March 31, 2005

Critique on War in Iraq

President Bush’s critics on the Iraqi war

By James C. Lakely
The Washington Times, March 20, 2005

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush’s Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren’t taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush’s role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections.

But many critics of the war — which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause — are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous “chicken hawk” speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said on March 8 that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.
“The war gave the Lebanese the spine they needed:’ Mr. Lautenberg said. “It told them, ‘We can get rid of these vultures?”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat said on ABC’s “This Week” on March 6 that Mr. Bush deserves some credit for the positive developments in the still volatile region. “What’s taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive,” Mr. Kennedy said. “It’s a reflection the president has been involved?’

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said he didn’t hear Mr. Bush’s March 8 speech on spreading freedom in the Middle East, but “if there were ever a place in the world where we need democracy, it’s in the Middle East?’ “Any breakthrough we get there, whether it’s in Lebanon or Egypt, is a step in the right direction and I support the president in that regard,” Mr. Reid said. Asked whether Mr. Bush deserved credit for those developments, Mr. Reid said “we’ll just have to wait and see.”

But Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry whose criticism of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy did not translate into a presidential victory in November, said Mr. Bush deserves no credit for recent developments in the Middle East.
An assassination made this happen,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the car bomb that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last month. The killing has been blamed on Syria. Mr. Kerry said any good that comes from the Iraq war does not make it the right decision. “This was not the reason we went to war, but it’s a very good outcome;’ Mr. Kerry said.

A senior Democratic Senate aide acknowledged that many in his party were surprised by recent developments in the Middle East and realized that attacking the president on the war would have less bite. “ You have to give the guy a modicum of credit,” the senior aide said. “There’s no denying that the Iraq vote could be a catalyst for change in the region. Everyone up here, Democrats and Republicans want to see peace in that region?’

Such conciliatory comments, however, contrast sharply with the heated anti-war rhetoric of just seven weeks ago. Mr. Kennedy was the most vocal, calling the entire Iraqi operation a “failure” and demanding immediate US. withdrawal. “Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing — the hearts and minds of the people — and that is a battle we are not winning;’ Mr. Kennedy said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University just three days before Iraq’s first free election in decades. Mr. Kennedy also called Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam” in a Jan. 12 speech at the National Press Club, insisting Mr. Bush “has bogged America down in an endless quagmire?’

Another Democratic Senate aide said he doesn’t expect to hear much of that kind of talk in the future. “Even if things start to go south, I think we all agree that ripping Bush over this is not very constructive?’ he said. “And nobody wants to be on the wrong

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:14 AM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2005


Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Dear Friends,

In today's Jerusalem Post, Tuesday March 29, 2005, there was an article entitled, "PM's OFFICE WORRIES ABOUT PROTESTS DURING U.S. VISIT."

"Officials in the Prime Minister's office said they have received intelligence information that Disengagement opponents here would try to disrupt Sharon's visit, in order to move the camera lens from what is expected to be a friendly Bush-Sharon meeting to the very unfriendly strife the plan is causing in Israel. "

It is essential that you not only give Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a reason to worry, but that you also give President George W. Bush a cause to re-examine United States' policy toward Israel.

It is a matter of life or death, not only for tiny Israel, but also for the mighty United States. And I speak here as a concerned American citizen, as well as someone who enjoys her spiritual home in Jerusalem.

Ariel Sharon's plan of Disengagement from Biblical Gaza and Biblical northern Samaria may seem unstoppable. To many people, it may seem as if this is just a minor blip on the radar screen of history. "Israel may surely survive without Gush Katif and northern Samaria," they say. "After all, we are only talking about approximately 9,000 people. If it's for the common good, it behooves them to give up their homes."

Prime Minister Sharon has never even attempted to show that his Disengagement-Deportation of Jews by Jews is for the common good. It is, of course, simply giving in to Arab Islamic terror and pressure from the United States.

Ever since Israel regained its Biblical heartland - Judea, Samaria and Gaza - in a defensive war in 1967, the United States' policy has been not to allow Jews to re-establish communities in the Land promised to them by G-d as an everlasting inheritance. Even though the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration declared the whole area of Mandate Palestine - including what is now Jordan - as a Jewish Homeland, Winston Churchill, with great "generosity" toward the Arabs, chopped off a piece to placate one of the feuding sheiks (the other sheik got Iraq as his prize!).

All this happened not too long ago, just at the beginning of the twentieth century. But now the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States have decided that the Holy Land needs to have some more parts amputated. They call this the Road Map to Peace!

Why is this amputation not only dangerous to Israel, but also to the United States and the rest of Western civilization, which are all based on the Judeo-Christian heritage? Isn't this an incredible victory for Arab Islamic terror? The unmistakable message which radical Islam understands perfectly is that TERROR PAYS, AND INCREASING TERROR WILL BRING EVEN GREATER DIVIDENDS!

I may be severely criticized for what I am going to say. 9/11 may well have happened because the United States for years ignored the terror directed toward Israel, as well as toward itself, by the Father of Modern Terrorism, Yasser Arafat.

It probably seemed to the United States and to the European countries that Arafat's terror was directed only at Israel and, hence, was only a local problem. "The obstacle to peace" between Jews and Arabs was perceived by the World to be the Jews building communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Even when the United States Ambassador Cleo Noel and his assistant, G. Curtis Moore, were machine-gunned on Arafat's orders in Khartoum, Sudan, in February of 1973, the United States did not find it politically expedient to react as it should have. (The dirty little secret of the U.S. State Department is that they have for many years hidden a recording where Arafat's voice has been clearly identified as ordering the torture and murder of U.S. diplomats.)

Yasser Arafat supplied the weapons used by the terrorists who killed 241 American Marines in Beirut in 1983. A National Security Agency phone-tap recorded a September 24, 1983 call from the Iranian ambassador to Abu-Haidr to "undertake an extraordinary operation against the U.S. Marines in Beirut." The attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut took place shortly thereafter. Two hundred forty one Americans were killed! (This information was revealed by Newsweek Magazine in its November 1999 issue.)

Yasser Arafat was also involved in the planning of the first World Trade Center bombing in New York in February, 1993, where six people died and thousands were injured. (Moshe Peled, Israel's Deputy Minister of Education in the Netanyahu government, told CIA representatives in early 1997 that Israeli intelligence had complete evidence about Yasser Arafat's involvement. The official Iranian government newspaper, E-Kirhan, as well, accused Arafat of responsibility for the first World Trade Center bombing.)

And what was the reaction of the U.S. State Department? To hide the evidence of Arafat's continual perfidy.

These are just a few examples of terror perpetrated by Arafat and his henchmen against the United States. The rest of the world has likewise not been immune from Arafat-sponsored terrorism.

And what was the reaction of the United States' government and the World at large? A year after the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993, Arafat was rewarded in 1994 with the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Arafat must have found this very humorous indeed. However, the "joke" is on all of us.

9/11 and the train bombing in Spain, etc., was a direct result of giving radical Islam the feeling that they can literally get away with murder.

For U.S. President George W. Bush to stand by, no, even encourage the dictator of Israel, Ariel Sharon, to give parts of the Holy Land to Arafat's political successor, Abu-Mazen, the terrorist who planned and funded the Munich Olympic Massacre, is to say the least, misguided, and not in the interest of the security of the United States. Islamic terror is continually promising the World another 9/11.

For Ariel Sharon to violently drag Jews out of their homes, people who have lived there for three generations, and to order the disinterment of their beloved Jewish relatives, is downright evil. Sharon's Disengagement-Deportation of Jews by Jews Plan is tearing the Jewish State of Israel apart!

Dear Friends, it is a privilege for all of us to make our voices heard in America, which is the bastion of world democracy. The Jewish People in Israel, however, no longer have that privilege under Sharon's undemocratic regime.

I am sure that President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will appreciate learning how the American people really feel about the future of the Holy Land.

I, myself, hope, G-d willing, to be in Crawford, Texas on April 11, 2005.

I implore you, dear friends, to come.

If it is difficult for some of you to take this trip, contact Pastor Vineyard, who is a passionate defender of Israel's Biblical inheritance, and he might find a way to help you with logistic arrangements, so that you can attend this important protest rally.

Now - for practical information:

APRIL 11, 2005

We pray to have 500 buses with at least 30 people in each bus, which will give us 15,000 protestors. (Of course, double or triple that amount will be even more effective!)

Will you come?
Will you get a car-load to come?
Will you get a van-load to come?
Will you get a bus-load to come?
Will you get a plane-load to come?

Make up signs on orange poster board, the color of Gush Katif resistance, such as:

Let Pastor Jim Vineyard know how many of you are coming. Write him at: or call him at 405 943 3326.


I am looking forward to meeting you there.

With Blessings and Love for Israel,

Ruth Matar

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:40 AM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2005

Natan Sharansky on Mahmoud Abbas, George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon

The International Jerusalem Post, March 4, 2005

Q. What approach did you suggest the US take on new PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas?

I told them that what really matters is what the position of the free world will be. If the US, Israel and Europe say, “We will embrace you only if you embrace democratic reforms,” then you have a unique chance. But if the message will be, “Give us stability and then we’ll talk,” then I think it will be very difficult for him to bring about reforms.

If he does institute reforms he will have to fight terrorism because the terrorists will resist all of it. But if he delays reform in order to fight terror, then he can have a cease-fire one day and allow terror then next

Q. If the Palestinians were to create a liberal democracy what concessions would you be willing to make?

I think we have to start to make concessions long before they become a completely liberal democracy. But as of today, I think it would be a big mistake to dismantle even one settlement. We gave them Arafat’s
autonomy for free. We gave them recognition of a Palestinian state for free. And now we are giving them the disengagement for free. If the disengagement were linked to democratization, I would be the first to support it, rather than vote against it as I am going to do.

Q. Why do you think Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is so devoted to the disengagement plan?

My theory is that he is desperate because of the fact that, for so many years, Israel has tried again and again to make peace, only to find again and again that we don’t have a partner. On the contrary we have the main source here of terrorist activity. And still the world is against us. No matter what we do; no matter that the Palestinians keep trying to destroy us; more and more is always demanded. I think Sharon is trying to stop this cycle by saying we’ll make one dramatic step that will be very difficult for us, and. we won’t link it to any demands on the Palestinians because we don’t believe that they would fulfill any demands. And, then we will get some relief from the rest of the world. (What a sick excuse for capitulation to one’s enemies!! Jsk)

However, I believe not only that we will not gain 10 years of peace, but also that we will not gain even one day! It will just be used as pretext to say, “Fourteen settlements is not enough, you must dismantle 24 and to say that we will have caused further terrorism by not having withdrawn from more land.

As I have said since 1995, the depth of our concessions should equal the depth of the Palestinians’ democratic reforms. Not only have our concessions not been connected to democratic changes, but also they have been connected to steps that only strengthened and unified the power of Arafat. One-sided concessions, no matter how sincere, cannot bring positive change

Q. You quit the Barak government over Camp David. What are your red lines for this government, which has disengagement as its goal?

I ask myself that question every morning. I quit the Bank government to stop a dangerous process by bringing down the government and supporting an alternative. This time, I can’t go from a left-wing government to a right-wing government. This time the battle has to be fought from inside the government and the Likud. I hope the disengagement can be stopped and I will do everything possible to stop it.

So, there are some very serious things that concern me. But if I am looking for excuses to stay I have them. This government is not just about the disengagement. This government has also made one of the most important economic reforms in the history of the state, frankly. It has also made the issue of anti-Semitism a very important part of its work

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:31 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2005

Incontrovertible evidence that the bastards still hate us!

And don't tell me that the reason is because Mel Gibson said that we killed their Lord, which is a well-fabricated lie. But even if it were true, is that grounds to still hate us 2000 years later? Maybe some of our illustrious Jewish outreach organizations can run a survey and correct the situation?

Divestment decision

From the International Jerusalem Post, March 4, 2005

An organization representing up to half a billion Christians worldwide is encouraging its member churches to divest from companies that participate in “illegal activities” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The central committee of the World Council of Churches, which represents more than 340 Protestant and Orthodox churches in more than 120 countries, announced the decision last Monday, toward the conclusion of the governing body’s meeting in Geneva.

It specifically noted the “process of phased, selective divestment from multinational corporations involved in the occupation” now being implemented by the Presbyterian Church (USA).

“This action is commendable in both method and manner, and used criteria rooted in faith,” (well, thank goodness!) the group said in a statement.

While that campaign angered segments of the American Presbyterian community, the WCC’s international affairs expert Peter Weiderud told The Jerusalem Post last Tuesday that its own statement was the result of a “grassroots initiative” from its membership, and was not merely the view of a limited number of senior clergy The WCC itself noted in another statement that it had chosen to follow a “consensus decision-making model.”

The central committee “reminded the council’s member churches that with investment funds, they have an opportunity to use those funds responsibly in support of peaceful solutions’ to the Israel- Palestine conflict,” the statement said. “Multinational corporations have been involved in the demolition of Palestinian homes, and are involved in the construction of settlements and settlement infrastructure on occupied territory in building a dividing wall which is also largely inside occupied territory and in other violations of international law being carried out beyond the internationally-recognized borders of the State of Israel determined by the Armistice of 1949,” the statement continued.

“The WCC governing body encouraged the council’s member churches to give serious consideration to economic measures as a new way to work for peace, by looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation. In that sense, the committee affirmed ‘economic pressure appropriately and openly applied, as a ‘means of action”

Apparently seeking to preempt criticism of the move as anti-Semitic, the WCC’s central committee “framed” its recommendation by “ re-calling” its statement in 1992 that “criticism of the policies of the Israeli government is not in itself anti-Jewish.”

Moshe Fox, minister for public and inter- religious affairs at the Israel Embassy in Washington DC, disagreed:

“While maintaining that this recommendation is neither one-sided nor anti- Jewish, it is clearly both,” Fox told the Jerusalem Post

Reader comment March 27, 2005

The WCC has been a very left-leaning and not very religious body for many, many years. They were always pro-"peace" all during the Cold War for example, i.e., they were pro-Russian and anti-American.

Their member churches have been steadily losing membership all these years, as younger and more religious people flock to more religious and more dynamic churches. The old WCC churches are aging and graying.

It's a very similar situation to what you find in the Jewish community, with the Reform temples full of old folks while younger people either leave the fold altogether or join Orthodox synagogues. Who needs a religion that is mostly lefty politcs and has little spiritual content?

It's true that there is a tendency to anti-Semitism among all goyim, left and right, Christian and not, but in general, more religious Christians tend to be more pro-Israel and less anti-Semitic.

The evangical churches are mainly pro-Israel. Gibson is a member of an unusually rigid Catholic group that is anti-Semitic, but very small, and has nothing to do with the WCC (which disdains him for being too religious) OR with the Evangelical churches, or even with mainstream Catholics, for that matter.

The WCC doesn't hate Jews for killing JC, they barely even believe in JC themselves anymore. They hate Jews for being westerners, capitalists, American allies, "colonialists." Remember, the WCC mainly hates America.

--Toby Katz

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:03 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2005

Another thought-provoking challenge by Dennis Prager

The Culture of Feelings vs. Conservative Values

(Re-printed from the Washington Times, March 6, 2005)

With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, the great majority in Western Europe has looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today; those guidelines are . . . “feelings.” With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, personal feelings have supplanted universal standards. In fact, feelings are the majority-unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that ‘War is not the answer”? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war— from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Soldiers making war - not by pacifists, who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe, liberated Auschwitz.

The entire edifice of moral relativism, a foundation of leftist ideology, is built on the notion of feelings deciding right and wrong. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The animals and humans are equivalent movement is based entirely on feelings; People see chickens killed and lobsters boiled, feel for the animals, and shortly thereafter abandon thought completely, and equate chicken and lobster suffering to that of a person under the same circumstances.

The unprecedented support of liberals for radically redefining the basic institution of society, marriage and the family is another a product of feelings —sympathy for homosexuals. Thinking through the effects of such a radical redefinition on society and its children is not a liberal concern.

The “self-esteem movement” now conceded to have been a great producer of mediocrity and narcissism — was entirely a liberal invention based on feeling for kids.

The liberal preoccupation with whether America is loved or hated is also entirely feelings based. The left wants to be loved; the conservative wants to do what is right and deems world opinion fickle at best and immoral at worst.

Sexual harassment laws have created a feelings-industrial complex. The entire concept of “hostile work environment’ is feelings based. If one woman resents a swimsuit calendar on a co-worker’s desk, laws have now been passed whose sole purpose is to protect her from having uncomfortable feelings.

For liberals, the entire worth of the human fetus is determined by the mother’s feelings. If she feels the nascent human life she is carrying is worth nothing, it is worth nothing. If she feels it is infinitely precious, it is infinitely precious.

Almost everything is affected by liberal feelings. For example, liberal opposition to calling a Christmas party by its rightful name is based on liberals’ concern that non-Christians will feel bad. And for those liberals nothing else matters---- not the legitimate desire of the vast majority of Americans to celebrate their holiday, let alone the narcissism of those non-Christians

And why do liberals continue to endorse race-based affirmative action at universities despite the mounting evidence that it hurts blacks more than it helps? Again, a major reason is feelings - sympathy for blacks and the historic racism African-Americans have endured.

Very often liberals are far more o=concerned with purity of motive than with moral results. That’s why so many liberals still oppose the liberation of Iraq – so what if Iraqis risk their lives to vote? It’s George W. Bush’s motives that liberals care about - not spreading liberty in the Arab world.

Elevating motives above results is a significant part of liberalism; What matters is believing that one is well intentioned — that one cares for the poor, hates racism, loathes inequality and loves peace. Bi-lingual education hurts Latino children. But as a compassionate person and “compassionate” is the self-definition of most liberals — that is not the liberal’s real concern. His concern is with an immigrant child’s uncomfortable feelings when first immersed in English.

Reliance on feelings in determining one’s political and social positions is the major reason - young people tend to have liberal/left positions — they feel passionately but do not have the maturity to question those passions. It is also one reason women, especially single women, are more liberal than men — it is women’s nature to rely on emotions when making decisions (For those unused to anything but adulation directed at the female of the human species, let me make it clear that men, too, cannot rely on their nature, which leans toward settling differences through raw physical power. Both sexes have a lot of self-correcting to do.)

To be fair, feelings also play a major role in many conservatives’ beliefs, Patriotism is largely a feeling; religious faith is filled with emotion, and religion has too often been dictated by emotion. But far more conservative positions are -based on “What is right?” rather than on “How do I feel?” That is why a religious woman who is pregnant but does not wish to be is far less likely to have an abortion than a secular woman in the same circumstances. Her values are higher than her feelings. And that, in a nutshell, is what our culture war is about — Judeo-Christian values-versus- liberal/leftist feelings.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and columnist based in Los Angeles.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

What awaits “Liberal” “Refugees” in their escape to Canada?

By John Leo, The Washington Times, March 6, 2005

Americans, unable to come to terms with President Bush’s re-election, are believed poised to leave the United States and become Canadians.
Many, of course, will remain permanently in the poised position. Alec Baldwin has apparently been on the tarmac four years, awaiting a plane to some other country.

But suppose the disaffected 10,000 to 20,000 actually depart. Will they find happiness? Will they achieve peace of mind north of the border? No, they won’t. Instead they will find the following:

· Strange and maddening football games: For reasons nobody can fathom, Canadian football is played on an enormous field, with 12 players on a side and only three downs, so every third play tends to be a punt. Canadian football alone is said to have driven an estimated 2 million Canadians across the border to become U.S. citizens. Many believe that Bush could not have won without the disaffected Canadian football vote.

· More Canadian music than you can imagine. Radio stations must play Canadian music at least 35 percent of the time. Strict rules determine what music is Canadian enough to fill the quota. Though Celina Dion is Canadian, her hit “My Heart Will Go On” was insufficiently Canadian, since the lyricist, the songwriter and the recording were non-Canadian. As a result, thoroughly Canadian pop music stays on the radio long enough to drive many Canadians to distraction, drink and even Canadian football.

· Except for murder, a rate of violent crime as disgraceful as that of the United States. Many U.S. newspapers salute Canada for its low crime rate. But the International Crime Victimization Survey finds the rate of certain “contact” crimes (robbery, sexual assault and assault with force) is more than 10 times higher in Canada than in the U.S.

· A national political leader every bit as hard to look at as George Bush: People who detest Mr. Bush’s syntax or cocky gait must consider Prime Minister Paul Martin’s disastrous smile. Mr. Martin’s speechwriter said the PM’s “fake smile leads one to assume that Martin’s foot is being stepped on by an antelope.”

· Perplexing food decisions: Never ask a grocer in Canada for ‘American” cheese or “Canadian” bacon. Un-Canadian anger may ensue. Also, approach the famous national dessert, the Canadian butter tart, with extreme caution. It is made with brawn sugar, eggs, flour, vanilla, and lead. Strong men have been known to eat two at a single sitting, though, because of the lead content, they are usually unable to move for several days after.

· The customary problems of socialized medicine: A 2000 report from the Heritage Foundation found long waiting lists, government rationing and substandard care in Canada’s system. Drug spending is controlled, according to the report, by limiting approved drugs and a slow approval process. In four years, Canada approved only 24 of 400 new drugs. Keep coming down health care for Canadians.

· A national infatuation with censorship, Canadians tend to be a benign people who value niceness: So they have a strong tendency to suppress speech they see as lacking in niceness. Un-nice books and videos are seized at the border or banned from libraries. Any material cited for “undue exploitation of sex” or for being degrading or dehumanizing’ can be banned. Speech is illegal if it “promotes hatred” or spreads “false news:’ Advertising, directed at children can be ruled illegal. If the recorded message on your answering machine is deemed discriminatory, you can be prosecuted for it.

· In Saskatchewan, a newspaper ad listing four biblical citations against homosexuality (just the listing, no text), accompanied by two hand-holding male stick figures with a line drawn across them, was ruled a human-rights offense, and the man with placed the ad was directed to pay $1,800 each to three homosexual men offended by the ad. “Canadians put up with an insane amount of what Americans might not,” said ‘David Sutherland, former director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

· Canada’s trying to be European: Canada has been aping trends in Europe, from the obsession with multiculturalism, the rising contempt for religion.

· Greater censorship and even a declining birthrate. Canada’s birthrate is 1.49 children per woman, well below the replacement level of 2.1.

· Canada’s elites behave much like those of the United States, favoring judicially imposed decisions over democratic and legislative ones. In Canada, a smaller and less varied nation than the United States, the elites meet less resistance.

But there are signs of a pushback. Though the Canadian and U.S. press consistently give the impression same-sex “marriage” is overwhelmingly favored in Canada, a Feb. 2 National Post/Global National poll found two thirds of Canadians opposed and would likely vote against it in a national plebiscite. The polls suggest Canadians are close to Americans on this issue. It is apparently only elite opinion and judges that make Canada look different.

John Leo is a contributing editor and columnist with U.S. News & World Report and is nationally syndicated.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:49 PM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2005


Excerpted from a highly recommended new book, Roadmap to Nowhere

Balfour Books,

By Dr. Yitzchak Ben Gad, Israeli Consul General, 2005

Ibn Khaldun (1332—1406), the great Arab historian, in The Introduction to History, defines the loss of collective consciousness of the children of Israel, their dispersion throughout the world, their alienation from the rest of humanity, and their living a life of disgrace and degradation. He even claims that the Jews were infected with such evil character traits as corruption and deceitful plotting.

As a result of their rejection of him, Mohammed turned against the Jews and their religion and he never forgave them. Mohammed’s angry reactions to the Jews were recorded in the Koran, giving millions of Moslems throughout history “divinely based” antipathy to the Jews.

Question: What did Mohammed change?

Answer: First and most significantly, he changed Abraham from a Jew to a
Moslem: “Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian. [He] surrendered himself to Allah. Surely the men who are nearest to Abraham are those that follow him, this Prophet “ (Koran 3:67—68)

Question: What were his views about certain Jewish Laws?

Answer: Mohammad said that the Torah laws had been given to the Jews as punishment for their sins: Because of their iniquity, we forbade the Jews good things, which were formerly allowed them. (Koran 4:160).

Q: What was his accusation against the Jews?

A: Mohammed charged the Jews with falsifying their Bible by deliberately omitting prophecies of his (Mohammed’s) coming. Example:
In the Koran (2:129) Mohammed has Abraham mouth a prophecy of his coming. Mohammed charged that the Jews extinguished the light of Allah (Koran 9:32) by having removed such prophecies from their Bible.

Q: How else does Mohammed accuse the Jews?

A: Mohammed asserted that Jews, like Christians, were not true monotheists, a charge he substantiated by claiming that they believed the prophet Ezra to be the son of God. “And the Jews say that Ezra is the Son of God . . . And Allah fights against them. How perverse are they …” (Koran 9:30)

Q: What can be concluded?

A: These anti-Jewish fabrications, articulated by Mohammed as reactions to the Jews’ rejection of him, have ever since been regarded by Moslems as God’s word. As such, they have formed the basis of Moslem anti-Semitism to the present day. Though originally directed against specific Jews at a specific time, these statements often have been understood by succeeding generations to refer to all Jews at all times.

By the Jews remaining Jews they constituted a living refutation of Mohammad and Islam. Thus under Islam, Jew-hatred was ultimately Judaism-hatred. Any Jew who converted to Islam was accepted an equal. Important to note is the fact that Christians under Moslem rule fared little better. Moslems and their laws generally dealt harshly with Christians and Jews.

(The Moslem legal code prescribed the treatment of Jews and Christians as Dhimmis, a well-defined form of second-class citizenship, which is discussed later in the book.)

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him and in the hereafter he will be in ranks of those who have
lost.” Koran, Sura 3: 85

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:18 AM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2005

The real Mahmoud Abbas steps forward

By Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 18, 2005

During the course of his negotiations with Damascus-based Palestinian terror masters in Cairo this week, PA chieftain Mahmoud Abbas made two revealing statements.

First, on Tuesday, Abbas said that upon receiving security control of
Jericho, he would release from custody all of the Palestinian terrorists who
have been incarcerated there since May 2002.

Those terrorists, who were transferred to Jericho from Yasser Arafat's
Ramallah headquarters as part of a British and US deal with Israel, include
the assassins of tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi in October 2001 and Fuad
Shubaki, the PA's chief arms purchaser who oversaw the Karine A terror
weapons ship purchase from Iran that was intercepted by Israeli commandos on the Red Sea in January 2002.

On Wednesday, Abbas went a step further. He told the terror masters who are now based in Damascus that after the exit of Israeli forces and civilians
from Gaza and the transfer of control over the international border with
Egypt to the PLO, they would all be invited to move their headquarters to
the Gaza Strip.

That is, Abbas said that in the aftermath of the implementation of Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to forcibly expel 8,000 Jews from their homes
and end all IDF counter-terror operations inside Gaza, Abbas will respond by
transforming it into a base for global terrorism. This offer can be viewed
as particularly credible given that it was made in the presence of Syrian
Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Mualem, whose government is now facing
increasing international condemnation for enabling these global terrorists
to operate in its capital.

Surprisingly, the Sharon-Peres government reacted with near hysteria to
Abbas's statement about releasing the terrorists in Jericho. Government
members and spokesmen took to the microphones immediately after Abbas's
statement was published and said that if he dared to free Ze'evi's killers,
Israel would contemplate ending the peace process and hunt them down. The
government's reaction was frankly inexplicable, given that Sharon and his
fellows have given credence to Abbas's demand that Israel release all
Palestinian terrorists from its jails. Acting on this demand, the government
has already released 500 terrorists from prison and is planning on springing
another 400 in short order.

Indeed, every single demand that Abbas has made on Israel, like every step
he has taken to placate the various Palestinian terror groups, has been met
with understanding by Israel. Israel has accepted his policy - practically
if not publicly - of taking absolutely no action against any terror
organizations, leaders or infrastructures.

After all, if it hadn't, the government would not be transferring security
responsibility over Palestinian population centers to the PA as it did in
Jericho the day after Abbas's statement about the prisoner release.

Israel has accepted Abbas's demand that it stop trying to catch terror
fugitives. Israel has accepted his demand that it allow the Palestinian mass
murderers who violently took over the Church of the Nativity in April 2002
to return to Bethlehem from their European exile and receive amnesty for
their crimes.

The government has made no protest against Abbas's order to execute 15
Palestinians who are accused of having helped our security forces fight
Palestinian terrorists. And Israel has made no protest over the fact that
according to IDF sources, wanted Palestinian terrorists are being sheltered
in Abbas's offices in Ramallah.

Given all of this, why should the government care if Abbas lets Ze'evi's
murderers and Shubaki leave Jericho? As it stands, their incarceration has
been a farce.

Journalists have reported repeatedly since their transfer to Jericho of
their relative freedom within the compound. More than being imprisoned, they
are being sheltered there from Israeli forces. Of course the answer is
public opinion. The public would simply not accept such a concession by the
government and it would fall.

Given the government's fear of the public, it becomes clear why it is that
our leaders have been mute about Abbas's declared intention to turn Gaza
into a new Afghanistan.

Since Sharon announced his withdrawal and expulsion plan last year, the
point has been made repeatedly that the only thing that prevents Gaza from
becoming a capital of global terrorism is the IDF troops stationed there and
controlling the international border with Egypt.

Last summer Maj.-Gen. (res.) Doron Almog, who headed the Southern Command from 2000 to 2003, wrote in the Middle East Quarterly that if Israel
transferred control of Gaza's border with Egypt to the Egyptians or
Palestinians, Gaza would become a "mini-Afghanistan."

Former director of Military Intelligence Research and Assessment Department
Maj.-Gen. Ya'acov Amidror has warned repeatedly since Sharon unveiled his
plan that in the absence of the IDF, Gaza would become a focal point for
global terror groups from Hizbullah to al-Qaida.

Sharon has ignored all such warnings, has fired cabinet ministers and cut
short the service of security officials who have doubted the wisdom of his
withdrawal policies and has plowed ahead, demonizing and criminalizing his

So what do we expect Sharon to do now that Abbas has announced his intention to prove all Sharon's naysayers correct?
The only thing he can do, if he wishes to continue to force through his
plan, is to keep his head down and hope that no one notices what is
happening. In this bid he is being ably assisted - to the point of
ostensible collusion - by the Israeli media. Not only has the government
made no comment on Abbas's offer to move global terror masters from Damascus to Gaza, but the Israeli media, to their shame, have had a near complete blackout on the issue.

Neither Channel 2 nor Channel 10 mentioned it in their news broadcasts
Wednesday night. None of Thursday's newspapers had any report of it.

Israel Radio devoted less than one minute of laconic coverage to Abbas's
offer 10 minutes before the end of its two-hour-long morning news magazine
Thursday morning.

Israel's overwhelmingly left-wing media's lockstep support for Sharon's
withdrawal plan is being matched by the support Sharon is enjoying from the
left wing of the American Jewish community.

According to a report this week in The Forward newspaper, Americans for
Peace Now, like the Israel Policy Forum, two of the most left wing groups on
the American Jewish political and organizational spectrum, are now actively
colluding with the Israeli Embassy in Washington and consulates throughout
the US to combat opposition to Sharon's policies among American Jews and
American Christian supporters of Israel.

On Monday, Ambassador Danny Ayalon participated in a forum on Capitol Hill
sponsored by American Friends of Peace Now together with the PLO
representative to Washington and the Jordanian and Egyptian ambassadors.

In June, Vice Premier Ehud Olmert is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at
the Israel Policy Forum's annual dinner. In an interview with The Forward,
Arye Mekel, the consul-general in New York, said that neutralizing opponents
to Sharon's withdrawal policy is "the No. 1 priority on the agenda of the
consulates at the moment, and it's the task that is keeping me the busiest."
In their discussions in Cairo, the various terror chieftains have been
employing the explicit vocabulary of jihad to describe their various

Reportedly on Thursday, Islamic Jihad and Hamas accepted the idea of a
"thahadiya" or a temporary cessation of attacks for a defined time period.
In jihad rhetoric, the purpose of a "thahadiya" is to regroup to enable the
forces of jihad to fight their infidel enemy more successfully in the next

The significance of the resort to jihad-speak has been completely ignored by
the Israeli politicians and commentators praising Abbas's policy of
mainstreaming violent terror organizations.

One of the most absurd aspects of the Cairo discussions as a whole is that
in all its concessions to the Palestinians since Abbas replaced Yasser
Arafat last November, Israel has justified its moves to the public and to
the Americans as payback to Abbas for his achievement of a cease-fire with
the terrorists.

And yet, if he already has a cease-fire agreement, why is he negotiating one
now? And again, if he is a peaceable man, why is he employing the language
of jihad together with leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad?

And further, why is Egypt being praised by Israel and the US for hosting
this terror parley, whose clear aim is to legitimize terror and whose direct
result is Abbas's offer to turn Gaza - where Egypt has supposedly agreed to
block terrorists from entering after Israel withdraws - into an epicenter of
global terrorism?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of these questions - unasked by the Israeli
media - is internal Israeli politics. Once Sharon abandoned his natural
support base and preferred instead the embrace of the Left, he has boxed
himself into a situation where he can do nothing except advance the Left's
agenda of appeasing terrorists.

In moving down this road, Sharon, like Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak before
him, rendered his political fortunes completely dependent on the whims of
the terrorists.

As a result, he cannot admit that what Abbas is doing is not simply
antithetical to peace but also manifests a strategic threat to Israel's
security - and indeed, to global security. If Sharon were to tell Israelis
the truth about Abbas and his terrorist chums or about their Egyptian
sponsors, he would be admitting that all his detractors in his own political
camp were right all along.

Given this state of affairs, the inevitable conclusion is that the only
thing left for the Israeli public to do is to demand new general elections.

With Sharon now fully committed to a policy that is manifestly dangerous to
the state, he must be replaced by a leader who has not so committed himself.
It is the only chance that Israel has to prevent the establishment of a new
base for global terror on the outskirts of Ashkelon.

Reported by IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:32 PM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2005

U.S. promotes President Eisenhower’s “Military Industrial Complex” betraying Staunch Ally

President Dwight Eisenhower's Address the Nation, January 17, 1961:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”


Summarized from Middle East Newsline, May 14, 2005 by IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis, March 14, 2005 Website:

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- Egypt has entered the advanced stage of negotiations
for the procurement of up to 100 advanced F-16s from the United States.

Industry sources and officials said the regime of President Hosni Mubarak
plans to conclude negotiations for the purchase of between 60 and 100 F-16
multi-role fighters in a sale estimated at up to $4.5 billion. They said
Egypt wants to obtain U.S. approval for the F-16 purchase during 2005.

"The Egyptians are planning a major modernization of its air force and seeks
to replace its older F-16s and bolster their overall fleet," an industry
source said. "They've been talking at all levels -- government and

The officials and sources said Egypt has sought to purchase the F-16 Block
50 aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin. They said the proposed deal would include advanced weapons, avionics, electronic warfare and a helmet-mounted cueing system.

Excuse me - How is it that the United States constantly demands Israel not sell military hardware to the Chinese because it might endanger Taiwan or ultimately be used against American Forces that may be involved at some future date.

The U.S. uses an exact tact against Israeli sales and upgrades of military hardware to India using the argument that this equipment could also be used against India’s relentless Muslim enemy Pakistan in its attempt to take over Kashmir.

In the meantime, ignored in the discussion is the fact that both China and India are thousands of miles from American shores and pose little immediate risk. By contrast, Israel’s plethora of Arab enemies to whom the United States is the major supplier of virtually all their weaponry is from five to thirty flying minutes away from Israel’s borders! Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and all the rest purchase in huge quantities sophisticated military hardware from the United States with only one possible purpose – yet another attempt to annihilate the Jewish State

And, please do not insult our intelligence by saying Israel is being given a “qualitative edge” in equipment. How many miracles can the Israelis perform against billions of dollars of military equipment arming millions of soldiers that surround her because of this supposed “qualitative edge.”

What is going on here is simply money - billions of dollars coming into the American military industrial complex as Eisenhower had warned with America being, by far, the leading seller of military equipment in the world. In order to maintain this huge American industry at every possible juncture, Israel, that needs the income desperately just to finance its own fragile economy and its own defense is stifled by the United States at every opportunity.

Is this the action of a true friend? Is this the morality that Eisenhauer asked? Does the United States dictate to Britain and France, far greater suppliers of military hardware to anyone that will buy it, to whom these nations may sell? Of course not. Only little Israel, a staunch ally and the only democracy in the entire Middle East is subjected to this sort of unconscionable blackmail. ( Jsk)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:06 PM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2005

President Bush politely waves good-bye to a Europe succumbing to Islam.

By Mark Steyn, The Washington Times, March 13, 2005

The conventional wisdom two weeks ago was that George W. Bush had seen the error of his unilateral cowboy ways and was off to Europe to mend fences with our “allies?’ I think not. Lester Pearson, the late Canadian prime minister, used to say diplomacy is the art of letting the other fellow have your way. All week long, Mr. Bush offered an hilariously parodic reductio of Pearson’s bon mot, wandering from one EU gabfest to another insisting how much he loves his good buddy Jacques and his good buddy Gerhard and how Europe and America share —what’s the standard formulation? — “Common values?"
Care to pin down an actual specific value or two that we share? Well, you know, “freedom" that sort of thing, abstract nouns mostly. Love to list a few more common values, but sorry, gotta run.

And at the end, what’s changed? Will the U.S. sign on to Kyoto? No. Will the U.S. join the International Criminal Court? No. Will the U S agree to accept whatever deals the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran? No. Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, Mr. Bush found time to cast his eye upon Europe’s internal affairs. He told his Brussels audience, in his tour’s first speech, “We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands?’

The European bigwigs shuffled their feet and stared coldly into their mistresses’ décolletage. They knew Mr. Bush wasn’t talking about anti-Semitism in Nebraska, but about France, where for three years there has been a sustained campaign of synagogue burning and cemetery desecration, and Germany, where the Berlin police advise Jewish residents not to go out in public wearing any identifying marks of their faith. The “violence in the Netherlands” is a reference to Theo van Gogh, murdered by a Dutch Islamist for making a film critical of the Muslim treatment of women. Van Gogh’s professional colleagues reacted to this assault on freedom of speech by canceling his movie from the Rotterdam Film Festival and scheduling some Islamist propaganda instead.

The president, in other words, understands that for Europe, unlike America, the war on terror is an internal affair, a matter of defusing large unassimilated radicalized Muslim immigrant populations before they provoke the inevitable resurgence of opportunist political movements feeding off old hatreds. Difficult trick to pull off especially on the Continent where the ruling elite feels it is in the people’s best interest not to pay any attention to them.

There is also strong disagreement over our opposition to a decision by European leaders to lift the arms embargo set against China after brutal Tiananmen Square crackdown 15 years ago. Mr. Bush spoke out very strongly against it.

So differences persist on this policy and that but there is more that unites us – increased trade and a strong, peaceful Iraq – than divides us. It is not the Atlantic partnership it once was, but has turned instead into an “ala carte partnership’ where we can work together on things that we agree on and agree to disagree on others, says Francois-Heisbourg of the International Foundation of Lebanon. Mr. Chirac, who likely will visit the U.S. later this year, noted that the two countries’ relations have been” excellent for over 200 years."

After meeting separately with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and Ukraine President Victor Yushchenko, Mr. Bush was off to Germany where he and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder jointly delivered a strong indictment of Iran’s continuing effort to develop nuclear weapons and reiterated their intention to stop it from doing so. Germany, too, is supporting US efforts to aid Iraqis’ rebuilding of their country and train Iraqi security forces. Mr. Schroeder also did not back Mr. Bush’s military venture against Saddam, but that’s all in the past. What matters now is building a stable Iraq government, strong enough to crush the terrorists there.

Differences remain between us, of course. For example, European leaders are pushing concessions with the Iranians to buy an agreement to end their nuclear program. But Mr. Bush doesn’t like making payoffs to Iran’s mullahs anymore than he is willing to do so in the face of North Korea’s threats. .

Muslim immigration numbers no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed — are Europe’s entire making. By some projections, the EU’s population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches – and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature!

Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. (Talk about naïve statements! – jsk). But getting there will certainly be messy, and violent.

Until the shape of the new Europe begins emerging, there’s no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night life-time-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once-glamorous old-timer whose fading aura no longer threatens them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, Senior North-American columnist for Britain’s Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2005

A Must Project now - on the eve of Purim



On Thursday, March 24, 2005, Jews all over the world will fast and pray in commemoration of the 3 days of fast and prayer of the Jews of Persia more than 2,500 years ago. Then, the Jews of Persia were threatened with annihilation by the wicked Haman and they were miraculously saved. Now, the Jews of Samaria and Gaza are threatened with forced evacuation and we are praying for divine intervention.

The leaders of the US and Israel are certainly not wicked Hamans. But they are misguided. They believe that withdrawing from Gaza and Northern Samaria will save Israel. We are convinced that it will seriously endanger Israel, both from a spiritual and from a natural perspective. Spiritually – for how will God view the voluntary relinquishing of His land to another? Naturally – for how will Israel defend itself when Gaza and Northern Samaria become terrorist states?

Christians and Jews will join hands on the Fast of Esther, to pray for Israel and its territorial integrity.

On that same day American Christians and Jews will bombard the White House with phone calls and e-mails. The message will be short and clear: President Bush – Please honor G-d’s covenant with His people. Stop Disengagement of the Jewish communities from Gaza which constitutes just another surrender to the Arabs in their relentless goal of destroying the Jewish State.

On Thursday March 24, 2005, phone the White House at 202-456-1111

On Thursday March 24, 2005, fax the White House at 202-456-2461

On Thursday March 24, 2005 send an e-mail to

If millions will contact the White House on the same day, we will be heard.

On Thursday March 24, 2005, phone Ariel Sharon at 972-2- 670-5555

On Thursday March 24, 2005, fax Ariel Sharon at 972-2-670-5475

On Thursday March 24, 2005 send an e-mail to

If millions will contact the Prime Minister on the same day, we will be heard.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:57 PM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2005

Israel given too much credit

(Excerpted from a speech by Professor Haim Harari, theoretical physicist, Chair of Davidson Institute of Science Education and Former President Weitzmann Institute of Science, Israel

The speech may be found in its entirety in Sy Frumkin’s, Graffiti for Intellectuals, Spring, 2005)


I could have shared with you some fascinating facts and some personal thoughts about the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, I will touch upon it only in passing. I prefer to devote most of my remarks to the broader picture of the region and its place in world events. I refer to the entire area between Pakistan and Morocco, which is predominantly Arab, predominantly Moslem, but includes many non-Arab and also significant non-Moslem minorities.

Why do I put aside Israel and its own immediate neighborhood? Because Israel and any problems related to it, in spite of what you might read or hear in the world media, is not the central issue, and has never been the central issue in the upheaval in the region.

Yes, there is a 100 year-old Israeli/Arab conflict, but it is not the location of the main show. The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel.

The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Modem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel.

· The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel.

· Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel. Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60’s because of Israel.

· Assad did not kill tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma in Syria because of Israel.

· The Taliban control of Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with Israel.

· The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had nothing to do with Israel, and I could go on and on and on.

The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine would have existed for 100 years.

The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the European expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. But these 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone. Within this meager GOP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission.

According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates. The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.

It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves …##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:54 PM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2005

An outcry of pain from an Israeli in the heart of the conflict

My dear friend,

I cannot begin to describe what we are going through. We grew up here as patriots, as dedicated Jews who believe in the importance of giving of ourselves for our Land and people. Each of us has deliberately volunteered for the most dangerous and demanding combat units. Now we see the manipulative, destructive moves of Sharon, the government, and judicial system using us, our children and our very patriotism against us.

Since I am, Baruch HaShem, so connected with ZAHAL - The Israeli Defense Forces - and am so much with soldiers especially in our areas, I see the difficulties that our soldiers are placed in as a result of the terror and from the awful mistakes of the politicians.

We were the soldiers, the young kids in 1973 that paid the horrific price for the stupid arrogant blunders of our government. It was us, me and my friends who were out there warning government and army that the Egyptians were closing in on us, the Syrians were moving up too close. The arrogant irresponsible response of our government - of those who were supposed to be careful with our lives and our future said, "they will never attack", "the Bar Lev Line will not be crossed".

We paid in blood, we paid in agony and again today we witness the same irresponsible, corrupt ignorance. This time it is not only us, it is our children and their friends who are sacrificed because of the inadequacy of the government.

I don't sleep at night. I wake up and pray to HaShem that in His honor He will save us. I have long talks with HIM throughout the day, literally begging Him - "I don't care what happens to me personally. I am just a simple Jew. But please G-d don't destroy Israel. Please don't let those who wish to destroy YOUR NAME defeat us."

I am willing to do anything for our Land. I know that this Land, this inheritance is our strength.

My children know this too. It breaks my heart that those with the power to protect our Land do not know or care about us. They are willing to sacrifice all of our Land and us for money and power.

Tonight begins the month of Adar 2, the month of miracles of Purim when our worst enemies were defeated against all odds.

I have emunah. We are strong and will face whatever HaShem has in store for us. I pray that HE has mercy and pity on HIS people and protects HIS Land and saves us.

You cannot know what it means to us to know that we are not alone. Thank you for all that you and yours are doing to help us.

Chodesh tov and bsurot tovot
B'ahavat Zion


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:02 AM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2005

Fighting the Arab Boycott of Israel

Where is "peace partner" Mahmoud Abbas on this?

Boycotts, Divestment and Peace

by Fred Taub

Reprinted from Israel National News (Arutz Sheva)

The Bush administration has repeatedly stated that democracies do not wage war against each other as the reason why democracy must be brought to the Middle East, but that is not entirely accurate. The fact is that countries relying on and trading with each other do not wage war on each other. While democracy is a helpful part of that equation, because it fosters prosperity and human rights, thus deepening economic ties, the actual vital element in the promotion of peace is simply economic cooperation. The single largest impediment to peace in the Middle East is, therefore, not land and who lives where, but rather the official Arab League boycott of Israel, which was declared even before Israel was created with hopes of starving Israel out of existence.

US anti-boycott laws were created to prevent US citizens from taking part in foreign boycotts of nations friendly to the US, because such activity can create de facto foreign policy. Such boycotts, however, are being pushed in the US primarily by Arab groups, in the form of divest-from-Israel campaigns that include efforts to exclude academic works and visiting professors from Israel, which is akin to book burnings.

Although the divest-from-Israel campaigns were originally campus based, several unsuccessful attempts have been made to expand the Arab boycott of Israel to businesses and municipalities under the cloak of fostering peace. Most businesses realize that joining the Arab boycott of Israel may not only be illegal, but getting involved in such campaigns can put their company in the middle of a fight their products have nothing to do with, and is therefore bad for business. The municipal campaigns are primarily being pursued for symbolic purposes, regardless if the targeted agencies have any business dealings with Israeli companies. Such efforts are merely political and have nothing to do with governance.

The boycott of Israel among Arab League states certainly prevents free and open trade, which is vital to peace. The question at hand is what needs to come first - peace or economic cooperation? While it can be argued that peace is required before economic cooperation can exist, it is also clear that without economic cooperation there can be no peace. Democracy, however, is not required. Cuba and the USSR had economic cooperation and peace, but socialism held back both countries from real prosperity. Dictatorships, including in Arab states, have conducted trade with each other and have had peace.

Arab organizations, primarily on campuses, sponsor divest-from-Israel campaigns, which are in essence boycotts, and recruit non-Arab students to participate in their campaigns under the guise of human rights activism for Palestinians. Although divestment advocates may claim their actions facilitate peace, they have been co-opted into emboldening the Arab nations to continue their economic warfare against Israel and are thus creating an impediment to peace, rather than the peace they actually desire.

Instead of phasing out the Arab boycott of Israel to facilitate peace, the Arab League has been bolstering its efforts to wage economic warfare against Israel in special sessions of Arab League meetings. While negotiating for peace with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, which is signatory to the Arab boycott of Israel, launched the divest-from-Israel campaign through a US professor who acted as an advisor to the PA's negotiating team. At the same time the PA claimed it was negotiating in good faith, it was actually working on its new campaign to destroy Israel via economic collapse.

If anyone truly expects peace to break out in the Middle-East, then there first must be an end to the Arab boycott of Israel, because peace can not exist unless people have a mutual interest in the singular elements that keep peace - free trade and economic dependence. Before trading land or drawling lines on maps, the Bush administration needs to make ending the Arab boycott of Israel its first priority or bloodshed will continue, especially if a militant Palestinian state is created.

Fred Taub is the president of Boycott Watch, an organization that examines consumer boycotts for accuracy. He recently created Divestment Watch as a result of his findings of illegal activity in the divest-from-Israel campaign, which is now being challenged on legal grounds in the US thanks to his efforts.

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

March 09, 2005

Pat Buchanan – ‘Anti-Semitic crack pot that he always was.’

And his self-hating Jew counterpart, Noam Chomsky

From an article in Commentary by Norman Podhoretz, The War against World War IV, February 2005

Isolationism – Right and Left

CONSIDER—TO begin once more on the lowest rung of the ladder—the isolationists of the “paleoconservative right.” Their line is that a conspiracy
of the “neoconservatives” (i.e., Jewish) officials holed up in the White House and the Pentagon is dragging this country, against its own interests, into one conflict after another with the sole purpose of “making the Middle East safe for Israel.”

The words come from the pen of this group’s leading spokesman, Patrick J. Buchanan, who expatiates in characteristically pungent terms:

Cui bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: One nation one leader, one party - Israel, Sharon, Likud. Buchanan also claims, on the basis of one of Osama bin Laden’s fatwas, that a major cause of 9/11 was “the United States’ uncritical support of the Ariel Sharon regime in Israel.”

This screed has elicited a trenchant comment from James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal’s website, OpinionJournal:

“Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in 2001, three years after the fatwa that, according to Buchanan, condemned his ‘regime’. Labor’s Ehud Barak won election in 1999, and that didn’t stop al Qaeda from attacking the USS Cole in October 2000, even as President Clinton was struggling to broker an Israeli- Palestinian peace deal.

In Addition:

“Al Qaeda’s first attacks on American targets were in Yemen in 1992 and at the World Trade Center in 1993—at a time when Labor’s Yitzhak Rabin was Israel’s prime minister, Rabin later reached an accommodation with Arafat. Bin Laden does not appear to have been appeased.

Buchanan’s writings, emitting as they do an unmistakable whiff of anti-Semitism, have already marginalized the paleoconservative isolationists. If the Bush Doctrine passes its test in Iraq, there will be fewer and fewer ears to hear what will more and more sound like the crackpot talk it always was.

So, too, with the isolationists of the hard Left. These—exactly like their forebears in the late 1930’s who fought against America’s entry into World War II—have made common cause with the paleoconservatives at the other end of the political spectrum. True, the isolationism of the Left stems from the conviction that America is bad for the rest of the world, whereas the isolationism of the Right is based on the belief that the rest of the world is bad for America. Nevertheless, the two streams have converged; flowing smoothly into the same channel of fierce opposition to everything Bush has done in response to 9/11.

In the years before 9/11, Noam Chomsky, Buchanan’s counterpart on the Left, was very largely forgotten. After achieving great prominence in the 1960’s, he had come to seem too extreme—or perhaps too naked in his hatred of America—to serve the purposes of the New York Review of Books, through whose pages he had first made his political mark. But after 9/11 he found a newly receptive audience for his contention that this country had brought the terrorist attacks down upon its own head, and for his denunciations of our response to those attacks as nothing more than the latest stage in the malignant imperialism of which he had long since been accusing the United States.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:45 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2005

Israel, the United States and Iranian Nukes

By Rowan Scarborough

Israel has been privately pressing Washington to solve the Iran nuclear problem in a hint that Tel Aviv may be left with no choice but to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials say. Military analysts say the United States “would have no problem” taking out Iran’s major nuclear facilities should it decide to launch a pre-emptive strike. The defense officials say Israel isn’t putting its concerns about Iran in the form of a “you attack or we do” ultimatum to the United States. But they said senior Israeli officials often have raised the Iran problem during visits to Washington in the past 18 months.

Tel Aviv’s concerns are one reason the Bush administration in the past year has ratcheted up its rhetoric and its intelligence collection on Iran’s clandestine program to build nuclear weapons, including surveillance flights by unmanned U.S. planes. The officials said they think President Bush, who has adopted a policy of pre-emption to prevent terrorists from obtaining atomic arms, is on a course to take military action before he leaves office in 2009.

One U.S. option is air strikes, unless Iran’s Islamist rulers renounce nuclear weapons and allow intrusive inspections. The United States has designated Iran as a terror-sponsoring state, and Mr. Bush has labeled it part of an ‘axis of evil?’ “He doesn’t have any choice, said retired Air Force Lt Gen. Thomas McInerney a military analyst. “He understands [the Iranians] are the king of terror right now They are striving for nuclear weapons that can get into the hands of terrorists, and then it’s too late?’

The Washington Times reported in 2003 that Israel had developed options for bombing Iran’s nuclear sites. Members of the Israeli parliament publicly have called for pre-emptive strikes now, which Tel Aviv used in 1981 to take out a nuclear reactor being built for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But the greater distances and the more mature Iranian program mean any Israeli mission would be far tougher than the one- target strike on the Osiraq plant.

Iran has developed a ballistic missile, the Shahab III, capable of reaching Israel. A secret Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, estimates Iran will have nuclear weapons before the end of this decade. Israel has a nuclear arsenal of about 85 warheads, the DIA states.

Vice President Dick Cheney raised the Israeli attack scenario on Inauguration Day back in January during an interview with radio host Don Imus. Said Mr. Cheney “One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.” The vice president added, “You look around the world at potential trouble spots — Iran is right at the top of the list”

The United States increased intelligence collection includes the CIA’s operating Predator spy drones over suspected nuclear sites for the past year — an operation first reported by The Washington Post. A defense source said the Predator has special sensors that analyze the air to detect radiation levels consistent with uranium enrichment.

The U.S. intelligence community does not think Iran has produced a nuclear weapon because it lacks the needed fissile material — either weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. Iran has at least three sites, including a plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf for which Russia is supplying a light-water reactor, which could produce fissile material. The plant surely would be on a U.S. target list along with perhaps a dozen other sites thought to be involved in building a bomb.

“Iran is likely to continue in nuclear weapon-related endeavors in an effort to become the dominant regional power and deter what it perceives as the potential for U.S. or Israeli attacks;’ Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby director of the DIA, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week. “We judge Iran is devoting significant resources to its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. Unless constrained by a nuclear non-proliferation agreement, Tehran probably will have the ability to produce nuclear weapons early in the next decade. The earlier DIA written report said Iran would have a nuclear capability before the end of this decade.

Gen. Mclnerney, a Vietnam War fighter pilot, said B-2 stealth bombers, armed with the huge penetrating bombs commonly called “bunker busters,” would be able to pierce Iran’s aging air defense and hit 20 or more sites. “They have not updated that very very old air defense system,” he said. Gen. McInerney said that as a colonel in 1977 he went to Iran and conducted a war exercise against various Iranian targets during the rule of the United States’ ally, the Shah of Iran. “They were not very good then, and they have clearly just gotten worse,” he said. “I can tell you from my personal experience we would have no problem there.”

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurityorg. said that any mission likely would include F-117 strike fighters, as well as B-2s, pre-positioned at airfields in the region. “As some of the facilities are still under construction and not yet active, the United States may have a window of opportunity that would allow it to destroy those locations without causing the environmental problems associated with the destruction of an active nuclear reactor,” Mr. Pike said. “The window of opportunity for disarming strikes against Iran will begin to close in 2005.”

For now, Mr. Bush is allowing European nations to spearhead negotiations with Iran’s mullahs, and for the International Atomic Energy Agency to handle inspections. The president told European journalists on Feb. 18, “First of all, you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never the president’s first choice?’ He said: “I hear all these rumors about military attacks, and it’s just not the truth. We want diplomacy to work.”

Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the deputy commander of US. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf region, told reporters earlier in February that the command routinely is updating war plans including the one for Iran.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:18 PM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2005

A Puzzlement in Religious Positions

(How is it that the governing body of the 70 million world-wide member
Anglican Communion takes the Hebrew bible far more seriously than most of the 13 million Jews of the world and their religious and temporal organizations?)

Anglican churches in the U.S., Canada, face split over Gays

By Julia Duin, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 6, 2005

The U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada must cease ordaining homosexuals and conducting blessings of same-sex unions by the year 2008 or withdraw from the worldwide - Anglican Communion, the denomination’s archbishops ruled Feb. 24. 2005. In the meantime, the two churches cannot participate in the governing body of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion, according to a five-page communiqué issued from a conference in Northern Ireland.

“There remains a very real question about whether North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion;’ the document said.
“We request the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of
Canada voluntarily withdraw” from the Anglican Consultative Council, which operates the day-to-day functions of the Anglican Communion under Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

The Rev. Jan Nunley, an Episcopal Church spokeswoman, said no decision had been made on whether the U.S. church, represented at the conference in Northern Ireland by Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold, would abide by the request. The three U.S. members of the Anglican Consultative Council “will speak with the presiding bishop when he returns from Ireland [...],“ she said.

In the communiqué, 35 archbishops and presiding bishops representing the national churches on six continents gave their US and Canadian members until the summer of 2008 Lambeth Conference to decide whether to split from the world-wide body or adhere to Anglican policy that forbids both actions. The Americans and Canadians also have been summoned to a meeting in Nottingham, England, in June to explain why they departed from Anglican policies in both matters.

The Canadian church began conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies in May 2003 and the US. Episcopal Church in November, 2003 consecrating a homosexual bishop, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, a divorced man living with his male lover.

Bishop Griswold issued a brief statement February 24 admitting that the communiqué “will not please everyone.”…“It is important to keep in mind that it was written with a view to making room for a wide variety of perspectives," he said.

Several Episcopal dioceses, including the Diocese of Washington, have been conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies, although Washington Bishop John B. Chane has asked parishes to refrain from doing so while the matter is being debated in worldwide Anglicanism. However, Anglican bishops during the 1998 Lambeth Conference in England, voted in a statement saying sex between homosexuals is “incompatible with Scripture?" That policy still holds, the communiqué said. The statement is a victory for Anglican conservatives, who oppose the same-sex ceremonies and Bishop Robinson’s consecration.

The Rev. Martyn Minns, the canon at Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, Va., who was in Ireland monitoring the meeting, was not willing to use the word “victory" but to describe the bishops’ findings, instead, calling them “a very strong rebuke. “It’s clear that the Americans and Canadians have been suspended for three years while they consider whether to be Anglicans or not," he said.

Several Anglican provinces already have split with the U.S. Episcopal Church over the Robinson matter, and several archbishops from Africa, Southeast Asia and South America have conducted services and offered Episcopal oversight for conservative Episcopal churches in dioceses with liberal bishops.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:12 PM | Comments (0)

March 04, 2005

Understanding the Kyoto Pact and the United States

By Debra Saunders, Political columnist San Francisco Chronicle

How important to the world’s future is the Kyoto global-warming pact that went into effect last week? It can’t be that important, since Elleen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told the: Washington Post, “The greatest value is symbolic.”

Symbolic is the word. The Kyoto treaty won’t reduce emissions in America, because this country never ratified it. What’s more, negotiators at Kyoto in 1997 had to know the United States never would ratify the pact. Before Vice President Al Gore left to attend the Kyoto summit, the Senate voted 95-0 in favor of a resolution warning that the Senate would not support a global-warming pact that exempted developing nations such as China and India.

Kyoto won’t make a difference in those developing nations because they don’t have to reduce emissions or even agree to curb how much their pollution grows. While 141 countries ratified the pact, Kyoto’s emission caps apply only to some 85 countries.

Kyoto won’t result in big greenhouse gas reductions in Europe. The Kyoto pact required Europe to reduce its emissions to 8 percent below its 1990 levels by 2012 and the United States to cut its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. That makes it seem as Europe has a tougher mandate, except the baseline year chosen, 1990, was rigged to help Europe. The year 1990 preceded the shutdown of coal-spewing smoke stacks in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union. By 1997, many European countries already had met their Kyoto target. Claussen noted that some European countries are now exceeding their goals and will have to work to meet them.

President Bill Clinton clearly understood that Kyoto was poison. He never asked the Senate to ratify it. More important, Clinton never pushed for meaningful legislation to reduce emissions. When Clinton left office, emissions were on the rise — they had reached a whopping 14 percent above 1990 levels. As Claussen noted, Team Clinton was “no different in substance than the current administration.”

Claussen explained that she believes Kyoto is important because it establishes a global “statement of will” to reduce greenhouse gases. But Kyoto is “symbolic,” she added, because it doesn’t begin to address by how much emissions would need to be reduced to stop global warming. Greenhouse-gas emissions would need to be as low as 50 percent of 1990 levels to address human-induced global warming, albeit in 50 to 75 years. Other environmentalists have argued that much steeper reductions are needed.

The Bush administration estimates Kyoto would cost the United States 5 million jobs and $400 billion annually. Even if that figure is inflated, I don’t know many Americans who want to lose their job for a symbol or a first step. And it doesn’t help that the global-warming debate has been distorted by politics.

I am a global-warming agnostic. I think warming may be human induced, but I am skeptical of doomsday scenarios, and I don’t trust people who use the issue as a club against America (and against President George W. Bush).

Claussen rightly notes one reason for Bush to make nice with Europe on Kyoto is that he owes British Prime Minister Tony Blair. And Bush could boost his environmental agenda in ways that not only would address global warming but also would promote national security and cleaner air. As Brookings Institution scholar Gregg Easterbrook noted on the New York Times’ op-ed page, Bush’s Clear Skies measure would go a long way by reducing some greenhouse-gas pollution from power plants by 70 percent.

The Kyoto crowd has to get real, however. Be honest about how much change is involved. Admit that the science is not clear and that even scientists who recognize global warming as human induced vary widely in what they see as the remedy. While Europe blames Bush for the demise of Kyoto, I blame Kyoto negotiators for passing a document that wasn’t a pact to spread the pain universally but a pitchfork aimed at the U.S. economy. They call themselves sophisticates, but they negotiated like Madame Defarge.

DEBRA SAUNDERS is a political columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Creators Syndicate, 5777W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles CA 90045

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:17 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2005

Ariel Sharon vs. the State of Israel

(From: Arutz Sheva, Israel National News, February 22, 2005)

Top political, media personalities admit: Public silence on criminal suspicions against Sharon and family stems from media's support for his plan. MK Hendel: “This was Sharon's strategy all along.”

Eitan Haber, a former top aide to Yitzchak Rabin and a writer for Yediot Acharonot, put it poetically: "Our products – values and norms – are drowning in the sea, and the left-wing is singing praises."

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said yesterday, "The Sharon family is corrupt to its very foundations, and in any other normal country, Sharon would have no longer been in power." Though Barak currently does not have many allies in Labor – the party he headed when he became Prime Minister – many left-wing personalities in the Knesset, not for attribution, agree with him. If not for the fact that he was promoting the disengagement plan, said at least one MK, "a public outcry would have arisen regarding the accusations against Sharon in the Greek Island and campaign funding scandals."

MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union), a resident of Gush Katif, has long said that the reason Sharon initiated the disengagement plan was to avoid being arraigned on criminal charges. Sharon assumed, Hendel's thesis goes, that the press and left-wing politicians would be silent and would not risk the disengagement plan merely to have him put in jail.

Hendel says that Sharon met with his close advisors in his Shikmim Farm home in the Negev sometime in 2003 and discussed the looming prospect that he would be charged with wrongdoing in the Greek Island affair. Atty. Dov Weisglass, still Sharon's most trusted aide today, told the assembled that history shows that a leader who carried out historic moves is "forgiven" for criminal and other crimes. At first, Hendel maintains, a war was considered, but this was rejected given the expected public opposition to such a move in light of Sharon's military history. "Sharon's press aide then proposed that Sharon withdraw from Gaza," Hendel recounts, "but Sharon reminded him that Israel had already done that, during the Oslo period. The press aide said that no one would remember that, and it would be easy to market such a move to the Israeli public."

Hendel says, "For three weeks, his aides tried to convince him, and only after his son Gilad made it clear that this is the only option they have in order to prevent the indictment, he was convinced to make this move against his will. I am willing to debate Sharon or any one else regarding the accuracy of this story."

Hendel also notes that throughout Sharon's entire ministerial career, "whether he was Agriculture Minister, Housing Minister or Infrastructures Minister, he always made sure that the Israel Lands Authority would be under his purview. I always thought this was for the good of the country, but now I know that he was only worried about his own personal good."

Speaking with Army Radio today, Eitan Haber said that the media's silence vis-à-vis Sharon stems only because of the disengagement plan. "The left, and not only the left, is as silent as sheep because it's convenient for it that he's carrying out his political plan."

Even more surprising was when this viewpoint was reiterated by Channel Ten TV's Moti Kirschenbaum, the former head of the Israel Broadcasting Authority who is considered to hold extreme left-wing views. "There's no doubt," he told Army Radio on the same program, "that the media are dealing with the Sharon family with uncharacteristic tenderness because of their [the media's] empathy towards his diplomatic plans."

"The Greek Island scandal is 1,000 times worse than the campaign funding issue," Kirschenbaum said, "and the media's silence regarding Sharon's behavior in the Greek Island affair are much graver than regarding the campaign funding." He had criticism for Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz, as well, who refused to indict PM Sharon in the Greek Island affair: "Mazuz's reasoning in clearing Sharon was so weak that it was really terrible. If the evidence presented to the Attorney-General, including recordings, protocols, and more, was not proof of his guilt, then I don't know what evidence is."

Last week, Ariel Sharon's son MK Omri Sharon was indicted on charges of setting up dummy companies to direct cash to his father's 1999 campaign to win the Likud primaries.

Army Radio host Razi Barkai asked Haber and Kirschenbaum, "So how does it work? Is there someone above who gives out instructions of what and how to report?" Kirschenbaum said, "It's not a coordinated decision, but rather stems from the fact that the reporters and the commentators are sick of the current situation and they want to see personally if there's a chance to change the situation." Haber agreed that there is no conspiracy, but rather that the reporters are individually slanted in a particular direction.

Kirschenbaum hinted that the press is planning to deal with the suspicions against Sharon after the withdrawal from Gaza and northern Shomron.

Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen notes that an example of the media's silence concerns its treatment of information that he himself uncovered regarding Sharon's connections with Greek Orthodox Church Patriarch Irineos. Cohen found evidence purportedly showing that the Prime Minister advanced Irineos' appointment as Patriarch – which required Israeli government approval – in order that Irineos, a friend of Yasser Arafat, approve the sale of a Greek island for the purpose of the construction of a spectacular resort that was to earn Sharon's son Gilad millions of dollars. "Before we published this on Arutz-7," Cohen says, "I gave it to senior reporters and investigative reporters on Channels One and Two, and to Haaretz and Maariv, but no one chose to take up the gauntlet and to deal with the grave findings."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:28 PM | Comments (0)

March 01, 2005

Another poignant message from an Israeli friend in Judea, Samaria, Gaza

March 1, 2005

Dear Jerry

The times are such that we have to be very creative with the circumstances we
live in - just to survive. The projects that I am working on are still security and believe me it is harder and harder.

I don't sleep at night not only because my sons are out there catching
terrorists - endangering their lives. Ari was injured a few weeks ago doing just that - (Baruch Hashem, he is o.k. no permanent damage physically).

And then our stupid government has them released to kill again.
I don't sleep because when I wake up dozens of times each night, and I pray
to HaShem to give us the miracle of the blessing of Avraham, Yitzhak and
Yaakov to be allowed to dwell upon and build in our Land - that we not be
banished from our Holy Land and that HE shows the world a miracle that tells
the world that we have a G-d in Israel that will not allow those who hate
our G-d to take over our Land.

I am used to being accused of being extreme, of being dangerous etc, but my
dear friend it does not get easier - it hurts that we have criminals running
our beloved country, criminals who have stolen from Holocaust survivors, and
from each of us - not only money but precious lives of our loved ones.

But we will be strong and we will continue somehow. Can you imagine our
sons fighting terror and trying to protect a country that wishes to use them
to turn their families into refugees and incarcerate us in DP camps?

I am sorry to upset you but it is sometimes so hard and between us - really


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)