July 31, 2006

What other country …?

By Charles Krauthammer
The Detroit News, July 31, 2006

· What other country when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

· What other Country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — everyone designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure and strongholds with precision guideded munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel- Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats has completely lost its moral bearings.

The word magically inverts victim into aggressor is “disproportionate,” as in the universally decried “disproportionate Israeli response?’ When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel “proportionate” attack on a Japanese naval base. it launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home islands to rubble and ruin.

Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one’s security again.

The perversity of today’s international outcry lies In the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war - a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides, while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime.

On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites?

Israel’s response to Hezboflah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. In the bitter fight against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so they would not be harmed.

Israel knows these warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and re-group. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to setup elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli casualties. Israeli soldiers die so Lebanese civilians will not. And who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?

Charles Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:36 PM | Comments (0)

July 29, 2006

The Sad Tale of Israeli Capitulation. Is it about to happen Again?

By Steven Plaut

The Jewish Press, July 21, 2006

(Bold, italicized, interspersed bracketed commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman)

Foreign Minister/Labor MK Shimon Peres addressing Knesset, September 9, 1993, “All you do all day is threaten that there will be Katyusha rockets landing in Ashkelon. Would you mind telling me why there are no rockets fired from Aqaba to Eilat?”

I could still hear Peres’s words echoing when Katyusha rockets began exploding in Haifa a few days ago, some of them just several blocks from my house filled with thousands of lead pellets to maximize the carnage, one of them ended the lives of nine people in a Haifa train depot.

I contemplated those words while Patriot missile batteries were being erected on my campus at the University of Haifa. The college was shut down for the duration of the attacks, but I proposed to the powers-that-be that all leftist professors be forcibly kept on campus to serve as human shields.

The e-mails and phone calls come in nonstop. Why are you online and not down in the bomb shelter, you meshugena (Yiddish for fool), asks a friend from California. I reply that there are too many spider-webs down there.

The Katyushas landing in Haifa were, for all intents and purposes, dropped here by (then ego-maniacal Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, acting as Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert who have followed him, without honest military consultation, relying on their own sick Left wing ideology re-enforced by the delusional Shimon Peres, in the summer of 2000). In what amounted to a cowardly unilateral retreat, then-Prime Minister Barak ordered the IDF to abandon its positions in southern Lebanon (and its staunch Lebanese Christian allies, as well). Hezbollah terrorists had been sniping at Israeli troops inside Lebanon and the toll was slowly mounting. With a bit of initiative Israel could have put a stop to that, but instead Barak elected to place all of northern Israel within the rocket sites of the terrorists!

Ever since that withdrawal, the Israeli Left had been patting itself on its collective back, insisting that the unilateral retreat had not only worked but could serve as a role model for Gaza and the West Bank.

The abandonment of Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip was largely based on that notion, as is Prime Minister Olmert’s (current truly unbelievable sick suicidal plan for “contraction” in the West Bank, a plan which he has not abandoned despite all the current evidence of disaster previous land give-aways has wrought.) After all, the retreat from Lebanon had “worked” in the sense that the Lebanese border seemed to be “relatively” tranquil, with a death toll below what it had been when the Israeli army was still on the ground in Lebanon.

Six years have passed since the retreat from southern Lebanon. The attitude of the Israeli chattering classes toward that “success” is illustrative of what I call the September 10th Syndrome. On September 10, 2001, there were many public figures in the U.S. convinced that there was no chance terrorists could or would strike America. Their conclusion, to quote Mark Twain relative to his own death, was just a little premature.

Israel has suffered from a mass infestation of September 10th Syndrome, ever since the capitulation to Hezbollah in 2000. But in recent days it has become clear that there can be something even worse than such an action — namely, suffering from September 10th Syndrome on September 12, i.e., not even realizing how wrong one had been even after events should have removed all doubt.

True, the Lebanese border remained “relatively” quiet after the Barak withdrawal, but not for the reasons marketed by the Israeli political establishment. All that had happened was that Syria was cowed into keeping the Lebanese border quiet for a while after 2001 due to its fears of being targeted by an enraged America on the warpath against Middle East terrorism.

The supposed success of the Lebanese capitulation was also the official theology behind Israel’s security fence in the West Bank. The security fence along the Lebanese border was thought to have demonstrated that all Israel now needed to do with Gaza and the West bank was get itself out and build similar fences, replete with all manner of electronic gizmos, just as it had done along the Lebanese border. After all, the politicians kept chanting, once there were no Israeli troops in “Arab lands,” the Arab side would have no reason to engage in terror and. military aggression against Israel.

Of course, the Barak withdrawal never really solved anything. The Lebanese border was not calm. Thousands of state-of-the-art rockets were sitting there, ready to strike. Shelling and cross-border incursions by Hezbollah were regular occurrences and Hezbollah agents were freely wandering the Gaza Strip, helping Hamas build its bombs. In short, the Lebanese border was as secure and as calm as the World Trade Center towers were on September 10, 2001!

There is no diplomatic way of putting this: The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in Gaza and along the Lebanese border is the direct result of Israel’s rewarding and appeasing terrorism over the past few decades. Long gone are the days when Israelis boasted that their government never negotiated with terrorists.

The 1976 Entebbe rescue was the greatest and, alas, the last serious use by Israel of force to deal with the kidnapping of Israelis by Arab terrorists. Since then, Israel has more often than not dealt with hostage situations by capitulating and conceding. Such situations, of course, are never easy, both from a strategic and a moral perspective. There is a complex trade-off between the desire to free hostages at once and the need to deter and punish hostage grabbers. The understandable human and humane instinct to seek the immediate freeing of hostages must be weighed against actions that will put other lives in jeopardy. Decision makers face the dilemma that saving a single life today may well produce scores of deaths tomorrow.

In 1985, the Likud-led government of Yitzhak Shamir carried out a prisoner exchange with the “Jibril” terrorists. Israel agreed to release more than a 1000 Arabs incarcerated for terrorist activities in exchange for three Israeli soldiers. Just three days after the trade, one of the released Arabs was brought into an Israeli hospital. He had accidentally blown himself up while preparing a bomb intended for Israeli shoppers. Others among the-released terrorists would, in the months and years to come, participate in a number of attacks and murders.

On October 16, 1986, while on a mission over southern Lebanon, Israeli air force navigator Lieutenant Colonel Ron Arad and his pilot were forced by a technical problem to parachute out of their plane. The pilot was rescued by an Israeli chopper, but Arad fell captive to terrorists belonging to the Lebanese Shi’ite Amal militia. All trace of Arad was lost. Since 1986, Israel has engaged in feeble and pointless attempts at “quiet diplomacy” in order to win the release of Arad or at least learn of his fate. The efforts have produced nothing.

In 1992, Yitzhak Rabin launched his “peace plan” of legitimizing and recognizing the PLO and at the same time ordered the expulsion of 400 Hamas terrorists from the West Bank and Gaza to Lebanon. The expulsion had near-universal support in Israel. Shortly thereafter, however, Israel permitted almost all the expelled terrorists to return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they resumed their leadership roles in terror organizations. It was a yet another goodwill gesture for which Israel got nothing in exchange. - not even information on Ron Arád.

In 1994, in the middle of Rabin’s “peace initiative,” Palestinian terrorists kidnapped Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman. The kidnappers held him hostage in the West Bank village of Bir Naballah, which had long been a hotbed of terror. On October 7, 1994, villagers violently attacked Israeli soldiers who were trying to storm the Bir Naballah home in which Wachsman was being held. The terrorists had enough time to murder Wachsman before his would-be rescuers got into the house. Israel did not bulldoze the village in retaliation, just as it has not bulldozed other West Bank villages in which soldiers and civilians have been murdered.

These days, Israeli leftists are busy assisting the residents of Bir Naballah in sabotaging the security wall Israelis constructed, because it offends the sensitivities of the Arab villagers

In July 2003 the Israeli cabinet decided in a 14-9 vote to buy Ariel Sharon a Kodak moment in Washington by releasing more than 500 Palestinian prisoners, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah terrorists, again as a “goodwill gesture.” Few of the released terrorists took up quilting.

In January 2004, Israel agreed to an exchange with Hezbollah more than 400 Arab prisoners, many accused of killing civilians, were released in return for a single Israeli civilian hostage and the bodies of the three soldiers who had been murdered in cold blood by Hezbollah.

The prisoner exchange was widely opposed in Israel, and passed the Israeli cabinet by a single vote. Afterward, Israel never avenged the three soldiers murdered by Hezbollah. A suicide bombing that killed 10 Israelis took place the very day of the prisoners’ release, but Israel went ahead with it anyway. Two of those set free had been high-ranking Lebanese terrorists, directly involved in the kidnapping, torture, and reported “sale” of Ron Arad to Iran. Israel did not even demand information on the whereabouts of Arad in exchange, just an empty promise of some information in the future, which, needless to say, has never materialized.

At the time, the Arab media crowed in smug satisfaction at Israel’s humiliation in the prisoner release. Al-Ahram called it a “new notch in Hezbollah’s belt” In Israel it was seen as a debacle. Even Yoel Marcus at Israel’s far-left daily Haaretz called it a “License, to kidnap.”

Yuval Arad, Ron Arad’s daughter, said she felt that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had abandoned her father. In a letter to Sharon, she wrote, “ I can’t understand how you can sleep at night ... you’re about to release the man who tortured my father.”

In the early stages of the Allied invasion of Iraq, a number of Western hostages were grabbed by terrorist groups. Some were murdered by beheading. The US and Britain did not release any captured terrorists in exchange for any hostages, nor did they make any other concessions to the terrorists. On the contrary, in cases where hostages were not released unharmed, allied troops went after the kidnappers with a special vengeance and ferocity. The result was an end to the wave of kidnappings.

The Israeli strategy of appeasing terrorists by releasing prisoners has caused more kidnappings and more terrorism. The lessons of recent years are as simple as they are absent from Israeli policy thinking. Releasing prisoners to appease terrorists causes more kidnapping. Refusing to capitulate to terrorist demands stops the kidnapping. Cutting and running when rockets fall causes them to fall in much larger numbers.

Yes, Jewish tradition has always allowed, indeed mandated, payment for the-redemption of Jewish captives. Buried in the Aramaic in every marriage contract is a clause that obligates husbands (male readers, be warned!) to ransom their wives should they be taken captive. But there were always clear limits on what could be paid for ransom - for two reasons. The first was to “avoid placing onerous economic burdens on the community” But the second was more for strategic considerations and in some ways is the more important. Paying out large ransoms creates incentive for further kidnappings and inspires escalated ransom demands. The Talmudic sages understood what Israel’s politicians do not.

During the Middle Ages, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, one of the last Tosophists, was the leader of German Jewry. He prohibited women from wearing tefillin but at the same time was a strong defender of wives against abusive husbands. Some of his elegies are still part of the prayer book. (Interestingly, there are reports that he claimed to be a direct descendent of the evil emperor Nero.) Convinced that Jews had no future in Ashkenaz (Germany), Rabbi Meir was leading a contingent of families to the Land of Israel when he was abducted by the authorities in Basel and held for ransom. He prohibited the Jewish community from paying for his release, fearing it would encourage more kidnappings of Jews. He died in a prison near Colmar in 1291. Some years later his body was ransomed and then buried in Worms. Rabbi Meir chose death over putting the burden of frequent abductions on the entire Jewish population.

At the time of the capitulation by the Israeli government to Hezbollah in the 2004 mass release of terrorists, Israeli politicians insisted that they had no choice and were just following the dictates of Jewish ethics. While it is nice to hear Israeli politicians (Uncharacteristica1ly) acknowledge the importance of Jewish ethics, they had no idea what those ethics actually say about hostage redemption (or anything else), They were simply looking for a pseudo-ethical argument to use as a fig leaf for their appeasement of terrorists.

Speaking of Jewish ethics, Judaism unambiguously supports the death penalty for murderers, whereas Israeli politicians are pusillanimously opposed to it. Let us take note of the fact that no terrorist has ever murdered anyone else after being executed. Had convicted terrorists and murderers been executed in Israel all along, there would be few terrorist prisoners frolicking in Israeli jails, serving as bait and incentive for Palestinian militias and Hezbollah kidnapping Jews. Had Hezbollah villages been turned into parking lots years ago, there would be no Katyushas falling on northern Israel.

Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at Haifa University. Steveneplaut@Yahoo.com

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

July 27, 2006

Krauthammer’s usual brilliant commentary on Fox News Thursday, July 27, 2006

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Charles Krauthammer in his usual brilliant, trenchant manner made a statement on Fox News tonight that we can only hope the Israeli government heard (and I will do my best to see that they do.) Krauthammer said words to the effect that:

“The current Israeli leadership including the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are without genuine experience in their politically appointed tasks.”

No thought was, in fact, given to their ability to fulfill their appointed attacks. Appointments were made according to political expediency and political pay back. JSK

Mr. Krauthammer registered genuine concern as to the Israeli government’s understanding as to what is expected from them by the United States. For the very first time, the United States and Israel are fighting an unequivocally common enemy - Hezbollah. Israel is assisting immeasurably in this work and President Bush is giving them free rein to defeat this common enemy.

Israel, unfortunately and certainly understandably, has been extremely cautious in their attack - unwilling to commit large ground troops and obtain severe casualties, unwilling to take up large swaths of territory in what may well become a long term occupation in order to be truly effective in wiping out Hezbollah and terminating Syrian domination of Lebanon. Israel has been there, done that. JSK

Mr. Krauthammer went on to advise that the United States is watching closely. How effective are the Israelis? How much is their action helping the cause of the United States of America?

Is Israel worthy of American trust and intimate association and of President G W Bush sticking his neck way out on a limb both internationally and domestically? Can Israel be depended upon as a successful ally or a worrisome dependent?

Obviously the United States has given Israel full rein placing the ball squarely in Israel’s court. And, in no way, unfortunately, are the decisions to be made by Israel easy. What is certain is that if Israel is not successful, the Arab world will be tremendously empowered, the Islamists further inflamed and emboldened and Israel will not have made any real progress in certifying its own very existence. All they will have done is live long enough to fight another day.

That day will be undoubtedly under another American administration and most likely nowhere near as supportive as President G.W. Bush. At that very near point, Israel will have had its military and political power advantages diminished exponentially as is occurring, at this moment, before our very eyes.

Of note, by the way, is what are America's options? Have we another ally who truly understands that the whole Western world is in the very same boat? How can the United States discard the only genuine ally they have in the entire Middle East? Maybe it's like a marriage - a whole lot of compromises have to be made.

Jerome S. Kaufman

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

July 25, 2006

The media and former State Dept. Hacks

By Jerome S. Kaufman

If one wants to be guaranteed a Pro-Arab opinion just have as your guest, Edward Djerian, former ambassador to Syria who spent his political career in the State Department favoring the Arab position against Israel.

What prompted this discussion is Djerian’s recent oft-repeated supposedly profound Arab propaganda statement - “There is no military solution in the Middle East.” That is, of course, because thank G-d, Israel, given free rein, would conceivably win any “military solution, resoundingly defeat their enemies and obtain some genuine peace in the region providing they were not once again, forced to return territory vital to their and the world’s security.

It also ignores the fact that this has never been American policy. In fact quite the opposite is used and found to be successful - defeat your enemies to the point of surrender and then dictate a peace that would be disrupted at the enemy’s great peril.

Not coincidentally Djerian, along with Martin Indyk, both examples of the classic State Department school favoring close ties to Arab states, are now part of the Baker Institute in Houston Texas, founded by James Baker, former Secretary of State who worked under President George Bush during the first Gulf War. You will remember it was he who pressured Israel to absorb over 30 missiles fired deliberately into Israel by Saddam Hussein. This faulty strategy of enablement set the groundwork allowing Hussein to remain in power and has directly resulted in the current Iraqi debacle that has fallen upon the shoulders of George Baker’s son, President GW Bush.

Other luminaries of the time and same political persuasion like Dennis Ross have also assumed the mantle of network Middle East experts but cleverly changed their chameleon-like political colors depending upon how much money they can make with public speeches and selling books while attempting to regain political power under any new administration.

Hopefully the media will become more aware of who they are interviewing as “experts” and not hire these people, that is unless their political bias fits in with that of the involved media. So, what else is new?

Jerome S. Kaufman

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2006

For the Misinformed or Uninformed: A Lebanese Christian Political Perspective

By Brigitte Gabriel

(From: www.NaomiRagen.com)

For the millions of Christian Lebanese, driven out of our homeland, "Thank you Israel," is the sentiment echoing from around the world. The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, an international group of Lebanese Christians, made the following statement in a press release to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert concerning the latest Israeli attacks against Hezbollah:

"We urge you to hit them hard and destroy their terror infrastructure. It is not only Israel who is fed up with this situation, but the majority of the silent Lebanese in Lebanon who are fed up with Hezbollah and are powerless to do anything out of fear of terror retaliation."

Their statement continues:

"On behalf of thousands of Lebanese, we ask you to open the doors of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport to thousands of volunteers in the Diaspora willing to bear arms and liberate their homeland from [Islamic] fundamentalism. We ask you for support, facilitation and logistics in order to win this struggle and achieve together the same objectives: Peace and Security for Lebanon and Israel and our future generations to come."

The once dominate Lebanese Christians responsible for giving the world "the Paris of the Middle East" as Lebanon used to be known, have been killed, massacred, driven out of their homes and scattered around the world as radical Islam declared its holy war in the 70s and took hold of the country. They voice an opinion that they and Israel have learned from personal experience, which is now belatedly being discovered by the rest of the world.

While the world protected the PLO withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 with Israel hot on their heals, another more volatile and religiously idealistic organization was being born: Hezbollah, "the Party of God," founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and financed by Iran. It was Hezbollah who blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in October 1983 killing 241 Americans and 67 French paratroopers that same day.

President Reagan ordered U.S. Multilateral Force units to withdraw and closed the books on the marine massacre and US involvement in Lebanon February 1984. The civilized world, which erroneously vilified the Christians and Israel back then and continues to vilify Israel now, was not paying attention. While America and the rest of the world were concerned about the Israeli / PLO problem, terrorist regimes in Syria and Iran fanned Islamic radicalism in Lebanon and around the world. Hezbollah's Shiite extremists began multiplying like proverbial rabbits out-producing moderate Sunnis and Christians. Twenty-five years later they have produced enough people to vote themselves into 24 seats in the Lebanese parliament. Since the Israeli pull out in 2000, Lebanon has become a terrorist base completely run and controlled by Syria with its puppet Lebanese President Lahood and the Hezbollah "state within a state."

The Lebanese army has less than 10,000 military troops. Hezbollah has over 4,000 trained militia forces and there are approximately 700 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. So why can't the army do the job? Because the majority of Lebanese Muslims making up the army will split and unite along religious lines with the Islamic forces just like what happened in 1976 at the start of the Lebanese civil war. It all boils down to a war of Islamic Jihad ideology vs. Judeo-Christian Western civilization. Muslims, who are now the majority of Lebanon's population, support Hezbollah because they are part of the Islamic Ummah-the-nation. This is the taboo subject everyone is trying to avoid.

The latest attacks on Israel have been orchestrated by Iran and Syria driven by two different interests. Syria considers Lebanon a part of "greater" Syria. Young Syrian President Assad and his Ba'athist military intelligence henchmen in Damascus are using this latest eruption of violence to prove to the Lebanese that they need the Syrian presence to protect them from the Israeli aggression and to stabilize the country.

Iran is conveniently using its Lebanese puppet army Hezbollah, to distract the attention of world leaders meeting at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Apocalyptic Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the ruling Mullah clerics in Tehran want to assert hegemony in the Islamic world under the banner of Shia Mahdist madness. Ahmadinejad wants to seal his place as top Jihadist for Allah by making good his promise to "wipe Israel off the map.

No matter how much the west avoids facing the reality of Islamic extremism of the Middle East, the west cannot hide from the fact that the same Hamas and Hezbollah that Israel is fighting over there, are of the same radical Islamic ideology that has fomented carnage and death through terrorism that America and the world are fighting. This is the same Hezbollah that Iran is threatening to unleash in America with suicide bomb attacks if America tries to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon. They have cells in over 10 cities in the United States. Hamas, has the largest terrorist infrastructure on American soil. This is what happens when you turn a blind eye to evil for decades, hoping it will go away.

Sheik Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, is an Iranian agent. He is not a free actor in this play. He has been involved in terrorism for over 25 years. Iran with its Islamic vision for a Shia Middle East now has its agents, troops and money in Gaza in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Behind this is this vision that drives the Iranian President Ahmadinejad who believes he is Allah's "tool and facilitator" bringing the end of the world, as we know it and the ushering in of the era of the Mahdi. He has a blind messianic belief in the Shiite tradition of the 12th or "hidden" Islamic savior who will emerge from a well in the holy city of Qum in Iran after global chaos, catastrophes and mass deaths and establish the era of Islamic Justice and everlasting peace.

President Ahmadinejad has refused so far to respond to proposals from the U.S., EU, Russia and China on the UN Security Council to cease Iran's relentless quest for nuclear enrichment and weapons development program until August 22nd. Why August 22nd? Because August 22nd coincides with the Islamic date of Rajab 28, the day the great Salah El-Din conquered Jerusalem.

Ahmadinejad's extremist’s ideology in triggering Armageddon gives great concerns to the intelligence community. At this point the civilized world must unite in fighting the same enemies plaguing Israel and the world with terrorism. We need to stop analyzing the enemies' differences as Sunni-Hamas or Shiite-Hezbollah, and start understanding that their common bond in their fight against us is radical Islam.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:17 PM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2006

Thank You, Mr. President

President GW Bush once more defends Israel

Message from THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Englewood, Colorado), Saturday, July 22, 2006


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I returned from Russia, where I met with world leaders at the G8 summit. The summit was an opportunity for important talks with these nations, and it brought progress on key issues. We had wide-ranging discussions on the global economy. We agreed on new steps to strengthen our collective security, including a United Nations Security Council resolution on North Korea. This resolution condemned North Korea’s recent missile launches and it urged the North Korean regime to abandon its nuclear programs and return to the six-party talks.

Much of our time at the summit was spent discussing the situation in the Middle East, especially the recent violence in Israel and Lebanon. The recent crisis in the region was triggered by the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist group Hezbollah and the launch of rockets against Israeli cities. I believe sovereign nations have the right to defend their people from terrorist attack, and to take the necessary action to prevent those attacks.

We’re also mindful of the cost to innocent civilians in Lebanon and in Israel, and we have called on Israel to continue to exercise the greatest possible care to protect innocent lives. Throughout this crisis I have spoken to leaders in the Middle East and around the world. Our efforts to resolve this dangerous situation are guided by an international framework that is already in place.

In 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1559, which recognizes the sovereignty of Lebanon, calls for all foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon, and calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all militias. Hezbollah defied the world’s just demands by maintaining armed units in the southern region of Lebanon and attacking Israel in defiance of the democratically elected Lebanese government.

I’ve directed Secretary of State Rice to travel to the Middle East in the coming days to discuss the best ways to resolve this crisis with leaders in the region. Secretary Rice will make it clear that resolving the crisis demands confronting the terrorist group that launched the attacks and the nations that support it.

For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian made weapons. Iran’s regime has also repeatedly defied the international community with its ambition for nuclear weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled region.

We’re also concerned about the impact the current conflict is having on Lebanon’s young democracy. This is a difficult and trying time for the people of Lebanon. Hezbollah’s practice of hiding rockets in civilian neighborhoods, and its efforts to undermine the democratically elected government have shown it to be no friend of Lebanon. By its actions, Hezbollah has jeopardized Lebanon’s tremendous advances and betrayed the Lebanese people.

Over the past week, nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have stepped forward to offer humanitarian aid and assistance to the Lebanese government. America and our allies will join these efforts. We’re also working to help American citizens who wish to leave Lebanon. American military personnel and embassy officials are working hard to ensure this operation proceeds smoothly and safely. We continue to pray for the safety of all people in Lebanon -- Americans, Lebanese, and citizens of other countries.

America remains committed to lasting peace in the Middle East. The United States and our partners will continue to seek a return to the road map for peace in the Middle East, which sets out the pathway to establishing a viable democratic Palestinian state that will live in peace with Israel. We will continue to support moderate leaders, like Palestinian Authority President Abbas. We will continue to call on Hamas to end its acts of terror. And now, more than ever, the Palestinians need leaders who are not compromised by terror and who will help the Palestinian people provide a future for their children based on regional peace and security.

In the long-term, this peace will come only by defeating the terrorist ideology of hatred and fear. The world’s best hope for lasting security and stability across the Middle East is the establishment of free and just societies. America and our allies will act decisively because we know our security is at stake in this struggle and we know the cause of freedom will prevail.

Thank you for listening.

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

July 20, 2006

‘Muslim Zionism’ - Nonsense!

By Professor Paul Eidelberg

The Jewish Press, July 7, 2006

Daniel Pipes in his article, “The Power of Muslim Zionism” (New York Sun, June 6, 2006), concludes that “the Muslim use of Zion represents a more powerful force today than the Jewish love of Zion.” The notion of “Muslim Zionism” is an oxymoron, and Pipes’s conclusion is an insult to the Jewish people, especially those that made the Land of Israel flourish. Muslims or Arabs have no real love of the land as history clearly demonstrates.

Under Muslim rule, “Palestine” was never a country. As for the land itself, let us review what various commentators have said about this land, beginning with Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian:

“The whole area is excellent for crops and pasturage and rich in trees of every kind, so that by its fertility it invites even those least inclined to work on the land. In fact, every inch of it has been cultivated by the inhabitants and not a parcel goes to waste. It is thickly covered by towns, and thanks to the natural abundance of the soil, the many villages are so densely populated that the smallest of them has more than fifteen thousand inhabitants.” (The Jewish Wars, Book 1113:2.)

What happened to this land under Muslim or Arab rule? Travelers to Palestine from the Western world left records of what they saw there. The theme throughout their reports is dismal:

1)The land was empty neglected abandoned desolate fallen into ruins (English pilgrim 1590)

2)The country is to a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population” (British consul, 1857).

3)In his Innocents Abroad (1867), that lovable genius, Mark Twain, traveled in Palestine and recorded this impression of the country:

“Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Where Sodom and Gomorrah reared their domes and towers, the solemn sea now floods the plain, in whose bitter waters no living thing exists ... and about whose borders nothing grows but weeds, and scattering tufts of cane, and that treacherous fruit that promises nourishment to parching lips, but turns to ashes at the touch. Nazareth is forlorn; about that ford of Jordan where the hosts of Israel entered the Promised Land with songs of rejoicing, one finds only a squalid camp of fantastic Bedouins of the desert. Jericho, accursed, lies a mouldering ruin today, even as Joshua’s miracle left it more than three thousand years ago. Bethlehem is in poverty. Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and has become a pauper vi1lage...

4) Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, the great British cartographer, reached similar conclusions in 1881: “In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for miles and miles, there was no appearance of life or habitation.”

Now let us enter the 20th century and review the accomplishments of genuine Zionists. On November 17, 1930, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald presented this testimony on the floor of the House of Commons:

I happened to be in Palestine two years ago, and I went up and down the country. I must say that it is impossible for anyone who saw what I saw to be too extravagant in tributes to the Jewish colonizers in Palestine. I saw what was bog being turned into cultivable land. I saw the historical and very barren sides of the mountains of Gilboa being planted with olive trees. I saw the morass at the foot of the mountain — a morass that runs along the valley, down which the defeated army of Saul fled. It was bog. I found it being drained and recovered. I saw not only labor but spirit and generosity. University graduates were working alongside day laborers, their hands getting hardened with the stones they were breaking in the making of roads ... It was a wonderful sight.”

“The transformation of Mark Twain’s Palestine to Ramsay MacDonald’s is essentially the achievement of one decade.” So wrote. Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1931. The seeds of this achievement had been planted nearly fifty years earlier by Jews who confirmed the biblical prophesy that without the Jewish people, the Land of Israel would ever remain desolate (Leviticus 26:32). “The seeds of this accomplishment,” he goes on to say, “have been nurtured by the most tenacious hopes and traditions of the Jewish people.”

What makes this accomplishment all the more extraordinary is that the Jews were then only a small minority in the land, which had been left desolate for almost 1,900 years. Except in Jerusalem. the majority of the land’s inhabitants were Arabs.

“Muslim Zionists”? Nonsense! The Muslim claim to the Land of Israel is not based on love of this land. Operative in these Muslims or Arabs is a self-hypnotic myth induced by hatred and envy of the Jewish people. It is a Muslim ploy designed to deprive the Jews of Eretz Yisrael.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:56 AM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2006

Washington Post Paints Israel as Brutal Aggressor

I. Washington Post Paints Israel as Brutal Aggressor and
Downplays Damage to Israel for the rest of the world

By "EyeOnThePost, Inc." info@eyeonthepost.org July 16, 2006

II. The Asymmetric Use of Power
By Jerome S. Kaufman

I. Well over 700 Hezbollah rockets have now rained down on the Israeli cities of Haifa, Nahariya, Tiberias, Safed, Meron, Kiryat Shmona, Karmiel, but you would never know if from reading the Washington Post. The Post has focused virtually all of its resources on amplifying the damage in Lebanon, with almost no coverage of the impact on Israel. The distorted picture the Post hopes to convey is of widespread and random destruction by Israel, and it is, therefore, ignoring Israel's effort to pinpoint its attacks on Hezbollah strongholds and targets that are strategically important to the terrorists. In the Post's narrative, Israel is attacking and trying to destroy Lebanon and not just Hezbollah. In addition, the Post is covering up the association to Hezbollah of many of the so-called civilian casualties, and it is misleading its readers by falsely depicting the world outside Israel and the US as united against Israel, while ignoring statements of those countries or leaders who have conspicuously refused to condemn Israel. The following Alert was written about the Post's reporting on Saturday, but the distorted reporting continues today. In a front-page article the Post today stated:

"In a war that has witnessed an escalation each day, the asymmetrical nature of the conflict was laid bare Saturday: For each attack by Hezbollah since it captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, Israel has inflicted a far greater price. It has systematically dismantled the country's infrastructure, displaced thousands of residents and instilled a new sense of foreboding and fear in the now-deserted streets of this brash, confident city still shadowed by the legacy of Lebanon's 15-year civil war."

II. The popular complaint of the asymmetrical use of power by Israel is ludicrous! Of course, Israel uses its asymmetrical power but, unfortunately to me, with far too much discretion. Thank G-d Israel has that power. Can anyone imagine Israel’s fate if the Arabs had that power? Does anyone believe that Israel would be anything but dust and bare bones and totally annihilated as Hezbollah, Hamas, their legions of supporters and Iran’s Ahmadenejad promise daily?

And what about the use of asymmetrical power by the other nations of the world? Is there any better example than our own use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about the complete destruction of the main cities of Germany in WWII by the US and Britain? Where was the complaint against asymmetrical use of power then? As usual, it is only the Jews that are not to use asymmetrical power. The Jews are only to serve as victims for the rest of the world as they have done over the centuries. G-d forbid it should happen again.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:05 AM | Comments (0)

July 15, 2006

Now a letter from a Swedish Jew:

Is their no end to their hatred of us! I am sure that you have read that the most intense emotion in the world is jealousy and, I believe it.


Swedish credibility as frail as IKEA furniture

2006 is election year in Sweden. In early April, Swedish Chancellor of Justice Goran Lambertz squashed an investigation into calls from the Stockholm Grand Mosque to "kill the Jews." In his opinion, such statements should be seen against the background of the conflict in the Middle East, rendering them entirely permissible!

Later the same month Minister of Justice Thomas Bodstrom declined to withdraw an entry visa to Hamas leader Salah Muhammad al-Bardawil or to have him arrested upon entry - even though Sweden is a signatory to the pan-European decision to brand Hamas a terrorist organisation. Bardawil and his associates will be visiting Sweden in early May under the full protection of the Swedish authorities.

And now Cabinet Secretary Hans Dahlgren announced that Sweden has withdrawn from a European peacekeeping exercise. The explanation: "the participation of the Israeli Air Force has changed the prerequisites of the exercise."

Swedish Defense Minister Leni Bjorklund goes further: “Sweden pulled out because Israel is a state "that does not participate in international peacekeeping missions" In other words, if you're not already in the club you have no right to try and lend a helping hand. Of course, the Defense Minister is entirely wrong - nothing unusual in Swedish diplomatic circles - because Israel sent a peace-keeping force of policemen to Fiji in conjunction with that country's elections. Perhaps accuracy is not the Defense Minister's strong suit.

In an election year when the votes of Sweden's 400,000 strong Muslim electorate easily outweigh those of the country's mere 16,000 Jews, the Swedish Social Democratic administration obviously considered it worth the half million or so kronor it has already spent on its 10-month preparations for the joint exercise to drive home its desire to attract more votes.

Sweden's latest in a long line of questionable decisions could scarcely have come at a more indelicate point in time - almost coinciding with Holocaust - Remembrance Day in memory of the millions exterminated on an industrial scale in a Europe unwilling to work together to stop tyranny and encourage coexistence and loyalty. Today Sweden is doing what it did sixty years ago - turning its back on those in need and siding with the force it sees as likely to win. This is perhaps the right time to remind ourselves that it was high-quality Swedish ore that powered Nazi Germany's war machine.

It is perhaps also the right time for people of conscience to vote with their wallets and give Sweden 's IKEA, Volvo and Saab a wide berth. There is no Swedish product that cannot be replaced with an alternative from a democracy with moral values.

Ilya Meyer

Gothenburg, Sweden

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:12 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2006

What Magen David Adom “Victory"?

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Once again Jews, especially Israelis, are advised that the Emperor is fully clothed when in fact he has no clothes - except for those viewers who prefer to live in their own self-delusion. The latest fiasco is the heralding, as a great “Victory,” the fact that the International Red Cross has finally condescended to allow one of the finest humanitarian emergency units in the world - Magen David Adom of Israel - to become a part of the world organization. The news is trumpeted by reporter Rachel Silverman in her Jewish Telegraphic Agency article as a “Magen David Adom Victory” which “reflects 58 years of aggressive sustained lobbying and a last-minute push.”

But at what cost and what was the “last minute push (now six months in the making) dependent upon? Not much - just that the Jewish organization hide its identity by changing its insignia - no more Jewish star on their ambulances in locations where the nation, receiving Jewish aid and Jewish blood, objected!

Evidently, having the Jewish star on the ambulances would be too embarrassing and give the Jews and particularly the Israelis, too much credit. How could the sight of Jews and Israelis in such a favorable light be explained to the masses of population that had been taught so diligently to hate Jews?

Of course, these restrictions do not apply to the nations of the rest of the world. They will continue proudly to exhibit their Red Cross, the Muslims their Red Crescent and by the way, the Palestinian Authority will also be admitted, although no such nation yet exists, and will, of course, have a Red Crescent - no unidentifiable red square like the Jews!

So the “Jewish Problem” was again solved. The Jews simply re-assumed their shtetl mentality, that they have never, in fact, lost - speak quietly, hide in your cellars at the time of another pogrom and try, at all costs, to not irritate your non-Jewish assailants.

The JTA article concludes: “After the ruling, Rabbi Danny Allen of the American Friends of Magen David Adom called it a “vote for humanitarian over sectarian politics.” How noble, how very Jewish! Only in this case, the very existence of Jews and the State of Israel, are the “sectarian politics’ at stake.

Once more, as Jews, as Israelis, we dare not show pride in our own existence, our glorious history, our remarkable G-d-given achievements, and his return to us, after 2000 years, of our nationhood. How then can we possibly demand more from those that surround us?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:39 PM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2006

Dear Arab Brethren, the War With Israel Is Over

(From Ibrahim’s mouth to G-d’s ears)

Egyptian-born American reporter

July 7, 2006 URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/35606

As Israel enters the third week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks. The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends:

Dear Palestinian Arab brethren:

The war with Israel is over. You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children. We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel.

Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness. At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan. It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends.

You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem. You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation. Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins.

Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win. In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day.

What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots? We, your Arab brothers, have moved on. Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq, frankly could not care less about what happens to you.

Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine, even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab. Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours,Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods ” more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives” while your children played in the sewers of Gaza.

The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?

(Youssef M. Ibrahim is an Egyptian-born American reporter serving for twenty-four years as a senior Middle East regional correspondent for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, mainly covering political, economic, energy and military issues.)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)

July 09, 2006

Londonistan - (The Muslim Conquest of the United Kingdom)

By Melanie Phillips

A book review by Daniel Johnson
Commentary magazine - June 2006

When Americans express anger or frustration at Europe’s response to the global threat of Islamism, they generally make an exception for one country: Great Britain. The strong British presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s staunch support of President Bush, the legacy of a common history, culture, and language—these have reassured Americans that the United States has at least one ally across the Atlantic on which it can depend.

If the new book by the British journalist Melanie Phillips is right, however, this is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. A highly successful columnist and broadcaster and at one time the news editor of the left-wing Manchester Guardian, Phillips reveals a very different Britain from the heroic nation that defied Hitler. In fact, she compares the mood today with that of the 1930’s - the era of appeasement. As she shows, senior officials and their cultural cheerleaders still refuse to accept that they are confronted by a murderous, expansionist Islamic ideology, or that their own capital city has been transformed (in a term coined by the Western intelligence community during the 1990’s) into “Londonistan.” For Phillips, Britain is a nation in denial about Islam, about terrorism, about Israel, and above all about itself.

Londonistan is, first and foremost, about the identity crisis provoked by the terrorist attack on London’s transportation system in July 2005. As the British people learned to their horror, the suicide bombers were not foreigners radicalized by suffering or oppression but true-born Englishmen, with good families and good prospects. They differed from most of their contemporaries in only one respect: they were young Muslims who, as Phillips puts it, had “repudiated not just British values but the elementary codes of humanity.” The leader of the bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, left behind a surreal video in which, speaking in a Yorkshire accent, he blamed his act of mass murder on British “atrocities” against “my people,” meaning the Muslim ummab. He owed allegiance not to Britain but to Islam.

The British Muslim community numbers more than 2 million, which is less than 3 percent of the country’s total population, but it is growing rapidly through natural increase, immigration, and conversion. How many others might there be like Mohammed Sidique Khan, biding their time before turning on their fellow citizens? Officials estimate that some 16,000 British Muslims actively engage in or support terrorism (not counting unknown numbers of foreigners resident in the country). Of these, some 3,000 have been trained at al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

No less terrifying is the fact that even the supposedly mainstream elements in the British Muslim community have become more radical in their political theology As Phillips shows in a pitiless unmasking, many of the “moderate Muslims” to whom the British authorities regularly pay obeisance are themselves hard-line Islamists, differing only by degree from more notorious recruiting sergeants for jihad. Of particular interest to Phillips is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim ‘Council of Britain. Sacranie was knighted at the same time as Britain’s chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, evidently for reasons of multicultural balance— though there is no intellectual or moral comparison between Sacks, one of Britain’s most respected religious leaders, and Sacranie, who rose to prominence by supporting Ayatollah Khomenei’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

Though he is the government chief Muslim interlocutor, Sacranie has an avowedly anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda: he justifies Hamas suicide bombings, boycotts Holocaust commemorations, and harasses pro-Israel politicians. When his equivocal attitude to terrorism was exposed by a BBC documentary last year, Sacranie accused his critics of being part of a Zionist conspiracy.

THE REAL wonder, according to Phillips, is not so much that Sacranje and his followers have aired their detestable views, but that their propaganda has been granted legitimacy; even embraced, by British officialdom. Shortly before last year’s bombings, Sir Ian Blair, London’s police commissioner, declared: “There is nothing wrong with being an Islamic fundamentalist
Bridges will be built.” Even after the attack - the worst terrorist episode in London’s history - an assistant police Commissioner could tell the nation, “Islam’ and ‘terrorists’ are two words that do not go together.” Shortly afterward, the police, for fear of raising tensions, persuaded the government to abandon its request for new powers to close down extremist mosques, as well as its plans to outlaw one of the most dangerous Islamist organizations,

British security agencies do not understand Islamic jihad, Phillips argues, because they instinctively recoil from the idea of a war of religion. Having grown up in the shadow of Irish terrorism, they believe that, like the Irish Republican Army, the Islamists can eventually be induced, with the right package of concessions, to end their “armed struggle.” To Phillips, this is nonsense: there is no deal to be made with those who want to turn Britain into an Islamic republic.

Phillips’s deeper concern is to show how her country reached this pass in its attitudes toward Islamic extremism. The culprit, she believes, is the ideological constellation Consisting of multiculturalism, moral and epistemologic relativism, and a perverted notion of human rights— all of which have served to “hollow out” traditional British culture. By encouraging Muslims to see themselves as victims, and by failing to instill respect for the majority culture, the British state, Phillips suggests, has connived in the creation of a minority whose instinctive response to terror is moral inversion.

Thus, rather than accept responsibility for the jihadists in their midst, British Muslims have demanded that the government redress their own grievances, whether about Israel and Iraq or about the status in Britain of sharia law. As Sacranie declared after the attacks on London, “the real victim of these bombings is the Muslim community of the UK.”

Still more discouraging for Phillips has been the readiness of her former political allies to make common cause with the Islamofascists. “The Islamic jihad,” she writes, “has turned into the armed wing of the British Left.” What she calls the “red-black alliance” is especially united in its hatred of Israel. Ignorant of history and theology, the leading lights of the universities, the press, and the Church of England have failed (or refused) to grasp the connection between attacks on Israel and the threat to Britain. Instead of seeing Israel as the victim of the Islamists’ “theological animosity” toward Jews and the West, they blame Israel (and its principal ally, the United States) for provoking terrorist attacks, and turn a blind eye to the prevalence of blatant anti-Semitism among their Muslim compatriots.

Londonistan is very much a cri de coeur. But it is not a cry of despair. Phillips advocates an ambitious program to reverse the process that has left Britain uniquely vulnerable to its enemies and uniquely dangerous to its allies. Abolition of wrong-headed human-rights legislation, tougher immigration controls, prosecution of Islamist radicals in special courts, bans on organizations and individual clerics who advocate extremism, close monitoring of mosques as well as of Muslim charities and schools—all of this and more would go far to remove the immediate threat. More problematic, though no less desirable, is Phillips’s call for a restoration of the primacy of indigenous British culture and Judeo-Christian values.

Some consider Phillips an alarmist. My own view is that she has, if anything, understated the peril that the “Londonistan” phenomenon poses to the U.S. and to Europe, both of which owe a profound debt to the British culture that is now in such disarray. When I worked for the London Daily Telegraph, Iqbal Sacranie and Inayat Bunglawala—the latter, another of Phillips’s subjects, is the media spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain—came to see us several times. They strongly objected to our use of the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” and demanded that Osama bin Laden be described not as an “Islamic” or even an “Islamist” terrorist but as an “international” one. To mention Islam in connection with terrorism, these lobbyists insisted, was “Islamophobic.” Their demands were rejected despite hints that Muslim readers might boycott the Telegraph; but the state has been more responsive. Editors must now tread carefully because the law now punishes Islamophobia as a “hate crime.”

Phillips has written a superb indictment of this frame of mind—an indictment, moreover, that no mainstream British publisher would touch—but will any of her recommendations be heeded? As she admits, “there is very little chance” of it. In fact, the problems she identifies are likely to grow. When the world turns its eyes to London for the 2012 Olympic Games, what it will see right next to the Olympic Stadium is one of the largest mosques in the world, with a capacity of 70,000 worshippers. The funds for this massive project have come from Tablighi Jamaat, an avowedly Islamist global organization that the FBI says is used by al-Qaeda to recruit terrorists.

It is hard to imagine a more potent symbol of the transformation of London into Londonistan. And it is hard to imagine a greater prize for the Islamists than the infiltration of the land that gave birth to liberty. Anyone who cares about Britain, or indeed about the survival of Judeo-Christian civilization, should read Melanie Phillips’s brave and disturbing book.

(DANIELJOHNSON is a columnist for the New York Sun and was formerly a columnist and senior editor for the London Times and Daily Telegraph.}

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:51 AM | Comments (0)

July 07, 2006

The Relationship between Israel and the United States

Is Israel an Asset or a Burden to Our Country?

By: FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East

The United States is without question Israel’s most important ally. Also, without question, Israel is the staunchest and most reliable friend of the United States. But there are some who believe and vigorously advocate that Israel is a burden to the United States and that were it not for Israel, peace would prevail in the Middle East.

What are the facts?

The “Israel lobby.” A patriotic-named foundation urges, in full-page ads in national newspapers (very expensive — who pays for it?), to influence Congress to withhold support for Israel. Professors from prestigious universities write essays in which they declare that the United States is in thrall to the “Israel lobby.” This lobby is said to pull the strings of American policy. Its supposed main promoters are AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the so-called “neo-cons,” some of whom are indeed Jewish. They are said to exercise an almost magical spell over policy makers, including the leaders of Congress and the President. Some even say that the Iraq war was promoted by this omnipotent “Israel lobby,” that the President was flummoxed into declaring war on Saddam Hussein, not in order to defend the United States or to promote its interests, but in order to further the interests of Israel.

Israel is indeed a major recipient of U.S. aid. Israel will receive in the year 2007 2.34 billion in military aid and 120 million dollars in economic assistance, which has been reduced each year. Almost all of the military aid is spent in the United States, making Israel one of the major customers of the U.S. defense industry. Virtually all of the economic assistance goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years.

America’s staunchest ally

A good case can be made that aid to Israel, certainly the military portion, should be part of the United States defense budget, rather than of the aid budget because Israelis, next only perhaps to Britain, by far the most important ally of the United States. Virtually without exception, Israel’s government and its people agree with and support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. In the United Nations, Israel’s votes coincide with those of the United States over 90% of the time. The Arabs and other Moslem countries, virtually all of them recipients of American largess, almost reflexively vote against the United States in most instances.

Israel is the major strategic asset of the United States in an area of the world that is the cradle of Islamo-fascism, which is dominated by tyrants and permeated by religious obscurantism (a policy of withholding information from the public) and shows almost total disregard for human rights. During the decades-long Cold War, Israel was America’s indispensable rampart against the inroads of the Soviet Union. It is now the bulwark against the aggressive intentions of Iran. During Desert Storm, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi deserts to pick up downed American pilots.

Gen. George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, stated publicly that “Israel is worth five CIAs,” with regard to intelligence passed to our country. He also stated that the yearly $1.8 billion that Israel received in military assistance was worth $50 to $60 billion in intelligence, R&D savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon.

In contrast to our commitments in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other parts, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year — including backup and, infrastructure — is estimated to be about $200,000, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone is on the order of $5 billion a year.

Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank. Its superb harbor, its outstanding military installations, the air and sea lift capabilities, and the trained manpower to maintain sophisticated equipment are readily at hand in Israel. It is the only country that makes itself available to the United States in any contingency. Yes, Israel is not a burden, but a tremendous asset to the United States.

Israel is indeed America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East and the indispensable defender of America’s interests in that area of the world. The people of the United States, individually and through their Congressional representatives, overwhelmingly support Israel in its seemingly unending fight against Arab aggression and Moslem terror. But that support is not based on the great strategic value that Israel represents to the United States. It is and always has been based on shared values of liberty, democracy, and human rights. America and Israel are aligned by their shared love of peace and democracy. Israel and the United States stand together in their fight against Islamo-fascist terrorism. These shared values, these common ideals, will bind Israel and the United States forever.

FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359 San Francisco, CA 94159
Gerardo Joffe, President

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:58 PM | Comments (0)

July 06, 2006

(The Real Mike Wallace - Arch-typical Self-hating Jew)

Mike Wallace’s Middle East Problem

By Kate Naseef

CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

As Mike Wallace nears retirement, virtually all the retrospectives so far on his 43-year career at CBS News recall his reputation for tough interviews and the ability to get the story. The reputation may be deserved, in general, but at least one subject has tripped up the “60 Minutes” veteran continually over the years — Israel.

The aggressive questioner in Wallace was not in evidence when he interviewed Yasir Arafat in 1989. As Near East Report observed, Wallace accepted Arafat’s responses largely without question. He asked if Arafat had renounced “military operations” inside Israel. Arafat’s response was, “Any people who are facing occupation or oppression have the right to use all methods.” Wallace did not probe with a follow-up question. He also didn’t question Arafat’s claim that he was going to punish the terrorist then thought responsible (the leader of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command) for the Pan Am 103 bombing in which 270 people were killed. This even though Arafat wasn’t known for punishing terrorists. (Later the perpetrators were identified as Libyans.)The late David Bar-Ilan, then editorials editor at The Jerusalem Post, suggested that Wallace “acted like a public-relations agent for Arafat” in the 1989 interview.

In a 1987 story on Soviet Jews, including Refuseniks, invited to immigrate to Israel, Wallace concluded that “one and a half million Soviets identified as Jews apparently live more or less satisfying lives.” Wallace acknowledged that Russia had a history of harboring anti-Semitism, but then said that anti-Jewish activities were against the law, without mentioning that the law was frequently broken — often by the government.

After talking with Refusenik mathematician Victor Brailovsky, whose family had been trying to emigrate to Israel for 15 years, Wallace said, “If it is just Jewish culture the Brailovsky family seeks, they could go to the Jewish Autonomous Region.” This region in Siberia, Birobidzhan, was Stalin’s solution for the Zionist challenge of Jews wanting to move to Palestine and was never popular in the Russian Jewish community. In 1987, the year Wallace filed his story, only 12,000 of the 200,000 residents of Birobidzhan were Jewish.

As Bar-Ilan noted, in Birobidzhan “there are no Jewish schools and no study of Hebrew, and ... Jews are incessantly pressured to disappear as an ethnic group ...” While Brailovsky was the only Refusenik shown in the broadcast, Wallace did interview Samuel Zivs and Mikhal Milschstein, described by Bar-Ilan as “the most notorious ‘court Jews’ in the USSR ... despised by all self-respecting Jews and representing solely the authorities.”

In 1992, Wallace did another story that touched on Russian Jews, but this time those who had immigrated to Israel. Wallace interviewed an Israeli street sweeper who had been a doctor in Russia, and an electrical engineer in an unemployment office who said that some ex-Soviet Jews had expected more from Israel. Wallace didn’t mention the challenges Russians who emigrated to the United States at the same time were having finding jobs, or the fact that more than 400,000 Jews from former Soviet states had emigrated to Israel in the previous three years. Apparently they weren’t as satisfied with their lives under Kremlin control as Wallace reported three years before.

Wallace also suggested that American taxpayers were going to pay for a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel. Congress was considering the guarantee for loans Israel sought to help fund immigration absorption. In reality, the U.S. guarantee would have been provided only if Israel defaulted on its loans, which it had never done. In addition, Wallace indicated that the money was going to be used to help annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This did not happen, but even at the time Israel had pledged to the United States that it wouldn’t spend the loans in the territories, and the Israeli government had never called for annexation.

In a 1988 segment on “60 Minutes” — 18 years before publication of the almost instantly discredited essay “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt — Wallace advanced essentially the same theme. His report seemed to be an attempt to discredit pro-Israel activists in the United States — especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — and undermine U.S. support for Israeli aid. Wallace, in Bar-Ilan’s words, “portrayed the ‘Jewish lobby’ as an insidious, all-powerful, multi-headed Washington Svengali manipulating the U.S. Congress and administration.”

Wallace said a CBS poll found that 72 percent of Americans thought the United States should not give Israel “more aid that it gives any other country.” That wording was loaded, but a poll taken by the Los Angeles Times close to the airing of Wallace’s report found that 55 percent of Americans favored the present level of U.S. aid to Israel or an increase.

Near East Report noted that after this segment aired, three congressmen spoke the next day to contradict it. Sen. Al Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) and Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY) both emphasized the importance of a strong U.S.-Israeli alliance. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) cited a study asserting that it would cost the United States $45 billion more in defense spending to protect U.S. interests in the Middle East without Israel or absent U.S. aid to Israel.

In late 1990, Wallace reported on Arab riots on the Temple Mount, in which several thousand people stoned Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall before beleaguered Israeli police shot some rioters in regaining control. He based his report almost exclusively on Palestinian sources, choosing Palestine Liberation Organization mouthpiece Daoud Kuttab as main production consultant, ignored key Israeli sources, took then-Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek’s comments out of context, and spliced in a pre-riot tape of then-Foreign Ministry spokesman Benjamin Netanyahu rather than tape a post-riot interview. Essentially, Wallace’s report reversed the order of events, making it appear that the stone-throwing riot followed the police shooting rather than led to it.

In a number of other segments, Wallace’s portrayal of Israel was similarly skewed. In 1982, “60 Minutes” aired a segment that featured an Israeli who had only lived in the country for three years, speaking out against his new land, but cut the interviews Wallace had done with Israel’s deputy foreign minister and the former ambassador to the United States. In 1975 and 1984, Wallace filed reports on Syria that minimized the oppression of Syrian Jews and obscured the dictatorial nature of Hafez al-Assad’s regime.

Mike Wallace may be missed by some CBS viewers, but not his reporting on Israel and other related subjects.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:32 AM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2006


June 27, 2006

Once again, the real news is deliberately not being reported, as it should. At present, in my Hebrew class, there is a woman who recently made aliya from Paris with her family. I have spoken with her about anti-Semitism in France and she confirmed that it is very, very serious and getting worse every week. She and her family fled Paris and came to Israel, fearing for their lives - literally. This is first hand, my friends.

To give you an idea of what's going on in France where there are now between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews Here is an email that came from another Jew still in France. Please read! Will the world say nothing again, as it did in Hitler's time?

He writes, "I AM A JEW -- therefore I am forwarding this to everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back and do nothing." Nowhere have the flames of anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France:

· In Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set on fire.
· In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center was firebombed;
· In Strasbourg and Marseilles, so were synagogues
· In Creteil, so was a Jewish school - all recently.
· In Toulouse, A Jewish sports club was attacked with Molotovcocktails.
In Paris, on the statue of Alfred Dreyfus the words "Dirty Jew" were painted.
· In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars.
· In Aubervilliers the bus that takes Jewish children to school has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.
· In Metropolitan Paris, according to the Police, there have been 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past 30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been defaced with slogans proclaiming "Jews to the gas chambers" and "Death to the Jews."
· In Toulouse, A gunman opened fire on a kosher butcher's shop and, of course, the butcher.
· In Villeurbanne, France a Jewish couple in their 20s were beaten up by five men. The woman was pregnant;
· In Sarcelles, a Jewish school was broken into and vandalized. This was just in the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a friend, or merely a
person with the capacity and desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do, at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don't ever let yourself become deluded into thinking that this is not your fight. I remind you of what Pastor Neimoller said in World War II:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and, unlike them, France exports more than just oil and hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes. Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and, whatever else we may know about the French, we most certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a hurricane in the face of well-directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends, and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of good conscience that you know and let them know that you and the people that you care about need their help. The number one best selling book in France is "September 11: The Frightening Fraud," which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon.

Is it any wonder that Aliya from France to Israel has increased dramatically?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:48 AM | Comments (0)

July 02, 2006

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert as an Accessory to Murder

By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, Editor

Arutz Sheva June 18, 2006

The Manhigut Yehudit faction of the Likud released a statement calling anyone involved in last week's transfer of weapons to the Palestinian Authority an "accessory to murder." Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) "sees the prime minister, the defense minister, the justices of the High Court of Justice, and any officer and soldier involved in the transfer of weapons to the murderer Abu Mazen and his gang as accessories to the murder of Jews," the movement's statement said. Furthermore, Manhigut Yehudit, headed by Moshe Feiglin, declared that it would work towards trying the aforementioned before a court of law when the movement takes over the reigns of power.

The Israeli government, through the IDF, transferred 1,050 automatic rifles and one million bullets to the Palestinian Authority. The weapons reached the Allenby Crossing, on the Jordan-Israel border, as a gift to PA head Mahmoud Abbas from the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. Other reports state that the guns are a gift of the United States. IDF forces then transported the weapons from the Jordanians across Israel and handed them over to PA forces at the Erez and Karni crossings into the Gaza Strip.

During his visit to Jordanian King Abdullah II earlier this month, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approved the Jordanian request to transfer the weapons to the PA. The weapons transfer is apparently meant to prop up the militia controlled by Abbas; however, IDF sources report that the low-level war waged between Fatah and Hamas in the PA indicates that the weapons may not stay in the hands of Abbas-controlled gunmen.

A senior member of the terrorist Force 17, aligned with the Fatah movement, told WorldNetDaily that the weapons earmarked for Abbas's personal guard will be used against Israel. Terrorist Abu Yousef told WND that the weapons - some of which, he claims, were delivered to the PA earlier than last week - have already have been used in two shooting attacks, one of which resulted in the death of an Arab whose car was mistaken for that of a Jew.

"These weapons will not be used in an internal war, but against Israelis," he said. "Force 17... will also be the first to lead the Palestinians in the current struggle against Israeli occupation."

On Thursday, the High Court of Justice turned down three petitions, one of which was filed by the Almagor terror victims association, asking it to ban the arms shipment to the PA. Prior to its final rendering in the matter, the court turned down an appeal to delay the transfer until it ruled on the petition.

The Hamas terrorist organization also released a statement demanding an explanation as to how the weapons and bullets made their way to Abbas and his men. In light of the violent clashes over power in the Palestinian Authority between Hamas and Abbas's Fatah organization, Hamas leaders are concerned that the weapons shipment changes the internal balance of power.

On Saturday, Abbas denied that he had received weapons from Israel to shore up his personal militia, but he admitted that general PA forces have been in need of weapons. It is widely assumed that the public reports of Israel's transfer of weapons to Abbas in order to help him fight Hamas have not strengthened his image within the Palestinian Authority public.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:16 AM | Comments (0)