November 29, 2004

Anniversary of the UN vote on Resolution 181

The article below is being cross-posted by participating websites all over the world to commemorate a milestone in Israel's history - The United Nations vote establishing the Third Jewish Commonwealth in the land of Israel.

November 29, 2004:
Anniversary of the UN vote on Resolution 181


Today is the anniversary of the UN votes on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. It is vital to recall that the UN partition plan referred to western Palestine, to underscore that in 1921 the eastern part, which consisted of apx. 77% of what was originally to have been the Jewish Homeland under the Mandate, was ripped off by the British Government. That far greater portion was arbitrarily and illegally handed over to the British hand picked Emir Abdullah to form a totally fictitious new entity called Transjordan. This area later became the current kingdom of Jordan now under present king Abdullah who is the great grandson of the Emir Abdullah.

Also, please note the disparate and barely connected three portions that were to become the new Israel. Of course, none of the world powers expected it to survive under the Arab onslaught and Ben Gurion consented to these ridiculous borders only because it was the only offer on the table and the only offer the Jews had had in 2000 years! He also knew that the area would become a sanctuary for those Jews still confined to European and Cyprus virtual concentration camps three years after the end of WWII.

The partition plan was approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.
The 33 countries that cast the “Yes” vote were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela. (Among other countries, the list includes the US, the three British Dominions, all the European countries except for Greece and the UK, but including all the Soviet-block countries.)

The 13 countries that chose the Hall of Shame and voted “No” were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. (Ten of these are Moslem countries; Greece has the special distinction of being the only European country to have joined the Hall of Shame.)

The ten countries that abstained are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.
On November 30, 1947, the day following the vote, the Palestinian Arabs murdered six Jews in a bus making its way to Jerusalem, and proceeded to murder another Jew in the Tel-Aviv - Jaffa area. This was a prelude to a war that claimed the lives of 6,000 Jews, or 1% of the total Jewish population in 1948. This toll is the per capita equivalent of today’s Canada losing 300,000 lives, or the US losing 3,000,000.

The object of the war, launched by the Arabs in the former Palestine and the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon (with help from other Arab countries), was to "throw the Jews into the sea". As the partition map indicates, however, rather than annihilate the Jewish population, the Arabs ended up with less territory than they would have gained by peaceful means.

In addition to the bloodshed in nascent Israel, immediately after the UN vote, Arabs throughout the Middle East attacked theirJewish neighbours that had been an integral part of these lands since the beginning of the Diaspora. Thousands were killed and the rest soon expelled and their property confiscated without recourse or compensation.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 27, 2004

Yasser Arafat’s Eulogy?

Arafat the Monster

By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe

Yasser Arafat died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves. In a better world, the Palestine Liberation Organization chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, “God bless his soul”

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since he Third Reich?

Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil — as indeed Arafat was. Blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize — but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity. Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in the Guardian that Arafat’s “undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader” was exceeded only “by his extraordinary courage” as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked “So what did Arafat do right? The answer: He drew worldwide attentions to the Palestinian cause. “ For the most part by successful acts of terror.” In other words, butchering innocent human beings was ‘right” since it served an ulterior political motive.
No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat’s “successful” terrorism.

Some journalists couldn’t wait for Arafat’s actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC’s Barbara Plea, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. “When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound,” Plett reported from Ramallah, “I started to cry.”

Normal people don’t weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat — whom she praised as “a symbol of Palestinian unity steadfastness, and resistance” — was heartfelt: “I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat’s headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. “I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: ‘Our leader is sharing our pain; we are all under the same siege.’ And so was I.”

Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat’s victims – That is, when they do mention them — which Plett s teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat deathwatch? How is it possible to reflect on Arafat’s most enduring legacy — the rise of modern terrorism — without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9-11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it. Perhaps his single contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma’alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released.

When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children. Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma’alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat’s name, but who ever recalls the names o his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shimon. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne’eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma’alot —21 of the thousands of
whom died at Arafat’s command.

Jeff Jacoby writes for the Globe in Boston. His e-mail address is jacoby@globe. Com. This commentary was distributed by the New York Times Syndicate and the Detroit Jewish News.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 24, 2004

The Death of a genuine Israeli hero, devoid of illusions

Raful, Ex-Chief of Staff, Drowns in Ashdod Port

The popular and outspoken former IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, known as Raful, drowned this morning at the Ashdod port. He was 75.

Raful arrived at the Ashdod seaside early this morning, as he did every day, to oversee the continued construction of the new HaYovel Port. He drove up to the site, and while standing on the breakwater, was either overtaken by a large wave or slipped into the sea for other reasons. Only after an hour or more did his car attract attention, and a search began. A helicopter helped in the search efforts, and his body was found close to 8 AM. Resuscitation efforts by Magen David Adom teams failed to revive him.

Eitan had three daughters, two sons who passed away - one in an Israel Air Force training accident - and ten grandchildren. Raful's 37 years in the pre-State Palmach and then the IDF culminated with his service as the IDF's 11th Chief of Staff, from 1978 to 1983. He later started the right-wing Tzomet Party, and served in the Knesset for four terms, from 1984 until 1996.

He also served as Agriculture Minister and Minister of the Environment. Born in the Jezre'el Valley moshav of Tel Adashim, Raful was also a farmer and a carpenter.Possibly his most famous project as Chief of Staff was the "Raful Youth." In this framework, he helped youth-at-risk from underprivileged neighborhoods, placing them in disciplined units and encouraging them to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and crime in which many of them had been mired. He described them as people who had "seen only bad - but at their core, they're good. They just need someone to peel away the shell and uncover it. In the end, they will become something, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of everyone."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in a statement today, "Raful's story is the story of this land. Since he was a youth, Raful [showed] unending willingness, courage and dedication on behalf of the State-in-formation... He took a central part in all the wars and in the fight against terrorism, while leaving a glorious legacy of comradery-in-arms in Israel.

He understood the centrality of the IDF in Israeli society, and as Chief of Staff, initiated the magnificent educational enterprise in which an extra chance was given to thousands of youths to join Israeli society. These 'Raful Youths' are today proud and active citizens of Israel...""Courageous, a leader, a real commander – everything you wanted in an IDF fighter," said former President Ezer Weizman today. "What was typical of Raful is that even after he left politics, he went back to work. We were all surprised that he went to work at a port in Ashdod. But this was Raful."

One of Raful´s Last Interviews:
Rafael Eitan, who died this morning, rarely gave interviews of late. One of these – with the "Iton Tel Aviv" newspaper in January of this year – were reprinted by Ynet today. Excerpts:

"My opinion is that all these efforts [referring to Sharon's disengagement plan – ed.] are for naught. With the Arabs, we will never be able to make peace... This is a struggle between civilizations. We are a foreign culture, and in my opinion, Islam will never make peace with our foreign entity, and with the fact that it has political independence and even defeats them in wars. They'll never agree... "[President Moshe Katzav] is mistaken: Assad's hand is not outstretched in peace. He might be trying some tricks so that the Americans won't do to him what they did to Iraq. Nothing more. What, he'll make peace with us?... Does anyone really think that we should deposit our fate in the hands of a lone ruler, a dictator, who is alive today and tomorrow he's dead? ... I can prove that whoever thinks that concessions, compromises, 'Geneva,' Ami Ayalon's plan, are what will change the Middle East situation – in my opinion is mistaken.

The Arabs, very cleverly, bring our people to think that they have changed their ways... The Arabs wage negotiations with us in three ways: pretense, deception, and violence." Asked what would have to happen for him to change his mind, Raful said, "If all the Arab leaders say, 'We're sick of you, we're taking some distance from you, we'll give you territories in exchange for peace, and leave us alone.' On that day, I'll admit that I was wrong [in saying that they would never make peace].""What, they should give us territories in exchange for peace?" he was asked "Why not?" Raful responded. "Why should we, who are so small, give land to those who are so big, for something uncertain? We should have said this from the outset.

But did anyone ever think that this [Exile-like] leadership would make such a request?... A leadership that does not insist on its honor, and has no national honor. We should pay for having defeated them in wars that they started?! Where's the logic, the straight thinking?" Raful had sharp words for the left-wing and HaShomer HaTza'ir: "I can count 30 kibbutzim of HaShomer HaTza'ir that are sitting on Arab land. You know what, this is the most hypocritical movement that I can imagine... When Stalin died, they lowered the flag in the kibbutzim to half-mast. Sir, this just shows that the true root is missing."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 22, 2004

1. The Perversion of the Left 2. The Perversion of the United Nations



by Robert Spencer

I have long insisted that the problem of radical Islam is not a liberal or conservative issue; it's a human rights issue. The unfortunate fact, however, is that largely it is only conservatives who care about it. In the face of the global jihad, the left is strangely silent: no protest marches, no angry full-page ads in the New York Times. When the Left does notice an adulterous woman being stoned to death under Sharia law, or some other outrage in the Islamic world, it is usually dismissed as an aberration or somehow blamed on their all-purpose bogeyman: the United States government.

Why? Because to the left any conflict in the world must be the result of Western aggression, either historic (the Crusades, colonialism) or current. And as David Horowitz illustrates in harrowing detail in his new book Unholy Alliance, the American left not only shares the radical jihadist view of America as the source of all evil in the world, but is now actively making common cause with America's enemies.

"The demise of the Cold War involving the USA and the Soviet Union at the
beginning of the 1990s left military strategists in the West searching for a new enemy"--and they fastened on radical Islam. This was the assessment of Pakistani journalist Abdus Sattar Ghazali. But it isn't original to him. Horowitz shows that it has become a commonplace among Westerners as well. He quotes Columbia professor Eric Foner in the wake of 9/11: "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."

The left, Horowitz recounts, quickly turned its attention entirely away from the murder and mayhem of 9/11 to half-baked "analyses" of the "real causes" of the atrocities of that day. This search for root causes, he says, "was a code for the utopian agendas of the left. It was a declaration of war against the War on Terror"--a war that is being waged with particular ferocity in the 2004 presidential campaign.

This anti-anti-terrorism is motivated by an anti-Americanism that was born, as Horowitz details, in Communism and the Vietnam-era antiwar movement. Although the revolutionary fact (the Soviet bloc) has been consigned to the dustbin of history, the revolutionary illusion persists, and continues to identify America as the chief obstacle to its utopia.

Horowitz quotes another Columbia professor, Nicholas De Genova: "Peace is
not patriotic [but] subversive. . . . Peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live -- a world where the U.S. would have no place." De Genova, of course, won nationwide notoriety when he declared just before the beginning of the Iraq war: "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. . . . I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."

Horowitz explains that "as long as America continues to maintain the will and ability to protect what radicals regard as the global order of 'social injustice,' all reforms and social advances within the existing structure of American democracy will be illusory." In other words, it won't be enough for the left to elect John Kerry: America itself must be brought down.

What's more, this creates a peculiar harmonic convergence between the left and radical Islam. "The goals of radical jihad," says Horowitz, "are
purification and social justice, both of which are to be achieved through the institution of Islamic law in the states conquered by Islamic arms."

Hence we see the phenomenon, which Horowitz traces in detail, of leftists
like lawyer Lynne Stewart, who has been indicted for aiding and abetting
the terrorist activities of her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman
is currently doing time for his role in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. For this Stewart has been stoutly defended by the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and other stalwarts of the left. "In their defense of America's terrorist enemies," Horowitz notes, "the organizations of the legal left are reminiscent of Communist Party fronts of the Cold War era."

Ghazali was right about one thing: Communism and radical Islam are indeed
quite similar in many ways. And as Horowitz outlines in this book, the American Left is once again showing what side it's on.

2. Excerpted from: The Case Against the United Nations

By Joshua Muravchick, Commentary Magazine, November 2004

In terms of the prospects for peace, the alternative is stark. For nearly 60 years, the UN has proved an abject failure at safeguarding “international peace and seecurity (in the words of the UN Charter). It has, in fact, scaled back its ambitions to mere “peacekeeping” - a specialized term that refers narrowly to policing internal conflicts. And even this has been diminished to policing such conflicts only after they have already been resolved. As Annan himself has put it: “Peacekeepers must never again be deployed into an environment in which there is no cease-fire or peace agreement.”

Still, the world has known a large degree of peace since 1945, which it owes not to the UN but in large measure to American action. Through NATO, Europe has been at peace. Thanks to America’s alliances with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan, there has also been a measure of peace in Asia. As for the Middle East, an obvious exception, it would have been even more turbulent had America not deterred aggressors from preying on Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the weak but rich sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. In Latin America, whichbhas been mostly calm for reasons having little to do with the U.S., America has suppressed and constrained radical elements that have sought to roil the waters.

Only twice in these six decades has the UN acted to turn back a breath of the peace: Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990-91. On both occasions, the Security Council acted not through the peace-enforcing machinery spelled out in the Charter but by giving the United States a writ of authority to do the job. The implications of this are clear. A world left to the UN as supreme arbiter would not be the world of law of Kofi Annan’s incantation. It would be the opposite: a world of lawlessness. Nor would a United States that had been induced to yield to the superior majesty of the UN be replaced by an equivalent force for good, and certainly not by the UN itself. Instead, the peace we have known since 1945 would crumble.

True, no UN rule or regime could stay America from defending its own territory and citizenry. But numerous weaker nations whose security America has linked to its own would pay dearly for the wistful dream of a parliament of man, a dream that the sordid reality of the UN has turned into a mockery. And for this, in the end, America would surely suffer as well.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 21, 2004

For those with still missing family victims of the Holocaust

A new 17 Million dollar database is now available

November 21, 2004

Database enshrines Holocaust victims

By Joseph Berger, The New York Times

What is known of their lives has always been dwarfed by a single, almost sacred number: 6 million. But each of the victims of the Holocaust had a name, an address, a place of birth, a place of death.

Now, Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum and archive in Jerusalem, has assembled the largest and most comprehensive listing of Jewish victims' names — more than 3 million, or half of those who perished — along with biographical details, photographs and nutshell memoirs. It will start to make the information available online tomorrow at

The project is seen not only as a signal act of commemoration for Jews who often lost the relatives who might have remembered them, but also as another refutation to those who have campaigned to deny the scope of the systematic slaughter of Europe's Jews under the Nazi regime of German dictator Adolph Hitler.

"They lost their names"

The database will allow children, grandchildren and future descendants to research the histories of their families, and in some cases permit the dwindling ranks of survivors to trace relatives whose fate is still unknown. Many survivors realized after World War II that their kin had been swept up in massacres or deported to concentration camps, but they never knew for certain where and when they had been killed.

"The moment persons entered Auschwitz they lost their names — they became a number," said Elie Wiesel, a spokesman for Holocaust survivors and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. "Six million names were evaporated, turned into dust and ashes. A hundred years from now, we will know where to turn and know something about their genealogy and where they came from."

Avner Shalev, chairman of the directorate of Yad Vashem, said that as word of the project spread, the list would be greatly expanded by new entries to the Yad Vashem Web site.

Yad Vashem began assembling so-called pages of testimony — records filled out by relatives in Israel and abroad — in 1955, two years after the museum was created by Israel's Parliament as the country's "remembrance authority."

The pages included 22 items of information, including hometown, year of birth, occupation and relatives. Later, Yad Vashem placed advertisements seeking more names, interviewed survivors and borrowed lists from other archives.

By this year, it had gathered pages for 2 million victims and these were supplemented by information gleaned from hundreds of bureaucratic lists kept by the Nazis and their collaborators. These included lists of concentration-camp inmates and manifests of railroad transports.

The half-century effort could not identify all the 6 million, Shalev said. In large parts of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, no documentation was kept by the squads who shot to death entire Jewish populations of some towns or by Nazi troops who dispatched ghetto inhabitants to death camps, where they were gassed upon arrival.

In Hungary, most of the lists of the 437,000 Jews rounded up by the Hungarian police and sent to Auschwitz in a period of 56 days in 1944 were never located, Shalev said.

The number 6 million was calculated after the war by comparing prewar censuses with lists of survivors compiled by the Red Cross and other relief organizations. There were almost 9 million Jews in the countries of Europe that fell under Nazi control, and the Nazis killed two out of every three. The Yad Vashem Web site will not include non-Jews, such as Gypsies, who were also systematically slaughtered by the Nazis.

Compiling a list of distinct individuals presented thorny problems because names and towns were spelled in so many variations.

"Jews spell Isaac 700 ways," Shalev said. "And Cohen? — there are a thousand ways to spell Cohen." The Yad Vashem search engine takes account of such discrepancies and also tries to eliminate duplicates.

Information can be added

The database, which Shalev said cost $15 million to $17 million to create, is searchable in English and Hebrew. Users will be able to add names, submit missing information and photographs or correct misinformation, entries that will be checked for accuracy. They can also look up the pages of testimony filled out in the spidery survivors' handwriting.

Irving Roth, a 75-year-old Slovakian survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald and a retired engineer who lives in Williston Park, N.Y. , said the names were crucial because "it takes the mass of 6 million and places a name, a face, a history to the person."

Few of the dead, he noted, were buried in marked graves.

Roth spoke about his grandfather, Shimon Rosenwasser, who was killed at Auschwitz. Roth remembered him "as an observant Jew but also an outdoorsy type who owned a lumber business and could pick up a hatchet and cut a tree down." He hopes his own grandchildren will learn about him from the Web site.

"These were human beings," he said, "who lived, laughed, cursed, fought, who did the things human beings do."

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

November 19, 2004

Bedlam in Beslam – The Islamic War in Chechnya

The media again blurs the identity of another Islamic war against the West. Did you know the war in Chechnya is such a war? This is in fact, WWIV as designated by political analyst, Norman Podhoretz. This is not some vague “War against Terrorism” – a term used to avoid embarrassment to our great Arab allies as they ferment terror and attempt our annihilation from the immediate world

By Steven Plaut

As all the horrific details come out about the Islamofascist massacre of children in Beslan, a number of thoughts come to mind.

1. Throughout the reporting of the massacre, not a single news medium I read or heard spent any time lecturing the listeners or readers about how this carnage must prove how just the Chechen terrorist’s cause is, else why would they be so “desperate.

2.No news media talking heads or Op-Ed writers hectored readers by demanding that the Russians now address the underlying causes of the anger of the terrorists.

3. Michael Lerner (arch “liberal”) did not devote a piece in Tikkun magazine to the need to feel the pain of the Chechen murderers.

4. Chechnya in fact has a far more legitimate claim to independence from Russia than the Palestinian Arabs have for any form of “self-determination”

The Chechens are not seeking the destruction of Russia, while the Arab Palestinians are seeking the annihilation of Israel. The Chechens are non-Russian Moslems, culturally and linguistically alien to Russia. The “Palestinians” are members of Syrian and Lebanese families who migrated into the land of Israel starting in the late 19th century. Moreover, unlike the Arab Palestinians, the Chechens do not have 22 other Chechen states they can choose from or to which they can move. Having noted all this, let us also note that the massacre of children by the Chechen Nazis probably put an end altogether to the willingness of anyone in the world to reconsider independence for Chechnya. The Chechens forfeited any legitimate claims they might have had to independence. Contrast this with the world’s reaction to Palestinian barbarism that murdered 1500 Israelis, many of them children, just since signing the eternal Oslo peace accord foreswearing violence.

5. At least four of Chechen terrorists were captured alive and summarily executed by the Russians, No bleeding hearts no do–gooders screamed in moral indignation that Russia violated the Miranda rights of those terrorists, No one demanded the terrorists be given expensive lawyers and allowed to have their cases heard by civil courts, in contrast with the movement on behalf of the Guantanamo terrorists. No one from the Israel Labor Party proposed granting the terrorists the Kremlin and half of Moscow.

6. Nazis have always made a point of especially targeting children. The German Nazis went out of their way to murder Jewish children. The Palestinian Nazis make special effort to target Israeli children. The Chechen Nazis learned from the Palestinians.

7. The news services continue to call the murderers “militants for the simple reason that calling them terrorists would force the news people to call Palestinian murderers terrorists and that might upset the Arabs. It is essential for the networks to call Palestinian murderers of Jewish children militants for this is how the news services signal their neutrality in the Middle East conflict between murdering Palestinians and innocent Jewish victims. It is also their subtle way of signaling how justified they see the Palestinian murderers, similar to their practice of counting the number of dead Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers in any death toll from any atrocity. (Will the BBC and CNN count the dead Chechens and their Arab sidekicks in the final Beslan body count?) So witness the extent to which the news services will go to maintain their Orwellian support for Palestinian terrorism. Evidently, the only act of savagery the BBC is willing to denounce as “terror” is when the IRA activists planted a bomb at the BBC headquarters in London.

8. Not a single Russia leftist raced to Beslan to demonstrate his or her solidarity with the terrorists. Not a single Russian leftist professor wrote an op-ed justifying the kidnapping and murders. Not a single Russian leftist poet composed a poem celebrating the suffering of the terrorists, and poems written by Chechen pro-terror poets are not being introduced into the Russian school curriculum. Russian leftist professors are not organizing an international boycott of Beslan and Ossetia colleges in solidarity with the terrorists while demanding that the Beslan taxpayers continue to subsidize them.

9. Russian newspapers are not united in expressing understanding for the struggle of the Chechen terrorists. They are not lecturing readers about how there are no military solutions to the problems of terrorism. They are not demanding goodwill gestures from the Kremlin so that the Chechen terrorists will feel their self-esteem is no longer threatened.

10. But the most important thought I am sure you shared with me, as the story of the massacre unfolded was this: Why has not Israel rounded up the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) squad of cheerleaders for terrorism and shipped them off forthwith to defend the homes of the family members of the dead Chechen terrorists from the enraged Russian troops that will be entering Chechnya?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 17, 2004

Former Ambassador Dennis Ross’ Spin

By Jerome S. Kaufman

(Re-printed from the Detroit Jewish News of November 12, 2004)

It was quite a show at the West Bloomfield, Michigan, Jewish Community Center Jewish Book Fair on Nov. 4, watching former Ambassador Dennis Ross mesmerize an adoring audience as to his great contribution to the so-called peace process in the Middle East. His press agent wrote him up as, “A highly skilled diplomat, Ambassador Ross was this country’s point man on the peace process in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He was instrumental in assisting Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement; he also successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997, facilitated the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together.” Assisted Israel!

Evidently, the man who wrote the promo piece was not on the scene when these events occurred. Ross was indeed the point man along with the other great “assisters of Israel” in Clinton’s State Department: i.e., Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haas and, of course, Madeleine Albright and Clinton himself. Their “assistance” has all but brought Israel to its knees.

Way back in April 1991, in a Moment magazine article, former Near East Report editor Eric Rozenman described Ross as a “Jewish Arabist.” He wrote that Ross was responsible for shaping the Bush-Baker policy that was “indifferent to what Israel claimed as vital interests and undiplomatically hostile to Israel’s prime minister” and had made it “the least sympathetic American government toward Israel in that country’s 43 years.”

That government embraced the deluded Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Haim Ramon that brought the Oslo Accords, under cover of darkness, to Israel. Along with the Accords came a powerless, discarded Yasser Arafat isolated in Tunisia following the 1982 Lebanese war. Israel then made the colossal error of empowering this lethal enemy. The Palestinian Arabs were given rifles and sophisticated military equipment supposedly for use against riots among their own people. In short order, these weapons were instead, quickly used to kill Israelis.

Despite the obvious Arab lack of cooperation and compliance with the agreements sculpted by Ross, the Israelis continued with the insanity giving up the greater part of Judea and Samaria and all the major Arabs towns to the point where 97 percent of the Arabs were under Arafat’s rule. As a sign of his gratitude, Arafat orchestrated the even greater killing of Israelis that continues to this very day. In the 30 months after that date, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (2l3) than in the preceding 10 years — (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). And in the following year, there were over twice as many Israeli terror fatalities.

The period since the Israel-PLO accords has seen the highest level of terrorist killings in the history of the State of Israel. The situation has gone from bad to worse. In the four years of the current intifada, September 2000 to September 2004, 1,032 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab violence and there have been 6,665 casualties.

Nevertheless, Ross continues to promote the same concept. He implores the Israelis to “get out of the lives of the Palestinian Arabs.” If the Israelis could only make the Palestinian Arabs accept the gracious deal of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak - all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, unlimited Arab right of return to Judea and Samaria, etc. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Israelis threw Bank out of office immediately after learning of what Barak, Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton and the American State Department had offered. They replaced Barak with another general in the hope that this general would address the issue the way generals are supposed to deal with terror. This general, Arik Sharon, unfortunately has also fallen into the trap of “land for peace” despite the years of its abject failure.

Finally, Ross made the most incredibly, damaging statement of all. He said that he knew at the time that Yasser Arafat was incapable of sticking to any deal he made! Furthermore, in all those years of negotiation, the Ross mediators did not obtain one concession from Arafat himself - that, while Israelis were bleeding to death and coerced to give up more and more vital territory!

It is also obvious that Ross wants his point man job back. Thankfully, this is extremely unlikely with a Republican administration. Unfortunately, at least for public consumption, President Bush continues to urge Israel to accept another terrorist Arab state in its back yard. He has not accepted the fact that such an entity will not help the interests of the United States. It will backfire upon us. America will have one more enemy to deal with and, God forbid, eventually obtain instead, the loss of a fellow democracy and a stalwart military and political ally sold down the river.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 16, 2004

Emunah (Faith) – A Political message from Israel

A letter from a good Israeli Friend living in the Samarian settlement of Elon Moreh, just a few kilometers east of biblical Schechem (now Arab Nablus), constantly in mortal danger, but nevertheless dedicated to honoring God’s gift of the land to his ancestor Abraham and the Jews, some 3500 years ago.

Jerry Shalom,

I was at the yearly assembly of the Manhigut Yehudit faction in the Likud Party on Sunday night in Binyanei HaUmah in Jerusalem. It was very interesting with many speakers including Uzi Landau, Michael Ratzon, (who were both fired by Sharon from his cabinet after voting in the Knesset against the Gaza detachment plan), Rav Yigal Kamenetzki, the rabbi of Gush Katif, Moshe Feiglen, the head of Manhigut Yehudit, Shmuel Sacks, Michael Puah, Motti Karpel (the key people in the Jewish Leadership faction).

You would have enjoyed it since it was the opposite of the defeatism mentality that you mentioned that many people have , (see, OpEds – Appeasement and Defeatism), and it gives a great feeling of optimism to the belief that the current line Sharon is taking the Likud in, is not necessarily the line that it will be continuing to take in the future.

You're probably familiar with Manhigut Yehudit, but if not, they have an internet site and have part of it in English. Motti Karpel explained, the advantage of the Zionist movement was that the Jew decided that he had to take responsibility for his future, but this was also the disadvantage since the Zionist movement saw it dependent only on the Jew, and nothing more.

Like a battery that runs out of energy if it isn't refilled, or a car that won't continue running without refilling it with gasoline, if we don't have faith in HaShem, and doing his will, then everything runs down without energy, and this is the problem with the leadership today. What needs to be is the Jew's actions together with the faith in HaShem, and not faith just in troubled times, but in everything that we are doing. So if we got washed out in the galut (Diaspora), we are returning to the land of Israel for a purpose; and even though it's easier to take the Jew out of the galut than it is to take the galut out of the Jew (what I call the defeatist shtetle mentality); if we connect ourselves with the source of life, then we will recharge ourselves, and even have enough left over to be a "light to the nations".

As the Chasidic expression goes "someone who is connected up there, doesn't fall down there", and after seeing so many that fall, you can see the importance, not just religiously, but also nationalistly, to be connected all the time to HaShem.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 13, 2004

Affirmative Action or Reverse Discrimination?

Dear Reader,

Suppose you think, as I do, that so-called Affirmative Action is actually a reverse form of discrimination, undermines the merit system that has made this country the finest in the world, acts against the best interests of all Americans and in fact, renders a great disservice in the long and short run to those it is supposed to be helping.

If you basically agree, please get involved with the organization whose letter appears below. You can simply send them a check or help to obtain petition signers or, at a minimum, find out where to sign a petition yourself.

MCRI Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee
P0 Box 1398, Southgate, MI 48195 734-730-4842

November 5, 2004

Thank you for your contribution of $200 to the Michigan Initiative (MCRI). Your gift will help MCRI make it on the ballot; make it unconstitutional to discriminate against or grant preferential on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or ethnicity in the areas contracting, public education, or public employment.

Right now, we are in the signature gathering phase of the campaign. We need to collect 317,757 valid signatures from registered Michigan voters in order to secure a spot for MCRI on the 2006 ballot. We are over half-way there and with your support we’re going to win! If you’re in Michigan or know someone in Michigan, we need help circulating petitions. Also, please let us know if you have friends or colleagues that may be interested in contributing to MCRL

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative’s objective is unmistakable — MCRI will put an end to quotas, goals and “set asides.” With your contribution we will be able to put a permanent end to racial discrimination, and racial preference, in Michigan. Thank you for your generosity and continued support!

Thank you,

Jennifer Gratz

Executive Director
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:46 PM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2004

The Widow Arafat and … her subjects should only know!

Report: Suha to receive $ 22 million a year from Palestinian Authority

By Khaled Abu Toameh


Yasser Arafat's widow, Suha, is expected to receive a sum of $22 million a year out of the Palestinian Authority budget, according to the Italian newspaper Corriere De La Serra. The paper said Suha reached an agreement about the money during a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the PLO's newly elected chairman, who visited while she was staying next to her husband's bed in the French military hospital outside Paris.

It said Abbas personally promised Suha that she would receive $22 million a year to cover her expenses in Paris. The paper noted that in July Arafat> transferred to his wife $11 million to cover her living costs for the first six months of the year.

Abbas and the Palestinian leadership were forced to strike the deal with Suha after she refused to allow them to visit her husband in hospital. The Palestinian leaders reached the conclusion that it would be better to make a deal with her in order to solve the crisis surrounding Arafat's
possessions and secret bank accounts.

According to Palestinian officials, the money that Suha is expected to receive will come from secret accounts held by Arafat and his cronies in various countries. They estimated that at least $4 billion were being held in these secret accounts.

Suha Arafat Faces French Inheritance Tax Liability in Millions

By Aaron Lerner 12 November 2004

Last January it was reported in Yediot Ahronot that Jean-Claude Gaudin,
Mayor of the French city of Marseilles, disclosed that he had granted Suha
Arafat French citizenship when he served as minister in charge of
immigration. The maximum inheritance tax rate in France is 40%.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2004

Proud to be an American

By Arnold Beichman

The Washington Times, September 5, 2004

The biggest yet unspoken reason for the permanent anti-Americanism of West European governments and their elites is this:

Since 1776, the once 13 Colonies have traveled the road of democracy, a form of government we owe to, the Greeks, to John Locke, to Montesquieu. And we have never deviated from that course, even in the worst days of the Civil War and President Lincoln’s suspension of democratic liberties

We were not only the first new nation, we were also the first new democratic nation which allowed in 1800 for a peaceful transfer of power from President John Adams to President-elect Thomas Jefferson as the result of a democratic election. Intact, with the end of the Civil War, we broadened that democracy by enfranchising onetime slaves. And by later granting women’s suffrage, we doubled the country’s potential voters. Despite all kinds of political appeals and third party utopian efforts, we adhered to a democratic faith.

How different is the story for Europe, tragically for world peace, especially in the 20th century. While we remained true to our democratic course, Europe experimented with all kinds of polities - political creeds as alternatives to democracy. Here’s the alphabetical list I’ve constructed: Absolutism, anti-Semitism, Caesarism, civil war, class war, clericalism, communism, fascism, falangism, feudalism, hereditary and constitutional monarchies, militarism, Nazism, socialism, united frontism.

Otto von Bismarck once said fools learn from their mistakes, wise men from the mistakes of others. That applied to the American policy. We learned front Europe’s mistakes and in more than two centuries avoided those mistakes. For example, we have never had a Labor Party or a significant Socialist Party. Our national labor organizations, the AFI and the CIO and the merged AFL/CIO, neither preached nor practiced class warfare nor evidenced any Marxist influence. Historically European labor movements were heavily indebted to Marxism and in some cases, as in postwar France and Italy, indebted to V.1. Lenin and Josef Stalin.

We never had a significant fascist or militaristic movement in America, while Europe’s democracies, Britain and France, and Eastern and Central Europe, did. We have had our failures as witness our entrance into WWI, arguably unnecessary. But despite all kinds of propaganda for revolution, American voters who listened to the soap boxers were unpersuaded. They truly exemplified the words of an early 20th-century German economist, Werner Sombart, who published an article titled, “Why is there no socialism in the United States?” His answer came in a melodramatic metaphor: “On the reefs of roast beef and apple-pie, socialistic Utopias of every sort are sent to their doom.

Since the French Revolution 1789, the European continent has been soaked in blood and built on the bones of millions of soldier and civilian dead - thanks to the Balkan wars, the revolutionary wars, the mindless monarchs of Wilhelm and Nicholas, the Hitler and Stalin genocides, and two utterly unnecessary world wars.

Since the early 19th-century America became the destination of millions of European immigrants. Few Americans ever emigrated to Europe or Asia. Oh, a small number of American draft-dodgers migrated to Canada during the Vietnam War. Even more significantly, American military power was responsible for overthrowing these tyrannies: Nazism, fascism, communism, Eastern Europe, Saddam Hussein, Nicaraguan Sandinistas, El Salvador communists, Grenada and Japanese militarism. American military power prevented the takeover of South Korea by Kim Il-sung and the takeover of Taiwan by mainland China.

The Truman Doctrine saved Greece and Turkey from Soviet aggression.
Without American military and economic power, we would have a different world today. And we did this in the spirit of the 13 precious words of Alfred T. Mahan, the great U.S. naval strategist: “The objective of military power is to allow moral ideals to take root:” That’s why we’re in Iraq.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times. His updated biography “Herman Wouk, the Novelist as Social Historian,” has just been published.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:16 PM | Comments (0)

November 08, 2004

Egypt - Is it a factor for peace in the Middle East

In 1979, under the stewardship of President Jimmy Carter, Israel and Egypt signed the Camp David peace treaty, by which Israel committed itself to yield the Sinai to Egypt, together with all its material and strategic assets. The whole world hoped that this historic handshake would indeed finally bring peace and tranquility to the troubled Middle East.

What are the facts?

Egypt is Israel s most implacable enemy. It was the key player and military leader in the 1948 assault on the nascent Jewish state. Almost miraculously Israel was able to defeat the combined Arab might. Egypt remained in occupation of the Gaza Strip.

But thirsting for revenge, Egypt — together with Jordan and Syria — attacked Israel again in 1967. In a brilliant campaign that will be studied in war colleges for centuries, Israel in six days utterly destroyed the Arab war machine. At the end of that Six Day War, Israel stayed in possession of the vast Sinai desert.

Instead of licking its wounds, Egypt, after its rout in the Six Day War, almost immediately engaged in a war of attrition against Israel That war lasted for years. Egypt never ceased in its attempt to destroy Israel. The hostility culminated once again on Yom Kipper of 1973, when the Egyptian armed forces, in coordination with Syria, once again launched a major war against Israel. Israel once again prevailed. Only urgent intervention by the United States and others brought about a truce and prevented the total annihilation of the Egyptian force.

In the 1979 Camp David peace treaty negotiated by Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin, Israel yielded the Sinai to Egypt together with all the assets it had developed there. Still, Israelis of all political persuasions were almost giddy with hope and anticipation that their most implacable enemy had opted for peace. Finally, the talented people of Israel could now bring the promise and the potential of the Jewish homeland to full fruition.

The disappointment was almost immediate. Anwar Sadat was assassinated by one of his own terrorist countrymen. He had to die for no other reason than for having denied the Arab mantra: “No peace, no negotiation, and no recognition of Israel.”

Israel had envisioned its peace with Egypt as that between the United States and Canada, but that was not to be. Right from the very beginning, travel was harshly discouraged and strictly controlled by Egypt. Trade was non-existent. Israel’s ambassador to Cairo was under virtual house arrest. He was never included in any official function. The Egyptian press, tightly controlled by the government, initiated an orgy of anti- Semitic publicity, highlighted by hateful cartoons rivaling those of the “Sturmar,” the notorious Nazi hate sheet. There hasn’t been an Egyptian ambassador in Israel for over three years.

Egypt is no friend of the United States it consistently votes against our country’s interests in the forums of the United Nations. In order to get Egypt to agree to the Camp David peace in 1979, the United States committed itself to aid Egypt to the tune of $2.2 billion per year. Only about $0.9 billion of that is earmarked as “economic aid. The balance, over $1 3 billion, is for military aid.

Egypt has the largest armed forces in the entire Middle East - in manpower and in equipment. It has recently supplemented its navy with eleven new battle cruisers. It has placed four recent orders for F-16’s, totaling 190 new planes. It has acquired 180 Hawk and 1,000 Hellfire missiles. It has already received delivery of 24 Apache helicopters and it expects to receive twelve more. The armored corps is comprised of the most modern U.S. tanks. Egypt is bordered, by Libya, Sudan and Israel. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out against which of these countries all of this armament, all of this ‘military power is’ directed it’s toward Israel, of course.

What does the U S hope to accomplish by arming this mortal enemy of Israel, which is still bent on the destruction of the Jewish state? Since Israel is the one immutable ally of the United States in the entire region, a country we can always count on, it is hard to understand why our government would be participatory in Israel’s possible destruction. It makes no sense at all.

There can be no question that Egypt is once again girding for war against Israel — either alone or with the enthusiastic collaboration of other Muslim nations. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to reduce and eventually eliminate altogether the $1.3 billion military aid that Egypt receives from us. But even if that were to succeed, it may already be too late. If Egypt does indeed launch war against Israel, it could ultimately include weapons of mass destruction. It is up to the world to prevent this disaster, if it is still possible.


Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P0 Box 590359 S San Francisco, CA 94159
Gerardo Joffe, President

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:48 PM | Comments (0)

November 06, 2004

A Formula for Survival

By Sy Frumkin

Excerpted from an article in his newsletter, Graffiti for Intellectuals Oct. 25, 2004

We are currently involved in a war that we were unprepared for. We were prepared to fight a country; a nation with an army that used conventional weaponry and whose motives and behavior made sense and could be predicted and analyzed. Our goal was to defeat our enemy on a battlefield we chose. We did not realize that the very concept of a battlefield or a specific and identifiable enemy drastically changed. It didn’t occur to us that the main weapon of World War III (IV) was the apparently senseless and unproductive murder of random innocent civilians.

We must readjust our thinking and develop appropriate weapons to fight this new peril. We must acknowledge the apparently unacceptable: our enemies do not have our values or our respect for the truths we hold to be self- evident. We must believe that our enemies derive pride and honor from murdering those who hold values and beliefs that are different from their own; that they love death more than life; will gladly die if their own death brings death to others; and indoctrinate their children in this perverted doctrine.

The old cliché that every society gets the government it deserves is probably true. The societies that have created our dictatorships that are backward, oppressive and unproductive but somehow they enjoy the support and loyally of their unfortunate subjects. There are no free democratic nations in the Arab Middle East.

Elsewhere, if Moslems are a minority they are the cause of violent conflicts; if they are a majority, they bring violence to other Moslems - in Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq and elsewhere. Even in the U.S. where newcomers tend to adopt our values, the moderate Moslem majority of new Americans is faced with the control of mosques, schools and community organizations by violent radical minorities.

Our Iraqi experience suggests so far, that possibly not all people really want to live in freedom. It is possible that only a tyrant can rule in the Middle East and that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside, If this is so, then we must learn how to fight effectively - not by persuasion, reasoning, and appeals to our common humanity.

Just as this would not have worked to dissuade Nazis from forcing Jews into gas chambers, it will not work in stopping those who want all unbelievers dead, as quickly as possible. If we are to survive and win we will, unfortunately, have to discard some of our own values. Here are some distasteful proposals: close our borders to those who might have been infected with the virus of militant Islamism and speedily and efficiently deport all those who may be a danger to our society and our people. Our dedication to human rights for Moslems has to be sacrificed in the cause of our survival.

In countries where our forces are deployed any one carrying an illegal weapon should be shot on sight, cities and districts that harbor terrorists should have their water, power and transport facilities shut down. Our enemies know that we have overwhelming force but they also know that we are reluctant to use it and they have only contempt for our weakness. We must stop being a paper tiger whose threats have been shown to be empty rhetoric.

What I am suggesting is distasteful. It goes against all that we stand for. It carries within it the danger that we may become as bad as the enemies we fight. I am aware of this. But the choice is no longer between good and bad - it is between bad and a catastrophe that would end civilization, as we know it. I opt for survival. •

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:13 PM | Comments (0)

November 04, 2004

Democratic Party Platform?, Arafat’s impending departure

1. Democratic Party Platform

By Professor Steven Plaut, University of Haifa, Israel November 4, 2004

Mr. Kerry was not exactly the night's lonely Democratic loser. This is the third consecutive election in which the Democrats have lost to George Bush's Republicans (with each loss bigger than the last) and that is no accident. In part it has to do with the global zeitgeist, which plays to traditional Republican strengths on national security; in part with demographic shifts that tilt the Electoral College Mr. Bush's way. And as we write in a related commentary, it has still more to do with Mr. Bush's skill as a politician and boldness as a policy maker.

But let's be candid with our Democratic friends: On Tuesday, a majority of
the American electorate took a look at their party and asked, "Who are these people?" Who are George Soros, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sontag, Teresa Heinz Kerry
and all these other self-anointed spokespersons for everything good and true? And what does a party that is dominated by a loose coalition of the coastal intelligentsia, billionaires with too much spare time, the trial lawyers' association, the Hollywood Actors' Guild, rock stars and unionized labor have in common with what's quaintly known as Middle America? The majority's answers were (a) not us; and (b) not a whole lot.

…This is a Democratic Party in which nostalgia for tradition is too often
considered racism, opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, misgiving about abortion is misogyny, Christian fundamentalism is like Islamic fundamentalism, discussion about gender roles is sexism, and confidence in America's global purpose is cultural imperialism. To put it mildly, this is not the values system to which most Americans adhere.

2. As to Arafat’s Departure

Weekly Commentary: Arafat's Departure - Lowering Expectations For
Palestinian Compliance

By Aaron Lerner Date: 28 October 2004

The question should not be if Yasser Arafat's departure clears the way for yet another "photo opportunity" signing ceremony, with Israel once again exchanging real assets for even more unfulfilled promises but instead if the
Palestinian leaders, in Arafat's absence, will finally act to honor Palestinian commitments and obligations.

Unfortunately, there is every indication that the very opposite may be the

Recently the world began losing patience with the Arafat dominated PA, with
more and more leaders indicating that they expected Palestinian action and
not just more Palestinian declarations. But with Arafat away from Ramallah, it appears that expectations regarding Palestinian compliance have declined rather than increased. As always, the greatest strength of Palestinian leaders is their perceived weakness. The Palestinian leadership doesn't have the strength or standing, the argument goes, to take serious measures against the terror infrastructure.

Israel has to build up the Palestinian leaders through concessions and unilateral gestures, the argument goes, cutting back on vital security measures to show the Palestinian street that their leaders can "deliver". And since cutting back on vital security measures means more successful terror attacks, that ultimately means Israelis literally dying in order to boost the popularity of the Palestinian leadership.

Those who religiously believe that a full Israeli withdrawal to the '67 line will herald a period of utopian peace between Israel and her neighbors are not particularly concerned about Palestinian compliance in the interim. But for those of us who do not embrace this secular messianic faith, Palestinian compliance isn't a slogan - it's a necessity.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a giant leap backwards when he committed himself to retreat from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria next summer come-what-may. Unless the Sharon team comes to its senses and takes the lead, Arafat's departure can easily lead to a worldwide campaign of pressure on Israel to make Sharon's already reckless plan even worse.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:13 PM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2004

Preliminary Post-Election Thoughts from Israel

(Excerpted from article by Professor Steven Plaut, University of Haifa, Israel)

Nov. 3, 2004

No one thought Israel would have an easy time with four more years of
Bush and Powell. It was just that Kerry would have been the second Jimmy
Carter, with all that implies, and would have based US policy on appeasement and "understanding" Islamofascism. So Bush was the lesser of the evil when it came to Israel, and Bush was by far the better candidate in terms of America's own interests. Kerry would have turned the Supreme Court over to liberal judicial activists, and implemented the rest of the liberal agenda.

Kerry was the candidate favored by Arafat, bin Laden, and Haaretz
newspaper, three critters that more often than not see eye to eye.

It was estimated that about 75% of the Israeli public favored Bush,
while 98% of the Israeli media favored Kerry. A good rule of thumb is
that whenever the Israeli media, under leftist hegemony, favors any
candidate in any race in any country on earth, you can be quite sure that
the candidates election would be harmful to Israel
. One Israeli TV
channel ran its election coverage with a panelist on screen wearing a
Kerry button. Some objective news reporting!

American Jews proved that most have abandoned Judaism and substituted political liberalism as their (pseudo-) religion.
My guess is that a lot of those 1% who voted Nader were in fact self-hating assimilationist Jewish liberals, or asslibs for short. Many American Jews will vote for any candidate who endorses the liberal canon, no matter how anti-Israel he is.

All eleven states in which gay "marriage" was on the agenda voted against such "marriage". In other words, they voted against the asslibs who run the Reform synagogue movement and the Jewish defense organizations. Jews may be the only group in America who endorse gay marriage, other than the 3/4 of 1% or so of Americans who are actually homosexual. Jewish liberals will vote in favor of just about any idea that is contrary to Judaism.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:41 AM | Comments (0)

November 01, 2004

Sharon and Israel's Travesty

Why the Gaza Retreat Majority was Not a Genuine Majority

by Morton A. Klein

National President, Zionist Organization of America

At first glance, it would seem that a modest majority in Israel’s Knesset supports unilateral retreat from Gaza and forcible transfer of the 8300 Jewish residents. The recent Knesset vote on the Gaza retreat plan was 67 in favor, out of 120 Knesset Members, representing 55% of the Knesset.

But a first glance can be deceiving. In this case, very deceiving. Here’s why: Six cabinet members who are also Knesset Members and who have been openly critical of the Gaza plan, nevertheless voted in favor of it. They did so for one simple reason: Prime Minister Sharon threatened to immediately fire them from the cabinet if they voted against it.

Instead of being free to vote according to what they believe is right and best for Israel, they voted under duress: oppose the plan, lose their cabinet jobs; support the plan, keep their cabinet jobs.

There are additional cabinet ministers and deputy ministers who have not been vocally critical of the Gaza plan, but are known to privately harbor serious misgivings about it. Some of them might also have voted against it – if not for the Sharon threat to fire them. Had they felt free to vote according to what they believe is best for the nation, the Gaza plan would have received 61 votes (out of 120) at most, or possibly even 60 or less.

A majority of one – at best – is a feeble majority, not a meaningful majority. And when it comes to the security of the state of Israel and the lives of its citizens, and throwing Jews out of their homes and giving land to a terrorist regime, a feeble majority is just not enough.

This issue – the size of a majority – often comes up in connection with the idea of a national referendum, but is also relevant in assessing the meaning of the Knesset vote. In many countries, a national referendum requires approval by what is called a "special majority," since a simple majority could mean one side winning by the slimmest of margins, leaving the nation badly polarized. In the United States, a two-thirds vote in the Senate is required for the federal government to give any territory to a foreign entity.

In the case of the Gaza vote, at least six cabinet ministers should have voted against the plan, because they believe the plan is bad for Israel. Yet they voted in favor of the plan, in order to keep their cabinet positions.

Prime Minister Sharon’s threat to fire his cabinet opponents was wrong. It is one thing for Sharon to insist that cabinet ministers support his policies (at least in general) within the cabinet. But to use their cabinet jobs as leverage to pressure them over a Knesset vote is inappropriate. To have a genuine democracy, the cabinet and the Knesset should remain two separate entities. The outcome of a Knesset vote should be determined according to what the Knesset Members think is best for the country, not because of the prime minister’s threats against cabinet members.

Imagine if members of President Bush’s cabinet were simultaneously serving in the United States Senate, and he threatened to fire them from his cabinet unless they voted a certain way in the Senate. That would be an outrageous distortion of democracy.

The Israeli system of governance contains a serious flaw, which allows cabinet ministers to serve simultaneously as Members of Knesset. One must wonder how Israeli cabinet ministers can be effective at two jobs at once. If Colin Powell was both Secretary of State and also a U.S. Senator, how could he possibly give both jobs the attention they deserve?

For the sake of Israeli democracy, the time has come for Israel to make a clear separation between the Knesset and the cabinet. Members of the cabinet should not be permitted to serve simultaneously in the Knesset. Right now, sixteen of the eighteen cabinet ministers, and all three of the deputy ministers, are all Members of the Knesset. That must change. And modest majorities that are achieved by threats should not be regarded as necessarily reflecting the true will of the Knesset.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:16 PM | Comments (0)