June 29, 2007

NY Post columnist, Ralph Peters, takes on Six Day War Historical Revisionists

By Jason Moaz, Senior Editor The Jewish Press
June 7, 2007

Trolling the Internet these past couple of weeks has served to quash any lingering, hopeful doubts that the post-Zionists have indeed won the battle over how Israel is perceived. (… by the ignorant, the uninformed and deliberate liars) jsk.

The historical revisionists, whose initial attempts at recasting Israel’s image from David to Goliath were focused on the events surrounding Israel’s creation, have in recent years focused increasingly on the 1967 Six-Day War, which for the first decade or so after its occurrence was widely seen as a case of Israel’s justified response to Arab threats and aggression.

But, as Israel in the 1970’s and 1980’s came to lose favor among liberal and leftist academics and journalists, there was a significant shift in the way the Six-Day War was being portrayed — in terms of both cause and effect. The change was already evident well before the term “post-Zionism” was coined, and became even more pronounced as post-Zionism came into its own in the 1990’s.

So it was refreshing to see military historian and New York Post columnist Ralph Peters take on the post-Zionists this week with a free-swinging celebration of Israel’s 1967 victory. Peters, a retired intelligence officer, castigated, “revisionist historians [for] reinventing the Six-Day War as the source of Israel’s problems.”

Reading the revisionists, he wrote, one would think “prior to June 1967, Israelis had lived in an Age of Aquarius, eating lotus blossoms amid friendly Bedouin neighbors who tucked them in at night. The critics also imply that, by some unexplained magic, Israel might have avoided war and its consequences.”

Contrary to the doomsayers, “June 1967 announced Israel as a regional great power — less than 20 years after the state’s desperate founding. And the Six-Day War remains more important today for what it achieved than for the Arab failures it left behind....

“The Six-Day War didn’t create the Middle East’s problems, it only changed the math. For Israel, it marked a coming of age. Taken together with the Yom Kippur War, six years later — two rounds in a single fight, really — the war of June 1967 meant the end of Israel’s basic struggle for existence and the beginning of its ‘quality of life’ wars.”

“In the real world,” Peters concluded, “outcomes aren’t perfect. There are no wars to end all wars. The proper question is, “Are you better off than before the shooting started? Judged by that common-sense standard, Israel is vastly better off than it was on the eve of the Six-Day War. Thanks to the heroes of June 1967, Israel survived. Miracle enough.”

Peters’s column brought to mind a piece written two decades ago by the redoubtable George F. Will. A slew of American and Israeli intellectuals were marking the 20th anniversary of the Six-Day War by lamenting Israel’s lopsided victory, which, they sobbed, had transformed Jews into occupiers and oppressors and hardened them to the plight of the Palestinians.

It remained for Will to cut through the muck (crap) of leftists wallowing in misplaced guilt, which he did in a Newsweek column titled, “A Just War Remembered.” “It has been 20 years since those six days that shook the world,” he wrote. “Because of what happened then, a united Jerusalem is capital of Israel, and Israel never again will be 12 miles wide at the waist. Because of the war the West Bank, which Jordan seized militarily and held for 19 years, is rightfully Israel’s to dispose of, as it deems prudent.

“And, because of the echoing thunderclap from Israel 20 Junes ago, the security of Israel and hence the spiritual well-being of world Jewry have been enhanced. The Holocaust ended in 1945, but the Holocaust as aspiration was not destroyed until June 1967, when Israel smashed encircling armies that had the inescapably genocidal mission of obliterating the national gathering of Jews.”

Noting the inclination in certain circles to denigrate the idea of history being determined by the actions of individuals, Will wrote that it was “invigorating to revisit in memory the Six-Day War, a clear case of enormous consequences assignable to the decisions of particular people — Nasser, Hussein and some young Israeli pilots and tankers who reminded the world of the good that can come from a just war.”

George Will and Ralph Peters — two non-Jews with more intellectual honesty and moral clarity than all of Israel’s post-Zionists and their American Jewish fellow travelers put together.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2007

Contrary to the Liberal Media and the Democratic Party …

Many political experts evidence the fact that we are winning the war in Iraq

Slow-Motion Tet

The Weekly Standard, July 2, 2007

By William Kristol – Editor, The Weekly Standard
Fred W. Kagan – Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Wash., DC

Last week, a group of tribal leaders in Salah-ad-Din, the mostly Sunni province due north of Baghdad, agreed to work with the Iraqi government and U.S. forces against al Qaeda. Then a! Qaeda destroyed the two remaining minarets of the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra, a city in the province. Coincidence? Perhaps. However, Al Qaeda is clearly taking a page from the Viet Cong’s book.

The terrorists have been mounting a slow-motion Tet offensive of spectacular attacks on markets, bridges, and mosques, knowing that the media report each such attack as an American defeat. The fact is that al Qaeda is steadily losing its grip in Iraq, and these attacks are alienating its erstwhile Iraqi supporters. However, the terrorists are counting on sapping our will as the Viet Cong did, and persuading America to choose to lose a war it could win.

The Salah-ad-Din announcement that Iraqis were turning against al Qaeda was just one of many such announcements over recent weeks and months. Some media reports have tried to debunk this development, reporting, for example, that the Sunni coalition against al Qaeda in Anbar province is fragmenting. But, even the fragments are saying that they will continue to cooperate with us and fight al Qaeda.

Sunni movements similar to the one in Anbar have developed and grown in Babil province, south of Baghdad, and even in strife-torn and mixed Diyala province to the northeast. Most remarkable, local Sunnis in Baghdad recently rose up against al Qaeda, and even hardcore Baathist insurgent groups have reached out to U S forces to cooperate in the fight against the terrorists. Far from being evidence of our desperation and danger, as some have claimed, this turn of events demonstrates the degree to which al Qaeda is repelling Iraqis.

It has long been clear that most Iraqis want nothing to do with al Qaeda’s religious and political views. They do not find the intolerant and occasionally ludicrous al Qaeda program appealing. For example, being required to segregate vegetables in a market by sex, as al Qaeda fighters have apparently demanded, appalls Iraqis just as it would Americans. Yet, whenever al Qaeda makes itself comfortable in an Iraqi neighborhood, it begins to enforce its absurd and intolerant version of Islam. Locals resist, and al Qaeda begins to “punish” them with an increasing scale of atrocities. Just that sort of escalation led to al Qaeda’s loss of control in Anbar and to the growth of the various anti-al Qaeda movements in Iraq’s Sunni community.

Iraqis have also shown that they are not interested in having their homes become a base for the export of international terrorism, even as Al Qaeda, in Iraq, proclaims itself a “vanguard,” like all good al Qaeda franchises, in the war against the infidel crusaders (us) and the Muslim heretics (the Shia and all others who practice a form of Islam different from al Qaeda’s). The overwhelming majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are still foreigners, and Iraqis have never lined up at the gates of al Qaeda recruiting stations for training and dispatch to foreign lands.

Iraq’s Sunnis have tolerated, al Qaeda’s presence all these years for one reason: Terrorists are good fighters. As long as Iraq’s Sunni Arab community thought that it could use violence to regain control of Iraq or felt that it faced an existential threat from the Shiite majority, al Qaeda was a useful if unpleasant ally. But, the willingness even of some of the hardest core Sunni Arab insurgents to negotiate with U.S. forces shows how far the Sunnis have come toward recognizing reality. They will not regain control of Iraq militarily, and will have to make the best deal they can get within the political system. And, they will not face an existential threat from the Shia as long as we are there, and not at all, if an appropriate political deal can be cut. These are signs of the waning of an insurgency and ominous signs indeed for the parasitic terrorists who rely on the blood of sectarian violence to survive.

The way ahead will not be smooth. The second attack on the al-Askariya mosque creates a dangerous situation whose effects cannot yet be seen. Even beyond that incident, the path toward political reconciliation will be long, tortuous, and marked by setbacks. It will not follow timelines dictated from Washington, and it will not be accomplished by a nicely typed legislative package. Politics, like war, is messy, unpredictable, and not subject to timelines. However, real progress has already been made in the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the terrorists know it. That’s why they’re surging against our surge, and why they are attempting to convince us that we have lost when it is they who are losing.

However, surely our political leaders have enough sense, and enough courage, not to believe enemy propaganda. We believed it once before, in 1968, in circumstances far less dangerous and far less consequential to our well being than the present. Let’s not make that grave mistake again.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:25 PM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2007

The De-Frocking of Presidential Candidate John Edwards

NY Times Digest to the Right and Washington Times to the Left

1. John Edwards – Beneficiary of own Poverty Center!

New York Times Digest, June 24, 2007

By Leslie Wayne

CHAPEL HILL, NC. — John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution: creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show.

A spokesman for Edwards on Thursday defended the center, however, as a legitimate tool against poverty. The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states. While Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax-deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

According to experts on nonprofit foundations, Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status. “It’s a permanent campaign,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group based in Washington. “It’s about shaking every money tree possible and finding every means to finance a permanent campaign.”

But Edwards’s deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, said, “One of the Center for Promise and Opportunity’s main goals was to raise awareness about poverty and engage people to fight it. Of course, it sent Senator Edwards around the country to do this. How else could we have engaged tens of thousands of college students or sent 700 young people to help rebuild New Orleans?”

2. John Edwards and Sub-Prime Mortgages

The Washington Times June 4, 2007

In April, when John Edwards announced his plan to fight predatory lending, he charged that the increase sub prime mortgages in recent years had contributed to last year’s 42 percent rise in foreclosures, which are “devastating communities.” Sub prime mortgages, which are extended to borrowers with poor credit histories or insufficient financial resources to qualify for standard mortgages, carry higher interest rates, higher fees and onerous penalties.

These “shameful lending practices:’ said Mr. Edwards, who had founded the now-defunct anti-poverty Center for Promise & Opportunity after losing m 2004, “are compromising our strength as a nation?’ In May, Mr. Edwards revealed that he had holdings worth more than $11 million in Fortress Investment Group, a $30 billion hedge-fund operator that paid Mr. Edwards $479,000 as a part-time consultant from October 2005 through December 2006. Fortress incorporated its hedge funds in the Cayman Islands as offshore tax havens, a policy that Mr. Edwards has condemned for years. Fortress has also invested billions and billions of dollars purchasing sub prime mortgage portfolios, sub prime mortgage lenders and sub prime mortgage-servicing firms.

Meanwhile, in a story titled “John Edwards’ Convenient Nonprofit:” Business Week reports that Mr. Edwards conveniently hired staffers who previously
worked as his political operatives and would return to his current presidential campaign in that capacity. As Mr. Edwards was raking in nearly half a million dollars as a consultant for the offshore hedge funds deeply invested in sub prime mortgages, his anti-poverty center was also doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to consultants. In 2005 alone, the center spent $259,000 on consultants whom Mr. Edwards now refuses to name. Obviously, hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2007

1. Israel folding on the Golan Heights?

When will the self-destructive insanity cease?

By Dore Gold, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
2. Must-see video on World-Wide Islam.

Please copy and paste to your search engine if the link here does not work.


By starting with a statement that Israel will pay the price for peace with Syria, as reported in Yedioth Ahronoht, the Israeli leadership is strongly hinting that it is willing to withdraw completely from the Golan Heights. The Israeli public deserves answers to several critical questions before these proposals to Syria go forward.

1. Everyone knows that the Syrian regime is completely isolated and facing an international tribunal that will investigate its role in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria needs these negotiations to get out the predicament it faces--in other words. Israel has a great deal of leverage, and certainly does not have to agree to full withdrawal. Under such circumstances, why should Israel signal that it is willing to consider a full withdrawal?

2. Moreover, in 1975, President Gerald Ford wrote to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that the US would "give great weight to Israel remaining on the Golan Heights." This US commitment was repeated by Secretary of State James Baker to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1991, right before the Madrid Peace conference, and by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, right before negotiations began over Hebron. And, even if Israel wishes to test Syrian intentions through negotiations, why start with a complete collapse of Israel's negotiating position. :

3. If the government seeks to come down from the Golan Heights, is it certain that it can achieve any of the "security arrangements" suggested in the past. Remember back in October 1973, Israel deployed 177 tanks against 1400 on the Syrian side. How does Israel plan to address these kinds of asymmetries that still exist? Does the government believe that it can push most of Syria's armored formations behind Damascus, from their current deployment zone between Damascus and the Golan? If the Syrians are unwilling to agree to these arrangements then the Israeli government cannot provide the alternatives to the Golan Heights that were advanced by those who advocated withdrawal in the 1990's.

4. An alternative model for security without the Golan Heights requires a huge expenditure by the US for high technology weaponry for the IDF. Has anyone checked whether the US is prepared to significant increase aid to Israel when it has been cut over the last ten years? Will the US fund peace arrangements with the country that has been aiding al-Qaeda to support the insurgency in Iraq? Do we have assurances that before the start of negotiations, Syria will stop hosting terrorist groups killing Israelis and our American allies?

5. And what is the actual line of withdrawal? Syria claims the June 4, 1967 line, which gives it the northeastern shore the Kinneret. In the 1950's, when the Syrian encroached on the Kinneret shoreline, they formally claimed its waters as well. During the Barak government, the Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara hinted at his willingness to compromise this point, only to be rebuked by Hafiz al-Assad. Has somebody done his homework this time and checked?

6. Most importantly, what is driving the government to do this? Is there a demographic problem on the Golan Heights? No.

In fact, the Golan has been in Israel's hands more years than it has been in Syria's hands. In the last ten years, there has been a tendency to experiment with the security of Israel though all kinds of initiatives, without any serious staff work. The results have been disastrous. It is time to be serious and stop experimenting with Israel's future.

Dr Dore Gold heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: www.jcpa.org.il

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 13, 2007

Some U.S. Muslims back suicide attacks

By Jennifer Harper

The Washington Times, May 28, 2007

The first nationwide survey of Muslim Americans reveals that more than a quarter of those younger than 30 say suicide bombings to defend Islam are justified, a fact that drowned out the poll’s kinder, gentler findings suggesting that the community is mainstream and middle class. “There are trouble spots,” noted Andrew Kohut; director of the Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey of 1,050 adult Muslim Americans — two-thirds of whom were foreign born. The results were released on May 22, 2007.

“We should be disturbed that 26 percent of these young people support an ideology in which the ends justify the means,” said Dr Zuhdj Jasser, chairman of the Arizona based American Islamic Forum for Democracy. “But the survey also found that only 40 percent of the overall American Muslim population would even admit that Arabs were behind 9/11. They’re in denial, refusing to take moral responsibility and the radicals will feed on this,” Dr. Jasser said.

Farid Senzai of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding said he had “concern” about evidence of youthful radicalism. The revelation that some young American Muslims condone violent bombings led coverage from CBS News, the Associated Press, Reuters, the Detroit Free Press, the Los Angeles Times, and other news Organizations.

“I’m not surprised that the press picked up on the bad news, because that is what sells. I’d like to see another ethnic group get asked the same question ” said Laila Al-Qatamj of the Washington-based Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee”. What’s also missing were the responses about what it means among Muslims to be an American, or their opinions about education health care and domestic issues. Failure to include this stuff lends an impression that American Muslims are different,” she added.

(Is she saying that 26% of other Americans would OK suicide bombings or would not admit that Muslims – all 21 of whom were Arabs – were not responsible for 9/11 or is she just trying to change the subject and go into the usual Arab denial mode?) Jsk

Indeed, seven out of 10 of the respondents rated their communities as good or excellent and said they would get ahead through the “American work ethic”, a greater percentage than found in the general public. Seventy-three percent have never been discriminated against as a Muslim on these shores, and 78 percent said they were either “pretty happy” or ‘very happy” with their lives. Practicing their religion was a positive as well. 74 percent said they were satisfied with the quality of mosques in their neighborhoods. “Failure to include this stuff lends an impression that American Muslims are different,” she added.

The survey, which estimates the US. Muslim population to be 2.3 million, emphasizes the more positive findings, billing the group as “middle class and mainstream,” socially assimilated and happy. “Clearly this public comes across as much more moderate than much of the Muslim public in most of the world.

(You mean like in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Gaza and the West Bank of Israel? Well, that’s encouraging!) Jsk

They re decidedly American in outlook,” Mr. Kohut said.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:36 AM | Comments (0)

June 10, 2007

Why Support Columbia University?

Redacted from an article:

By Phillip Terzian

Weekly Standard April 30, 2007

You may have noticed that Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution won this year’s Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary. Two caveats came to mind as I learned of the award. The first is to declare that I’m pleased Cynthia Tucker won the Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary. The second caveat is more complicated, but may be boiled down to one simple proposition that most casual observers would consider obvious: The Pulitzer Prizes are a singularly corrupt institution, administered by Columbia University and the management of the New York Times largely for the benefit of the New York Times and a limited number of favored publications and personalities.

Any citizen who thinks that the annual distribution of awards has something to do with quality probably believes that the Oscar for Best Picture goes to the most distinguished film of the year. If you’re a connoisseur of unrestrained self-praise, may I recommend the citations when the Times awards itself the Pulitzer Gold Medal for Public Service.

(Incidentally, once again events apparently unrelated fall surprisingly in place. The article above fits very nicely with the commentary about Columbia University that Morton Klein. National President of the Zionist Org. of America made below. The item above describes the complicity of Columbia University in what I did not know was, in fact, an annually celebrated sham – The Pulitzer Prizes. Klein’s commentary below speaks to the faculty of the once illustrious Columbia University. Columbia in the past hired a notorious anti-Semite, Israeli basher and terrorist supporter to balance out their already anti-Israel Middle East Department from just the usual far Left, frequently Jewish staffed department, to include yet another Israeli hater –thus rounding out the department, philosophically, for the declared benefit of Columbia students obtaining a “liberal” education.) Jsk

ZOA Criticizes Columbia U.'s hiring of another Anti-Israel Extremist for Its Faculty

NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has protested Columbia University’s decision to hire yet another anti-Israel extremist for its faculty.

Mary Robinson, the former United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, has been hired to teach in Columbia’s Department of International and Public Affairs and to serve as a senior research scholar at Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute. (Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 23, 2004)

Examples of Robinson’s anti-Israel extremism:
· Under Robinson, the UN Human Rights Commission sanctioned the use of “all available means” —which implicitly includes suicide bombings and other terrorism— to fight Israel. (New York Sun, April 29, 2002)
· In an interview with Salon.com on July 26, 2002, Robinson falsely claimed that “the occupation is at the root of many of the human rights problems, and the intifada, which had started then [in September 2000], was only at the stage of stone throwing and young people being killed” —in fact, there had been many suicide bombings and other mass terror attacks before then.
· While condemning suicide bombings, Robinson in the same breath asserted that America is to blame for future Palestinian Arab suicide bombings: “I find it very disheartening that there is not more understanding here [in America] of the appalling suffering of the Palestinian population, nor appreciation that this is not going to lead to a secure future. It’s going to lead to greater hatred and desperation, of further suicide bombings.” (Salon.com, July 26, 2002)
· Robinson continues to defend the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic conference at Durban in 2001, in which she participated. She has complained, “There are those who refuse now to accept that any good came out of Durban.” (Salon.com, July 26, 2002)
· Robinson’s report, as U.N. Human Rights Commissioner, on conditions in Judea-Samaria and Gaza was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League as “distorted and detrimental” because Robinson “opted to blame the Israeli military and settlements for provoking the Palestinian violence.”
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: “The hiring of Mary Robinson sends a message that those who hate the Jewish State are welcome at Columbia. How many Jewish parents will want to send their children to a campus with such a hate-infested atmosphere?”

Other anti-Israel extremists at Columbia:
· Rashid Khalidi, who was recently named to the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies, has been a longtime adviser to PLO terrorist chief Yasir Arafat and a member of the PLO’s Palestine National Council.
· Until his death last year, terror supporter Edward Said held the prestigious post of Parr Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia. Said publicly supported the Palestinian Arabs’ murder of fellow-Arabs whom it accused of helping Israel (Critical Inquiry, Spring 1989); personally threw rocks at Israeli soldiers at the Israel-Lebanon border (New Republic, July 24, 2000); and fabricated his life story to make it appear as if he was a refugee driven out of Jerusalem by the Jews when he was a child, when in fact he grew up in Egypt (Commentary, Sept. 1999).

· Tom Paulin, in 2002, Columbia hired Irish poet Tom Paulin as a visiting professor, even though Paulin told the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram Online that American Jews who reside in Judea-Samaria “should be shot dead. I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them.” Paulin also said he “never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all,” and “I can understand how suicide bombers feel. I think, though, it is better to resort to conventional guerrilla warfare. I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale.” In addition, in one of his poems, Paulin referred to what he called “the Zionist SS.” (Jerusalem Post, Nov. 14, 2002; Forward, Nov. 22, 2002)

So, why in the world would a Jew send his kids or contribute to Columbia University in any way? jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:42 PM | Comments (0)

June 04, 2007

The Media’s Distortion of The US War in Iraq & The Israeli/Hezbollah war in Lebanon

By Dennis Praeger

Washington Times Weekly Edition, May 21, 2007

America has “lost” the war in Iraq primarily because most people believe it has. Most people believe it has because the news media said so. If this sounds bizarre, consider this: Why is it widely believed that Israel lost its 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon? The answer is essentially the same — people believe it because the media said so. In fact, there is no rational case for arguing that Israel lost its war against Hezbollah.

I have believed that Israel won, or at least that Hezbollah lost, since the end of the war in 2006. I was convinced of this by Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star. In an interview on my radio talk show, he made the compelling case that Hezbollah had lost. I was reminded of this by a re-cent Thomas Friedman column. Echoing the Beirut editor, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist delineated six reasons why Hezbollah lost that war. In Mr. Friedman’s words, they are:

1. “Mr. Nasrallah (the head of Hezbollah) demonstrated a total failure to anticipate Israel’s response to his raid – some 1200 Lebanese died because of this gross error in judgment?’

2. “(Hezbollah) did grievous harm to Lebanon’s fragile democracy and democratization in the Arab world. All the fears that if you let an Islamist party into government it will not respect the rules of the game were fulfilled by Hezbollah?’

3. “By launching all these rockets prematurely without strategic purpose, Hezbollah has diminished its capability and Syria’s and Iran’s?’

4. “(Hezbollah) has lost its military infrastructure, and can’t attack Israel now without getting embroiled with France and Italy (which have peacekeeping troops in southern Lebanon) — a huge strategic loss for Hezbollah?’

5. “Israel has embarked on a broad upgrade of its military (thanks to the lessons learned from its poor performance). In any future war Arab armies will meet a much better trained and equipped Israeli force”

6. “Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s attack has resulted in billions of dollars of damage to Lebanese homes, factories and roads, with Shiite areas the worst hit and with zero security benefit to Lebanon.”

So Why does just about everyone believe that Israel “lost” the war in Lebanon? For two primary reasons:
First, the world defines victory of the stronger party — in this case, Israel — as either total victory or as a loss. Israel did not destroy Hezbollah therefore, it lost.
Second, the world’s news media said Israel lost, and the media now determine reality.

Some 40 years ago, Marshall McLuhan made his prophetic statement, “The medium is the message.” It is truer than ever. Man-made global warming is deemed the greatest threat to mankind’s future because the media have announced it to be so. Anna Nicole Smith’s death was significant because the media said it was. Genocide in Sudan is insignificant because the media don’t much report on it. The Chinese decimation and annexation of Tibet is insignificant because the media have ignored it.

The Israeli army and defense establishment made grave errors, which have been the focus of a devastating Israeli government report. However, those errors do not negate the fact that Hezbollah lost that war. Likewise, America is said to have lost the war in Iraq. As with Israel, the stronger party - America - has not achieved total victory - since no one has surrendered and there are still terrorists and insurgents, America is deemed to have lost and the media with its ideological ally, the Democratic Party — have been announcing the American defeat for years.

One lesson to be learned from these two wars is that victory, as we have understood it in the past may not be possible when fighting terror organizations. There will be never be an equivalent to the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in 1945. There is no way to completely stop suicide terror against “soft” targets or to stop car bombs in public places. The only total victory over Islamic terrorists will have to come from within the Muslim world.

There will have to be theological and moral revulsion so great that no Muslim would dare risk hell and universal Islamic opprobrium by targeting innocents for murder. Unfortunately, that day seems quite distant.

In fact, America will have lost in Iraq only when America decides it has lost. And then it becomes what is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:29 PM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2007

Palestinian Refugee Camps

What Goes Around Comes Around

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Once again, lost and missing in the maze of media sensationalism with multiple dead bodies, exploding buildings, smoke columns, fires, screaming children, sobbing mothers and amputee males, is any real explanation as to the root cause of what is now happening in Lebanon. The tragic irony of it all is that what goes around comes around, perhaps in just retribution. Way back in 1948 Arab leaders Gamal Nassar of Egypt, Hafez Assad of Syria, King Hussein of Jordan, the Iraqis, Ibn Saud’s Saudi Arabia strongly advised their Arab brethren in British Palestine (which was, in fact, ancient Israel) to temporarily get out of Israel immediately so as to not get in the way of their attacking armies. They were promised a return in just a few days plus the opportunity to divide up all the spoils from the defeat, dispossession, and murder of the Israeli Jews

The Arab leaders chose to totally ignore the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council Resolution of 1948 vote allowing the Jews to finally re-form their own nation on a postage stamp size territory not 1/6th of 1% of the lands that had already been given to the Arabs following WWI to form their own 22 nations. This state of Israel was historically just the return of a very small portion of the land from which the Jews had been expelled by the Romans apx. 2000 years ago (70-135 CE) and had lived in about 1500 years before that. All this history, in fact, occurred apx. 2000 years before Muhammad was even born (570 CE)!

Then what happened? Through G-d’s miracle, 600,000 destitute Jews, many just off the boats from Hitler’s concentration camps, prevailed in the battles and defeated the five long established Arab armies assembled to exterminate them. As a result of this War, the 420,000 Arabs that had left the land at the insistence of their leadership elected not to return and the current Arab refugee problem was off and running. Historian Schmuel Katz comments on the refugees created by the conflict in the International Jerusalem Post, October 2003:

“The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight. By December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported the original 420, 000 Arab had somehow grown to 750,000 "refugees,” who were being fed and housed by UNWRA and by July 1949 the UN reported a round million.”

What is the current condition of these now 3 generations of refugees? Their number has now grown to 4.4 million! Only Jordan, of the Arab countries to which they had fled, has accepted them as full citizens. A completely sick society has developed, aided and abetted by the unique United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees. This agency, wonder of wonders, consists of a staff of 24,324 - 99% of whom are Palestinians! Is it any wonder that the Palestinian Refugee problem has never been solved? Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg for both the recipients of this largess plus an administration that admittedly gobbles up for itself 70% of the money contributed!

What was the purpose of these refugee camps? They specialize in indoctrinating three generations of Arabs in the hatred of Israel and the Jews and their right to return to a land most of them have never seen and to which have not the remotest real connection. The camps are military training grounds where young men and women are trained intensely in the use of terror and suicide bombing. Unfortunately, the training has been imminently successful and therein lies what goes around comes around.

These well-trained terrorists are now functioning on their own, all over the world and frequently against the country in which they have been indoctrinated. The situation in Lebanon is now the prime example with Palestinian Fatah al-Islam Jihadists attacking the Lebanese government and taking the side of Syria and Islamic Jihad to overthrow the representative government of Muslims, Christians and Druse thus following Muhammed’s directive to create a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

In Jordan, King Abdullah like his father, King Hussein before him, lives in daily peril for his life surrounded by his Palestinian citizens who espouse no loyalty to his Hashemite monarchy. Moreover, although Iraq remains the preferred destination for jihadists, experts on Al Qaeda say the group may be sending fighters out of the country to open new fronts all over the Middle East. Fatah al-Islam, based in a Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon, associates itself with the ideas of al Qaeda, even if does not claim any organizational links to the network.

Perhaps then there is some sort of just retribution - What goes around does indeed come around. The terrorists that were trained for 60 years to annihilate Israelis have instead turned on their own supposed brethren, with no end of the killing in sight.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:49 PM | Comments (0)