April 29, 2005

Another Arab Fabrication

The Rachel Corie Fabrication – Not unlike the Jenin Fabrication, the Deir Yassim Fabrication, The Sharon Second Intifada Fabrication, etc. etc.

By Tom Gross

A redaction from: Jewish World Review April 26, 2005

The Royal Court Theatre, one of London most prestigious venues, is staging a play glorifying a young American radical who was killed after jumping in front of a moving Israeli army bulldozer that was attempting to demolish a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons. But what about the real victims of the Intifada? Does anyone remember them?

"My Name is Rachel Thaler" (http://www.JewishWorldReview.com) is not the title of a play that is likely to be produced anytime soon in London. Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following the February 16, 2002 attack, when a suicide bomber approached a crowd of teenagers and blew himself up.

She was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live. Yet I doubt that anyone at London's Royal Court Theatre or most people in the British media, have heard of her. "Not a single British journalist has ever interviewed me or mentioned her death," her mother Ginette told me last week. Thaler's parents donated her organs for transplant (helping to save the life of a young Russian man), and grieved quietly.

After the accidental killing of Rachel Corrie, by contrast, Corrie's parents embarked on a major publicity campaign. They traveled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary-entries to a world media eager to publicize them.

Among those who published extracts from them in 2003 was the influential British leftist daily The Guardian. This in turn inspired a new play, "My Name is Rachel Corrie," which opened this month at the Royal Court Theatre, one of London most prestigious venues. (The New York Times recently described it as "the most important theatre in Europe.")

For those who don't recall the story, Corrie was a young American radical who burnt mock-American flags at pro-Hamas rallies in Gaza in February 2003. A short while later she died after jumping in front of an Israeli army bulldozer that was attempting to demolish a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons. Partly because of the efforts of Corrie and her fellow activists in the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the Israeli army was unable to stop the flow of weapons through these tunnels. Those weapons were later used to kill Israeli children in the town of Sderot in southern Israel, and elsewhere.

However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published worldwide in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have Rickman and Viner, leaving almost all the critics who have reviewed the play completely clueless about the background of the events with which it deals.

Unfortunately for those who have sought to portray Corrie as a peaceful protester, photos of her burning a mock American flag and stirring up crowds in Gaza were published by the Associated Press and on Yahoo News on February 15, 2003, before she died. But the play doesn't mention this. So British reviewers are left to tell the British public that the play is a "true-life tragedy" in which Corrie's "unselfish goodness shines through" (Evening Standard).

Only one critic (Clive Davis in the Times of London) dismisses parts of the play as "unvarnished propaganda." At one point Corrie declares "the vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance". As Davis notes, "Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

The Settlements' Response to Ariel Sharon, et al

Loyalty to our Land and People

by Yehudit Tayar

The Hebrew title "Sar HaBitachon" is pathetic. "Bitachon" in Hebrew means security and "Sar" means Minister. What security is Shaul Mofaz ministering? I just came back from Katif where I have been fortunate to spend a great deal of my time for the past thirty years. The officers in our army cannot look us in the eye. They sit helpless while dozens of missiles hit Jewish civilian and military targets. They sit helplessly due to direct orders from this so-called minister of security. They know as we do that something can be done but that they have been told not to do anything even though 100 missiles have already hit us.

The launchers of these deadly missiles are televised and aired on Israeli T.V., so it is certainly not a question of finding them, only eliminating them. The callous policies of abandonment of citizens of Israel by this government are painfully reminiscent of the abandoning of one of our soldiers to bleed to death in the Tomb of Joseph under the orders of an Israeli government. That was the first time that I felt ashamed to be an Israeli.

Today I am ashamed for the Prime Minister, the so- called Defense Minister of Israel and all of those elected to office in order to give us security and protection because they have deliberately decided not to do so. While Mr. Sharon is off in the United States meeting with President Bush the citizens of Israel are under attack.

The demonic plan to uproot thousands of decent, patriotic and loyal citizens of Israel while terror is on the escalation throughout the land is dangerous not because of so-called Jewish extremists but because of real Muslem terrorists. The same terrorists that are found in Jerusalem spitting out hate and disclaiming the Jewish rights to the Temple Mount, the same hate that is perpetrating terror and the smuggling of weapons of destruction in Shechem, Ramalla, and the North of Israel.

Perhaps Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz are waiting for us to return fire on to those who are firing on us and endangering our lives and the lives of our children. Perhaps they are seeking an excuse to confiscate our weapons that were given to us by legal license in order to protect our lives. Perhaps this is yet another attempt to smear us with the label of fanatics and extremists.

I invite them and all of you to come to see us in Katif. To see the children going off to nursery school and schools, to see the farmers working in their hothouses and fields, to see mothers shopping with their infants. Come and see the children playing, and the dignity of these wonderful Jewish pioneers who are determined to continue in the direction we have always gone: protecting the Torah, the Land and people of Israel by being the kind of Jews we are supposed to be. Neither the rockets and missiles of hate nor the disdain and callous abandonment of our government will change us.

Governments come and go. Prime Ministers and Defense Ministers disappear into the pages of history. We, the people of Israel go on and we will be here long after them. We are writing glorious pages in the history of our people: endurance, love, humility, and belief. Would that the governments and elected officials of our country and people prove the same loyalty to our Land and people.

Yehudit Tayar is a veteran spokesman for the Settlement Movement and lives in Samaria with her husband and family - all of whom have chosen to serve in some of the most dangerous units of the Israel Defense Forces.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 27, 2005

Revisionist History by Kofi Annan

The Washington Times, April 19, 2005

Embattled U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrapped himself in the cloak of victim hood, on April 4, 2005. He attempted to shift blame for the scandal in the oil-for-food scandal to the United States and Great Britain. Mr. Annan complained that most of Saddam Hussein’s ill-gotten gains came from smuggling that occurred outside of the program. He said that Washington and London “knew exactly what was going on” and “decided to close their eyes to smuggling?’

It would be difficult to imagine a more dishonest, misleading account of history. To be sure, it is hardly a secret that the United States and Great Britain were willing to overlook some sanctions violations by Turkey and Jordan because difficult trade offs had to be made. The benefits Saddam gleaned from smuggling were out weighed by the damage that near-zero-tolerance enforcement methods would have done to the economies of Jordan and Turkey, two relatively friendly Muslim nations bordering Iraq. If anything, this demonstrates the futility of trying to use sanctions in an effort to change the behavior of a totalitarian dictator like Saddam Hussein.

When the U.N. Security Council initially imposed sanctions on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War, the secretary-general (at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali), was to oversee virtually everything related to Iraqi oil revenues, and Saddam Hussein was to be excluded from the process entirely. But Saddam held out for a better deal, and it came in 1996, when the Security Council created the oil-for-food program. That program, which gave the Iraqi dictator responsibility for contracting with oil suppliers and distributing goods purchased through it, was a recipe for corruption and abuse.

Why did the Clinton administration acquiesce to this? Because throughout the 1990s, it was under intense pressure from fellow Security Council members — such as Russia, China and France, along with the Arab League members and myriad international church and humanitarian organizations —to weaken sanctions against the Iraqi government or end them altogether. The world was treated to one lecture after another about the inhumanity of the sanctions regime and how it and not Saddam Hussein’s refusal to permit foodstuffs and other supplies to reach the Iraqi people in an equitable manner —was responsible for their suffering.

In 1998, Dennis Halliday, the U.N. administrator of the oil-for-food program, resigned to protest the sanctions. “We are in the process of destroying an entire country,” he said, calling sanctions on Iraq, including those regulating the use of dual-use goods (items with civilian and military uses), were even more porous.

After 1998, when Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors there was no one in Iraq investigating the trafficking in dual-use items. “In theory the UN. Oil-for food program people were doing the job, but in practice, they didn’t have the time, the expertise or the willingness to hire more personnel. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute said in testimony before the House International Relations Committee last year.

Moreover, U.N. officials who met with U.S. government and congressional groups to discuss the issue related to sanctions were hostile and angry; furious over any insinuations that the program could be improved in any way,” Miss Pletka added. Their main concern was objecting to the holds that that the United States and Great Britain placed on particular contracts to send goods that might have military uses into Iraq.

Moreover, while Saddam was looting the oil for food program, Mr. Annan was boasting to the Security Council that he was making it a tremendous success. For example, in a March 10, 2000, report, Mr. Annan openly bragged about how closely he was supervising the program and how he had turned it into focal point for tracking and coordinating the distribution of goods inside Iraq. In sum, Mr. Annan is behaving dishonorably when he tries to blame Washington and London for his own failings – and the failings of the United Nations as an institution —in implementing sanctions against Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:00 AM | Comments (0)

April 25, 2005

Trusting in Princes

By Herbert Zweibon

Americans for a Safe Israel, Outpost, April 2005

One of the most dispiriting developments in past months has been to find some of Israel’s clearest-thinking supporters including William Safire, Charles Krauthammer and Norman Podhoretz publicly professing belief in the strategically absurd and morally infamous “disengagement plan.”

Perhaps no one has been so swept away as the normally astute Krauthammer. He is enthusiastic (March 4) about “free Palestinian elections that produced a moderate reform oriented leadership.” As to that claim, we refer the reader to Roger A. Gerber’s article on Mahmoud Abbas in this Outpost. In a Feb. 25 column Krauthammer says that dismantling Gaza settlements would indeed be a victory for terror -- were this not accompanied by the security fence.

Incredibly, Krauthammer calls the fence “the first serious strategic idea Israel has had” since the beginning of the intifada, one “that will change the entire strategic equation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” In fact, the fence is pure strategic folly. Even now Israel’s long fenced border with Lebanon has become the most dangerous border in Israel, with Hezbollah and its rockets stationed all along it.

Norman Podhoretz in the April Commentary offers a more thoughtful analysis, providing arguments he encountered in Israel on both sides of the issue. For Podhoretz the bottom line is his enormous respect for President George W. Bush. He writes: “It was because I had come to place so much faith in Bush that I was able to overcome my misgivings about the Road Map. And it was partly because Sharon was also putting his money on Bush that I was ready to bet on Sharon.” But what this means is that instead of evaluating the plan, Podhoretz bets on the man.

It is ironic that Podhoretz, who has written an exceptionally fine book on the Hebrew prophets, should ignore the Psalmist’s injunction, “Put not your trust in princes.” Indeed, Podhoretz admits his daughter, who finds his embrace of “Oslo II” shocking, reminds him of this. Yet even if it were correct that Bush can be trusted to stand by Israel, a new President will be elected in three years. Who know what his attitudes will be? Podhoretz’s answer to this is that Bush has set in motion forces of such velocity for the expansion of political and economic freedom in the Middle East that “it will be next to impossible for his successor to change course.”

Yet as Carolyn Glick (a reluctant critic because of her great admiration for Podhoretz) points out in The Jerusalem Post, Podhoretz provides no suggestion of how Sharon’s plan benefits Israel. He concedes that the goals of Mahmoud Abbas are no different from those of Arafat. But if that is the case, to what purpose is Sharon betraying Jewish residents of Gaza (whom he personally urged to settle there), splitting the country, sending shock waves through the Israel Defense Forces, and destroying his own party?

The President and his admirers (among whom we count ourselves) have unfortunately been swept up in utopian expectations of a New Middle East. There may be more ballots cast in the region, but societies based on what Robert Conquest calls “law and liberty” are not likely to proliferate. As Jonathan Spyer notes in Ha'aretz of March 11, Middle Eastern elites are old hands at clothing themselves in borrowed array when the political climate demands it. But the new costumes are fitted over the same body of overheated nationalism and chauvinism, hostility to independent institutions and hatred of Israel — the endlessly warmed over centerpiece. The politically convenient language of the moment masks the same fundamental attitudes. Tellingly, as Spyer reminds us, in the same interview with Time Magazine in which Abbas declares his allegiance to democracy, he puts the blame on Israel and “the fence” for the terror bombing in Tel Aviv.

(Have not the bare naked facts on the ground and the awful history of the conflict spoken for themselves? Is there any reason for infinitesimal Israel to give up land under any pretense? Is there any reason for Israel to trust in anything but their own strength and ability to defeat their enemies? Has Israel ever had any other real choice but to remain as strong militarily and psychologically as humanly possible? Of course not. So all the rest is simply commentary and disastrous, debiltating commentary at that. Jsk)

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

April 21, 2005

The French Betrayal of America by Kenneth R. Timmerman


(A Gem of a Book Review by Arnold Beichman, one of my most favorite columnists – jsk)

Claremont Review of Books, Winter, 2004

As A YOUNG BOY DURING AND after World War I, I read everything I could find about the romantically named Lafayette Escadrille, the young Americans who became fighter pilots to help France in her war against Wilhelmine Germany. But living and thinking through the 20th and into the 21st. century I find myself torn between my boyish love for France and its culture and my despair over what France has become.

Kenneth Timmerman’s, The French Betrayal of America, is a savage, heavily documented indictment of today’s France, the France of Jacques Chirac for whom the U.S. has become an enemy country. It was Chirac who made Saddam Hussein the power he became in the Middle East. It was the French nuclear weapons establishment that had almost finished building a nuclear facility at Osirak, known derisively as O’Chirac, near Baghdad, when in 1981 Israel bombed it to rubble. Chirac built Osirak for Saddam even though in a 1975 interview Saddam had admitted: “The agreement with France is the first concrete step toward the production of the Arab atomic weapon.”

By 1983, Iraq was purchasing 51.5% of all French arm exports. In The U.N. Security Council, France became Saddam’s defender. Chirac’s unbreakable friendship with Saddam propped up a regime concerning whose accomplishments the Washington Post observed (July 7. 2003): "An estimated 290,000 people are missing and believed to be buried in mass graves throughout Iraq. In a country of 22 million, that is more than 1 percent of the population, the equivalent of about 3.5 million people in the United States. The vast majority of these bodies have not been found."

Timmerman’s book of revelations is an eye-opener. Even in the days of the socialist Francois Mitterand, he argues, France looked upon the U.S. as a dangerous rival. That fear of the U.S. increased when the Soviet Union fell: No more need for American protection against the Bolsheviks.

In 1991, L’Express revealed that between 1987 and 1989 French intelligence had planted moles in the French offices of IBM, Texas Instruments, and Corning Glass to steal economic and industrial secrets on behalf of French state-owned enterprises. An NBC documentary discovered that French airlines regularly planted microphones in the seats of their first-class compartment, to record conversations of U.S. businessmen.

According to Timmerman, the US is now reacting to French enmity with some harshness. For example, the French military attaché in Washington was informed that France would not be getting its usual slots at the March 2004 Red Flag exercise, NATO’S premier live-flying war game. And President Bush personally vetoed a request from the French chief of staff to visit CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Nonetheless, U.S. nuclear laboratories are still helping the French, the U.S. is still subsidizing the French nuclear weapons establishment, and, most unbelievable of all, the Bush Administration is offering Chirac the secrets of the U.S. national missile defense.

In France today, anti-Semitism, both right wing and left wing, runs deep.
Today the Paris Metro is no longer safe for Jews or those whom the Muslim gangs think are Jews. The Muslim population in France itself, approaches 10% and is growing more influential each day. A recently published book, La Republique des Laches (The Republic of Cowards), mocks the French regime for its retreat before its Muslim inhabitant’s anti-democratic behavior. For instance, instead of walking out of the Stadium when the Marseillaise was booed at a French-Algerian soccer match, then Prime Minister Lionel Jospin stayed on. And though the increasingly influential Muslim presence suffered a setback when the government forbade Muslim girls to wear their veil in school, separatist Muslims continue to demand school gymnasiums and swimming pools be segregated.

One of the great errors in the aftermath of World War II was to have enshrined France among the, permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (see Jeremy Rabkin, “No Miracle in San Francisco,” Summer 2004), leaving no room for democracies of far greater importance to the world today. If the president of France now regards America as an enemy country and French diplomacy is directed against the United States, all of which is fully and dramatically documented by Timmerman, it is time to think hard about what should be done.

Oh, and about those Americans who gave their lives fighting for French liberties, Timmerman tells this story: ‘When Charles De Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO unified military command and ordered the United States to depart from bases in the Paris suburb of Saint German-en-Laye, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly asked him if he also wanted us to take the graveyards full of our dead at Omaha Beach. Three belated cheers for LBJ.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:29 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2005

Koby Mandell Act becomes law - thanks to Zionist Org. of America

The Koby Mandell Act, key legislation developed by the Zionist Organization of America, intended to bring dozens of Palestinian Arab murderers of Americans to justice, has been enacted by Congress and signed into law by President George W Bush.

ZOA pushed hard to get the bill introduced, and then lobbied vigorously for its passage to end the State Department’s feeble effort and complete failure to bring these killers to justice by placing this responsibility instead with the Department of Justice. Under the new law, the department will establish the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism.

Since September 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed at the White House, Palestinian Arab terrorists have murdered 52 Americans in Israel, the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria, and injured some 70 others. All told, 107 Americans have been killed and hundreds mare injured by Palestinian-Arabs since 1968. Yet the State Department’s efforts to bring any of these killers to justice have been weak at best.

Meanwhile, the State Department has vigorously sought the capture of non-Palestinian Arab killers of Americans via well-funded publicity programs and by offering rewards for their capture. This new mandated Justice Department office will take over the Rewards for Justice Program and its website, which has been controlled by the State Department.

It will also provide other related services including sending U.S. officials to funerals of American victims of terrorism overseas; determine if terrorists who have harmed American citizens overseas are serving in their local police or security forces, and if so, alert U.S. agencies involved in providing assistance to those forces, and request that all such assistance be halted; and assess the pattern of American indictments and prosecution of terrorists who have harmed American citizens overseas, in order to determine the reasons for the absence of indictments of terrorists residing in some regions, such as the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

In addition, the new office will monitor whether foreign governments honor murderers of Americans through actions such as naming schools, streets or public institutions in honor of the killers.

Until now, Palestinian Arabs who murdered Americans were not as fervently pursued as other foreign nationals who murdered Americans overseas, despite the fact that the whereabouts of many of these suspects was known. Some, in fact, were openly shielded by the Palestinian Authority and have served in the PA, police force. The Zionist Organization of America was determined to end this imbalance.

“We wish to express our strong appreciation to the House and the
Senate sponsors of this legislation for passing a critical anti-terrorism bill providing an important boost in the efforts to capture all foreign nationals who have murdered or harmed Americans overseas, including Palestinian Arabs,” said ZOA President Morton A. Klein.

Klein noted, “The ZOA led a three-year effort on behalf of this bill which included full page ads in The New York Times and in newspapers around the country, organizing House and Senate press conferences on Capitol Hill, publishing op-eds and letters in newspapers, delivering speeches around the country, discussing the bill on both TV and radio and distributing a powerful booklet entitled ‘The Forgotten Victims: American Citizens Murdered by Palestinian Arab Terrorists.’ The booklet includes biographical entries on Americans murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists and a ‘Killers at Large’ section revealing the names — and, in some cases, the photos of Palestinian Arab killers of Americans who are being sheltered by the PA.”

The bill was named in memory of American-born Koby Mandell, age
13. He and his friend Yosef Ishran, were killed May 8, 2001, by Palestinian Arabs while hiking in a cave in Tekoa, Israel.

Sherry Mandell, Koby’s mother, said, “We want to thank the Zionist Organization of America and Congress for initiating this fight for justice. We feel that this helps in the healing process for us. We now know that people care and that Koby and the other Americans killed by Palestinian-Arabs won’t be forgotten. Even as a young boy, Koby really cared about justice - he would have deeply appreciated this fight for justice by the ZOA and the U.S. Congress?’

Stephen Flatow, father of Alisa Flatow — another victim of Palestinian-Arab murderers said, “We want to thank the Zionist Organization of America for being the only organization to have made this bill and this fight a priority and being relentless in their pursuit of justice. We also want to thank the House and Senate for their great work in this important step against anti-American terrorism.”

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) was the lead sponsor of the measure in the Senate. Other key co-sponsors included Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). In the House, U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (R-N.J.) was the chief sponsor. Other co-sponsors included U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J).

(Please note that all the key sponsors were Republicans! jsk)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 18, 2005

Déjà vu all over again

From the book jacket of Broken Covenant

By Ambassador Moshe Arens, 1995

In this no-holds-barred account, Moshe Arens, Israel’s former Foreign Minister and Defense Minister, lays bare the harsh realities of U.S.-Israeli relations during the tumultuous period of the Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada and the climactic Persian Gulf War. During those years, diplomatic relations between Jerusalem and Washington plummeted, as President George Bush’s administration, (With current American Jewish hero and media darling, Dennis Ross in the lead - jsk) in pursuit of U.S. interests in the Middle East, interfered in Israeli domestic politics, refused Israel vital military intelligence during the Gulf War, and attempted to bring down Israel’s democratically elected government.

In January, 1989, just weeks before Moshe Arens became Foreign Minister, the U.S. government began a dialogue with Yasser Arafat’s infamous terrorist group, the PLO. At the time, the Intifada was in full swing in the occupied territories west of the Jordan River, and Israel’s new Likud-led coalition government was eager to begin peace negotiations with the Palestinians, as well as with the surrounding Arab countries that were at war with Israel.

Arens charges that the opposition Labor Party, led by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, was increasingly willing to make concessions to Israel’s Arab neighbors that would weaken Israel’s national security. Secretary of State James Baker and President Bush circumvented, and ultimately undermined, the legitimate Israeli leadership in Jerusalem by entering into backdoor negotiations with Rabin and Peres, who were willing to accede to Arab demands for PLO representation at the negotiating table. As a direct result Israel’s coalition government fell apart in early 1990, and Shamir was forced to form a new government in which Arens became Defense Minister.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the U.S. began a pattern that would continue throughout the Gulf War, refusing to provide Israel with military intelligence on Iraqi troop movements and missile launcher sites, even as Israel was being attacked. The U.S. gave repeated assurances that they would eliminate the Scud threat to Israel, yet missiles continued to fall within Israel’s borders for six weeks. Arens’s efforts to deploy Israel’s owe military forces were constantly rejected by U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration In the meantime, while the U.S. raised funds for Arab countries that had been economically weakened by the war, Israel received almost no economic aid.

After the war, as Israel’s peace effort resumed, Shamir and Arens continued to resist external pressure to make unwarranted concessions to the Arabs. The Bush administration resorted to strong-arm tactics to force its peace - agenda on the Israeli government, delaying a ten-billion-dollar loan guarantee intended to help Israel absorb recently arrived Soviet immigrants until U.S. terms were met. In the end, U.S. manipulation of Israel’s internal political situation helped bring down the Shamir-Arens government in the 1992 elections and effectively restored the more conciliatory Labor Party to power.

The rejection of Bush’s policy toward Israel by American voters committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance contributed to the defeat of Bush in the U.S. elections that followed.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:55 AM

April 16, 2005

The anniversary of the Deir Yassim “massacre”

By Dafna Yee

April 7, 2005 marks the 57th "anniversary" of the BATTLE -- not "massacre" -- of Deir Yassin. That event is a favorite whipping boy for people who try and justify the deliberate murders of Israeli civilians by "Palestinian" terrorists. They point to Deir Yassin and say that the Jews acted just as barbarically. They have gone so far as to fabricate an entire "history" of a "massacre" which never occurred!

I wrote this article many years ago, but I've been urged to recirculate it to help counter the "commemorations" of a non-existent event that are being planned for this month.

Dafna Yee, director
JWD - Jewish Watch Dog

There Never Was A Massacre At Deir Yassin!

by Dafna Yee

I have been studying, teaching and writing about Jewish history for over 30 years and I've learned that Deir Yassin was no more of a massacre than Jenin was.

Here are some proofs:

The actual truth is, there were the same number of 'rapes' in Deir Yassin as there were 'buried corpses' in Jenin. ZERO! I don't expect you to take my word for this; instead, I suggest you use another excellent link - The Jewish Virtual Library's page on Deir Yassin (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html) Their account matches the Irgun's version almost exactly (see the Irgun website, ETZEL's Deir Yassin page at: http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index2.html)

The village of Deir Yassin had an ugly reputation for frequent sniper attacks on Jewish civilians for years before the battle in question took place. It served as a center for weapons trafficking during the violent Arab outbreaks in 1920 and villagers from Deir Yassin are known to have participated in the violent Nebi Mussa festival. (See Bernard Wasserstein's text, "The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929")

Deir Yassin was definitely not 'holding to a truce' as is claimed by so many people. Any thorough examination of the actions of the Arabs, especially those who were living along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road that blockaded Jerusalem will demonstrate that NO ARABS in that area behaved as the reports claim the 'innocent' Deir Yassin villagers did!

There is no documented evidence of any 'peace pact' in Deir Yassin and there IS evidence of aggressive anti-Jewish activity there (Jerusalem: Capital of Israel http://www.jerusalemarchives.org/period4/4-13.html.)

In addition, there are many records from Jews who survived the 1929 riots in Jerusalem which specifically name the Arabs in Deir Yassin as active participants. (For one such account, see "Raquella: A Woman in Israel" by Ruth Gruber.)

However, the biggest reason to disbelieve the talks of 'peaceful Arabs in Deir Yassin' is the very fact that the attack on that particular village was performed as an organized military venture decided on by all the Jewish leaders acting together because Jerusalem was being strangled. The Jews had neither manpower nor ammunition to spare on frivolous raids and there were a multitude of dangerous 'hotspots' along that route (the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Road) where Jews were being killed every day trying to bring supplies to besieged Jerusalem. They chose Deir Yassin specifically because that was the village that could best achieve its objective --- removal of a KNOWN hostile enemy force situated on the vital lifeline of Jerusalem.

In fact, Deir Yassin was selected precisely because Arabs (both villagers and 'outside irregulars') were using its position overlooking the main road (it is a natural ambush point -- look at the Map of 1947 Jerusalem (http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period4/4-1.html) to fire on Jews in the vulnerable homemade convoys. Any innocent, i.e., noncombatant Arabs, who were killed in that day lost their lives because the Arabs fought from a well-defended and well-prepared position (they were actually much better armed than the Jews) and deliberately used women and children as shields (which is an unfortunately too common practice of theirs.)

While the possibility, even the probability, exists that some Irgun soldiers fired when they didn't absolutely have to (from fear or anger or whatever,) a massacre couldn't have taken place because there were too many uninjured survivors (well over 100 people with no wounds at all.) Compare that to few if any survivors when defenseless Jews were victims of the multiple Arab massacres, such as the 1929 Hebron Massacre

(http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html) The Arabs 'excuse' for those murders (and many others) was the same twisted false rumors of 'Jewish atrocities' that are used today to explain the 'homicide bombers' vile barbaric acts of mass murder of innocents. It was no truer in 1948 than it is today.

Many people, including such notorious Jew-haters as David Duke and Yasser Arafat, consider the fact that they have statements made by Jews themselves as bona-fide evidence of Jewish/Zionist perfidy. They don't just accept that traitors from ‘within the ranks’ have troubled Jews since Biblical times (that's why Isaiah specifically warned against them.) Unfortunately, there are literally hundreds of such traitors and Deir Yassin is a favorite rallying 'cause' for them. But, no matter who says it, even a 'Jewish expert' like Marc Ellis, it's still a lie!

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:13 PM | Comments (0)

April 15, 2005

A Brutal Summation of the Conference at the Crawford Ranch

By Aaron Lerner

"Talk now comply later - if ever" - that's what PA head Mahmoud Abbas others
pressing for immediate final status really mean.

Well, maybe Israel should take Mr. Abbas up on his offer.

But instead of basing its negotiating positions on the negotiating on the
apparently unrealistic assumption that the Palestinians will ever honor
their obligations - in particular their security obligations - Israel could
approach final status talks with the refreshingly sober attitude that,
photo-opportunities and wishful thinking notwithstanding, the Palestinians
are never going to be serious about dropping the terror and violence option.

And there certainly has been a lot of wishful thinking.

President Bush and his teams certainly talk the talk about wanting the
Palestinians to honor their security obligations, but they bend over
backwards to praise Mahmoud Abbas - carefully ignoring that he wants to
integrate the terrorists into the PA security forces rather than disarm

And it doesn't end there.

This Wednesday White House Spokesperson Scott McClellan went so far as to
explain that it was OK if Hamas took over control of the PA via the ballot
box since the Hamas candidates would be "business professionals --- not

I wonder if Mr. McClellan had to see a chiropractor after delivering that

Unfortunately, it seems that the Bush White House has embraced the Clinton
White House's "no failing grade" policy when it comes to Palestinian

And that's not all. The White House also has only praise for Egypt, the
nation that serves as the conduit for almost all the weapons flowing into
the Gaza Strip. The fact that Egypt only finally got around to detaining
one person associated with anti-aircraft missile smuggling as Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon made his way to Crawford speaks volumes about what they haven't

What could Israel accept in final status talks based on the assumption that
the Palestinians will never honor their security obligations?

Certainly not an entity with such elements of sovereignty as control of
their borders and ports.

Certainly not an entity with armed forces of a size or strength beyond the
scope required for the maintenance of domestic order.

And certainly not an entity with a geographic configuration that could
facilitate both a bloody war of attrition against the Jewish State as well
as an effective diversionary campaign to bog down Israeli forces in the
event of an Arab invasion.

Talk now - Palestinian compliance never? Only if the citizens of Israel can
be certain that their representatives at the talks will have their eyes wide
open and the intestinal fortitude to act accordingly.

Unfortunately, given Mr. Sharon's recent track record and the front running midgets now vying to replace him it is doubtful that this condition can be met for the foreseeable future.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:49 PM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2005

Power Corrupts

A Chilling Pattern of Harassment

By Michael Freund

The Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2005

After listening to the joint press conference between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Monday, I curled up in front of my laptop ready to pen a blistering critique of the premier and his plan to withdraw from Gaza. But as the words began to flow, so did my perspiration, as I began to consider some of the heavy-handed tactics now being used against critics of the withdrawal.

In recent weeks especially, there have been a growing number of incidents in which those opposed to the plan, or even those merely assumed to hold such views, have found themselves and their most basic of freedoms trampled upon.

Take, for example, the mass arrest of dozens of Orthodox Jewish youth this past Sunday after protesters blocked Tel Aviv's Ayalon highway for several minutes. According to various reports, many of those detained by the police had nothing to do with the demonstration. They were arrested simply because they were religious and happened to be in the vicinity of the protest. This included a 10-year-old boy wearing a kippa, and a religious soldier in uniform.
Several teenage kids in the area were said to have been taken to police stations and held incommunicado for hours without their parents receiving notification, as required by law.

There have also been a number of instances in which people standing on street corners and holding signs against the Gaza withdrawal were taken away by police – for no apparent reason other than exercising their right to protest peacefully. In one case, a 14-year-old girl was arrested a few weeks ago and held for 24 hours in police custody without being allowed to see her parents. She was denied access to her medications, even though she suffers from chronic asthma and was at risk of a potentially dangerous asthma attack.

With less than 100 days to go until the proposed Gaza withdrawal, something terribly frightening is happening here in Israel. Some of the tactics being employed by the authorities simply have no place in a democratic society, calling into question their underlying commitment to that most fundamental of civil liberties – the right to disagree with government policy.

Now I don't consider myself an alarmist; nor do I belong to the category of those who employ frenzied language to get a point across. But I don't think it is exaggerating to say that many people opposed to the withdrawal are starting to wonder whether they can truly express themselves without fear.

Earlier this month, late one night, a prominent activist involved in organizing buses for people to visit Jewish communities in Hebron and Gaza was arrested at his home in the center of the country and held into the early hours of the morning. It remains unclear why he was taken into custody, other than to frighten and intimidate him.

Things have reached the point where even people who "look" like they might be going to a protest can find themselves receiving special attention from the security forces. This past Monday evening, a busload of Jews from Samaria was stopped by police as it made its way toward the Gush Dan area to deliver Pessah goods to needy families. According to eyewitnesses, the police refused to let the bus continue on its way, claiming that it posed a "potential threat that may lead to the blocking of roads and other protest actions." Only after being held up for 90 minutes were the 50 passengers allowed to continue with their charitable undertaking.

Say what you will about Sharon's plan to withdraw, there can be no excuse for such tactics. If it were just a matter of an isolated incident or two, it could perhaps be dismissed as an aberration. But the sad fact is that there is a clearly a pattern at work, one in which innocent Israeli citizens are being harassed and/or silenced because of their political views.

Of course, you won't read a great deal about this in much of the mainstream media; and don't expect to hear any of Israel's myriad human rights groups speaking up against this worrisome phenomenon. Their commitment to principle seems to extend only to those who share their liberal point of view. But that should not deter the rest of us from speaking out, if only to ensure that Israel's democracy remains vibrant and strong. Just because someone wears a kippa, or holds a placard opposing the withdrawal from Gaza, it does not make him an "extremist" or "threat" to the country's future.

I thought twice about whether to submit this column, but realized in the end that I simply had no choice. Because if we ever reach a point where we can no longer legitimately criticize the prime minister and his policies without fear of reprisal, something will truly have gone wrong in Zion. The only way to ensure that never occurs is to stand up without fear for what we know in our hearts to be true – that the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel, and to no one else.

The writer served as an aide to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:21 PM | Comments (0)

April 13, 2005

Zionist Organization of America's Center for Law and Justice

Zionist Organization of America's Center for Law and Justice Fights
Israel-Bashing and Anti-Semitism

By Susan B. Tuchman, Esq.
Director, Center for Law and Justice
Zionist Organization of America
Published in the New Jersery Jewish Standard and several other publications
Dear Editor,

There is no question that the Jewish community must adopt a more public and vigorous challenge to anti-Semitism on college campuses ("How to Stop Anti-Semitic Conferences on College Campuses," by Mitchell G. Bard, Feb. 18, 2005). Your readers should be aware of the ongoing legal efforts of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) to stop the annual anti-Israel conferences that Mitchell Bard described, and to ensure that Jewish students are protected from harassment, intimidation and discrimination on their college campuses.

The Palestine Solidarity Movement's anti-Israel conferences are held annually at campuses across the country. About two years ago, the conference was planned to take place at Rutgers University, but fortunately the administration declined to host it. These conferences include workshops and strategy sessions that advocate divestment from holdings in Israel, and provide information about companies to boycott, simply because they do business in or with Israel. The goal is to cripple Israel economically, but this divestment and boycott campaign also harms U.S. trade and investment. The ZOA has challenged these anti-Israel divestment conferences as a violation of the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Act. These provisions were passed specifically by the U.S. Congress to respond to economic boycotting activities against Israel.

The ZOA has been urging the Office of Antiboycott Compliance in the U.S. Department of Commerce - which is charged with enforcing the antiboycott laws - to investigate the divestment conferences, shut them down if the evidence warrants it, and impose the appropriate penalties. At the ZOA's initiative, a bipartisan group of members of Congress - spearheaded by New Jersey congressional leaders Jim Saxton and Rob Andrews - sent a letter to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, urging that the anti-Israel divestment campaigns be shut down because they violate the federal antiboycott laws. The antiboycott laws will hopefully prove to be an effective tool in stopping these conferences that promote the hatred of the State of Israel and seek to cripple it economically.

Federal law should also be used to fight anti-Semitism more broadly on college campuses. Last October, the ZOA filed a complaint against the University of California, Irvine (UCI) on behalf of Jewish students there, under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits harassment, discrimination and intimidation based on religion and ethnicity (among other things) in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Federal financial recipients like UCI can lose their federal funding if they are found to be in violation of the law, and other remedies can be imposed. In its complaint, the ZOA alleged that Jewish students have been subjected to a pattern of hostility, harassment and intimidation at UCI, that the administration has long been aware of the anti-Semitism, but that it has failed to take any meaningful steps to correct the problem.

The agency charged with enforcing Title VI is the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education. After reviewing the allegations of the ZOA's complaint, the OCR initiated an investigation, which is now underway. Current and former UCI students have courageously come forward to describe the hostility, harassment and intimidation they have been subjected to on campus. For some students, the environment has made them afraid to wear anything that identifies them as Jews or as supporters of Israel. Some have even been reluctant to affiliate with Jewish programs and activities on campus. If Title VI is effectively enforced to protect Jewish students at UCI, then colleges and universities across the country should get a powerful message: While the principle of freedom of speech must certainly be protected, speech and conduct that threatens, harasses and intimidates a specific religious, racial or ethnic group will not be tolerated.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:10 AM | Comments (0)

Kofi Annan – His Legacy?

By Thomas Kilgannon,

The Washington Times April 10, 2005

Stop the presses. As it turns out, the mismanagement of the multi-billion United Nations’ Oil-for-Food scam — run with all the oversight of a back- alley cock fight — reaches to the office of Mr. United Nations himself. His Excellency Kofi Annan. The world has expressed shock that its beloved Mr. Annan — the Nobel Peace Prize winner and would-be reformer— is not a saint after all. Go figure.

Released on March 29, the second report of the investigating Volcker Commission finds the secretary-general failed to identify a conflict of interest between his son Kojo, and Kojo’s employer, Cotecna Inspection Services. Cotecna is a Swiss firm that inspected humanitarian products brought into ports under the Oil-for-Food program before they were allowed into Iraq—services worth roughly $60 million to the company. Kojo Annan worked for Cotecna as both an employee and a consultant from 1995 through 1998, but continued to be paid $2,500 a month from the company until 2004.

Kofi Annan, the father, hailed as a skilled administrator and gifted diplomat by supporters, didn’t spot this glaring conflict though he met— at least three times — with high-ranking Cotecna executives both before and after the United Nations awarded the firm a lucrative contract in 1998. It was also discovered through a joint investigation by the Financial Times of London and Il Sole 24, an Italian newspaper, that Kojo Annan received at least $300,000 from Cotecna — nearly double the previous disclosure. Cotecna’s payments to the younger Mr. Annan, the newspapers reported, “were arranged in ways that obscured where the money came from or whom it went to?’

Kofi Annan insists he’s as clean as a whistle, His chief of staff Mark Malloch Brown, before the Volcker findings leaked, predicted Mr. Annan would “be exonerated of any wrongdoing?’ But an Oil-for-Food investigator told the New York Times that, for Kofi and Kojo Annan, the Volcker Report “will not be pleasant reading?’ But none of the thousands of news reports or congressional findings in the Oil-for-Food program over the last year have been pleasant reading. Accounts of how the program was run have only reminded impoverished Iraqis how the UN allowed Saddam to continue starving them while building his palaces.

Daily news reports also remind American citizens their tax dollars continue subsidizing an increasingly corrupt institution. And it is only getting worse. The first phase of the Volcker Report found Oil-for-Food administrator Benon Sevan, between 1998 and 2001, received on behalf of African Middle East Petroleum (AMEP) “several million bands of allocations of oil” from the Iraqis that was “ethically improper” and constituted “a grave and continuing conflict of interest.

Despite such findings, the United Nations has been paying Mr. Sevan’s legal expenses since last October. On March 28, the UN finally ended its payments for the legal bills. The New York Sun reported those payments to be in excess of $300,000 and in violation of the UN normal practices.

Several weeks, in anticipation of the second Volcker Report, the secretary-general was asked about the implications for him and his son Kojo. “Do I look worried?” Mr. Annan arrogantly quipped. That was then. But today we’re told the secretary-general is depressed and considering stepping down.
Such a move would be welcome. Calls for Mr. Annan’s resignation, from at least five dozen members on Capitol Hill, are being yet again.

Despite the lavish praise heaped on this man by his supporters, Kofi Annan is a train wreck. When he took over the UN from a beleaguered Boutros Ghali, reforming the institution was among his highest priorities.
“Real reform,” Kofi Annan told the UN. Staff Jan. 9,1997, shortly after his swearing-in “requires an ongoing search for excellence. [...]. In this I will not compromise. I expect from each and every staff member, at all levels, a total commitment to excellence’ he said

But the United Nations under Mr. Annan’s leadership has been far from excellent. The phase “Oil-for-Food” is now synonymous with “corruption” and it is only the tip of the iceberg. Embezzlement has been reported at the World Meteorological Organization. Rape and pedophilia are rampant among UN peacekeepers. Last summer, the UN staff gave Mr. Annan a vote of no confidence and demanded his ouster.

The UN human rights record is a joke. Claims of sexual harassment have been leveled against a top manager. In August 2003, UN Employees – 22 of them – were killed because of improper security measures by incompetent UN security personnel. In the face of terrorism and genocide, the UN sits on the sidelines quibbling over the proper definitions of terms. And during the Security Council debate on Iraq, Kofi Annan made the political mistake of deciding to go to the mats against the United Slates, the leading UN. benefactor.

After his first year as secretary-general, Kofi Annan summed up his job “l am a cheerleader, I am a promoter, I am a salesman, I am a debt collector, I am a father confessor and there are aspects I still have to discover?’

How long before Kofi adds to that litany, “I am unemployed’? The time is long overdue to give Kofi Annan some Prozac, a gift certificate to Ghana’s finest restaurant and send him packing.

Thomas P. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, a foundation dedicated to preserving US. Sovereignty.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:30 AM | Comments (0)

April 08, 2005

Globalization – Just Do It

An excerpt from original article from Azure Magazine, Winter 2005

By Assaf Sagiv, Associate Editor

…The anti-globalization trend has become one of the dominant public movements of recent years. It should be noted, however, that many of the movement’s activists reject this label; the linguist and radical intellectual Noam Chomsky, for example, explains that, “No sane person is opposed to globalization, surely not the Left or the worked movements, which were founded on the commitment to international solidarity that is, a form of globalization that is concerned with the rights and needs of people, not private capital.”

Even the most ardent critics of globalization on the Left, at any rate, do not reject the aspiration to establish an International community as such; in fact, this aspiration is perfectly compatible with the cosmopolitan ideal they espouse. Rather, it is the way in which the global economy has developed that is not to their liking: Instead of creating a supra-national, distributive system of justice - a kind of global welfare state—nations and international institutions have pinned their hopes on an elusive free market, condemning the underprivileged to a life of serfdom in the service of rich Western capitalists.

This would indeed be a horrifying state of affairs, if it were real. The facts, however, seem to indicate otherwise. A careful examination of the facts shows that the most strident criticism against the spread of international trade is grounded in distortions, half-truths, and exaggerations. There is little truth to the claim that the global market economy has brought about the oppression of poorer countries and populations around the globe; on the contrary, the evidence seems to suggest that it actually improves their lot both economically and within society, and makes available to them political and cultural possibilities that were, until recently, well beyond their reach.

In what follows, I will address three central questions concerning the effects of globalization First, I will revisit the evidence showing the crucial contribution of the global market economy to dosing the gap between rich nations and developing ones, enabling hundreds of millions of people to escape poverty and to join the ranks of an expanding global middle class. Second, I will examine the impact of globalization on national sovereignty, with the aim of showing that, contrary to alarmist rhetoric, the sovereign state is still alive and well, and in fact continues to play a central role in the global order.

Finally, I will attempt to demonstrate the positive influence consumer cub it has on the political awareness of the masses. The combined effect of these phenomena has decisive and far-reaching implications for the future of humanity in the next century because it lays the foundations for the expansion of the democratic system and its core values well beyond the political and cultural boundaries of the Western nations to which it has been confined until now. Thus, even if globalization does provide businesses with an extraordinary opportunity—and there is no doubt that it does—it also provides billions of people with something of far greater value: A life of greater dignity; prosperity; and even freedom.

For a thorough discussion of this pertinent and misunderstood topic, please read the entire article.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:13 PM | Comments (0)

April 07, 2005

The Moslems invade France once again – 1273 years later

But this time invasion is via immigration rather than the attempted conquest of all of Europe that began in 711 CE.

The invasion of Western Europe by a Muslim army after 711 AD, very nearly extinguished modern Europe - certainly the threat was no less serious than the Hunnish invasion which had earlier created so much chaos. While the Huns were Asiatic, the Moors were a mixed race invasion - part Arabic, part Black and part mixed race, always easily distinguishable from the Visigoth Whites of Spain.

The story of this seven hundred yearlong race war is without doubt one of the most arduous ever fought by Europeans in defense of their continent. By 709 AD, the Muslim armies had conquered all of Northern Africa and stood on the southern side of the Straits of Gibraltar, with only the Visigoth fortress of Ceuta, situated on the African side of the straits of Gibraltar, still remaining in European hands.

Spain invaded

In 711 AD, Ceuta fell to the Moors and immediately a Moorish fleet sailed across the strait and seized a beachhead on Andalusia in Spain, their first territory on the European mainland. The Spanish Gothic king of the time, Roderic, rushed an army south and engaged the Moors in a three-day battle at Xeres. The Moors won, and the Gothic Spaniards were forced to retreat, giving the Moors time to land a seemingly inexhaustible supply of soldiers from the population wells of North Africa.

Soon the Moors had assembled a massive army and within a few months had conquered most of Gothic Spain. Only isolated pockets of Gothic resistance held out. In the north an enclave only secured its existence by being forced to enter a treaty with the Moors in terms of which the Goths had to hand over 100 White Gothic virgins a year to the Moorish leaders for use in their harems - a painful tribute which continued until 791 AD, when the Goths once enough became strong enough to break the terms of the treaty.


The Moors did however not rest with the conquest of Spain. Their Holy War, or Jihad, forced them ever on, and in 722, they crossed the Pyrenees and invaded Gothic Gaul (France), seizing several towns in the south of that country.

Ten years later, in 732, they launched what was to be their final bid to overcome all of Western Europe when a massive army under the command of the Moorish governor of Spain, Abd al Rahman, began laying waste to large parts of Frankish and Gothic France. The Goths in Aquitaine, under their leader Eudes, were defeated at Garonne, and they were forced back into central France, carrying with them news of the frightful and merciless Moorish invasion.


France had, since the fall of the Roman Empire, been consolidated under a leading Celtic/Indo-European tribe called the Franks, who were based in the region surrounding present day Paris. The Frankish king at the time of the Moorish invasion, Charles Martel, (Charles the Hammer) immediately mobilized a counter attack and soundly defeated the army of Abd al Rahman in battle between the towns of Tours and Potiers in Central France in October 732. The battle was one of the most momentous in the history of Europe. Defeat would have meant that all of Western Europe might have fallen under the sway of Islam.

Having failed to break the Germanic lines, the Moorish alliance retreated, and fled south of the Pyrenees back into Spain, and awaited the Frankish drive south, which would drive them back into Africa. This did not come. Charles Martel had exhausted the wealth of the Frankish empire in drawing together an army big enough to defeat the Moors.

Above article redacted from the Internet, March of the Titans, Chapter 23, The Moors invade Europe.

Below is an excerpt from The Hope of Marseille
By Claire Berlinski, Azure, winter, 2005,

France today has another Muslim invasion which they are attempting to neutralize with their declared model of immigration, the so-called republican model, which rests upon the demand that immigrants become culturally, intellectually, and politically assimilated. Like assimilation by the Borg, this process is complete. Immigrants are asked to abandon their native cultures and adopt a distinct set of mental habits, values, and shared historic memories. Taken as a whole, these habits, values, and memories—not shared religion, race, or blood—are held to be the essence of France, the glue that binds French citizens together.

The core values of France, inherit from the French Revolution, are based on the idea of individual rights; for official France, it is the citizen who is recognized, never the ethnic group to which he belongs. When the French Revolution emancipated Protestants and Jews, it emancipated them as individual citizens, not as groups defined by their religious membership.

Related to the republican model is the doctrine of laicite, a strict form of secularism that derives historically from the bitter rejection of France’s authoritarian Catholicism. By this doctrine, all reference to religion must be excluded from the public sphere. In theory at least, laicite guarantees equality before the law for all French citizens, and militates against anti- Semitism.

The republican model of immigration has until recently allowed France successfully and completely to assimilate wave upon wave of Celtic, Germanic, Latin, and Slavic immigrants The process is characterized by the state’s refusal legally to recognize cultural and ethnic minorities, the official denial of the very idea of cultural identity: Similar principles were applied as well in the former French colonies, often to peculiar effect; I have spoken to Cameroonians who recall opening their first history text as children and reading with bewilderment the book’s opening lines: Nos ancetres, les gallois … (our ancestors, the Gaels)!

Integration in France supposes an implied contract between the immigrant and the ‘nation. The immigrant agrees to respect the Universalist values of the republic, and the republic in turn guarantees his children full integration and social standing. Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy: the son of a Hungarian immigrant is an excellent case in point. In one generation, Sarkozy—who is of Jewish extraction—has come to dominate French political life. He has done so by being more French, more committed to republican values, even sounding more French, than any of his adversaries. He is widely expected to become France’s next prime minister.

The American and Anglo-Saxon models of immigration rest upon significantly different principles and traditions. Britain and the United States both emerged as federations of smaller states; and in both societies there is a looser and more pragmatic relationship between citizens and the center, a greater devolution of authority to local governance. In consequence, Britain does not merely tolerate immigrants speaking their own languages and worshipping their own gods, it encourages them. London’s Muslim Welfare House, for example, subsidized by a grant from the British government, offers Koranic study and lessons in Arabic.

The United Stares enforces multiculturalism with affirmative action programs backed by the fill weight of the law. At every level of society Americans are exhorted to celebrate diversity

The French government vigorously rejects this kind of cultural separatism, which it terms “communitarianism.” The word connotes the intrusion of unseemly religious or ethnic particularism into the public sphere, a refusal to be assimilated. The debate over the veil is emblematic. The French government has banned the veil in the classroom. In Britain, the issue is viewed as a matter for schools to resolve individually and independently of the government. In the United States, the Justice Department has intervened to protect the right of students to wear the veil in class.

When Arab immigrants in France insist upon sending their daughters to school in a veil—or when they torch synagogues, for that matter, the French government interprets these unwelcome events through this framework. The
malefactors, they sense uneasily, are not taking a shine to republicanism …
(With the Muslims being a prime example of this “not taking a shine.”)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:26 PM | Comments (0)

April 06, 2005

Response to Hillel Halkin’s Perverse Analysis

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Letter to editor not printed in Commentary Magazine

Why is it that while reading Halkin’s, Settler’s Crisis, and Israel’s, (Commentary, March, 2005) I had the distinct feeling that I was reading an intellectualized version of Hitler’s Der Sturmer – only this time drenched with Left wing Israeli and Arab, rather than Nazi, propaganda.

Halkin cleverly paints a picture of dire class warfare with all the good Israelis (i.e. Good Germans) having to deal with the awful settlers (i.e. Damned Jews). These settlers are causing all the problems. They are still immersed in the religious fervor of the Zionist icon, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook who died in 1935. Kook had the temerity to attempt to meld secular, politically oriented Jews like Hertzl, with the religious beliefs of the Orthodox, whose approach had to do with G-d, of all things!

Instead of praising this Kook attempt at welding these disparate Jews for the common good, Halkin describes Kook as messianic and likens him to the arch charlatan and completely discredited self-serving messiah, Sabbatai Zevi of the 17th century. Halkin makes the comparison even more odious by also “detecting kabalistic influences in Kook’s thought.” The fact that near 100% of those awful settlers living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would not have the remotest clue as to what or to whom Halkin is referring does not enter the discussion.

Then, not satisfied with painting these settlers as simply religious fanatics, Halkin also lays upon the secular among them another Nazi condemnation - Their Zionism is linked with Communism – just another “ism” nourished by “secularize messianic impulses” within the Jewish psyche.

Halkin quickly brushes aside the real issues and facts on the ground.

Settlers are looked upon with disdain for seeking “inexpensive housing in attractive surroundings.” Halkin speaks of this as some sort of sin rather than acknowledging the fact that this is exactly how new communities are developed all over the world. New couples have to forego the convenience of living near the heart of town because they cannot afford it. Fortuitously, they frequently develop far more beautiful surroundings than what they left – certainly the case in Judea, Samaria and Gaza vs. the awful congestion and concrete jungle of Tel Aviv, et al. Messianism and communism and Zionism, in most cases, have nothing to do with anything.

Halkin also, in his zeal, to paint the messianism picture, presents an astounding number of givens, as if they were facts on the ground.

He is obviously not enraged by the idiocy of “Sharon’s disengagement plan - itself meant to begin a unilateral configuration of Israel’s borders in absence of any peace settlement with the Palestinians.” Does that make any sense? Does one submit to one’s mortal enemies who blatantly refuse to talk genuine peace, while fully realizing that relinquishing territory only whets their appetite and brings Arab borders ever closer to your own over-congested centers of population?

He makes the statement that Sharon has “overwhelming support? If that were the case and if Sharon really wanted to quiet the thunderous criticism, why does he not allow a public referendum? A victory would certainly take the wind out of the sails of all this opposition.

Halkin also speaks of the “Parliamentary Majority” for the withdrawal plan that Sharon “enjoys” neglecting to mention that Sharon has brutally fired anyone who opposes his iron rule and has completely intimidated a disgraceful cabinet and a disgraceful Knesset voting to protect only their own political largess.

Finally, Halkin enthusiastically buys into and promotes the entire Arab political agenda – The Jews are on “Arab land”, the 1967 borders should be their outermost limits, all the settlements have to be disbanded. He says nothing about the rest of the oft-proclaimed Arab agenda: The return of the Arab “refugees” (3 million, 5 million, whatever) to their homes in Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, the Galilee, etc, etc.; Along with “Reparations” for over 50 years of Arab “anguish”; Adopting UN resolution 181 taking Israel back to the original UN borders from which 600,000 Jews, many just out of the concentration camps, were able to defeat five Arab armies and miraculously survive.

Never mind all that. Instead, Halkin chooses to present a supposedly intellectual discussion, interjects the red herring of Jewish messianism and in doing so only exposes his own mindless prejudices giving great sustenance to Israel’s mortal enemies.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:00 AM | Comments (0)

April 05, 2005

The Protocol and Ceremony of electing a New Pope

By the Los Angeles Times

With the death of Pope John Paul II, a centuries-old tradition of mourning and succession begins. After the pope’s death is certified, the cardinal camerlengo, or chamberlain, ritually calls John Paul’s baptismal name, Karol, three times to confirm that he cannot respond.

The papal apartment is sealed until a successor is named and takes possession of it. John Paul’s ring and seal are broken to signify the end of his reign. No autopsy is performed. Vatican flags are lowered to half-staff and the Bronze Door at St. Peter’s Basilica is closed.

Most cardinals and archbishops in the Roman Curia, the Vatican’s governing body, automatically lose their positions, and the cardinals are prevented from changing church law or making appointments.

The pope’s body lies in state in the Clementine Chapel in St Peter’s Basilica, probably beginning Monday. Four to six days after his death, a funeral will be held at the basilica or St. Peter’s Square. That begins nine consecutive days of Masses.

The conclave to elect a successor will most likely commence 15 days after the pontiff’s passing. The meeting of 117 cardinal electors can be delayed for as many as five additional days in an emergency. The first vote for a new pope is taken on the first afternoon of the conclave in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, with a two-thirds-plus-one vote needed to elect a successor.

In 1996, John Paul amended the rules to prevent a long deadlock: If no candidate achieves the two-thirds approval after four rounds, a simple majority may then elect a pope from the top two contenders.

During the process, the cardinals are either locked inside the Sistine Chapel or in lodgings at a nearby hotel-style facility in Vatican City. They do not have access to the outside world. Most conclaves last only a few days, but there have been some exceptions. In the 13th century, it took nearly three years to select Gregory X and 1½ years to elect Innocent IV. In 1831, it took 53 days to name Gregory XVI.

During the conclave, the ballots are twice daily mixed with substances and burned to produce either white or black smoke. Black smoke coming from the Sistine Chapel chimney signifies that the cardinals have not yet found a new pontiff. White smoke means there is a new pope.

Within hours of election, the new pontiff will select his papal name and be announced from the balcony of the basilica to the crowd in St. Peter’s Square. The senior cardinal deacon will declare, “Habemus papam?’ (We have a pope). The pontiff then will give his first blessing. A few day’s later, an inauguration Mass will be held. The process, from the death of the pope to the naming of his successor, usually takes three to four weeks.

Additional facts in electing a pope:

Popes rule for life, and within 20 days of a pope’s death, an electoral process established in the 1500s begins at the Vatican City:

1. World's cardinals under age 80 meet in Sistine Chapel
2. The Conclave area is closed to outsiders, its doors walled up.


3. Cardinals cast secret ballots twice a day for three days, if needed, and then rest for a day. The process can be repeated three times. Two-thirds of the votes plus one required for election.

4.Ballots burned in a stove daily can be seen from St. Peter’s Square

Black smoke - means no decision reached

White smoke - means a new pope has been elected

5. Senior Cardinal announces "Habemus papam" (We have a pope) reveals name chosen by new pope, who gives his first blessing.

Length of time to elect recent popes:

Pope XII 1939-1958 - 1.5 days
John XXIII 1958-63 - 5 days
Paul VI 1963-78 - 2 days
John Paul I 1978 1 day
John Paul II 1978 to now 2 days

If a pope is not elected after 12-13 days a simple majority only is required for election.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:40 AM | Comments (0)

April 03, 2005

Zionist Organization of America’s Center for Law and Justice sues to protect College Students

By Susan B. Tuchman

There is no question that the Jewish community must adopt a more public and vigorous challenge to anti-Semitism on college campuses. The Zionist Organization of America through its Center for Law and Justice has taken on the problem of flagrantly anti- Israel conferences that now pervade so many college campuses. The expected accompaniment of such conferences and similar activities has resulted in the harassment, intimidation, and discrimination of Jewish students on our publicly endowed and privately funded college campuses.

The Palestine Solidarity Movement’s anti-Israel conferences are held annually on campuses across the country. About two years ago, the conference was planned to take place at Rutgers University, but fortunately the administration declined to host it. These conferences include workshops and strategy sessions that advocate divestment from holdings in Israel and provide information about companies to boycott, simply because they do business in or with Israel. The goal is to cripple Israel economically, but this divestment and boycott campaign also harms U.S. trade and investment. The ZOA has challenged these anti-Israel divestment conferences as a violation of the anti-boycott provisions of the Export Administration Act. These provisions were passed specifically by the U.S. Congress to respond to economic boycotting activities against Israel.

The ZOA has been urging the governing agencies within the U.S. Department of Commerce — which is charged with enforcing the anti-boycott laws— to investigate the divestment conferences, shut them down if the evidence warrants it, and impose the appropriate penalties.

At the ZOA’s initiative, a bipartisan group of members of Congress — spearheaded by New Jersey congressional leaders Jim Saxton and Rob Andrews — sent a letter to the Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, urging that the anti- Israel divestment campaigns be shut down because they violate the federal anti-boycott laws. The anti-boycott laws will hopefully prove to be an effective tool in stopping these conferences that promote the hatred of the State of Israel and seek to cripple it economically.

Federal law should also be used to fight anti-Semitism more broadly on college campuses. Last October, the ZOA filed a complaint against the University of California, Irvine, on behalf of Jewish students there, under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits harassment, discrimination, and intimidation based on religion and ethnicity (among other things) in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Federal financial recipients like UCI can lose their federal funding if they are found to be in violation of the law, and other remedies can be imposed.

In its complaint, the ZOA alleged that Jewish students have been subjected to a pattern of hostility, harassment, and intimidation at UCI, that the administration has long been aware of the anti-Semitism, but that it has failed to take any meaningful steps to correct the problem.

The agency charged with enforcing Title VI is the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. After reviewing the allegations of the ZOA’s complaint, the OCR initiated an investigation, which is now under way. Current and former UCI students have courageously come forward to describe the hostility, harassment, and intimidation they have been subjected to on campus. For some students, the environment has made them afraid to wear anything that identifies them as Jews or as supporters of Israel. Some have even been reluctant to affiliate with Jewish programs and activities on campus. If Title VI is effectively enforced to protect Jewish students at UCI, then colleges and universities across the country should get a powerful message.

While the principle of freedom of speech must certainly be protected, speech and conduct that threatens, harasses, and intimidates a specific religious, racial or ethnic group will not be tolerated.

Susan B. Tuchman
Director of Center for Law and Justice
Zionist Organization of America
4 East 34th Street
NYC, NY 10016

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Israel’s Peace Partners

By Michael Widlanski 29 March 2005



Official Palestinian media said today that Mahmoud Abbas's Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) and the HAMAS and Islamic Jihad organizations
have agreed in principle to full unification, with all sides recognizing the
PLO's "Strategy of Stages," a document that sets out a phased program for
Israel's destruction.

"Representatives of the HAMAS movement and Islamic Jihad will formally
attend a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation
Organization today, and the two movements [HAMAS and Jihad] have agreed in principle to join the PLO [Arabic: al-munadhama]," declared the opening
headlines on Voice of Palestine radio.

The dramatic announcement of PLO-HAMAS-Jihad unification comes amid the flow of sophisticated weapons to PLO and Islamic agents, and it represents
both a major success for Abbas along with a serious potential threat for
Israel for several reasons:

*--For Abbas, who succeeded Yasser Arafat as the leader of both the PLO
and the PA, it is a major Palestinian domestic success, perhaps beginning to
take him out of Arafat's shadow;

*--For Israel, it is worrisome that the Islamic extremists, who have
continued to amass weapons and stage intermittent terror attacks, are now
officially part of the Palestinian establishment;

*--And perhaps most problematic is the re-statement by both the PLO and
HAMAS that they are bound to the PLO's 1974 action-plan entitled the
"Strategy of Stages" (Arabic: barnamaj al-marahil) which seeks Israel's
destruction through a combination of diplomacy and violence.

The announcement of unification was featured in detail on all the morning
news shows of Voice of Palestine radio (Sawt Felasteen) from Ramallah and
on Palestinian television from Gaza, showing lengthy shots of Abbas meeting with the HAMAS leadership, while demonstrably fingering Islamic
prayer beads (Arabic: sibha or masbah) in his left hand.

HAMAS officials declined to give detailed responses to questions about
whether the unification meant a change in HAMAS's ideology or its official
covenant (Arabic: mithaq), but it appeared that neither HAMAS nor Jihad-nor
even the PLO-was willing to offer an official renunciation of the use of
violence against Israel.

Instead, both PLO and HAMAS officials have, in recent days, confirmed
that they have accepted the strategy of "staged goals" (Arabic: ahdaf
marhalliyya) as it appears in "Strategy of Stages" set forth at a PLO
conference in 1974.

"The goals of the present stage are that by the end of 2005 our people
will arrive at the borders of September 2000 [when Arafat launched the
present war know as the "Aqsa Intifada"]," asserted Palestinian leader Abbas
in an interview with Egyptian news agency two weeks ago.

When asked specifically about the Bush Administration's demand for
disarming Palestinian terrorists, he said, "I will not embark on an
operation that will lead to a civil war."

The Abbas interview was featured on the front page of his own Al-Hayat
Al-Jadeeda newspaper, run by his Fatah organization, on March 15 and March
17. Fatah is the largest constituent member of the PLO, and it includes the
Tanzeem militia and the "Aqsa Martyrs Brigades" suicide bombers.

In recent weeks, Palestinian leader Abbas has steadfastly refused to
condemn HAMAS or Jihad by name for recent acts of terror, including the
bombing of a Tel Aviv nightclub on Feb. 25, saying only that such acts "gave
Israel excuses" not to meet Palestinian demands and were, therefore,
"against Palestinian interests."

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said in a cabinet meeting this
Sunday that PLO and Islamic agents had successfully smuggled sophisticated
Soviet-made SAM-7 "Strella" anti-aircraft missiles into Palestinian-ruled

Such missiles could shoot down Israeli civilian planes, and they are also
the reason that Israel has cut back on the use of military helicopters.

Official Palestinian spokesmen today denied the Israeli comments (which
have been made very quietly), asserting that there were no missiles in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Ariqat [sometimes
spelled Erikat] made fun of the Israeli comments in a radio interview

"That's what the Israelis say," asserted Ariqat, the PA Negoitions
Minister, referring to the Israeli allegations.

"They have the whole West Bank under lock and key. There are road blocks
everywhere and they're saying there are missiles in the West Bank," he
declared laughingly.

"It's all part of an Israeli strategy to delay carrying out their
commitments," he said.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces yesterday arrested several members of a joint
Islamic Jihad-Fatah terror cell in the northern West Bank town of Jenin
which was preparing explosives and motorized projectiles for the production
of a new generation of "Qassam" rocket-the kind only used until now in the
Gaza Strip.

Several members of the cell were among the 500 Palestinian convicts whose
release PLO leader Abbas had recently won in talks with Israel.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:59 AM | Comments (0)

April 01, 2005

Those “Palestinian Refugees” – Who are they and what is the real story?


The major and perhaps only sticking point in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is that of the return of the Palestinian refugees (Of course I disagree with this statement completely – jsk). It sank the Camp David conference that President Clinton had arranged even though Mr. Barak had made unprecedented concessions for the sake of peace. The new man Mãhmoud Abbas, who routinely refers to Israel as the Zionist enemy also insists that the right of return is not negotiable and that there can he no peace unless those refugees are allowed to return to Israel

What are the facts?

Somehow 650,000 "refugees" swelled to 5 million. You have heard about those Palestinian refugees who claim ‘right of return to Israel. Of course, virtually none of them ever lived in Israel - they are the children and mostly grandchildren of those who fled in 1948. The total number of those who fled in 1948 is estimated to have been about 650 000. Now the number who wish to return has swollen to almost five million.

How did this exodus come about? In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, their leaders urged the Arabs living there to leave so that the invading armies could operate without interference. They could return after the expected quick victory in that holy war’ and get their property back — and that of the Jews. Things turned out differently. The invading armies were defeated. Those who had left became refugees — people without a country. Those who stayed with their children are full fledged citizens of the State of Israel.

These so-called Palestinian refugees have not been allowed to settle in the “indivisible” Arab nation. They have been supported in camps since 1948. So far, over $2.0 billion has been spent on their maintenance with no end is in sight. Who pays for that? You guessed it. Through UNWRA Relief the
United States contributes more than 60% of the total cost.
The Arab countries among them some of the richest in the world who fritter away their enormous fortunes on frivolous luxuries, are satisfied to leave their Arab brethren in those miserable camps They have never contributed a penny to their maintenance.

But there is another side to the "refugee” story. Little is heard of the 800 000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries who fled those countries to settle in the newly formed Jewish State of Israel. Every one of these refugees was immediately accepted and resettled, cared for and given full citizenship by the fledgling, impoverished and embattled Jewish State. There never has been and certainly is not now, a Jewish refugee camp in Israel or anywhere else

The Arab refugees who fled Israel left little wealth and little history since most of them had not come to “Palestine” until Jewish settlers opened economic opportunities in what had been a desolate country for centuries. But the Jews of Arab lands have a history going back thousands of years When forced to flee, they left behind land wealth and a long history.

They arrived in Israel, quite literally only ‘with their shirts on their backs. They now make up almost 60% of the vibrant and productive population of Israel. What have the Arabs, the richest people in the world, done with their refugees in more than 50 years? They have kept them in misery, on the dole of the world and have taught their hopeless youth the “skills” of suicide missions and of slaughtering defenseless and unarmed men women, and children.

If the Arab nations truly decided to make peace with Israel and to put an end to the century long conflict they could easily accomplish it by accepting the Palestinian refugees in their countries. They could just as Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab countries integrate them into their societies and make useful citizens of them. In fact, acceptance in their countries might also be offered to the Israeli Arabs who, despite enjoying a higher standard of living, education and health than Arabs in any of the surrounding countries and despite having the same civil rights as Israeli Jews are not happy to live in a Jewish state.

Population transfers are common especially in the wake of wars. They have been practiced throughout history. In 1923, Greece and Turkey agreed to the resettlement of 2 million Greeks and 800,000 Turks. In 1945, the resettlement of 3 million Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia was arranged. Following the collapse of its North African Empire, France accepted close to 1.5 million people. More than 12 million Muslims and Hindus were exchanged in India and Pakistan. Israel has recognized this historical necessity. The “Arab Nation” with its enormous wealth and under populated lands has stubbornly refused to face facts.

It is clear that the “Palestinian refugee problem is a red herring kept alive by the Arab nations for their political purposes and with cynical disregard for the great number of impoverished people who live in these camps. It is being kept alive and is being used as a non-negotiable bargaining chip for the purpose of destroying the State of Israel — a feat that the Arabs have attempted several times by military means but which has always ended in disastrous failure.

Introduction of all these Arab so-called Arab “refugees” into Israel would create even more unsolvable social problems. It would with one stroke dramatically alter the demographic makeup of the country and would inevitably destroy the Jewish State. That is, of course, the whole idea behind the demand for the return of the refugees. If the Arab nations were willing to solve the refugee problem the legitimacy of Israel could no longer be questioned. But that is not acceptable to the Arabs. They are firmly committed not to allow Israel or any non-believers to be in control of any part of the Middle East. It is that, and that alone , which is the real cause of the “Palestinian Refugee” problem.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:04 PM | Comments (0)