September 30, 2003

Colin Powell, “ A Free Middle East Key to Prosperity.”

Colin Powell finally admits to the heart of the problem in the Arab world with Israel having zero to do with the dynamic. After the speech U.S. Arab audience sits on its hands.

Secretary of state calls for reforms in Arab societies to build peaceful future in region.

By Gregg Krupa, The Detroit News, September 30, 2003

DETROIT — Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday night that "ensuring a prosperous, free Middle East" is a key to a peaceful future, but that it will not
occur until Arab societies reform. Powell further admitted that the Bush administration's plan for peace between Israel and Arab nations — the so-called road map — has stalled.

Speaking to an audience that included hundreds of Arab officials and business people at Cobo Center in Detroit, Michigan on the second day of the U.S.-Arab Economic Forum, Powell said that too often in the Middle East, young people are heard to say, "I am wasted."

" No peace or prosperity is possible, he said, "with so much frustration in every sphere of life. …I have come to ask you to build a new Middle East that is peaceful, and prosperous, and free," ... "This is a struggle that we must contest with every tool at our hands" … "Arab societies must be more open and democratic to generate more trade, attract more business and allow the money that is earned to enrich the masses, he said.

About 900 people originally greeted Powell, with a standing ovation. But, by the end of his speech —in which he defended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Bush administration's determination to foster democracy in the region —everyone who applauded him remained in their seat

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 28, 2003

Bush's Politics of Pandering to anti-American Arab Groups

By Frank Gaffney Jr., The Washington Times, September 28, 2003

Every once in a while a highly visible political gambit comes completely a cropper - particularly when it involves — saying nothing of embarrasses — the president of the United States, it generally gets considerable public notice. Often the proverbial head rolls. At the very least, a course correction is usually quickly effected.

What are we to make, then, of the astonishing silence, the utter lack of accountability and the absence of any apparent shift in electoral strategy that has
accompanied the meltdown of the one of the Bush political team's major initiatives: Its effort to recruit Muslim- and Arab-American voters (and donors) by pandering to foreign-funded organizations led by radical leftists and even pro-
"Islamists" — despite the fact that most members of those communities either are radical or subscribe to the virulently intolerant, and often violently anti-American, tenets of those who promote Islamism.

This courting formally got under way back in 2000, when senior advisers to then-Gov. George Bush invited representatives of highly problematic groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the American Muslim Council (AMC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations "(CAIR) to Austin. On the presidential campaign trail that year, he met with and received support from an Islamist activist named Sami Al-Arian and embraced Mr. Al-Arian's personal pet project the prohibition of the use of "secret evidence" by federal law
enforcement.

After Mr. Bush gained the White House, ISNA, the AMC, CAIR and like-minded groups and individuals such as Sami Al-Arian were invited to the White
House for meetings there with, among others, political guru Karl Rove
. In fact, on September 11,2001, a number of them were scheduled to hold a meeting in the presidential complex for the purpose of cashing in on the promised end to the use of secret evidence — one of law enforcement's few and most important pre-Patriot Act tools for protecting classified information while prosecuting suspected terrorists

Incredible as it may seem, in the wake of the attacks that day organizations with long record of support for radical Islam and sympathy for those who murder Americans and others in its name were afforded increased access to high-level administration officials and myriad federal agencies. Mr. Al-Arian's access only ended when he was indicted and held without bail on some 40 counts, including charges that he ran Palestinian Islamic Jihad for 10 years from his office at the University of South Florida. CAIR's access has continued, even though three of its officials have been arrested in recent months on terrorism-related charges.

Such "outreach" to Muslims was routinely justified by a legitimate, even laudable, desire on Mr. Bush's part to demonstrate that the War on Terror was not a war on Islam. But for some around the president, it had a more crass political impetus: pandering for votes in 2002 and 2004.

Unfortunately, the pro-Islamists and their friends had a very different agenda. They sought to use the access thus afforded to White House officials, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers and the FBI to undermine counter-terrorist techniques and initiatives on the grounds they were racially or ethnically motivated. Worse yet, they publicly exploited meetings with the president and his subordinates to shore up their dubious — and highly undesirable — claim to leadership both within and on behalf of their community.

Just how undesirable this phenomenon is became clear in an important hearing on Sept. 10 the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism headed by Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican. After establishing Saudi funding as a source of revenue for and influence over organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, witnesses and senators on both sides of the aisle condemned CAIR for its "extreme" agenda and its support for terrorist organizations like Hamas.

If any further evidence were needed that the Bush administrations embrace of groups like CAIR was as politically unjustifiable as it is strategically dangerous, it was provided recently in Chicago. Two weeks ago, tens of thousands of immigrant and black Muslims met there in separate conventions. Their inability to assemble in a single venue or to agree on a common agenda offered clear evidence that their communities are hardly monolithic. In fact, the only thing on which there was apparent accord was an announced determination on the part of the radical groups who sponsored these events that they would work to register 1 million Muslim voters to defeat George W. Bush in 2004.

It is clearly time for George Bush to reach out to moderate Muslims, not the radicals and Islamists his team has been romancing — to empower the
former and to diminish, for both compelling strategic and political reasons, the influence of the latter. If any pandering is to be done from here on, let it be lavished on those — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — who are committed to strengthening this country against its enemies, instead of those who sympathize
with them.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:08 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 24, 2003

The Candid Remarks of Reverend Pat Robertson

Redacted from interview by Michael Freund, The International Jerusalem Post, September 19, 2003

(When US televangelist Pat Robertson talks, millions of Americans listen. And what he's telling George W. Bush is to beware of dividing the Land of Israel and creating a Palestinian state.)

While driving along a verdant stretch of road near Virginia's popular beaches, it is hard to imagine anything in this pleasant and tranquil area stirring up nationwide controversy. The pastoral and well-tended lawns of Regent University, home to the Rev. Dr. Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, seem far-removed from the harsh media criticism that, from time to time, follows some of his remarks on his daily television broadcasts. Recently, Robertson found himself at the center of a storm after he called upon his followers to pray that three liberal justices of the US Supreme Court be influenced from Above to retire, thereby clearing the way for US President George W. Bush to appoint social conservatives in their place.

The 73-year-old former Republican presidential candidate and leading Christian televangelist also came under fire for criticizing US policy towards Liberia. But despite the tumult, Robertson and his Christian evangelical operation is still going strong ago. In the past two decades, Robertson's followers have become a prominent force in domestic US politics, pushing an agenda that is unabashedly conservative and self-confident.

Interviewed in his office, Robertson was especially keen to discuss an issue that has been on his mind a lot of late: the US-backed road map and how it will affect the future of Israel. Though a staunch conservative, Robertson does not mince words when it comes to criticizing President Bush over his desire to establish a Palestinian state and divide the Land of Israel. As far as Robertson is concerned, Bush is playing with fire, and making what he considers to be "a terrible mistake."

Following are excerpts from the interview:

Over the past 2,000 years, the Jewish people suffered terribly as a result of persecution by Christians. Yet, nowadays, some of Israel's most vocal supporters, particularly in the US, are Christians. Are we witnessing some kind of change in Jewish-Christian relations?

I am not sure the change is as dramatic as you think; it is just that now it is being noticed. My mother years and years ago always told us to bless the Jews and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. There is a repository of that kind of feeling, of great warmth towards Israel and the Jewish people.

How do you explain that?

The first thing that we have to realize is that evangelical Christians take the Bible very seriously, so the Old Testament figures, who were all Jewish, are to them their heroes in faith. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron. The prophets. David. All these people are preached about, talked about, and discussed and become part of our evangelical culture. The other point that we have to keep in mind is that Jesus was Jewish, and all of the early apostles were Jews.

Some observers have argued that behind this support for Israel lies an ulterior motive, a desire to convert Jews, to entice them to become Christians. Shouldn't Jews be concerned?

I think there is a bond of kinship that has no ulterior motive at all. In fact, it is sometimes costly. It isn't easy for a person like me to be allied with Israel as closely as I am, because I have death threats from certain Muslim extremists, so this kind of thing puts you in risk of your life.

You mentioned the Bible. Now, the Bible states that God gave the Land of Israel to the people of Israel as their eternal inheritance. But George W. Bush is trying to divide the Land of Israel and create a Palestinian state. Do you think he is defying the Divine will?

I don't think there is any question about it. I think he has made a terrible mistake. You know the prophet Joel speaks about those "who divided my land," that there is a curse on them. I think I would walk very, very softly if I were George Bush in this regard. I think he has been talked into this by the US State Department, by the European community, by the Arabs, to take away Judea and Samaria, or what amounts to the Jewish homeland.

If Bush presses ahead with the road map and compels Israel to divide the land, do you think that American Christians in 2004 should take that into consideration when deciding whom to vote for?

I think they will, but the problem is that the election is between two people. It isn't George Bush versus perfection, it is George Bush versus a liberal Democrat and the chances are that the liberal Democrat is as bad or worse on Israel than he is, and will be worse on a whole lot of other issues than he is. But if he moves against Jerusalem, if he tries to partition Jerusalem, then I think Christian leaders across the country will rise up and speak out very forcefully against him, and it could hurt him in a close election.

As a Christian, haw do you feel about the fact that Israel turned over Bethlehem with all of its important Christian shrines to Palestinian control?

I was in Norway when Shimon Peres was there, working on those Oslo Accords. I wasn't aware of the momentous nature of what was being done, but I think Oslo was a tragic mistake. And I think Ehud Barak gave away the farm. He made concessions that were undreamed of, yet Arafat spat in his face and started the intifada. I think it was a terrible thing to give up not only Bethlehem, but also Joseph's Tomb in Shechem [Nablus], Hebron as these areas do play such a large role in the early formation of Israel. To give them up to Yasser Arafat is unthinkable. Barak tried to do it, and I think he did so under the pressure of Bill Clinton and it was a mistake.

In your opinion, is the roadmap merely another reincarnation of Oslo?

I think so. I think this road map is ill conceived, and I don't think it is going to survive. You guys have to go in and take over that territory. Establish martial, law, disband the Palestinian Authority, begin to reeducate the children and take over the television and the radio so the propaganda stops. Then, over a period of years, see if Palestinians of goodwill can be put in office -people who can understand the situation.

Why do you think Israel refrained from dismantling the Palestinian Authority?

The United States has held Israel back from doing what was needed. What is needed is to go in, like we went into Afghanistan. They needed to go in and flush out this nest of terrorists and do the job completely. Not just a few little tanks surrounding Yasser Arafat's headquarters and all that nonsense. That takes force, and it takes resolute courage and it takes the cooperation of the United States. Unfortunately, they don't have that. The US holds them back from doing what-they need to do.

In recent years, there have been reports about the persecution of Christians living in areas under Palestinian control. Are you concerned about that?

Oh, yes. We have interviewed people on our television station, those who have been tortured, those who have gone underground for fear of their lives and for fear of being captured by the Palestinian Authority. There is no question that the Christians have suffered terrible persecution. Bethlehem was essentially a Christian town. To the best of my knowledge, that whole area has been cleansed of its Christian population. So, that is just one example of the type of persecution that has been going on against Christians.

Do you think Israel does a good job making its case to the American public?

'(Laughs) It does a terrible job. They have the worst public relations of anything I can conceive of.

There have been a number of reports in recent months highlighting the Christian Right and its growing influence in the Republican Party and the White House. How much influence do they wield?

I ran for president in 1988, and in the process, I trained up to 300,000 people in precinct politics. When I got through, I organized the Christian Coalition and these people served as the cadre for the organization. I think over the years this group has been extremely effective in having an influence in the Republican Party. But in terms of really influencing the nation, I think the big networks, the big newspapers, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, they are the ones that really have the influence. I think they are probably the dominant voices in our society.

Have you thought of running for president again?

I am too old, too tired and too smart to try something like that again.

What do you think the role of religion and religious leaders should be in a democracy?

I don't think the organized Church should dominate government policy and force a particular point of view onto the lives of individual people. As to the Supreme Court, I regard the capture of our constitution by five non-elected people as being a form of tyranny. We are 270 million people, and five un-elected officials determine our morals and what we are going to do, when our children can pray, whether they can read the Bible, or whether they can read the Ten Commandments... The Constitution never intended the Supreme Court to have this kind of power.

How should the United States deal with Saudi Arabia

I think it is time that the cozy relationship between the leadership of our nation and the banking and oil interests has got to stop. We have got to recognize that the Wahhabis are vicious. We must tell the Saudis we are not going to stand for this anymore. You are exporting tenor, you are funding terror and you cannot do this anymore. We are protecting you, and we are not going to continue protecting you with our military umbrella if you are continuously undermining Israel, undermining other regimes around the world and trying to export this fanatical brand of Islam. You've just got to stop it. They are here operating in the United States, they are operating in Africa, in the Middle East and they are trying to undermine Russia, as the Chechens are connected with that Wahhabi group. I mean, it is a very dangerous thing and I think that we have to deal
with it forcefully, but so far, there is nobody in our government who has got the will to do that.

How can American citizens, particularly American Christians, support Israel in this difficult time? What would you suggest that they do on behalf of Israel?

The best thing is to discuss the | legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of Israel's claims to the land on a Biblical basis. I think that for the American Christians, and for Israel itself, the strongest claim to integrity rests strongly in the Bible. | The Land was given by God. It was won by conquest maybe around 1200 BCE. We are talking about a long history. I think we need to emphasize that these people [the Jews] are the Chosen People and that there is a prophetic significance in what is happening. These are our friends and we need to support them, especially Israel, as the only island of democracy in the whole Middle East. I think Christians need to speak out and I am not sure they are. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:11 PM | Comments (85) | TrackBack

September 23, 2003

The Land of Delusion

By Caroline Glick: Sep. 19, 2003 The Jerusalem Post


Sunday, September 21 Israel's Who's Who were joined by the rich and famous
from around the world at the Mann Auditorium in Tel Aviv to celebrate Shimon
Peres's 80th birthday. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is scheduled to attend the festival, as is former US president Bill Clinton. Mikhail Gorbachev and Nelson Mandela are also set to be there.

More than providing the public with yet another display of Peres's narcissism, the gala event will show the yawning gap between the world we occupy and the world occupied by Peres and his friends and supporters. In the world we live in, every promise of peace and a New Middle East has not only been broken, but has blown up in our faces. In the world we live in, the notion that it is either possible or desirable to negotiate a peace deal with the PLO has been rent asunder.

But in the Land of Peres, it is reality, not Peres, that is wrong. It is reality that is doomed to be remembered in history as a failure. It is reality that is to be condemned as not merely inconvenient but as impossible to countenance.

And so it is that 10 years after that first handshake on the lawn of the
White House Rose Garden, Peres defends Yasser Arafat and condemns Israel
. In a recent television interview with Fareed Zakaria on MSNBC, the erstwhile foreign minister held up Arafat as a paragon for combating Hamas in 1996, after 60 Israelis were blown to bits in eight days of carnage.

When Zakaria asked him why Arafat stopped combating Hamas, Peres replied
that it was the fault of his successor, Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu, according to Peres, was to blame for Arafat not combating Hamas because Netanyahu was not forthcoming enough in negotiations with Peres's Nobel co-laureate.

Never mind that Peres's entire claim that Arafat fought Hamas is a lie.Arafat, ahead of the 1996 general elections in Israel, rounded up, as he was wont to do, several hundred "usual suspects." Less than a week later, and
before the elections had taken place, he had already released more than a
hundred of them. At the same time, Muhammad Dahlan, then head of his
Preventive Security Service in the Gaza Strip, was actively hiding Hamas
terror chief Muhammad Deif, who had orchestrated the attacks. And Peres knew
this.

The upshot of all that Peres has told us for the past decade is that he
cannot be held responsible for the consequences of his strategies. He must
only be congratulated for the hope he bestowed on us all.

And herein lays the entire problem not just with Peres but with all his
honored guests and supporters. While some continue to blame Israel for the
Palestinian war being fought against the state, others claim to be more
"pragmatic." These people are willing to allow that Arafat is not a partner
in peace, but still protest that Israel must move ahead with the
non-existent peace process, "along the lines of the Camp David proposals."

And so it is that former US Middle East mediator Dennis Ross came to write
an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this week protesting the government's
decision to "remove" Arafat. Ross, who was the only Oslo pusher to
acknowledge that Arafat would never cut a peace deal with Israel, explained
that if Israel were to expel Arafat from its heartland, it would have to be in the context of large Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

Like Peres, Ross refuses to acknowledge reality. If Israel were to make
concessions of any kind to the Palestinians as part of its move to expel, arrest, or kill Arafat, these concessions would only go to the unrepentant murderers who'd take his place. Surely Ross knows this. Surely Peres does, too. So the question must be asked. What is it that propels these urbane and cultivated men to such conclusions?

The answer was given three weeks ago by no less of an authority than Ian
Buruma, in no less a venue than The New York Times. There, in an article
titled "How to talk about Israel," Buruma explained, "The Palestinian cause
has become the universal litmus test of liberal credentials." And so it is.
In the wreckage of Oslo it is important to note who its greatest beneficiaries were. The Israelis? Our lives have become a crapshoot. The Palestinians? Their standard of living was decimated by Arafat's kleptocracy, while their children were brainwashed by its jihadist media.

No. The real beneficiaries of the Oslo process were people on the political
Left like Peres and Ross and Annan and Clinton and their peace-activist
friends. At Oslo, where Yasser Arafat and his PLO were crowned in glory and
legitimacy, these men finally found a way to be pro-PLO and "pro-Israel."
As long as Israel had a government that favored Arafat and Oslo, they could ignore the fact that Arafat's regime was among the greatest human-rights abusers in the world. They could, as the UN did this week, condemn every
move that Israel takes to defend itself against aggression, never condemn the massacre of Israeli civilians, and still say they were friends of Israel because they believed in peace. They could equate Zionism with racism, as Mandela has, and pretend that they actually cared about the human rights of Jews because they support Oslo. They could keep their place on the liberal A-list without ever having to come to terms with the fact that what they claimed to be supporting and what they actually were advocating were mutually exclusive.

But now that is over. Oslo is dead. The overwhelming majority of Israelis want Arafat to disappear and do not believe that peace can be achieved in the foreseeable future. The PA stands revealed as the terrorist regime it has been since its inception.

Sides must be chosen. Some leftists, like Meron Benvenisti and Uri Avnery,
have already done so. Benvenisti advocates the destruction of the Jewish state, and Avnery acts as a human shield for Arafat.

In America, historian of Zionism Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, like philanthropists Edgar Bronfman and Marvin Lender, has also chosen sides by appealing to President George W. Bush to put sanctions on Israel and to view Israel and the PA as equivalents. Thus do they remain acceptable to their liberal friends, rather than true to genuinely liberal values.

Then again, at least they've "shown their cards" as Bush might say. Not so
men like Peres and Ross, who continue to view reality as just another
option, and choose self-delusion over the plain meaning of facts.

No doubt many on the Left are emotionally, politically, and financially
invested in the false assumptions of Oslo. And yet the time has come to cut
their losses. If the values they espouse are more important to them than the
company they keep, they will side with reality. If, on the other hand, hanging with the A-list is what really motivates them, at least they'll have a great party to go to. When it's Happy Hour in the Land of Delusion, the drinks are free.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:39 PM | Comments (35) | TrackBack

September 22, 2003

From Time Immemorial: Origins of Arab-Jewish Conflict


By Joan Peters

This monumental and fascinating book, the product of seven years of original research, will forever change the terms of the debate about the conflicting claims of the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East. A Five Star Must Read.

The weight of the comprehensive evidence found and brilliantly analyzed by historian and journalist Joan Peters answers many crucial questions, among them: Why are the Arab refugees from Israel seen in a different light from all the other, far more numerous peoples who were displaced after World War II? Why, indeed, are they seen differently from the Jewish refugees who were forced, in 1948 and after, to leave the Arab countries to find a haven in Israel? Who, in fact, are the Arabs who were living within the borders of present-day Israel, and where did they come from?

Joan Peter's highly readable and moving development of the answers to these and related questions will appear startling, even to those on both sides of the argument who have considered themselves to be in command of the facts. This book is one that has already had a major impact on the policy discussions of one of the most vital and intractable of the world's problems, shrouded until now in a fog of misinformation and ignorance.

"This book, if read, will change the mind of our generation. If understood, it could also affect the history of the future." - New Republic

"Everything in this book reads like hard news. . One woman walks in and scoops them all. . The great service provided here by Mrs. Peters - if only attention is paid - is to lay a groundwork for peace by clearing away the farrago of lies." -National Review

From Time Immemorial is available from ShopNetDaily now!

http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=36

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:16 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

September 19, 2003

University of Michigan Diversity Plan Is A Farce

Reprinted from The Detroit Jewish News, September 12, 2003

By Jerome S. Kaufman

It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down the University of Michigan's undergraduate point-based admissions program, envisioned the university's latest version of a legitimate system. The new program now demands financial information concerning the applicant s family and four essays — two of which have to be on diversity!

Can you imagine the chances of a student being admitted if he or she has the unmitigated honesty and gall to write that he thinks the whole diversity idea is a phony bit of social engineering, the results of which are at best questionable and reek of reverse discrimination?

How about financial divulgence? Is the child whose parents have been bright enough and hard working enough to obtain some financial success in the world to be punished?

What about the requirement that the student obtain an expanded counselor and teacher recommendation, including the applicant s ability to interact with different groups? Does the student who sucks up to the interviewer and gives him or her the answers that they know is expected suddenly become the best prospect for success in the university academic program?

Then each applicant will get an expanded review by "part-time" readers and a separate review by a U-M admissions counselor. Is there any doubt that those will be picked who will totally conform to this socially engineered prototype that the university has been defending tooth and nail with millions of dollars of taxpayer money and coerced donations from major corporations and foundations afraid of being labeled the bad guy?

Of course, the worst part of the whole scenario is the shocking diminishment of the requirement of plain old merit and the studied avoidance of the previous record of achievement in the whole contrived evaluation. Practically nowhere is it mentioned that the good bright student who has a proven record of brains and accomplishment should be rewarded and trained, especially by a state and federally funded institution, to ultimately represent this country and continue our success in the world. Are we hell-bent on becoming another socialized, underachieving country in order to pacify those insanely jealous of us?

Jerome S. Kaufman, Political Commentator

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:56 AM | Comments (86) | TrackBack

September 17, 2003

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon addresses meeting of Arab Local Council Heads,

September 17, 2003

Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser

I would like to welcome the Committee of Arab Local Council heads. I invited the heads of the Arab local councils to an open conversation in light of the publication of the Or Commission report. It was written in the report that the treatment of the Arab sector is a very important and sensitive issue that must be personally dealt with by the Prime Minister.

As is well known, six months ago, upon the establishment of the current
government, I established a ministerial committee to deal with the non-Jewish sector and I decided to chair the committee so that I might deal with this issue as well.

This is the only committee that I personally took upon myself. It has already held several discussions in which decisions - that have already been carried out - were taken. I will not detail them all here but I will point out one important decision on the completion of the four-year plan to assist and advance the Arab sector. Due to budget cuts in recent years, it was decided to extend the plan for another two years in order to complete the commitments in spite of our economic difficulties.

I see the need to improve the situation and status of Israeli Arabs as being of the highest importance; this is so that genuine equality of rights and obligations may be achieved for all Israeli citizens. I emphasize here the rights and obligations of all Israeli citizens. Today, to my regret, before the conclusion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we have difficult issues. I believe that the day will come in which upon the conclusion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will be possible to demand not only rights but also obligations.

Israeli Arabs deserve equality as a right and not as a privilege. My
government has set this as a priority, to implement this basic value, and I want to emphasize that you also have the responsibility to achieve these aims
. There is distress as a result of the plight that exists in the cities that you lead, and you will have to make efforts, with our help, but greater efforts.

The majority of the Arab public is law-abiding, and it is their right to protest and demonstrate whilst observing the law. It must not happen that a small, inciting and extremist minority should take advantage of this right and instigate violent outbursts. Jews and Arabs will live together in the State of Israel.

I am trying to look backwards, to the days of my childhood at the moshav. I did not think that there would be a day where Jews and Arabs would not live
together.

This State is truly wonderful but very complicated, Jews and Arabs, secular and religious, religious and ultra-orthodox, etc. I could make a very long list here.

In order for us to be able to live together, two things need to exist. The
first is that the law must be fully observed and kept by everybody without
exception; Israeli citizens must completely follow the law. The second is that justice must be carried out. If the law is not upheld there can be no justice. If we know how to keep both of these things, all Israeli citizens upholding the law and doing justice, it will be possible to live together and develop the State of Israel and to have not just peaceful relations and mutual understanding, etc. but greater achievements in all areas. This is my request to you. I ask you to take this opportunity to call on the Arab public and its leaders to show responsibility and to act together with us in order to bring about the complete integration of the Arabs into Israeli society.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:36 AM | Comments (93) | TrackBack

September 16, 2003

Race Hustlers continue their Destructive Demagoguery.

What is vital to the interests of black "leaders" and the Democratic Party is to keep blacks paranoid and dependent. For that, everything must be blamed on "racism."

By Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, September 15, 2003

There is nothing new about organizations and movements beginning with idealism and ending up as cynical rackets. Nevertheless, it was painful to listen to speakers who addressed a scattering of people gathered at the Lincoln Memorial for the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

Both the speakers and the small numbers of people gathered to hear them were a sharp contrast with the multitudes that covered the whole area around the Lincoln Memorial 40 years ago. Then, King spoke the immortal words that he dreamed of a time when people would no longer be judged by "the color of their skin" but by "the content of their character."

Yet, the speakers on the 40th anniversary of that occasion clearly rejected the idea of a colorblind society. These were no longer demands for equal treatment but for special benefits, based on skin color. Speakers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson certainly can't afford to be judged by the content of their character. The aging veterans of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s keep fighting the wars of the past with the rhetoric of the past, while the very different problems and opportunities of the present either are not addressed or are given prescriptions that fit an earlier time and a different disease.

Not only have the times changed, so have the demographic realities that translate into political realities. Blacks are no longer the nation's largest minority group. Hispanics have taken over that role. In California, Asians as well as Hispanics outnumber blacks. While some rejoice that whites are now a minority in California, do not expect Asians and Hispanics to have any feelings of guilt about the past that would lead them to pay reparations or make any other atonement for slavery or anything else.

Hispanics and blacks are not allies. They are rivals for everything from government largess to turf in neighborhoods and in prisons. Demographic realities threaten to push blacks more and more toward the periphery of public concerns and political attention. The old, broken-record rhetoric of black "leaders" tends likewise marginalize blacks.

The Democratic Party will still make its symbolic obeisance and even pretend to take race hustlers like Al Sharpton seriously. But the interests of its other constituents increasingly take precedence over the interests of blacks.

Nowhere is this more blatant than in the most vital of all black interests — the education of their children. Poll after poll shows blacks to be the strongest supporters of school choice to give their children a chance for a decent education, but vote after vote in Congress shows Democrats — black as well as white — to be the strongest opponents of such choice.

It is the same story, though not as widely known, when it comes to the environmentalists' restrictions against building, which push housing prices out of sight. These skyrocketing apartment rents and home prices are in turn pushing more and more blacks out of Northern California communities controlled by liberal Democrats.

Politically, green trumps black. Another constituency whose interests trump those of blacks are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, whose ideology favors the kinds of liberal judges who make it hard to control disruptive students in school.

When push comes to shove, the teachers' unions mean more to Democrats than the future of the next generation of blacks or to keep violent criminals behind bars. A handful of hoodlums can prevent a whole class from learning and a handful of criminals can make a ghetto neighborhood a hell to live in. But what the ACLU wants trumps what blacks need.

In medicine, it has long been recognized that even a quack remedy that is harmless in itself can be fatal when it substitutes for an effective medication or treatment. The time is overdue for that same recognition to apply to politics.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:33 AM | Comments (41) | TrackBack

September 14, 2003

What Americans really think about Islam

By Daniel Pipes

Americans are increasingly negative about Islam and Muslims - or so reports the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in an important opinion survey published last month. Perhaps the most dramatic change over time has been the jump in Americans who find that Islam, more than other religions, is likely "to encourage violence among its believers."

Other trends concerning Islam are also negative:

Muslim Americans: In November 2001, 59 percent registered positive views. That number declined to 54 percent in March 2002 and now stands at 51 percent.
Presidential candidate: Americans are much more disinclined to vote for a Muslim for US president than for a candidate of another religion: 31 percent say no to a Muslim, versus 20 percent negative regarding an Evangelical Christian, 15 percent a Catholic, and 14 percent a Jew.
Shared values: Asked if "the Muslim religion and your own religion have a lot in common," 31 percent answered affirmatively in November 2001, 27 percent in March 2002, and just 22 percent this year.

What explains this increasingly worried attitude? Clearly, much of it results from the ongoing reality of terrorism, hate-filled statements and other problems connected with militant Islam around the globe. But some of it also results from the problems concerning militant Islam's control of the institutions of American Muslim life. Whether it be the imam at the local mosque, the principal of the Islamic school, the Muslim chaplain in a prison or the armed forces, the editor of an Islamic publishing house, or the spokesman for a national organization, the American scene presents an almost uniform picture of apologetics for terrorism, conspiracy theories about Jews, and demands for Muslim privilege.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, with 17 offices across North America, has emerged as the powerhouse of Muslim organizations and best exemplifies this problem. Consider the sentiments of its leadership:

• Omar M. Ahmad (chairman) says suicide bombers "kill themselves for Islam" and so are not terrorists.
• Nihad Awad (executive director) proclaims his "support" for Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.
Ibrahim Hooper (spokesman) declares "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Nor does CAIR just excuse violence. Two of its former employees, Bassem Khafagi and Ismail Royer, have recently been arrested on charges related to terrorism. And a member of CAIR's advisory board, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by the US attorney as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in an attempted terrorist assault.

Despite this ugly record, the US government widely accepts CAIR as representing Islam. Nationally, the White House invites it to functions, the State Department links to its web-page, and Democratic senators rely on its research. In New York City, the mayor appoints its general counsel to the Human Rights Commission and the police department hosts its "sensitivity training" seminar.

In Florida, public schools invite it to teach "diversity awareness." The national media broadcasts its views. Which Muslim, for example, did the Los Angeles Times quote responding to the Pew report? Why, Ibrahim Hooper, of course.
CAIR, in brief, has established itself as the voice of American Islam, thereby battering Islam's noble reputation among Americans.

Moderate Muslims, of course, reject CAIR's representing them. The late Seifeldin
Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, dismissed CAIR as the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam." Tashbih Sayyed of the Los Angeles-based Council for Democracy and Tolerance accuses CAIR of being a "fifth column" in the United States. Jamal Hasan of the same organization discerns CAIR's goal as spreading "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."

Improving Islam's reputation will require two steps: that the great institutions of American life reject all contact with CAIR and like groups, while moderate Muslims build sound organizations, ones that neither apologize for terrorism nor seek "the government of the United States to be Islamic."

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 09, 2003

Survey finds Vast Majority of College Professors are Democrats

By Ellen Sorokin

THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 9-15 2003

A majority of college professors across the country are registered Democrats, most of whom end up teaching in disciplines where politics matters the most, a new survey released by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute shows.

More than 90 percent of the professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at schools like the University of Maryland, Brown, Cornell, Stanford, Penn State and Harvard belong to either Democratic, Green or Working Families parties, the survey found. Few faculty members are registered as Republicans or Libertarians.

"You can't get a good education if you only get half the story," said David Horowitz, author and editor of Frontpagemag.com, which has been following the issue of what he calls "one-party campuses" closely for several years. "This is a national outrage. You could understand this taking place in the [former] Soviet Union, but you can't understand why this takes place in the United States. This is McCarthyism in the extreme."

However, some analysts argue that those who end up teaching politics don't like politics. "The problem here is not that these professors are perpetuating liberal political biases, but being anti-politics," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal research and policy institute. "Many of them teach that politicians are to consumed with being re-elected and forget about what the people want," he said.

The survey found at the University of Colorado at Boulder, 116 of the professors whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and five were Republicans. Out of a sample of 37 professors who teach English, none were Republicans. Out of a sample of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Out of 19 political science professors,
two were Republican.

• At Harvard University, of the 52 professors whose affiliations were found, 50 were registered Democrats and two were Republicans. Of 15 sociology professors, none were Republicans. Out of 16 economics professors, one was Republican. Of 21 political science professors, one was Republican.

• At the University of California at Santa Barbara, a sample of 72 arts and sciences professors were registered Democrats and one was Republican. Out of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Of 21 English professors, none was Republican. Out of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Of 13 political science professors, none was Republican, and out of eight journalism professors, none was Republican.

•At the University of Texas at Austin, of the 109 professors whose political affiliations were found, 94 were Democrats and 15 were Republicans. Out of six philosophy professors, one was Republican. Of 19 political science professors, 15 were Democrats. Out of 14 history professors, two were Republicans. Out of 42 English professors, 35 were Democrats.

"Faculties that won't brook intellectual dissent in their own ranks feel more comfortable indoctrinating students than educating them, because genuine education requires a willingness to examine problems rigorously," said Winfield Myers, an education analyst in Delaware. "Intellectual rigor is the antidote to academic pieties and the key to great teaching, but a professorate afraid of internal debate is intellectually lazy."

David Salisbury, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, said the results reinforce the idea that colleges are now "hostile environments" for economic and cultural conservatives. The country needs more private colleges that still provide traditional curriculums, he said. "You don't want to suppress the opinions of these professors, but this is worrisome," Mr. Salisbury said. "There's no question that people's individually held philosophies influence their teaching. The whole purpose of going to college is for a student to get exposed to a diverse range of ideas, not a single viewpoint."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:53 AM | Comments (169) | TrackBack

September 08, 2003

Perverse Political Correctness

By Robert Bork

"For most of us, airport security checks are the only first-hand experience we have with counter-measures to terrorism, and their intrusiveness and often seeming pointlessness have, not surprisingly, led many people to question such measures in general. But minor vexations are not the same as an assault on fundamental liberties. As for ethnic profiling, that is another matter, and a serious one. It is serious, however, not because it is rampant but because it does not exist. [...]

"Ironically, it is the very randomness of the new security checks that has generated so much skepticism about their efficacy. Old ladies, children, Catholic priests — all have been subject to searches of San Quentin-like thoroughness despite being beyond rational suspicion. According to the authorities, this randomness is itself a virtue, preventing would-be terrorists from easily predicting who or what will draw attention. But it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with political correctness. Frightening as the prospect of terrorism may be, it pales, in the minds of many officials, in comparison with the prospect of being charged with racism."

Robert H. Bork, writing on "Civil Liberties After 9/11," in the July-August issue of Commentary Magazine

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:45 AM | Comments (74) | TrackBack

September 05, 2003

Perhaps a Message from Israeli Jets?

(Jewish blood, Lord willing, will not be so easily come by next time around)

Israeli jets honor Holocaust victims

(From the Detroit News, World Briefs, September 5, 2003)

OSWIECIM, Poland — Ignoring objections from the Auschwitz Museum, three Israeli F-I5 jets piloted by descendants of Holocaust survivors circled the former Nazi death camp Thursday to pay tribute to the victims. The Auschwitz Museum, which maintains the grounds of the former Nazi death camp, complained that the show of military might was an inappropriate way to commemorate the victims.

PS ( But, so was killing them in the gas chambers)

Comment received from knowledgeable Israeli friend after posting:


Jerry Shalom,

Here is another perspective about this story. Israeli F-15 jets that are flying from Israel to Poland can also fly from Israel to Iran. The logistics, range and navigation needed to fly from Israel to Poland is very similar to the one needed to Iran!! It is a direct sign to the whole world to do something about the ongoing Iranian nuclear project or else Israel will know what to do at due time.

Best wishes,

Yaacov

More on Targeting Iran

The Washington Times, September 7, 2003

Israel has ready a plan to bomb Iran's Bushehr nuclear- power plant should the Persian Gulf coast facility, now under construction, begin producing weapons-grade material, an insider tells us. This source says Israel has mapped out a route its jet fighters would take to destroy what is designed to be a two-reactor plant. A successful strike would ensure that the radical Tehran regime does not develop nuclear weapons. Iran has tested 600-mile-range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel and carry nuclear, biological or chemical warheads.

Russia has signed an $800 million contract to provide two reactors for the plant near the port city of Bushehr. The United States opposes the deal, as well as any nuclear program in Iran. Israeli F-16s penetrated Iraqi airspace in 1981 to bomb the Osiraq nuclear-power plant, at the Tuwaitha nuclear center near Baghdad.

Analysts believe the action, while condemned by the international community, kept Saddam Hussein from acquiring the bomb. (And saved thousands of American lives in the 1991 Gulf War and now in the war with Iraq 11-12 years later) U.S. Central Command has contingency plans for war with Iran, but there is no active discussion of invading a country that President Bush has put in the "axis of evil." Still, some in the Pentagon talk unofficially of what would be needed to take out the Bushehr plant.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:41 PM | Comments (107) | TrackBack

September 03, 2003

Enough of United Nations Perfidy

Enough of contributing 23% or more of the grossly inflated and irresponsible budget of the United Nations, an organization run by the European Union, the Arab nations and the nations of the Third World. The greater part of the time these nations vote against our interests, remain insanely jealous of us and yet we, the American taxpayer, continue to support them.

Recently founded was an independent grassroots, non-profit organization that is asking our support. Below is a petition they designed and which you may elect to send to the President. Also, you may elect to donate to the organization as listed below. Israel Commentary has no financial interest here whatever.

Petition to the President of the United States

Dear Mr. President,

Whereas, the United Nations, the Europeans and many of our so-called "allies" were hostile to American interests long before the Iraq war; and

Whereas, the United Nations frantic efforts to obstruct our strike against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its ongoing interference in our overall war on terror are systemic of a larger, overall effort to take control of our domestic, military and diplomatic policies; and

Whereas, neither foreign nations nor the United Nations have any business dictating domestic or foreign policy to the United States; and

Whereas, their demands to take more control and responsibility of our Iraq reconstruction policy and war efforts are simply the last straws; and

Whereas, the time has come to send the United Nations, the Europeans and the entire world a loud and clear message that the days of U.S. appeasement are over for good.

Therefore, I hereby urge you to initiate action with the Congress to officially and permanently withdraw the United States from the United Nations.


Respectfully ________________________________ Date: __________

Optional E-mail address:


Dear Sirs,

Yes, I share your anger over the United Nations never-ending, anti-American actions and rhetoric and agree the sole purpose of this globalist entity seems to be restraining America's military, economic and diplomatic sovereignty. I am also alarmed by their arrogant demands to dictate to us how best to rebuild Iraq and continue the war on terrorism.

Therefore, I believe we must act immediately to reverse the damage caused by eight years of appeasement and surrender by the Clinton White House and State Department. More importantly, I agree that the time has come for the United
States to officially and permanently withdraw from the United Nations.

That's why I am immediately sending my contribution in order that you are able to carry on this work vital to the well being of our nation.

TO:
SELOUS FOUNDATION
325 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Post Office Box 97207
Washington, D.C. 20090-7207
D $20 D $25 D $35
D $50 D $75 D $100
D $250 D $500 D $1000
D Other $ ________

The Selous Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) grassroots organization.
Your donation is tax-deductible and a receipt will be forthcoming

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:42 PM | Comments (102) | TrackBack

September 02, 2003

Go Back to the Bagel Business, Please!

Interview with Joe Lieberman’s Campaign Vice Chairman, Marvin Lender of Lender’s Bagels

By Melissa Radler – Redacted from International Jerusalem Post, August 29, 2003

The comments and opinions of Marvin Lender, former President of Lender’s Bagels and now simultaneously Chairman of Israel Policy Forum, a dead Left political organization and the National Vice Chairman for Senator Joe Lieberman’s presidential campaign!

Questions and stated opinions:

As far as Israel – Lender’s “primary goal is garnering support for the Roadmap!”

Asked if he is happy with Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to disarm the terrorist groups he replied, “ I think I understand that he does not have the capacity to do that and we must be patient and cautious and help him establish himself. (Evidently, never mind the number of innocent Israelis killed during Abbas’s break-in period!)

Lender wrote in a June LA Times that the Bush administration should provide the PA with weapons and training and that doing so would protect Israel’s security not harm it!

Lender has met Mahmoud Abbas twice and concludes that Abbas is a very clever, clever man with a nice appearance that makes you want to sit and talk to him! And he is an educated man. (What great reasons to allow the slaughter of Israeli citizens!)

After meeting Arafat several times, Lender was asked, After realizing that Arafat was not a partner for peace did it change your approach to the peace process? "No, it just convinced me that I would have to work harder.”

Where does the responsibility lie for the past three years of violence? Lender replied, “ I cannot assign the fault of the intifada to any one person or situation. All the parties have to bear some responsibility.”

What about incitement and anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Media and educational system? What does Abbas plan to do? “Abbas did not specify what he plans to do. But you have to understand, there is incitement by Right Wing Israelis as well.”

Conclusion: How then could anyone worried about the future of the State of Israel vote for Joe Lieberman when he appoints this guy as a vice chairman for his 2004 campaign? Can Lieberman’s own thinking be far behind? Too bad Lender did not stick with the business he knows – BAGELS.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack