November 29, 2003

The Arab Definition of the Term, “President.”

On occasion one bumps into a small news item that tells an awfully big story. Out of Cairo comes the news that, “An ailing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek canceled a speech on doctor’s orders Thursday. The previous day he had abruptly left the podium for more than 30 minutes in the middle of a nationally televised address to Parliament.”

“Mubarek has no designated successor and is believed to be ‘grooming his son to follow him.’ He was described, by aides, as having a cold aggravated by fasting during the Muslim month of Ramadan.”

The operative phrase was ‘grooming his son’ for the “Presidency.”

Those of us in the West are so naïve that we imagine the word “President” refers to a national leader, duly elected by majority vote, who then, for a designated period of time takes the reins of a democratic government. It is not remotely thought of as a position for which one ‘grooms his son’ unless, on the rare occasion, one proceeds via the governorship of the State of Texas.

It seems that the Arab world has a far less complicated way of electing
“Presidents.” One simply “grooms one’s son” as Mubarek and as did “President” Hafez al Assad “groom his son” Bashar to become “President” of Syria.

One would think that after all these years of disappointment, the U.S. State Department would look with a much more jaundiced eye at such countries to fill the role of dependable ally.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:09 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

November 25, 2003

Excerpted from What Really Happened in 2002 Vote

By Steve Sailer November 23, 2003

Final figures show Republican Political maven, Karl Rove’s outreach to much touted but now proven non- existent Arab vote (0.3% of actual voters - James Zogby and John Zogby International Polling notwithstanding) a dangerous and counter-productive strategy. jsk

Documenting links at

The 2002 elections might seem like a long time ago. But in vital ways, they still provide the best guide to the rapidly approaching 2004 elections.

As I pointed out last year, when the crunch time arrived in the next election, Rove dumped minority outreach and went "hunting where the ducks are." He launched a massive get-out-the-vote drive among the Republican base.

Some sharper liberals noticed Rove's ploy. Democratic pollster Ruy Teixeira
came to the same conclusion. He told me, "The demographic theme of the 2002
election for the Republicans was 'Round up the usual suspects,' and they did a
good job at it." The results for the Republicans were excellent.

But the lack of national exit poll data has allowed many commentators to go on making up fairy tales about the GOP winning by broadening its tent.

In analyzing the Roper data, I'll concentrate on the races in 2002 for the House of Representatives, since those are more comparable from year to year than the Senate or Governor races.

As I wrote for UPI, the actual Rove strategy (as opposed to the one that he talked about so much) brought these changes:

"[The GOP's] share of the non-white vote dropped from 25 percent in 2000 to
23 percent. That mattered little, however, because its share of the white-vote
segment grew from 55 percent to 59 percent. Further benefiting the
Republicans, the white portion of the electorate increased from 81 percent to 82 percent [because of improved turnout], even though the total population is becoming less white each year. The result was that the GOP became more dependent upon white voters, with whites casting 92 percent of all votes for Republicans, up from 90 percent in 2000."

Case closed.

Here are some further useful details from this trove of Election 2002 numbers:

The GOP's fraction of the black vote declined, from eleven to nine percent.

Asians continued to move to the left, with the Republican share falling from
40 percent to 34 percent.

Conventional Republican commentators like Barone assumed that Asians, being
prosperous and law-abiding -- the "new Jews," as he thinks of them -- would
automatically assimilate into the GOP. Unfortunately for Republicans, they are
now voting like the "old Jews!" (As Milton Himmelfarb first observed, Jews earn
like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.)

Hispanics voted 38 percent Republican, up from 35 percent in 2000.

Moreover, the GOP's share of Hispanic ballots in 2002's Senate and
gubernatorial races was significantly worse than in the House: only 33 percent in each.

The GOP performed impressively among white women.

In 2000, white women gave only 50 percent of their votes to the Republican
House candidates, but in 2002 that figure reached 57 percent. Still, only eight
percent of black women voted Republican (a typical result) and 37 percent of
Hispanic women (there's never been much of a gender gap among Hispanics).
Result: overall, the gender gap narrowed -- the GOP won 50 percent of the total
female vote for the House for the first time in decades.

The denominational equivalent of the famous gender gap (the "church chasm"?)
widened substantially. Among white Protestants, the Republican share rose from 63 to 69 percent. But the Republican share fell among white Catholics, from 52 to 50 percent. The GOP fraction of the Jewish vote grew from 22 percent to 29 percent -- but this vote is small, at 3.3 percent of the electorate.

What about the much-touted Muslim vote? The best evidence against my
assumption that Rove is a sharp cookie is the ludicrous and possibly catastrophic
effort he cooked up with immigration-booster Grover Norquist to win the supposedly crucial Muslim masses in the 2000 Presidential election. Incredibly, as part of Rove's outreach, President Bush was supposed to meet with Muslim and Arab spokesmen to announce progress in eliminating airport security profiling of Muslim and Arab passengers on the afternoon of … Sept. 11, 2001, but something or other came up.

You would think that if Rove were going to expose Americans to a greater risk
of terrorism, he'd at least sell out to a sizable voting bloc. Yet it turns out that the fraction of voters who declared themselves to be Muslims in 2002 was miniscule: no more than 0.3 percent

Hmmm. Maybe Karl's not such a "Boy Genius" after all.

[Steve Sailer [email him], is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His website features site-exclusive commentaries.]

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:31 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

November 24, 2003

Israel’s “Fence” - The Continuation of a Dangerous Lie

By Jerome S. Kaufman

(Re-printed from the Detroit Jewish News, Nov. 14, 2003 and Arutz Sheva (Israel National News - Oct. 28, 2003)

Confusion and conflict continue to reign supreme over the existence, extent, route and composition of the “Fence” that Israel is now constructing in an attempt at protecting itself against the lethal, painfully effective terrorist destruction and demoralization of its own people.

Why the confusion and conflict? The reason is quite simple - the Israelis themselves and their supporters around the world live in a state of self-induced misinformation and delusion as to the entire scenario. What is the fence for? Is it to protect Israeli citizens? Yes, but will it be effective? Has there ever been a fence of any great length effective against a marauding enemy or an enemy truly dedicated to circumventing or destroying that fence? Was the Maginot Line of the French effective against the invading German blitzkrieg of WW II? Was the Great Wall of China effective against hoards of Mongol invaders? Are the Rio Grande, the border patrol and their fences effective against migrants dedicated to entering the United States?

Does a fence make any military sense? If one has an enemy dedicated to his destruction, does one hide in the cellar like the Jews of the shtetels of Poland and Russia? Was that effective against the Cossacks pounding on the cellar door? Does one build a ghetto along a slender Mediterranean corridor packed with more Jews per square inch than any other place in the world, in order to isolate these Jews from their enemies? Yes, the Germans did that to the Jews of Warsaw and that ghetto wall was very effective. The only problem was that ghetto wall was effective in killing Jews rather than saving them.

And, what if one has the great advantage of overwhelming force and power? Does one follow the rules of engagement that cater to the weaknesses of one’s enemy? Does one create another Lebanese security zone within Israel itself? How effective was that? Does one allow his own power to be neutralized and allow one’s enemy to continue to wreck havoc upon his greater forces or does one use one’s overwhelming force to finally destroy the enemy and stop the killing?

Suppose your declared friends and allies discourage you from using this power. But what about these “friends and “allies? Did the Americans or Europeans use Marquis of Queensborough Rules in WWII destroying Cologne, leveling Berlin or dropping atomic bombs upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do the Arabs use Marquis of Queensborough rules in their endless internecine warfare? Was that the format in Iraq vs. Iran or Iraq vs. Kuwait or Jordan vs. the Palestinian Arabs or Hafez Assad vs. his own citizens in Hama or Saddam Hussein vs. his own Kurds or his own Shiites in Iraq or his own sons-in-law for that matter?

In any case does Israel need an excuse or a dispensation from the rest of the world to protect its own citizens? What does the rabbi say? Is he going to repeat his sermon about tikkun olam when your wives, children and land are bleeding to death and another Holocaust of Jews, but this time in their own land, transpires before our very eyes?

But, in fact, that all begs the question. The real question always remains, whose land is it? Is 5764 years of Jewish history a lie? Because the rest of the world, besmirched in its centuries of anti-Semitism, continues to blame the Jews for every hangnail that surfaces and delights in accepting the gross lie of Arab pre-possession and Israeli “occupation” does that make it true? Should many Jews and many Israelis continue to be so uninformed as to buy into this gross lie? Does any knowledgeable person not know that the “settlements” are on Israeli land and it is the Arabs that are the ‘occupiers.” And does anyone really care if it is a lie or not?

What only matters in practice is the fact that Jesus was misinformed. The meek do not inherit the earth - at least not in our lifetime. Perhaps we should leave that possibility to the Messioch and Jesus Christ and anyone else involved in the First or Second Coming, depending upon one’s religious persuasion. Perhaps the Israelis should use their full power to protect their people right now. Forget creating another ghetto for Jews. Forget the ridiculous hypocrisy of a fence that is itself destructive and ineffective and instead continues to promote and delineate the lethal abomination of a “Palestinian State” invented for a previously non-existent “Palestinian People.”

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:07 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

November 19, 2003

USA shoots self in foot - pressures an ally

Republicans about to forfeit great progress made in wresting Jewish vote and major contributions from Democrats.

NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America is deeply troubled by a report that the Bush administration is pressuring Israel to make more concessions to Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported (Nov.17, 2003) that "the
Americans are exerting more pressure on Israel" in order to help the new Palestinian Authority prime minister, Ahmed Qurei --even though Qurei was hand-picked by Arafat, and the Bush administration has said it will not deal with Arafat because of his continuing sponsorship of terrorism.

The JTA report added: "'If there is any sign that Abu Ala is serious,
we might try to make the Israelis do something to make it worth Abu Ala's while,' a senior American official told JTA, using Qurei's nom de guerre."

The JTA noted that there have been additional recent instances of U.S.
pressure on Israel, concerning the Bush administration's attitude towards the "Geneva Accord" and a related petition drive, both of which call for an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 borders and the quick establishment of a Palestinian Arab state. "Both initiatives were well received in Washington," the JTA reported, "with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz going out of their way to praise them--and, by implication, implying that Sharon could do more."

The JTA report added that there has been considerable "behind-the-scenes U.S. pressure" on Israel. "For weeks now, the Americans have been pressing Israel to lift closures of Palestinian areas, transfer Palestinian tax funds and dismantle unauthorized West Bank settlement outposts."

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "The Bush administration
is tragically ignoring the Palestinian Authority's refusal to dismantle terrorist groups and halt anti-American and anti-Jewish incitement--in fact, the administration is trying to appease the terrorist PA regime. The United States should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with its allies against the terrorists, not pressuring our allies to make concessions to terrorists."

The ZOA recently initiated a letter, which was signed by 70 Members of Congress, urging President Bush to stop "discussing further concessions from Israel" and to instead insist that the Palestinian Authority take "concrete, decisive action" against terrorists.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:51 AM | Comments (36) | TrackBack

November 18, 2003

A little killing of Israelis is OK

Sharon Changes Policy -Palestinians Can Murder Some Israelis Without

Aaron Lerner Date: 18 November 2003

Army Radio correspondent Kaveh Shafran reported on the 11:00 PM news
magazine tonight that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has made an important
policy change out of a desire to please Washington
: Sharon now takes the
position that during a cease-fire period Israel will not react Palestinian terrorists carry out attacks if the attacks are "small". Shafran did not say how many Israelis the Palestinians could murder in a given attack before the attack would no longer qualify for the "no response" status.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)

(What other leader or nation would accept a policy like that? Look for Sharon to lose the next elections - not due to the ascent of the Left but rather due to the disgust of his own Party and that of the Israeli people in his inability to protect them from their blood enemies)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:14 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

November 16, 2003

The Ultimate Goal of Israel’s Left - Self-Destruction via the Geneva “Initiative”

(An absolute gem by Sarah Honig, The International Jerusalem Post, Nov. 14, 2003)

What do the following have in common? Unauthorized negotiations with enemy representatives during wartime; a make-believe surrogate government to which fringe radicals appoint themselves; the mobilization of foreign pressure against the country's legitimate leadership; refusal to serve in the IDF or obey politically incorrect orders; paralyzing the economy via wildcat strikes that benefit monopolist unions; maligning legislation to preserve and safeguard the Jewish character of the state and demonizing the notion of a military solution to a violent conflict?

In any of the above, if you dare oppose Leftist dogma, you're denounced as a benighted reactionary or fascist. At the very least, to come out against a righteous pet cause celebre’ is to be perforce decried as anti-democratic and a danger to all that's civilized, enlightened and progressive. The Left unilaterally usurps for itself a monopoly of all that's moral, high-minded, cultured and refined. Coming to grips with this mind-set is key. Without awareness of the stigma automatically attached to whatever doesn't mesh with left-wing doctrinaire truisms, it's impossible to place into proper context the hubris of has-been politicos and their brazen private enterprise diplomacy.

By parading sanctimoniously as guardian of our collective conscience, the Left issues itself a license to subvert. Hence leftists think nothing of accepting funds from foreigners like the French, Belgians or Swiss (who're ostensibly committed to non -interference in the affairs of others) in order to willfully Ideological blinders inhibit them from admitting to anything untoward in their "Geneva Initiative," though it serves foreign interests and undermines the authority of the lawful government, elected by a landslide to further policies diametrically opposed to those they champion.

Despite overwhelming rejection of their platform by the electorate, they see nothing undemocratic in attempting to alter the voters' verdict post-factum with outside sponsorship, convert local opinion to the deceptive perception of ruthless terrorists as reasonable and peace-loving, while portraying their own government as brutish and uncompromising.

Since said leftists have convinced themselves that they can do no wrong, they'll eagerly seek to impress upon us that their avid courtship of Arafat's stooges is the epitome of Zionist dedication, whereas attachment to the Temple Mount or Rachel's Tomb is atavistic and sinister.

They don't judge the people's choice as binding. It's at most a recommendation, which they aren't obliged to accept. The rules of the democratic game are useful to them so long as they protect and promote their ideology. Everything is measured by this narrow utilitarian yardstick. What corresponds with their slant is democratic and what doesn't is anti-democratic. Adherence to the rules is selective and interest-oriented. Just like Sgt. Bilko's cavalier, anarchic self-serving attitude to ethics. Back in the golden age of TV he flashed his broad smile each week and delivered rousing pep talks touched with a tad of larceny to members of his motley platoon. In one classic episode he reminded his assembled malingerers, sharpies and assorted anathemas of authority that "the end justifies the means, especially if it's our end.

For Yossi Beilin and his platoon too no universally applicable standards exist, only expedient ones. Hence, when the Left is in power, even the slimmest of formal majorities suffices. Yet once the Left is trounced, the will of the majority is deemed tyrannical. Superseding it by imposing the will of the minority becomes the democratic essence, an inalienable right. According to our political Bilkos the majority's self-defense is illegitimate. The democratic ethos is used to crush democratic ethics.

This is the Geneva Initiative's subjective environment. Since leftist ideology is presumed synonymous with virtue, it's also equated with democracy. Anyone at odds with virtue is automatically defined as democracy's villainous foe. If the public isn't receptive to the leftists' message, then its opinion can be overruled and dismissed as too shallow and wrong-headed to decree that terror must be combated, that no negotiations should be conducted under fire, that certain territorial concessions are unacceptable or that tenor-mongers mustn't be rewarded. Sadly, the politically prostrate Left's attempts to bypass the will of the majority are aided and abetted among others by the courts, the media and the academic establishment. The political interest of the above-mentioned is upheld as democracy incarnate. Democracy is portrayed as indistinct from the left-wing agenda.

This liberates the Left from opposition-party constrictions. Even when relegated to the political sidelines, it's inherently entitled to have its way. If it determines that the greater good demands leftist hegemony, then democracy's conventional rules don't apply, never mind the protests of the aggregate of lowbrow fools who comprise the backward majority. Paraphrased in Bilko's immortal words: "Different rules for different fools."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:25 AM | Comments (32) | TrackBack

November 13, 2003

Crestwood School District Succombs to Threat

As anticipated, discretion is the better part of valor - at least the Mayor of Dearborn Heights, MI, Mary A. Canfield and the Crestwood School District Superintendent, Oscar Brown, thought so. They heeded the dire warnings of FBI Award reject, Imad Hamad, Regional Director of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee when he warned them if a school day was not taken off the schedule to celebrate the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan,

“ Rushing into decisions that involve such sensitive issues might bring serious ramifications and unexpected unhealthy consequences. This is why, we further urge the school board not to individualize the issue, and jeopardize the position of any of the fine staff of the Dearborn Heights Public Schools.”

And, as has been proven all over the world, terrorism does pay. Victims are afraid and do act to pacify their attackers. Dearborn Heights Mayor Mary A. Canfield had immediately judged, the language was “not a threat” and said, “I think there is a very easy solution to this problem. The School Board is going to vote for days off for the children and that should be the end of the problem.”

And sure enough, November 10, 2003, the Crestwood School District Superintendent, Oscar Brown announced that November 25th would be taken off by the school district because he “ was responding to a few issues” including the risk that not enough students would attend classes to officially qualify as an “instruction day” under state attendance laws. Funny he should say that since at most only 30% of the students in the district are of Muslim descent.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:49 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

November 11, 2003

The Understandably Misguided Jew

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Aaron Lerner, below points out an example of why American Jewry remains in a Left Wing uninformed bubble of passivity, misplaced guilt, self-hate, failure to defend Israeli and Jewish rights and in a constant mode of self-destruction. It is without doubt because the American Federations via United Jewish Charities and Jewish Councils continue to sponsor, most often, total Left wing self-hating apologetic writers and speakers like Daniel Kurtzer, Tony Lapid, Shimon Peres, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Haim Ramon, Yossi Beilin, Aaron Miller, Michael Melchior - the list is endless. This tragedy is compounded by most Jewish Newspapers who add immeasurably to the destructive process as a result of using as their primary news service the Left Wing Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) and writers such as Leslie Susser, Herb Keinon. Larry Derfner and others as their primary Israel reporters. Unfortunately, the Israelis suffer from the same media mindset.

It is the above scenario that has led Israel and the Jewish people into the disaster of Oslo and the so-called "peace process." It continues, to this very moment, with the latest abominations of the Roadmap and the Geneva Initiative whose end points can only be Israel's destruction. The instructive lessons of Jewish history are again blindly ignored even with the awful consequences upon us. May Hashem again have mercy upon us and save us from our own stupidity.

Only Withdrawal Supporters To Address GA about Israel/Palestinian Diplomacy

Dr. Aaron Lerner 11 November 2003

While there is great concern that American Jewish leaders are ill equipped
to deal with the onslaught of pro-withdrawal propaganda from promoters of
the Road Map and other schemes, it is noteworthy that the organizers of the
Jewish Communities General Assembly in Jerusalem opted to limit coverage of
the topic to a 75 minute session featuring a withdrawal advocate
representing the United States Government and an Israeli staged withdrawal
advocate[see below].

IMRA asked Glen Rosenkrantz, who is acting a spokesman for the GA, why only
withdrawal advocates are addressing the GA on this issue. Rosenkrantz told
IMRA that "all of the sessions were designed with the objective of creating
an objective and informed dialogue and that applies to that session as well."

Mon. Nov. 17, 2003

9:00 A.M. - 10:15 A.M. The Road....and the Map

Where are we now on November 17, 2003; and where are we going over the next 12 to 18 months. Behind-the-scenes politics, security, and personalities.


Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel
Joseph (Tommy) Lapid, Minister of Justice

Moderator: Nachman Shai, Senior Vice President and Director General, UJC
Israel Chairs: Morton Plant, Baltimore, Chair-Elect of the UJC Executive Comm.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:44 AM | Comments (63) | TrackBack

November 10, 2003

Withdraw from Iraq - Then What?

By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe Nov. 6, 2003

There is no denying that the news out of Iraq has been brutal lately. US soldiers die in roadside bombings and in brazen attacks like the helicopter downing that killed 16 on Sunday. Terrorists target civilian venues -- Red Cross offices, Muslim shrines, embassies -- for the bloodiest possible carnage. Iraqis are grateful to be free of Saddam Hussein, but many nonetheless inveigh against the American occupiers who toppled him. At the moment, Iraq seems a long, long way from anything resembling the stable and tolerant democracy President Bush says he is determined to see it become.

Not surprisingly, public support for the war is eroding. Only 54 percent of Americans -- down from 70 percent in late April -- still say it was worth fighting, according to the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll. Just 47 percent of the public approves of President Bush's handling of Iraq; a thin majority, 51 percent, actually disapproves. Quagmire fears are deepening: 53 percent are "very" concerned that the United States will get bogged down. A few more horrific attacks, another bloody couple of months in Baghdad and Fallujah, and it isn't hard to imagine even more Americans giving up on Iraq and deciding we should never have gone in to begin with.

Which is exactly what Saddam and his murderer-loyalists and the terror cadres that have joined them are counting on. They expect us to walk away. They are certain that we will do again what we did in Beirut and Mogadishu: lose heart, pull out, and leave the Middle East to them.

Will we?

Make no mistake. We are now in the battle that will decide the course of this war. Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground. The Baathist diehards and Islamist car-bombers understand that everything is on the line. They know that if America succeeds in planting freedom and decency in the Arab world, they are finished. That is why they are determined at all costs to drive us out.

To his great credit, Bush has never wavered in his resolve to stay in Iraq until it is governed by a stable constitutional democracy. "The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will," he said on Nov. 1. "Our will canot be shaken." He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is torn away from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

If only the Democrats running to replace Bush understood that lesson as well. Except for Senator Joseph Lieberman, none of them seems to grasp the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq. When they spoke of Iraq during their televised debate at Faneuil Hall Tuesday night, for example, all they appeared to care about was genuflecting to the UN and denouncing "sweetheart deals for Halliburton."

On what is by far the most consequential issue of the day, the Democrats repeatedly come across as petty and unserious. The proper goal of the US occupation, the link between Iraq and American national security, the US role in reshaping the Middle East -- if the candidates have thought meaningfully about any of these, it is impossible to tell. Incredibly, the first post-9/11 presidential campaign is being contested by a Democratic lineup that has apparently learned nothing from 9/11.

Like the occupation of Germany in January 1946, America's work in Iraq is only getting underway. A huge amount of effort -- and danger -- still lies ahead. What Americans need now are leaders who can focus on the great work before them -- not sideline snipers carping prematurely that the occupation has been "botched."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:11 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

November 07, 2003

FBI Objection Confirmed - Arab American Director Imad Hamad

Imad Hamad, Regional Director of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is once more in the news. This is the same Hamad who was rejected by the FBI for a National Citizenship award just a few weeks ago. Somehow the fact that Hamad was the object of over one dozen open ended FBI investigations relative to possible involvement and support of Arab terrorist organizations had been ignored. Also the fact that the US Immigration Service had unsuccessfully attempted to deport Hamad as an undesirable alien for over 20 years had also been ignored.

Just a few days ago acting as Regional Director of ADC, Hamad sent a letter to Ron Panetta, President of the Crestwood Board of Education, Dearborn, MI. The letter involved the fact that the Muslim holiday of Ramadan would be coming to a close and, what with about 30% of the children of the school district of Arab descent, Hamad likened the holiday to Christmas and wanted equal time asking that a few days be chosen as school holidays to honor the event. Fine.

But, the wording in the letter directed to Mr. Panetta was a little unusual. Hamad warned Panetta that, “ Rushing into decisions that involve such sensitive issues might bring serious ramifications and unexpected unhealthy consequences. This is why, we further urge the school board not to individualize the issue, and jeopardize the position of any of the fine staff of the Dearborn Heights Public Schools.” (!!)

Mr. Panetta understandably felt that he and the school board had been seriously threatened. He immediately had the good sense to contact the Board’s legal advisor and the police. Mr. Hamad was confronted and, of course, said “there was a misunderstanding in language.” Mr. Panetta remains unconvinced.

But, as has been proven all over the world, terrorism does pay. Victims are afraid and do act to pacify their attackers. Dearborn Heights Mayor Mary A. Canfield immediately judged that the language was “not a threat” and said, “I think there is a very easy solution to this problem. The School Board is going to vote for days off for the children and that should be the end of the problem.”

Really! - Just like the problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, the Philippines, Kosova, Chechnya, etc. etc etc.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:17 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

November 06, 2003

The Geneva Initiative - Another Commentary

By Yossi Klein Halevi

Excerpted from an article in the International Jerusalem Post, Nov. 7, 2003

Which brings us to the Geneva Initiative:

Reading the initiative's 26-page document is a surreal experience. The document fearlessly penetrates the most intractable issues of the Palestinian-Israeli abyss. Jerusalem? Here's a color-coded map of how the city of conflict will be transformed into the city of peace. Refugee return? There's no dilemma that men of goodwill can't resolve. The Temple Mount? Give us a real problem.

The only hitch is that it's a monumental act of self-deception. Which is precisely what makes it such a worthy successor to the pre-Yom Kippur conceptzia that it supposedly negates. The conceptual sin of the Geneva Israelis - Yossi Beilin, Avraham Burg, Amram Mitzna, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak - is to assume that we can still negotiate a comprehensive peace with this generation of PLO leaders, and that they will abide by their commitments. That sin emerges from the Left's refusal to concede the enormity of the Palestinian betrayal of peace, and to cling instead to the cowardly claim that both sides are responsible for the failure of Oslo.

Cowardly, because the notion allows left-wingers to avoid admitting just how wrong they were about peace with the PLO. That failure wasn't just a lapse in judgment about Yasser Arafat's character; it was a failure to comprehend the depth of Arab rejectionism of Israel's being. Not surprisingly, the initiative itself contains Oslo-sized loopholes waiting to be abused. The fact that disagreement has already begun over interpretation of the document is the inevitable result of negotiating with Arafat's regime. While Israeli negotiators insisted they had won a Palestinian renunciation of the right of return, Palestinian negotiators were telling their people that they had done no such thing.

The supposed historic breakthrough of the Geneva Initiative is simply that it doesn't mention the right of return. In other words, the Palestinians have refused once again to renounce their goal of demographically destroying Israel. And so while Israelis are expected to repudiate their right of return to post-1967 borders in the most tangible way, by physically uprooting settlements, Palestinians won't even offer a verbal repudiation of the right of return to pre-1967 Israel. ...

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:19 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Geneva Initiative - Another Israeli-Left Exercise in Self-Delusion

By Evelyn Gordon, The International Jerusalem Post, November 7, 2003

When the Geneva Initiative" was first unveiled last month, it was immediately clear that it constituted a gross violation of democratic norms: A small band of opposition figures,

(Namely the usual suspects -Yossi Beilin, Avraham Burg, Amram Mitzna, and Amnon Lipkin-Shahak - all failed Israeli politicians with virtually no following within their own Labor Party - jsk)

acting without the elected government's knowledge or consent, had negotiated a draft "peace agreement" with an enemy, with the explicit aim of generating international pressure on future Israeli governments to endorse the concessions contained therein. The full extent of the damage, however, became evident with publication of the document's full text - because a close reading makes it clear that this is an agreement to which no sane government could ever consent.

Even before the publication on October 24, it was known that the Israeli negotiators had conceded almost completely on territorial issues, granting the Palestinians most of east Jerusalem, including Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount; most of the West Bank, including major settlements, such as Efrat and Ariel, that even the most dovish Israeli governments have always insisted on keeping and part of the Negev, as compensation for border adjustments on the West Bank.

It was also evident that the agreement would create a security nightmare in Jerusalem (among other places), subjecting every neighborhood of the city to the fate suffered by Gilo during the current intifada - that of being within easy shooting range of sovereign Palestinian territory. But the territorial concessions are only the tip of the iceberg. There is also, for instance, the fact that all disputes over implementation of the agreement would be resolved by an Implementation and Verification of a Group (IVG) composed of the United
States, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and various other countries.

While the IVG's exact mechanism is unclear - the details are contained in an annex that has not yet been completed - Article 16 clearly states that if attempts at mediation fail, either side may submit the dispute to an arbitration panel, whose decisions will be binding. In short, this agreement would require Israel to accept the dictates of international arbitrators on even the most sensitive security issues.

Furthermore, the document would mortgage the country's economic future by committing it in advance to pay reparations in an amount that Israel would have little voice in determining. Specifically, it establishes an International Commission composed of Israel, the Palestinian state, the UN, the US, UNRWA, all of Israel's Arab neighbors, the EU, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Japan, the World Bank and Russia - in short, a commission on which Israel is overwhelmingly outnumbered - and instructs it to appoint a panel of experts to estimate the value of Palestinian property lost in 1948.

What is perhaps most astonishing, however, is just how little the Israeli team obtained in exchange for all its concessions. According to chief negotiator Yossi Beilin, the agreement provides Israel with three major achievements.

• The first relates to security. The Palestinian state will be demilitarized, and it will fight terror by disarming militias and arresting terrorists. Considering that the Palestinians have made identical pledges on demilitarization and terror in no less than five previous signed agreements - and that these pledges have been massively violated every time - why another such pledge should be considered an achievement is an enigma.

• Second, claims Beilin, the agreement includes Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This, it turns out, is simply false-. The agreement merely "recognize(s) Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples." Beilin can assert that Israel's "respective people" is the Jewish people, but the plain meaning of the text is that Israel is the homeland of its inhabitants, Jewish and Arab alike in short, a bi-national state.

• Finally, Beilin boasts of a Palestinian concession on the refugees' "right of return." The agreement states that Israel, and Israel alone, will decide how many Palestinian refugees it is willing to accept. This, however, is no concession at all - because as long as Israel remains a sovereign country with control over its own borders, the "right of return" could never be implemented without its consent in any case.

In short, what the Palestinians conceded - the "right" to flood Israel with hundreds of thousands of refugees - was something they never had the power to carry out in the first place. Yet Israel would pay for this nonexistent concession with real territory, real money and real security risks. That may be Beilin's idea of a good deal. But it is hard to imagine a majority of Israelis agreeing with him.

The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 05, 2003

Egregious Errors Re: Arab-American Population Claims

By Jerome S. Kaufman

It is beyond understanding to continually read in our newspapers and other media sources that the number of Arab Americans in the Metro Detroit area approximates 400,000 people and the number in the United States is near 3-5 Million! What is the source of these figures? If one is buying into the claims of notorious Arab propagandist James Zogby and his brother suspect polltaker John Zogby, the numbers are understandable.

These outrageously inflated numbers are their calculated attempt at obtaining more political influence and more of the various social benefits the local Arab population obtains from the government of the State of Michigan and ultimately from the U.S. government.

On the other hand, if one is interested in accuracy one might prefer to choose the Arab population figures of the United States Census taken in the year 2000. In that census the following figures are presented:

Metro Detroit = 92,328 up from 59,029 in 1990 (not quite the 400,000 claimed!)

Dearborn, Michigan - Up to 29,344 from 14,000 (not the 200,000 claimed)

Arab population of the USA = 1.25 million up from 940,000 in 1990 (not the 3-5 million claimed)

What makes no sense is why the media continues to perpetuate these lies?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:52 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack