July 31, 2003

President Bush speaks directly to Mahmoud Abbas

(Excerpted from Associated Press report by Barry Schweid, July 30, 2003)

In talks last week with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and then on Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the president put anti-terrorism first. This emphasis aligns him closely with Sharon, whose own campaign against Palestinian extremists has guided Israel's approach to peace-making and made concessions difficult for Abbas to extract. And Abbas, despite gaining approval from the White House as a moderate and a reformer, found Bush holding to a steady but slow course.

The president offered little help to the Palestinians, for instance, in rolling back Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Bush said he had spoken out constantly "for the need to end the settlements," but he said security was the central issue in the Palestinian-Israel dispute. Ending terror would mean, "More progress will be made on difficult issues," Bush said.
On another Palestinian demand, that Israel release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, Bush appears comfortable with the promised, limited release of 540 of them. "Surely nobody would want to let a cold-blooded killer out of prison. I would never ask anybody in any society to let a prisoner out who would then commit terrorist actions," Bush said.

Turning to Abbas, who stood at Bush's right hand in the sun baked White House Rose Garden, the president said: "I'm going to tell you point- blank that we must make sure that any terrorist activity is rooted out in order for us to be able to deal with these big issues."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:03 PM | Comments (72) | TrackBack

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay speaking in the Israeli Knesset July 30, 2003

(Redacted from part of his speech)

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your invitation and for that warm reception.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the citizens of Israel for their generous welcome and hospitality to my wife, Christine and me over the last three days.
I also look forward to sharing my experiences with President Bush, whose leadership and clarity make peace in the Middle East possible and victory in the war on terror inevitable.

In his comments yesterday, the president reaffirmed America's support for Israel's security and our commitment to fight "terrorism wherever it is found."
He made clear that the prospects for peace are the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. They must maintain sustained, targeted and effective operations to fight terror and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure

The solidarity between the United States and Israel is deeper than the various interests we share. It goes to the very nature of man, to the endowment of our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the universal solidarity of freedom. It transcends geography, culture and generations. It is the solidarity of all people — in all times — who dream of and sacrifice for liberty. It is the solidarity of Moses and Lincoln. Of Tiananmen Square and the Prague Spring. Of Andre Sakharov and Anne Frank.

And in its name I come to you — in the midst a great global conflict against evil — with a simple message: "Be Not Afraid." I do not say this as a foreigner, cavalier in my estimation of the dangers that surround you. Instead, I say it as an ally, in spite of the terrifying predators who threaten all free nations, especially Israel. My country is not ignorant, nor are we indifferent to your struggle.

We know our victory in the war on terror depends on Israel's survival. And we know Israel's survival depends on the willingness of free nations — especially our own — to stand by all endangered democracies in their time of need. We hear your voice cry out in the desert, and we will never leave your side. Because freedom and terrorism cannot coexist. Terrorism cannot be negotiated away or pacified. Terrorism will either destroy free nations, or free nations will destroy it.

Freedom and terrorism will struggle — good and evil — until the battle is resolved. These are the terms Providence has put before the United States, Israel and the rest of the civilized world. They are stark, and they are final. Israel's liberation from Palestinian terror is an essential component of that victory. And it's a liberation we are determined to secure — not merely a paper-thin cease-fire. False security is no security, and murderers who take 90-day vacations are still murderers. The violence must stop. An immediate and total end to Palestinian terrorism is not a concession the civilized world asks of the Palestinian Authority to advance the peace process. It is a prerequisite to the Palestinian Authority's invitation to it.

In the United States, we have two chambers in our national legislature: the House of Representatives, where I serve, and the Senate. But the voice of the people resides in the House. And one month ago, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution — which I was proud to co-author — that states unequivocally the position of that body. That resolution reads in part — "Whereas Israel has no choice but to use its own measures to fight terrorism if the Palestinians are unwilling to do so...Therefore be it resolved that the House of Representatives recognizes and respects Israel's right to fight terrorism and acknowledges Israel's fight against terrorism as part of the global war on terrorism."

This echoes years of continuous support for Israel in Congress, where we remain committed to Israel's strength, security, and qualitative military superiority. This war we fight — this war on terror the United States shares with free nations, like Israel, around the world — we fight for this reason: to establish and secure a community of nations safe to be free, and free to be prosperous.

As President Bush said: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." The war on terror is not a misunderstanding. It is not an opportunity for negotiation or dialogue. It's a battle between good and evil, between the Truth of liberty and The Lie of terror. We learned September 11th what Israelis have known for decades: that evil cannot long be ignored or accommodated. The common destiny of the United States and Israel is not an artificial alliance dictated by our leaders. It is a heartfelt friendship between the citizens of two democracies at war, bound by the solidarity of freedom.

Brothers and sisters of Israel: "Be not afraid." The American people stand with you, and so does our President. George W. Bush is a man of integrity and honesty. He is a man committed to the security of Israel and its destiny among the great nations of the earth.

One day, Israel — with the United States by her side — will live in freedom, security and peace. And terrorism will perish from the earth. But until that day to dawns, free men the world over — whether of the cross, the crescent, or the Star of David — will stand with Israel in defiance of evil. Free men will never succumb to the ease or expedience of The Lie because we will never forget that when fighting evil, determination is destiny.

May the God of Abraham continue to bless the United States, Israel, and each and every one of you.'

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 30, 2003

Avoiding Reality

Gen. (Reserve in Israel Defense Forces) Shmuel Arad, speaking with Arutz-7 Israeli TV/Radio Station, July 30, 2003 said:

"We (the Israelis) have become experts in closing our eyes to the reality (in order to accommodate President Bush and our own inadequacies). We have consistently ignored the PA violations, particularly in the areas of incitement and terrorism... We continue to settle for short-range quiet at the expense of dangers in the long-range.

We should take no Road Map steps at all until the Palestinian Authority disarms the terrorists according to their Road Map obligations - for after all, we know that this process will simply blow up, with the terrorists giving one excuse or another. The process is totally asymmetrical, and we're losing all the great achievements made by the army and GSS (Government Security Services) in the past 18-24 months, such as the thousands of terrorists arrested by IDF soldiers who risked their lives to do so. If the process continues to be asymmetrical, it will simply blow up."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Alert! For those interested in Weapons of Mass Destruction

Since President Bush decided to take action and eliminate some of our lethal enemies, the United Nations, the European Union and all the misguided peaceniks of the world have attempted to obstruct him in this vital task. The constant challenge to him has been, “where are the weapons of mass destruction?” Of course, never mind the necessity of eliminating these very same enemies for the simple reason that they make no secret of wanting to destroy us. Or, that they make no secret of wanting to eliminate our way of life and replacing it with all the good things of Islamic fundamentalism that we saw so ably administered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the imams of Iran and millions of other Islamic fundamentalist round the world.

As to the weapons of mass destruction, there is a man who has spent a great portion of his life tracking our enemies and the very weapons of mass destruction in question. His name is Gregory R.Copley, historian, author and strategic analyst and his web site is www.strategicstudies.org. Visit it for some well-hidden information.

Bill O’Reilly recently interviewed Mr. Copley and asked him why this vital information has not been made public. Mr. Copley gave O’Reilly a very straightforward answer – Then the American government would have to deal directly and forcefully with the Syrians, the Saudis, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Palestinian Arabs and fundamentalist Islam all over the world – a daunting task, indeed. Better to sweep it all under the carpet, ala Bill Clinton. I don’t think so.

Quoting Copley directly:

“…The WMD moved into Syria (and now supposedly sought by the American administration) were not buried, but are in a compound at Hsishi, at al-Qamishli (Kamishli) in Syria.

I would direct you to our open website, www.strategicstudies.org, where you will find, after you open the site, a link to 2003 Iraq War Special Reports. Click on to that. There are many reports which were transferred to this site from our restricted website. The October 28, 2002, report, in particular details the movement of WMD into Syria. That report (and all of the others, plus many more) did go into the US and other countries' intelligence communities.

Most of our work is not published openly, but our monthly journal, Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, is openly available by subscription.”

Gregory Copley,
President, International Strategic Studies Association

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:20 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 29, 2003





IN LAST week's Jewish Chronicle, my fellow-columnist Melanie Phillips addressed some fundamental issues relating to the public image of the state of Israel in Britain, and to the lamentable state of Israel's PR efforts. She was right to do so. But she also raised another issue, certainly more important in terms of the image of the Jewish state in the West — namely the nagging feeling, now (in my experience) expressed more openly than ever before in non-Jewish circles, that the re-creation of the Jewish state was itself a terrible mistake, and that, in the long term, this mistake must, somehow, be "rectified."

This is a phenomenon that we must now have the courage to confront. I've sometimes been reprimanded for speaking about the "re-creation" of the Jewish State. But that is precisely what happened in 1948. There was once a Jewish state. It was destroyed — "ethnically cleansed" in modern parlance — and we Jews were, for the most part, driven into exile.

Over the centuries, our religion served as a proxy for our national identity, so much so that, in the view of some, it replaced our national identity. But the idea that a set of religious dogmas and rituals can replace a national identity, entirely and for all time, is manifestly false. When the Nazis set out to destroy us, it was not merely or primarily our religion that they had in their sights. It was nothing less than the Jewish people that they wished to eradicate.

There were many Jews who went to the gas chambers protesting that they were not and never had been Jewish. It is said that the great historian Marc Bloch, when about to be shot by his Gestapo torturers in France in 1944, insisted that he was being executed merely as a resistance leader, not as a Jew. If he did say this, he was wrong. The non-practicing anti-Jewish Jews whom the Nazis executed en masse were destroyed because of their Jewish national identity, not their degree of religiosity or their politics.

Herzlian Zionism was opposed in certain Jewish circles precisely because it sought to re-create a Jewish national identity, to give that identity a political form, and to endow it with a territorial home. This programme struck fear into Jewish religious leaders of the right and left. On the right, Herzl was denounced because he was not a religious Jew. The fact that the Almighty had chosen an irreligious Jew as His instrument of national redemption was simply beyond the limited comprehension of most Orthodox rabbis a century ago — though not all, and I should add that the saintly Rabbi Wemer, Rov of the Machzike Hadass synagogue in London's East End, was a remarkable exception to this rule.

On the left, the Reform and Liberal leaderships were petrified that the political emancipation Jews had won in Europe would be jeopardised, and the right of asylum for persecuted Jews would be put at risk, if Jews dared to claim that they did indeed constitute a separate nation. German Jews had to demonstrate that they were more German than the Germans, British Jews that they were more British than the British, and so on. Above all, Jews had to show that, far from being "cosmopolitan," and "rootless," their roots lay in the enlightened countries in which they happened to find themselves. Nazism exposed — at a terrible price — this dangerously false set of assumptions.

I'm often asked why, if we Jews now have our nation-state restored to us, we do not all go there. Well, why should we? After all, the Irish now have their nation-state restored to them, but there are more Irish people and people of Irish extraction living in the "Diaspora" than in Eire.

The re-establishment of the Jewish state has, however, created some fresh problems. The first is that, although we were given back our nation-state, it was returned to us with a sitting tenant. We need to make it clear that although sitting tenants have rights, they are the rights of the tenant, not the rights of the landlord. The second problem is more complex. The re-creation of the Jewish state has given rise to profound theological turmoil in the Christian and Islamic worlds.

In the Islamic world — a world suffering from very considerable psychological problems originating in a perceived loss of status and power over the past 200-or-so years — the existence of a state ruled by Jews, with Jerusalem as its capital, is an anathema. In the Christian world — or, more accurately, a section of the Christian world — the existence of this state is regarded as a brazen affront and challenge to supposed Christian values.

I regard attempts to reconcile Islam to the re-created Jewish State as a complete waste of time. But there are, in Britain, today, and around the world, Christians whose attitude towards us, and our state, is much more positive because they see — as I do — in the re-creation of the Jewish state the fulfillment of a Divine promise. We must draw strength from and build upon such friendship.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:34 PM | Comments (53) | TrackBack

Abu Mazen mock's President Bush Requirement


NEW YORK- Mocking President Bush's requirement that the Palestinian
Arabs must have leaders who are "not compromised by terror," Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has again pledged his unswerving loyalty to arch-terrorist Yasir Arafat.

Abu Mazen, who co-founded the Fatah terrorist movement with Arafat and
served as his second-in-command for nearly 40 years, was chosen by Arafat to serve as prime minister in April of this year. In his first speech as prime minister, delivered before the Palestinian Legislative Council on April 29, 2003, Mazen turned to Arafat and said "This government, Mr. President, is your government."

In an interview with the Washington Post & Newsweek (July 27, 2003),
Mazen was asked: "Does Arafat have to approve the actions that you take?" Abu Mazen replied: "All the actions, all the actions. He is the leader of the Palestinian people."

The interviewer then asked: "People are hoping you can be an independent actor." Abu Mazen replied: "No, I cannot be independent. I am part of the authority."

To emphasize the point, the PA's official Palestine Media Center issued
a statement on July 27, 2003, headlined: "Arafat 'Is the Leader of the
Palestinian People,' PM Abbas Confirms," and then quoted from his
Washington Post/Newsweek interview.

President Bush, in his June 24, 2002 Mideast speech, called on the
Palestinians to "elect new leaders, not compromised by terror." Likewise, the Road Map plan stipulates that the Palestinians must "have a leadership acting decisively
against terror."

Morton A. Klein National President of the Zionist Organization of
America (ZOA), said: "The Bush administration acknowledges that Arafat is a terrorist and refuses to have any dealings with him. Abu Mazen's pledges of loyalty to Arafat demonstrate that he, too, is still a terrorist. He does not qualify as the kind of non-terrorist leader that President Bush has demanded. He is no more worthy of U.S. support than Saddam Hussein's second-in-command."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:07 AM | Comments (63) | TrackBack

July 28, 2003

Bush bushwhacks Daniel Pipes and the American People

By Caroline Glick – International Jerusalem Post

Wednesday, the US Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee postponed indefinitely its vote on the White House's nomination of Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes to the board of directors of the federally mandated and financed United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC. The Senate committee's tabling of the nomination of a scholar to a think tank is in itself a small story. After all, it can be argued, no lives are at stake, and no government contracts large or small hang in the balance.

If it so desired, the White House could override the Senate's inaction by appointing Pipes to the think tank's board while Congress is in summer recess. This would not be unprecedented. President Clinton side-stepped the Senate on a number of occasions during such recesses when he appointed ambassadors and federal judges who would otherwise have had their appointments buried in the Senate. And yet, the White House is not expected to act in this manner. Rather, it is expected to disengage and essentially allow Pipes' nomination to wither on the vine.

Pipes, a renowned scholar of Islam and the Arab world who heads the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, is the bane of the existence of Arab-American terrorism apologists and radically anti-American Middle East scholars. These detractors understand the importance of Pipes' unapologetic and intellectually-anchored attacks on radical Islam and the threat such radicalism manifests both to Islam itself and to the US.

These terrorism apologists, heavily concentrated in high-profile organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Council on Public Affairs, and the Middle East Studies Association among others, launched an intellectual and public relations war against Pipes years ago. This war was intensified after the 9/11 attacks when millions of Americans woke up to the stark reality of the malignant force of radical Islam on US national security.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Pipes, who had been warning of this threat for over a decade, suddenly rose to national prominence. Pipes's detractors rarely debate the actual issues that he raises. Rather, they ignore the inarguable substance of his claims and seek to smear his reputation by resorting to the gutter tactic of launching an unrelenting stream of ad hominem accusations of bigotry and war mongering against him.

In nominating Pipes to the previously obscure US Institute of Peace, the White House was making an important statement. It was saying that it recognizes that in the war on terrorism, no less than in the Cold War, the intellectual foundations and rationales guiding the war effort are in many respects as important, if not more important for eventual victory, than the military battles. If the US is not able to intellectually discredit its enemies then it will not long sustain the will to fight them on the military battlefield.

In backing away from Pipes's nomination when it found itself exposed to baseless Muslim allegations of racism, the Bush administration is following the pattern of policy inconsistency that has marked its path since it entered office. Writing this week of this inconsistency as it relates to the president's domestic agenda, commentator George Will argued that "the administration's principal objective may be to avoid fights about cultural questions."

As if to prove the salience of this inconsistency, last week, The New York Sun published an article about a new advisory group formed by the State Department at the beginning of the month to guide US public diplomacy towards the Arab and Muslim world. The group, which is charged with recommending policy initiatives, "will report its findings and recommendations to the president, the Congress, and the secretary of state." Given its mandate, it should be noted, this new panel is infinitely more influential on US policy than the board of directors of the Institute of Peace.

Disturbingly, the group's members share none of Bush's expressed commitment to bringing freedom to the Arab world but rather have argued for years that Israel is to blame for the instability in the Arab world and the terrorism that emanates from it. The group's chairman, former ambassador to Syria Edward Djerejian, has for over a decade been a firm advocate of appeasing Arab dictatorships, generally at Israel's expense. Djerejian has often issued public apologetics for Arab rejectionism and for Palestinian terrorism, which he claims are a result of Israeli foot-dragging in negotiations. With Secretary of State Colin Powell's approval, Djerejian appointed as members of his group people like John Zogby, Shibley Telhami, and Stephen Cohen who have distinguished themselves as some of Israel's harshest critics among American intellectuals and consistent foes of those who propose democratization of the Arab world.

So, as the White House backs away from Pipes's appointment rather than contend with the political outcry from terror apologists masquerading as civil rights activists, the State Department announces the formation of a policy group filled with appeasement of tyranny specialists masquerading as public diplomacy experts.

But does any of this really matter? In the vast scheme of things, what is the importance of a board of directors here or an advisory group there? Perhaps all that stands in the balance here is a highbrow intellectual debate.
Unfortunately, this is far from the case.

The question of the nature of the war the US is fighting is critical to determining whether or not the US is adopting strategies capable of winning the war. The intellectual split between Pipes and Djerejian and the policies their views prescribe could not be starker. Pipes and his intellectual allies view the war as a cultural battle which pits Arab fascists and Islamic totalitarians against their own people as well as against Western democracies. Djerejian and his fellows view the war as a conflict between helpless and pitiable masses led (happily) by exotic and oil-rich Arab leaders and what they perceive as Western imperialism best manifested in Israel.

In Pipes's formulation of the struggle, the US must be firm and unapologetic in its war against these regimes and their guiding ideologies. In Djerejian's view, the war will end when the US sacrifices Israel and in so doing shows the desert sheikhs and their wretched masses that the US has nothing against them. The view adopted by the White House of the nature of the war then has enormous implications for the strategies adopted in fighting it.

As if on cue to show the consequences of Djerejian's approach, this week Newsweek published an article that exposed an apparent Bush administration cover-up of suspected Saudi governmental collusion with the 9/11 terrorists. Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi agent, met with two of the hijackers in 2000 right after he left the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles. He paid their apartment rent for two months and is suspected of having arranged for them to receive Social Security cards and flight training in Florida. The administration is currently insisting that 29 pages of Congress's 900-page report on intelligence failures that preceded the 9/11 attacks be expunged. These 29 pages deal with Saudi involvement in the attacks. Powell, Djerjian's political patron and close friend, is one of the administration officials most associated with the Bush administration's policy of backing the Saudi government.

The backing continues unabated in spite of the fact that Saudi citizens have provided al-Qaida with the bulk of its funding and soldiers.
As well, Powell and his associates have succeeded in convincing Bush to reverse his policies regarding the Palestinian Authority. Whereas a year ago, Bush conditioned US support for Palestinian statehood on the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership "untainted by terrorism" and on Palestinian democracy, today Bush is meeting with Arafat's deputy of 40 years in the Oval Office. Mahmoud Abbas, the Bush administration's new great white hope for Palestine, has consistently stated that he will not dismantle terrorist organizations. Rather than disavow his leadership in light of his intransigence and extremism, the administration follows in the footsteps of the previous two administrations. Bush embraces this Palestinian thug and his corrupt and terrorist cronies and does so while pressuring Israel, a key and stalwart US ally, to make dangerous concessions to terrorism. Israel is today being pressured to withdraw its troops from Palestinian cities and release murderers from jail in the empty-headed hope that doing so will magically transform Abbas from a terrorist to a peacemaker.

In contrast, in Iraq, where Pipes's belief that tyranny must be defeated has been adopted as policy, the US is making progress in establishing the foundations of democracy and political stability in a land where such notions have never been allowed to take root. This successful, robust, and deeply moral policy was over the past decade firmly and publicly opposed by the members of Powell's advisory group as well as by Powell himself.

As Democrats and Europeans yammer vacuously about the fact that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found, they not surprisingly ignore the real weakness of the Bush administration's strategy of fighting the war on terrorism. The most damaging aspect of the administration's policy is that it is weakening its chance of winning the war by refusing to consistently apply the proper intellectual foundations of the war to its policies.

The longer the Saudi government is allowed to infect the Arab and Islamic world with its totalitarian message and money, the longer US national security will remain at risk. The longer the Palestinians are rewarded for their terrorist war, the longer they and their sponsors will serve as a source of instability and chaos in the region.

The Senate's tabling of Pipes's nomination is a small yet vital test of the administration's resolve. Unfortunately it seems that the administration is intent on failing this test.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Palestinian Arab War Tactics

(Redacted from an article by Cynthia Ozick, The Wall Street Journal, July, 2003)

…The most ingeniously barbarous Palestinian societal invention, surpassing any other in imaginative novelty, is the recruiting of children to blow themselves up with the aim of destroying as many Jews as possible in the most crowded sites accessible. These are not so much acts of anti-history as they are, remarkably, instances of anti-instinct. The drive to live is inherent: The very mite crawling on this sheet as I write hastens to flee the point of my pen. The child who has been taught to die and to kill from kindergarten on via song and slogan in praise of bloodletting represents an inconceivable cultural ideal.

And it is a cultural grotesquerie that Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantissi, a pediatrician entrusted by his vocation with the healing of children, is, in fact, a major recruiter of young suicide bombers. (When his wife was asked by a neighbor why her husband did not outfit his own teenage son in a bomber's vest, the good doctor instantly sent the boy abroad.)

Confronted by this orgiastic deluge of fanaticism and death, there are some who would apply the term psychopathological. But it is metaphysics, not Freud that is at stake: The life force traduced, cultism raised to a "sinister spiritualism — not because the "martyrs" are said to earn paradise, but because extraordinary transformations of humane understanding are hounded into being.

A Palestinian ethos of figment and fantasy has successfully infiltrated the West,
particularly among intellectuals, who arc always seduced by novelty. We live now with an anti-history wherein cause and effect are reversed. Protection against attack is equated with the brutality of attack. Existential issues are demoted or ignored — "cycle of violence" obfuscations all zealously embraced by the State Department and the European Union.

The road map permits no contradiction to the Palestinians' emerging nationhood. But if it is teachings and usages that characterize a nation, then what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches out of Bethlehem to be born?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 25, 2003

The Supposed Arab Vote

By Jerome S. Kaufman

According to an article in the Detroit News, both political parties, including the President of the United States are coming to Michigan intent upon obtaining the Arab vote in this area. Of course, every vote and every ethnic group is important – either because of their numbers or the amount of funds they contribute to the political party.

Evidently, some of the political strategists mentioned have been mislead by notoriously inflated numbers as to the number of Arabs there are in the country and specifically in the Metro Detroit area. Larry Witham in the Washington Times reported on the results of an independent, extremely reliable survey conducted by the Religious Congregations and Membership of 2000. The every-decade survey, a project since 1966 of the Glenmary Home Missioners, a Catholic organization in Cincinnati, is considered the most reliable database on religious affiliation at the county level. Its findings were based on the number of Muslims affiliated with America’s more than 1000 mosques. The number came to 1.6 million, far below the estimates of 7 million put out by Islamic groups.

Understandably, the pro-Arab Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took great exception to these numbers since their supposed political influence would wane accordingly. In fact, Mr. Witham reported that other national surveys have also argued that the U.S. Muslim population is below 2 million.

In Dearborn Michigan there was a similar problem with a serious inflation of numbers. The Detroit Free Press in May 2001 reported on an Arab American, Abed Hammoud possibly running for Mayor of Dearborn – the area where we have been told repeated that is the home to 200-300,000 Arabs. The article surprisingly reported that the area has approximately 59,000 Arab residents and only 17% are registered voters. That comes down to about 10,000 votes if they all showed up!

Finally, there is the question of the authenticity of polls. Has the pollster a political agenda of his own. Zogby International polling mentioned in the News article estimates 450,000 Arabs live in Michigan and that 150,000 – 160,000 are registered voters. John Zogby, who runs Zogby International, also happens to be the brother of James Zogby, the most well known Arab propagandist in the United States. Furthermore, the results of John Zogby’s polls relative to Arab Americans and issues that affect them have been questioned in the past. It would seem only prudent to have less politically attached pollsters run surveys before various politicians run to Michigan to start making ill-advised promises to a non-existent plurality.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:09 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 24, 2003

Being a Jew – A “High-Risk” undertaking

By Rabbi Shlomo Riskin commenting upon the Torah portion of the week: Numbers 30:2-36:1 International Jerusalem Post July 25, 2003

One of the most agonizing conversations I've ever had was with an American immigrant whose 12-year-old daughter had just been murdered by terrorists. When I arrived at the home of the bereaved, I found the mother lying in a fetal position, obviously in mute shock. At length she acknowledged my presence, and said: "You know what frightens me the most, what fills me with such unspeakable guilt that I can't even begin to function? My mother is on her way here from New York, and I know she'll blame me; after all, she warned me all along not to place my children at risk in such a dangerous country!"

All of us with children and grandchildren in Israel - where our homes, our schools, the shopping centers and the roads have been turned into front lines - must live with the same risks. Are we doing the right thing? I believe the answer can be found in a reading between the lines of a thrice-repeated dialogue found in this week's portion. Chapter 32 of the Book of Numbers - 42 verses long – deals with a request by the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half the tribe of Menashe to remain on the eastern side of the Jordan River, which had excellent grazing fields for their cattle.

(Please note that G-d had given the Jews the land on both sides of the Jordan River. In modern terminology that would, of course, include the sacrilegiously called West Bank, known by true historians as Judea and Samaria, plus all of what is now Jordan. This territory was later the same area that was conquered by King Solomon and was the extent of later biblical Israel)

Since this would seemingly exempt them from the obligation to join in the major battles with the seven indigenous nations for the heartland of Israel, Moses castigates them: "Will your brethren go out to war while you remain here?" he challenges (Numbers 32:6). The tribes that want to remain in Trans-Jordan modify their request: "We will build sheep fences for our cattle here and dues for our children. And we will be in the vanguard of the children of Israel... We will not return to our own homes [in Trans-Jordan] until every member of the children of Israel inherits his land" (Numbers 32:16-19). Seemingly, they respond to Moses' charge and agree to participate in the war before inhabiting the Trans- Jordan. Nevertheless, it requires two more dialogues between Moses and the tribesmen before the great leader is satisfied (Numbers 32:20-27,28-32).

Why so many conversations? What did Moses find disturbing after they had already agreed to fight? A careful reading of the text indicates three remaining problems:

Reuven and Gad had based the request on their desire to "build sheep fences for our cattle here and dues for our children." Moses corrects their priorities, telling them that as long as they participate in the war, they may "build cities for your children and fences for your sheep" (Numbers 32:24). He is gently but undeniably chiding them for putting their cattle before their children; our children must be our prize possession, concern for them must come before concern for material wealth or livestock. They leam their lesson, and respond – in this second dialogue - "Our children, our wives, our cattle and our animals will remain there, in the cities of the Gilad" (Numbers 32:25).

In a similar vein, Reuven and Gad agree to be "pioneer warriors in front of the children of Israel." Once again, Moses deems it necessary to correct their language, understanding that phraseology reflects philosophy: "And Moses said to them, if you will do this thing, if you will be pioneers in front of God in the war" (Numbers 32:20) - the battle is to be fought in front of, and for the sake of, God, rather than in front of and for the sake of the children of Israel.

The importance of the land of Israel is not merely in providing material sustenance and protection for the nation of Israel; the importance of the land is to provide a model society for the world, based on ethical monotheism; it is a battle fought - first and foremost – by and for God. And here again the Israelites "get the message;" in the second dialogue, they declare: "And every pioneer among your servants shall pass in the army before God to wage war, just as my master has spoken" (Numbers 32:27).

However, from Moses' perspective, one point of contention remains; Reuven and Gad still expected to first deposit their children and cattle safely in Trans-Jordan, and only then go out to do battle with the rest of the Israelites (Numbers 32:26,27). Here, they are making a policy decision: the children's lives are not to be placed at risk. Moses must then open a third dialogue, in which he once again establishes the only acceptable order: first you must fight, and only then can you together with your children and your possessions - settle in TransJordan (Numbers 32:29,30).

The tribes finally acquiesce, declaring, "we will pass over as pioneers [warriors] before God into the land of Canaan, and with us will be the possession of our inheritance [our children and cattle] from the other side of the Jordan" (Numbers 32:32). The children must share in the danger - together with the rest of the Jewish people.

The Torah is here teaching a critical lesson to all subsequent generations - including our own. To be a Jew means is to belong to a "high-risk" profession; there are certain values for which you must be willing to sacrifice your lives, and even the lives of your children. Indeed, we learn from the binding of Isaac the great paradox of Jewish history: only if you are willing to place our future at risk for the sake of God, His Torah and His people, will you be worthy of having a future.

Shabbat Shalom

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:49 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

Why the Palestinian Arabs Are Winning the Media War

Redacted from an interview with David Bedein Hasbara, Jerusalem-based Israel Resource News Agency,

Why do you believe that the Palestinians have been doing a better job than the Israelis on the public relations front"?

Palestinian media professionals have no qualms about deceiving the media for political advantage. There are hundreds of examples. In their attempt to convince the world that the IDF massacred hundreds of civilians in the Jenin refugee camp during Operation Defensive Shield, they used animal carcasses to fill the air with the stench of rotting flesh in places where reporters and UN officials were likely to visit. The IDF caught that ploy on video, as they did a staged funeral in which "the body" jumped out of the coffin and ran for cover when an Israeli surveillance plane flew over the site.

The Palestinians have an excellent track record in manipulating images that appear in the world media. They achieved an enormous propaganda windfall at the beginning of the second intifada, when a Palestinian film crew working for a French television network recorded the shooting of eleven-year-old Mohammed al-Dura as his father tried in vain to shield him during a battle at a road junction near Gaza. The video, edited to portray the IDF as heartless child killers, fit the Palestinian story line perfectly. A thorough IDF investigation, which was issued three weeks after the incident and confirmed by a German TV crew, showed that the bullets fired at the boy had come from the direction of Palestinian gunmen who had attacked an Israeli guard post. But the world had "witnessed" the shooting of al-Dura, as the media scripted it--an atrocity committed by Israeli troops--and the damage could not be undone.

i>How do Palestinian P.R. professionals get their training today, and who funds it?

The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) provides courses and more than thirty how-to manuals on public relations, media relations, fundraising, communications, lobbying, and public speaking. PASSIA trains Palestinian academics who will be teaching abroad on how to promote their cause on university campuses; in addition, Palestinians in the U.S. are taught how to seek out the Arab constituencies in each congressional district and how to lobby members of Congress for political and financial support of the Palestinian cause. And who picks up the tab for PASSIA? The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a program of the U.S. State Department, grants PASSIA and eighteen other Palestinian media relations firms in Jerusalem more than $1 million annually. It was only this past March, after a U.S. House International Relations Committee staffer discovered that USAID was providing allocations for Palestinian media relations, that members of Congress became aware of this aid. A surprised Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) looked at PASSIA's advocacy manual and said incredulously: "Here we are in Congress paying them to lobby us."

The major Palestinian media organization, known as the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC), is heavily subsidized by the European Union and the Ford Foundation. Headed by Dr. Ghassan Khatib, a close associate of Yasser Arafat, JMCC provides the foreign media with topnotch professional services--affordable camera crews, translators, photographers, and transportation, as well as daily press bulletins, briefing papers, and people to interview.

The Israeli government provides the visiting press with bushels of bulletins, but leaves the provision of camera crews and translation services to the private sector. No Israeli TV crew can compete with the heavily subsidized JMCC, which essentially has cornered the market on media services for the foreign press. The foreign press is totally dependent on Palestinian technical support personnel, who have a strong influence on the narrative and images that appear in the Western media.

Do the Palestinians have a P.R. presence in Washington, DC?

Their man in Washington is Edward Abington, who served as U.S. consul in Jerusalem when USAID began to finance PASSIA in the '90s and is now registered as a paid foreign agent for the PLO in Washington. Abington coordinates information from JMCC, PASSIA, and other Palestinian information agencies and puts a moderate face on the Palestinian cause, which often means damage control. For example, each time one of Arafat's militias takes credit for a terror attack, Abington's office quickly issues a statement to the media denying Arafat's involvement..

Abington also provides the press and the U.S. government with "translations" of Arafat's speeches. On May 15, 2002, Arafat delivered a speech to the Palestine Legislative Council in which he compared the Oslo accords to the ten-year peace treaty between Mohammed and the Jewish tribe of Qureish, a treaty the founder of Islam tore up two years later, when his forces had the power to slaughter the Jewish tribe. This portion was edited out of the copy sent to President Bush.

Are Palestinian medical and relief organizations involved in the "media war"?

Yes, the so-called Palestinian human rights organizations, the Union of Palestine Medical Relief Committees (UPMRC), run by Dr. Mustafa Al-Bargouti (brother of jailed Fatah Tanzim leader Marwan Al-Bargouti), coordinates its strategies with Dr. Fatchi Arafat's Palestinian Red Crescent Society in disseminating wild reports of Israeli medical neglect and torture of Palestinians. There have also been numerous incidents in which false information issued by UPMRC sources has been picked up by U.S. media.
How is the UPMRC funded?

It receives $300,000 annually from the United States for P.R. And Dr. Arafat's Palestinian Red Crescent Society receives $215,000 a year in U.S. assistance. Both agencies are on the list of the fifty-nine non-government Palestinian organizations that have shared $100 million in U.S. aid since 1997.

Do you believe the United Nations plays a role in advancing the Palestinian P.R. agenda?

Definitely. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) maintains a professional media relations department and a news service called the UNRWA television network, both based in the Ain el- Helweh UNRWA refugee camp in Lebanon. UNRWA cooperates with the media services of the PLO and the Palestine Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) to provide the visiting press with information and services. Its literature focuses largely on the plight of the refugees who are being housed in camps until they can "return to their homeland"--

The UN's agenda is to present the Palestinian Arabs as victims. In Witness to History: The Plight of the Palestinian Refugees, one of several primers distributed by UNRWA and published by MIFTAH, the Palestinian media agency run by well-known Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi and commissioned by the Canadian government, the UN asserts, on page 13, that all "refugees and their descendants have a right to compensation and repatriation to their original homes and land...."

How do the Palestinians and Israelis different in their methods of media relations?

Professionally trained and disciplined Palestinian spokespeople usually present themselves as a ragtag bunch of amateurs. They meet Western reporters in modest Jerusalem or Ramallah hotels or against the backdrop of refugee camps. This tactic has been very successful in reinforcing the stereotype of their side as the aggrieved underdog. An interview with a Palestinian in an alleyway with burning tires and bullets flying overhead captures the imagination of editorswho place a premium on entertainment value--the human drama unfolding.

In contrast, when foreign correspondents meet with Israeli officials, they are often greeted by slick government spokespeople at fancy hotels, state-of-the-art media centers, or modern offices. Israeli spokespeople labor under three false notions: first, that formal, professionally packaged P.R. is persuasive; second, that lengthy explanations of the history of the conflict will be more effective than sound bytes in convincing the public of the rightness of their cause; and third, that the moral correctness of their action and cause is self-evident to any rational, fair-minded human being. Along these lines, Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres once said: "Good policies are good P.R.; they speak for themselves." Unfortunately, Peres was wrong. A lie can be more powerful than the truth, if you market your lie well enough for people to believe it.

In contrast to the seemingly uncoordinated messages coming from Israel, spokespeople of the autocratic Palestinian Authority adhere to a party line with practiced discipline, simply reciting the standard litany of complaints about their "oppression," the "occupation," "human rights abuses," "racism," etc.

PA rarely engages in confrontation with the foreign press. A rare exception occurred in October 2002 when two IDF soldiers were lynched in the Ramallah police station. The gruesome scene was captured by an Italian TV crew and sent abroad without going through PA censors. The PA demanded an apology and a promise never to do it again--or lose permission to cover Palestinian territory. The Italians said mea culpa and promised never again to embarrass their hosts. We asked our staffer to fly to Rome to interview this Italian crew, who told us, on the record, how they had been browbeaten by PA security officials into providing a letter of apology.

Do you believe that many Western journalists harbor an anti-Israel bias, or are there other factors which work in favor of the Palestinian point of view?

I agree with the assessment of Dr. Mike Cohen, a Jerusalem-based strategic communications analyst and IDF reserve officer, who says that most foreign journalists are not inherently anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or pro-Palestinian. They are, however, easily swayed by Palestinian manipulation, which relies on the reporters' and editors' lack of background knowledge, combined with the lack of time and desire to take a deep look at the facts. Another factor is the fear of losing access to Palestinian sources and logistical support if their stories are perceived as hostile. Moreover, non-Palestinian reporters are deliberately impeded and intimidated when trying to cover news that may embarrass the PA. I know of several foreign journalists who had reported incidents of Palestinian incitement and were thereafter barred from PA briefings.

Are there dissenting Palestinian voices in the Palestinian media?

One rarely hears a dissenting voice among the Palestinians because anyone who publicly criticizes the PA can be imprisoned or even executed. The foreign media is told, and dutifully reports, that the person in question was a "collaborator." A case in point: in early March 2002, BBC reported the execution of two Palestinians who had been accused by the PA of collaboration. When the BBC crew met with the families of the two victims, they discovered that both had a history of opposition to the PA and that both had openly criticized Arafat. The BBC correspondent told me that these were dissidents, not collaborators, but BBC World Service chose not to report the story.

In the final analysis, how important is the P.R. factor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Absolutely crucial. So long as Western journalists project an image of the PA as a defender of human rights and Israel as a brutal occupier, development funds from the United States and the European Union will continue to flow into the PA's coffers with little public protest about some of that money being used to bankroll the intifada, including suicide bombers, as documents seized from Arafat's office during Operation Defensive Shield prove. So long as Palestinian P.R. professionals continue to dictate the story line to the media, Israelis will continue to be portrayed as the villains and the Palestinians the victims. It's time to change the script.

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661 E-mail: freemanlist@aol.com for complete interview. ====================================

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:48 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 23, 2003

Heartbeat Away from Jihad Nukes

(Redacted from an article by Arnaud De Borchgrave, The Washington Times July 27, 2003)

While Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was in the U.S. last month to reassure his interlocutors about his pro-American bona fides, his own chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Committee, Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan, said, at a public meeting, "America is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world and is conspiring against Muslim nations all over the world."

As the Army Chief of Staff, Mr. Musharraf outranks Gen. Aziz Khan. Backed as he is by other Islamist generals in the army, Gen. Aziz Khan must have felt sufficiently secure to, in effect, challenge the president for his pro-American policies. Clearly referring to his chief of army staff, Gen. Aziz Khan said politics should not be practiced while in "uniform." Sensing that Mr. Musharraf, with President Bush's financial sweetener, is looking for a way out of the Kashmir morass, he added that even with a solution to the long-running dispute, India and Pakistan could never be friends.

Following September 11, 2001,and the abrupt about-turn of Pakistan's foreign policy, when Mr. Musharraf— after hearing Mr. Bush telling him, "either you're with us or against us," — ditched Taliban in Afghanistan and backed me U.S. unconditionally, Gen. Aziz Khan and his following, among politico-extremist groups, became security risks. So, Mr. Musharraf kicked him upstairs where he was neutralized. At least so Mr. Musharraf thought. Khan has used his ceremonial job —and loyal following among field-grade officers in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) -to organize army opposition to Mr. Musharraf.

This demonstrates yet again that Pakistan is still a heartbeat away from becoming the world's first Islamist nuclear power. Pakistan's arsenal is variously estimated at between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons.

Mr. Musharraf has survived at least six assassination plots. His support for the U.S. war against terrorism is unpopular in many segments of society. Some 500 al Qaeda suspects have been arrested in Pakistan and most have been handed to the U.S., according to the government. Mr. Musharraf also put the squeeze on the army's support for the anti-Indian guerrillas in Kashmir. For Pakistan, they're "freedom fighters"; for the Islamist clergy, "jihadis (holy warriors); and for India, "terrorists." Fact is many of them are terrorists who were trained in al Qaeda's Afghan camps. They switched to the Kashmir front after Taliban's defeat in November 2001. ISI organized their transfer from Afghanistan to Kashmir. Kashmir is the Pakistan army's principal raison d'etre, as a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. put it.
"Demonstrate that your support for the liberation of Kashmir is waning, and you automatically curry disfavor among senior officers," the ex-envoy explained. And Mr. Musharraf has done just that. Infiltrations from Pakistan-held Kashmir into the Indian side continue, but are much reduced.

Mr. Musharraf also is preparing his public opinion for Pakistan's recognition of Israel if the Bush peace plan becomes reality. "If Arab nations can recognize Israel, why not Pakistan?" he asked. By acquiescing to U.S. wishes and sending troops into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) for the first time since independence half a century ago, where they are not allowed to go by treaty commitment, Mr. Musharraf triggered much grumbling in the ranks.

Some tribal leaders in FATA-land have told government troops to butt out. They like Taliban and admire al Qaeda. The recent sectarian carnage in a Shi'ite mosque in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan, killed 50 and wounded more than 300, and was immediately exploited by another redoubtable Musharraf opponent. In a July 9 interview with Nawa-e-Waqt, anUrdu daily, retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief and now "strategic adviser" to politico-religious leaders, said: "America is directly involved in all terrorist attacks in Pakistan, including the Quetta bloodbath."

Gen. Gul's calcinatory rhetoric accused the U.S., India and Israel— the three arch-villains in the Islamist lexicon — of establishing "more than 20 base camps in Afghanistan from where these powers foment civil unrest in Pakistan. Their aim is to crush jihad."

The Pakistani president's fight to stay in power does not necessarily conjugate with America's war on terror. Broken so many times in the past, no one trusts U.S. pledges and promises. Mr. Musharraf can still dissolve parliament and declare martial law or call new elections. The billing and cooing between the two presidents at the Camp David Summit in June is already a faint warble in July.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:03 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

A Beautiful Story of the Jews and the Diamond Industry

(Or, as your bubba might say, "If the world deals you a lemon, make lemonade")

From the Web Site, TIME OUT 4 Israel

From Rags to Riches on the Shores of Netanya

by Michele Schaefer

The diamond-cutting industry in Palestine barely existed in the late 1930‘s. However, by the end of World War II, Palestine had become the largest diamond manufacturing center in the world. The story of this remarkable achievement is the story of the State of Israel itself, and therefore, is a tale of worldwide events, pioneering spirit, the ingenuity and determination of a few individuals, and, of course, traditional Jewish mazel (luck). Or in this case, "mazel und broche" (luck and blessing), the phrase which has concluded each and every deal made between diamond dealers throughout the world, from Tel Aviv to Tokyo, for almost as long as the industry has existed.

Jews were a dominant presence in the diamond industry for centuries prior to its establishment in Palestine. The story of how this came to be is the story of the Jewish people in the Diaspora. Diamonds were often referred to as the "trade of refugees", especially suited for those frequently on the move, for they could be easily pocketed, concealed on the body, and readily converted into money anywhere.

Furthermore, until recent times, diamond cutting and polishing required few tools beyond the skill of the craftsmen. Therefore, the business could be instantly established wherever they would resettle. For the Jews of Europe, this was particularly crucial, since they were repeatedly forced to flee from country after country, taking only what they could carry.

When Portugal established the first ocean route to India, which had been the single source of diamonds until the early eighteenth century, Jewish Sephardic merchants in Lisbon arranged for Indian diamonds to be brought back on each ship’s voyage. Lisbon quickly became the primary entry point of diamonds into Europe. Prior to that, camel caravans had brought Indian diamonds through the Ottoman Empire, where they were purchased by Jewish tradesmen who then resold them to Jewish merchants throughout Europe.

Following the expulsion of Jews from Spain and then Portugal during the Inquisition, many diamond merchants and skilled cutters settled in the Netherlands and Belgium, quickly making Amsterdam and, to a lesser extent, Antwerp, the primary diamond centers of Europe. A less favorable regulatory environment in the Netherlands ultimately shifted the balance in favor of Antwerp, which even today remains the key diamond center in Europe.
Jews played leading roles in the industry during the discovery of the Brazilian diamond mines in the mid-eighteenth century.

They also were involved during the discovery of the South African mines on the De Beers brothers’ farm in 1871, which ultimately led to the establishment of the famous De Beers conglomerate, first headed by Cecil Rhodes, and then by Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. Of German-Jewish descent, it was through Sir Ernest that the London-based De Beers would have, by the early twentieth century, created a worldwide monopoly not only over the production of diamonds, but also over their distribution. Oppenheimer’s family has retained control of the De Beers Corporation until today.

Among the trickle of new immigrants permitted into Palestine in the late 1930’s were two Jewish refugees dressed in rags, who disembarked at Haifa’s port. Given their impoverished state, one would have expected them to have meager, if any, possessions. Indeed, the refugees had virtually nothing, except for a small container of what looked like bits of broken translucent glass. These refugees were skilled diamond cutters from Antwerp. The bits of broken glass were, in fact, rough diamonds. In the long tradition of Jewish refugees, these were the only items of value they managed to take with them on their latest journey to a new land where they hoped to reestablish their trade.

The refugees eventually came into contact with Oved Ben Ami, the mayor of Netanya, and one of Palestine’s most energetic, creative entrepreneurs. Ben Ami would later go on to fund Israel’s newspaper Ma’ariv. He had been greatly involved in the development of Netanya from an unsettled marsh at its founding in 1928, to a small but growing city.

Ben Ami was always seeking new ways to promote Netanya‘s expansion, and after his encounter with the two refugees, he became convinced that diamond cutting was the ideal industry to establish there. He merely needed a supply of diamonds, and skilled diamond cutters! Undeterred, he set out to acquire these resources, and it was his determination more than anything else that enabled the potential for Israel to emerge as a leading diamond-cutting center to first take root.

At that time, British restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine were rigorously enforced. Ben Ami managed to persuade the High Commissioner’s Office to grant permission for sixty Belgian diamond cutters to come to Palestine, in excess of the immigration quota. He achieved this by stirring up British fears that the cutting experts, and the diamond trade in general, was at risk of falling into Nazi hands. This was not a far-fetched argument, given the very real possibility of Germany overrunning Belgium. Britain had a great interest in protecting the diamond trade, Ben Ami argued, since the industry, in the form of the London-based De Beers, was largely in British hands. Eventually the British granted him the entry permits.

Ben Ami next approached the formidable De Beers conglomerate directly. He himself flew to London in early 1940 to present his case to their representative, who at first dismissed the idea of supplying diamonds to remote, undeveloped Palestine as an absurd suggestion. Over some time, however, as a result of worsening conditions in Europe, appeals to De Beers' Jewish connections, and relentless pestering more than anything else, Ben Ami managed to acquire a small shipment of medium-grade, rough diamonds for Palestine.

Tragically, few of the sixty visas for Belgian diamond cutters were ever used. After concluding his business with De Beers, Ben Ami went to Antwerp to arrange for their immigration. However, only a handful were willing to leave Antwerp. Despite the Nazi threat, most preferred to remain in familiar, still-neutral Belgium than to travel to distant Palestine, which was also potentially threatened by the Axis. Ben Ami returned to Palestine in early May, 1940. On May 10, the Nazis invaded Belgium and the Netherlands. These two countries were under German control by the end of the month, and their diamond-cutting industry was indeed lost for the Allies.

The stock of rough stones Ben Ami acquired launched Palestine’s diamond-cutting industry on the shores of Netanya. Following the loss of the European cutting centers, De Beers continued to supply Palestine with a consignment of medium-quality diamonds. These stones, called melees, required more labor to process than better quality diamonds. But Palestine during that time had an abundance of cheap labor, so this was of little consequence. Furthermore, a new method of polishing was developed in Palestine during that period, called the "chain of six", which divided each job among six men, instead of employing a single master craftsman. This reduced the amount of time and skill required to produce a finished product, and, in melee stones, resulted in no noticeable difference in quality.

By the end of the war, fully 5,000 cutters had been trained in Palestine. De Beers had shipped rough diamonds there worth more than 100 million dollars. Antwerp attempted to reclaim the market following World War II, but the banks, the government, and business leaders of what, by then, had become the State of Israel, promoted the continued success of the industry. Israel subsequently became the world’s leader in production of melee stones.

As Israel's diamond industry grew, manufacturing centers were opened in many Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Safed and Nazareth. Israel’s Diamond Exchange, or “Bourse“, as it is known in the trade, was opened in 1968 in Ramat Gan, where business is conducted in the long-standing tradition of a verbal agreement and a handshake. In an industry filled with legendary figures, Israel has developed its share, including one Joseph Goldfinger who, it is claimed, was the role model for a character in one of Ian Fleming’s novels.

Polished diamonds were Israel's leading export industry during the early decades of the State and remain a major factor in its economy today. Polished diamonds contributed over 7.5 billion in exports in 2001. This probably even surpasses the visionary Oved Ben Ami's expectations of what was possible on the shores of Netanya. It is truly a tale of mazel und broche, and classic Israeli brawn.

Michel Schaefer is a Time Out 4 Israel reader who lives in Montreal.
© 2002-2003 im4israel. All Rights Reserved

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:26 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 22, 2003

From: Zen Golf - Mastering the Mental Game

By Dr. Joseph Parent

What with my golf game going to pot, I reached out in sheer desperation and bought a book on the mental aspects of the game. After reading the opening paragraph, quoted below, it dawned upon me that the recommendations listed applied to just about anything one might try to do!

Preparation is the first stage of the PAR Approach to playing better golf. The key factors in preparation are the three Cs: clarity, commitment and composure.

Clarity is having a vivid image of the shot you intend, both the target and the path the ball will take to get there.

Commitment is being free from second-guessing, doubt or hesitation.

Composure is being calm and focused, poised and at ease.

These are what you need to be properly prepared to play a shot. The material in the book progresses through these concepts, helping you make the three Cs part of your game. When you do, they'll add up to the most Important C of all - Confidence.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:21 PM | Comments (45) | TrackBack

July 21, 2003

How About an Honest Media Source? Not likely

From: The Washington Times, July 13, 2003 By Arnold Beichman

(BBC joins NY Times in Deliberate Lies)

The British Broadcasting Co., the BBC, in May premiered a four-part television documentary, titled the "Cambridge Spies." The film's episodes, each an hour long, purport to be the true story of the four British traitors, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald MacLean and Anthony Blunt. All four betrayed their country to Josef Stalin. The docudrama, which cost the British taxpayer $10 million, is a combination of lies and whitewash. So reports John Gross, the distinguished British critic in the June issue of the New Criterion.

His judgment is irrefutable. The miniseries has yet to be shown in the United States but undoubtedly some PBS station somewhere is negotiating with the BBC for the privilege of showing this film monstrosity in this country. The BBC depends on PBS' "Masterpiece Theater" to help meet the expenses on BBC productions. And if PBS does plan to show it, I would hope Russell Baker, the "Masterpiece" host, would in this instance decline the honor of introducing it. Actually, PBS should reject buying this miniseries, as it would reject a miniseries glorifying fascism or apartheid. The BBC has transformed treason on behalf of communism into an act of nobility.

American public television should not be complicit in BBC's conspiracy against decency. The most important count in the John Gross indictment is that the documentary gives "no idea of the nature of the regime which Philby and the others chose to serve." Why the cover-up? These so-called idealists were betraying their own democratic country to a Gulagian dictatorship headed by a mass murderer. Would BBC show a documentary about Nazi Germany and glorifying four British spies who sold out to the Nazis without indicating what the Hitler regime was like?
The docudrama portrays these traitors as loving innocents, misunderstood idealists "who were animated by their detestation of fascism," writes Mr. Gross. At some point in the film, one of the characters says, "To fight fascism, you have to be a communist." In other words, you couldn't trust the British government, the snobbish upper classes or the British Trades Union Congress to fight the fascist beast. You could only trust the Soviet Union, which, it will be recalled, signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, thus betraying the fight against fascism.

Two incidents in the so-called documentary are shown in order to underline why the Cambridge Four became communist spies. In one of them, a drink in the hand of Philby's Jewish girl friend is knocked over by some Cambridge right-wing lout who refuses to apologize for his fascist behavior. That never happened. In the other, right-wing undergraduates are shown beating up striking college waiters at Cambridge. C'mon now, how can you blame Philby for turning traitor? An even more dramatic incident that never happened shows a KGB plot to assassinate Generalissimo Francisco Franco that fails because Philby, writes Mr.Gross, "decent and humane fellow that he is, can't bring himself to pull the trigger." Mr. Gross calls these nonevents "fabrications." I prefer a simple word "lies."

How does BBC explain the inexplicable? Listen to Janet Tranter, the BBC executive who commissioned the miniseries: "It would be a very boring drama indeed if it didn't provoke a divided opinion. Otherwise, we are going to have a drama saying, 'What ho. These chaps are traitors and we hate them.' It is much more complicated than that. [...] We are trying to put their treachery into perspective."

Oleg Gordievsky, the former KGB colonel who spied for Britain while he was the KGB station chief in London, was commissioned by the London Daily Telegraph to vet the docu-drama. His conclusion was that the BBC film "resembled an official KGB textbook." He told the Telegraph, "The films present so distorted a version of the history they claim to portray that they do not tell the story of the Cambridge spies. What they portray is more akin to a piece of propaganda. In true KGB fashion, the programs treat the Cambridge spies as heroes. [...] Most of the dramati- cally powerful moments are not based on fact. They are fictional." In defending the BBC, a spokesman said, "the truth is elusive."

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institute research fellow, is a columnist for the Washington Times.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 20, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell Certifies Red Cross Efforts

(But, his certification is wrong!)

New York/Jewish Telegraph Agency, July 18, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell has certified that Israel's emergency relief agency is fully participating in the functions of the International Red Cross. Powell's designation allows the U.S. government to give $ 11 million in aid to the international movement. Last week's decision comes even though the Red Cross movement has not allowed Magen David Adorn to formally join because it does not utilize a cross or crescent as its emblem, and Arab groups have prevented the movement from accepting the star of David, (and this double standard directed against Israel is one of the main reasons the previous lady director of the American Red Cross resigned!).

Earlier this year, the Red Cross and Magen David Adorn agreed to international committee support for the Israeli agency in emergency medical preparation, disaster management and tracing of missing persons.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:27 PM | Comments (52) | TrackBack

Israeli Approach Misguided and Self-Defeating

(Redacted from an article in the Jerusalem Post International July 18, 2003)


Chief of General Staff Moshe Ya'alon was quoted earlier this month as saying that the cease-fire with the Palestinians and their renouncing of terror constitute an Israeli victory. This statement, however, is rash and inappropriate, since it is too early to conclude that terror has ended, and especially because the cease-fire with the Palestinians and their verbal renunciation of terror cannot add up to an Israeli victory - certainly not the decisive, unequivocal one that was needed.

Had Israel's objective in the "war of terror" forced upon us by the Palestinians been merely to make them recognize that they will never attain their national aspirations by terror, Ya'alon's statement would have made some sense - since it would have implied that the Palestinians recognize that they haven't yet succeeded in forcing the Israelis out of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, 'a la Hizbullah model in Lebanon, or in crumblingour “soft, hedonistic Israeli society”, as they wished. But if indeed that was Israel's objective, it was minimalistic to begin with. Such a goal, given our national security and the current state of the conflict, would be fundamentally erroneous. In any case, determining - even de facto - that the objective has been achieved by virtue only of preventing enemy gains, is a Pyrrhic victory.

Before clarifying what we mean by a Pyrrhic victory, let's define concepts of military victory. Victory is professed when the winning side achieves most or all of its strategic goals with minimum losses, while the losing side has not attained its goals and paid a heavy price to boot. Conversely, decisive victory refers to a much dearer strategic situation: the enemy has lost its ability, as well as its will, to fight. As an illustration: In boxing, victory is determined by points, while a decisive outcome ends in a knockout.

On the other hand, victory alone, in which the Palestinian Arabs have merely failed to achieve their goals, is insufficient. Furthermore, we haven't even won according to Ya'alon's version - at least not a full victory, since the Palestinians have certainly achieved a not insignificant number of their goals. A Palestinian state has never been such an acute issue, precisely when the Palestinians have initiated a heinous war of terror. The American administration, despite its longtime opposition to a Palestinian state, is now at the forefront of its supporters. Thus, the administration, whether blindly or innocently, is helping the instigators of regional and global terrorism, by which it contradicts its own hard-line policy of war on terror.

In addition, the Palestinians are immeasurably better off now than during the Oslo process. There, Yasser Arafat was barely designated "rafa" let alone "president," and the Oslo Accords made no mention whatsoever of a Palestinian cabinet Now, lo and behold, Abu Mazen is a bona fide prime minister of a pending state. In the Oslo process and afterwards, there was barely a "safe passage" from the West Bank to Gaza; today territorial continuity is touted even by Israel's prime minister.

Israel may be proud that the Oslo process is dead, but the road map we've adopted makes Oslo look like a tame kitten. One of its awful ironies is that Israel is called upon to end incitement against Palestinians, as if Israel were encouraging young people to commit suicide. It’s worth noting the words of S. Yizhar (who can't be accused of right-wing leanings) for stopping the epidemic of suicide bombers: "A society which encourages its young people to kill themselves sets itself outside the pale of humanity; there must be no dealings whatsoever with them, just as there are no dealings with cannibals (!)" Unless they are dealt a telling blow that spells their permanent defeat, they will resume the armed struggle whenever their demands are not met in full.

The hackneyed contention that peace is made with enemies deserves the retort that genuine peace is made with enemies who have been defeated, or who have completely changed their ways. Any other kind of peace is the beginning of the next war. We won't elaborate here on how to win decisively, but a required outcome entails exacting a political price from the Palestinians. It's not enough to deny them their goals: We have to make them lose what they have already gained. Nothing short of falling back to worse positions in every confrontation might teach them that terror and violence are truly pointless. And in reply to the trite claim that terror and an armed struggle for national aspirations can never be cowed by force, we can cite many examples of military victory over terror. And in reply to the trite claim that terror and an armed struggle for national aspirations can never be cowed by force, we can cite many examples of military victory over terror.

An instructive model of total military victory is Turkey, which stamped out terrorism and the battle for independence waged by the Kurds (PKK). Following some 15 years of bloody conflict, the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocelan was arrested and the movement declared in 2002 that it was disbanding to become a legitimate political organization.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers renounced their demand for independence in the same year, after a 20-year struggle, declaring they were content with autonomy. Spain would never dream of granting the Basques recognized as a terrorist organization by the European Union - independence despite ETA's 34 years of terrorism. The IRA in Northern Ireland has been wielding arms since 1969, until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 in which it was agreed that they would disarm, and more important, that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom.

Giant nations such as India in Kashmir, China in Tibet, and Russia in Chechnya are refusing to give up any territory despite violent terrorism. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt too have fought terror without giving in, and crushed the threat. In Europe and Japan urban-anarchist terrorism was quashed. These are only a few of the success stories of victory over terror; Israel, however, barely recognizes as "victory" our preventing the enemy from gaining its objectives.

It is false to claim that terror will always win out, and that those fighting for independence will eventually gain it. This claim doesn't hold water even conceptually, since it implies that terrorists have a winning strategy to begin with, and insinuates that the war on global terror being fought by the US is doomed to failure from the outset.

The writer, a retired brigadier general and former senior intelligence officer, is a strategic analyst.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:23 PM | Comments (145) | TrackBack

July 18, 2003

Song of Hate

By Robert A. Sklar, Editor, The Detroit Jewish News, July 18, 2003

Don't be duped. There are fewer suicide bombers now than there have been during 33 months of Palestinian terror. And President George W Bush seems to believe Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority's new prime minister, is sincere in trying to break the hold of terrorists despite his anti-Jewish past. But hard-core Palestinians loyal to Yasser Arafat, their president and a proven master of murder, still want to claim the Jewish state as theirs.

Palestinian children still learn that Jews are nothing more than evildoers blocking reclamation. This indoctrination to seek Death for Allah — Shahada — permeates conversation, textbooks and music videos. "The message has not yet changed," says Itamar Marcus, the no-nonsense director of the Jerusalem-based Palestinian Media Watch, "and this is what I think is most significant. Until we get a change in the message, until they teach that Israel is acceptable, then we are not going anywhere."

One of Israel's most astute and admired monitors of Palestinian culture and politics, Marcus warns us to watch the transparent, corrupt PA. leadership, which to the public means Abbas, but in reality means Arafat, a sworn Jew hater.
We'd better take heed.

Last week, the same day the Israel news media and world leaders sung the praises of Palestinians for removing graffiti from some walls within the disputed territories, the PA. Held school graduation and broadcast it on Palestinian TV. "The high school students were singing and dancing," Marcus says in a provocative interview broadcast on Israel TV on July 10, the day the PA ordered the Palestinian news media to stop incitement. The song they were dancing to? As Marcus relates, these were the words to the song playing in the background as parents, educators and a TV audience looked on:

With words and with a rifle we will sing. From Jerusalem to Gaza, Ramallah, Al Biro, Haifa, Jaffa and Ramla, there is no alternative even if they promise us the Garden of Eden. The sound of the submachine gun is heard. We will live and die only that our homeland should return to us. I am a Palestinian. My weapon is the stone and the knife.

Does that sound like a commencement ceremony Jews should applaud? It's foolish to think, even for a moment, that the mood on the street among Palestinians has changed. Sure, some Palestinians see through the blood-soaked cloaks of hate worn by Arafat and his henchmen. But they have no ability to rise up against those in power. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:19 PM | Comments (142) | TrackBack

Britain and Israel find common ground – IRA aiding Islamists in Terror

Prime Ministers Sharon and Blair find common ground

From: Arutz-7@IsraelNationalNews.com

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and British Prime Minister Tony Blair this week agreed to increase cooperation between the two countries, including the sharing of intelligence data. The agreement comes as Israel is seeing increasing signs of involvement of the IRA in attacks originating in the Palestinian Authority and as Islamist terrorists threaten both countries with attack. Each country will appoint two emissaries who will be responsible for the transfer of intelligence information. On behalf of Israel, Sharon has selected Dov Weisglass and his military secretary Maj.-Gen. Yoav Gallant for the assignment.

In Israel, meanwhile, the intelligence and military struggle against terrorism continues. Today (Friday), the commander of the IDF’s military police force issued an alert regarding the abduction of soldiers by terrorists. Acting on intelligence community warnings, military police have been placed on alert and soldiers have been instructed to be increasingly vigilant.

Following the successful release of kidnapped taxi driver Eliyahu Gur-El, and the capture of his abductors, IDF forces last night razed the Ramallah-area homes of two of the terrorists involved in the incident. A statement released by the Office of the IDF Spokesperson stated the homes were razed to send a clear message to terrorists, that there is a price to be paid for their actions. Also yesterday, several terrorists were apprehended in the Shomron and Gaza.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:31 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

July 17, 2003

Islam invades naïve American Educational System

From: American Textbook Council

(Please view their site for some frightening information as to how our children are being educated)

Islam and the Textbooks surveys content in seven widely adopted world history textbooks used across the country in grades seven through twelve. It reviews coverage of jihad, sharia, slavery, status of omen, and terrorism, comparing lesson content to prominent histories and recognized sources. It focuses on the high school textbooks adopted in Texas in 2002.

This review faults world history textbooks on one of the most complicated and important subjects teachers face in classrooms today, hat may seem on the surface to be a minor curriculum controversy as far-reaching implications for civic education and the promotion of American institutional values. Its main conclusions include: (1) world history textbooks hold Islam and other non-Western civilizations to different standards than those that apply to the West, (2) domestic educational activists, Muslim and non-Muslim, insist at once on harsh perspectives for the West while gilding the record of non-Western civilizations, (3) Islamic pressure groups and their allies seek to suppress critical analysis of Islam inside and outside classrooms, and distorted textbook content is one symptom of this phenomenon, and (4) publishers respond to pressure groups on account of political expediency and sales. As a result, they are giving American children and their teachers a misshapen view of the past and a false view of the future.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:07 PM | Comments (74) | TrackBack

July 16, 2003

3.9 Billion per month to sustain 145K U.S. troops to police Iraq!

U.S. total will stay steady until leaders can run country. (Good luck!)

Detroit News wire services, July 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — The U.S. force size in Iraq likely will remain at about 145,000 for "the foreseeable future," possibly scaled back only by several thousand as foreign troops, rotate in this summer, the war's top two commanders said Wednesday. The assessment was one of the most precise descriptions" so far of the U.S. military plan for postwar Iraq, where U.S. troops are dying at a rate of almost one a day in either hit-and-run raids or accidents.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and recently retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the military commander in Iraq, told a Senate panel that NATO is being consulted on possibly contributing troops. But they said U.S. forces would remain in Iraq in large numbers until Iraqis can police themselves and begin to install a stable government.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, said 1,044 American troops have been injured since the war in Iraq began March 20. Rumsfeld also said the United States expects to spend an average $3.9 billion per month on Iraq from January through September this year.

(I guess my wife is right. I am a one-trick pony. I read with chagrin the number of American boys being killed and the amount of money we are spending in trying to obtain a civilized society in Iraq. And I have no problem with the original need. Saddam Hussein had to be taken out. He was a threat to our own well-being. What are responsibilities are after that is another story. I do know that it is not our job to keep peace in the world all by ourselves. Such a project is impossible.

The number that really shocked me was the 3.9 Billion dollars a month that we are spending in Iraq. I think of the haters that criticize our aid to Israel. The amount is all of 2.7 billion per year and the biggest part of that comes back to the United States in mutually beneficial arms contracts and domestic purchases. This relatively small sum helps to sustain our staunchest ally in the Middle East. No American troops are ever required or demanded. No American lives are at risk. In the meantime, we are helping ourselves tremendously. We are maintaining a true military partner and a genuine representative democracy - the perfect example of what we are supposed to be trying to achieve all over the world. Sounds like a damn good deal to me)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Our Saudi Arabian “Allies?”

Dore Gold: "Saudi provides most of Hamas funding"

By Janine Zacharia Jul. 15, 2003 The Jerusalem Post

More than 50 percent of Hamas's current funding comes from Saudi Arabia and is increasing despite US President George W. Bush's call to the kingdom to halt aid to Palestinian terrorist groups, Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN and a researcher of terrorist financing, said Tuesday in Washington.

"The Saudi share of Hamas funding is growing, not declining. We're getting no change in Saudi behavior," Gold said at a roundtable on Saudi terrorist financing and September 11 organized by Reps. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-Florida), chair of the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, and Gary Ackerman (D-New York), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

Gold, author of "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism," said the percentages were according to an Israeli national assessment. Saudi Arabia, he said, continues to directly fund Hamas's military wing, provide funding for civilian, terrorist-front organizations, and writes checks to families of suicide bombers.

Gold said Saudi funding of Hamas would undermine any peace process the US
tries to push forward and called for the US and Israel to jointly "stop the channels" of funding by Saudi Arabia to terrorists.

President Bush repeatedly urged Saudi Arabia to stop funding Hamas during and after the early June summits in Egypt and Jordan. And phase one of the US-sponsored road map for a two-state solution calls for Arab states to "cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror." Last month, Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, denied accusations that the Saudi government systematically supports Palestinian terrorist groups.

"I hear reports constantly or charges about Saudi funding Hamas. We've said no, that's not the case. Could it be that some Saudi individuals are funding Hamas? Very likely. Hamas raises a lot of money in the United States. But in terms of as a government or a policy, we have taken a position that we condemn terrorism in all its forms, and regardless of where it occurs, and we do not fund terrorists."

During his presentation, Gold outlined contents of documents discovered by Israeli troops in Palestinian offices during a sweep of the West Bank last year, which he said proved that Saudi Arabia sends money to Hamas. Among them, was a hand-written letter by now Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from December 2000, complaining to the Saudis about their support for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, he said.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said the State Department "continues to treat the Saudis far too gingerly," and announced she would convene a hearing in September to examine the alliance between Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 14, 2003

A Litany of Torture, Rape and Murder of Christians by “Moderate Islamists"

By Julia Duin, The Washington Times, July 13, 2003

The photos from Pakistan were anything but travel brochure material. One showed a 9-year-old girl with dark eyes, large black burns on her legs and a heavily bandaged right arm. Another showed a 14-year-old girl with a face partly melted away like candle wax. The right side was a mass of charred skin after an assailant threw acid into her eyes. Their attackers said the girls' injuries are payback for the American invasion of Iraq. Americans may not have seen much retaliation on their own soil because, several human rights groups say, Christians in Pakistan are taking the brunt of it. The 9-year-old, Razia Masih, was beaten and raped on April 26 in the town of Faisalabad, near Lahore, ending up in the hospital with multiple burns, a lacerated left eye, a broken right arm and rope marks around her hands and mouth. "She was working as a maid in a Muslim house," said Shabazz Bhatti, chairman of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance.

"When the Iraq war happened, it was on the TV," he said. "The family [that she worked for] would call her into the TV room and start torturing her. Her skin was burned bythe irons, her body wounded by a cricket bat and a medical report showed 15 wounds on her body. She was told by them, 'You are Christian and infidel, and we will take revenge on you for the killings of Iraqi children.' "The case has been registered [with police], but the culprits have not been arrested. Meanwhile, the girl's family has fled elsewhere, just to save their lives. The government authorities are not giving them protection."

According to International Christian Concern (ICC), a religious-persecution watchdog group, the girl's family had unsuccessfully tried to get her out of her employers' home several times. After beating and burning her for a final time, the family sent her home to die. The All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, representing Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Balmeek, Bheel, Maingwal, Zoroastrian, Bahai and Kelash communities, has compiled a "catalog of terror" on attacks
against female Christians, beginning with the May 3, 2000, gang rape of eight Christian girls by militant Muslims near Lahore.

A series of either gang rapes or acid-in-the-face attacks happened in July 2000, twice in 2001, twice in 2002 and three times so far in 2003. On March 31, Natasha Emmanuel, 10, from a town near Rawalpindi, was raped by a Muslim neighbor linked with extremist Islamic organizations. The girl ended up in a hospital intensive care unit for three days, the ICC says, "Christians in Pakistan are increasingly vulnerable to religiously motivated hate crimes, and Christian girls and women seem to be specially targeted," said Stuart Windsor, director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide in London. "We are outraged by the unwillingness of the police to investigate the complaints as this only emboldens extremists to continue to victimize Christians and other non-Muslims."

Fearing such reprisals, the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on March 19, asking him to remind foreign governments of their responsibility to protect religious minorities. "The commission is concerned that extremists have tried ID portray military action against Iraq as part of an alleged U.S. attack on Islam," they wrote, "and that retribution will be sought against Christians, Jews and others throughout the Islamic world [...]."

The commission also asked President Bush to bring up the matter with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf during their meeting on June 24 at Camp David, Md. "Since the U.S. military action began in Afghanistan," they wrote two weeks ago, "Christian institutions in Pakistan repeatedly have been targeted by religious extremists, resulting in over 50 deaths." But neither Mr. Bush nor Gen. Musharraf mentioned religious minorities at a June 24 press conference to announce a $3 billion U.S. military and economic aid package for Pakistan.

"The Bush administration has with this package applauded Pakistan for carrying out egregious human rights abuses and religious- freedom violations," said Joseph Grieboski, president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. "President Bush told the world that the United States will turn a blind eye to universal values and fundamental freedoms in exchange for political expediency and convenience." |

There are only about 3 million Christians among Pakistan's 140 million citizens. Gen. Musharraf said on June 25 that he knew nothing of the recent attacks on Christian women and denied there is an ongoing problem. "All the people involved in attacks have been eliminated or put behind bars," he said at a meeting sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace. "There has not been an
attack in the last year against a Christian minority."

Mr. Grieboski said Gen. Musharraf was either uninformed or lying. "He gives a speech about Islam being a moderate religion every time he panders to the West," Mr. Grieboski said, "But there's an ongoing targeting of Christians in general, with women being raped and men beaten and arrested.

The government has yet to do anything to protect the rights of minority religious believers, whether they be Christian, Ahmadi Muslim, Hindu or any other faith."

The plight of Christian women is entangled with the politics of rape in Pakistan, which has engaged human rights and women's groups for years. There is no category for rape in Pakistani law; only for "zina," which is either adultery or fornication. Unless four male Muslim witnesses can be found to back the woman's story or if the attacker denies the charges, the woman is
blamed and usually jailed on charges of illicit sex.
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a woman in that country is raped every six hours and another is gang-raped every fourth day. Since women often do not report rape in the country, the actual numbers are likely to be far higher.

Since September 11, Pakistan's government has stepped up its security measures for Christians, providing extra armed guards for churches and other Christian buildings after a series of bomb and grenade attacks on churches, foreign tourists and western embassies killed 40 persons and injured dozens more. On Sept. 29,2002, two gunmen broke into the offices of a Christian charity in Karachi, killing seven Christians and seriously wounding two others. On Christmas Day 2002, three girls were killed and 17 persons injured when masked terrorists threw hand grenades into their Presbyterian church in Punjab province.

Christians are being accused of transgressing Pakistan's blasphemy law, where to criticize the Prophet Muhammad by word, deed or imputation is a capital crime. However, Gen. Musharraf said the law has not targeted Christians in particular. "Under this blasphemy law, more Muslims have been acted against than non-Muslims," he said. "Secondly, no capital punishment at all
till now has been given on the basis of blasphemy." But there are long jail sentences on trumped-up charges. One Christian, Aslam Masih, imprisoned since 1998 on blasphemy charges, was recently acquitted. Mr. Masih,a local pronunciation of Messiah, is a common family name among Christians in Pakistan, which recently required people to have a given and family name; until then, many rural villagers went through life with a single name. Two other Christians, brothers Saleem and Rasheed Masih, were acquitted in March 1999 of blasphemy charges stemming from a dispute with an ice cream vendor in the Pasrur region in northeast Pakistan. But while Saleem Masih was in prison, his wife was raped in July 2000.

"The police refused to investigate it," said Ann Buwalda, director of the Jubilee Campaign in Fairfax, Va. "Most people feel it was connected to the case of her husband." She is trying to get all three men and their families out of the country. "As long as they stay there," she said, "it's open season on them by any radical Muslim."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:29 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

July 13, 2003

(Finally, a Ray of Sunshine from the European Union)

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom meets with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi

(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesman)
Jerusalem, July 11, 2003

In his meeting today with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told ForeignMinister Shalom that in his meetings with the 25 ambassadors representing the countries of the European Union, he discussed his vision that Israel would join the European Union. Despite the fact that Israel is located geographically on the other side of the Mediterranean, culturally and economically Israel is a Western European and democratic country.

The Italian Prime Minister further added that not one of the ambassadors at the meeting was opposed to this idea. In addition, Berlusconi stated that he is receiving Foreign Minister Shalom as the current President of the European Union, and it is his intention to advance the Marshall Plan, to expand it, in order to help revive the economies of Israel and the countries in the region, and especially the Palestinian economy. Berlusconi also suggested to convene a regional conference in Sicily.

Foreign Minister Shalom stated that the courageous decision of Berlusconi not to meet Arafat during his visit to Israel, led many Foreign Ministers to do the same. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Shalom conveyed to Berlusconi a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that he appreciates his position as President of the European Union, as a balanced once in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In reference to the suggestion to convene a regional conference in Sicily, Foreign Minister Shalom said that indeed it is to be considered. Foreign Minister Shalom thanked the Italian Prime Minister for his efforts to include Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations: "We believe that in the time of your Presidency, European countries will become more balanced."
Similarly, Foreign Minister Shalom brought up the danger of Iran's nuclear armament, which constitutes a danger to global stability. As for the Marshall plan of Berlusconi, ForeignMinister Shalom stated that there is no doubt that this is another important element.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The “Roadmap” = Peace or War?

Will it lead to peace or to devastating war?

The United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia - labeled, collectively, the "Quartet" - have devised a plan called the "Road Map." The Road Map attempts to bring about peace in Israel/Palestine over a three-year period. At the end of that period, the emergence of a Palestinian state is envisioned, a state that is expected to live alongside of Israel in "peace and security."

What are the facts?

Unfriendly promoters: Of the four promoters of the Road Map, only one - the United States - can be considered friendly to and supportive of Israel. In the European Union, the centuries-old virus of anti-Semitism has again reared its ugly head, now disguised as anti Israelism or anti-Zionism. Russia has always been hostile to Israel and has been an enthusiastic supplier of weapons to the enemies of the Jewish State since its creation. The UN seems to take up most of its time in condemnation of Israel and in discriminating against it, to such an extent that Israel is the only country that is ineligible to become a member of the Security Council. It is likely, therefore, that the interests of three of the four designers of the Road Map are not in promoting peace, but, hypocritically, rather in the destruction of Israel or at least in its not surviving as a Jewish State.

Palestinian State: a new and unwarranted idea. The idea that the so-called "Palestinians" should have their own state has now been accepted as a just and desirable goal by most of the world. Sad to say, our own president has bought into this concept. One must regretfully assume that he did so mostly in order to appease our "Arab friends," who are outraged about our waging war against Iraq.

It buys into the myth that the Israeli-Arab dispute is at the heart of the endemic conflicts in the area and that forcing Israel to "take risks for peace" is a means of assuaging Arab humiliation. But should the safety of Israel, America's only true and reliable ally in that part of the world, be jeopardized or sacrificed on the illusive altar of "Arab friendship?"

A Palestinian state did not occur to anybody (even to the "Palestinians" themselves), when the Ottomans were the rulers in the land, when Great Britain had the Palestine Mandate, or when Jordan was in occupation of the "West Bank" for nineteen years after Israel's War of Independence in 1948. The concept of a Palestinian state did not arise until after the Six-Day War of 1967, in which Israel was victorious, regained the "West Bank" from Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and has been in administration of those territories since.

Israel js a tiny country, a sliver on the Mediterranean coast. It is even now in a strategically almost impossible position. Without the "depth" of Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") and without full control of the Jordan Valley it would be utterly indefensible. Israeli generals know that and American generals know that. And, of course, Arab generals know that also.

But Israel needs to be able to defend itself, because all of its immediate neighbors - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon - no matter what they may be saying for public consumption, have only one primary military and foreign policy objective and that is to destroy Israel, to drive the hated Jews into the sea, and to finish what they call the "Zionist Enterprise" once and for all. To believe that the "Palestinians," once they had their own state, would be peaceful neighbors of a truncated and mortally vulnerable Israel or that the other Arabs states and Iran would turn from wolves to lambs is to either engage in wishful thinking or quite deliberately be co-conspirators in the eventual destruction of the Jewish State.

The Road Map will inevitably go the way that other previous "peace plans" have gone - all of which demanded "sacrifices for peace" from Israel, yielding large chunks of territory for only empty words from the Arabs. But even if Israel, tired from decades of bloodletting and under unbearable pressure from the "international community," would acquiesce to such a suicidal path, the "Palestinians" would not allow it to happen. Their hatred of the Jews and the inculcation of their children to die as martyrs are such that they would be unable and unwilling to stop the terror that they have visited upon the Holy Land. Another bloody war, rather than peace, is the likely outcome of the Road Map.

What is the "solution" that so far has eluded everybody? It is what Israel has always been willing to grant: total autonomy for its Arab minority within Israel, the Jewish State. It is a reward to which so many minorities in the world have aspired, but which has been granted to only a very few.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:02 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 11, 2003

So, You think your rent is high.

How’s $3750 per square foot?

$45 million condo a record for New York

Offer for 12,000 square feet atop AOL's new headquarters by an unnamed
British financier could revive demand for luxury apartments. Price doesn't include interior work (like walls?).

By Thor Valdmanis
USA TODAY – July 11-13, 2003, excerpted

NEW YORK - A publicity-shy British financier plans to pay $45 million in cash for a 12,000-square-foot perch in AOL Time Warner's intended new home at the edge of Central Park, the most expensive apartment sale in Manhattan history.
The mystery banker has put down a non-refundable $5 million deposit for the entire 76th floor of the south tower at the two-tower structure soaring 80 stories above Columbus Circle at the park's southwest corner. "It's great for the economy and shows how strong New York is," says veteran developer Donald Trump.

(Yeah, but what about us pore folk?)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:58 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 10, 2003

What don't you know about Middle Eastern terminology? What are they really saying?


By David Olesker, Director

The events of September 11th, 2001 thrust the complex world of Islam into the forefront of the Western mind. I wanted to -write a short article to explain the ideological roots of Islamism, but gave up the job when I reached six pages... and it wasn't long enough! So I'm contenting myself with a "pop quiz" to try and demonstrate the lack of knowledge on the basic issues of the ideology of Islamism, and how it selects concepts from the complex theology of Islam to create its political program.

If you can't answer the following basic questions, then you are missing the point of what is happening in the Middle East If you would like to learn more, see the recommended book list at the end.

1. What does the word "Islam mean?
2. What was the majority religion in the Middle East before the rise of Islam?
3. What does the word "jihad" mean?
4. What are the "Dar al Islam" and the-'Dara/Warb"?
5. What does the word "fatah" mean?
6. What does the word "dhimmi" mean?

1. Although entomologically related to the same root as "peace", Islam is generally viewed as meaning "submission" to the will of God. This will was revealed in 'Scriptures that have been successively given to mankind by various prophets. Therefore, according to Muslim thought, Adam was a Muslim, as was Abraham, King David, and Jesus Christ. Muhammad was the last and final prophet, whose revelation was meant for all mankind. Islam, like Christianity therefore sees itself as a universal religion, and seeks to evangelize the world.

2. Almost the whole Middle East was Christian before the rise of Islam. Muslim armies evangelized the region by force, and Arabized much of the local populations.

3. Although Jihad can mean all of the above - just as a westerner might talk of a "war on drugs" or a "war on overeating", without changing the root meaning of "war" as armed conflict - so to a Muslim might use the word in any number of settings. However it's root meaning was, and remains, armed struggle to defend Muslims, and extend their rule. It was via jihad that the Muslim empires were built

4. Dar al Islam means '"the home of Islam", an area that is, or ever was, under Muslim rule. For the Islamist, if part of this area falls under non-Muslim rule, it must be redeemed. Osama bin Laden and his ilk seek the redemption of Saudi Arabia, since it is ruled by allies of non-Muslims, and the non- Muslims have their troops there. They seek the "defense" of Iraq, since it is under attack by non-Muslims. They seek the re-conquest of Israel, since it is ruled by dhimmis (see below). Dor al Harb is the "home of war"; those countries that are not yet Muslim, and await - as far as the Islamist is concerned -jihad.

5. When jihad is successful, the area conquered becomes part of the Dar al Islam, and its inhabitants must convert to Islam, or (if Jews or Christians) submit to dhimitude.

6. In traditional Muslim societies only Muslims can be full citizens; "un-believers" cannot live in such a society at all. Jews and Christians, as monotheists can be tolerated, but only as second class citizens, forced to pay a special tax, and subject to restrictions on their religious and other rights. Islamists have the goal of subjecting Jews and Christians to this quasi-apartheid status in the Middle-East, and ideally, in the whole world.

In short, the Islamists see themselves as the heirs to the soldiers of Muhammad. The are striving to first 'liberate" their own, Muslim majority states from western domination, and -what they see as corruption. They are then seeking to establish a -world Muslim state, under a reconstituted Khalifa (theocratic monarchy). Not all Muslims are Islamists, and some principles of Islamic doctrine oppose those listed above, but the fact that Islamism draws (selectively) on the Islamic tradition makes it attractive to many Muslims, and
difficult to oppose for many more.

For more information on these basic concepts, and how they affect the contemporary Middle East, read the following books:

In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power by Daniel Pipes, Basic Books, 1985
Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam by Bat Ye’or, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1998

FOB 2534, Jerusalem 91024, Israel • TeL +572-2-651-2610 • Fax +972-2-652-4968 • e-mail: jccat@inarne.com

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:08 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 08, 2003

Gary L. Bauer, in Support of Israel – Asks your help

And G-d spoke, “He who blesses Israel I will bless, he who curses Israel, I will curse.”

Dear Friend,

My name is Gary Bauer and I am President of American Values. Perhaps you know me. I am working hard to build a coalition of Jewish and Christian communities to defend Israel. Over the past two years, I have met with Prime Minister Sharon, I have traveled to Israel and I have worked at educating the American public about the importance of total support for Israel.

In recent weeks, I have debated Israel's opponents on dozens of television shows on FOX, CNN and every major network. I have spoken at synagogues, churches, civic clubs and other groups. I have spent hours on Capitol Hill urging our Senators and Congressmen to stand with Israel and I promise you that I will not abandon the Jewish people.

But to ensure our success, I need your help. Will you join me and sign the enclosed Open Letter of Support for Israel to President George W. Bush.

This Open Letter of Support for Israel to President Bush will let him know that you want him to stand with Israel and protect the covenant land from being stolen by Yasser Arafat and the terrorists who every day try to kill innocent women and children in Israel. As people of faith, it is our duty to stand up for Israel and show our support to our leaders who are on the frontlines fighting the battle on our behalf.

That's why I am sending you the enclosed Letter to President George W. Bush.
Please read and sign the enclosed letter and return it to me today at our

American Values •A 2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 610 • Arlington, VA 22206

A few weeks ago, President Bush shocked many of us when he was publicly
critical of Israel for going after the head of Hamas. Fortunately, when Christians and Jews spoke up the White House retracted and reaffirmed that Israel has the same right to defend itself against terrorism as the United States does. Especially with extreme elements of militant Islam and other, anti-Semitic forces
constantly trying to destroy the state of Israel.

It breaks my heart everyday when I hear about another innocent Jewish life being brutally taken because of hatred for people of the Jewish faith.
No child should be scared to walk home from school or from the market because
of constant death threats and anti-Semitic intimidation.
No one deserves to have one of their children murdered by radical Islamic thugs. But, that is exactly what is happening in Israel and throughout Europe.
And that is why your letter to President Bush is so critical at this juncture in this
historic fight.

Will you join me and let President George W. Bush know where you stand?
The President needs to hear from millions of Americans who believe that
terrorism should never be rewarded. We must remind him that Israel is America's only reliable friend and ally. We must make it clear that appeasement never works.

I believe with all my heart that the land of Israel is Covenant Land that G-d
promised to you and your people. I am shocked that some are arguing that Jews must be forcibly removed from Judah and Samaria, land that Jews have lived in for thousands of years.

I know you do not want Israel to be divided just so some shortsighted world
leaders can look good on television. America and Israel have been partners — joined at the hip and the heart — for many years because both of our nations understand the disastrous consequences of breaking up Israel.
Now is not the time to back down and let the terrorists destroy Israel.
G-d has spoken and the Word of G-d cannot be altered by anyone, especially an
anti-Semitic terrorist like Yasser Arafat.

As recorded in the Old Testament and in the Torah "He who blesses Israel I will bless, he who curses Israel, I will curse." The time has come for Christians and Jews to unite in this historical battle to preserve the land G-d deeded to Israel.

In order for President Bush to know where you stand on this important issue, I
need you to sign and return your Letter of Support to me today at American Values. Once I receive your signed letter I will then forward it to President Bush, along with hopefully thousands of other similar letters, so that he knows where you stand. I am counting on your reply.

Make no mistake, as a supporter of Israel, there is no greater action you can take. than by returning your signed Open Letter of Support and returning it to me today. But, your signed letter of support is not enough. I also must ask you to send a generous gift of $1,000, $750, $500, $250, $100 or $25 to American Values so we can reach other Pro-Israel supporters.
Thank you for your support.


Gary Bauer

Yes, you can count on my support. To help you educate the public about the on-
going crisis in Israel and rally support for defending Israel, I am returning my signed Open Letter to President George W. Bush and my most generous gift to help American Values.
- $1000 - $500 - $200 - $100 - $50 - $25 Other $______

Your gift to American Values is tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by

Please make checks payable to: American Values
2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 610 • Arlington, VA 22206

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,
As an American citizen and a concerned supporter of Israel, I am joining Gary Bauer to demand that you not abandon Israel during the current international crisis. Right now, the radical Palestinians are using violence and anti-Semitic intimidation to force Israel to leave land, which has been its home for thousands of years.

Over the past several months, Palestinian led terrorist attacks have resulted in the taking of hundreds of innocent lives. In many cases, women and children are the target of these barbaric thugs. Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have proven to be cowardly terrorists with only hate in their hearts and must not be negotiated with by you or anyone else within your Administration.

I am asking you to stand with Israel, our only reliable friend and ally in the Middle East. Remember what the scriptures say in both the Torah and the Holy Bible, "He who blesses Israel I will bless, he who curses Israel, I will curse".
I hope and pray that you will continue to support a strong and secure nation of Israel.


Your name and address

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Iran's New French Connection

(Quite a combination – Iran, The French and the usual irrational priorities of the American State Department.)

By Arnold Beichman, The Washington Times, July 2003

It is 1942; France has been overrun by the Germans who have installed a puppet regime in Vichy. Out of a clear sky, conies a thunderclap report: Great Britain has made a deal with Vichy. Since the fall of France in June 1940, Charles de Gaulle has been living legally in Britain as he organized the democratic resistance to Fascism. Suddenly it is announced that the British have agreed to extradite de Gaulle to Nazi-occupied France and to certain death.

Of course, that never happened but something tragically analogous has just happened involving France and its newfound ally, Iran, a country President Bush has designated as part of the axis of evil.

Living legally in France as a political refugee and granted round-the-clock French police protection, Maryam Rajavi, 51, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), was suddenly jailed on fictitious grounds along with 163 other Iranian exiles. Some 1,300 French police on June 17 raided the NCRI offices located for 22 years at Auvers-sur-Oise, a village 18 miles northwest of Paris (where Vincent Van Gogh in a 10-week stay in 1890 produced 70 of his greatest canvases).

To this day, the French government has offered no evidence of criminal acts committed by the arrestees, according to Liberation, the French daily.

Mrs. Rajavi leads a democratic resistance movement seeking overthrow of the theocratic tyranny that now dominates the Iranian people. These disgraceful French arrests, made no doubt at the request of Iran's theocrats, take place at a time when the streets of Tehran are jammed day after day, night after night with courageous students and their elders who won't take it anymore; at a time when the Bush administration has designated the fundamentalist regime as the most important sponsor of terrorism in the world and at a time when Iran is rushing to build nuclear weapons with Russian help and ignoring legal demands for inspections of its nuclear program.

What Jacques Chirac has obviously done is to bring France into a strange alliance with Iran, in hope of winning over Islamists in the Middle East and especially the swelling Muslim population in France itself. Mr. Chirac is determined to replace the U.S. and Britain as the dominant power in the Middle East. In fashioning this history-making Franco-Iranian affiance, Mr. Chirac is aided by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is strengthening Russiasties with Iran while protesting his friendship with President Bush.

The French crackdown on the anti-ayatollah forces in exile has aroused uproar in Congress and in other parliaments in Europe.

In Washington, Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, Reps. Ed Towns, New York Democrat, William Lacy Clay, Missouri Democrat, Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, have sent written protests against the arrests to the French government. They are among 28 senators and more than 200 representatives who have called the Mujahedeen "a legitimate resistance movement."

The NCRI, a victim of French despotism, has been endorsed by huge parliamentary majorities in Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg and as the topper; it was even endorsed last year by 150 French deputies. What does Jacques Chirac know that these parliamentarians in Europe don't know?

And what does the State Department, which lists NCRI as a terrorist organization, know that some 200 members of Congress don't know? As it stands now, the NCRI is a casualty not only of French foreign policy but it seems also to be a casualty of American tacit consent.

It is time for an end to secret diplomacy as far as American foreign policy toward Iran is concerned, especially since Iran remains an implacable foe of President Bush's "road map" for peace in the Middle East. And it is time, now that France has become Iran's ally, to recognize the NCRI as a legitimate force for democracy and regime change in the Middle East.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

India's fate and Israel's in the Balance - Negative

The result of deluded or perfidious “friends” and clever, dedicated enemies.

(A fantastic article analyzing how the United States treats its friends, its fellow democracies as if they were instead, the so-called “Islamic militants” - as if there were some other variety.)

BY M.D. NALAPAT, The International Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2003

On August 15, 1947, India became free. But the day before, nearly a third of the country had been cut away from it to form Pakistan. Since 1948 Pakistan has conducted a continuous war with India, from overt conventional assault as in 1948, 1965 and 1971, to the covert war that has engulfed Kashmir since 1989. The bigger neighbor has exhibited all the hesitation and restraint typical of a democracy, while Pakistan, where the army has been in effective control since the first declaration of martial law in 1958, has shrewdly played its limited cards to great effect, combining with the United States "against communism," and with Communist China against India, getting repaid with weapons for use against one of the only three consistently democratic countries in Asia, together with Israel and Japan.

After India's first nuclear test in 1974 China began funneling technology to Pakistan which, by the end of the 1980s, made it the, only Muslim country with a nuclear device, together with missiles that could hit large parts of India. The US, which after the Soviet collapse had bought the Saudi argument that Pakistan could be a bridge into Muslim Central, Asia, looked the other way while this cross-border proliferation took place, while putting a virtual technological quarantine on India.

By creating a state with an ideology totally opposed to that of its neighbor, Britain condemned India to a constant state of external conflict and internal insecurity. Looking at the present meltdown in Pakistan, it does not seem likely that peace will break out anytime soon.

The constant chatter about an "imminent" India-Pakistan conflict has resulted in a flow of foreign investment to India that is less than 10 percent of that going to China. Most of the diplomatic interaction between New Delhi and the European Union or the US is an endless rehash of formulae for "resolving" differences between the two countries. For that to happen, either Pakistan or India would have to give up its core ideology, for Pakistan is an Islamic republic where jihad is the official motto of the army, while India is a democracy.

Were an independent state of Palestine to be established alongside Israel, the latter would be condemned to the same fate that India has faced for the past 55 years - a permanent state of insecurity. Just as Pakistan believes it is the successor to the Mughal Empire and that therefore historical justice demands it reestablish Muslim rule over the whole subcontinent, almost every Palestinian believes that the entire territory "from the river to the sea" belongs to him by right.

Yet just as the "Pakistani" identity was a fiction brought to life by the colonial power, so was the "Palestinian" identity. In reality, there is no "Palestinian people" with features distinct from the other Arabs of the region.

Were an independent state of Palestine to be created, Arab Israelis might suffer from dual loyalty. Just as Pakistan tries to establish its influence over India's 156 million Muslims by posing as their champion, elements within the proposed Palestinian state would try to create an allegiance between Arab Israelis and
the new country.

In brief, the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the lines laid out in the road map would not bring peace. Instead, it would condemn Israel to decades of conflict with its new neighbor. If Israel tries to please the US, the UK, the rest of the EU, and assorted busybodies around the world by failing to ensure that it has defensible borders, and if it agrees to the creation of an entity that by its very nature will be hostile to it, its present leaders are creating a monster that will certainly emaciate and may even devour, their nation.

What needs to be done is for Israel to annex the territory required to be secure, while ensuring that the residue gets formed, not into a single state but into several entities such as a city-state of Gaza, on the Singapore model. Some of the territory abandoned by Israel could get absorbed into Jordan, where One Person, One Vote would then become the norm, as it is in India or Israel.
India and its people are still suffering from the "unwisdom" of its leaders in permitting the creation of a country that has become an ulcer on its flank. Will Israel's leaders learn from this example, or will they too condemn their people to the kind of hell Pakistan has created for its neighbor?

They must not allow Israel's borders to be militarily indefensible nor welcome the creation of a state whose people find their identity solely in the quest for Israel's destruction.

The writer is director of the School of Geopolitics, the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:24 AM | Comments (72) | TrackBack

July 07, 2003

U.S. State Dept. Surrenders Israel to Terror

July 7, 2003

NEW YORK - A senior Israeli cabinet minister, meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, called the Bush administration's Road Map plan is "a great victory for terrorists" and said that the Israeli government accepted the plan "only because of the tremendous pressure that the Bush administration put on Israel."

Efraim Eitam, Israel's Minister of Infrastructure and former Brigadier General in the Israel Defense Forces, made his remarks at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in New York City on Monday afternoon, July 7.

The "Hudna" cease-fire allows the terrorists to rebuild: The so-called "Hudna," or temporary cease-fire by some of the terrorist groups, "simply gives the terrorist time to repair their damaged infrastructure." He added: "Under the cover of this so-called cease-fire, the terrorist groups are already greatly accelerating their production of rockets and preparing for the next round in their war to destroy Israel."

The Road Map was formulated without consulting Israel: "The Road Map was invented by the State Department to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state. It was designed without the U.S. consulting a single important Israeli leader."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:32 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

As to Sen. Joe Lieberman's Orthodox Kippa

(Excerpted from article by Audrey Hudson, the Washington Times, July 6, 2003)

Democratic candidates who support civil unions for homosexuals include Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, according to the Boston Globe, which surveyed candidates on the issue.

Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said the decision should be left to the states. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida said the issue should be studied further.

According to the survey published in May, all Democratic candidates support homosexual couples' eligibility for domestic partner benefits, including health care and pension plans. The Vermont law was not proposed by Mr. Dean, but by the state courts. "But it helped make a name for the then-unknown governor, who has been capitalizing on his status as a gay-rights path breaker to raise money from the gay community”, the Globe said.

President Bush does not support civil unions or same-sex "marriage."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:58 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 06, 2003

U-M ruling shows no end to racial preferences

(Justice Sandra Day O’Conner demonstrates preference for Social Engineering over Constitutional Law)

There was some talk recently about upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court because some retirements were expected. However, the high court's decision on affirmative action suggests that there are already vacancies, even though no one has resigned. We can only hope that, when President George W. Bush gets a chance to nominate replacements, he does not fill an existing vacancy with another vacancy.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority decision upholding affirmative action in admissions to the University of Michigan Law School was her classic split-the-baby formula, making a mockery of the law. This decision provoked not only dissent from four other justices, but sarcasm and disgust — as it should have.

Justice O'Connor's argument is hard to summarize because it consists largely of repeating unsubstantiated claims about the "educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" and the need for a "critical mass" of minority students for their own educational needs and those of other students. She uses the phrase "compelling interest" to get around the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal treatment, much as earlier generations of justices used the phrase "interstate commerce" to evade constitutional limits on the powers of Congress.

This exercise in verbal dexterity included the pronouncement that "race conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," that "all government use of race must have a logical end point." But, having uttered these pieties, Justice O'Connor imposed no time limit nor defined any criterion for an end point.

Justice Antonio Scalia's response was that the "mystical 'critical mass' justification" for racial preferences "challenges even the most gullible mind”. He pointed out how academics who talk about multi-culturalism and diversity in the courts have "tribalism and racial segregation" on their own campuses, including "minority-only student organizations, separate minority housing opportunities, separate minority student centers, even separate minority-only graduation ceremonies."

Verbal pieties and cynical realities have corrupted affirmative action from the beginning. A quarter of a century ago, the Bakke case brought a great outpouring of noble rhetoric from the Supreme Court, but the bottom line was that you could continue to have racial quotas, so long as you don't call them racial quotas.

Today's Supreme Court has not only reaffirmed that principal by what Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent called "the know-it-all elites”. It has become a badge of their identity and what its actual consequences are for others in the real world is of no real interest to them. Justice Thomas is unimpressed by the endlessly repeated mantra of "diversity”, which to him is just "a fashionable catch-phrase”. Far from buying, Justice O'Connor's many reiterations of claims for its educational benefits. Justice Thomas cited empirical studies indicating that the much-vaunted diversity "actually impairs learning among black students”.

No one epitomizes the know-it-all elites more than the New York Times, whose front-page story referred to "the broad societal consensus in favor of affirmative action in higher education”, despite polls that have repeatedly shown the public's grave misgivings about racial quotas and preferences.
Justice Thomas' devastating dissent is deftly evaded by the Times, which says he "took as his text not the briefs but his own life story”. If you want to find out whether you can rely on what the New York Times says, now that Jayson Blair is gone, read Justice Thomas' dissent for yourself and see if you can find anything there that would lead you to believe it was about his own life story.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 94305 and writes for Creators Syndicate

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:25 PM | Comments (68) | TrackBack

One Thing Hitler liked about America

By Rafael Medoff, Ph.D.

(Re-printed from an article in the Detroit Jewish News, July 4, 2003)

A GENERALLY unknown sequel to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf will soon be published in English, according to a recent article in the New York Times. Written in 1928, Hitler's Second book as it is known, includes revelations about Hitler's global strategy, including his determination to wage war against the United States.

Yet the book also reveals that there was something about the United States that Hitler liked — America's then newly adopted, race-based restrictions on immigration. "The American nation appears as a young, racially select people," Hitler wrote. "By making an immigrants ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements on the one hand as well as a certain level of physical health of the individual himself, the bleeding of Europe of its best people has become regulated in a manner that is almost bound by law."

Hitler was referring to the National Origins immigration bills of 1921 and 1924, which virtually shut America’s doors to immigrants. The ideas that led to America's immigration restrictions in the 1920s actual formed the basis of Hitler's ideology.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Americans and Europeans alike came under the sway of anthropologists and eugenicists on both continents who amended that Anglo-Saxons were biologically superior to other peoples This race-dominated view of human society played a key role in shaping Americans' attitudes toward immigration in the years following World War I. It gained prominence at he same time that Americans' anxiety about Communism was growing as a result of the establishment of the Soviet Union.

The combination of racism, fear of communism and general resentment of foreigners provided the background of public support for immigration restriction.

The law passed in 1921, known as the Johnson Immigration Act, stipulated that the number of immigrants from any one country during a given year could not exceed 3 percent of the number of immigrants from that country who had been living in the United States at the time of the 1910 national census.
In other words, if there were 10,000 individuals of Irish origin living in the United States in 1910, the number of immigrants permitted from Ireland in any year would be a maximum of 300. In 1924, the immigration regulations were tightened even further: the percentage was reduced from 3 percent to 2 percent, and instead of the 1910 census, the quota numbers would be based on an earlier census, the one taken in 1890.

The reason for tightening the restrictions was obvious: It would reduce the number of Jews and Italian Americans, since the bulk of Jewish and Italian immigrants in the United States had not arrived until after 1890. Indeed, the original version of the Johnson Act had been submitted to Congress with a report by the chief of the United States Consular Service, Wilbur Carr. That report characterized would-be Jewish immigrants from Poland as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits ... lacking any conception of patriotism or national spirit." No wonder Hitler admired the spirit behind the movement to restrict immigration to America.

As the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified during the middle and late 1930s, the U.S. quota system functioned precisely as its creators had intended: It kept out all but a handful of Jews. The annual quota for Germany and Austria, for example, was 27,370, and for Poland, just 6,542. Even those meager quota allotments were almost always under-filled, as zealous consular officials implemented the bureaucratic method proposed by senior State Department official Breckinridge Long — in his words, to "postpone and postpone and post-Road Blocks.

A deliberately designed bureaucratic maze — a series of "paper walls," to borrow the title of Prof. David S. Wyman's 1968 book — ensured most Jewish refugees would remain far from America's shores. Therefore, during the period of the Nazi genocide, from late 1941 until early 1945, only 10 percent of the already miniscule quotas from Axis- controlled European countries were actually used. That means almost 190,000 quota places were unused almost 190,000 lives that could have been saved even under the existing immigration restrictions.

Thus, Jews desperately seeking to escape Hitler found no haven in the United States. The nation with the tradition of welcoming "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free" chose to turn a blind eye in Jewry's most dire hour of need. More than two decades would pass before the quota system that Hitler so admired was finally abandoned. The passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 "lifted the shadow of racism from American immigration policy”, as Prof. John Higham put it. Tragically, it came 25 years too late for the millions of Jews trapped in Hitler's inferno. ##

Rafael Medoff, Ph.D., is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which focuses on issues related to America's response to the Holocaust. His e-mail address is Rafaelmedoff@aol.com Dr. Medoff's most recent book, coauthored with David S. Wyman,
is 'A Race Against Death: Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust', published
by The New Press, which may be ordered by calling 1-800-233-4830 or through

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:56 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

July 04, 2003

On the Way to the Re-sale Shop

By Jerome S. Kaufman

(redacted from original article appearing in the Detroit Jewish News, July 4, 2003)

How about a human-interest story? A friend from synagogue name Jack Ginsberg, shule gabbai first class and former elegant haberdasher, was in the process of opening a non-profit, all encompassing re-sale shop called Knightsbridge Charities. People brought in all kinds of stuff. Someone evidently left, in error, a thick brown folder with old documents. Jack decided to seek help finding the rightful owner and called his Zionist friend, Jerry Kaufman.

Jerry was intrigued both as a Zionist and a minor Jewish people historian. He opened the brown folder and saw many old family pictures of bar mitzvahs, weddings, birth certificates and German passports dating to 1938 – a true treasure of mementos.

How to find the rightful owner? On one of the envelopes was the name of Max Rothschild, West Bloomfield and telephone information was called. “Sorry, this number has been disconnected.” What else? There was the draft of a master’s thesis written at the University of Michigan all about the early history of the Jewish Community in Detroit – Alfred Street, Watson Street, names my mother used to eulogize. The date of the paper was October 28, 1974 and the author was Stephen B. Rothschild. Well, how many Stephen B. Rothschilds can there be? The name was looked up on the Internet, several with that name were found and a letter was written to the most likely candidate, a lawyer in Spring Valley, New York. No response.

It was then determined that the University could help. The department that finds former students, looked up the name, Stephen B. Rothschild, circa students 1974 and found one, but no direct contact was allowed. They said however, that a message could be written and placed in an envelope with their ID number. They would then forward the letter.

Two weeks later, a call came in from Stephen B. “ How nice of you to search us out. Yes, that is my Dad, Max Rothschild, who just moved to Coconut Creek, Florida. I’ll have my Dad call you.” Fine. Max called a short time later; a great conversation ensued and the documents were mailed out. He was delighted to receive the documents and mailed back two videos portraying his life and his experiences in Germany.

Who is Max Rothschild? Max happens to be a survivor from Adolph Hitler. He was 11 years old in 1938. His Dad was a very successful businessman in the idyllic German town of Bruchsal, Germany. There were 162 established, relatively wealthy Jewish families in a population of 16,000 Germans. They were very well integrated, participated in all the sports leagues, all the various government and private schools and had many German friends.

Then the denouement: Adolph Hitler was appointed Vice Chancellor of Germany on Jan. 30, 1933. That very night, the Rothschilds heard Nazi Brown Shirts beating up all the Jews they could find on the streets. Events moved fairly slowly until Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. These laws deliberately targeted the Jews, removing all their civil rights and created a class of untermenchen.

Fortunately, Max’s father had the good sense and means to get his family out in time. They left in September 1938, with their lives intact, leaving only their business, their property and all their money - confiscated without recourse by the Germans. Max came here at age 11, penniless but quickly became assimilated and has had a marvelous, typically American Jewish life with pew, pew, pew 21 grandchildren to prove it. He, in later life, became a speaker at the West Bloomfield, MI., Holocaust Memorial Center. It was there, in an effort to preserve as much evidence as possible of the period, that the Center created the tapes that Max sent to Jerry and which can still be viewed at the Center.

Finally to the point of the story: Max is asked at the end of his personal video interview, “What have you learned after all this and what would you tell other Jews?” Max said that we should not sit still for intolerance against any group of people. Well, we all know that and have been perhaps, over responsive in our zealous defense of others, many times to the neglect of our own issues. What else did he say? “ Beware of complacency!”

What happened to Max Rothschild’s family in this idyllic German town and in a country in which his ancestors had lived for centuries proved it can happen anywhere. “Beware complacency.” Be quick to protect Jewish interests and do so as part of your life’s work. As the centuries have proven time and again, the “Jewish Problem” is a Jewish problem. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 02, 2003

Giving up any of the land of Israel - Rebbe Schneerson 1983

The Rebbe’s Roadmap

This article contains a translation of a small portion of a speech ("sicha") given by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, on May 17, 1983 on the eve of Shavuot. Excerpted by Rabbi Menachem M. Pellin

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In these troubling times for the Jewish people, many may look at the situation in Israel as an endless tunnel of Jewish blood. Think about it. We tried "the peace process" - that didn´t work. We tried "strategic incursions" - that didn´t work. What is left?

Ah, but there is a solution left. There is something Israel has not tried. They did not try the Rebbe´s Roadmap.

In a public gathering, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneersohn, addressed the issue of settlements and a peaceful Israel. This talk was on the eve of Shavuot in the year 5743 - 1983; twenty years ago. Let´s listen in.....

“It´s obvious... anyone that gives away land (settlements) to the gentiles is in direct defiance of Shulchan Aruch [the Code of Jewish Law]....

“...And even if there will be Jews that will be stubborn and want to give away settlements [of Israel] to the gentiles, since ´the word of G-d will stand forever,´ G-d will see to it that the gentiles will not accept [the land]. This has happened many times in the past. They [Israel] sent ministers... [to negotiate the giving away land]. [They] stood in front of the gentiles like a pauper by the door begging them to take pieces of the land of Israel. The Gentiles spit in front of them and give them a slap in the face. [They say] they don´t want to take any land from you... and they come back many times from the meetings very ashamed and embarrassed at their rejection.

“The gentile doesn´t change his mission (set forth by G-d); therefore, when G-d doesn´t want that the settlements of Israel to be given away to the non-Jews, even if the Jew will suggest to give the settlements to the gentile, the gentile will not be ready to accept... But he will ´clothe´ [his reason for rejection] in a sensible excuse. He will say ´these settlements are not enough´ because really he wants it all.

“But the true reason that the gentile is not accepting the settlements is because his mazal [divine source] feels that G-d doesn´t want this to happen. And as I stated above - this has happened many times, and not only once, but many times. We already saw what the outcome of this was. Many sacrifices, many Jews were killed. Every single one of these [murdered] Jews is a complete world. Nevertheless, the fact of matter doesn´t bother them enough to stop acting like this; i.e., asking the gentile to take more land.

“May it be G-d´s will, since we are standing at the eve of Shavuot, a spirit from above should awaken them. From now on they should stand strong and straight, with the pride of being Jewish. In every matter which the Torah teaches us. It´s not worthy to act in a way which is against the Torah - to run after a gentile and beg before him that he should agree to take settlements of [Israel]. This that they are doing will not help the situation at all. On the contrary! It causes that we should become shamed and disgraced. As was the case in the past.”

The Rebbe´s solution:

“From now on [Jews] should behave in a way that is in accordance with the Torah.... Obviously, when you talk to a gentile, you should tell him that the land of Israel was given to us as our eternal inheritance to an eternal nation; i.e., the Jewish nation. Any Jew, even in another part of the world, in this generation and in every generation, has a connection to the land of Israel. Therefore, there is no [single] Jew who is authorized to give away settlements. Since the land of Israel belongs to every Jew, wherever he may be, in every generation.

“When you speak to a gentile with the correct stance, we will merit to receive the lineage of true respect. And all the gentiles themselves will want to help us. They will even consider it as respect for themselves.”

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:37 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

Civil Liberties After 9/11

by Robert H. Bork

(Final paragraphs from excellent article in Commentary July-August, 2003)

What Remains to be Done?

THE FACT that opponents of the Bush administration’s efforts to protect American security have resorted to often-shameless misrepresentation and outright scare mongering does not mean those efforts are invulnerable to criticism. They are indeed vulnerable—for not going far enough. In addition to the lack of properly targeted security procedures at airports, and the failure to resist the gutting of TIA, a truly gaping deficiency in our arrangements is the openness of our northern and southern borders to illegal entrants.

In the south, reportedly, as many as 1,000 illegal aliens a day enter through Arizona's Organ Pipe National Monument park, where they have become so brazen that they have cleared their own private roads. In the north, there are plenty of easily accessible and unmanned entry points from Canada. So far, Washington has not adequately responded to calls for more park-ranger staffing and military assistance, let alone addressed the lamentable condition of our immigration procedures in general.

There is, in short, plenty of work to go around. The war we are in, like no other we have ever faced, may last for decades rather than years. The enemy blends into our population and those of other nations around the world, attacks without warning, and consists of men who are quite willing to die in order to kill us and destroy our civilization. Never before has it been possible to imagine one suicidal individual, inspired by the promise of paradise and armed with a nuclear device, able to murder tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single attack.

Those facts justify what the administration has already done, and urgently require more. Of course, to say this, or to question the arguments of critics, is to risk being accused of censorship, actual or preemptive, or even McCarthyism. Here is an article in the New York Times raising the alarm about statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft: In the past, Mr. Ashcroft has gone so far as to question the loyalty of those who challenge the constitutionality of his tactics, in a defining moment in December 2001 at a Senate hearing, Mr. Ashcroft declared: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

As it happens, "phantoms of lost liberty" is a perfectly apt description for much of the commentary that has been offered on the administration's initiatives. It is demonstrably true, moreover, that people who recklessly exaggerate the threat to our liberties in the fight against terrorism do give ammunition, moral and otherwise, to our enemies. Asserting as much does not impugn the loyalty of such people. They are perfectly free to say what they think, and as loudly as they please. But neither should they themselves be immune from criticism, even by a government official.

Robert H. Bork is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Tad and Dianne Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute.

(He is also the unfairly maligned former candidate to the United States Supreme Court)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 01, 2003

Limited Palestinian Arab State

Clarification of original statement
by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The Washington Post Tuesday, June 24, 2003

The choice of headline for my June 20 op-ed article, "A Limited Palestinian State," did not accurately reflect my position.

As stated in the article, I believe that in a final peace agreement the
Palestinians should be given all the powers that are necessary to govern
themselves but none of the powers that could threaten Israel.

There is, to my knowledge, no accepted term in international law for this
type of nonbelligerent sovereignty. Until there is an accepted term, I prefer not to use the word "state," because of the unlimited sovereignty it implies.


The writer is a former prime minister and the current finance minister of

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:59 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Iraqi Rebels Targeted

(How about Palestinian Arab terrorists?)

By Borzou Daragahi Associated Press, June 29, 2003

Hurray for US Armed Forces – “crush the resistance of your enemy and stem the wave of deadly attacks on American troops” …And the troops go in with “overwhelming combat power” so as to diminish the loss of American lives.
But, how is it that President Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice criticize Israel for doing exactly the same thing? Especially when, with the Israelis, it is their own citizens that are being killed by terrorists in their own homes, schools, market places, city buses and not in a foreign country thousands of miles away?

CAMP BOOM, Iraq — U.S. forces kicked off a massive sweep Sunday, raiding more than 20 towns across a wide swath of Iraq and netting at least 60 suspects in a show of air and infantry power designed to crush resistance and stem a wave of deadly attacks on American troops. The raids by the 4th Infantry Division and Task Force Iron-horse troops came as the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq said American forces must kill or capture Saddam Hussein so he no longer can be a rallying point for anti-coalition attacks.

The latest operation, dubbed "Sidewinder”, began at 10 a.m. EST, across an area of central Iraq stretching from the Iranian border to the areas north of Baghdad. It's expected to last for several days, according to military officials in Camp Boom, near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. The region has become "the nexus of paramilitary activity in central Iraq”, the military said in a statement. There were no reports of U.S. casualties, the military said. "We go in with such over-whelming combat power that they won't even think about shooting us," Lt. Col. Mark Young said before the start of the operation.

The raids targeted loyalists from Saddam's former Baath Party, "terrorists suspected of perpetrating attacks against U.S. forces and former Iraqi military leaders," the military said. At least 63 American soldiers have died in Iraq since major combat was declared over May close to one-third of them killed in attacks, raising the total U.S. death toll to more than 200 since the March 20 start of the war.

Insurgents have stepped up their attacks against U.S. troops in recent days, carrying out ambushes against military convoys, shooting soldiers and lobbying grenades. The top U.S. official in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, stressed the need to capture Saddam, although there is no evidence the former Iraqi leader is behind the violence.

"I think it is important that we either catch him or kill him," Bremer told the British Broadcasting Corp. "There is no doubt that the fact that we have not been able to show his fate allows the remnants on the Baath regime to go around the bazaars and villages and say Saddam will come back, so do not cooperate with the coalition."

Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi said Sunday he believes Saddam had issued a written plan to foment postwar chaos in case of his defeat, including attacks on U.S. forces and the sabotaging of oil pipelines, electricity and water...."I think that Saddam had this plan done, and it's being implemented by the remnants of his regime," Chalabi said on CNN's "Late Edition”.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:10 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack