June 29, 2004

Former Member of Knesset Kleiner in U.S. To Promote Alternative Plan

This is the complete article from the Jewish Press of February 13, 2004 but it is just as pertinent in July. Nothing much changes politically in Israel, except sometimes it is worse than others.

It is also painfully unfortunate that the only person that truly makes sense could not get enough votes in the last election to obtain even one seat in the Knesset. (jsk)

By Naomi Kiass Mauer

Former Israeli Knessent member Michael Kleiner was on a mission in the United States to, in his words, help save Israel from itself. As Kleiner puts it, “It is time to call upon our friends, American Jewry, to save Israel, because Sharon’s plan will bring Israel to what Abba Eban once termed ‘Auschwitz’ borders?”

Kleiner was elected to the Knesset in 1982 as a member of the Likud party under then Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He left the Likud after the 1998 Wye Agreement, as a matter of principle, together with Benny Begin and former prime minister Yitzchak Shamiir. They formed the Herut faction which, together with the Moledet and Tekuma parties became the National Union Party. Eventually Kleiner also left that party and remained in the Knesset as Herut’s sole representative. In the 2001 election he fell a few thousand votes short of the two Knesset seats that a new law stipulated as prerequisite for Knesset membership.

“The way I see it,” Kleiner said during a visit to The Jewish Press, “the government is channeled into a dead end situation because of demographics, and they think that running away is the only way. It is something like having an illness and amputating limb after limb until eventually there is nothing left to remove, which is what they did in Lebanon. Demographics are a serious problem but there is another way to tackle it.”

Jewish Press: It almost seems that noone in the government knows what to do?

Kleiner: That is the worst part. The religious party and the National Union stay in the government, so the population thinks that either this is not so terrible, or that there is no other solution.

Do you have an alternative plan?

The Herut party has a radical solution. It is a three-part plan.
The first part is to encourage emigration to Arab countries by families who want emigrate. The money being spent on the fence, which in the end will not be able to prevent terrorism anyway, could be put into a fund and given to families for relocating. According to a recent item, on the Arutz-7 news service, a poll revealed that 37 percent of Arabs would emigrate to other countries if! they were paid to do so. More than 150,000 have already left. They were the wealthy ones. Now, if 37 percent admit that they would leave, you can imagine that the number is much larger — but the others are afraid to openly say so.

Why do you think that the wall will not be useful in preventing terrorism?

Most of the recent terrorist acts have been cornmitted by terrorists who were driven past the security checkppints. Others have climbed over the wall, and as we see in Gaza, it is possible to dig underneath. Of course, the wall will not block Katyushas. That is why I say that encouraging families to move to another country is a much better idea in the long run.

What is the second part of your plan?

The Knesset should pass a law that every Israeli has to pledge allegiance to a Jewish state. Israel was created as a Jewish state and there is no reason that we should not have this pledge of allegiance, similar to other countries. It would be very difficult for any citizen who did not want to recite this. If you do not pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state, you cannot be a citizen. One could remain a resident, but they would not be entitled to the benefits of citizenship, as residents.

And part three?

Asymbolic proposal that the prime minister that the prime minister of Israel must be Jewish. When I tried to present this in the Knesset, I was told that it was racist. In the United States, they have a law that the president must be American-born No one considers this racist or against, any other country. Israel was created to be a Jewish state and it stands to reason that the prime minister should be a Jew. There is nothing racist about this.

To whom are you presenting this program here in the United States?

I want to tell you a piece of history that you might not be familiar with. In 1942 a group of Zionist American Jews met in the Biltmore Hotel in New York City to influence the direction of the Jews in Israel. They forced the Jewish leadership in Israel to acknowledge that they needed an army and could not just rely on the Briish army plus a few guards around each yishuv. The concept of the Haganah was born from that meeting, which eventually became the Israel Defense Forces when the state was declared .

I am here to promote these three bills via American Jewry. It is time once again for those American Jews who care deeply about the State of Israel to help the derailed Zionist movement.

Israel seems incapable, at the present time, of stating her case before the world. We have totally lost in the field of public relations. I do not blame President Bush for pushing peace plans mind and a Palestinian state. I blame Sharon.

What you’re saying is, why should an American president and Congress be more pro. Israel than the Israelis themselves?

Exactly. And it is pathetic how little of history people really know, In 1920 the League of Nations gave Britain authority to create a homeland for the Jews. They would never have approved of Israel for the Jews if another people had staked claims of ownership over that land. Of course, I believe that the other side of the Jordan River belongs to Israel also. After all, Jordan represents three quarters of historic Eretz Yisrael, as well as three fourths of the mandate given to the British to create Israel.

In 1922 the British took away that three fourths of the land and gave it to the Hashemite family, who created the country of TransJordan, ostensibly for the Arabs of Palestine. In 1948 Jordan took over the West Bank. Interestingly, only Britain and Pakistan recognized this occupation, and in 1988 King Hussein relinquished it. How many people do you think realize that we are now talking about splitting a big part of the last remaining one-fourth of all the land that was mandated to be a country for the Jews?

That point should be emphasized over and over again to the public.
That is what we are trying to do. We have reactivated the Herut movement here and all over the world. We are attracting young people in the US. and as far away as the Ukraine and Hungary who believe in the ideology of Zionism and aliyah. We want to start a grassroots movement here to support our bills. There are so many people who are pro-Israel and Zionistic. We should all be united.

Can Sharon’s government survive if it continues along its current course?
That is why we have to work hard and act quickly. I would like to bring my program to every home in Israel. I know that I would have a lot of support among the people, if I could do that. However, I cannot afford to send it to every home. Yossi Beilin was able to do that with his Geneva plan because it was paid for with European money. But with the help of good Jews who care deeply about Israel we shall succeed.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:46 PM | Comments (76) | TrackBack

June 25, 2004

The Shocking Story About Weapons of Mass Destruction in Jordan

By Gerald Fluny, Editor
The Philadelphia Trumpet, June 2004

HAVE SOME OF SADDAM HUSSEIN’S WEAPONS OF MASS Destruction (WMD) been found in Jordan? Around the first of April this year, the Jordanian authorities captured an al-Qaeda terrorist cell that worked out of Jordan. THE TERRORISTS HAD ABOUT 20 TONS OF CHEMICALS, INCLUDING POISON GAS! That’s right, 20 tons of chemicals—or weapons of mass destruction.

The al-Qaeda leader in Jordan has confessed that they planned to kill 8o, ooo Jordanians with those chemicals. King Abdullah II of Jordan told the San Francisco Chronicle “It was a major, major operation. ... It would have decapitated the government” (April 17). Yes indeed—”A MAJOR, MAJOR OPERATION.” This is chemical warfare of the worst kind! But it is getting hardly any attention from the media and politicians.

Do many of these institutions truly understand what the war against terrorism is and what the United States must do to win? Where did these terrorists get the poison gas? The Jordanians know it came from Syria, which in itself is a dangerous act of war by that terrorist-sponsoring nation. But do America and Britain have the will to stop Syria’s terrorist activity?

Terrorism expert John Loftus was interviewed by Larry Elder of Creators Syndicate concerning the lack of media interest in the origin of the chemicals found in Jordan. Loftus, a respected author, lawyer and lecturer, is a former Army officer and Justice Department prosecutor who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Here is a part of that interview:

“John Loftus: There’s a lot of reason to think [the source of the chemicals] might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of alQaeda, who’ve been trained in Iraq ... and now they’re in Jordan with nerve gas. ... You have to have obtained it from someplace.

“Larry Elder: They couldn’t have obtained it from Syria?

“Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam’s Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. ... So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it.

There’s no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq. And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as vx. It’s very rare, and very tough to manufacture one of the most destructive chemical mass production weapons that you can use. ... THEY WANTED TO BUILD THREE CLOUDS, A MILE ACROSS, OF TOXIC GAS. A WHOLE WITCH’S BREW OF NASTY CHEMICALS THAT WERE GOING TO GO INTO THIS POISON CLOUD, AND THIS WOULD HAVE GONE OVER SHOPPING MALLS,

There may be more information revealed later about these chemicals, and this information could be slightly altered. Regardless, THIS IS AN EARTH-SHAKING EVENT THAT DESERVES HEADLINES IN OUR MEDIA! Unfortunately, little is being reported—even though the terrorists have made shocking confessions.

Here is more from that interview:

“Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, ‘There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons.’

“Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have weapons of mass destruction. It’s not generally known, but THE CIA HAS POUND 41 DIFFERENT MATERIAL BREACHES WHERE SADDAM DID HAVE A WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM OF VARIOUS TYPES. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.

“Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.

“Loftus: It is embarrassing to the [press]. They’ve staked their reputations that this stuff wasn’t there. And now all of a sudden we have al-Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with weapons of mass destruction.”

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:33 PM | Comments (263) | TrackBack

June 21, 2004

Relative to the Great Controversy as to Iraq’a Weapons of Mass Destruction

By JINSA Online -- Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Report #416, June 14, 2004

United Nations (UN) Comes Clean on Saddam's WMD and It's Worried

For some of us, Iraq's possession of WMD was axiomatic. Saddam had it
and used it in the late 1980s (Halabja and Iran) and early 90s (southern
Iraq after the aborted Shi'ite uprising). It was there in the mid-1990s;
UN inspectors found it.
It was there in the late 90s; UN inspectors
said so. There was no evidence that he had gotten rid of it. Deductive
reasoning said it must still be there. For others, deduction ran the
other way: If you can't find it, it must not be there.

On June 9th, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
briefed the Security Council about the export of Iraqi WMD, missile and
nuclear components shipped out of Iraq before, during and after the
invasion. As reported by MENL news service, UNMOVIC acting executive
chairman Demetrius Perricos told the Council, "The removal of these
materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks,"
and said inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped
abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.”

The World Tribune reported on Perricos's briefing. "He said the Iraqi
facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle
East at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month…
The Baghdad
missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN
officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and
fermenters… required for the production of chemical and biological
warheads. 'It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use
equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for,' Perricos's
spokesman, said. 'You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal
products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax.'"


Not exactly. The question was never what the world knew. The UN
apparat, along with all of the world's major intelligence services, knew
the chief threat Saddam posed was in nonconventional capabilities that
threatened the world, either by Iraq's further use or by export to other
countries or non-state actors. The question was, rather, what the world
was willing to do about what it knew. The answer, wrapped partly in the
vast corruption of the oil-for-food program and partly in fear of a
terrorist backlash, was "nothing."

The ability of the UN as an institution, and the French, Russian and
German governments and their cronies to rake in illicit millions from
oil-for-food contract kickbacks across the misery of Iraq's weakest
citizens required a continual program of ineffectual inspections –
perpetually seeking and never finding the WMD/nuclear components.

That's the dirty secret; that's why they would NEVER have gone to war
against Saddam and why the French double-crossed us on Res. 1441 and why
they hate President Bush and resent the liberation of Iraq. It is OUR
war because THEY didn't want their cozy scheme to end.

But it did end. Oil-for-food is over and the UN's own Mr. Perricos has
blown the cover.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:28 AM | Comments (276) | TrackBack

June 18, 2004

While Arabs take over another country …

By Alan Gale, The Detroit Jewish News, June 18, 2004

There is a humanitarian crisis in Africa, in the Sudan that, in the memory of the fate of Europe’s Jews in World War II, demands the attention of the Jewish community.

The Dafur region, located in the northwest part of the country; is home to a large population of black farmers. This region has been the site of a year long ethnic cleansing effort by Sudanese Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed. These groups have been uprooting farmers and destroying villages through the systematic use of rape, murder, razing of structures and crops and forced displacement.

One million people have been displaced. And there are reports that approximately 1,000 individuals are- being killed each week, many by forced starvation (a result of the deliberate denial of access to relief organizations. An immense, internally displaced population has been created. This violence, many observers believe, is primarily motivated by race; but there are economic and political considerations as-well. The attackers are attempting to "Arabize" the area by eliminating the presence of all black Africans.

The Janjaweed operate with the support of the Sudanese government which claims that it is acting to suppress an insurrection in the region. This situation has become even more urgent now because of the onset of the rainy season (June/September). If intervention does not take place immediately, seasonal conditions will make it impossible to truck in relief or aid workers for several months it is estimated that close to half a million people may perish as a result.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Bush must act. Both must show leadership on this issue. President Bush needs to clearly and publicly state that the violence in the Darfur region is ethnic cleansing. Such a declaration will solidify national and international support for an intervention to stop the violence and send in human rights investigators.

In the Sudan Peace Act of 2002, Congress declared that the Sudanese government had committed acts of genocide The U.S Commission on International Religious Freedom found evidence of genocidal atrocities against civilian populations there.

Let us act together quickly, so that this new century does not carry the bloody stains of the previous one.

Allan Gale is associate director of the Bloomfield Township, Michigan-based Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Detroit.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:38 PM | Comments (262) | TrackBack

June 17, 2004

State Supreme Court deals blow to so-called Affirmative Action Preferences

By Thomas Bray, The Detroit News, June 15, 2004

(Finally, a breath of logical clarity)

A mostly unnoticed Michigan Supreme Court ruling issued last Friday, could sweep away the legal edifice underpinning Michigan’s elaborate system of racial spoils and render moot a planned petition drive against the race-based preferences, as ‘well as a legislative effort to bar preferences.”

The 5-2 decision arose from an obscure lawsuit brought against the city of Battle Creek by a white cop, Michael Lind, after he was passed over for sergeant in favor of a black officer who rated below him on both seniority and written and oral exams. Under a collective bargaining argument, Battle Creek was allowed to select any of the top five scoring candidates. Battle Creek’s affirmative action plan, similar to those in place in Detroit and elsewhere, was twice upheld by lower courts. But the Supreme Court held that the city’s policy was trumped by the Michigan Civil Rights Act.

The act provides that an employer shall not ... “discriminate against an
individual with respect to employment because of race." It makes no exception. The court also rejected the notion that claims of “reverse discrimination” must meet a higher test than claims of discrimination against minorities.

Justice Steven L Markman, writing for the majority declared in a terse nine word opinion that the law “draws no distinctions between individual plaintiffs on account of race.” In his dissent, Justice Michael F. Cavanagh grumbled that the majority reached its conclusion “without any discussion of the relevant law” But, rejoined Markman bluntly. ‘We are uncertain how many pages of dissent briefs are required to explain that ‘individual means ‘individual?”

Precisely! Over the years. jurists at both the state and federal levels have turned intellectual back flips trying to ignore the obvious - that federal and state law as well as the U.S. Constitution, plainly say civil rights inhere in individuals, not racial groups. Any system of racial preferences. no matter how well-intentioned, violates this bedrock principle.

Now that a significant court has had the guts to say as much, you can expect the vituperation to be intense. There will be usual cries of “right-wing extremism” and the usual sleazy charges of “racism.” The corporate establishment will do its usual clucking about the splendors of diversity liberals will whine about conservative judicial activism.

But there is the irreducible fact of the law as approved by the representatives of the people. It says what it says. If our lawmakers had wanted to say it would he OK to discriminate against whites seeking economic opportunity, but not against blacks, Hispanics or Native Americans, they could have done so. It’s hardly “activist” to note that they didn’t. Indeed, for the courts to pretend otherwise is to show a deep disrespect for the democratic system of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

As Justice Robert Young, an African American, pointed out in a concurring opinion, the position that it's therefore justifiable for whites to be subjected to discrimination in the name of affirmative action is reminiscent of author George Orwell’s “chilling refrain” in his classic novel, “Animal Farm”: “all citizens are equal. but some [citizens) are more equal than others?’

This is a prescription not for justice, as the left often maintains, but for more bitterness, more divisiveness and, ultimately, more ‘injustice. Nor should the law be something that only a highly- paid lawyer or University of Michigan dean can comprehend. It should be easily understandable to the people themselves — or else it isn’t really law. It’s elitist social policy masquerading as law.

Those who don’t like the law are free to try to change it the old-fashioned way — by rounding up the most votes. No serious person can deny the injustices committed against African Americans beginning with slavery and continuing through the era of Jim Crow. Racism also is an irreducible fact of human existence. But America won’t solve, or even reduce, its race problems by abandoning its core principles. All honor to the Michigan Supreme Court for standing firm for the rights of all ‘individuals to be treated equally before the law

Thomas Bray is a Detroit News columnist who is published on Sunday and Wednesday. He can be contacted at 313-222-2544 and tbray@thedetnews.com.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:14 AM | Comments (282) | TrackBack

June 15, 2004

President Ronald Reagan on a Palestinian Arab State – September 1, 1982

No Palestinian state, no return to '67 borders, undivided Jerusalem

Excerpts from President Reagan's address to the nation on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East, Sept. 1, 1982:

My fellow Americans:

Today has been a day that should make us proud. It marked the end of the successful evacuation of PLO from Beirut, Lebanon. This peaceful step could never have been taken without the good offices of the United States and especially the truly heroic work of a great American diplomat, Ambassador Philip Habib.

When our administration assumed office in January of 1981, I decided that the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid down by my predecessors.

The time has come for a new realism on the part of all the peoples of the Middle East. The State of Israel is an accomplished fact; it deserves unchallenged legitimacy within the community of nations. But Israel's legitimacy has thus far been recognized by too few countries and has been denied by every Arab State except Egypt. Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts.

I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories, nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza. So, the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiation.

Tonight, on the eve of what can be a dawning of new hope for the people of the troubled Middle East -- and for all the world's people who dream of a just and peaceful future -- I ask you, my fellow Americans, for your support and your prayers in this great undertaking.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:23 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

June 13, 2004

Muslim Secessionism in Mindinoa, Philippines - A Possible Cure

For those that have been led to believe that Muslim world-wide attempts at irredentism and power is something new and, of course, Israel's fault, here is an interesting item about General Black Jack Pershing before WW I.

General Black Jack Pearshing was born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, MS, he died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.

Highhghts of his life include

Education West Point
1891 Prof. of Military Science and Tactics Univer. of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General
1909 Military Governor of Morn Province, Philippines
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1924 Retires from active duty

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution, He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc

They let the 50th man go and for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of histosy to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?

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

June 11, 2004

Does Oppression cause Suicide Bombing?

By Alan Dershowitz, The International Jerusalem Post, June 4, 2004

Why do over-priveleged Muslims support a culture of death while impoverished Tibetans celebrate life?

As suicide bombings increase in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, and in Israel, more and more people have come to believe that this tactic is a result of desperation. They see a direct link between oppression, occupation, poverty and humiliation on the one hand, and a willingness to blow oneself up for the cause on the other hand.

It follows from this premise that the obvious remedy for suicide bombing is to address its root cause — namely, our oppression of the terrorists.
But the underlying premise is demonstrably false: There is no such link as a matter of fact or history. Suicide bombing is a tactic that is selected by privileged, educated; and wealthy elitists because it has proven successful. Moreover, even some of the suicide bombers themselves defy the stereotype of the impoverished victims otoccupation driven to desperate measures by American or Israeli oppression.

Remember the 9/11 bombers, several of whom were university students and none of whom were oppressed by the US. They were dispatched by a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden has now become the hero of many other upper-class Saudis who are volunteering to become shahids (martyrs) in Iraq, Israel, and other parts of the globe. Majid al-Enezi, a Saudi student training to become a computer technician, recently changed career plans and decided to become a martyr, he crossed over into Iraq, where he died. His brother Abdullah celebrated that decision. “People are calling all the time to congratulate us, crying from happiness and envy. There are many young men who wish they could cross over into Iraq, but they can’t. Thank God he was able to.”

These rich kids glorify the culture of suicide, even in distant places. As Tufful al Oqbi, a student at the elite King Saud University, described this situation, young people are wearing T-shirts with bin Laden’s picture on them just the way people used to wear pictures of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary. According to a recent news account, wealthy women students sport Osama bin Laden T-shirts under their envelop ing abaya to show their approval for his calls to resist the United States.

Why do these overprivileged and well educated young men and women support this culture of death, while impoverished and oppressed Tibetans continue to celebrate life despite their occupation by China for half a century?

Why have other oppressed people throughout history not resorted to suicide bombings. and terrorism? The answer lies in differences among the elite -leadership of various groups and causes. The leaders of Islamic radical causes, especially the Wahhabis, advocate and incite suicide terrorisn while the leaders of other causes advocate different means.

Recall Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, whose people were truly oppressed but who advocated non-violent means of resistance. It is the leaders who send suicide bombers to blow themselves up. No suicide bomber ever sent himself to be blown up.

The bombers accept death because they have been incited into a frenzy of hatred by imams preaching “Kill the infidels” Sheikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, the leading Islamic scholar at the elite AlAzar University in Cairo (which is not occupied), has declared that martyrdom operations — which means suicide bombings — are the highest form of jihad and an Islamic commandment.

Even more mainstream role models, such as Yasser Arafat’s wife, who lives In a multimillion dollar residence in Paris, has said that if she had a son, she would want him to become a suicide bomber because there is no greater honor than to become a martyr.

Young children, some as young as 12 and l3 are incited and seduced into strapping bombs around themselves by these older and better educated elitist leaders The children are promised virgins in heaven, praise and money for their families here on Earth, and posters portraying them as rock stars. It is an irresistible combination for some, and the blame lies squarely at the feet of the elitists who exploit them, use them, and eventually kill them;

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim of a direct relationship between occupation and suicide bombing If anything, occupation makes it more difficult to launch successful terrorist attacks This is not to argue for occupation, It is to separate the arguments regarding occupation from the claim that if is the fact of occupation, and the oppression it brings, that causes suicide bombing.

Indeed, were Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and most of the West Bank (as I have long believed it should) it is likely that terrorism woould actually increase as terrorist commanders secure more freedom to plan and implemet terrorist actions. The same mght well be true in Iraq, were the US to pick up and run.

(Too bad in the above paragraph Dershowitz once again demonstrates his complete ignorance of the history of Israel and the Arab/Israeli conflict for the last 150 years. It is a history of Arabs killing Jews when there were hardly any Jews and there was no State of Israel. He continues to apply the word "occupied" to the Arabs of Israel when that is a total lie. Anyone with the remotest knowledge of history knows it is the Arabs that are the occupiers of Israeli land. - jsk)

The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing - elitist incitement by certain religious and political leaders who are creating a culture of death and exploiting the ambiguous teachings of an important religion.

Abu Hamza — the cleric who tutored Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber—recently urged a large crowd to embrace death. Islamic young people are in love with death, claim some influential imams, but it is these leaders who are arranging the marriages between the children and the bomb belts.

Perhaps, now that suicide bombers have attacked Saudi Arabia, responsible Islamic leaders will better understand that it is their people who will be the ultimate victims of this tactically imposed culture of death.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest hook is The Case for Israel.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:41 AM | Comments (236) | TrackBack

June 09, 2004

Well-deserved kudos for the incomparable Alan Greenspan

The Washington Times, June 6, 2004

Entranced by sound at an early age, 78-year-old Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan confided to an assembly of teenagers the other day that when he was their age, he visualized himself “playing with the likes of the Glenn Miller orchestra or becoming another Benny Goodman.” After practicing the clarinet and saxophone for three to five hours a day, young Alan graduated from high school and toured the country with a dance band for a couple of years. Forsaking a career as a professional musician, Mr. Greenspan enrolled at New York University, where he received his B.A., M.A. and PhD in economics.

On May 18, President Bush followed through on a commitment made last year and re-nominated Mr. Greenspan to another four-year term as chairman of the Fed, which he has headed since the summer of 1987.

Mr. Greenspan undoubtedly would be the first to say that the music industry easily managed to survive and prosper for more than half a century without him. But it is quite unlikely that the American and world economies would have experienced such good. fortunes as they have over the past 20 years were Mr. Greenspan not leading the world’s most powerful central bank for nearly all that time. Indeed, within months of assuming the chairmanship, Mr. Greenspan successfully confronted 1987’s “Black Monday” stock market plunge, which, if handled improperly, could easily have plunged the nation and the world into a deep recession

“Deep recession? ” Now, “deep recession” is a phrase one never associates
with Mr. Greenspan. To the contrary: His 17-year tenure at the Fed’s helm has been associated with the two longest peacetime economic expansions since the 1850s. Moreover, the two eight-month recessions that ended these record expansions were among the briefest, most mild downturns throughout the same 150-year period. The cyclical peaks of the unemployment rate for the 1973-75 and 1981-82 recessions reached 9 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively, compared to 7.8 percent and 6.3 percent in the aftermath of the much shallower 1990-91 and 2001 recessions.

The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 nearly brought the world economy to the precipice, a potentially catastrophic development that Mr. Greenspan principally averted. He continued to guide the American economy through a major expansion during the second half of the 1990s. That record-shattering expansion served as the world economy’s indispensable engine, keeping Japan’s struggling, once-invincible economy above water and providing a market for Europe’s export- driven acceleration.

In recent years; Mr. Greenspan and his Fed colleagues have managed to achieve de facto price stability succeeding so well that disinflation pressures threatened to evolve into outright deflation. In recent months, however, he has achieved apparent success in defusing the deflationary threat.

Mr. Greenspan has managed to successfully deal with all of these potential and actual crises while guiding the U.S. and world economies through an evolving economic paradigm that, in his perceptive view, has been “encompassing globalization and innovation far more than in earlier decades.” Considering the complicating factors involving September 11, the corporate -governance scandals and the stock-market and business investment collapses, Mr. Greenspan has performed all the more remarkably in recent years. Knowing he plans to remain Fed chairman at least through his 14-year term, which ends Jan. 31, 2006, should be a source of comfort to one and all.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:10 AM | Comments (33) | TrackBack

June 06, 2004

Sharon, the once great General, rejects the great lessons of Lebanon

By Mordechai Nissan
International Jerusalem Post June 4, 2004

The May 23, 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon refuses to evaporate either militarily or politically. The border has been relatively quiet though permanently tense, at times bristling with gunfire at the Shaba Farms and-elsewhere. Meanwhile, Hizbullah’s rocket launchers in south Lebanon, threatening Jewish population centers in Haifa and Hadera, have deterred any major IDF operation.

The retreat from south Lebanon was a response to relentless guerrilla warfare that left 25 Israeli soldiers dead each year whereas, in comparison, four years since the withdrawal some 10 soldiers and six civilians have been killed, with 50 people wounded. Yet no political solution ensued from the military pull-back.

The decision by former prime minister Ehud Barak for the precipitous flight from southern Lebanon was not part of a coherent policy initiative. His claim that either the Lebanese government or the United Nations would assume security control of the south proved to be baseless. The broader and deeper ramifications for Israel are these:

We callously committed a moral crime in abandoning our friends and allies - Christian. Druse, and Shi’ite — serving in the South Lebanese Army.
After 7,000 Lebanese initially fled distraught and traumatized for safety into Israel, many Lebanese families suffering from dislocation and impoverishment have returned home only to see their men imprisoned and interrogated, often tortured. These good people have paid an immeasurable price for having placed their trust and future in Israel’s hands.

The withdrawal enabled Syria’s sweeping occupation of Lebanon. Beirut -its government and parliament, press and television, army and secret services - is submerged under Damascus’s domination. Creative and spirited Lebanon had served as the historic beating heart for modern Arab nationalism, the home for European enlightenment and arena for Francophone culture, but has now become the province of fundamentalist Islam. Who symbolizes authentic Lebanon — Hizbullah’s Hassan Nasrallah, arrogant Muslim preacher and war monger or Abu-Arz, leader of the Guardians of the Cedars, the freedom-fighting patriot for a free and secular country?

The Syrian seizure has turned Lebanon into an enemy-state of Israel.
Time will tell whether America’s demand for ending Syria’s military presence in Lebanon, now buoyed by the imposition of economic sanctions, will be sufficient to bring about change.

Hizbullah’s victory over the IDF in southern Lebanon goaded Nasarallah to turn his energies and cunning to promote the Palestinian war against Israel. The outbreak of the al-Aksa intifada exploded only a few months later.
Since then, Hizbullah has provided the Palestinians with political and media base in Occupied Beirut, military training model martyrdom warfare, money and morale boosting as well as arms smuggling efforts (remember the Karine-A).

We have learned since May, 2000 that, while south Lebanon was the scene of fighting against Israel, the real theater of war is “Palestine.” Some 1,000 Israelis have been killed since last September, 2000. But while “Palestine” is the battle field, the military command sits in Beirut, Damascus and Teheran.
The global Islamic campaign against the West and Christianity by Hizbulla was sanitized by Hizbullah’s ostensibly just struggle against Israel’s occupation in south Lebanon. Yet Hizbullah is a brother to al-Qaida, an ally of Syria, and a proxy of Iran.

Its local victory against Israel Is therfore a link in the chain of international Jihad running from Kosovo to Kashmir, from New York to Moscow, Bali, Madrid, and Riyadh, Casablana and Chechnya. When Israel fled Lebanon, world terror went ablaze everywhere.

“Lebanon in Gaza” is the troubling reality confronting Israel today. Withdrawal we have seen, is not a prescription for peace but a catalyst for war. Until Southern Lebanon and Beirut are liberated from terror and fanaticism, and the exiles from the land of the Cedars return home to establish a govemment committed to democracy and peace, Israel’s May 2000 flight will continue to cast a darkshadow on our lives.

For Israel these days of war are gloomy and foreboding We are reminded of Winston Churchill during the Second World War, leading Britain against Nazi Germany, and reflecting on the appropriate military strategy in the face of the bombing of London. Bomber Command proposed a certain plan in 1941 to break the German offensive but Churchill doubted its efficacy.
In his words, “The only plan is to persevere”

At the moment Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has no better plan than this.##

Mordechai Nissan is the author of The Conscience of Lebanon:Etienne Sakr (Abu-Arz)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:53 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

June 04, 2004

Middle East’s rulers correctly fear growing democratic movement in Iraq

As promised. the United States will turn over control of Iraq on June 30 to a new government whose leaders, President Ghazi Yawar and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, were selected Tuesday. Not only will this new Iraqi team put together an assembly to choose the first representative national council for the Iraqi people, but direct elections will be held as early as January, marking the first time when the population of an Arab nation may achieve genuine freedom.

The most free Arabs in the Middle East currently live in Israel, where more than one million of them hold full citizenship, electing their own representatives to the Knesset and enjoying other freedoms enjoyed by all Israeli citizens. In no other country in the region do Arabs or anyone else, for that matter, live freely.

Just look at Iraq’s neighbors:

In Saudi Arabia. to the south, the Saudi royal family rules, with no institutional check on its’ authority. Although the Saudi government has announced some limited reforms, Saudis cannot elect their own leaders, do not enjoy freedom of religion, a free press or freedom of assembly. Women in the kingdom may not obtain identity cards or an exit visa, nor can they be admitted to a hospital without permission of their fathers, husbands or, in the case of widows, their sons.

According to Freedom House, which rates civil and political rights around the world, Saudi women may not study engineering, law or journalism, and are not permitted to drive automobiles or travel outside the home unless accompanied by an adult male family member.

Syria to the west is ruled by the of the most repressive governments in the region; despite early hopes that Bashar Assad, son of the tyrannical Hafiz Assad, would loosen the Baathist Party’s grip on the people when he took power after his father died in 2000. It didn’t happen. Not only do Syrians enjoy no civil or political liberty but the Syrian government is one of the chief sponsors of terrorism in the world, What’s more Syria essentially controls its neighbor. Lebanon which was once one of the freer nations in the Midd1e East.

Also on Iraq’s western border Jordan, long one of the United States’ chief allies in the Middle East, remains under the rule of a monarch. Although King Abdullah and his father, King Hussein, have promoted a largely pro-Western foreign policy (with the exception of Hussein’s support for Iraq in the first Gulf War), Jordanians have very limited freedom of association; assemb1y or the press.

Even last years elections for Jordan’s lower house of parliament — which many hoped was the harbinger of greater freedom for Jordanians produced a disturbing result. About 20 percent of the seats went to extremist Islamists , who are the biggest threat to democracy in the region.

Speaking of Islamists, the mullahs who rule Iran on Iraq’s eastern border - though not Arab share many of the other characteristics of the areas tyrants. Although Iran boasts an elected parliament, the country is actually governed by the Council of Guardians. These Shiite clerics control the judicial branch and must approve all legislation passed by the parliament and choose which candidates may run for elected office.

When Iraqis chose their own government in free elections, It will mark the first time in history when ordinary Arabs can claim to control their own destiny in their own nation. Syria’s Assad , the Saudi royal family, even Jordan’s Abdulla must be nervous as they watch events unfold.

If the Iraqi people are capable of governing themselves, why not the Syrians and the Saudis or the Jordanians? Likewise radical clerics who control Iran must also be nervous as they, watch events unfold in Iraq. Both Syria and Iran are believed to be funneling aid to the insurgents trying to prevent Iraq from its democratic future.

Let us hope the Iraqi people will prevail against these obstacles — for their sake and ours.

Linda Chavez is president of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Her column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, 5777 W Century, Suite 700, Los Angeles CA 90045.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:34 PM | Comments (90) | TrackBack

June 03, 2004

Has to be Israel's fault

(At least the whole world knows that the items below are also Israel's fault - just like 9/11, the two wars in Iraq, the Bubonic Plague and the sinking of the Titanic- jsk)

From: WorldBriefs - June 1st, 2004

Shiite mosque blast in Pakistan kills 19

KARACHI, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf pledged to stem a wave of bloodletting as the death toll from an apparent suicide bomb attack at a Shiite Muslim mosque climbed to 19. Fearing sectarian clashes between rival Shiite and Sunni Muslims, thousands of police and paramilitary rangers were on maximum alert ahead of mass funerals scheduled today for victims of the attack.The explosion that ripped through the Imam Bargah All Raza mosque Monday also injured at least 42 people, police said. The death toll rose to 19 when three of the injured later died.

Bomb blast kills police chief in Afghanistan

Afghanistan - A bomb planted under the chair of a city police chief exploded today killing him and wounding two government officials at his office in eastern Afghanistan, doctors and a senior police official said. Gen. Mohammed Younis Noorzai, provincial police chief in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, said assailants planted the bomb in the office of Jalalabad police chief Haji Ajab Shah. “The moment he (Shah) sat on his seat, the bomb exploded,” Noozzai said.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:52 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

June 02, 2004

Response to Halkin's article, "Does Sharon have a plan"

In the June Commentary Magazine Hillel Halkin asks "Does Sharon have a Plan" and proceeds to justify his and Sharon's plan but, somehow, in the discussion and history of the conflict, contradicts his own conclusion.

Halkin, en passant, also manages to infuse a great deal of misinformation. He writes that the United Nations General Assembly voted in 1947 to create a Jewish state on slightly more than one half of the Mandate. Wrong! The British ripped off 77% of the original Palestinian Mandate created by the League of Nations in 1923 in order to form Transjordan. This left the Jews with only 23% of what was to have been their homeland. The United Nations then attempted to further divide this remaining land between the Arabs and the Jews. Halkin claims that the Jews were to receive over one half of that split but the map of the division fails to confirm even that statement.

The misinformation continues: In describing the history immediately following the declaration of the State on May 14, 1948, Halkin writes that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War "broke out" ­ kind of like a case of the measles. The invasion of the five standing armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan attempting to annihilate Israel does not enter the discussion.

Following Israel¹s victory in this first war, Halkin relates that 23% of the Mandate west of the Jordan was annexed to the Kingdom of Jordan and a strip of land around Gaza was annexed by Egypt. He fails to mention that Jordan and Egypt conquered these areas in a war of aggression against Israel and annexed territory that was never to have been theirs in the first place, while they ignored completely any thought of a Palestinian Arab state.

Compounding his previous misinformation Halkin later commiserates with the Arabs saying, under the Sharon Disengagement Plan the Arabs would receive less than 20% of the British Mandate, which figure is, of course, dead wrong. He worries how such a small area could become viable? How could it indeed when it has no resources, no legitimate government, no previous existence or legal justification and its primary purpose will always be to destroy its neighbor?

Halkin next goes into a lengthy history of how the Right and Left in Israel have had a continuous debate as to how to deal with the land and the Arabs in it. And how the Right convinced the Left at various times during the never-ending discussion or they changed roles completely. The only problem is that the Arabs were never part of the discussion and could care less. The debate was, as usual, only between the Jews. The Arab refusal at all times to accept Israel¹s existence remains a constant. They have refused to abide by the first sentence of any of the carefully crafted agreements thus rendering the internal Israeli debate a complete farce.

Then Halkin proceeds to destroy his own case by admitting Israel cannot arrive at a peaceful settlement with the Palestinian Arabs. He goes even further and legitimately questions the recently created Palestinian people's right to a state. Halkin ticks off a whole list of far larger and more deserving minority groups in much larger areas, that have no such rights ­ The Chaldeans, Kurds, Chechnyans, Ibo of Nigeria, the Basques of Spain, Uighurs, Karens, Mizos, Nagos, etc. ­ peoples of whom most of us have no knowledge whatever.

He asks are the Palestinian Arabs a separate people, have they a distinct culture, have they a history of self government, have they demonstrated any ability to govern themselves, are there natural boundaries defining their existence, will they be accepted even by adjacent Arab states. The answer to all these questions is, of course, a resounding NO.

Contrary to Halkin's theory, the Likud party members do fully understand all of this. They also understand the Arab intent and the obscenity of giving away land to an enemy dedicated to destroying your own country. They therefore voted accordingly.

The concept of "Separation" and a "Fence" is, of course, a total mirage and not the creation of a Right Wing epiphany. It is currently the re-creation of essentially one man ­ a misguided Ariel Sharon and whoever else is doing the misguiding. The concept has no merit and no possibility of long term success just as all the other false treaties and land give-aways that have backfired in Israel¹s face. These self-induced illusions have only succeeded in placing Israel in today's awful position.

Israel's job, like that of all the other countries of the world, is to defend its people and its land. No one else will assume that responsibility or should. And if the Israelis are unwilling to do that, they will end up taking the next boat out of town just as Yasser Arafat predicted the Israelis would do right after he and Shimon Peres received their Nobel Peace Prize, of all things.

Jerome S. Kaufman, National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:33 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

June 01, 2004

Why Jews and Blacks Vote Democrat

(please read this article in its entirety before you step into the voting booth this Fall)

By Dennis Praeger November, 2000
(and just as pertinent in this election, four years later- jsk)

The presidential election hinged on the outcome of the voting in Florida, a state in which two minority groups, blacks and Jews, voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Were it not for their lopsided voting — about eight of every ten Jews and almost every black (94%) — Florida would have been won decisively by George W. Bush. Since no other groups in America vote so overwhelmingly for either party, it is very important to understand this phenomenon. I would therefore like to offer my understanding as a Jew who is deeply involved in American Jewish life as a writer and lecturer and as a radio talk show host who has talked to black callers for 18 years.

Regarding Jewish voting behavior, two explanations are generally offered.
The first, in the famous words of sociologist Milton Himmelfarb, is that, “Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Though many Jews live at the top of the socioeconomic ladder, they retain the social concerns of those on the bottom. Indeed, most American Jews pride themselves in this liberalism, identifying it as a historic commitment to “prophetic” Jewish social values — concern for the poor, the weak and the oppressed.

The second reason offered for Jewish voting habits is the overwhelming Jewish commitment to the security of Israel. American Jews identify the Democratic Party and liberals with greater support for Israel than they does the Republican Party and conservatives.

With regard to black Americans, three explanations are usually given for their support of Democrats:

First, the Democrats are identified historically with civil rights legislation, while the Republicans are identified with opposing such advances. The Democrats were also identified with stronger opposition to apartheid in South Africa.

Second, most blacks strongly believe in race-based affirmative action, which is usually supported by the Democrats and opposed by most Republicans.

Third, a disproportionate number of blacks are government employees, and the Republican appeal to smaller government by definition threatens the employment of many blacks.

I believe that there are deeper reasons for Jewish and black support for the Democrats, but before offering them, it is necessary to deal with the usual explanations.

Regarding Jews, there certainly is a historic commitment of Judaism to justice (why liberals have added “social” to justice is something they ought to explain), and the prophets were moral giants. But these facts explain almost nothing about American Jewish voting patterns. For one thing, the majority of Jews are secular and know little about Judaism, let alone read any of the prophets. Indeed, the Jews most committed to Judaism and who actually have read the prophets are the Jews most likely to have more conservative values and vote Republican.

Furthermore it is difficult to argue that the prophets would support abortion on demand, race-based dorms, removing the Ten Commandments from schools, taking away half the money earned by hard working people, granting unmarried individuals and same-sex couples the same right to adopt children as married couples, and much more that is called “prophetic.”

The actual connection between liberalism and the prophets is minimal. But the belief in this connection serves two great purposes for Jews who hold onto it: It renders them and their causes holy and their opponents unholy, and it transforms politics into a religious crusade.

The belief that Democrats support Israel more than Republicans is even less tenable than the belief that the prophets would be Democrats. Republican and Democratic administrations have supported and confronted Israel equally. Moreover when it came to the single most important action in support of Israel during the last decade — waging war against Saddam Hussein, as Israel begged America and the West to do — the Democrats voted against the war, and the Republicans waged it.

Had a Democrat administration been in power in 1990, Kuwait would have been obliterated and a powerful Iraq would have come to dominate the Middle East, threatening Israel’s existence. That the majority of New York Jews voted for Charles Schumer for Senate, a man who voted against going to war against Saddam Hussein, is one of many proofs that commitment to the Democratic party is greater than commitment to Israel’s security among many Jewish Democrats. This is not a criticism, only an illustration of a painful truth. Most liberal Jews worry more about Jerry Falwell than about Saddam Hussein.

As for the Republicans, given the negative political rewards, it is testimony to their idealism that Republican administrations have been pro-Israel.

So, if commitment to social justice and commitment to Israel’s security are not the greatest reasons for the overwhelming Jewish support for the Democratic Party, what are the reasons? I believe they are memory, anger, fear, and insecurity.

In virtually every Jewish audience that I have addressed over the past 30 years, someone, irrespective of the subject of my talk, has stood up during the question and answer period and mentioned the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust. To the Jew, who celebrates the exodus from Egypt, in the words of the Passover Haggada, “as if he himself had gone out from Egypt,” national memories last forever. The Crusades and the Inquisition are mentioned as if they occurred last year, not a thousand or 500 years ago. And the Holocaust has seared the Jewish psyche (my own included) in ways that are generally impossible for non-Jews to perceive.

Now, the fact that we Jews remember our tragedies would not in and of itself be problematic or relevant to our discussion were it not for this: Jews identify the Crusades and the Inquisition with Christianity and identify the Holocaust with the political right. To put it plainly, many American Jews fear Christianity.

True, the great majority of Christian Americans harbor goodwill to Israel and the Jewish people and, yes; mainstream American denominations have an exemplary record with regard to American Jews. But to most American Jews, the thought of a resurgent Christianity in America conjures up images of anti-Semitic violence — as does a resurgent conservatism. That is one reason why many Jews view fellow Jews who vote Republican as anomalies or even traitors (though almost never with the hatred most blacks feel toward blacks who vote Republican). I recently gave a speech to a Jewish community in Orange County, CA. An older Jewish man who parked his car next to mine looked at me with a look that I immediately understood — the look that a loving but disappointed father gives his wayward son. “Mr. Prager, how could you vote Republican?” he asked more in sadness than in anger. This man had come to hear me speak and even paid for the privilege, so he obviously bore me no animosity. He was just incredulous — how could a good Jew vote for people who will hurt Jews?

Jews and blacks are paralyzed by their long and bitter memories. American Jews find it difficult not to associate American Christianity with European Christianity and not to associate American conservatives with the European fascist right; African-Americans find it hard to believe that the American white of today has little or nothing in common with the racist white of a generation ago. There are no other truly viable explanations for the lopsided Jewish and black votes. Fear and anger are quite enough.

But there is more — insecurity. When Gentile Americans look at Jewish Americans they perceive a powerful, affluent and secure community. Powerful and affluent, yes; secure, not at all. Most American Jews, especially liberal ones, walk around believing that at any moment anti-Jewish violence could break out. They believe that anti-Semitism lurks just beneath the surface of American life.

I know this from long personal experience. I have been saying for years on the radio that while there are, of course, anti-Semites in the United States, there is little anti-Semitism here. Whenever I have said this, I have received angry calls from Jews, especially older Jews (who are the most liberal of all). They tell me how naïve I am, that I am as deluded as were the Jews of Germany who believed that German Gentiles were not anti-Semitic.

When Senator Joseph Lieberman was named the Democratic vice presidential candidate, most American Jews waited for an outpouring of anti-Semitism that of course never came. When Lieberman’s Jewishness soon became utterly inconsequential, I asked Jewish listeners to call me and tell me if they finally agreed that America was not an anti-Semitic country. Virtually every Jew called to say that such a verdict was premature — “we’ll see what happens when people are in the voting booth,” they told me. But now that we know that nothing anti-Jewish happened in the voting booths, I doubt that many Jews’ minds have been changed.

This Jewish insecurity — i.e., when is the next Holocaust? — may also help to explain the yearning for power among American Jewish liberals. The number of Jews in the American Congress and in political positions in general is, after all, quite remarkable. I am convinced that in the deepest recesses of most American Jews’ psyches is the belief that if enough Jews are in leadership positions, Jews are less likely to get hurt. Or to put in the negative, if they have all the power, we’re in trouble.

There is one final and very important reason for American Jewry’s religious-like devotion to liberalism and its political party. For many Jews liberalism is a substitute for Judaism. Most Jews practice little or no Judaism, but 3,000 years of Jewish religious fervor has left its mark. That is one reason Jews have been so disproportionately involved in founding, leading, and participating in virtually every “ism” of the Western world — Marxism, Communism, socialism, feminism, environmentalism, and now liberalism. The other reasons are insecurity/and fear — unless the world radically changes, we will get hurt again. In the mind of the liberal Jew, it is a mitzvah to be a liberal and a sin to be a conservative. Christian leftists, incidentally, feel the same way — in their minds Jesus was the quintessential liberal.

All these reasons — except for liberalism operating as a substitute religion — also explain most black support for Democrats — memories, anger, and insecurity. Hence the primal power of the infamous NAACP ad identifying George W. Bush with the drag-lynching of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas. The NAACP, now an arm of the Democratic party, knew what it was doing — tapping into enough fear and hatred in blacks to get record numbers to go to the polls and vote Democratic.

The anger of many African-Americans at white America is so deep (e.g., the widespread black defense of the use of race and of the verdict in the 0. J. Simpson trial) that it is often greater than concern for fellow blacks. A couple of weeks before the election The Economist reported widespread pogroms — that was the magazine’s word — against many thousands of blacks in Libya. To say that the black and civil rights leadership did not care about this is merely to state the obvious. Why? Because many black Americans and their leadership care deeply about any black hurt by a white, but apparently not about thousands of blacks — or a million in the cases of the Sudan and Rwanda — who are hurt or even murdered by non-whites.

Democrats know this well. They know that a black who trusts whites is not nearly as likely to remain a liberal or vote Democratic. Therefore it is imperative to keep telling blacks that America is racist and that only liberals and Democrats can help them deal with this oppression.

For all these reasons, there is little reason to assume that that many blacks or Jews will vote Republican in the immediate future. Especially among black leaders, the combination of anger at whites and the love of the immense power given them by the liberal media and the Democratic Party render an immediate change almost inconceivable. Again, the hate-filled, hysterical NAACP ad against George W. Bush is proof. The NAACP and the Democrats knew that Mr. Bush had a good track record with minorities and that he would likely appoint black Americans to major administration positions. Therefore all the more reason to depict him as an accessory to a lynching. Otherwise some blacks might decide that the Republican Party is better for them.

The more Jewish Americans trust Christian Americans, and the more black Americans trust white Americans, the less psychologically tied they will be to the Democratic party. We Jews and blacks who know how unique Americans are in their lack of racism and anti-Semitism need to help our fellow Jews and blacks develop this trust. For our sake and America’s. dp

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:04 AM | Comments (109) | TrackBack