeat: political doctrine—a political theological doctrine of jihad against all kafirs.

Yet, it seems until now that both Jews and Israel choose annihilation over talking about Islam. It is simply not an acceptable subject matter. Political correctness prevails over survival.

Unfortunately, these are suicidal choices. It is obvious that the ADL and the Jewish Federations for example, are only two Jewish organizations that have corporate polices of not discussing Islamic political ideology relating to the so called “Israeli / Palestinian conflict”.

The ADL will admit that there are a “few” radical Muslims, and would gladly argue in public that except for a few Muslim extremists, Islam is not the problem. ADL is the first to argue that Jews and Christians have their share of crazies and they are no different from the Muslims. This is the ultimate multiculturalist view, which may well lead to a disaster for Israel and aid to the demise of Western civilization.

Since a propaganda war is about the use of intelligence, one would think that the Israelis would be the world’s best and the Muslims would be the worst. Look at Nobel prizes, especially in the sciences. Israelis win them by the handful compared to the Arab world. But in the hasbarah, public relations, the Israelis are lazy fools and the Palestinians are industrious geniuses.

Israeli government officials who will comment off the record say that as a government, Israel cannot launch a propaganda war over Islam.

And, if Israel were to launch an ideological war, who would be the target audience? The ultimate target would be the secular and liberal Jews of America and Israel, who are the near enemy. If you can launch a hasbarah campaign that would open their eyes, enough of the world would tag along.

Otherwise, if the Israelis continue to think that they can keep scoring military victories and by that win this ideological war, they are fools and worse. America won the Tet offensive on the battlefield, but lost the propaganda war in the media and the universities, exactly as Ho Chi Min predicted.

As a brilliant example of ideological war, revisit Netanyahu’s UN speech on September 24, 2009. He laid out the civilizational differences between Holocaust deniers and Israel. The same arguments about civilization should apply to the war between the Palestinians and Jews in Israel. This is because the Israel/Palestinian conflict is no different than the jihad in Kashmir, India, the Philippines, or in dozens of fronts in Africa.

Now, which one of the two maintains a stronger position—peace or victory? Today Israel desires for peace and the Palestinians insist on victory. Guess who wins? Peace is for losers. Regrettably, Israelis and American Jews are choosing to be the losers. The consequences however are too dire; ultimately, Israel may get their peace, but it may be the peace after jihad’s victory.

Ironically, Israelis and Jews abroad are not the only ones in a state of denial about Islamic politics; they just happen to be at the frontline. President Bush demonstrated after 9/11 that he too had no clue how to fight this Islamic ideological war. Instead of using military force against our enemies, he and his successor– President Obama should have declared ideological war against our true enemy—political Islam.

They seem to lose their war and so will Israel unless some tough questions are faced and actions are taken.

Bill Warner, CSPI

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Be Concerned! Be Very Concerned!

2009-10-23T16:00:00.000-07:00

Why Should You Be Concerned?

You don't have to look and listen far to see what Obama has done and is doing

And

there is nothing as false and filthy as the filthy rich opting for Marxism for "the rest of us"

especially as exposed here

On the other hand . . .

With Jews Like This, the Islamics Itching to Kill Jews Will Have a Field Day

2009-10-22T03:16:00.000-07:00

After the Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders address at Temple University in Philadelphia.

via The International Free Press Society
from Anti-Islamic Dutch lawmaker speaks at US college

Geert Wilders said:

"our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture and we should defend it."

If the spread of Islam continues unabated in the Western world, "you might at the end of the day lose your Constitution," "Wake up, defend your freedom."

[He called for] for an end to Muslim immigration and referring to the Muslim holy book, the Quran, "an evil book" that promotes violence and intolerance.

And an opponent of Geert Wilder's remarks:

"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech."

Judging by his name, that student is Jewish--whether in name only or observant is immaterial.

The point is that the Islamics and their handmaidens of the Left do not feel all that "fair" about Jews and the Jewish state Israel.

Jew-Hatred at American universities Who's behind it?

Quotes from RADARSITE

Cross-posted at Radarsite by Gary Fouse, fousesquawk

It mostly consists of an unholy alliance of Middle Eastern professors who teach in our universities and traditional left-wing radical professors who have taken up the Palestinian cause since it fits like a glove into their own anti-American agenda.

***

In many cases, academic leftists, many with roots in the Middle East, have joined with traditional American leftists, anarchists and radical Islamists in order to bring an anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-Jew message to college campuses to the point where many Jews do not feel comfortable asserting their Jewish identity on campus. On many campuses, including where I teach at UC-Irvine, Jews have occasionally been accosted, insulted or shoved by pro-Palestinian students during MSU-sponsored events that attack Israel. In addition, MSU-sponsored speakers at UCI have glorified suicide bombers (Amir Abdel Malik Ali) and stated that “Jews are low-life ghetto-dwellers” or “You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew”. (Mohammed al-Asi). This type of hate speech gets a pass from UCI administrators because it is “free speech”. It should be noted that speakers such as the above, while condemning Israel in one breath, will condemn the US in the next breath. And here, I speak as a first-hand witness.

***

Leftist professor Lisa Hajjar, formerly of UC Santa Barbara, now at UCLA is a regular basher of Israel and the US. During the Gaza conflict, she participated in a “seminar” at UCLA in which she told a Jewish questioner who took an opposing stand (Eric Golub) that “that Zionist hat on your head is screwed on way too tight”. (The hat was actually a fedora.)

Read the whole thing at http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/10/demonization-of-israel-and-america-on.html

Repentance

2009-10-15T01:18:00.000-07:00

By Ari Bussel

The year is 5770, 2009 in the general count. The day is the tenth of the Month of Tishrei, the Jewish Day of Atonement. It is a day of reflection, a day in which broken promises, wrong deeds and language spoken in haste are being erased, forgiven, forgotten, and a new year begins. But can we forget?

The world stood by uninterested when, for eight years, residents of a small city near the Gaza border could not rest. During the day, their children playing outside or at school were unprotected from a constant rockets bombardment. During the night, everyone was at home, but most homes lacked safety. There was no place to hide, only to run away.

Most residents of Sderot stayed, unable to move. They simply could not afford to do so. Several factories had outlets in the area - from food production to textile manufacturing and afforded work for the families. For the majority of the period, the residents of area were deserted by Israel as by the international community. Every so often politicians stopped there for a photo-op, but nothing of substance was attempted.

My mistake, three years ago, an internal wound was inflicted on the body-Israel. The country's leaders decided to unilaterally withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip. Some 8,000 evacuees joined the circle of victims-heads of families that until then were proud providers for their children, communities and country now bound to wonder the desert. Unlike their forefathers before them, it was now in reverse: from freedom to slavery and destitute.

An entire export industry destroyed, an area once blossoming became the training ground for terrorists and a launching pad for even more rockets.

Israel could have endured longer as it did for eight years. Instead, a decision that should have been made seven or eight years earlier finally was finally taken: Israel will stand no more. Operation Cast Lead resulted in 14 dead in Israel and has significantly diminished the number of rockets and the smuggling operation into Gaza.

Throughout the Operation, Israel took steps to make certain civilian casualties were minimized. These efforts were a precision science, the likes of which no other country would spend its resources or waste its power achieving.

Israel's barbaric enemy knew no boundaries - from using humans as shields, to utilizing hospitals and mosques as centers of operation, headquarters of this octopus of evil. But most egregiously, the enemy aimed for civilian centers, shopping malls and hospitals, knowing all too well that the victims will not only be Jews but Bedouin and Arabs.

A new report is out, and the United Nations (against Israel and the Jewish People) is convening in its aftermath. The report carries the name of a Jew, and the world is awed, marveling at the new discoveries: seeming to prove at last Israel, clearly, is at fault for war crimes.

Lies, Lies and more Lies. Lies with a capital "L." Lies emanating from a hatred for Jews because they are Jews. Lies designed to further weaken the body-Israel. Successful lies for several reasons: First, the world turns a blind eye and wants to believe them, despite evidence to the contrary. Second, Israelis and Jews themselves help create and propagate these lies.

Leading reporters in Israel have termed the Operation, as it was being carried out, a "blood bath." Israel was silent. Leading professors in Israel, who were in range and aim of the rockets, let the world know that Israel deserves what it is getting for it is an Apartheid State. They urged the world to "BOYCOTT ISRAEL." Their colleagues and administrators kept silent. American Jewry then continued kneeling before a new Pharaoh and the choir sang "Hallelujah! Let there be Two States."

On this Day of Atonement 5770 (2009), we need look no further than ourselves to realize a major overhaul is required. Israelis, so it seems, are the root cause of their own problems. They may not instigate trouble, the reign of terror is just several miles away, but they add explosives and corrosives to the fire. Then they are astonished when a bigger explosion hits them squarely in the face.

On the morning of Atonement services, just after the sunset ushered in this holiest of days in the Hebrew calendar, I heard an interpretation of the most known prayer in Judaism, The Shema.

Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad (Hear Oh Israel, the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is One).

The recitation of The Shema is done every day of our lives. It is probably the single most unifying element in Judaism. As our last breath escape our body and we return to our creator, the departed says The Shema as we leave our mortal life behind. When we are in grave peril, we say The Shema. When we are about to commit the most noble and heroic of acts, we enlist G-d to our side by saying The Shema.

When we are about to die to sanctify the name of G-d, we recite The Shema, like Major Roey Klein who threw himself at an exploding grenade, thus saving the lives of his soldiers.

Rabbi Dr. Daryl Temkin explained to the congregants that The Shema is really a call to ourselves to listen. One should ask oneself - is what I am saying of value? Is it interesting? Would I, if I were the listener, want to hear what is being said?

Listen, Oh Israel, listen to your words first. Hear the elements flowing through your veins and arteries, like water from springs and rivers to the great sea. Listen: Who are you? What is it that defines and drives you? You repeat the blessing "Bless are Thou, G-d, our Lord, King of the Universe, who made us alive, and sustained us and brought us to this time and place," but do you pay attention - do you hear?

"Israel," says Dr. Temkin, is an analogy to our dreams: a dream of a nation, a dream of setting an example, of living a life worth living, a dream "For Next Year in Jerusalem." Dreams that have sustained us through the millennia and continue to drive our lives despite all obstacles. These are dreams ever in our prayers, in our celebrations and in Israel's national anthem - THE HOPE.

Let us not be confused-it is not "the hope" of President Hussein Obama, duly elected leader of the American People. Hatikva is the aspiration of a people to live. A people who cannot explain what drives others to hate them so the world's greatest evil turned on them and plotted their extermination. It was the hope of a few against the Nazi war machine in the Warsaw Ghetto. It was the hope and aspiration to have a country by those in Israel under British Mandate. The hope was sang some 62 years ago on a day that changed yearning to reality, and that hope continues to guide us even today, at the dawn of the third millennium.

Listen to your dreams. Can you hear them? Our G-d is ONE, there is no other. Our G-d is our guide and our protector. Our G-d is the light that is within each and every one of us - a light that comes into being even when we are in our mother's womb and stays until we end our journey and our light escapes the mortal bonds to return to the Creator.

On this Day of Atonement, we need look no further than ourselves to find both the guilty party and the strength to make amends, to continue. May we also find a way to deal with those elements from within our midst that collaborate with our enemies-without understanding the harm they do their people.

Alas, the end is not for us to decide. Our actions are meaningless when the Decision Maker is none other than the One who Decides, who assigns life and death, by His wisdom and knowledge. The end, even if near, will forever see the Nation of Israel prevail. The Hebrew people have always been and will be protected by the army of the Devine and cannot be decimated - not by the will of mere men.

from Muslim World Today http://www.paktoday.com/mwtoday/ari.htm

Justifying the Holocaust and Promoting a Second One

2009-10-01T08:48:00.000-07:00

by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

No. 88, 15 October 2009 / 27 Tishrei 5770

SPECIAL ISSUE

Holocaust justification consists of "explaining" that the Jews caused their enemies' anti-Semitism and therefore were responsible for their own later destruction. The first part of this argument was prominent outside Nazi circles as well before World War II and occasionally returns nowadays.

Holocaust promotion is the encouragement of genocide against the Jews or against Israel, the Jewish state. Sometimes this is done explicitly by promoting the idea that Jews should be killed. On other occasions it is the logical outcome of proposed policies. Holocaust promotion typically results from perverse "ideological" positions. In the decades after World War II, the encouragement of the continuing murder of Jews came mainly from old Nazis, neo-Nazis, and some parts of the Muslim world. Holocaust promotion, however, remained a marginal phenomenon in the postwar period of the twentieth century.

Campaigning for the mass murder of Jews is often done without specific reference to the Holocaust. Although most current Holocaust promotion focuses on the destruction of Israel, it also at times aims at Jews elsewhere. Sometimes the perpetrators refer to Hitler or the Germans as having failed to complete the extermination of the Jews and say their activities should be continued. One prominent variant of Holocaust promotion is propagating the view that the Jewish state is illegal and has no right to exist. The only possible way of achieving its elimination is by genocide and mass murder, though this is rarely stated explicitly.

The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the first head of state since World War II who regularly calls for actions that are tantamount to incitement of genocide. As such he is the prime contemporary example of a Holocaust promoter. His appeals of the last few years for the elimination of Israel-which is equivalent to mass murder-were preceded by those of Ayatollah Khomeini and several other Iranian leaders. Ahmadinejad has greatly increased the intensity of such calls.

CONTINUE READING AT . . .

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3089&TTL=Justifying_the_Holocaust_and_Promoting_a_Second_One

The Jews of the gathering night

2009-09-29T03:14:00.000-07:00

by Melanie Phillips

The Jews of the gathering night

One of the most agonising and tragic aspects of the current global wave of Jew-hatred is the prominent part played in this by Jews. This is not a new phenomenon. Throughout the centuries of Jewish persecution, from the medieval ‘conversos’ to Karl Marx and beyond, there have always been Jews who, for a variety of reasons, have been ready and willing to advance the agenda of the persecutors of the Jewish people. Today, the west is teeming with their successors – almost always on the left, very often but not always highly secularised and with a tangential or deeply conflicted relationship with their Jewish identity, they are in the forefront of the movement to demonise, delegitimise and destroy Israel. They do it to no other country; only the expression of self-determination of their own people inspires in them such frenzied and obsessive loathing.

Nothing could be more inappropriate than their common soubriquet of ‘self-hating Jews’; on the contrary, they usually love themselves inordinately. What they hate is the Jewish bit of themselves – or to be more precise, everything but that bit of the Jewish bit which enables them falsely to represent Jewish powerlessness as the key characteristic of Jewish peoplehood, about which they generally know next to nothing and which they generally disdain altogether until the chance arrives to dump on it with maximum venom. The fact that they are Jews – however nominally – gives a free pass to the non-Jewish Jew-haters to dress up their bigotry as high-minded conscience, while still others of good will are led to believe the hateful lies and libels about Israel in the misguided belief that, since Jews are giving voice to them, they cannot be an expression of prejudice. The result of all this is that the Arab and Muslim agenda of the destruction of Israel and genocide against the Jews is advanced every time a Jew-hating Jew spews such venom into the public sphere.

On Front Page, David Solway lists some of the examples of this pathology:

The late Harold Pinter won a Nobel Prize, not for his over-rated plays, but for his anti-Israeli (and anti-American) posturing. Equally influential are fellow Jewish anti-Zionists like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Naomi Klein, Joel Kovel, Tony Judt, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Sara Roy, Henry Siegman, Avrum Burg, Jaqueline Rose and Richard Falk, to mention only a sparse handful, whose denunciation of Israel is so extreme and untextured as to be scarcely distinguishable from antisemitism.

Such apostates do not scruple to trade in apocrypha when indulging their animus against their own people, even when they can be readily exposed. In Fabricating Israeli History, Efraim Karsh has abundantly demonstrated how left-wing Israeli ‘New Historians’ have cooked the documents they work with. The lamentable Naomi Klein falsely accuses Israel of having cynically profited from ‘endless war’ and calls for academic and economic boycotts. Noam Chomsky’s gross fabrications have been outed by Peter Collier. The list goes on... Given the virulent anti-Zionist advocacy of so many prominent Jewish self-haters, one remains skeptical of ever achieving collective assent or reasonable consensus. Masking the syndrome of self-contempt as a quest for ‘justice,’ these Jewish turncoats seek redemption in a denial of both history and genealogy. Diagnostically speaking, it is not so much a mental illness or clinical aberration we are witnessing, but a sickness in the soul supple enough to contort itself into a spurious idealism, a simulacrum of ideological nobility.

Indeed, one of the most insufferable characteristics of these Jew-hating Jews is that they claim to represent authentic Jewish morality as opposed to the supposed corruption of those principles by Zionism and Israel. They do nothing of the kind. Their claim merely advertises their profound ignorance of Jewish ethics and history, which they so badly misrepresent. They are beneath contempt; and were the situation not so desperate, their rantings would be regarded as of no more consequence than those of any other fringe sectarian groupuscule. But their position in fashionable society means they are lionised by an equally ignorant and bigoted intelligentsia -- with the result that these Jews of the gathering night are significant contributors to the unconscionable agenda of our times.

Tuesday, 27th January 2009

What "Peace Process?"

2009-09-22T00:52:00.000-07:00

From the Arabs' point of view, the end of--the goal of--the interminable "Peace Talks," "Peace Negotiations," the "Peace Process" is the dismantling of Israel. They have the patience of all Islamics, outwait, outbreed the "infidel."

From Are We Doomed?
by Rebecca Bynum

[quote]

Here, I must echo the sentiments in the words of Richard L. Rubenstein who wrote*:

“As I read the moral indictments of Israel for its alleged human-rights abuses of the Palestinian people by so many of the mainline Protestant denominations and other seemingly well-intentioned individuals and groups, I have the feeling that they are either unaware of or unwilling to confront the true complexity of the struggle between Jews and Muslims over the Jewish presence in any part of Palestine, a presence that radical Muslims characterize as “a crime that must be erased.”[12] At times, I also have a darker thought. The men and women who write boycott and divestiture resolutions for denominational approval are, for the most part, highly educated products of some of our best seminaries and universities. Could it be that they see the destruction of Israel as their “final solution” to the problem of achieving peace in the Middle East?”

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/46575/sec_id/46575

________________________________________
*My Grandmother’s Paper Bag by Richard L. Rubenstein
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/43200/sec_id/43200#_edn12#_edn12

[12] Osama bin Laden, “Why We Are Fighting You,” Letter to America, in Raymond Ibrahim, ed., The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Broadway Books, 2008), p. 198.
_________________________________________

ADDENDUM

Via Tundra Tabloids: Daniel Pipes: The Obama Administration Wants to Jump Start the 'War Process' Again.......

Comes this article

Peace Process or War Process? By Daniel Pipes
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36378

Put a (sour) cherry on top of this cake, with . . .

The summit of the absurd: Middle East process without peace

Obama vs. The People by Sultan Knish

2009-09-10T03:18:00.000-07:00

Picture from Sultan Knish's
How the Battle of Obamacare was Won

Obama vs. The People
from Sultan Knish . . .

Obama is falling and contrary to what anyone might have expected, it was not the marginalized Republican party under the inept leadership of Michael Steele or its stable of Congressional Republicans providing nothing but token opposition, who gave him that big push. While the official Republican leadership sat in the corner, information flew back and forth between bloggers, activists and talk... Continue . . .

Why Are Jews Liberals? (from Israel Commentary)

2009-09-09T15:42:00.000-07:00

Why Are Jews Liberals? (Truly, a Must Read)
Redacted from a fascinating Symposium in COMMENTARY September 2009

From Israel Commentary
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman

NORMAN PODHORETZ HAS BEEN WRITING for COMMENTARY for 57 years, was its editor in chief for 35 years, and was its editor at large for 14 more. In his 12th book, COMMENTARY’S venerable lion of disputation addresses the question he says he is asked more frequently than any other by his fellow conservatives, Why Are Jews Liberals? In a dispassionate effort to answer the question honestly, Podhoretz traverses the history of the Jewish people, from the Romans through the evolving views of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general, the Enlightenment, the rise of 19th-century nationalism, and the totalitarian calamities of the 20th century.

He demonstrates that throughout the past two millennia, the scattered Diaspora found its only succor and support from Universalist ideas that, because of their universalism, were placed on the port side of the ideological divide. It is for this reason, he argues, that American Jews have been the only definable well-to-do cohort over the past 44) years that has not moved to the Right. That has not occurred even though the evolution of the American Right has been in a frankly philo-Semitic direction—and among whose ranks come the most ardent non-Jewish supporters of the state of Israel in the world.

To note the publication of this month, COMMENTARY has asked six notable American Jewish thinkers to reflect on its themes. Their contributions appear on the following pages, in reverse alphabetical order. The six illustrious contributors are David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol, Jeff Jacoby and David Gelernter.

William Kristol, editor in chief of the Weekly Standard, as usual, in a short quote from his article, says it all. "G-d only knows." Of the six articles, the one I found most reasonable and inclusive and to which all Jews should easily relate is that by Jeff Jacoby. It is reproduced below. However, I strongly recommend obtaining COMMENTARY September 2009 and reading all six contributors. They are all brilliant and have many insightful things to say. jsk

I WILLIAM KRISTOL

HOW DO JEWS remain liberals? G-d only knows. Why has He chosen to allow Jews to stay mindlessly attached to a liberalism that is no longer beneficial or sympathetic to them? Why has He chosen to harden Jewish hearts against conservatism increasingly welcoming to Jews and supportive of the Jewish state? Perhaps there are questions that simply can’t be answered by unassisted human reason.

Norman Podhoretz has made a valiant attempt to answer these questions. But, at the end of the day, and at the end of his fascinating and illuminating book, one is left still shaking one’s head. Indeed, Norman is left shaking his head - first at the fact that liberalism has become the religion of American Jews. Then, shaking at the further fact that “they can remain loyal to it even though it conflicts in substance with the Torah of Judaism at so many points, and even though it is also at variance with the most basic of all Jewish interests - the survival of the Jewish people?’

II JEFF JACOBY

LIKE Norman Podhoretz, I am often asked by non-Jewish conservatives why American Jews cling so tenaciously to the Left and vote so consistently for Democrats, and like him I believe the answer to that question is theological: liberalism has superseded Judaism as the religion of most American Jews. Unlike Podhoretz, however, I cannot personally remember a time when this ardent liberalism seemed a sensible response to American Jewish life. Nor did I take it in with my mother’s milk.

One of my earliest political memories is of accompanying my father to the polls early on Election Day in November 1968. It was the first time I had seen the inside of a voting booth, and my father let me pull the lever for Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic presidential candidate.

When I described this adventure to my mother after returning home, she told me that she would be going later that day to cast her own vote—for Richard Nixon. At a young age, therefore, I absorbed the lesson that Jews need not vote in lockstep and that voting for a Republican was as normal as voting for a Democrat. Most American Jews, on the other hand, seem to have learned from an early age that to be Jewish is to be a liberal Democrat, no matter what. No matter that anti-Semitism today makes its home primarily on the Left, while in most quarters of the Right, hostility toward Jews has been anathematized.

No matter that, Israel’s worst enemies congregate with leftists, while its staunchest defenders tend to be resolute conservatives. No matter that Republicans support the Jewish state by far larger margins than Democrats do. No matter that on a host of issues—homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment, racial preferences, public prayer – “the Torah” of contemporary liberalism, as Podhoretz calls it, diverges sharply from the Torah of Judaism. As Why Are Jews Liberals convincingly and depressingly demonstrates, the loyalty of American Jews to the Left has been unaffected by the failure of the Left to reciprocate that loyalty

The Jewish predilection for ill-advised political choices isn’t new. The Bible describes the yearning of the ancient Israelites for a king and God’s warning that monarchy would bring them despotism and misery. Appoint a king, God has the prophet Samuel tell the people, and he will seize your sons and daughters, your fields and vineyards. “He will take a tenth of your flocks and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day?’ His warning fell on deaf ears: “Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations.’”

The longing to “be like all the nations” is a recurring motif in Jewish history. Included are Baal worshipers in the time of the prophets, Judean Hellenists in the Chanukah story, 19th-century assimilationist Jewish socialists enthralled by man’s classless Utopia, modem post-Zionists in quest of a non-Jewish Israel. Down through the ages, in one way or another, innumerable Jews have fought or fled from Jewish “otherness” and embraced ways of life or beliefs that promised to make them less distinctive. Given the cruelty and violence to which Jews were so often subjected, it is not surprising that many would seek to shed or neutralize their Jewishness.

Even in America, a haven of security and prosperity without parallel in the long Jewish Diaspora, many Jews wanted nothing to do with the old Jewish identity. There are stories, perhaps apocryphal, of Jewish men throwing their tefillin into the ocean as the ship bringing them to America came within sight of New York Harbor. “Because tefillin were something for the Old World,” explains a character in Dara Horn’s acclaimed 2002 novel, In the Image, “and herein the New World, they didn’t need them anymore.”

Apocryphal or not, there is no disputing that countless European Jewish immigrants to the Goldina medina—the “golden land”—took advantage of their new circumstances to cast off the old faith or their children did, or their grandchildren. As a result, Jews today are the least religious community in the United States. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, only 16 percent of Jews attend religious services at least once a week, compared with 39 percent of Americans generally. Just 31 percent say religion is “very important” in their lives (vs. 56 percent of Americans).

Such data led Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, to quote a comment made by the late Hasidic troubadour Shlomo Carlebach, after a lifetime of visiting American campuses: “Ask students what they are. If someone gets up and says, I’m a Catholic, I know that’s a Catholic. If someone says, I’m a Protestant; I know that’s a Protestant. If someone gets up and says, I’m just a human being, I know that’s a Jew.” (sick, sick, sick) jsk

“Just-a-human-being” liberalism, secular and universalist—there is the dead end into which the flight from Jewish separateness has led so many American Jews. To call it a dead end is not to deny its allure. Much of liberalism’s appeal lay in making Jews feel good about themselves, secure in the conviction that they were part of a broad and enlightened mainstream. Liberalism freed them from the charge of parochial self-interest that had so often been leveled against Jews. It replaced the ancient, sometimes difficult burden of chosenness—the Jewish mission to live by God’s law and bring the world to ethical monotheism—with a more palatable and popular commitment to equality, tolerance, and “social justice.”

To be sure, loyalty to the Democratic party came naturally to Jews, with their inherited memories of a Europe in which emancipation had been a project of the Left and where reactionary anti-Semites had (usually) attacked from the Right. As Norman Podhoretz writes, that loyalty understandably intensified during World War II, when the most lethal enemy in Jewish history was ultimately destroyed by an alliance led by, a liberal Democrat named Franklin Roosevelt.

But, liberal Democrats no longer lead such alliances, and they heatedly oppose those who do. The Soviet Union was defeated not by Jimmy Carter, who urged his countrymen to shed their inordinate fear of Communism,” but by Ronald Reagan, who labeled the USSR an “evil empire” and was denounced by the Left as a warmonger. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But, it was George W. Bush who carried out that liberation and in the face of scathing liberal hostility. Republicans constitute the party that sees the current conflict against global Jihadists as the decisive struggle of our time, while the few Democrats who express that view as Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman can testify are scorned by their party’s liberal base.

FDR and Harry Truman are long gone, and so too is the muscular Democratic liberalism that defeated Adolph Hitler and that brought the Holocaust to an end. To deal with the would-be Hitters of our era—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Jew-hating mullahs in Iran— today’s Democrats counsel pacifism, appeasement and endless negotiation. These days it is the Right that calls for strong and decisive action against the enemies of the free world. Today the beleaguered Jewish state’s most unshakable American allies are Republican and conservative. Yet American Jews remain what they have been for so long: unshakably Democratic and liberal.

This liberalism isn’t rational. It isn’t sensible. It certainly isn’t good for the Jews. But it is, as religions often are, deeply reassuring. It is reassuring for liberal Jews to believe that all people are fundamentally decent and reasonable, and that all disputes can be settled through compromise and conciliation. It is reassuring to believe in a world in which nothing is ever solved by war, so that military force is unnecessary and expensive weapons systems are wasteful. It is reassuring to believe that America is a secular nation, that God and religion have no place in the public square, and that no debt of gratitude is owed to the Christians who created the extraordinary society in which American Jews have thrived. It is reassuring to believe that crime is caused by guns, that academia is the seat of wisdom, and that humanity’s biggest problem is global warming.

It is reassuring to believe that compassion can be achieved by passing the right laws and that big government can create prosperity It is reassuring to believe that the biblical prescription of Tikkun Olam, healing the world—is a synonym for the liberal agenda and that the liberal agenda flows directly from the teachings of Judaism. Above all, it is reassuring to believe that Jews are no different from anyone else, that they are not called to a unique role in human events, and that the best way to be a good Jew is to be a conscientious citizen of the world. To be liberal, in short, is to be “like all the nations.” It is a seductive and comforting belief, and American Jews are far from the first to embrace it.

JEFF JACOBY is an op-ed columnist for the Boston Globe.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:18 PM | Comments (0)
September 03, 2009

http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2009_09.html#001247

To Hell With the United Nations!

2009-09-08T02:05:00.000-07:00

Welcome Israel

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The United Nations is the most pernicious, malevolent, and corrupt organizations on earth. Israel should quit this den of iniquity.

“Praiseworthy is the man who walked not in the counsel of the wicked, and stood not in the path of the sinful, and sat not in the session of scorners” (Psalm 1:1.)

The UN’s Anti-Israel Vendetta

For decades, the United Nations has passed countless resolutions condemning Israel for its actions against the Palestinians, while almost never formally addressing Israel's security concerns and the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. The UN General Assembly has become an international forum for promoting Palestinian statehood and deligitmizing Israel.

Before Oslo, the General Assembly either “condemned" or "deplored" or “censured" or "denounced" Israel 321 times––the Arabs: Zero condemnations. Meanwhile, the Security Council "condemned" or "censured" or "deplored" Israel 49 times; Arab states: Zero.

Israel should cease demeaning itself and vacate this international cesspool. Having a forum at the UN is of dubious value, as is the UN itself. John Bolton, former acting US. Ambassador to the UN, has said “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."[a] He also said that "The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."[b]

Fred Fleitz, a former senior adviser to Bolton, exposes UN waste and corruption and the resulting human costs. His book, Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s provides a comprehensive critical assessment of the UN. Among other debacles, he shows how the failed UN mission in Bosnia led to unmitigated atrocities; how the UN debacle in Somalia emboldened terrorists the world over; how the UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti collapsed, with the billions of dollars squandered on it primarily benefiting Haitian President Jean-Bertrande Aristide. And then there is Iraq and the “oil for food” scam between the UN and Saddam Hussein.

Turning to Iran, it’s obvious the UN will do nothing, and can do nothing, to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And judging from the Obama Administration’s policy of appeasing Islam, Iran is close to becoming a nuclear power. It may be months away from producing its first bomb.

For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential issue that raises the specter of another holocaust. Israel must therefore take its future into its own hands; it must act unilaterally and choose the moment to attack Iran—as Bolton urged in the Wall Street Journal on December 7, 2007.

Bolton wrote that if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. should aid Israel before, during, and after such an attack. But this was before Obama’s election. Dare Israel pull a fait accompli as it did with the Osiraq reactor in 1981? Dare it wait until Iran deploys the bomb? Bolton would surely say no.

Let us take a closer look at what a nuclear-armed Iran portends not only for Israel, but for Europe and the United States—indeed, for Western civilization. Here, let us consult Robert Baer, a most farseeing and experienced former CIA operative in the Middle East. Last year, in his book The Devil We Know, Baer convincingly argues that Iran, contrary to what most believe, Iran is not a regime of crazies. Its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, head of the Revolutionary Guard, is pursuing a political strategy whose goal is to restore the Persian Empire. Iran’s nuclear weapons program must be viewed in these grandiose terms. As for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is Khamenei’s subordinate.

Ahmadinejad’s imprecations “Death to America” and “Death the Israel” should not be dismissed as the ranting of a maniac. It is a double entendre. It prompts the naïve to trivialize, hence obscure, Iran’s Machiavellian modus operandi. For the cognoscenti, “Death to America” and “Death the Israel” signify the demise of Christianity and Judaism and the global ascendancy of Islam. Let us take a closer look at the location of Iran, a nation of 70 million people, 90 percent of whom are Shiites, 51 percent Persian, and, on the whole, better educated than most Muslims.

Iran’s strategic location on the Persian Gulf will enable its Revolutionary Guard to turn off the flow of oil on which the West’s survival now depends. Moreover, Iran is rapidly developing a worldwide network of power. Iraq, which is about 60 percent Shia, will succumb to Iran when the Americans leave. Iran is luring Turkey into its orbit, as it did Syria. Iran’s proxy Hezbollah is positioned to control Lebanon. Iran is the main supplier of Hamas, and Iran has eyes on Fatah.

Apparently, Iran has already penetrated the Suez Canal. Iran has sleeper cells throughout Europe, and even in America. Iran is collaborating with anti-American forces in South America. And of course Iran supports countless mosques in the United States that preach jihad against America and the West. If this were not enough, hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world support Jihad.

If Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles are tipped with nuclear warheads, Europe, already inundated with more than 50 million Muslims, will be blackmailed into submission. Without Europe and its economy, the American economy will collapse beyond repair. Iran knows this. The U.S. is necessarily Iran’s primary target, but Israel, the Small Satan, comes first. Perhaps Iran will not need to devastate America by exploding an Electro-Magnetic Pulse over Washington to terminate the Great Satan.

Viewed in this light, the United Nations is passé and good riddance. If a new UN is desirable, it should consist solely of the ninety or so states classified as democracies by Freedom House, in which the state is merely the custodian of man’s God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

If any country, from both a historical and theological perspective, is qualified to promote the formation of such a United Nations, it is Israel—of course, not the Israel that kowtows to terrorist thugs. I mean an Israel on the way to constructing the Third Temple, when Jerusalem will stand majestically as in the days of King Solomon, attracting nations near and far. Let your heart and soul recall with me the prophecy of Zechariah when

… ten men of every nationality, speaking different languages, shall take hold of every Jew by the corner of his garment and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you”

Yes, ten men of every nation—surely they will be nations that abide by the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality, the true catholicism included in the Torah for all humanity. Ten men of every nationality journeying to Jerusalem the City of Peace as well as the City of Truth. But at this point in time, let us not be carried away by tenderness.

For peace and truth to unite and prevail, Israel must first triumph over her enemies—today led by Satanic Iran. Today Israel is waiting for the moment. She knows that the mullahs of Iran are driven by the memory of the Persian Empire. She knows that a nuclear armed Iran in control of the Persian Gulf would ensure Iran’s hegemony over the Middle East and beyond. Israel also knows that she will be the first target; for if Iran controls Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, a billion Muslims will exult in victory, will explode in frenzy and wreak havoc on the world, screaming Allah Akbar!

So Israel will strike first, and this will mark the beginning of a new Middle East, one that hardly anyone dreams of. While Iran is being devastated, the Israel Defense Forces will crush Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and Syria. Israel will eliminate the entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. Countless Arabs will flee from Judea and Samaria as well as from Gaza—as they did after the Six-Day War.

The cruel and cynical peace charade will be over. The mendacity of Lilliputian politicians will be silent. The Lion of Judah will have triumphed. During the aftermath of perhaps two decades, Israel will organize the peace in cooperation with Muslim reformers that will be found throughout Middle East, who have been silenced by the mullahs and dictators. The Seven Noahide Laws of Morality will unite the region. Non-secular constitutional democracies will begin to flourish as outlined in a former paper of mine. The United States will cooperate, but petro-dollars will no longer lubricate its diplomacy.

And so at last, the ethos of jihad will cease to torment mankind, and the people of the Middle East, with the cooperation of a God-inspired Israel, will gain a new birth of freedom.

Happy New Year!

______________________

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 7, 2008.

How Much Antisemitism is there in Britain? . . . If Any

2009-09-04T16:28:00.000-07:00

Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture
Prof. Robert S. Wistrich

Antisemitism has been present in Great Britain for almost a thousand years of recorded history. In the twelfth century, Catholic medieval Britain was a persecutory society, particularly when it came to Jews. It pioneered the blood libel and the church was a leader in instituting cruel legislation and discriminatory conduct toward Jews

More excerpts:

"In the Second World War, Britain was not willing to attempt to rescue the Jews of Europe in any meaningful way. It was not only imperial Realpolitik that made the British close the gates of Palestine. We know that officials in the Colonial and Foreign offices and people in the administration in Palestine were far from immune to antisemitic sentiment while supporting an Arab state after the 1939 White Paper.

"During the war the British government was obsessed by the fear that their fight against Hitler could be construed as a war on behalf of the Jews. To avoid ‘fighting a Jewish war' became a kind of alibi for the British authorities to do almost nothing for the Jews. Britain's solemn commitment to create a Jewish National Home in Palestine was in fact betrayed in the hour of greatest need for European Jewry. This is a serious stain on the British record, which until then had many positive sides."

***

"After 1945-in the three years before the creation of the state of Israel-relations between Britain and the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, reached their lowest point. For example, in 1946 the commander of British Forces in Palestine, Lt. Gen. Evelyn Barker, ordered his men to avoid fraternization with Palestinian Jews and to ‘punish the Jews in the manner this race dislikes as much as any, by hitting them in the pocket, which will demonstrate our disgust for them.'[1] Antisemitism was also very virulent in Britain at that time.

"After the Mandatory Government in Palestine executed members of the Irgun, a Jewish underground organization, the latter reacted by hanging two British sergeants. This led to anti-Jewish riots in 1947 in a number of British cities including Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and London. No lives were lost, but it was a very nasty time. Britain was far from immune in this postwar period to the kind of antisemitism that existed elsewhere on the European Continent, in the Americas, or the Middle East.

***

James McDonald, the first American ambassador to Israel, who had been actively involved in the refugee issue in the 1930s. In London, on his way to Israel in August 1948, he had a conversation with Bevin. McDonald mentions in his diaries how shocked he was by the antisemitism emanating from the British foreign secretary. It was hatred of Israel, of the United States and, in particular, of the Jews.

***

"During the Second World War, Churchill was in favor of the White Paper and kept it in place, despite his strong condemnation of it in 1939 when in opposition. His wartime actions regarding the Jews were no better than those of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which is to say, unimpressive. Nor, after becoming prime minister again in 1951, was Churchill's record on Israel particularly brilliant, though he had the historical vision to understand that Israel's re-creation was a major event in modern history. In expressing its meaning Churchill was at his best."

***

"In the 1970s, I [Robert Solomon Wistrich] was actively involved in such debates when I wrote my doctorate at University College, London. The campus war had heated up and was at full blast in 1975 after the UN ‘Zionism is racism' resolution. There were efforts to ban all Jewish societies on British campuses. This was stopped by a militant and determined campaign. The time was not yet ripe for the brazen antisemitism of the kind we find today in Britain and much of Europe, but it was certainly there beneath the surface.

"In the 1970s, the anti-Zionists in Britain-some of them Jews and expatriate Israelis-were already vilifying Israel as an ‘ethnic cleansing' and ‘racist' state. Even then there were claims that Zionism equals apartheid. Among the most extreme demagogues were Jewish Trotskyites, who were the most vitriolic in their loathing for Zionism."

***

"Trotskyites are organized in the Socialist Workers Party, which was very active in the 1970s. It has become a larger political factor in recent decades. I watched the huge antiwar demonstration in London in February 2003. The two main organizers were the Muslim Association of Britain-close to the Muslim Brotherhood-and the Socialist Workers Party. They formed a Marxist-Islamist alliance against the war in Iraq and on the issue of Palestine-which was a major unifying factor. In my forthcoming book on global antisemitism since 1945 I analyze this ‘Red-Green Axis' at considerable length.

***

"There is also a relatively new party called Respect led by MP George Galloway from Scotland. He was on the left of the Labour Party before he went independent. Galloway at one time received generous assistance from Saddam Hussein and defended him regularly on British television. He has always been a militant anti-Zionist, an antiglobalist, and is ferociously anti-American. The actual name of his Islamist-Marxist movement is a complete misnomer. The Respect Party shows no respect for anyone, much less for Jews or Israel, which it constantly vilifies.

"Galloway is an intellectual lightweight and rabble-rouser. He sees a revolutionary potential in the Muslim immigrants in Britain, a kind of ‘substitute proletariat' that could help revive the lost dreams of international socialism. Being against Israel and America is what brings the far Left and radical Islamists together. They have very little in common on issues such as feminism, attitudes toward homosexuals, or secularism."

***

"Since the Second Intifada, the BBC as well as some major British newspapers have reported daily on Israel in an often tendentious, biased, and one-sided fashion. Under no circumstances will the BBC refer to any act of Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist organizations as terrorism. These killers are always referred to as militants, which has trade-union connotations in Britain. It is the term used when, for instance, shop stewards advocate a factory strike.

"Within the distorted BBC system, the reporting of Israeli civilian fatalities and Palestinian suicide attacks made them seem no more than minor pinpricks compared to the retaliations by Israel, the definitive ‘rogue state.' The BBC invariably disconnects jihadi terrorism from any notion that it is part of a hate culture and the result of ideological indoctrination. The explanation is that these murderous deeds are driven by the relentless, ‘racist actions' of the Israeli government. It is Palestinian misery and oppression that allegedly brings about suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. I believe this is a false, simplistic, and one-sided account. Terrorism is mentioned without connection to an ideology and the issue of antisemitism in the Arab or Islamic world is virtually nonexistent."

***

"What is interesting is that in Britain, as in much of Europe, the proclaimed antiracism of the left-wing variety often feeds the new antisemitism-which is primarily directed against Israel. Of course, if one suggests that such leftists are antisemites in disguise, they are likely to become enraged and retort that one is ‘playing the antisemitic card.' This has become a codeword for saying, as it were, ‘You are a dishonest, deceitful, manipulative Jew' or a ‘lover of Jews.' Zionists supposedly use the ‘accusation of antisemitism' to distort and silence the fully justified criticism of Israel and its human rights abuses. The word ‘criticism' in this context is misplaced. It is a euphemism or license for the demonization of Israel. And that in turn is a major form of antisemitism in our time."

***

Read the Entire Article at:
Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture
Prof. Robert S. Wistrich
Published June 2008
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=2214&TTL=Antisemitism_Embedded_in_British_Culture

COMMENTS

I, Leslie White, do not agree with all of Prof. Wistrich's opinions as expressed in this interview with Manfred Gerstenfeld. Specifically, his view regarding the BNP (British Nationalist Party)

. . . the far-Right British National Party sees a climate emerging where it might do better than in the past. The fascists would frankly like to see a Britain without Muslims. On the other hand, they also see eye to eye with many Muslim extremists on issues concerning Israel and the Jews. These British fascists admire Osama bin Laden."

I am still ambivalent about the BNP, unable to give it my full endorsement but aware that there elements in this party who are are not Jew-haters. On the other hand, the BNP is, at this time, the only hope to keep the Islamic invaders of the UK from forcing sharia on the British people and making "this scepetered isle" another Islamic entity.

And . . .

Prof. Wistrich's take on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ss expressed in his:

"There are exceptions to the anti-Israeli attitude. The most important was former prime minister Tony Blair, who was as sympathetic to Israel as one can reasonably be under the circumstances. The paradox is that, while Blair and his successor Gordon Brown have been pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish, Britain is still one of the leaders of current European antisemitism. That is the sobering reality and it needs to be honestly addressed.

"There is much to be said for the claim that Blair's support for Israel during the Second Lebanon War was the straw that broke the camel's back and brought him down as prime minister. He was undefeated in elections yet had to resign under pressure from his own party. Blair and Brown fit into a line of statesmen who came out of the British Christian tradition, which has a historic affinity with Zionism. These leaders include Arthur Balfour, David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Harold Wilson, and Margaret Thatcher-individuals of vision and great political talent. In my opinion they represent the best in the British political tradition.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, their domestic politics aside, are not benefiting Jews in the UK nor the Jewish State of Israel by having been and being soft on the Moslems that are intent on taking over the British Isles and making them into another Islamic outpost in the jihad against Western civilization.

For a possible--and uplifting--scenario of what will become of Israel, read
A Picture of Things to Come
The Trial
by Paul Eidelberg
at
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2009/09/picture-of-things-to-come.html

A Picture of Things to Come

2009-09-04T03:26:00.000-07:00

The Trial

by Paul Eidelberg

Israel is playing a waiting game. She knows that Iran driven by historical memory, overweening pride, and Allah’s cult of hatred, will strike; but Israel will have the warning time required to strike first—and the Jews, victims of the Holocaust, will indeed strike first. This will be the beginning of a new Middle East, that hardly anyone dreams of. Even before Iran is devastated, the Israel Defense Forces will deliver crippling blows to Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and Syria. Israel will eliminate the entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. Countless Arabs will flee from Judea and Samaria as well as from Gaza. The peace charade will be over. The mendacity and puerilities of Lilliputian politicians will be silenced. The Lion of Judah will have triumphed.

CONNECTING THE DOTS ON NETANYAHU‏

2009-09-02T04:51:00.000-07:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Benjamin Netanyahu has often been called a clever but unprincipled, indeed, unscrupulous, politician. But his skill as an orator as well as his pleasant demeanor obscures the nature of this political animal—and his oratory sometimes trips him.

Let’s go back to the aftermath of the May 1996 election, when nosed out Shimon Peres for the premiership by a mere half a percentage point. To both Jewish and Arab audiences he boasted that no one expected him to (1) accept the Oslo Accords as a basis for the “peace process”; (2) meet with Yasser Arafat; and (3) withdraw from Hebron. Ponder the significance of this unwittingly self-incriminating statement or confession. If no one, in his own words, expected him to take the three steps just mentioned, it follows that Mt. Netanyahu betrayed those who elected him Israel’s Prime Minister!

That he can boast before the nation about his utterly unexpected adherence to the Oslo Accords reveals his contempt for public opinion. It also reveals, in addition to his moral obtuseness, Israel’s undemocratic political culture. But this is not all.

Mr. Netanyahu employed the same kind political deception in the February 2009 election. During the campaign he said nothing about his stand on the “two state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; in other words, he was mum about his position regarding Palestinian state. He knew very well that had he candidly supported Palestinian statehood, he would lose a decisively significant percentage of votes from the nationalist camp. (Bear in mind that his Likud Party won only 27 seats to Kadima’s 28.)

It is in this light that we are to understand his momentous speech of June 14, 2009 at Bar-Ilan University, where, without prior cabinet or Knesset debate, he unilaterally supported the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Judea and Samaria. That he again displayed contempt for public opinion was confirmed by a poll commissioned by the Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA) in August.

● The poll found strong disagreement to Netanyahu's decisions among those who voted for his Likud party in the February 2009 election. Seventy percent of Likud voters said they opposed plans to freeze Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, while 73 percent said the government should grant authorization to so-called “illegal outposts” instead of seeking to demolish them. This clearly implies that the public overwhelming opposes a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria.

● Pollsters also discovered that despite overwhelming media criticism of Minister Moshe Yaalon, who termed the Peace Now group “a virus,” the public tends to agree with Yaalon's remarks. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed expressed agreement with Yaalon, and said that Peace Now has caused significant damage to the state of Israel. Only 28 percent of those surveyed did not agree that Peace Now has harmed the state.

I have elsewhere said that Netanyahu has replaced Shimon Peres as the eminence grise of Peace Now. He is far more subtle than Peres, hence all the more dangerous.

Finally, the true story of a long pathetic history about to be repeated

2009-09-02T04:23:00.000-07:00

(G-d forbid)

From Israel Commentary:

PM Netanyahu & Defense Minister Ehud Barak – A dangerous duo for Israel’s sovereignty and security

By Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The Wall St. Journal on August 21st ran an article by Joshua Mitnick "ISRAEL’S BARAK TAKES LEAD IN PEACE TALKS" (1) wherein he describes the wonderful(?!) relationship between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ehud Barak. What Mitnick ignores is read between the lines for those of us who know them both and their complicated histories. Since the Wall St. Journal is generally no push over for the boys in the Beltway, why the Puff Piece?

Most everyone in Israel and those outside who know the backgrounds of Netanyahu and Barak would describe them in a different way. Ehud Barak was nurtured by the Labor Left as the "Great Hero,” along with receiving medals for special politically inspired missions so that when he left the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), he would be ready for a Labor Left political career. As for Netanyahu, he is often equated with a used car or house siding salesman, too easily manipulated by U.S. interests with a rubbery spine.

Barak was the one who ran out on his Christian Lebanese allies in the middle of the night. He kept it a big secret between him and President Bill Clinton. The ‘deal’ was if he vacated Israel’s vital security zone on the Southern Lebanese border. Clinton would transfer $800 million to the Israeli Left government if Barak abandoned his allies to the incoming Hezb’Allah terrorists. Barak ran out so fast, he left four tanks, long range 120 mm artillery with pallets of shells and more. Bill Clinton never did transfer the promised $800 million!

Some of the Lebanese Christian soldiers managed to escape over the border into Israel where Barak provided less than desirable living quarters and conditions. Barak has left a trail of victims and their broken bones. Few, other than some radical Leftists, trust Barak. Some will recall that - when Barak was Prime Minister, he desperately tried to abandon the most vital high ground of the Golan Heights and surrender it to Syria’s Hafez al Assad - a most dedicated enemy. Then Barak confirmed his Left Liberal credentials when he was PM by trying to give up 97% of the territories to Yassir Arafat who, thankfully, refused - proving that he never wanted a Palestinian State.

As for Bibi, he bent like a green twig during the Wye River Conference, ending up abandoning 80% of Hebron and the surrounding communities to Yassir Arafat and his PLO Terrorists who immediately went to work, sniping and killing the Jews who remained. Who remembers the Muslim Arab Terrorists shooting of the baby Shalhavet Pass, who died in her father’s arms? And more.... How many more do there have to be?

Let’s not forget then and now how the U.S./CIA trained and armed Arafat’s killers in sniping and other terrorist activities. The American General Keith Dayton has been training the remainder of the PLO (now under Arafat’s loyal lieutenants who are now under Mahmoud Abbas) in shooting, maneuvers - as well as arming them with automatic rifles, long-range sniper rifles, side arms and, no doubt, anti-armor weapons. Israeli leaders even allowed in weapons’ carriers, some from Russia, supposedly to use against ‘other’ Terrorists but we know the newly U.S.-trained PLO Army will use them against Israel.

Bibi sports his Jewishness as a badge of shame. (I saw him resist putting on the kippa in his pocket at a fund-raising dinner hosted by observant Jews.) What nation, what religion would give up the burial site of their nation’s founders? Bibi knowingly gave up sovereignty and sanctity over the venerable Burial Cave of the Matriarchs and Patriarchs, "Ma’arat HaMachpelah.” Our ancestral mothers, Sara, Rivka and Leah, and our fore-fathers Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’acov are buried there. Before 1967 when the IDF liberated all of Eretz Yisrael, the Muslims let the Jews go up only to the 7th step, outside the Tomb.

After the Six Days War of June 1967 liberated all of Eretz Yisrael, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights, the Jews were finally free to pray in all of the Ma’arat HaMachpelah. HOWEVER, the Left Liberal government of Moshe Dayan, ‘et al’ gave away our sovereignty and the sanctity for the Cave by ‘sharing’ it with the Muslims who could have it on ‘their’ days, parts of it to be shared, and we could have it on ‘our’ days.

Remember, Dayan (another Leftist un-Jew) also gave the "keys" to the Temple Mount to the Muslim Wakf who now totally control Temple Mount and are propagating lies that the Jews have no connection to Har HaBayit. The idea of abandoning any and all holy rallying Jewish sites for observant Jews started with David Ben Gurion and continues to this day.

Bibi proved his choice to be an un-Jew by abandoning the sole sovereignty for the heritage of all Jewish people from ancient times and forever. The pressures put upon him by America to do so, do NOT ameliorate his responsibilities for these surrenders at all. We are left with a lack of trust and confidence in Bibi’s ability to resist the world and, especially, American pressure for future abdication of Israeli and Jewish land.

Nevertheless, Bibi again was elected Prime Minister this year and chose Ehud Barak as his Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, knowing Barak was well beyond the appellation of "Radical Left.” Of course, Bibi tried to get Tzipi Livni first, on direct orders of Arabist State Department but she opted out. The U.S. State Department wanted someone connected to the Olmert government’s appeasement weak psychology. They had ‘secret’ plans to drive the Jews out of Judea and Samaria - and gift all of Jerusalem that Jordan had occupied for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 - the North, South and East of Jerusalem. The State Department wanted an unbroken continuation with the secret negotiations by Olmert-Livni-Barak - forcing Jews out of their inheritance - all the holy sites in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem - and soon - the Golan Heights.

When or IF the Muslims control Judea, Samaria and most (or all) of Jerusalem, none of the rest of Israel - in any borders - will be safe from terrorist attacks. Israel’s water resources will also be at critical risk. Most important, where do they intend to ‘put’ the 500,000 - 600,000 Jewish men, women and children they plan to uproot? In addition, small matter, how and who will pay for that ‘small’ evacuation and re-settlement? Or, don’t we use the word ‘settlement’? Has it become a dirty word?

The Muslim Arabs never wanted a state before the Jews created a Garden of Eden in a desolate land. Since then, the Muslims felt compelled to steal it from the Jews. Those Muslim Arabs now called ‘Palestinians’ came into Eretz Yisrael from all over the Middle East after the Jews made jobs, medical care and a better life for all the people of the Middle East. Of course, none of these historical facts would appear in a puff piece written for the Wall St. Journal by Joshua Mitnick. Not his fault, just a bit of an important history lesson left out - Our History. We Americans should be used to misleading articles as was done - often - for President Barack Hussein Obama but NOT from The Wall St. Journal.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:12 PM Comments (0)
August 26, 2009
http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2009_08.html#001244

Jews and the Film "Inglorious Basterds"

2009-08-25T19:22:00.000-07:00

from City Journal

STEFAN KANFER

Memo to the Führer

A report on Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds

25 August 2009

TO: Adolf Hitler

FROM: Julius Streicher

DATELINE: Hell

Mein Führer:

Much excitement to report! The good news is piling up like copies of Der Stürmer in the good old days, when I published caricatures of the International Jew as predator and violator. Remember what we discovered in the 1930s? The secret of the Big Lie was to turn the truth on its head. Well, here we are in the New Millennium, and on the wide screen, the B.L. is more monstrous than ever! The film is entitled Inglourious Basterds (their spelling, not mine). And—are you ready for this?—it’s produced by Harvey and Bob Weinstein!

Earlier this month, before Basterds was screened for a private audience, Harvey W. told his invitees, “Please keep in mind that it’s a fable.” And what a fable it is—a revenge fantasy, actually. The plot is as elemental as a bayonet. A group of six violent American sociopaths, all of them Jewish, are under the command of Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), a gentile hillbilly with a scar on his neck and ice in his heart. After D-Day, Raine’s squad is let loose in Europe. There, its members take almost as much delight in scalping Germans as director/writer Quentin Tarantino does in showing the removal of skin and hair. One of the enlisted men, dubbed the “Bear Jew” (Eli Roth), is especially revolting. When a German officer honorably refuses to betray his fellow soldiers, the Bear bludgeons him to death with a baseball bat. The execution is shown in exquisite and sanguinary detail as audiences chortle. It goes without saying that the dirty half-dozen are licensed to kill by whatever means necessary.

Earlier in the film, we see the sophisticated and multilingual SS colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) order the execution of a Jewish family hiding in a French farmhouse. One girl survives because Landa whimsically allows her to run away. That, however, is the extent of German malfeasance. No mention is made of the Holocaust. Dachau? Never heard of it. Auschwitz-Birkenau? Chelmno? Treblinka? Sorry, Herr Tarantino isn’t very good with names. The death of 6 million Jews as a result of forced labor, exposure, brutality, disease, execution? Nicht ein Wort. You, mein Führer, are played by Martin Wuttke, who turns you into a buffoon. The same goes for Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) and most of the other top Nazis.

But Tarantino’s purpose is not to comment on human events. It is to comment on cinematic events, as he did in his previous features Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. Thus the name Aldo Raine suggests that of Aldo Ray, the veteran of many American war films. Thus the soundtrack blares “The Green Leaves of Summer,” the theme song from The Alamo, starring John Wayne. Thus the Jewish escapee, now the owner of a Paris cinema, says in classic Cannes Film Festival style: “We’re French; we respect directors in our country.”

But what Tarantino and his benefactors have done is something far more interesting than mere celluloid scholarship. They have joined the dark side. And we welcome them! Imagine a filmmaker who can trivialize Nazi crimes against humanity, make the Jews the brutal ones, evoke laughs from horror, and create a finale in which the German High Command, from you on down, are locked into a film house. Cinema Paradiso turns into Cinema Inferno when it’s set aflame, thus reversing the image of the death-camp ovens.

As our old enemy Karl Marx observed: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Or as our new colleague Herr Tarantino states proudly: “This ain’t your father’s World War II movie.” Indeed it ain’t, mein Führer. That’s why it’s thriving at the box office. New times demand new directors, new narratives, new history. Nicht wahr?

Yours until the next farce,

J. S.

Stefan Kanfer, a contributing editor of City Journal and a former editor of Time, is the author, most recently, of a biography of Marlon Brando, Somebody.

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0825sk.html

WHO HATES JEWS THE MOST?

2009-08-10T03:04:00.000-07:00

It's a toss-up (throw-up) really
　
There are the usual contenders:

Nazis (called "neo" today to differentiate them from the Hitler-gang Nazis)

Mohammedans - specifically, those "true" followers of Mohammed that share his rabid Jew-hatred

Catholics - those that believe that the Jews crucified "their" Lord (albeit he was a Jew, not a Catholic, not Irish, nor Italian, French, Spanish, and not especially an African, if he existed).

Prostestants - except for Evangicals, that is those who believe that all the Jews will return to Israel at the "end of days," when Jesus (the Messiah) returns, etc. By the way, the Mohammedans also have the Jews at the "end of days," hiding behind rocks, and what have you, so that they can be killed.

Let's see, whom did we leave out?

"Nordics," that is, those who believe in Thor, Wotan, the Valkyries, Valhalla, etc., be they from Norway, Sweden, Germany or the United Kingdom

Oh, and then those (not Jews) of the antisemitic Left, the South Africans ("Bishop" Desmond" Tutu), the Hugo Chavez crowd, etc.

Then the "Black Muslims"--Louis Farakhan and the boys in the prisons of that persuasion, and the Afrocentric Christians, such as Jeremiah Wright and the Catholic priest Phleger.

There's more, I'm sure, that I haven't covered, but that's enough to give you a taste--until we get to the Jews who hate Jews. Leftists, Liberals, whatever, but Jews--they can be counted amongst those who hate Jews.

But, to top this all off, let's look at the following:

A Comment from Israpundit's "The Spanish Inquisition and Me"

Marranos versus moriscos:

The muslims (arabs and berbers from Morocco) conquered Spain from+ the christians and ruled it in part for 700 years. The christians fought back stubbornly and finally won back all of Spain.
They conquered a lot of muslims, and a much smaller number of Jews.

The catholic spaniards really hated the Jews. They stole all their property and made them convert or leave (1492). The Jews were hated by both the christians and the muslims, and didn’t have many places to go to. Many rich Spanish Jews chose to convert to catholicism rather than lose all their money. The catholics then instituted the Inquisition, which was directed against Jewish converts, the richer the better.

The muslims were a bigger group. The catholics gave them the same order: convert or leave. The rich muslims had someplace to go to: muslim Morocco or elsewhere in the muslim world. Many poor muslims stayed in Spain and converted to catholicism. They were not persecuted as much by the Inquisition, but nevertheless, after a hundred years, when Spain had lots of South American gold, they expelled the muslim converts (Moriscos), most of whom went to Morocco and converted to islam when they got there.

Segue to today: liberal Spain hates Jews more than ever, even though they have not seen a living Jew in 400 years. They lead the EU in their venom towards Israel (and that’s saying a lot).

On the other hand, as part of the recent financial boom, they invited a million poor muslims from Morocco to come to Spain and pick up christian garbage and work in the christian farms. The muslims now make up 2% of Spain’s population. And as the financial bust has set in, they have lost their menial jobs and are going on welfare.

My Jewish conclusion: Spain sucks.

Comment by Samuel Fistel — August 10, 2009 @ 1:56 am
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=16190

So? Who hates Jews most? Take your pick, but Spain is right up there with the rest of them. (lw)
　
_______________________________
APPENDIX

Spanish Jew-hatred extended to those Jews who had converted to Christianity (Catholicism) and their descendants. Often for reasons of economic and political jealousy, this hatred by Spaniards for conversos even exceeded that they had for Jews. See . . .
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Marano.htm

Israeli Navy vulnerable

2009-08-01T16:20:00.000-07:00

.
[quote]

"We are now in a time where a terrorist group like Hezbollah can not only acquire a cruise missile, but also train, launch and hit an Israeli Sa’ar 5 corvette – a capability once possessed by only a handful of militaries. This type of capability (once the purview of the nation-state, now within the reach of many non-state extremist and criminal organizations) . . . "
--ADM J.C. Harvey, Jr.

http://fleetforces.dodlive.mil/
also at
http://blog.usni.org/?p=3883

Obama versus the Jews

2009-07-19T22:49:00.000-07:00

Obama Meets the Jews

July 19, 2009
Over the weekend, the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded that Israel halt construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish activist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

US Demands: Stop Construction in Capital. Israel Says No

Click on these:

Bibi: Jerusalem Ours Forever

Olmert: Obama Making Big Mistake

We Allow America to Pressure Us

Obama despite the Jews on his staff, is not a friend of Israel. A self-declared (black) Christian, he is not condemned as an apostate by any Moslems, although he was born to Mohammedan African father and is thusly considered a Moslem forever and ever.

Those Jews who still idolize him as a Messiah who brought change must be aware that Obama is dictating to the sovereign Jewish state of Israel what it can and cannot do.

The world's Jews, whether Israelis or living among the nations, need a strong and secure Israel: a Jewish homeland.

The "Peace Process" is nothing but the drive by the Arabs to destroy Israel and turn the land over to the umma (Islamic community). The U.S.--under a series of Presidents, the EU, the Islamic-dominated UN, and of course Jew-hating Russia--support this. None of them like Jews or hate them, and all view Israel as what caused the Arabs to go on jihad. All four--the infamous "Quartet"--want a "two-state solution"--Israel and "Palestine" (that is, Arabs who came to squat on Jewish land).

Quartet asks Israel to stop settlement activity

Oslo, Annapolis, and whatever new demands and any direct orders to Israel, to please the Islamic Arabs, Obama comes up with are all designed to dismantle and destroy Israel.

Obama is the enemy of the Jews and the potential destroyer of Israel.

Those who support him--Jew or gentile-- may count themselves as in league with him.

_________________________________
. . . and for those who want "peace" . . . see

Stopping the Cycle of Violence

Solana Quits! Good Riddance!

2009-07-15T19:26:00.000-07:00

Solana and PA President Mahmoud Abbas are seen talking before a press conference in Ramallah.

Photo: AP

[excerpts from Jerusalem Post]

Javier Solana has had enough. After 10 years as the European Union's foreign policy chief - and despite all the treasure and energy he has poured into Middle East peacemaking - the physicist-turned-diplomat is heading into retirement with Iran on the cusp of an atom bomb, Hamas solidifying its control over Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas as recalcitrant as ever.

***

Like many diplomats and intellectuals, Solana appears to regard a Palestinian state - whose establishment under viable terms, it apparently needs stressing, Israelis support - as some kind of regional cure-all. Reading between the lines, it's as if he believes that the mullahs in Iran will stop grabbing for regional hegemony, stealing (rigged) elections, and pursuing nuclear weapons; that Arab autocrats will guide their polities toward tolerance and representative government; that Shi'ites and Sunnis will stop blowing each other up; that Kurds, Copts and Baha'is will gain equality.

***

SOLANA THEN offered a way forward toward creating a Palestinian state: "real mediation." By this, he appeared to mean imposing a solution, and a timetable for its implementation. If the parties didn't go along, he'd have the UN Security Council essentially codify the "real mediation" with its imprimatur.

The contrasting reactions to the Solana speech are instructive. The Palestinians' creative interpretation had Solana calling for the Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state - in line with their maximalist stance - by a certain deadline; even if Israel does not.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said: "We do not object. It's time for the international community to stop treating Israel as above the laws of man."

The reaction of Israel's Foreign Ministry was that peace had to be built on negotiations, not imposed.

Plainly, the Palestinians trust that an internationally imposed "peace" would mostly ignore Israeli concerns, while catering to theirs.

Israelis do not disagree

More . . . at . . .

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443786047&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Referred by http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jew_in_Yellow/message/10180
　
RELATED

Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine'

EU's Solana says world should recognize Palestinian state

Barack Obama vs. International Law

2009-07-12T01:55:00.000-07:00

By Caroline Glick

from Muslim World Today, Friday, July 3, 2009

US President Barack Obama consistently couches his demand that Israel prohibit Jewish people from constructing or expanding our homes and communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in legal-sounding language.

Obama has called settlements "illegitimate." And he has said that Israel "has obligations under the road map," while referring disparagingly to "settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell have repeatedly uttered similar statements.

By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel's capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw. After all, if building homes for Jews is a crime, and Israel is not prohibiting Jews from building homes, then Israel is at best guilty of enabling a crime to take place, and at worst, it is a criminal state.

It makes good political sense for the Obama administration to make its case against Israel in this fashion. According to a survey of US public opinion published in early 2006 by the Boston Review, whereas only 7 percent of Democrats support going to war to spread democracy - versus 53% of Republicans; 71% of Democrats - versus 36% of Republicans - support going to war to help the United Nations "uphold international law." What this poll shows is that for Obama supporters, the idea that Israel should be treated poorly because it is in breach of international law resonates deeply.

The problem with the Obama administration's characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal."

Moreover, both former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass and former president George W. Bush's deputy national security adviser for the Middle East Elliot Abrams have gone on record stating that Sharon's much vaunted decision to curtail Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (never Jerusalem), in line with the road map negotiating framework, was based on a series of explicit understandings with the Bush administration that spelled out the scope of Jewish building that Israel would maintain for the duration of the peace process. As Abrams wrote on Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, "Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them..."

Then, too, since the road map was approved as a mere cabinet decision - as opposed to an international agreement - the Netanyahu government has no legal obligation to actively advance it. Indeed, if it wishes, it can abrogate Israel's acceptance of the document at any time simply by calling for another vote.

More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration's perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem.

Like the US, Israel is a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which among other things prohibits all forms of discrimination against people on the basis of religion and nationality.

Consequently, Israel is barred from discriminating specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. As a binding treaty, this convention takes precedence over the nonbinding road map. Indeed, given the road map's prejudicial position on Jewish building it can be reasonably argued that the road map itself calls for a breach of international law.

Finally, there is always the claim made by Israel's critics that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal by dint of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. That convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its population to occupied territory. Legal authorities have long disputed whether this convention is applicable to Judea and Samaria, but even if it is applicable, according to Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School, it "only proscribes state actions."

Bell explains, "The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live."

WhereasS upon examination it is clear that the Obama administration is wrong in insinuating that Israel is in breach of its international legal commitments through its refusal to bar Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the Obama administration's own policy toward the Palestinians places it in clear breach of both binding international law and domestic US law.

On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council passed binding Resolution 1373. Resolution 1373, which was initiated by the US government, and was passed by authority of Chapter VII, committed all UN member states to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts." Resolution 1373 further required UN member states to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven" to those that do.

In 1995, the US State Department acknowledged that Hamas fits the legal definition of a terrorist organization. Today, due to its policies toward Hamas, the Obama administration is in breach of both Resolution 1373 - that is, of international law - and of US domestic law barring the provision of support and financing to foreign terrorist organizations.

According to an internal State Department document cited Wednesday by the Atlas Shrugs Web site, the US has already transferred or is in the process of allocating $300 million dollars to Gaza through USAID and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Since Hamas controls "humanitarian" organizations in Gaza, and Hamas has openly and repeatedly stolen "humanitarian aid," there is little doubt the transfer of funds to Gaza constitutes indirect assistance to Hamas and is therefore prohibited by Resolution 1373 as well as by US statute.

The Obama administration is further in breach of international and domestic US law due to its attempts to coerce Israel into opening international passages between Israel and Gaza to enable trade and commerce with Hamas-controlled Gaza and to end or curtail travel restrictions for people between Gaza and Israel.

Resolution 1373 stipulates that all states must "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls." Given the fact that the Gaza side of the border is controlled by a terrorist organization, any significant relaxation of Israeli border controls puts Israel at risk of facilitating the movement of terrorists and permitting direct and indirect support to terrorists.

So too, Resolution 1373 requires all states to "ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice."

Yet rather than calling on Israel to arrest all persons working with Hamas and operating in its territory, the US itself pledged $900m. to rebuilding Gaza. Moreover, it is demanding that Israel allow the importation of dual use materials such as cement into Gaza which will enable Hamas to rebuild its infrastructures that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. It is also attempting to coerce Israel into transferring cash to Hamas-controlled banks in Gaza.

Then, too, as Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, US-supported Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad recently acknowledged that the US-financed PA continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists.

Multiple news reports in recent days have indicated that the Obama administration is working to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government that will include Hamas. US efforts to legitimize the incorporation of a terrorist group in a Palestinian government are a severe violation of US and international law. This is the case since it would clearly involve aiding a designated terrorist organization and helping to provide it with a safe haven.

Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to which the Obama administration is providing assistance - again, in apparent breach of international and US law. The administration is also aiding Hizbullah. Ahead of his June 4 address in Cairo, Obama met with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. He also invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be present at his speech at Cairo University.

Shortly before the White House meeting, Egyptian legal authorities alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood provided material support to Hizbullah terrorists in Egypt. These Hizbullah operatives - and their Muslim Brotherhood partners - were allegedly engaged in a plot to commit massive terrorist attacks in Egypt whose goal was the illegal overthrow of the government. That is, the Muslim Brotherhood was allegedly involved in a terrorist conspiracy led by Hizbullah - a designated foreign terrorist organization. Furthermore, the plot was apparently hatched by Iran - which the US State Department has designated as state sponsor of terrorism.

By meeting with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood suspected of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect assistance to Hizbullah - again in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.

Then there is the US's direct assistance to the Lebanese military. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Lebanese military provided direct assistance to Hizbullah operatives in carrying out their illegal war against Israel. Since then, expanding Hizbullah influence over the Lebanese military has been copiously documented. Consequently, by providing direct US military assistance - including weapons - to the Lebanese military, the US government is arguably in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.

Going back for a moment to the Palestinians, Hamas of course is not the only terrorist organization that is materially assisted by the Obama administration's policies. As Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post last month, the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian computer center named for arch Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel's coastal highway in which 37 civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were murdered.

As Marcus and Crook note, the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to the Palestinians from being used "for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of terrorism."

Obama, the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law. And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand, and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other, it is clear that Obama's respect for international law is mere rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand an end to his administration's contempt for the US's actual - rather than imaginary - legal obligations.

http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/glick.htm

Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, and Israel

2009-07-09T14:54:00.000-07:00

from north-of-africa.com

Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, and Israel
by Gerald A. Honigman
23 June 2009

You know, this really isn’t difficult to understand.

But, some background first...

One would think, with all the hatred towards Jews and Israel spewing forth out of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs’ mouths, that Iran has always been the bitter enemy of the Jewish nation.

Not so...in fact, the Kurash Prism is an ancient Iranian document which gives testimony to Cyrus the Great’s decree allowing the Jews to return to Judea, freeing them from their captivity in Babylon in 539 B.C.E. It corroborates the Jews’ own Biblical account beautifully in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And then there is the Book of Esther, again, in the Hebrew Bible as well, again testifying to this age-old relationship between these two ancient peoples.

Jews were grateful to their powerful Iranian liberators and served in their armies throughout their empire. At the fortress in Elephantine, Egypt, for example ancient documents related to this were discovered along with a synagogue built there for Jewish soldiers serving under the Iranian ruler.

Centuries later, when Judea fought for its freedom and independence against the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E, it was Iran, again, which came to the Jews’ aid. And centuries later still, on the eve of the Arab explosion out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E., ancient documents record a Jewish army aligning itself with Iran against the hated Byzantines.

So, what happened?

Well, for one thing, there was that not-so-little thing briefly mentioned above...the Arab conquest.

After Muhammad and his successor imperial, Caliphal armies burst out of the Peninsula in all directions, both Israel/Judea/Palestina and Iran fell to the Arabs’ jihad in the spread of their Dar ul-Islam.

In the Middle East, especially, often internal differences due to ethnic and national conflict are reflected in religious expression. The Khorasani and other mawali—disgruntled Iranian converts to Islam—thus became followers of the martyred ’Ali...Shiites...in opposition to the brand of Islam of their Arab conquerors, the Sunni Umayyads. They supported the Abbasids, who would soon conquer the Umayyad seat of Sunni Arabism in Damascus. Baghdad would next become the new capital of Islam. Struggles between the Shi’a and Sunni continued, but by the 16th century the former became the adopted religion of state by Iran’s Safavid Shahs.

While the fate of Jews under both branches of Islam was fragile, to say the least, in some ways it was even worse at the hands of the Shi’a.

Thus, as the centuries progressed in a henceforth Muslim Iran—and a Shia one, at that—Jews would soon find themselves in an awkward position whereby their very lives and livelihoods depended upon a powerful, more secular political ruler (Shah) who could act more on their collective behalf against the powerful force of the hostile religious establishment, the ulema and the mullahs.

While some pre-Islamic problems are noted in the Book of Esther, the fate of Iranian Jews had far more ups and downs clear up to the present time due to the situation brought on with the Arab Muslim conquest of the land. And since Jews were largely dependent on the political power of the Shahs, if the latter were unjust or whatever, the masses—stirred up by the mullahs— frequently took it out on the Jews.

Okay...let’s jump to the present.

Recently, Iran held a presidential election in which the mullahs’ front man, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supposedly defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi. Major demonstrations against Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have broken out by numerous people who feel that the election was stolen. The mullahs’ Revolutionary Guards have given warning that their patience is wearing thin.

Whatever the differences in foreign policy which might exist between the two candidates (probably not many), the protests are mainly over internal matters...freedom, in all of its true democratic forms, as the main example.

And this, my friends, is the real reason for folks like Ahmanejad’s professed hatred of the Jews and the Jew of the Nations...

Undemocratic, oppressive dictators always make sure that they have at least one great, external bogeyman to channel internal frustration, unrest, and violence against.

Who better than the world’s scapegoat and whipping post par excellence...the Jew?

Hopefully, more and more Iranian people will start to see through this injustice as they rethink that age-old relationship between their own nation and that of the Jews.

by Gerald A. Honigman
http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=598

North Africa differently, Afrique du Nord, Canary Islands, Morocco, Algeria, Kabylia, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Nordafrika, Berber, Amazigh, Rif, Tamazgha, Souss, Awres, Chaoui, Touareg, Guanche,
KABYLIA INFO FORUM ARCHIV ADMIN CONTACT
News
Art & Culture
Society
History & Civilisation
Useful Links

VICTORY OVER OUR ENEMIES

2009-06-22T00:37:00.000-07:00

HOW TO ACHIEVE IT

An analysis of “No Substitute for Victory”
The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
by John David Lewis
(with sections of the author's original text)
from http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

Includes ADDENDUM - "Protests aren't enough to topple the Islamic Republic"

Two responses to Islam are possible:

The first has as its Goal:

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF THE ENEMY

How accomplished:

Hit centers of power

obliterate cities.

decimate military

bomb industry

choke off food

mine harbors

sink ships

shatter people psychologically

Kill 1000,000 in firestorm in capital

Drop leaflets advising which cities will be next

Enemy responds with propaganda to his people that they are winning

Enemy population cowers defenselessly--American bombers level homes

We mass huge forces mass on enemy's borders

1000 bombers pulverize cities.

President issues ultimatum:

"Unconditional surrender"

Nuclear bombs are dropped on cities.

Enemy surrenders,

Orders his soldiers to lay down their arms

Makes a political decision to cease fighting

American military occupies

WHAT THE ENEMY IS FACING

media censored

schools reformed

economic cartels dismantled

militaristic language effaced at all levels

constitution written and imposed by occupiers

Enemy told that they are defeated and that
we have no obligations to them.

People starve; told they brought it on themselves

Cost of occupation is charged to defeated Islamics

No aid arrives until complete surrender is demonstrated and
militaristic ideology is repudiated

A principled, all-out merciless offense brought us victory

ANOTHER TYPE OF RESPONSE

(Iraq-style response)

Precision bombing only

Avoid civilian casualties at all costs

Food drops

Enemy allowed to flee to neighboring nuclear armed country
which is our ally

We don't cross their borders.

Enemy crosses over kills Americans (like from Iran or Saudi).

We set up--or try to set up--a democracy.

WHICH TYPE OF RESPONSE TO ISLAMIC ATTACKS?

Now, which of these two responses—the all-out, merciless, military offense, or the restrained, diplomatic, semi-military approach, should we choose? Let us evaluate them, according to several ideas widely accepted today.

In the second method of fighting, we fight:

War for the "good of others."

The only absolute is that we must NOT engage in focused, principled military action toward a firm, self-interested, pro-American victory.

This second, flexible, response is considered right—according to pragmatism.

Altruism leads to the same conclusion.

To fight for our own benefit—to elevate our lives over those of our enemies—
is almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus “immoral.”

A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak.

Again, their freedom must be our goal—their prosperity must be our mission—if we wish to be “good.”

An all-out offensive response, in this view, would be an utter disaster—
pragmatically because it holds to principles in defiance of constantly shifting reality,
and morally because it seeks the enemy’s defeat rather than his benefit.
On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the measured, proportional, restrained approach is our only option.

BUT

ISLAMIC TOTALITARIANISM
--STATE ISLAM--RULE BY SHARIAH
--IS ON THE RISE

While Moslem clerics plot an Islamic State, people from countries where children are taught that Jews are born of pigs and monkeys, and that Israel is “occupied territory” and fair game for attack, rail against so-called anti-Muslim “prejudice.” Inside America, leaders of hostile countries give speeches to build “bridges of understanding” while building nuclear bombs overseas.Adherents of Islam claim to be victims of persecution, assertions they make on national television, from pulpits, and in tenured university positions.

In short, the second, pragmatic, altruistic approach has failed. In the five years since 9/11, the motivations behind the Islamic attacks have not been suppressed—and this is the real failure of these policies.

The reason for this failure is that every one of the ideas we used to evaluate our options is wrong. In every case, the opposite of today’s “conventional wisdom” is true.

* A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea—undefeated by America—would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.

* Poverty is not the “root cause” of wars. If it were, poor Mexicans would be attacking America, not begging for jobs at Wal-Mart.

* Democracy is not a route to freedom—not for the Greeks who voted to kill Socrates, nor for the Romans who acclaimed Caesar, nor for the Germans who elected Hitler.

* A culture of slavery and suicide is not equal to a culture of freedom and prosperity—not for those who value life.

* The world is not a flux of contradictions, in which principles do not work. If it were, gravity would not hold, vaccinations would not work, and one would not have a right to one’s life.

* Being moral does not mean sacrificing for others. It means accepting the American principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and living for one’s own sake.

History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral. It led us to our two most important foreign policy successes—the defeats of Germany and Japan in 1945—and to the permanent peace with those nations that we take for granted today. Such a course was practical and moral then, and it is practical and moral now—an affirmation, and a defense, of life and civilization.

Ayn Rand, in her essay on the nature of government, observed a vital relationship between man’s right to life and his right to self-defense:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

We must defeat these enemies, and we can.

Only after we understand that we should defeat these enemies, can we ask how.

That we have the overwhelming capacity to defeat the Islamic Totalitarians militarily is beyond doubt. Yet far from elevating technology to the key issue in winning a war, this illustrates the unequivocal importance of the moral self-confidence—the state of mind that proceeds from an awareness of one’s own moral goodness and efficacy—that is needed to use this weaponry. This is what enabled us to overcome serious material deficiencies and to drive victoriously over the Japanese in 1945. The question today is not whether we have the capacity to win; it is whether we have the self-confidence, and the will, to do so.

The purpose of a proper government is to protect the rights of its citizens—each citizen’s freedom to think and act on his own judgment—by using retaliatory force as necessary against criminals and foreign invaders.

This requirement applies to Islam today. In regard to Japan, the job involved breaking the link between Shinto and state; in regard to Islamic Totalitarianism the task involves breaking the link between Islam and state. This is the central political issue we face: the complete lack of any conceptual or institutional separation between church and state in Islam, both historically and in the totalitarian movement today.

The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole.

Intellectually, we must state our intentions and reasons openly, without hiding behind timid diplomatic-speak. Physically, we must act decisively, and with all the force we deem necessary, to eliminate the Iranian regime as quickly as possible, and with the least risk to American soldiers. Only when the world sees this demonstration of American resolve will America begin to see peace and security.

We must not seek legitimacy for the removal of the Iranian Islamic State beyond the principle of our right to defend ourselves. To pretend that something more than this principle is needed would be to deny the sufficiency of the principle. To base our reasons on the alleged good of others, especially on any alleged benefits to the people of the Middle East, would be to accept a position of moral dhimmitude: the moral subordination of our right to life and self-defense to an allegedly higher principle.

If we accept the Totalitarians’ claim that we must submit to the will of “Allah,” then we cannot claim the right to exist. America’s “weakness of will” is the jihadists’ great hope—as it was the hope of Japanese warriors—but it is something they cannot impose on us. Their only prayer is that we will accept it voluntarily. The price for doing so is our lives and the lives of our children. We must not submit.

To remove this cancerous Islamic State loudly and forthrightly will have immediate benefits. We would avenge the thousands of American terror victims since the 1960s. We would reverse the pitiful image we projected when Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979, and when we fled from Mogadishu and from Lebanon—actions that the Islamic Totalitarians claimed as evidence of our weakness. We could even reverse a tremendous injustice by un-nationalizing the oil companies in Iran—stolen from their owners in 1951—and placing them back into private hands, under government protection. Certainly guarding those facilities from a surrounding civil war—a legitimate protection of private property, backed by a credible threat of crushing force—would be a far better use of our troops than guarding a few blocks in downtown Baghdad from its own residents. The pipeline of money into Islamic jihad would be cut.

Most importantly, by ousting the regime in Iran, we would send a clear message to the world: Political Islam is finished. Weaker states and groups would cringe in terror—as they did briefly after 9/11—and would literally retreat into holes in the ground. Anti-totalitarian forces across the world would be emboldened by the sight of a real defense of life and liberty. Allies we never knew existed would raise their heads with confidence and join the cause of freedom. The land of the free—rejuvenated as the home of the brave—would rejoice as the nation of the secure. We would truly be on the road to victory, freedom, and peace. By affirming the efficacy of reason and individual rights over incompetent dark-age theocracy, America could once again claim its place as a real world leader, and become a beacon for those who understand, and value, freedom.

Once this central task is complete, further intransigent policies toward Islamic Totalitarianism will be necessary. One pertains to state economic support for Islam, another to state-sponsored education. The 1945 telegram—again, with Islam replacing Shinto—addresses both of these points:

Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People [will] not be taxed to support Islam and there will be no place for Islam in the schools.

The Muslim world must be made to understand that any government that provides economic support to jihadists will be summarily destroyed. In order for this policy to be taken seriously, we must demonstrate its truth—by destroying the Iranian regime and stating why we have done so. Only the clear threat that “you will be next” can break the entangled network of Islamic economic support for jihad that masquerades as “economic development.” There can be no more playing games with Saudi apologists who speak smooth English and describe their work as “charity.” In 2003, the International Islamic Relief Organization, a Saudi charity, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle East—but it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Islamic books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of young children as “True Muslims,” trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming “Allahu Akbar” and dedicating themselves to jihad.

Such “charity” means raising money to spread the ideas, and tactics, of Totalitarian Islam. It must end.

Ending this state economic support cannot occur without confronting one of Islam’s five pillars: alms. By separating church and state, alms can become something that it has never been in Islam: truly private charity. In the primitive society in which Mohammed lived, there was no concept of the separation of church and state. The religious leaders were the political leaders, and the payment of alms was a state-imposed taxation as much as a religious duty. Since then, nothing has changed within Islam. It is high time that all government involvement in so-called “charities” be ended. All states known to have sponsored terrorism against the West must be forbidden to impose taxes or provide funding on behalf of Islam.

Regarding education, the following will be imposed:

Islam as a state religion—National Islam, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Islam . . . The dissemination of Islamic militaristic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. Middle Eastern Governments will be required to cease financial and other support of Islamic establishments.

After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative. Until the U.S. demonstrates the nature of that choice, by serious retaliation against Iran, unambiguously connecting principled words to practical actions, there is no reason for any Middle Eastern leader to expect serious consequences. Until then, they are right to regard us as a paper tiger. Only the forthright destruction of the Iranian Islamic State can demonstrate the resolve needed for this task.

America needs a Commander-in-Chief today who can understand and state this simple truth: In war, there is no “right” to free speech on behalf of an enemy. The string of obviously false, contrived, and manipulated “news” by the supporters of jihad—the staging of civilians crying when a home is destroyed, and the throwing about of children’s dolls when a terrorist’s safe house is wrecked—are all part of the enemy’s war effort. In war, the psychological disarmament of the enemy, including the inculcation of terror through vicious propaganda, is part of the fight. American unwillingness to quash such propaganda is seen, by our enemies, not as respect for freedom of speech, but rather as a lack of will and as evidence of weakness. In the present situation, Americans must forcibly prohibit the dissemination of militaristic ideology and propaganda anywhere it rises. To make the point clear, Al-Jazeera—the fountainhead of Muslim taqiyya, or deception—must be shut down.

In summary, Political Islam, Militant Islam, rule by Islamic Law—and all the economic and intellectual support associated with it—must go. This means that Iran must go.

The removal of Islamic political states will not be the end of the task; many intellectual battles will have to be waged. Most importantly, Western intellectuals must present not only a negative—a repudiation of the Totalitarian Universe—but also a positive—a clear explanation to the world that the moral purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ rights to think and act on the judgment of their own minds, free from coercion by church, mosque, or state. But such battles cannot be fought by pretending that those who make death threats instead of arguments are offering anything but clubs in place of syllogisms.

This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the “will of Allah,” America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America.

Is it possible for a “moderate” form of Islam to become an alternative to the totalitarian world-view infecting so many Muslims?

It would mean an Islam that (like modern Christianity) is open to critical self-reflection, whose thinkers examine the Koran as a set of stories, compiled and interpreted by men—and not the infallible word of God to be spread by the sword. It would mean an Islam that allows apostates to make their own decisions, and that tolerates no death threats against them. It would mean the explicit rejection—by Muslims—of State Islam, Islamic Law, and the pursuit of jihad. Such “moderate” Muslims will support the obliteration of Totalitarian Islam. The rest must witness the defeat of this poisonous ideology, and grasp the hopelessness of supporting it.

Hiding the truth behind allegedly “prudent” language designed to obfuscate our intentions is of no use against an ideology with the directness of Islam. We cannot out-taqiyya the Islamic Totalitarians. We must state our end goal openly and clearly; we must identify the principled means of achieving it; and we must become people of integrity—people who act in accordance with their values and convictions. There is no substitute for integrity, and that means no substitute for victory.

How will we know when we have achieved “victory”? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy?

Involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.

The term “Unconditional Surrender” has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded “no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender”

We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran—and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth—to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights. Every Islamic cleric must renounce the goal of inciting his audience to jihad; he must proclaim, loudly and openly, his repudiation of Islamic law; he must state his intention to live under the laws of men in accordance with the requirements of man’s life on earth. Every Muslim intellectual must denounce the Islamic State as an aberration and a monstrosity, as being contrary to the requirements of life on earth. Immediate, personal destruction can be the only alternative.

If it is true that the majority of Middle Eastern people want a decent free life for themselves—as the vast majority of Japanese did after August, 1945—then they will rejoice over the excision of Totalitarian Islam from their midst.

If they do not, the unconditional surrender of Islamic Totalitarianism must be taken to mean its political defeat: There will be no negotiations over the place of Islam in government, for it has no such place.

We can do this. This is not some Platonic ideal, good in theory but unattainable in practice. We Americans can—and must—re-establish our integrity by re-uniting our ideals and our actions. History is on our side here. In relative terms, the physical forces facing America and her allies in 1941 were far more formidable than those we face today, and America then was far weaker militarily. In our own day, the technological and industrial superiority of the U.S. over the Middle East is staggering. Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years. Our overwhelming material advantage, however, will be of no help if we lack the will to drop a bomb—or if we use our forces to strengthen our enemies. As it was for Germany and Japan in the 1930s, so it is today: The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.

The need to understand the gravity of this situation—and our capacity to prevent a catastrophe—is particularly urgent at this moment in time. It is obvious that the defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 mid-term elections was a repudiation of President Bush’s policies in this war. But it is more important to understand that President Bush has not mounted an offensive strategy, and that an offensive strategy is not the reason why American troops are dying in Iraq. There has been no drive to victory, only a string of casualties and the progressive discouragement of the American people. As a result, our primary enemy has been strengthened, and allowed to address the world as a leader just a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. (Imagine Hitler being granted this privilege.) Bush’s war strategy of non-war has resulted in a functional paralysis caused by our self-imposed failure to identify and confront open and avowed.

What has been demonstrably repudiated by the actions of the Bush administration is not the first of the options I presented, but the second. What has been tried and has failed are the altruistic, pragmatic policies of an administration that is as desperate to appear tough as it is to avoid being tough. The Democrats—the party that won World War II by dropping two atomic bombs—have an opportunity to regain a position of moral stature before the American people. Should they not do so—should they choose to retreat—then their unwillingness to value the lives of American citizens over the lives of foreign enemies will be made clear, and the Democrats will be seen as no better, no more principled, no more courageous, and no more American than the RepublicansOur military capacities are not in doubt today. It is our moral self-confidence that is in question. What was it that stopped us from confronting Iran in 1979, except a lack of confidence in our own rightness, and an unwillingness to defend ourselves for our own sakes? Had we removed the Iranian regime in 1979, thousands of Americans would have been saved, and children across the world would not have grown up with sword verses rising in their minds as they give their lives to jihad.

[emphasis mine. lw]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

Part of this post was first published on
Sunday, February 04, 2007
at the now-censored
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/02/recipe-for-victory-over-islam-no.html?zx=bc08606590dbd4e5
BUT . . .
You can see a complete replica of this original post at
http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2008/06/victory-over-islam-how-to-achieve-it.html

ADDENDUM

Protests aren't enough to topple the Islamic Republic
by Michael RubinLos Angeles Times
June 19, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2166/protests-not-enough-to-topple-islamic-republic

Street protests in Iran are important but are themselves not enough to force change. The supreme leader will not be swayed because he considers himself accountable to God, not to the people. Indeed, even the Islamic Republic's clerical establishment is irrelevant in this calculus. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's invocation of folk religion -- his appeals to the messianic Hidden Imam, for example -- is a way to bypass senior religious figures who, according to Shiite theology, will be among the greatest obstacles to the Hidden Imam's return. Nor does the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pay too much heed to his fellow clerics in Qom. They have always refused to bestow on Khamenei a level of religious legitimacy to match his ambition. Today, the majority of Iran's grand ayatollahs oppose the concept of theological rule. Not by coincidence, the majority are now in prison or under house arrest.

Khamenei can weather the public's disdain so long as the Revolutionary Guard serves as his Praetorian Guard. Khomeini, the Islamic Republic's founder, formed the Revolutionary Guard to defend his revolutionary vision. It is more powerful than the army and answers only to the supreme leader. That the Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian public is now evident to the outside world, but it is not news to the regime. In September 2007, Mohammad Ali Jafari, the new Revolutionary Guard chief, reconfigured the force into 31 units -- one for each province and two for Tehran -- on the theory that a velvet revolution posed a greater threat to regime security than any external enemy. Guardsmen are not stationed in their home cities so that they do not hesitate to fire on crowds that might include family and friends.

In the public mind, the Islamic revolution 30 years ago looms large. The regime is not aloof to this. It understands the shah's mistakes and is determined not to repeat them. Next month marks the 10th anniversary of the student uprising, which erupted after the security forces attacked a student dormitory. Their brutality shocked the Iranian public, and demonstrations spread throughout the country. For a few days, regime survival was also subject to speculation.

In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government supplied security consultants to Tehran. Rather than bash heads and risk protests and endless cycles of mourning, Iranian security services began photographing demonstrations, after which they would arrest participants over the course of a month when they were alone and could not spark mob reaction. With the assistance of European businessmen, the Iranian government upgraded its surveillance of communication (and the Internet).

Ultimately, the theocracy will fall only if servicemen in the Revolutionary Guard switch sides. There will be compromise. The end will come only over Khamenei's dead body. Certainly, Iran today is a tinderbox. The question is whether the regime is better at putting out fires than demonstrators are at starting them.

Michael Rubin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School.

Netanyahu's Response

2009-06-15T01:07:00.000-07:00

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/bibis-offer.html

Jewish Leaders' Lethal Error:

2009-06-14T00:57:00.000-07:00

Blind Faith in Governments

See http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/12/jews-and-guns-or-jews-and-government.html

from Jews and "Gun Control"
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fear.htm

[Excerpts = asterisks indicate deleted text]

***

Jewish "leaders'" most common lethal error is also the most inexplicable. In the 1,800 years between the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. and 1948, when the State of Israel was re-established, governments murdered far more Jews than all sorts of hate groups combined.

Thus, it is especially surprising that Jewish "leaders" should have persisted in relying on government protection.Victims often identify with -- and sometimes even help -- their oppressors. In the past 2,000 years governments have been Jews' deadliest enemies. Forgetful of their own history of armed self-defense, Jewish "leaders"sought protection from governments.

Jewish "leaders" urged members oftheir communities to appease governments, to keep on "the good side of the powers that be".Jewish "leaders" who trusted governments to protect Jews have beenJews' deadliest internal enemies and continue to be so. Jewish "leaders "who urge Jews to back "gun control" make a similarly lethal mistake. To be disarmed is to be powerless, the first step towards victimhood.

Jewish "leaders'" tradition of relying on government protection, underpins their support for "gun control". If Jewish "leaders"thought about "gun control", they might see through the attractive falsehood, that "gun control" saves lives. "Gun control" necessarily promotes victimhood and thus genocide. There are tens of millions of needless victims of "gun control", including millions of Jews.

Jewish "leaders" need help to break free from a centuries-long pattern of self-destructive behavior rooted in their tradition of placing in governments the faith that should be placed only in G-d. Were Jewish "leaders"to become at least skeptical of government's benevolence they might then be able to appreciate fully the wisdom of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, above all the concept of "freedom" that the Framers held so dear.

Were Jewish "leaders" to shed the tradition of blindly placing faith in governments, they would work hard to strengthen every part of the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. This brief Amendment best limits the U.S. Government's capacity to do harm, and certainly could prevent it even from attempting genocide.

Were Jewish "leaders" to understand the tremendous achievement of Israeli Jews -- who have embraced the ancient Jewish tradition of a strong self-defense -- they might embrace the Second Amendment.

As noted above, few American Jewish "leaders" understand "freedom"as every Israeli Jew does. Some American Jewish "leaders" do not cherish freedom because they feel that freedom can never be at risk. America is one of a few places wherein Jews have lived, and in which they have not been persecuted or murdered by government order (others include Australia andCanada). In America, individual Jews have been victimized by racist criminals, e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, the Order, the Aryan Nations, etc. However, in our long history of living in many countries, most of the many mass murders of Jews were inspired and/or committed by government officials.

Thus, American Jewish "leaders" should not be smug. Governments have often turned on Jews: "And a new King, who did not know Joseph, came into power over Egypt."(19) This term "new King" probably means a new Egyptian dynasty. Newly-hostile governments (e.g., the Nazi regime; Spain under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella) have come closest to exterminating Jews.Some Jewish "leaders" are easily lulled into a false sense of security. They tend to close their eyes to impeding danger, even denying it exists. Thus, some Jewish communal leaders in the Nazi-controlled Warsaw Ghetto opposed armed resistance. They feared provoking the Nazis. In other cases, Jewish ghetto leaders branded Jews who urged armed resistance as "trouble-makers"and betrayed them to the Nazis.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Jews were deported from ghettos to murder camps. In America now, Jews who support the Second Amendment's civil right to be armed are viewed as "trouble-makers" or "alarmists" by "leaders"of major Jewish communal groups. Most American Jews probably feel the government is benign. That can change. Fast. America let in few Jews who fled the Nazis. U.S. planes were not sent to bomb railway lines to Auschwitz' gas chambers, even after it was clear that hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered there. But some American Jews still admire Franklin D. Roosevelt, president in those years.

***

Anti-Semitic fringe groups have a few tens of thousands of members; at very least 10% of the 5,500,000 Jews in America -- 550,000 persons -- are physically capable of bearing arms.

Jews greatly outnumber organized anti-Semites. If Jews are suitably armed, they will then merit Divine help against these enemies.Some Jewish "leaders" miss another key point. Tens of millions of Righteous Gentiles in America whole-heartedly share Jews' revulsion for hate groups, anti-Semitic and otherwise. Some of these Righteous Gentiles own firearms. Almost all of them use their firearms properly. They are deeply offended by the suggestion -- inherent in the concept of "gun control"- that their ownership of firearms makes them susceptible to becoming criminals. They are right to be offended.Every Jewish "leader" should realize that these Righteous Gentiles are a natural allies against the ordinary criminal, members of fringe hategroups, and evil governments. No Jewish "leader" should want to alienate so friendly and so mighty an ally.

***

The [I]mperial Japanese military leaders, after the surrender in japan, were questioned about their actions at pearl harbour and involving the US during world war II. But most pertinent to this discussion was when they were questioned about their inactions. Why did Japan NOT proceed with an invasion of the US? Their answer surprised everyone: With millions of american gun owners, we comprised the largest armed force ever known and that was their reasoning for not trying to occupy the US and detered an invasion. This is not opinion, look it up. There is good reason terrorists have used the same cowardly tactic and not run amok in our streets as they have in india. You may think BAH! Rubbish! but the Japanese were a much more formidable force than the terrorists we face today. God created man, Samuel L Colt made them equal."
- Posted by wayne criddle
December 13th, 2008
2:44 am GMT

***

[More]