April 29, 2003

'The Souls of Black Folk'

Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal April 28, 2003

‘The Souls of Black Folk’ By Steele

More than 100 amicus briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court in support of racial preferences not because they work (they don't) or because the nation wants them (it doesn't). Preferences allow institutions to engineer a diversity that has not been earned through genuine human transformation.

This is the DuBoisian model of black protest and white responsibility intervening mechanically and socialistically. And today's ubiquitous question--if we take affirmative action away, what will there be is a DuBoisian question presuming that only white responsibility can save blacks. The historic resonance of this case comes from the fact that the court is fiddling with the DuBoisian model of racial reform by adjusting the precise range of white responsibility--of white burden.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:05 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 28, 2003

Brian Wms. vs Larry King

Please don’t tell me that All-American boy, heir-apparent Brian Williams, MSNBC anchor has found himself on to the Saudi Arabian/Syrian Pension Plan – and at such an early age too?

How else could one explain the powder puff, Larry King-like, obsequious interview given to two of the most pro-Arab, out of reality members of the U.S. Congress – Nick J. Rahall II from West Virginia and Darrell Issa of California - both just returned from a self-starting visit to Bashar Assad of Syria.

Rahall in the spring of 2002 was one of only 21 Congressman of 435 who voted against Resolution 392 supporting Israel’s war against Palestinian terrorism. Just now, in April 2003, he was again one of only 23 members of 435 who voted against a similar resolution supporting Israel and our mutual war against terrorism.

Darrell Issa is another different Congressman with questionable loyalties. Debbie Schlussel, political commentator writing in Political USA of November 30, 2001, calls him “Jihad Darrell.” It seems Issa made a similar trip to the Middle East in November 2001. Upon his return Issa announced that the terrorist organization Hezbollah was a legitimate organization! He somehow ignored the fact that it was Hezbollah who blew up 241 US Marines in Beirut in the 1980s and also tortured and murdered U.S. Military attaché, Cleo Noel and later kidnapped, tortured and murdered CIA Chief William Buckley in the US Embassy in Beirut. Issa also applauded Yasser Arafat as a “charismatic individual who gives you the food off his plate when you lunch with him.”

Rahall and Issa, fellow Arab American members of the House International Relations Committee, just came back from their latest jaunt to Syria and were interviewed as if conquering heroes by Brian Williams. The two Congressmen described Bashar Assad, President of Syria as some young innocent. Williams forgot to ask the Congressman if they had gone on their own, despite Administrative or even State Department recommendations. He also forgot to ask them if they had queried Assad about Syria’s incorporating, through conquest, Lebanon into Greater Syria or the use of the Bekka Valley in Southern Lebanon as one of the largest heroin plantations in the world. He forgot to ask them about Syria’s role supplying weapons to Iraq during our recent war and the importing illegally of Iraqi oil in a private deal undermining UN resolutions. He also forgot to ask them about Syria as the terrorist headquarters of all the sleazy, killer organizations of the world. He forgot to ask them about a lot of very pertinent, damning behavior, both by themselves and by Syria and Bashar Assad.

Brian Williams did allow them to leave the impression of Bashar Assad as just an innocent, misunderstood young man with a kind, westernized heart. The interview proved to be about as sickening as those of Larry King slobbering over every despot in the world.

We can only hope that this Williams interview was an aberration and Brian Williams is not indeed making an early application for the Saudi Arabian/ Syrian Pension Plan as offered to important media people and retiring members of the American State Department and Administration.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Political Commentator

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 27, 2003

The United Nations and Israel

Is the Jewish state getting a fair shake from the world body?

Several years ago, we published one of our clarifying messages under the heading of "The UN and the Middle East." In it, we described how the UN seems to be totally obsessed with Israel. Now, a few years later, it might be time to revisit the topic.

What are the facts?

An outcast: Israel is indeed an outcast in the United Nations and thus, by extension, a pariah in the whole world. Though rounded in 1948 - over fifty years ago and at about the same time as many other countries in the wake of World War II - its "legitimacy," its "right to exist," are still being questioned and a topic of constant debate in the UN.

Following the 1967 Six-Day War, the hostility of the United Nations against Israel expanded out of all bounds. Between 1967 and 1988, the UN Security Council passed 88 Resolutions against Israel and the UN General Assembly passed more than 400.

In 1974, Yassir Arafat addressed the General Assembly with a bolstered pistol on his hip and received a standing ovation by that body. The hostility against Israel reached its peak in 1975, when the General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 declaring "Zionism as a form of racism." This infamous Resolution remained in effect for sixteen years when, under intense pressure from the United States, it was finally repealed.

What is the reason for the collective hostility of the UN against Israel? All of this hostility is based on the very structure of the United Nations. In the General Assembly, 130 of the 190 members will always, automatically, vote against Israel. The inner circle of this hatred is the core of twenty Arab nations, which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. Those countries are part of the larger 56-member Muslim group, which can reliably be counted on automatically to join the Arab block in their anti-Israel Resolutions.

And those countries are almost always joined by the "non-aligned" group, which are essentially the underdeveloped countries of the world. They have little interest in Israel, but they are united in their hatred of the United States and consider Israel its surrogate. Each country in the General Assembly counts the same. The vote of the United States counts the same as that of, say, Rwanda or the Ivory Coast.

Syria, deservedly classified as a terrorist state, has been elected to a 2-year term on that Council. Such outlaw countries as Libya, Iran, North Korea, and even Saddam Hussein's Iraq are eligible for membership.

The most virulent center of anti-Israel activities within the UN. The Human Rights
Commission CUNHRC) has classified Israel as the principal human rights violator in the world today. Since its inception, about 25% of its Resolutions have condemned Israel. Such egregious human rights violations as those of China in Tibet, or of Russia in Chechnya don't even come to the floor for discussion. The genocide in Rwanda, the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, the horrifying "communal strife" in Indonesia's East Timor, the "disappearance" of a few hundred thousand refugees in the Congo, and the ruthless rampage of the Sudanese Muslims against the Christians are not found worthy of the attention of the Human Rights Commission.

Such canards as the "blood libel," that Jews use the blood of Muslims and Christians for the baking of their Passover matzos or of the Israelis injecting Arab children with the AIDS virus are earnestly discussed in that forum.

Finally, there is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), established in 1949 to assist the Palestinian "refugees". For more than 50 years, UNRWA has funded and administers the so-called "refugee camps" - hotbeds of murderous anti-Israel activity, including the notorious camp in Jenin, which is the source of most of the suicide bombers who have so far killed over six hundred Israeli civilians and wounded thousands more.

Obviously, the pressure that the Arabs and other Muslim countries are able to exert because of their disproportionate economic power is the main cause of the anti-Israelism (anti-Semitism) of the UN. But most disturbing is the participation and acquiescence in such activity on the part of many of the European nations which, by their actions or inaction, were complicit in the Holocaust. As to the underdeveloped nations of the world, all of which are represented in the General Assembly, one would hope that they would look to Israel as a country from which they could learn and that they would wish to emulate. Virtually all of the countries created after WWII, most of them in Africa, have regressed socially, politically, economically, and in virtually all other respects since freeing themselves from their colonial condition. Millions and millions have died in fratricidal wars. Millions have died of starvation and millions are condemned to die by famine and by AIDS. Instead of condemning and hating Israel, they should take it as an example of how to build an advanced, prosperous and competent nation.

FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359 • San Francisco, CA 94159
Gerardo Joffe, President

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:57 AM | Comments (43) | TrackBack

The Farce of Abu Mazen Appointment

Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA)
By Aaron Lerner Date: 24 April 2003

The drama surrounding the appointment of Abu Mazen has been a farce while the pressure on Israel to accept the roadmap in its present form is grossly

When the dust settles Arafat will remain very much in the center of
Palestinian decision making process - ultimately controlling both the guns
and the talks. And while President George W. Bush's vision is of a new
Palestinian leadership clean of terror, Abu Mazen himself openly endorses
terror attacks beyond the Green Line and intends to keep his Fatah Tanzim
terrorist militia in business. Abu Mazen's promoters fed the press stories
about his plan to close down the "Al Aqsa Brigade" wing of Fatah Tanzim but
in truth it is nothing more than a scheme to rename that wing along with
possibly a photo opportunity marking the end of the "Al Aqsa Brigade" label.

The Europeans and the State Department have made it clear by their "no
questions asked" policy towards the composition of the Abu Mazen government
that they are continuing with the "automatic pass" policy (the policy
followed by the United States during the Clinton Administration) according
to which the Palestinian Authority is judged as being in compliance with its
obligations regardless of what it actually does. Declarations and photo
opportunities, as a rule, take the place of actual compliance.

Consider the grand welcome being given to Dahlan. The appointment of Dahlan,
under whose leadership the PA's Preventive Security took a leading role in
the production of illegal weapons and the coordination and implementation of
terrorist attacks is viewed as a positive move rather than the negative move
that it is.

As for hypocrisy, consider this: a few weeks ago British Prime Minister Tony
Blair proclaimed in Northern Ireland that "to those who can sometimes say
that the process in the Middle East is hopeless, I say we can look at
Northern Ireland and take some hope from that." Since then the deal in
Northern Ireland has fallen apart with Blair backed today by the United
States in his assessment that the IRA has failed to answer unambiguously
regarding its intentions to disarm, to relinquish all paramilitary activity
and to end the conflict! And yet Blair has the chutzpa to keep pushing the
roadmap - a document that makes the failed Good Friday Agreement perfection
in comparison.

Does Israel have a choice? Absolutely. Isn't Sharon in a corner? Hardly.

Sharon has wall-to-wall support in his coalition government to reject the
road map in its current form
. As Shinui chairman Minister Yosef Lapid
explained to a stunned Israel Radio anchor this morning, Shinui would only
support the roadmap if it were amended to reflect changes that Israel has
asked for. As far as Lapid is concerned it is not even relevant to discuss
now how the cabinet would vote regarding the roadmap because he does not
expect Prime Minister Sharon to present the roadmap to the cabinet for
discussion or approval before it is amended to reflect these changes.
And Shinui occupies the left end of the political spectrum in his

As for America, both the Senate and the House overwhelmingly support Israel
on this issue, as do many of the key elements of President Bush's own
constituency. Elections are not far away.

President Bush is no fool. He knows that the road map in its current form
is a paper foisted on him by the Arabists in Foggy Bottom and Europe that is
far removed from his own vision. It is a win-win proposition for him to
ultimately back Israel's logical, reasonable and critical requirements for a
revised roadmap.

The same goes for refusing to unilaterally sacrifice Israel's security in
"gestures" for Abu Mazen. Anyone with foresight realizes that what little
temporary benefit Abu Mazen may gain by such moves will be swamped by the
negative impact of the terror such measures will expose Israel to.

Sharon isn't in a corner. He just has to stand his ground. Other Israeli
leaders faced much more difficult challenges standing alone. Surely he,
with the wall-to-wall support of his cabinet and the understanding of the
American Congress, can lead the nation through this challenge.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:19 AM | Comments (71) | TrackBack

April 21, 2003

Thomas Friedman Admisssion

Please indulge me for dwelling on this series of three articles. They all concern my most unfavorite phony, Thomas Friedman, who has been finally challenged by one of my favorite honest guys, Jeff Jacoby.
As companion pieces, I am taking this opportunity to also present two articles that I wrote previously, October 24, 2001 and January 15, 2003 concerning the aforementioned Friedman.

The recent article by Jeff Jacoby in many ways vindicates my own writings relative to Friedman who vindicates them himself in his third person discussion of news perversion written to please Arab despots. It is not a big stretch to convert Friedman’s third party discussion to one in which Friedman himself is the guilty party.

Hopefully the despicable Eason Jordan confession and articles by Jacoby and even Jerry Kaufman will further expose the culpability of journalists and TV anchors toady to the Arabs. Perhaps their sickening distortions will finally obtain the irrelevance and disdain they deserve rather than Pulitzer and Nobel prizes that have become laughing stocks in their later proven inappropriateness.

Jerome S. Kaufman


By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, April 17, 2003

When Saddam Hussein's psychopathic son Uday told
CNN's top news executive, Eason Jordan, that he
planned to assassinate his two brothers-in-law who had
defected from Iraq, he wasn't concerned that Jordan
would rush the explosive scoop onto the air. Uday
figured the influential journalist would sit on the
story and say nothing -- and he was right. The news
didn't leak and the brothers-in-law were murdered soon

We know about that conversation, and about CNN's
silence, because Jordan admitted it last week. In a
New York Times column titled "The news we kept to
ourselves," he confessed that CNN habitually
suppressed stories of torture, mutilation, and other
atrocities -- "things that could not be reported
because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of
Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. . . .
I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside

Jordan's disclosure triggered a storm of
criticism, and no wonder. It is scandalous that a
network calling itself "the most trusted name in news"
would sanitize the truth about a dictatorship it
claimed to be covering objectively. And the scandal
is compounded by Jordan's lack of contrition. He
makes no apology for downplaying the horrors of
Saddam's regime. If CNN hadn't done so, he says,
innocent people would have died.

But as Franklin Foer reported in The New Republic
last October, CNN didn't bury stories only out of
fear. It bent over backward to remain on good terms
with Saddam's Ministry of Information, which
controlled the all-important visas needed to stay in
Iraq. "Nobody has schmoozed the ministry harder,"
Foer wrote, "than the head of CNN's News Group, Eason
Jordan, who has traveled to Baghdad 12 times since the
Gulf War."

What emerged from those meetings, it seems, was a
policy of going along to get along. CNN's stories
frequently echoed the Baath Party spin, deferentially
covering its agitprop or toadying to Saddam. ("It's
… a vote of defiance against the United States.
. . This really is a huge show of support!" -- CNN's
Jane Arraf on Saddam's 100 percent "election" victory
last Fall.) Rarely was there an unvarnished look at
the regime's cruelty and deceit. That, Jordan now
admits, was "the news we kept to ourselves."

But CNN wasn't the only offender, and it doesn't
just happen in Iraq.

News organizations boast that they cover even the
toughest beats without fear or favor. Sometimes it's
true. But sometimes journalists choose to censor
themselves instead -- to toe a vicious regime's line,
to soft-pedal its ruthlessness. They may do it to
save their skin, or to ingratiate themselves with the
dictator, or to protect the bragging rights that come
with access to a big story. Whatever the excuse, the
results are the same: The public is cheated, the news
is corrupted, and a despot is strengthened.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Thomas
Friedman, who described in his 1989 best seller "From
Beirut to Jerusalem" what it was like to be a reporter
in Beirut during the years when southern Lebanon was
dominated by Yasser Arafat's PLO and Syria's
Palestinian loyalists.

"No discussion about the reality of Beirut
reporting would be complete," he wrote, "without
mentioning a major reporting constraint journalists
there faced: physical intimidation." He explained,
for example, how Syria's agents dealt with one
journalist they didn't like: He was found with a
bullet in his head and his writing hand mutilated with
acid. Earlier, Friedman recalled his own terror on
learning that Arafat's spokesman wanted to see him
"immediately" about the stories he'd been filing to
New York:

"I lay awake in my bed the whole night worrying
that someone was going to burst in and blow my brains
all over the wall." No "major breaking" news story was ever suppressed
because journalists were too intimidated to report it,
Friedman insisted. But behind that fig leaf, he
conceded a shameful truth:

"There were . . . stories which were deliberately
ignored out of fear. Here I will be the first to say
`mea culpa.' How many serious stories were written
from Beirut about the well-known corruption in the PLO
leadership. . .? It would be hard to find any hint of
them in Beirut reporting before the Israeli invasion."

And then, an even more damning admission:
"The truth is," Friedman wrote, "the Western press
coddled the PLO. For any Beirut-based correspondent, the
name of the game was keeping on
good terms with the PLO, because without it would you
not get the interview with Arafat you wanted when your
foreign editor came to town."

There are moral costs to doing business with thugs
and totalitarians. Reporters who forget that
accuracy, not access, is the bedrock of their
profession can too easily find themselves paying those
costs -- trading off truth for a coveted interview or
visa, turning a blind eye to dissent, treating
barbaric criminals with deference. Or saying nothing
when the dictator's son says he is planning a double

When "the name of the game" becomes "keeping on
good terms" with the world's most evil men, journalism
turns into something awfully hard to distinguish from
collaboration. It didn't start with Eason Jordan, and
it didn't end in Baghdad.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:02 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Thomas Friedman, Suspect Expertise, Jan. 15, 2003

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Once again Thomas Friedman finds a way to blame Israel for the animus of the Arabs toward the United States. What Friedman instead displays is Friedman’s own perverse on-going animus toward the land of his own ancestors. Friedman conveniently ignores Muslim wars occurring all over the world that have nothing whatever, to do with Israel.

Samuel P. Huntington, Professor at Harvard University calls this “The Age of Muslim Wars.” Quoting from Professor Huntington’s article, “According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in year 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. The Economist reports Muslims were responsible for 11 or 12 of the 16 major act of international terrorism that occurred between 1983 and 2000.” In the 1990s violence occurred most frequently as a result of Muslims under the banner of Jihad, attempting to once again conquer Christian and other non-Muslim areas and regain their long lost glory and territory of the 7th – 13th centuries. The Jihad continues to this very day in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. etc.

But, never mind all that. Friedman has his own sources of “expertise” Just a few months ago; Friedman got his information from the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and dutifully presented their farcical, obviously propaganda ploy “Peace Plan” to the West.

This time Friedman spent the afternoon in noon prayers at Cairo’s Al Azhar mosque and then later interviewed “30 bright young Egyptian entrepreneurs” and then students at Cairo University! What impeccable sources of information and what an obvious base from which Friedman can once again tell the President of the United States how to formulate his foreign policy! No wonder Friedman is so well received in Arab countries.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Thomas Friedman Fantasy, Oct. 24, 2001

By Jerome S. Kaufman October 24, 2001

Thomas Friedman once again indulges his fantasies as a self-styled expert on the Middle East and presumes this time to give unsolicited advice to President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat. He creates several problems for his "expertise" by ignoring facts and by creating a moral equivalency between Sharon and Arafat. He chooses to ignore the fact that Ehud Barak, Israel's former Prime Minister, resoundingly defeated by his own electorate, gave Arafat an offer of land and power and nationhood that would in itself guarantee the demise of Israel as a Jewish state. The offer, by the way, was never approved by the Knesset or the Israel public and certainly is not now on the table. Arafat refused and opted, as usual, for terror. In just the last 4 1/2 months, the Israel Defense Forces reported 2,842 attacks (exclusive of stone and flame throwers) against Israeli civilians! By population proportions, that number would be equal to 153, 468 attacks on American citizens! Yet, Friedman or anyone else has the gall to tell the Israelis that they are not entitled to do any thing necessary to protect their own citizens or they are using "excessive force."

As to Friedman's admonishment to the Israelis to not do anything that would disrupt the American coalition: Of course, the coalition itself, except for the British, is a total farce. The Arab nations to whom we give billions of dollars contribute nothing - no men, no resources and the utilization of air space only if we fly by quietly.

But, once again Yasir Arafat and the rest of the Islamists have scored a major tactical victory. They have found a way to blame Israel for their direct killing of some 3000 American citizens. The only problem is that Israel had absolutely nothing to do with it. Israel is just a convenient ad on to the Islamic want list. Their war is against the "Great Satan" and that's us.

If this country does not allow Israel to defend itself in every way possible and help her in the process, we are weakening our own ultimate defense. We are submitting to Islamist extortion and intimidation, as we are doing at this very moment, and guess who obtains an even more attainable role on their want list for elimination.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:41 AM | Comments (66) | TrackBack

April 20, 2003

Remember Our Enemies

By Joseph Farah, The Washington Times, April 20, 2003

President Bush still seems hell-bent on creating a Palestinian Arab State, with people like this represented in leadership, as soon as he finishes the war in Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake. If we do, we will be, in effect, creating a future Iraq – maybe something worse.

When this war is over, we must remember who supported us and who opposed us. Recently, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, one of the most active suicide terrorist groups in the Middle East, called on Muslims throughout the world to attack British, American and Israeli targets in response to the war in Iraq.

Who is the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade? It is a faction of Yasser Arafat's Fatah Party.
It is not a militant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization opposing Mr. Arafat. It is not Hamas. It is not Hezbollah. It is not Al Qaeda. It is Yasser Arafat's own group of storm troopers. Of course, as always, Mr. Arafat tries to distance himself from such rhetoric. But he can't— not for people who understand the truth. And that's why it is so important to understand who this group is and whom it represents. It is Mr. Arafat's will put into violent action. It is nothing more, nothing less.

Nevertheless, President Bush still seems hell-bent on creating a Palestinian state, with people like this represented in leadership, as soon as he finishes the war in Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake. If we do so, we will be, in effect, creating a future Iraq — maybe something worse.

This is hardly the only evidence we have seen from the Palestinian Authority
that it supports —100 percent—Saddam Hussein's unholy reign over Iraq. The news of the first American and British casualties was greeted with joy in the Palestinian Authority. Here are some excerpts from a recent Friday sermon delivered at the Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza by Palestinian Authority preacher Sheikh Ibrahim Madeiris and broadcast live on Palestinian Authority TV: "... Allah drowned Pharaoh and those who were with him. Allah drowns the Pharaohs of every generation. Allah will drown the little Pharaoh, the dwarf, the Pharaoh of all times, of our time, the American president …

(As usual, the Arabs subvert Jewish and Christian bible history and claim it as their own. The G-d of the Jews suddenly becomes the Arab Allah and Pharoah instead of the Egyptian Pharaoh that was enslaving the Jews becomes President Bush enslaving the Arabs. How could one ever deal with an entire culture that has such an advanced sophisticated system of lying to themselves and projecting all their failures, problems and, lies on to you as the guilty party? Jsk)

… Allah will drown America in our seas, in our skies, in our land. America will drown, and all the oppressors will drown. ‘Oh, people of Palestine, Oh, people of Iraq. The Crusader, Zionist America, has started an attack against our Iraq, the Iraq of Islam and Arabism, the Iraq of civilization and history. It opened a Crusader Zionist war against Iraq. If Iraq is defeated, if the nation (of Islam) is defeated in Iraq — this will be our last breath of life.... It was only natural that
America would invade Iraq. When Afghanistan was devoured we said that if Afghanistan would be devoured, Iraq too would be devoured, and I warned that if Iraq is devoured, south Lebanon will be devoured, too, and Syria should also start preparing because the rest of the Arab world fell without war.

This is a Zionist Crusader war. It is not I who say this; it was the little Pharaoh (Bush) who announced it when he stated that this was a Crusader attack. Hasn't he said this? I'm amazed at some of the clerics of the nation (of Islam). who cooperate with their (treachery). ... I am amazed that they are trying to keep the nation away from Jihad ... and they issue Fatwas according to which this war
is not against Islam, but against Iraq, as though the people of Iraq are calf worshippers or fire worshippers. Are not they Muslims? I am speaking about the people not about the regime. AMERICA WILL be destroyed, Allah willing, and Palestine, Iraq and the Middle East will become a cemetery for oppressors …”

Care for more?

The Palestine Liberation Organization’s Faruq Qaddumi told Al Jazeera TV last moth that Iraq’s battle is Palestine’s battle. “First of all, we salute the Iraqi people for their brave resistance, he said. They are defending Iraq but indeed they are defending Pan Arab security. Therefore all the Arabs must stand by the heroic Iraqi people because Iraq’s battle is Palestine's battle, the Arab nations battle. Therefore, we salute them God bless them in their heroic defense "

You saw the demonstration in the streets of the Palestinian Authority. Understand that those Pro-Saddam, Pro-Iraq rallies and marches cannot take place without the specific approval of the tyrant-in-waiting Yasser Arafat. Why would we topple one anti- American terrorist only to create a new state for another?

Joseph Farah is the founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com and former editor of the Sacramento Union.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 16, 2003

Arabian Fables II

More fanciful Arab myths to sway world opinion.

Earlier this year, we (FLAME) published our message, "Arabian Fables (I)", in which we made clear how the Arab propaganda machine creates myths and lies with which to misinform the world. We discussed the myths of the "Palestinians" and of the "West Bank" and the mythical concept of "occupied territories". In today's message, we shall address three more of these myths.

Jerusalem ("Arab East Jerusalem")

The Arabs have assiduously propagated the myths that Jerusalem is an Arab capital, that (after Mecca and Medina) Jerusalem is their third holy city, and that it is intolerable to them that infidels (Jews) are in possession of it. The reality of course is that Jerusalem was never an Arab capital and that it was, until the Jews revitalized it, a dusty provincial city that hardly played any economic, social, or political role.
Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish Bible and has been the center of the Jewish faith and the focus of Jewish longing ever since the Romans destroyed the Temple in the early years of the first millennium. Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran.

As to "East Jerusalem":

There is East Saint Louis, there is East Hampton, and there used to be East Berlin, but, until the Arab propaganda machine created the concept, there was never in 'history an "East Jerusalem", let alone an "Arab East Jerusalem". Arabs now predominantly inhabit the eastern part of Jerusalem, though their proportion is decreasing. But what is the reason for this? It is because the Jordanians destroyed all traces of Jewish presence from the eastern part of the city and drove all the Jews out during the 19 years (between 1948 and 1967) in which they were in occupation of the eastern part of the city. The world, informed by Arab propaganda, considers those Jews who wish to return to the eastern part of the city to be troublemakers or worse.

The concept of Jerusalem being a holy Arab city and the capital of whatever political entity the "Palestinians" may eventually form is a myth and so of course is the concept of "Arab East Jerusalem".


When Jordan came into possession of Judea/Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem, following the invasion of the newly-formed Jewish state, and stayed in occupation for 19 years, it systematically obliterated all Jewish villages in the area under their occupation, drove out the Jewish inhabitants, and left the area "judenrein" (free of Jews) — the first time that concept had been applied since the Nazis created it during their short and bloody reign in Germany. When the Israelis recovered these territories, they rebuilt these villages, created new ones, and built new towns and suburbs to existing cities, especially Jerusalem. The Arabs decided to call these towns and villages "settlements", with their connotation of illegitimacy and impermanence.

The world, including the United States, is much agitated over these population centers and, goaded by the Arabs, declares them to be impediments to peace. What nonsense! Nobody considers the tens of thousands of Arabs who continue to stream to these territories as impediments to peace. The term "settlements", too, is a propaganda myth created by the Arabs.


In 1948, when six Arab armies invaded the Jewish state in order to destroy it on the very day of its birth, broadcasts by the advancing Arab armies appealed to the resident Arabs to leave their homes so as not to be in the way of the invaders. As soon as the "quick victory" was won, they could return to their homes and would also enjoy the loot from the Jews, who would have been driven into the sea. It didn't turn out quite that way. Those Arabs, who, despite the urgings of the Jews to stay and to remain calm, foolishly left, became refugees. Those who decided not to yield to those blandishments are now, and have been for over 50 years, citizens of Israel, with all the same rights and privileges as their Jewish fellows.

But what happened to those refugees - by best estimates about 600,000 of them? Did their "Arab brethren" allow them to settle in their countries, to work, and to become productive citizens and useful members of their societies? No! They kept and still keep them, their children, their grandchildren, and in some cases even their great-grandchildren, in miserable "refugee camps", so that they can be used as political and military pawns in order to keep the burning hatred against Israel alive and in order to supply the manpower for the unremitting fight against Israel.

During those more than fifty years, Israel has taken in more than three million Jewish immigrants from all parts of the world and has integrated them productively into its society. According to the "Palestinians", the Arab "refugees" have now marvelously increased to five million (!). It is the intent and fervent desire of the Arabs that all of them should return to Israel so as to destroy the country without the necessity of war

The "refugees" are a red herring and another myth created by the Arab propaganda machine. The Arab propaganda machine, aided by the most high-powered public relations firms in the United States and all over, has created myths that, by dint of constant repetition, have been accepted as truth by much of the world. No sensible discussion, no peace in the Middle East, is possible until those Arab myths have been exposed for what they are.

Authored by FLAME – Facts and Logic about the Middle East
PO Box 590359, San Francisco, CA 94149, Gerardo Joffe, President

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:34 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 15, 2003

The Role of the U.N. in Postwar Iraq

By George Will

The task of reconstructing Iraq — more its civil society than its physical infra-structure — is entangled with the less urgent task of reweaving the frayed relations between America and France and Germany, and with the optional task of rehabilitating the United Nations. The United Nations has proved itself unsuitable as an instrument of collective security. It is a stew of starkly conflicting political cultures and incompatible assessments of the world's dangers and what to do about them. Hence it cannot function as a policy-making body. The United Nations can, however, be invited to help with certain brief relief and civil administration chores. This invitation should be extended for the same reason France was made a permanent member of the Security Council in 1945 —as psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.

Note the verb "invited." There is no entitlement for France, Germany, Russia and the United Nations. They did all in their power to keep Saddam Hussein in power, which makes them accessories to tyranny and war crimes. All Iraq's debts incurred to Russia, France, and Germany — U.S. officials at the United Nations say Germany was even more troublesome than France "in the corridors," meaning in the prewar politics outside the Security Council — during Saddam's regime should be canceled.

Some European militaries, like Canada's, can barely be considered real military — meaning war-fighting— forces. The New York Times reports that more than half of Germany's defense budget of just $27 billion goes to salaries and benefits for personnel — a third of them civilians who, after 15 years, are guaranteed lifetime employment. Germany had to lease Ukrainian aircraft to get its peacekeeping forces to Afghanistan.

Still, such militaries can perhaps earn their keep by maintaining order in an Iraq where tribalism is reasserting itself and civil war might now fester. Besides, there is a danger that peacekeeping will diminish the U.S. military services' aptitude for their' real purpose, which is war-fighting. Furthermore, the services are stretched perilously thin and were exhausted by the tempo of operations even before the war began.

The crisis with Iraq, which became an overdue crisis of U.S. relations with the United Nations and portions of Old Europe, arrived as U.N. was publishing "State of the World Population 2002." To the extent that demography is destiny, Europe's collective destiny, for decades, will be beyond the choice its governments, and will be a continuing decrescendo. Today Europe's population is 725 million. The populations of 14 European nations are declining, and the lines are driven by powerful social values and trends that would be difficult for governments to reverse, were they inclined to try, which they do not seem to be. The growth rates of the populations of other European nations are at or near zero. So the European population is projected to be 600 million in 2050.

In developed countries, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is replacement rate, producing population stability. Only Albania has that rate. Catholic Ireland's rate is 2.0, but the rates of the Catholic nations of Southern Europe are among Europe's lowest -1.2. The estimated European average is 1.34.

Stein Ringen, an Oxford sociologist, writes that, "without emigration or immigration and with a stable birthrate of 1.5, a population would be reduced to about half in 100 years, and with a birthrate of 1.2 to about 25 percent." On those assumptions, Germany's population would shrink from 82 million to fewer than 40 million by the end of the century, and Italy's 57 million to fewer, than 20 million.

Ringen acknowledges that population trends can change rapidly and unpredictably. But with the exception of the post-1945 baby boom — before working mothers became the norm— Europe's birthrates were low for most of the last century, and higher rates are unlikely because the "modern conventions for family life are built around the now firm idea, and economic necessity, of both parents working and earning." Economic anemia and further military impotence are probable consequences of Europe's population collapse. Which will trouble some Americans with peculiar political sensibilities.

Americans who are apt to argue that U.S. foreign policy needs constant infusions of legitimacy from the approbation of European governments are also apt to deplore, in the domestic culture wars, Eurocentrism in academic curricula. Such Americans resist the cultural products of Europe's centuries of vitality, but defer to the politics of Europe in its decadence. Why? Perhaps because yesterday's European culture helped make America what it is, and today's European politics expresses resentment and distrust of what America is. Both sensibilities arise from the distaste of some Americans for America.

George Will writes for the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th NW, Washington, DC, 2007:

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:21 AM | Comments (43) | TrackBack

April 13, 2003

The Final Say on the Israeli Elections

By Professor Ruth Wisse, Harvard University,

(Excerpted from an article in Commentary April 2003)

...The election was indeed one of the most decisive in Israel's history. If Sharon were to prove sufficiently skillful, it might also turn out to be one of its most significant. Fully 70 of the 120 seats in the Knesset went to parties of the Right. Likud doubled its own seats from 19 to 40, while Labor dropped from 25 seats to 19 and Meretz fell even more precipitously from ten seats to six. The relatively low voter turnout—68 percent—may be attributed to the discontent of Left-leaning voters who could no longer support their accustomed parties but could not yet bring themselves to vote for the alternative. They voted neither "us" nor "them."

WHAT HAD happened? Evidently, ignoring every other issue, the Israeli public had conceived of this election as a referendum on the Oslo accords of 1993, and had charged the political parties most implicated in that debacle with belated responsibility for its outcome. Without drawing attention to the fact, voters had found a way of finally repudiating the legacy of Yitzhak Rabin.

Although it is now forgotten, the late prime minister had been on his way to defeat at the polls when he was fatally shot by Yigal Amir in 1995. The killer, by reinforcing the image of a uniformly extremist internal opposition, effectively precluded further criticism of the policies that many Israelis were beginning to think had put the nation at risk.

For all these years, leftists had tried to use Rabin's assassination as a means of blocking any confrontation, by themselves as well as by others, with their own failed policies. Now the voters had decided to do the job for them. The assassination did more than take the life of an elected leader, which was crime enough; by creating a martyr to "peace," it also prevented the public from rendering its own verdict on his leadership.

In retrospect, the most telling feature of the election was the total absence of the "peace" slogan. A decade ago, urged on by the Clinton administration, Israel's leaders had taken a desperate, death-defying "risk for peace"; so high a price had been paid for that reckless act that, even if no one was now inclined to scold them for it, neither was anyone about to let the charade continue. Like addicts recovering from a near-fatal overdose, Israelis had become disinclined to indulge false hopes. Now it remained for Sharon to form a workable coalition and try to vindicate the public's common sense.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 11, 2003

A Great Blessing. A Challenging Charge

What with Pesoch around the corner, our rabbi spoke of the oft-related miracle of G-d imposing his will upon the Egyptians, suffering multiple plagues upon them until they were at least momentarily convinced of their folly in attempting to hold the Jewish people in bondage.

But then the Rabbi’s discussion took a new turn - one unfamiliar to me. He advised us that the Mishnah determined that G-d was not only speaking of physical bondage. He was in fact speaking also of spiritual and mental enslavement wherein the individual allowed himself to become limited in his ability to accept new ideas, new challenges, and new approaches to life.

The rabbi spoke of the inability to relieve one’s self of habits, work, personal relationships which were detrimental to his well being, either physically, mentally, psychologically or all of the above.

The rabbi went further. He directed the concept specifically to us – the Jewish people. He said that G-d had in fact given the Jewish people a unique blessing – the ability and charge to refuse enslavement in any guise. What a marvelous blessing! And has not that blessing become manifest. Are the Jewish people not at the forefront of new ideas, concepts, movements and challenges to the general society? Is this a politically incorrect declaration? My apologies.

One could be enslaved by things, even ideas – money, clothes, a home, the quest for fame and glory, television, movies, exercise, computer compulsion, smoke, drink, sex, maybe even bowling – all reasonable but, not to the point of actual enslavement actually taking over a person’s life. The message was to beware of this more subtle, insidious form of bondage and, with the new Pesoch, accept the Jewish people’s charge to, with G-d’s help, escape.

What an epiphany! And here I always thought that all I had to do for Pesoch was learn the Four Questions, get a little drunk from the wine and try not to fall asleep during the Seder.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:03 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 10, 2003

An Inadvertent Testimonial to Mort Klein

An Inadvertent Testimonial to the Great Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America by Left Wing Israeli Newspaper Ha’aretz

Ha'aretz: US Jewish leaders detest ZOA head Klein for effectively fighting
Arafat – While American Jewish public enthusiastic

(Independent Media Review and Analysis: The following article about Morton Klein, www.zoa.org, is as much a devastating piece about other American Jewish leaders as it is a tribute to Klein, the voice of right-wing American Jewry)

By Shlomo Shamir Ha'aretz 9 April 2003

Heads of Jewish organizations in the U.S. can't understand why Morton
Klein is becoming so popular.

NEW YORK - At a Jewish event in Detroit last Sunday Morton Klein received
an enthusiastic welcome of the kind reserved for an American politician who
has wound up a primary with an impressive victory.

"It's amazing," Klein told his audience, "that in both the American administration
and the Israeli government there are those who relate to Holocaust denier Abu Mazen as a serious negotiation partner."

Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is not exactly the
image of a speaker who can enthuse the masses. He has a nasal voice, the result of a congenital defect, and he has difficulty finishing a long sentence without pausing for a deep breath. But the crowd in Detroit loved what he said about the "road map." "It is a worse initiative than the first Oslo accord," he declared. "In Oslo, the Palestinians were not guaranteed a Palestinian state and Israel was not ordered to stop building settlements."

A local journalist noted this week that the enthusiasm of the audience reached a climax when Klein ridiculed the Jewish leaders who are afraid to openly express their opinions against the road map and publicly denounce Abu Mazen."The heads of the organizations are afraid to speak out against Abu Mazen
because they do not want to annoy President [George W.] Bush and Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon," said Klein. "I am very disappointed with Sharon,
who expressed willingness to negotiate with Abu Mazen. Jewish leaders were
also afraid to shake off the first Oslo accord because they were afraid to
annoy President [Bill] Clinton and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin."

The warm welcomes that Klein is receiving at his appearances before the
Jewish public in the United States stand in direct contrast to the reactions
he elicits from the Jewish establishment. A few leaders and heads of
Jewish organizations blatantly shy away from Klein and are openly derisive of his
statements. When Klein gets up to speak at sessions of the Conference of
Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, those present do not hide their
contempt for the man and his views.

At a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last
week, Klein suggested 10 amendments to the organization's declaration of
principles. Nine of the amendments were rejected outright and one was
discussed briefly. In a conversation with Klein he said that even the
White House is avoiding him thanks to his statements denouncing Bush's policies
toward the Middle East. Klein was not invited to a Hanukkah event at the
White House, to which other heads of Jewish organizations were invited. He says White House aides explicitly told him, "We won't be nice to you if you are not nice to us."

Ammunition for anti-Semites ?

The list of things that Klein has done that irk the Jewish establishment
includes his appearance at a recent demonstration in Times Square in
support of the war in Iraq. Klein is the first president of a Jewish organization
that has so far publicly expressed support for the war. What angered major
Jewish figures in New York was that the demonstration was organized by the
coalition of the Christian right.

"I received angry phone calls from Jewish leaders, denouncing me for
participating in the demonstration," Klein recalled Sunday. "They claimed
that the participation of Jews in the demonstration would provide
ammunition for the anti-Semites who claim that the Jews and Israel pushed America into the war," Klein chuckled. "Nonsense. And before the war did the anti-Semites not accuse us of any trouble? My father lost his whole family in the Holocaust, including eight brothers and sisters, and I vowed I would never
be afraid of expressing my opinion in public."

Jewish leaders are visibly uncomfortable when asked to talk about Klein
and respond to his statements. "Klein has no support among the Jewish
leadership in America," declared one senior Jewish official in New York Sunday.
"He is alone and evokes alienation." Even so, the official admitted that Klein "arouses sympathy and even enthusiasm during his public appearances
because he gives expression to the right-wing public in the community. Without him they would have no voice."

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League is perhaps Klein's
sharpest critic in the Jewish establishment. A few years ago Foxman coined
a definition of Klein that Jewish officials love to repeat. In response to
Klein's negative remarks against the league Foxman called him the "attack
dog of the Jewish thought police." (I don’t know why Foxman would be concerned since he is not involved with any genuine thought - jsk)

Foxman says the worst thing about Klein's behavior is that he lashes out
against people and organizations that express opinions opposing his.
Foxman also feels that it is the "height of arrogance [for Klein] to sit in
Philadelphia and tell Sharon, `Don't speak to Abu Mazen.' Is that the new Zionism that Klein is preaching?"

Klein himself is unfazed by those who ridicule him. "Their activities and
statements are motivated by prestige," he says. "They are interested in
invitations to the White House while my activities are anchored in my care
for Israel and Jews."

Klein celebrated his sweet revenge on the Jewish establishment when he recently won the most coveted recognition in the eyes of Jewish leaders
and heads of Jewish organizations - his picture and an editorial about him in
The New York Times. "Mortimer Zuckerman just finished serving two years as
chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations,
but it was Morton Klein who got an article about him in The New York Times,"
lamented the head of one large American Jewish organization.

Klein noted Sunday that none of his colleagues in the conference bothered
to phone and congratulate him on the article. "Only one senior member of the
conference phoned and asked me to tell him how I managed to get into that
prestigious publication," he said. What surprised Jewish officials most
was that this liberal newspaper portrayed the right-wing symbol of the Jewish
community in a favorable light.

One Jewish leader suggested that perhaps the motive for the positive
article about Klein was that the paper, which opposes the war in Iraq, wanted to
present a Jewish official who supports the war and is viewed as a controversial and embarrassing figure and to let the readers draw the conclusion that Jewish support for the war is also not so broad.

Promising young scientist

The continuing polemic surrounding Klein and his activities overshadows
his fascinating life story. He was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany
in the early 1950s and immigrated to the U.S. with his family, settling in
Florida. As the son of a rabbi and Torah scribe, Klein delved into Judaic
studies as well as secular studies. He particularly excelled in mathematics
and chemistry and was heralded as a promising young scientist destined for
greatness. For 20 years he worked as a close associate of Linus Pauling,
who twice won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Klein also served as a senior
economist in the administrations of presidents Nixon and Ford.

In the 1980s, Klein published a series of innovative studies linking
nutrition to heart disease, winning him national recognition. Along with
his colleagues at Los Angeles University, Klein conducted research that
scientifically proved for the first time that vitamin C reduces the risk
of heart attack by 40 percent. At the time Discovery magazine called Klein's
research "one of the 50 most important studies published in the U.S. in

Klein says he began his public activities in the 1980s in response to the
hostile attitude of the media toward Israel. He began to follow articles
published about Israel and responded to them in articles in the Jewish
press, attracting the attention of some of the leaders of the ZOA, who invited him to run for president of the organization. He was elected to this post nine years ago and to this day some people claim his takeover of the organization was not completely above board. (a malicious lie. I was there. – jsk)

The ZOA was founded in 1897 and Klein likes to present the organization as
"the oldest pro-Israel organization in America." Until the 1940s, the ZOA
was considered one of the most influential organizations in the community.
It gained acclaim thanks to the people who stood at its helm, including
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver.
There is no disputing that Klein, who was elected president of the organization when it had hit a low point had brought the diminished ZOA back into the Jewish arena and turned it into an organization whose presence is felt in the community.

"Morton Klein owes his notoriety to Yasser Arafat," said a New York public
relations expert. "Ever since the signing of the first Oslo accord Klein
has been focusing on one goal - the exposure of Arafat as enemy number one of
Israel and the Jewish people. He has also become a familiar figure among
lawmakers on Capitol Hill, especially among republicans."
"Senators and congressmen cannot fathom how or why there are leaders and
politicians in Israel who are discussing a Palestinian state," says Klein. "I know some senators who are simply in shock."

Few leaders of the Jewish establishment can belittle Klein's ability to stack up obstacles in Abu Mazen's path to the hearts (and pockets) of senior lawmakers in Washington."It was Klein who ruined Arafat's image in Washington and Abu Mazen can expect trouble too," said a senior Jewish official in New York. Klein
disclosed that he is already planning his response to Abu Mazen's visit to
the White House - a demonstration opposite the White House with the
demonstrators wearing striped concentration camp garb and yellow Stars of
David. "Such a visit will not go over quietly," promised Klein.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Companion piece to adjacent "Mort Klein" article

Please read this as a companion piece to the adjacent one, “An Inadvertent Testimonial to the Great Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America.”

This article, published in the Detroit Jewish News November 3, 2000, was an attempt to explain the inexplicable antagonism of the Left to those who saw Oslo as a disaster from day one – Just like those of us who have no doubt that the “Roadmap” proposed by Israel’s “friends”, Russia, the European Union, the United Nations and a naïve United States is an even greater, G-d forbid, terminal disaster. This article also relates to the current bizarre destructively small- minded jealousy of other Jewish “leaders” toward Morton Klein.

Blaming The Right For Being Right

By Jerome S. Kaufman The Detroit Jewish News, November 3, 2000

The editorial response of the Jewish News to the current crisis in Israel is disturbing. The paper and many of those somehow still on the Left, still "don't get it." It was certainly grand of the editors to admit, "We are as guilty as the others who have been hoping since the Oslo Accords of 1993 that Israel had a true partner in peace. We were wrong . . ."
("Breaking The Peace," Oct.13, page 39).

Fine. But, then the admission of guilt becomes illogically blurred. The editors disagree with guest columnist Daniel Pipes when Pipes declares that the violence signals "Palestinian triumphalism." Rather, The Jewish News prefers the preposterous Arab lie that the Palestinian rioting was simply "born in frustration and anger" — a proposition right out of Hanan Ashrawi's well-thumbed playbook.

What is burning Israeli flags, parading Palestinian ones, showing off hands dripping in Israeli blood, hanging mutilated Israeli soldiers from outside windows, erasing Israel from their maps and textbooks, if not "Palestinian triumphalism?" Is this simply an understandable response to economic frustration, as the Arabs, the Jewish left and the Jewish News would have us deluded into believing?

The following weeks editorial ("A Silence At The Center," Oct. 20, page 43) is equally schizophrenic. Somehow, it is the fault of the right that there is no peace; and the right is also blamed for having no solution — that is, at least, one satisfactory to the left.

Another questionable conclusion is that the lack of peace will cause "American Jews to lose interest in Israel as a source of their identity." American Jews, with their "unprecedented security and prosperity," won't be able to "explore" their "cultural and religious identity" and bask in the "sunny heat of Masada, in the milk and honey of the resorts and in the solemnity of the Western Wall." What a tragedy for American Jews while our Israeli brethren are only bleeding to death!

Finally, the dubious editorial conclusion — "We continue to believe that peace is both necessary and inevitable." Swell, but peace with whom? Switzerland? The so-called peace process, as conceived by the left and with which they harassed us for the last seven years, is dead. Cannot the local Jewish leadership and their organizations stop from belaboring us with their endless parade of "peace process" shills as speakers? Stop promoting your deservedly bankrupt agenda.

Finally comprehend, in your heart of hearts, that the Arabs have no desire for peace with Israel? Instead, genuinely promote the concept of a strong, self-reliant Israel desperately in need of help defending the few dunams that it has left. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 08, 2003

A map to national disaster

By Uzi Landau
Ha'aretz 8 April 2003

If the Quartet's road map is accepted, Yasser Arafat will win the greatest
victory of his life. Despite the blatant violation of all his commitments in
the Oslo agreements and his responsibility for the murder of more than 1,000
Israelis - nearly 800 of them during the last two years of terror - he has
not been punished. On the contrary, he is holding on to the far-reaching
concessions granted him at Oslo and in addition will get what even Yossi
Beilin and Shimon Peres refused to give him: the establishment of a state,
"independent, viable, sovereign with maximum territorial contiguity," in
principle, and without negotiation. That state is the main goal of the map,
resulting from a childish belief on the part of the Quartet that the mere creation of the state will guarantee peace.

At the same time there's no mention in the map of any of the conditions
noted by the government as essential for our existential security: demilitarization; our complete control of the air space; a ban on the authority to sign international agreements, for example.

As far as we are concerned, there are two inviolate conditions: public
recognition of Israel's right to exist, including an end to the incitement
educating toward our destruction in the Palestinian school system and
inculcating peace as a value from an early age, and Palestinian
relinquishment of their demand for the refugees to return to Israel.

These demands, without which there is no chance for peace, do not appear as
a condition. Moreover, the Saudi Arabian initiative, which the map says has
"ongoing importance," speaks of solving the refugee problem through UN
Resolution 194, which includes the "right of return," as its centerpiece.

Borders: Those who believed Israel would be able to maintain control over
areas of decisive strategic importance for our defense, find the map speaks
about "ending the occupation that began in 1967," in other words, a return
to what Abba Eban called "the Auschwitz borders."

Internationalization of the conflict: In the first year of the previous,
unity government, Israel was careful not to use all that was necessary to
defeat the terrorist organizations in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, it
did not topple the Palestinian Authority and did not expel Arafat. The
price: hundreds of killed, thousands of wounded, and a rapid deterioration
to a deep and unprecedented economic depression that we are now desperately
trying to end. We did so to prevent the internationalization of the conflict
by the entry of foreign observers and international conferences, that would,
in effect, take out of our hands the sovereignty over management of the
conflict and harm our ability to defend ourselves effectively.

That's exactly what the road map does. Internationalization under Quartet
orchestration: It convenes two international conferences meant to establish
the Palestinian state and lead to a permanent agreement, accompany the
process, establish a supervisory mechanism for the implementation, judge the
disputes between the PA and Israel, set a "realistic timetable" for progress
and become involved in the negotiations "when necessary."

Jerusalem: The road map gives the Palestinians a political status equal to
ours and determines that the decisions in the negotiations over the city's
status will be with regard to "the political and religious interest of both
sides." In other words, the division of Jerusalem. To remove any doubt about
the Quartet's intentions, the road map emphasizes, "the government of Israel
will reopen Palestinian institutions closed in East Jerusalem." And of
course that includes the notorious Orient House.

A prize for terror: Without any condition for an end to terror first, Israel
is ordered to immediately dismantle all the outposts and freeze all
settlement activity, including natural growth - another bonus the
Palestinians didn't even get at Oslo.

The road map is a huge prize for terror. In its wake the Palestinians will
not only achieve their strategic goals, but will reach a clear conclusion:
terror pays. They will get all the concessions we shower on them, organize
themselves with money they get from the world and us, rebuild their terror
units and attack us at the moment convenient for them. Our experience from
the Oslo agreement teaches us that for us, the map bodes a future in which
terror is much, much worse.

It's possible to understand why the European members of the Quartet
initiated the road map. They are the ones who cynically attack President
Bush, who is fighting the free world's war against Saddam Hussein; and
during the years, with the same cynicism, they turned a blind eye to
terrible Palestinian terror and held us responsible for it. They support the
Palestinians and Arafat, Saddam's ally, and demand we concede unceasingly to

Will the Americans accept the European positions? Is it possible the U.S. -
which regards terror as the greatest danger to Western civilization, and is
led by Bush, who declared war on terror without concessions of negotiations
until it is totally eradicated like in Afghanistan and Iraq - will adopt a
map saturated with far-reaching concessions that will only encourage terror

The road map does not express the "Bush vision" as expressed last June. It
is not a recipe for peace, but for national disaster. Accepting it will lead
to terror and war under far more difficult conditions that we've ever known.
If Israel wants to live, it must make as clear as possible and as early as
possible that without basic preconditions, the map is totally unacceptable.

The writer is the Israeli Minister responsible for the secret services and strategic relations with the U.S.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:35 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

April 07, 2003

The Marriage of Western Women to Saudi Arabians


From: The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2002

In the worst scenario, an American wife can find herself summarily divorced, deported, and deprived of any right of visitation with her dual-national children.
Sharia law decidedly favors men in the dissolution of marriage. And the laws of Saudi Arabia require that a Saudi citizen sponsor all individuals in order to receive a visa, resident or otherwise. Therefore, once a marriage breaks up, the ex-wife must leave the Kingdom and may only return with the explicit permission and sponsorship of her ex-husband. (In cases where the Saudi husband attempts to prevent his spouse from leaving, the Embassy can call upon Saudi authorities to facilitate the American wife's departure. The Embassy cannot force a Saudi husband to relinquish the children.)

In one instance, an American who had undergone a bitter divorce and child custody battle with her Saudi husband, applied for and received a visa to work with a company located in the Kingdom. Once the Saudi husband and the Saudi authorities discovered her presence, she was thrown into jail and ultimately forced to leave her position and the country.

What custody rights do women have under Sharia law? Theoretically, a mother should maintain custody of the children until the ages of 7-9, when their primary care would be transferred to their father. However, the ultimate objective of a Sharia court in the settlement of custody issues is that the child be raised a good Muslim. Whether a convert or not to Islam, an American woman will not overcome the prejudice against her upbringing and society. The Embassy has no knowledge of an American or any western woman ever winning custody of dual-national children in a Sharia court.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Versatility of Bigots

By Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman

Detroit Jewish News April 4, 2003

One can’t help but be impressed by the versatility of the bigots of the world. The old canards blaming the Jews for the killing of Christ; for using Christian children’s blood to make matzos at Passover; for causing bubonic plague; for killing themselves while in cahoots with Adolph Hitler to gain world sympathy while the Holocaust never occurred, just don’t sell anymore. Even the most uninformed, the most dedicated bigot, doesn’t buy that garbage. So, let’s invent some new garbage - a new Hate-the-Jew message to re-kindle the fires of rabid anti-Semitism and in the process help to destroy the State of Israel and curry favor and probably hard cash from our Arab friends.

Let’s round up some of our old tried and true anti-Semites - the dedicated liars and professional Arabists - many evidently, already on the Saudi Arabian Pension Plan - to proclaim the new message. You have seen them inundating the media, pouring out their venom while unencumbered by truth or logic.

But, what’s the new Hate-the-Jew message? Why, of course, it is that the Jews of the world are the ones causing the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the problems with the rest of the Muslim friends in the world. The Jews and the Israelis with their settlements that constitute less than 2% of the land of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) are the ones at fault. If it weren’t for the Jews and the State of Israel, we would be all living happily ever after.

What with anti-Semitism resurgent all over Europe and naturally in the countries containing 1.3 billion Muslims and what with the enthusiastic support of the confused political far Left and confused far Right, this is not a hard sell. Anti-Semitism, in its most crass form, has become politically correct. Emily Post and Miss Manners, as usual, don’t apply to Jews. Hating the Jew is totally permissible and even to be admired.

But what are the facts? In fact, there are conflicts going on all over the world - between Muslims and the West that have absolutely nothing to do with Jews or Israelis. There are approximately 30 major world conflicts going on right now and 27 of them are between Muslims attempting to regain their glory of the 7th - 11th century and Christians or other ethnic groups that have no desire to return or become newly a part of Muslim domination.

Nevertheless, somehow it is the Jews that are the ones to blame for the centuries-old wars between Muslims and Hindis in India, Pakistan, and Kashmir; for the insurrections of Muslims in the South Philippines, for the reversion to recidivism in Armenia, Chechnya, Indochina, Bosnia, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. You name it. The list is virtually endless.

Also, never mind the fact that the American Jewish community and the Israelis themselves have mixed feelings about the war of Iraq. There are many Jews and Israelis, comfortably at the forefront of so-called “peace movements,” that don’t even welcome their participation any more. And there are many less bubbly-minded Jews that wholeheartedly support the actions of President G.W. Bush and the Congress of the United States of America.

But so what! Hating Jews has always been a favorite indoor sport. And now with Passover just around the corner and a shortage of Christian children disappearing to make all that matzos, we have to find a new outrageous lie. Let’s blame the Jews for the war in Iraq. That should sell easily. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:41 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Religious Zealotry not Poverty

By Morton Klein, National President Zionist Organization of America

It is widely assumed that poverty is a prime factor in motivating Palestinian Arabs to become terrorists — that material deprivation makes young Arabs feel desperate, which leads them to terrorism. This theory is the reasoning behind the nearly $1 billion the United Stares has given to the Palestinian Arabs since 1994, and the even larger amounts that the European Union has given them. These governments claim that if young Arabs have jobs, they would have something to lose by becoming terrorists, so they would have a strong incentive to maintain normal, peaceful lives. In fact, however, many of the leading Palestinian Arab terrorists — including some suicide bombers — are university graduates, are married and have good jobs.

Consider one example from many: Muhammad Abu Jamous, who was part of a terror squad that murdered four Israelis in Gaza on Jan. 9. According to the New York Times, Abu Jamous was "a member of the Palestinian navy and something of a minor celebrity. He had been a runner on the Palestinian national team, competing in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He married just three months ago, and his wife is two months' pregnant." In other words, he had every logical reason to live peacefully and quietly. Yet, he picked up a gun and went out to murder innocent Israelis.

The Palestinian Arabs know that if they made peace with Israel, their economy would improve dramatically, as would their material lives. Yet, they continue to wage war against Israel because the problem is not the economy. The problem is their ideology of hatred for Jews and refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in their midst.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post once pointed out that "there is no reason to believe that money would ... persuade Palestinians to co-exist with Israel... not all problems can be solved with money ...Americans are particularly aware of the limitations of financial aid in resolving social and political problems.
"Throwing staggering amounts of government and private funds at inner-city slums, the drug problem and affirmative action for minorities had done little to ameliorate intractable problemsd.

"It is even less likely that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be reduced to materialist terms. The intolerance in the Arab world for Israel's existence does not stem from economic hardship. It is mostly religiously and nationalistically inspired."

Khalid M. Amayreh, a Palestinian Arab journalist, has written: "Several studies have shown that a substantial majority of Islamists [Muslim fundamentalists] and their supporters come from the middle and upper socio-economic strata ... The claim that 'Islamic terrorism in Israel, as elsewhere, is the product of poverty, backwardness and ignorance' is simply nonsense."

The historical record clearly demonstrates that Arab extremist ideology, rather than poverty, is at the core of the Arab-Jewish conflict. During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Jewish immigration to Palestine brought the country a variety of economic improvements, including new jobs for many Arabs, yet there was mass Palestinian Arab violence against Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929 and throughout 1936-1939.

Nor were the Arab wars against Israel (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973) fought for economic reasons. Nor was the constant Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israel during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s motivated by economic troubles. Whether in good economic times or bad, the Arabs remained committed to murdering Jews and seeking Israel's destruction.

The Well-To-Do ranks of the current Palestinian Arab terrorist groups have been filled by a generation of radical young Arab nationalists, many of them university-educated (Israel built six universities and 16 other institutions of higher education in Judea-Samaria-Gaza) and relatively well to do. They organized mass violence for ideological, not economic, reasons.

As the late Professor Amos Perlmutrer once pointed out, the leadership of the Hamas terrorist movement, which supplies the majority of suicide bombers, "is made up of modern middle- and upper-middle class professionals, of journalists, lawyers, engineers and doctors."

Indeed, news accounts of the 400 Hamas leaders who were temporarily deported to Lebanon in 1992-93 described the deportees as well-educated professionals. Building factories or hospitals will not put an end to hatred of Israel.

Devoted to ideologies of extreme Arab nationalism or extremist Islam, the Palestinian Arabs reject the concept of a sovereign non-Muslim state in the Muslim Middle East. Giving them American taxpayers' dollars won't change that one iota. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 06, 2003

USA vs. Israel Usual Double Standard

Redacted from article by Jeff Jacoby, Columnist for the Boston Globe

In exchange for a withdrawal of U.S. and British troops, Saddam Hussein sends word that he is prepared to share some of his power with a senior member of his Baathist inner circle. Instead of maintaining absolute control over the Iraqi state, Saddam agrees to name Tariq Aziz his official deputy. The job will carry some limited authority, such as the right to appoint cabinet members without Saddam's prior approval. But Aziz will hold office at Saddams pleasure. He will not be in control of the country's foreign or military affairs, and the Iraqi security forces will continue to take their orders from Saddam.

Sound like a good deal? Like the kind of democratic "regime change" that George W Bush and Tony Blair would gladly embrace? Of course it doesn't! Any arrangement that left Saddam or his henchmen in control would be an ignominious defeat for the allies and a shameful betrayal of the Iraqi people. Whatever else regime change in Baghdad entails, at a minimum it must sweep the dictator and his accomplices from power.

Why should it do any less in Ramallah? In a signal address last June, Bushcalled for a radical transformation of the Palestinian Authority. "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership," he said, vowing that the United States would not support statehood for the Palestinians until they had "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," and had built "a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." It was a demand for regime change in all but name, and its meaning was crystal clear: Yasser Arafat and his accomplices had to be swept from power.

Yet when Arafat recently named Mahmoud Abbas — his longtime confederate in the Fatah and PLO terrorist organizations — as the new Palestinian prime minister, the Bush administration was all smiles. "We respond favorably to it," beamed Secretary of State Colin Powell. "This, I think, is a positive step forward."

National Security Assistant Condoleeza Rice said Abbas would be welcome at the White House. Neither seemed to care that Arafat remained firmly in place atop the Palestinian Authority, that Abbas' new powers would be sharply limited, or that a P.A. headed by Arafat and Abbas was the furthest thing imaginable from "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

The press was upbeat, too. Abbas, reported Ibrahim Hazboun in a widely reprinted AP story, "is a veteran advocate of peace with Israel and the most
out-spoken critic of the 29-month-old uprising." A few days later, his colleague Karin Laub identified the new prime minister as a "pragmatist and moderate," describing his appointment as "the first real promise of ending the bloody Israeli-Palestinian deadlock."

But Abbas is no more a "moderate" than Tariq Aziz, and notwithstanding his reputation as an "advocate of peace," he calls openly for violence against Jews. Stories about Abbas routinely mention that he is known by the nom de guerre "Abu Mazen." Few if any remarks on the anomaly of a supposed peacemaker using a nom de guerre. Fewer still have noted that as recently as four weeks ago, Abbas made it clear that he does not support an end to the terror war against Israel.

Discussing the PLO's recent terror summit in Cairo with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Abbas told the Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat on March 3, "We didn't talk about a break in the armed struggle ... It is our right to resist. The intifada must continue and it is the right of the Palestinian people to resist and use all possible means." His only caveat was that terrorism should be confined to the disputed territories — Gaza., the West Bank, and eastern Jerusalem. Such is the nature of Abbas' "moderation."

At Camp David in 2000, Abbas was among those who pressed Arafat to reject Israel's comprehensive peace proposal, notes political scientist Dan Schueftan, a former adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Palestinians should have no regrets about refusing Israel's offer of 95 percent of the land, Abbas has since said, "because 95 percent is not 100 percent." He insists not only that Israel surrender every inch of land occupied in self-defense in 1967 - including the Old City of Jerusalem and its Jewish holy sites — but also that millions of Palestinians be given an unlimited right of immigration into Israel proper. Of course, that would spell the end of the Jewish state — just what Fatah and the PLO have sought for 40 years.

In the 1980s, Abbas wrote a book suggesting that the Nazi Holocaust had been wildly exaggerated. Zionist propaganda had inflated the number of Jewish murder victims to 6 million, he claimed— the true figure might well be "only a few hundred thousand."

What's more, he wrote, the Nazi slaughter had been carried out with the help of Zionist leaders, who colluded in persecuting Europe's Jews in order to promote Jewish emigration to Palestine. Whether Abbas still believes these grotesqueries is unclear. But this much is very clear: An inflexible radical who supports terrorism is neither a moderate nor an advocate of peace — even if he does speak good English and wear well-tailored suits.

A lifelong accomplice of Yasser Arafat is not an exemplar of democracy and tolerance. A Palestinian Authority ruled by the same aging terrorists who have ruled it from the start — albeit with a slight shift of powers and portfolios — is not a "new and different Palestinian leadership."

As the Afghans deserved better than Mullah Omar and his Taliban thugs, as Iraqis deserve better than Saddam and the Baathist SS, so the Palestinians deserve better than Arafat and Abbas. President Bush was firm on that point last June. This is no time to go “wobbly.”


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:26 AM | Comments (48) | TrackBack

April 04, 2003

Israeli Military in Iraq

Israeli Military Technology in Iraq


The Bush administration has made clear it wants Israel to stay out of an Iraq war so as not to provoke Arab and Muslim countries assisting the United States.
But that won't stop Israel's weaponry and arms technology from being used against Iraqis.

After decades of U.S. military aid and defense cooperation, the U.S. military is permeated by technology developed in Israel — from the Army's Hunter drones to the targeting systems on the U.S. Marines' Harrier jets to the fuel tanks on its F-15 fighters.

"We'll be shooting down some [French-made] Mirage'3s, I think, if the Iraqis ever come up. We may shoot them with an Israeli missile, from a U.S. warplane," said Joel Johnson, spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association, a Washington-based industry lobby. It would be hard to find a modern military that manages without technology developed by the Jewish state's feisty industry. Israel emerged last year as the world's No. 3 arms and military services exporter — ahead of even Russia's massive arms industry, according to Jane's Defense Weekly.

That Israel's weaponry has found a place inside the mighty U.S. military points to the country's engineering prowess — and its status as a favorite ally, said Yiftah Shapir of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.
Iraqi forces might be on the receiving end of Israeli technology in several scenarios:

A Multitude of Israeli Systems A B-52 bomber could fire Popeye air-to-surface missiles dubbed AGM-142 by the U.S. Air Force — at ground targets. The precision-guided Popeyes were designed by Rafael, a company partially owned by the government of Israel. Israeli-designed Hunter unmanned aerial vehicles are in the service of the U.S. Army, and its cousin, the Pioneer, is being used by the U.S. Marines to scout Iraqi defenses. Both originated in the design labs of Israel Aircraft Industries, the country's largest private company.

The Hunter dropped anti-tank munitions in recent U.S. rests, and could be used alongside the Air Force's armed Predator missile-firing drone in a ground attack role. Some of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicles are guided by on-board computers supplied by a subsidiary of Israel's Elbit Systems, Shapir said. U.S. troops riding in the Bradleys might also be protected by armor from Rafael, said Lova Drori, Rafael's director of international marketing.

Rafael is also the designer of the Litening Targeting Pods used to fire precision weapons from the Marines' AV-8B Harrier jet, as well as F-15s and F-16s flown by the Air Force Reserves and Army National Guard, Drori said. Israel also makes or designs multiple-rocket launchers, mortars, laser target designators for the Army's Comanche helicopter and other components, Shapir said.

Much of the equipment is manufactured in the United States by subsidiaries
of Israeli companies, or through joint ventures with U.S. weapons manufacturers.
According to Jane’s, Israel made more than $3.5 billion in arms sales last year, roughly equal to Russia's massive arms export industry. Only the United States and Britain sold more, Jane's reported.

Other sources don't factor in Israel's exports of services — such as upgrades to tanks and fighter aircraft—and rank Israel as a smaller exporter. London's International Institute for Strategic Studies called Israel the world's No. 5 arms exporter last year. Besides the United States, Israel's top customers include Turkey, India, Brazil, Canada and Germany. China used to be a major client, but Israel backed off after protests from the United States, Shapir and others said.

Jim Krane Krone is an Associated Press technology writer © Associated Press
(Reprinted from American Israeli Public Affairs Bulletin)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:56 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Palestinians Name UN Square

Palestinians Name Square for Killer of Four US Soldiers

By Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Director

Celebrating of the killing of 4 American soldiers by an Iraqi suicide bomber, Palestinian Authority officials have named the center of the Jenin Refugee Camp after that suicide bomber - Ali Alna amani. [In addition to the moral issue, it should be remembered that Palestinian refugee camps are UN property and funded by the UN, so that all expenses involved in the name change may be from the UN budget. Likewise it should be checked to what extent UN salaried officials are involved in agreeing to the name change and implementation.]

The following is the announcement in the PA newspaper:

The officials, the institutions and the National Islamic Forces in the Jenin Refugee Camp ... decided to continue the blood donor campaign for Iraq and decided to name the center of the refugee camp Ali al-Naamani after the Shahid [died for Allah] who was the first suicide bomber in Iraq... [killing Four American soldiers at a checkpoint.]

Al Quds, April 2, 2003

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 03, 2003

The New Palestinian "Moderate" Prime Minister


News Release by the Zionist Organization of American, April 4, 2003

NEW YORK- Although two weeks have passed since the appointment of a
supposed "moderate" as the Palestinian Authority's new prime minister, the
PA's anti-Jewish and anti-American terrorism and incitement are just as
rampant as ever.

On March 19, 2003, Arafat's number two man, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu
Mazen) became prime minister of the PA. While PA officials claimed this fulfilled
President Bush's requirement for "new leaders not compromised by terror,"
Palestinian Arab terror has continued.

During Abbas's first two weeks in power:

* The PA did not seize any weapons from terrorists.
* The PA did not shut down any terrorist bomb factories.
* The PA did not outlaw or punish any terrorist groups.
* The PA did not honor any of Israel's 45 requests for the extradition of
* Terror continued: Between March 19 and April 2, there were at least 44
terrorist attacks or attempted attacks, in which 2 people were murdered and
46 were wounded.

* Incitement continued:

--Official PA Television on March 28, 2003 broadcast a 40-minute live
sermon by Sheikh Muhammad Jamal Abu-Hannud, in the Sheikh Ijlin Mosque in
Gaza, in which he said: "The children of Iraq are being massacred, Iraq is
being bombed, and the sons of Iraq are being killed. Iraq, the Arab Muslim
country, has been the cradle of civilization since the dawn of history and
the capital of the Islamic Caliphate. Aggression against Iraq is an
aggression against international law, religious, humanity, and values,
morals, and principles. Aggression against Iraq is an aggression against
Islam, the Koran, and Muhammad's message. If Iraq falls down, God forbid,
the crusaders will target the Koran."

Sheikh Abu-Hannud said that President Bush, "the enemy of Allah and His
messenger, created hatred against the United States all over the world
through his aggressiveness and by calling for a change in the educational
curricula in Arab and Islamic countries." He concluded: "O Allah, help the
Iraqi people and leadership be victorious over their enemy. O Allah, defeat
the United States and its allies."

--On March 28, 2003, official PA Radio broadcast a 28-minute live
sermon by Sheikh Yusuf Abu-Sneinah in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, in which he appealed to Allah "to help the Iraqi people be victorious over the enemies" and denounced what he called "the ugly massacres committed by the U.S. and British invasion forces." He added: "Non-Muslim countries have taken an honorable position, although they are defending their interests in theregion. They have condemned the aggression and refused to allow the
invading forces to use their territories and their territorial waters. They also
refuse to sever their relations with Iraq." He concluded: "O Allah, help our Muslim people in Iraq be victorious over the infidels. O Allah, destroy the Muslims' enemies, for they are within your power. O Allah, destroy them all."

--On March 23, 2003, the PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida published a
cartoon depicting a glorious Iraqi eagle with two soldiers, one American
and one British, caught in its claws. (Translation courtesy of Palestinian
Media Watch.)

--Official PA Television on March 21, 2003 broadcast a live sermon by
Sheikh Ibrahim Mudayris, in the Sheikh Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, in which he
said, "Allah is stronger than the United States, Britain, and Israel, and he will
avenge for his subjects from their enemies, the arrogant on this earth.
Allah will drown the small pharaoh of our time, the president of the United
States. America will drown in our seas. It will face death in our skies and lands,
Allah willing. America and all tyrants will drown in their blood in our land, Allah willing."

He added: "Here is the Crusader, Zionist United States waging war on
our Iraq; Iraq of Islam and Arabdom, Iraq of civilization and history, Iraq of
science, and Iraq of steadfastness. It is waging a Crusader, Zionist war on
Iraq...Allah willing, the United States will be annihilated. Iraq, Palestine, the Arab homeland, and the Middle East will be a cemetery for the oppressive tyrannical invaders. O Allah, O Supporter of the oppressed, we have been treated unjustly in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. O Allah, destroy the pillars of America and Britain. O Lord, shake the land under their feet. O Allah, shake the land under Israel's feet."

--On March 21, 2003, official PA Radio broadcast a live sermon by
Sheikh Muhammad Hussein in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, in which he said: "From the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque we reject and condemn this criminal aggression against Iraq and its brave people...O Allah, O revealer of the Koran, mover of the clouds, and vanquisher of infidels, defeat the infidels and help us
triumph over them. O Lord, face them and spare us their evil. O Allah, shake
the land under their feet...O Allah, kill them all and leave no one alive."

No Disavowal of Pro-Terror Statements:

Despite becoming prime minister, Abbas has so far refused to disavow
his recent statements supporting the murder of Israelis.
Abbas had told the Arab newspaper Alsharq Al-Awsat on March 3, 2003:
"We didn’t talk about a break in the armed struggle ... It is our right to
resist. The Intifada must continue and it is the right of the Palestinian
People to resist and use all possible means in order to defends its
presence and existence. I add and say that if the Israelis come to your land in
order to erect a settlement then it is your right to defend what is yours."

The interviewer then asked: "Including using arms?" Abbas replied:
"All means and arms as long as they are coming to your home, as this is the
right to resist. The restriction applies only to 'Shahada -Seeking'
[suicide] operations and going out to attack in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. There is no
justification to go out [of the territories] to fight the army."Thus Abbas supports murdering all Jews in the territories, both soldiers and civilians whom he defines as "settlers"--that is, Jews who reside in (or happen to be visiting) Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, the Old City section of Jerusalem (where the Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are situated), and Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Gilo, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, and the Hebrew University Campus

No Disavowal of Holocaust-Denial Writings:

Despite becoming prime minister, Abbas has so far refused to disavow
the book he wrote in 1983, called The Other Side: The Secret Relationship
Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement, in which he stated that the Nazis may actually have killed "only a few hundred thousand" Jews, not six million; that Zionist leaders "give permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees
immigration to Palestine. Zionism not only gave this permission but was
seeking more victims in order to maintain equality with the sacrifices of
other nations during the war"; and that "the interest of the Zionist
movement is to inflate this figure [from several hundred thousand to 6
million] so that their gains will be greater." (Jerusalem Post, Jan. 26, 1995)

A February 2003 poll by McLaughlin & Associates found that 64% of
Americans believe that "world leaders should refuse to meet with Abbas and
treat him the same as others who deny or minimize the Holocaust." Only 20%
of Americans believe that world leaders should meet with Abbas.

No Disavowal of Statements That Jewish Temple Wasn't in Jerusalem:

Despite becoming prime minister, Abbas has so far refused to disavow
his statements claiming that the ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem never
existed. In an interview with the Israeli Arab newspaper Kul Al-Arab
(Aug.8, 2000), Abbas was asked: "The Israelis want you to forget the past
and turn your gaze to the future." Abbas replied: "According to this logic, he
who wants to forget the past, namely the Israelis, should not claim that
the Jewish Temple is underneath the Haram [the Temple Mount, where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is situated]. They demand that we forget what happened to the
refugees 50 years ago and at the same time The Jews claim that 2,000 years ago, they had a holy place there. I challenge the assertion that there has ever been a Jewish Temple." (Translation courtesy of MEMRI.) ##

(This is the guy and the people that President Bush and the Arabist American State Department is asking Israel to accept and allow a State of Terror five minutes away. I am surprised that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel does not ask President Bush to allow Iraq to take over Canada and be our next door neighbor.

Jerome S. Kaufman)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:59 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

April 02, 2003

Whose Collateral Damage

Whose Collateral Damage and Why

By Stephen Plaut, Professor Haifa University, Israel

It is with the greatest sense of irony that we read that on the very
day when US troops in Iraq killed a large group of Iraqi civilians because
they were suspected of containing terrorists and disguised soldiers
planning to attack the Americans, the US State Department issued yet
another of its biased reports declaring that Israel is committing human
rights abuses in the "occupied territories". Yes, this time it did
manage to sneak in a sentence or two about Palestinian terrorism as well.

Do not get me wrong. Even if in retrospect it turns out that the US
troops killed many innocent Iraqis unnecessarily, it is clear that the
responsibility for those deaths rests entirely on the Iraqi regime that
has been routinely ordering its troops to disguise themselves as civilians
or to hide themselves among civilians and then open up fire on the
Coalition troops or set off bombs among them. It is absurd to expect that
these US and British troops will agree to be murdered rather than treat
all Iraqi civilians as suspect or to protect themselves by opening fire
when they believe they are under threat. The inevitable result of their
protecting their lives must be dead Iraqi civilians. The responsibility
for that is Saddam's.

When Palestinian ambulances are routinely used to transport bombs and bombers, any Palestinian civilians dying because Israel refuses to allow
Palestinian ambulances to pass into Israel or because Israeli troops fire
on ambulances acting suspiciously are entirely the fault of the PLO. The
many dead Palestinian civilians are dead because the PLO and its sister
terrorist groups always open firefights and attack Israelis while among or
near Palestinian civilians. The PLO routinely orders mobs of Palestinian
civilians to attack Jews and IDF troops and so get themselves shot to help
get the PLO good Western press

Israeli troops, like US troops in Iraq, have the right to treat
enemy civilians as suspects and belligerents until proven otherwise. They
have the right to shoot civilians who are suspect. They have the right
to defend their own lives. People upset that Palestinian civilians are
getting hurt should complain to the PLO and its apologists.

And as for reports that the US bombed a bus carrying Western "human
shields" trying to help Saddam defend his regime, this a few days after
the whole world rolled its eyes in fake horror over the communist who got herself killed playing chicken with an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:22 PM | Comments (45) | TrackBack

Iraqi "gift" to Palestinian Arabs

Palestinian "Gift" to Iraq Makes Peace More Distant

The Detroit News Editorial April 1, 2003

Suicide bombing should return emphasis to ending terrorism

That was quite a present the Palestinians offered the Iraqi people over the weekend. To show solidarity with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Islamic Jihad terrorist group dispatched a suicide bomber to blow up a cafe in the Israeli seaside city of Netanya.

Thirty people were hurt. An Islamic Jihad spokesman described the bombing as a "gift" to the people of Iraq from the Palestinians. Saddam has spent millions of dollars in the Palestinian territories to encourage violence against Israel and to reward the families of suicide bombers, so it's not surprising the Islamic Jihad wanted to do something in return.

The “gift” arrived just as both Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were declaring a desire to push ahead rapidly with the Bush administration's road map for peace in the Middle East.

Much of that road map is dependent on the Palestinian Authority adopting democratic reforms and ending the terrorist attacks against Israel. But there is growing pressure on the United States to force Israel to the bargaining table without ironclad assurances that the terrorism will end. Rice and Powell each expressed a desire for speed in restarting talks, and Powell on Sunday urged Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. That's a fine goal. But making peace while there are those among the Palestinians who consider killing and maiming Jews to be a gift from one Arab people to another is a lot to ask. And it suggests there may be more to overcome in bringing peace to the Middle East than settling conflicting land claims.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:45 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Diversity or Racial Quota

Diversity doesn't justify breaking guarantee of equal protection
under the law permanently

By Curt A. Levey The Detroit News April 1, 2003

Today, the Supreme Court will consider -whether the University of Michigan's race-based admissions policies violate the Constitution and the nation's civil rights laws. Much more will be at stake than just Michigan's two-track segregated admissions systems and its policy of awarding bonus points — the equivalent of a full grade point — to black, Hispanic and Native American applicants.

At stake will be a fundamental choice between the original vision of affirmative action as a temporary remedy and the bleak prospect of a nation split indefinitely into two opposing groups — those races entitled to preferential treatment and those races required to forfeit their right to equal treatment.

The traditional defense of racial preferences was that a temporary exception to the constitutional and statutory guarantee of equal protection was warranted as the nation overcame past discrimination. Even Justice Lewis Powell—the only Supreme Court justice to endorse the oft-cited diversity rationale for race-based admissions — envisioned his limited 1978 endorsement as a compromise that would allow preferences to be phased out.

Instead, the size of the racial bonuses awarded by the nation's most selective universities — as well as the racial disparity in grades and test scores that "necessitates" them — is unchanged after 30-plus years of race-based admissions. This is no surprise. After all, there is likely not an instance in human history when holding a group of people to a lower standard helped them to excel.

What is surprising is that supporters of race-based admissions have now dropped all pretense that racial preferences are a temporary measure. Witness the University of Michigan's argument in its latest brief that the Supreme Court should not strike down the diversify rationale for preferences because it "would upset the settled expectations of universities."

The diversity rationale "has become so woven into the fabric of our national
culture, that overturning it would cause... significant damage to the stability of the society," Michigan argues. But the plaintiffs note that, if diversity-based preferences have indeed become so woven into the national culture that their elimination would damage society's stability, then they are certainly not temporary.

Fortunately for the nation and its equal protection guarantee, the Supreme Court is unlikely to view the diversity rationale as a settled expectation. The court has systematically rejected racial preference rationales that are "timeless in their ability to affect the future."

Moreover, the justices know a policy that is barely tolerated by the American people can hardly be a settled expectation. Recent poll results in Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and in Michigan show that, by overwhelming margins, all races oppose the use of race as a factor in admissions. Yet the University of Michigan continues to claim that a policy rejected even by its intended beneficiaries is a settled expectation. Perhaps Michigan's perception has been distorted by its own public relations campaign, which points to the long list of corporate and academic supporters in the university's camp.

However, since virtually all those supporters have their own legally dubious racial preferences to justify, their support is about as meaningful as a long list of criminals endorsing the legalization of bank robbery.

The American people have made up their minds. Now it's up to the Supreme Court to follow its precedents by rejecting permanent victim status for certain races and burying the nonsensical notion that equality can be achieved by treating people unequally. If the court does so, it will strike down Michigan's segregated admissions systems and usher in an era in which our nation is forced to confront the educational and social causes of racial disparities rather than covering them up with the Band-Aid of preferences.

Curt A. Levey is director of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Rights, which represents the plaintiffs in the U-M case.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:06 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Israel Gov't Briefing

From an Israeli Government Briefing - February 20, 2003

Ehud Ya'ari, IDF Chief of General Staff Moshe Ya'alon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz noted that Arafat launched the Oslo War for one reason: to snatch a state without having to commit to peace.
Arafat had calculated that Barak's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and his generous overtures to the Palestinian Arabs meant that Israel was exhausted, and would not seriously resist an attempt by Arafat to set up a Palestinian state without a peace deal. According to Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, a writer for The Jerusalem Post. Palestinian Arabs understand this, and editorials throughout the Arab world quote various PA spokespersons on this strategy. Israeli and Western journalists, however, have inexplicably ignored what the Palestinian Arab leadership itself says about the Oslo War, and have chosen instead to blame Israel in one way or another for the outbreak of the violence.

Abu Toameh, speaking as an Arab, expressed surprise at the abiding gullibility of the Western press. Not for one moment did Arafat ever intend to be "Ehud Beilinized"; Arafat had been waiting for Israel to reveal all its cards and give its maximum offer, believing that Israeli public opinion would let Arafat grab it without quid-pro-quo so as to avoid war. In other words, war was probably part of Arafat's strategy from the outset in 1993. In the Arab press, Arafat is lionized for so bold and cunning a strategy; in the Western press, there is an utter lack of awareness. Abu Toameh opined that until more Western journalists learn to read Arabic, the West will have no idea of the true intentions of Palestinian Arab leaders, and will continue to rely on the cynical propaganda that Arab leaders spoon-feed them in English.

Brig. Gen. Eival Gilady (chief of the Strategic Planning Division, Israel Ministry of Defense), Avi Dichter (head of the "Shabak" - the General Security Service), as well as a number of Knesset Members, admitted that all the warning signs were there to be read, but the army, the security services, and the politicians simply deluded themselves since they wanted peace so much. The PA'S incitement—on TV, radio, in mosques, schools, summer camps—to terrorism against Israelis should have sent up a red flag, especially as this was a violation of the Declaration of Principles. Israel's decision not to demand PA compliance with the terms of Oslo made the Oslo War almost inevitable. By refusing to read the signs that indicated that Arafat really had an alternative strategy, Israel must now pay in blood.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:55 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

April 01, 2003

More Arab Distortion

More Arab Distortion? Who really killed Rachel Corrie?

(Besides, what right had she to be there in the first place?)

By Judy Lash Balint

Jerusalem-The news that a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist, Shadi Sukiya, was
captured by an elite anti-terror unit of the Israel Defense Forces while hiding
out in the Jenin offices of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) did not
make a ripple in the flood of coverage from the Iraqi front last week.

Just eleven days earlier, the ISM did make world headlines when Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old ISM member, was run over by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah and died of her injuries.

Maybe the fact that a "peace" organization was found defending terrorists twice
in a two-week period will factor into the inquiry called by several Washington
state congressional representatives into the circumstances of Rachel Corrie's
death. But don't be surprised if the revelation that two Kalashnikovs and a
handgun were found along with a terrorist in the Jenin ISM office will hardly
feature in the search for the truth about Rachel Corrie.

Only one thing is certain about the circumstances surrounding the death of
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) protestor Rachel Corrie: she died in
Rafah, on the southern edge of the Gaza Strip.

But is Israel responsible for her death, or do the doctors at the Arab hospital
where she was taken still alive after the accident bear any responsibility?
What about the ISM that organizes protests in a closed military zone and harbors known terrorists in their field offices? How she died, exactly where she passed her last moments and who should take the blame for Rachel Corrie's death are questions that demand answers.

The congressional inquiry called for by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) will have to
sort it all out, but the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies raise
doubts about the simplistic conclusions already being drawn.

By all accounts, Rachel Corrie was one of a group of protestors attempting to
disrupt the work of two IDF bulldozers leveling ground to detonate explosives in
an area rife with terrorist activity. The bulldozers moved to a different area
to avoid the protestors, and Corrie became separated from the group. Some of
the agitators stood with a banner, while Corrie picked up a bullhorn and yelled
fruitlessly at the driver encased in the small cabin of the 'dozer. This went on
for several hours on the afternoon of March 16. It's the kind of activity
favored by the young pro-Palestinian types who make up the ISM.

There wasn't enough action for Corrie. According to a fellow Evergreen State
College student, Joseph Smith, 21, who was at the site, Corrie dropped her
bullhorn and sat down in front of one of the bulldozers. She fully expected
that the driver would stop just in front of her. "We were horribly surprised,"
Smith told me by phone from Rafah the day after the incident. "They had been
careful not to hurt us. They'd always stopped before," he said.

As the 'dozer plowed forward heaping up a pile of dirt and sand, Corrie
scrambled up the pile to sit on the top, screaming slogans at the driver. Smith
says she lost her footing as the bulldozer made the earth move beneath her feet.
"She got pulled down," he says. "The driver lost sight of her and continued
forward. Then, without lifting the blade he reversed and Rachel was underneath
the mid-section of the 'dozer-she wasn't run over by the tread."

Capt. Jacob Dellal of the IDF spokesperson's office confirms what Smith says
about the driver: he lost sight of Rachel. Inside the cab some 8' off the
ground, visibility is very restricted. The protestors should have known that
and kept within the driver's line of sight to avoid getting hurt, Dellal

The strange thing about this part of the story is the discrepancy over the
photos given to the press and posted on several pro-Arab websites.

As Smith describes to me his version of events, I ask about the series of photos
printed in an Arab newspaper I picked up that morning in Jerusalem's Old City.
"They aren't of the actual incident," he states firmly. "We'd been there for
three hours already, we were tired-we already had a lot of pictures."

Yet these are the pictures used on the ISM website, www.palsolidarity.org to
document the before and after of Rachel's interaction with the bulldozer. The
same pictures are featured as a photo-essay on the site of Electronic Intifada,
(http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml) where they're even attributed to Joseph Smith.

There are several shots of the back of a woman with a blond ponytail facing a
bulldozer. She's standing in an open field, wearing an orange fluorescent
jacket, and holding a megaphone. Even Michael Shaikh, the International Solidarity Movement media coordinator, won't confirm that these are pictures of Corrie taken the day she died.
"I'm fairly sure" they're of the incident, he tells me by phone from his Bethlehem office. In the same conversation, Shaikh asks me not to contact Joe, Greg or Tom, the Rafah ISM eyewitnesses again directly: "They're still in trauma."

The pictures should have raised all kinds of questions to photo editors, but all
the major newspapers and wire services chose to run the photos regardless. If
there are pictures of Rachel before and after, why didn't the same photographer
consider it important to document the act of the bulldozer running her down?

Where is the mound of earth Rachel clambered up and was buried in? The woman shown lying bleeding from her nose and mouth is lying on a flat piece of ground, and she's not covered in sand. So Corrie was either knocked down by the 'dozer, or fell in front of it. ISMers assume that she was intentionally run over, but there's no proof that was the driver's intent.

The real issue is was Rachel alive when she was taken by Palestinian Red
Crescent ambulance to Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital? In other words, where did she die? Were adequate efforts made to save her in the hospital?

Again, there are conflicting stories. Joseph Smith tells me in a telephone
interview the day after the tragedy, "She died in the hospital or on the way to
the hospital." CNN also reported that Rachel died there. ("Israeli bulldozer
runs over 23-year-old woman." CNN, Monday, March 17, 2003)

In his account posted on www.arabia.com, ISMer Tom Dale has a slightly different story. On March 17 he writes: "I ran for an ambulance, she was gasping and her face was covered in blood from a gash cutting her face from lip to cheek. She was showing signs of brain hemorrhaging. She died in the ambulance a few minutes later of massive internal injuries. "

But Dr. Ali Mussa, director of Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital where
Corrie was taken isn't so clear. On the day of the event, Dr. Mussa tells AP
Gaza reporter Ibrahim Barzak that Rachel died in the hospital. ("American Killed
in Gaza" AP. March 16, 2003)

One week later, in a telephone interview with me, Dr. Mussa states definitively
that Rachel died at the scene, "in the soil," as he puts it. "The main cause of
death was suffocation," Mussa asserts. There were no signs of life, no heartbeat
or pulse when she arrived at the hospital, he says. Mussa states that Rachel's
ribs were fractured, a fact determined by X-rays. (Is it normal procedure to
X-ray a dead body?)

Doesn't quite jive with the photo essay on the pages of the Electronic Intifada
website for March 16, 2003. (Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders
American peace activist by Nigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic
Intifada, 16 March 2003. http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml)

A caption under one photo of doctors leaning over a female patient reads:
"Rachel arrived in the Emergency Room at 5:05 P.M. and doctors scrambled to save her. By 5:20 P.M., she was gone. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that Dr. Ali Mussa, a doctor at Al Najar, stated that the cause of death was "skull and chest
fractures." Dr. Mussa told me he was one of the treating physicians-yet he
alone maintains that Rachel was dead before she was put into the ambulance. To
further complicate matters, on that same website, a report from the Palestine
Monitor is cited. Here, the writer says that Rachel fractured "both her arms,
legs and skull. She was transferred to hospital, where she later died."

Just who is Dr. Ali Mussa? Clearly a man in favor with the Palestine Authority
hierarchy. Dr. Mussa's views are aired on the official website of the PA's
Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation: (January 27, 2003)
There, Dr. Mussa accuses Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "terrorist government" of
"deliberately killing Palestinian children in Rafah."

A few days after the incident, ISM Media Coordinator Michael Shaikh tells me by
phone from Rafah that three ISMers, Tom, Alice and Greg were in the ambulance
with Rachel. "She died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital," says
Michael. But Greg Schnabel, 28, who is quoted in numerous wire service and
newspaper stories, never says he witnessed the death of his comrade in the
ambulance. In his account published a few days later on the ISM website, he
carefully states that she died twenty minutes after arriving at the hospital.

What happened to Rachel's body after her death? Depends who you ask. Dr. Mussa says it was kept for 24 hours at the hospital before a Red Crescent ambulance transported it "to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv," via the border where an Israeli ambulance took over. Michael Shaikh says "we lost track of it (her body) after she died." Three ISMers tried to escort the body, but only one was permitted on the ambulance on the Israeli side. According to his account, the ambulance drove straight to the Israeli Forensic Institute at Abu Kabir, where an autopsy was performed. "The Israelis are trying to say she died from a blow to the head by a rock," Shaikh recounts.

Speaking about the autopsy, one of Rachel's ISM trainers, Iowa native LeAnne
Clausen, a fieldworker for the Christian Peacemaker Team based in Beit Sahour,
tells me: "The general sentiment within ISM is that the Israelis are trying to
suggest perhaps Rachel was on drugs."

In reality, IDF spokesperson Dellal says that initial Israeli investigation
results indicate that the cause of death was most likely a blow to the head and
chest by a blunt object-possibly a chunk of cement dug up by the bulldozer.

In keeping with ISM sympathies, Rachel received a "shaheed" (martyr) procession in Rafah, the day after her death. But here again, there's confusion between reality and photo op. Some accounts noted that her coffin draped in an American flag was paraded through the streets. Yet a picture on the site of her college town's peace movement, the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace (www.omjp.org/rachelphotos.html) shows Arab women holding a coffin covered by a Palestinian flag with the caption: Palestinian funeral for Rachel.

Confusion and obfuscation seem to be a trademark of the ISM. Last May, a number of ISMers raced past Israeli soldiers into the Church of the Nativity in
Bethlehem, where dozens of Palestinian terrorists had holed up to evade capture
by the IDF outside. After an agreement was reached, the ISM members refused to leave the church, holding up the solution. Then they charged that they were
mistreated by clergy, who claimed the ISMers desecrated the church by smoking
and drinking alcohol.

Another revealing ISM action took place shortly before the Bethlehem incident,
when a number of protestors managed to make their way past IDF barricades into Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound to "protect" the terrorist leader.

Last week's Rafah activity falls into the same category of ISM defense of Arab
terrorists. IDF efforts in Rafah are concentrated on preventing the flow of
arms and explosives over the border from Egypt into the terrorist's dens that
riddle the area. Less than a week after Rachel died defending terrorists,
Israeli tanks moved into Rafah, surrounded several houses, and arrested two
Hamas members. IDF spokesperson, Dellal calls Rafah "the most dangerous area in the West Bank and Gaza, and decries the "provocative protests" of ISM. "There's nothing wrong with civil disobedience, but these people crossed the line of what was safe for everyone," Della says.

So, while the memorial services laud and remember Rachel Corrie as a "peace activist" "murdered by Israeli occupation forces," the truth lies elsewhere.

An Israeli bulldozer injured Corrie as she tried to prevent it doing its job of
protecting Israeli civilians, but she was alive when she was taken to An Najar
Hospital, according to at least three eyewitnesses. Only Dr. Mussa, a man intent
on accusing Israel of child killing, claims otherwise. None of Rachel's
comrades have stated they were with her in the hospital when she died.

The Corrie episode in Rafah may end up being ranked with the "murder" of
12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura by Israeli forces in a firefight at nearby Netzarim in September 2000. Months after the event, the official IDF inquiry and a German TV report revealed that there was little doubt that al-Dura was hit by
Palestinian fire. An independent French journalist, Gerard Huber, claims that
the entire incident was fabricated for press consumption. ('Contre-expertise d'
une mise en scene,' Editions Raphael, Paris).

And all the while, the ISM continues to encourage misguided young people like
Rachel Corrie from around the world to spend time in the Middle East providing
cover for terrorists. Bring on the inquiry.

Judy Lash Balint is a Jerusalem based writer and author of Jerusalem Diaries: In
Tense Times (Gefen) www.jerusalemdiaries.com.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:47 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack