November 19, 2003

USA shoots self in foot - pressures an ally

Republicans about to forfeit great progress made in wresting Jewish vote and major contributions from Democrats.

NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America is deeply troubled by a report that the Bush administration is pressuring Israel to make more concessions to Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported (Nov.17, 2003) that "the
Americans are exerting more pressure on Israel" in order to help the new Palestinian Authority prime minister, Ahmed Qurei --even though Qurei was hand-picked by Arafat, and the Bush administration has said it will not deal with Arafat because of his continuing sponsorship of terrorism.

The JTA report added: "'If there is any sign that Abu Ala is serious,
we might try to make the Israelis do something to make it worth Abu Ala's while,' a senior American official told JTA, using Qurei's nom de guerre."

The JTA noted that there have been additional recent instances of U.S.
pressure on Israel, concerning the Bush administration's attitude towards the "Geneva Accord" and a related petition drive, both of which call for an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 borders and the quick establishment of a Palestinian Arab state. "Both initiatives were well received in Washington," the JTA reported, "with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz going out of their way to praise them--and, by implication, implying that Sharon could do more."

The JTA report added that there has been considerable "behind-the-scenes U.S. pressure" on Israel. "For weeks now, the Americans have been pressing Israel to lift closures of Palestinian areas, transfer Palestinian tax funds and dismantle unauthorized West Bank settlement outposts."

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "The Bush administration
is tragically ignoring the Palestinian Authority's refusal to dismantle terrorist groups and halt anti-American and anti-Jewish incitement--in fact, the administration is trying to appease the terrorist PA regime. The United States should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with its allies against the terrorists, not pressuring our allies to make concessions to terrorists."

The ZOA recently initiated a letter, which was signed by 70 Members of Congress, urging President Bush to stop "discussing further concessions from Israel" and to instead insist that the Palestinian Authority take "concrete, decisive action" against terrorists.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 13, 2003

Crestwood School District Succombs to Threat

As anticipated, discretion is the better part of valor - at least the Mayor of Dearborn Heights, MI, Mary A. Canfield and the Crestwood School District Superintendent, Oscar Brown, thought so. They heeded the dire warnings of FBI Award reject, Imad Hamad, Regional Director of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee when he warned them if a school day was not taken off the schedule to celebrate the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan,

“ Rushing into decisions that involve such sensitive issues might bring serious ramifications and unexpected unhealthy consequences. This is why, we further urge the school board not to individualize the issue, and jeopardize the position of any of the fine staff of the Dearborn Heights Public Schools.”

And, as has been proven all over the world, terrorism does pay. Victims are afraid and do act to pacify their attackers. Dearborn Heights Mayor Mary A. Canfield had immediately judged, the language was “not a threat” and said, “I think there is a very easy solution to this problem. The School Board is going to vote for days off for the children and that should be the end of the problem.”

And sure enough, November 10, 2003, the Crestwood School District Superintendent, Oscar Brown announced that November 25th would be taken off by the school district because he “ was responding to a few issues” including the risk that not enough students would attend classes to officially qualify as an “instruction day” under state attendance laws. Funny he should say that since at most only 30% of the students in the district are of Muslim descent.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 11, 2003

The Understandably Misguided Jew

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Aaron Lerner, below points out an example of why American Jewry remains in a Left Wing uninformed bubble of passivity, misplaced guilt, self-hate, failure to defend Israeli and Jewish rights and in a constant mode of self-destruction. It is without doubt because the American Federations via United Jewish Charities and Jewish Councils continue to sponsor, most often, total Left wing self-hating apologetic writers and speakers like Daniel Kurtzer, Tony Lapid, Shimon Peres, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Haim Ramon, Yossi Beilin, Aaron Miller, Michael Melchior - the list is endless. This tragedy is compounded by most Jewish Newspapers who add immeasurably to the destructive process as a result of using as their primary news service the Left Wing Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) and writers such as Leslie Susser, Herb Keinon. Larry Derfner and others as their primary Israel reporters. Unfortunately, the Israelis suffer from the same media mindset.

It is the above scenario that has led Israel and the Jewish people into the disaster of Oslo and the so-called "peace process." It continues, to this very moment, with the latest abominations of the Roadmap and the Geneva Initiative whose end points can only be Israel's destruction. The instructive lessons of Jewish history are again blindly ignored even with the awful consequences upon us. May Hashem again have mercy upon us and save us from our own stupidity.


Only Withdrawal Supporters To Address GA about Israel/Palestinian Diplomacy

Dr. Aaron Lerner 11 November 2003

While there is great concern that American Jewish leaders are ill equipped
to deal with the onslaught of pro-withdrawal propaganda from promoters of
the Road Map and other schemes, it is noteworthy that the organizers of the
Jewish Communities General Assembly in Jerusalem opted to limit coverage of
the topic to a 75 minute session featuring a withdrawal advocate
representing the United States Government and an Israeli staged withdrawal
advocate[see below].

IMRA asked Glen Rosenkrantz, who is acting a spokesman for the GA, why only
withdrawal advocates are addressing the GA on this issue. Rosenkrantz told
IMRA that "all of the sessions were designed with the objective of creating
an objective and informed dialogue and that applies to that session as well."

Mon. Nov. 17, 2003

9:00 A.M. - 10:15 A.M. The Road....and the Map

Where are we now on November 17, 2003; and where are we going over the next 12 to 18 months. Behind-the-scenes politics, security, and personalities.

Speakers:

Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel
Joseph (Tommy) Lapid, Minister of Justice

Moderator: Nachman Shai, Senior Vice President and Director General, UJC
Israel Chairs: Morton Plant, Baltimore, Chair-Elect of the UJC Executive Comm.


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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 10, 2003

Withdraw from Iraq - Then What?


By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe Nov. 6, 2003

There is no denying that the news out of Iraq has been brutal lately. US soldiers die in roadside bombings and in brazen attacks like the helicopter downing that killed 16 on Sunday. Terrorists target civilian venues -- Red Cross offices, Muslim shrines, embassies -- for the bloodiest possible carnage. Iraqis are grateful to be free of Saddam Hussein, but many nonetheless inveigh against the American occupiers who toppled him. At the moment, Iraq seems a long, long way from anything resembling the stable and tolerant democracy President Bush says he is determined to see it become.

Not surprisingly, public support for the war is eroding. Only 54 percent of Americans -- down from 70 percent in late April -- still say it was worth fighting, according to the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll. Just 47 percent of the public approves of President Bush's handling of Iraq; a thin majority, 51 percent, actually disapproves. Quagmire fears are deepening: 53 percent are "very" concerned that the United States will get bogged down. A few more horrific attacks, another bloody couple of months in Baghdad and Fallujah, and it isn't hard to imagine even more Americans giving up on Iraq and deciding we should never have gone in to begin with.

Which is exactly what Saddam and his murderer-loyalists and the terror cadres that have joined them are counting on. They expect us to walk away. They are certain that we will do again what we did in Beirut and Mogadishu: lose heart, pull out, and leave the Middle East to them.

Will we?

Make no mistake. We are now in the battle that will decide the course of this war. Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground. The Baathist diehards and Islamist car-bombers understand that everything is on the line. They know that if America succeeds in planting freedom and decency in the Arab world, they are finished. That is why they are determined at all costs to drive us out.

To his great credit, Bush has never wavered in his resolve to stay in Iraq until it is governed by a stable constitutional democracy. "The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will," he said on Nov. 1. "Our will canot be shaken." He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is torn away from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

If only the Democrats running to replace Bush understood that lesson as well. Except for Senator Joseph Lieberman, none of them seems to grasp the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq. When they spoke of Iraq during their televised debate at Faneuil Hall Tuesday night, for example, all they appeared to care about was genuflecting to the UN and denouncing "sweetheart deals for Halliburton."

On what is by far the most consequential issue of the day, the Democrats repeatedly come across as petty and unserious. The proper goal of the US occupation, the link between Iraq and American national security, the US role in reshaping the Middle East -- if the candidates have thought meaningfully about any of these, it is impossible to tell. Incredibly, the first post-9/11 presidential campaign is being contested by a Democratic lineup that has apparently learned nothing from 9/11.

Like the occupation of Germany in January 1946, America's work in Iraq is only getting underway. A huge amount of effort -- and danger -- still lies ahead. What Americans need now are leaders who can focus on the great work before them -- not sideline snipers carping prematurely that the occupation has been "botched."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 07, 2003

FBI Objection Confirmed - Arab American Director Imad Hamad

Imad Hamad, Regional Director of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is once more in the news. This is the same Hamad who was rejected by the FBI for a National Citizenship award just a few weeks ago. Somehow the fact that Hamad was the object of over one dozen open ended FBI investigations relative to possible involvement and support of Arab terrorist organizations had been ignored. Also the fact that the US Immigration Service had unsuccessfully attempted to deport Hamad as an undesirable alien for over 20 years had also been ignored.

Just a few days ago acting as Regional Director of ADC, Hamad sent a letter to Ron Panetta, President of the Crestwood Board of Education, Dearborn, MI. The letter involved the fact that the Muslim holiday of Ramadan would be coming to a close and, what with about 30% of the children of the school district of Arab descent, Hamad likened the holiday to Christmas and wanted equal time asking that a few days be chosen as school holidays to honor the event. Fine.

But, the wording in the letter directed to Mr. Panetta was a little unusual. Hamad warned Panetta that, “ Rushing into decisions that involve such sensitive issues might bring serious ramifications and unexpected unhealthy consequences. This is why, we further urge the school board not to individualize the issue, and jeopardize the position of any of the fine staff of the Dearborn Heights Public Schools.” (!!)

Mr. Panetta understandably felt that he and the school board had been seriously threatened. He immediately had the good sense to contact the Board’s legal advisor and the police. Mr. Hamad was confronted and, of course, said “there was a misunderstanding in language.” Mr. Panetta remains unconvinced.

But, as has been proven all over the world, terrorism does pay. Victims are afraid and do act to pacify their attackers. Dearborn Heights Mayor Mary A. Canfield immediately judged that the language was “not a threat” and said, “I think there is a very easy solution to this problem. The School Board is going to vote for days off for the children and that should be the end of the problem.”

Really! - Just like the problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, the Philippines, Kosova, Chechnya, etc. etc etc.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 05, 2003

Egregious Errors Re: Arab-American Population Claims

By Jerome S. Kaufman

It is beyond understanding to continually read in our newspapers and other media sources that the number of Arab Americans in the Metro Detroit area approximates 400,000 people and the number in the United States is near 3-5 Million! What is the source of these figures? If one is buying into the claims of notorious Arab propagandist James Zogby and his brother suspect polltaker John Zogby, the numbers are understandable.

These outrageously inflated numbers are their calculated attempt at obtaining more political influence and more of the various social benefits the local Arab population obtains from the government of the State of Michigan and ultimately from the U.S. government.

On the other hand, if one is interested in accuracy one might prefer to choose the Arab population figures of the United States Census taken in the year 2000. In that census the following figures are presented:

Metro Detroit = 92,328 up from 59,029 in 1990 (not quite the 400,000 claimed!)

Dearborn, Michigan - Up to 29,344 from 14,000 (not the 200,000 claimed)

Arab population of the USA = 1.25 million up from 940,000 in 1990 (not the 3-5 million claimed)

What makes no sense is why the media continues to perpetuate these lies?


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 29, 2003

Israel's enemies re-visit USS Liberty

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Periodically, an enemy of Israel surfaces and once again revives the ancient canard of an attack by Israel on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War that Israel fought against the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon and enthusiastically supported by the former Soviet Union. These powers were resoundingly defeated, undoubtedly due to the good graces, of a higher being.

In any case, just this week, October 27, 2003, in the Washington Times, Captain Ward Boston, a former Navy attorney involved in the investigation of the incident suddenly had an epiphany wherein he reveals that he was told by President Lyndon Johnson (now, conveniently deceased) and former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara (also now conveniently deceased) to conclude in his investigation that the incident was an accident, despite “overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Thirty-six years later for some obscure reason the Captain just signed an affidavit to that effect!

One cannot wonder why the sudden epiphany. Has yet another US government former official become the recipient of the well-known Saudi Arabian Golden Parachute Retirement Plan that also seems to have graciously fallen upon former Secretaries of State, Senators, Journalists, etc. etc.

Anticipating the recurrence of this gross anti-Israel lie, I kept within my Yahoo Web page and now publish here in www.israel-commentary.org, the correspondence below of A. Jay Cristol, Federal Judge that appeared in the New York Times of April 30, 2001.

USS LIBERTY UPDATE

As a follow-up to our recent communiqué about the USS Liberty, we present
some additional comments:

> From: A. Jay Cristol, Federal Judge, Southern District, Florida

To the Editor of the New York Times: (published April 30, 2001)

Re "Book Says Israel Intended 1967 Attack on U.S. Ship" (news article, April 23): James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" indicates that the attack on the
United States intelligence ship Liberty by Israel in 1967 was intended.

I researched this matter for 13 years. I analyzed 10 official United States investigations of the incident by the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Navy, the President's Foreign Intelligence Board, the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, plus five Congressional investigations. They all came to the same conclusion, as did three official Israeli investigations: The attack was a tragic mistake and there is no evidence that it was intentional.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 26, 2003

Please excuse me Pres. Bush, but ...

Maybe someone can tell me how, after three Americans envoys were deliberately killed in the Gaza Strip by a pre-placed Palestinian Arab car bomb and, nevertheless:

• Bush waives PLO sanctions US President George W. Bush invoked a national security waiver on Wednesday to prevent sanctions from being levied on the PLO for a period of six months.

Under the Foreign Relations Art of 2003, PLO non-compliance with
signed peace accords and continued use of terrorism and violence would force the president to impose at least one of a menu of sanctions unless he invokes a waiver contained in the law.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2003

The Great Arab Refugee Scam

By Schmuel Katz, 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.

The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did in fact write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Why did they leave? Monsignor GeorgeHakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Soda al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of those that fled returning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."

The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramie and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers. The total number of Arabs, who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000.

This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN. The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing - food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and, received the free aid.
I
Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million. The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list. To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees." So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees
.
Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return."

While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel. There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees.

Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas.
Once and for all Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime. Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose.

It is a chutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever. Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories."

The writer, a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 19, 2003

Who are the Chaldeans?


The Detroit News, October 13, 2003

• Chaldeans are Iraqi Catholics, descendants of the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia. They trace their culture back to the ancient Sumerians, who built the first civilizations in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers around 3500 B.C.

• The Chaldean empire ruled the Babylon dynasty, beginning around 600 BC. Ur of the Chaldees is recorded in the Hebrew Bible as the land where Abraham lived before beginning his journey to the promised land of the Jewish people.

• The Chaldeans were among the first Christians, converted by the apostle Thomas in the first century and retaining their faith even after Arab armies invaded the land that would one day be Iraq in the year 634 A.D. As recently as the early 20th century, many Europeans still referred to Iraq as Chaldea.

• Today, Chaldeans make up about 3 percent of Iraq's population. By the community's count, there are as many as 110,000 Chaldeans in Metro Detroit — the U.S. Census Bureau puts the figure at closer to 30,000 Many are descended from immigrants who came in early 20th century to open shops that catered to the early Ford factory workers.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 17, 2003

Are We Back to the Blind Hatred of Henry Ford I?

CAMERA Update: More Info on Ford Foundation's Funding of Hate

(Could there now be a Ford or Lincoln in your Future?)

From: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
www.camera.org


CAMERA Members have been requesting more details about the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic organizations funded by the Ford Foundation. The link below will take you to a website with more details.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n10/v1n10-1.htm

If this URL does not work, go to the URL listed below and then click on "Ford Foundation Analysis" in the column on the right of the webpage.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/

Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 16, 2003

The Pursuit of Happiness

By Rabbi Irwin Groner, Congregation Shaarey Zedek, Southfield, MI

(While searching through my file for something else, I ran across one of Rabbi Groner’s usual masterpieces. The season is a little off but the message is calendarless)

During the weeks between Pesach and Shavuot, we follow a time-honored Jewish practice of studying Pirke Avot, the Ethics of the Fathers, words of wisdom about life and morality, offered by the Sages of old. One of them, Ben Zoma, analyzed the qualities that comprise happiness. His definition speaks to modem people with as much cogency as it did to our forebears some two thousand years ago.

The first element that enters the equation is wealth. The Jewish Tradition is not naive or unrealistic. Poverty and happiness are not faithful companions. Millions of people in underprivileged countries around the world would define happiness as a loaf of bread, a bowl of rice, a thatched roof or secure employment.

The second in the series of Ben Zoma is power. No person can experience fulfillment if he has no influence over the lives of others, if his opinions are disregarded, his decisions rejected. The ability to exercise control over events is a capacity necessary for happiness

The third goal was wisdom. This is a uniquely Jewish understanding of happiness. From the Jewish point of view, a person devoid of culture and knowledge can achieve gratification of the senses, but he cannot know the fulfillment of the mind that is essential to human happiness.

And finally, Ben Zoma refers to honor. One who is the object of scorn and derision cannot be happy. We recognize the deep universal need to be respected, to win the deference of others, the approval of our group, the regard of our peers.

If he said nothing further, we would be in Ben Zoma's debt, for he has outlined the anatomy of happiness and established the fundamental conditions for its existence. He then directs us to a formula by which we can acquire happiness. He does so in a very few words which express profound ideas.

"Who is wealthy? He who is content with his portion, who rejoices in his lot and is grateful for it." Ben Zoma grasped the essential truth about the human heart: our needs are few, our wants without number. If we are tormented by limitless desires, we shall never have contentment. The path to fulfillment lies in controlling our wants and looking upon our blessings with gratitude and appreciation.

"Who is powerful?" The rabbis knew of great conquerors, but they didn't conceive of these tyrants as men of power because they saw how these Emperors were driven by ruthless ambition and consuming lust, self-destructive impulses. The rabbis instead turned the gaze inward, for they taught that true power is in self-mastery. "Who is the strong person? He who can conquer himself." Self-control and self-discipline are the true signs of strength. What the rabbis say to contemporary humanity is "Conquer your fears, your anger, and your despair." The art of self-control is the greatest and most enduring form of strength.

"Who is wise?" The rabbis were generally not people of, wealth and were often devoid of power, but wisdom was their forte, the central quest of their existence. But who is wise? One who has mastered the law, who has probed the mysteries of the universe? Ben Zoma's answer was different. "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone." The truly wise person has an unclosed mind, receptive to new ideas, capable of extracting from human experience a rich core of insight. Wisdom is the ability to respond to the stimulation of life. If we can listen with understanding to the words of children, to the insights of the aged, to the sayings of the common folk, we can acquire new perspectives on a sometimes too familiar world. To be truly educated means to be open to new challenges of thought all the time.

The last component in this formula of happiness should be noted. "Who is honored? He who honors others." If we can respond to another human being with respect, if we can see in him or her unique individuality stamped by that same Divine power that makes life incalculably precious; then we shall create a climate in which honor and respect will flourish and grow. This will make us worthy of honor.

Thus has Ben Zoma given us his guidelines for the acquisition of happiness. They are simply stated, but their implementation requires limitless patience, concern, and understanding. Ben Zoma not only told us what happiness is, he also told us what happiness is not. Happiness is not in a pill, a bottle, a distant land or in some contrived amusement. Happiness, like God's Law, is not far away in heaven, but in your heart. Seek the happiness that lies before you. May your search be crowned with success.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 14, 2003

Majority in Iraq say Ousting Saddam was well worth it.

By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES, October, 2003

The war in Iraq has been worth the hardship, according to those who have lived through both. Despite continued violence and few basic amenities, 62 percent of Baghdad residents believe the ousting of Saddam Hussein justified "any hardships they might have personally suffered," according to a Gallup poll released on Sept. 24. Gallup went to the source, conducting face-to-face, 70-minute private interviews with more than 1,000 eager respondents in their homes in early September. The cooperation rate was more than 97 percent, Galiup said, categorizing the poll as "the first rigorous and scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq."

The numbers also revealed growing hope and confidence among Baghdad residents, though almost all felt their city had become more dangerous in recent months. While one in three says postwar Iraq is better off now, 67 percent believe their country will be far improved in five years. "American effort is only going to work if Iraqis buy into it," Gallup International poll director Richard Burkholder said. "That's why the good faith and optimism of the citizens are so important."

Thirty-six percent had favorable views of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, with 43 percent giving it a "middling" rating, according to the poll. In addition, 50 percent said the authority was doing a better job than it did two months ago. "CPA Administrator L. Paul Bremer is well thought of personally," the poll stated, noting that Mr. Bremer received a 47 percent favorable rating.

The new 25-member Iraqi Governing Council won approval: It was viewed positively by 61 percent of Baghdad's residents, with a quarter saying their impression was "very favorable." The good feelings fade, however, on a more global scale. Only 29 percent of those polled had a positive view of the United States, while 24 percent had a positive view of Britain, "which ruled Iraq as a mandate until the country was granted independence in 1932," the poll noted.

Though France vigorously opposed the Iraq war, it won more Iraqi admirers than the two liberators: 55 percent had a positive view of the French. Resentment of new authority may linger as well: 75 percent of the Baghdadis believe that policies and decisions made by their local governing council are "mostly determined" by the British and Americans.

Americans, meanwhile, have their own ideas about Iraq. A Pew Research survey also released on Sept. 24 found that 63 percent of Americans thought the use of military force in Iraq was the "right decision," while 62 percent said the effort was going "very well" or "fairly well." Fifty-one percent said Mr. Bush took the appropriate action at the right time, and 54 percent said the war helped the fight against terrorism. More than three-quarters — 79 percent — thought the Iraqis "are happy Saddam had been removed," though 47 percent said the Iraqis probably opposed American policies in their country.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 12, 2003

Muslim Military Chaplains

Pentagon Jihadis

By Daniel Pipes October, 2003

The news last week, that two U.S. military personnel who are Muslim, James Yee and Ahmad al-Halabi, had been detained on suspicion of aiding Al Qaida prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (with another three Muslim servicemen under watch) seemed to prompt much surprise. It should not have. It has been obvious for months that Islamists who despise the United States have penetrated American prisons, law enforcement and armed forces.

A milestone Wall Street Journal article in February established that imams who consider Osama bin Laden "a hero of Allah" dominate the Islamic chaplainry in the New York state prison system. I documented in March the case of FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, an immigrant whose pattern of pro-Islamist behavior was overlooked and, instead, he was promoted! And at least six prior cases of Islamist servicemen have come to light:

• Ali Mohamed: An Egyptian immigrant who after his discharge from the U.S. Army went to work for Osama bin Laden. Mohamed pleaded guilty to helping plan the 1998 bombing surveillance of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi and now sits in prison serving his sentence.

• Semi Osman: An ethnic Lebanese immigrant and non-U.S. citizen who served in both the Army and the Naval Reserves. Osman was arrested in 2002 and accused of "material support for terrorists." He pleaded guilty to a weapons violation and served his sentence.

• Abdul Raheem Al Arshad Ali: An African-American convert to Islam and former Marine, he awaits trial in prison for allegedly supplying a semiautomatic handgun to Semi Osman.

• Jeffrey Leon Battle. An African-American convert and Army Reservist, Battle awaits trial in prison on charges of "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America."

• John Alien Muhammad: An African-American convert and Army veteran, Muhammad is suspected of having thrown a grenade at a fellow soldier in 1991. He awaits trial in prison on charges of leading a 21-day shooting spree in the Washington, D.C area in 2002 that killed 10 and wounded three.

• Hasan Akbar: Another African-American convert, Akbar awaits trial in prison for two counts of premeditated murder and three charges of attempted murder following a March 2003 fragging incident against his fellow soldiers. The Akbar incident prompted Deanne Stillman of Slate magazine to conclude that "Islamists may be infiltrating the military in order to undermine it."

• That infiltration also has a mundane quality, as shown by the example of Nabil Elibiary. He's an Islamist who protests the "defaming" of bin Laden and defends polygamy — and who also led the holiday prayer service at an Air Force base in early 2003. The executive branch's insistence on "terrorism" being the enemy, rather than militant Islam, permits this Islamist penetration. And it continues. The Defense Department responded last week to the chaplain’s arrest by defending its hiring practices.

Only under external pressure, notably from Senators Chuck Schumer and Jon Kyl, did it agree to reassess them. Even then, the Pentagon insisted on reviewing the appointments of all 2,800 military chaplains — rather than the 12 Muslims among them. Political correctness gone amok! Which Christian or Jewish chaplains would be accused, as was their Muslim colleague last week, the Washington Times reports, of "sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order"? By pretending not to see that the enemy emerges from one source, the authorities dilute their focus and render their review nearly meaningless and endangering security.

The U.S. government needs to use common sense and focus on militant Islam. It should consider such steps as:

• Breaking off contact with organizations (like the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council) that place Islamists in government employment.
• Suspending currently employed Muslim personnel who got their jobs through those institutions until their loyalty can be confirmed.
• Finding anti-Islamist organizations to work with, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America or Sunni Muslims and the American Muslim Congress for Shi'ites.
• Confirming that government-employed Muslims do, as many of them swore under oath, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A mechanism is needed to identify employees with an Islamist outlook and expel them from government service.

Ironically, the Defense Department finds it easier to kill Islamists in Afghanistan than to exclude them from its own ranks. But only if the latter is carried out can Americans be confident their government is fully protecting them.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 07, 2003

Road Map Rubble

By Arnold Beichman, The Washington Times, September, 2003

"In a recent column, the wise and often erudite essayist William F. Buckley discussed the Israeli-Palestinian crisis on which he pronounced this verdict: "Mr. Bush's road map has evolved as a great fiasco." But I sought in vain an answer to an obvious question: Why has this road map and all other past "road maps" evolve as great fiascoes?

From Richard Nixon to Gerald, Ford, to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush, father and son, there have been fiascoes galore - Lots of warm handshakes on the White House lawn, broad, triumphant smiles on all sides. Camp David agreements, the 1993 Oslo accords, all great TV ops for American presidents, Israeli prime ministers and the omnipresent, long-lived Yasser Arafat, a Selig with bombs, wearing his black-and-white kaffiyah and the biggest grin of all. And, promises, promises, pledges, guarantees, billions and billions of U.S. dollars.

Hamas and Hezbollah and their subsystems go right on with their suicide bombers, surviving Israeli counterattacks and so-called assassinations. Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas arrives on the scene and 100 days later he is an ex-prime minister.

What happened to those hopeful words uttered by President Bush after his meeting July 25, 2003 with Prime Minister Abbas? "We had a good meeting today about the way forward on the road map to Middle Eastern peace. Prime Minister Abbas and I share a common goal: Peace in the Holy Land between two free and secure states, Palestine and Israel[...] "Prime Minister Abbas committed to a complete end to violence and terrorism, and he recognized that terror against Israelis, wherever they might be is a dangerous obstacle to the achievement of a Palestinian State."

What Mr. Buckley doesn’t seem to understand is that no matter what Israel gives or pledges to give, there will be no peace now or in the foreseeable future because neither Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or, most visibly, Osama bin Laden will permit Israel, a democratic, modern state to exist. In other words, "peace negotiations" are not about giving up the Settlements or some other fictitious issue. They are about Israel's existence.

Does Mr. Buckley think Israel is against peace and the Arab states are for peace? Gulf War III now underway in Iraq is an Arab war to prevent another democracy from being created in the Middle East, and worst of all a Muslim democracy. This half-century war, nominally in the cause of a Palestinian state, has poisoned the political atmosphere in this country so we have a new and respectable kind of anti-Semitism using code words like "neo-cons," "Likudniks," or "ex-Trotskyites" as part of the vocabulary.

Otherwise intelligent American politicians like Howard Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, nonchalantly announces in a Santa Fe coffeehouse: "It's not our place to take sides" in the Middle East conflict. We shouldn't take sides in a war between a democracy, the only real democracy in the Middle East, against a terrorist conspiracy? Later, Mr. Dean told The Washington Post that notwithstanding Israel's "special relationship with the United States," America must "take an evenhanded role," if it is to be "in the middle of the negotiations."

Is Israel to become Czechoslovakia 1938? Are we supposed to chuckle as we recall Abraham Lincoln's fable about the loving wife who, watching her husband locked in deadly embrace with a bear, shouted at both — "Go to it, husband; go to it, bear."

How about not taking sides in Europe when Adolf Hitler threatened Britain so as to have been "in the middle of the negotiations"? Should Franklin Roosevelt have been cheering both sides, "Go to it, Adolf; go to it, Winston"? Not taking sides in favor of the Soviet captive nations in Eastern Europe? Not taking sides in favor of Poland's Solidarity and Lech Walesa against the Kremlin? Not taking sides between democratic Tai wan and Communist China?

Of course, it is our place to take sides. America, historically, has always been a "take sides" country. In the interest of maintaining "an evenhanded role," should America not have taken sides in 1991 when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq? Should America have allowed Saddam Hussein to overrun Kuwait and then become master of the Middle East, including its oil riches?

On Sunday, June 7, 1981, at precisely 6:37 p.m., nine Israeli jets destroyed an almost-completed Iraqi 75-megawatt, $275 million nuclear reactor at Osirak 12 miles east of Baghdad. With that pre-emptive strike Israel helped make possible the U S -U.N. victory in 1991 over Saddam Hussein. Would the U S -U.N. coalition forces have dared go to war against a dictator flushed with weapons of mass destruction? Would the coalition 10 years later have risked mega deaths on behalf of the kingdom of Kuwait? Had Saddam used atomic weapons, would the Bush administration have dared use a retaliatory atomic response against the Iraqi people?

Had Israel adopted the Howard Dean policy of neutralism and allowed Osirak to come on stream, had Israel not taken sides against a dictator, the Middle East might have by now have been Armageddon minus the promised aftermath of 1,000 years of peace and plenty. Remember the 5,000 Kurds gassed to death by Saddam Hussein? And now that it is reported (the Guardian, Sept. 18) that Saudi Arabia is considering acquisition of nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and with global concern over Iran's suspect nuclear program the danger in the Middle East goes far beyond Israeli settlements in Gaza. Does Howard Dean understand this?

Howard Dean may be a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination (and it would serve the Democratic Party right if he did win the nomination) but his declamations in a Santa Fe coffee shop have demonstrated a shallowness, a thoughtlessness that might have qualified him for the Vermont governorship but which surely disqualifies him as a candidate for the American presidency.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times.

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

October 05, 2003

An Honorary Trustee of the Cranbrook “Peace” Foundation - Imam Hassan Qazwini?

Who's Protecting the President?

By Steven C. Baker

FrontPageMagazine.com | May 6, 2003

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. wrote that "The sound of a kiss is not so loud as that of cannon, but its echo lasts a great deal longer." If this is true, then there should be some serious political reverberations as a result of President Bush's decision to kiss Imam Hassan Qazwini after speaking to an Arab-American community in Dearborn, Michigan on Monday. This continues a well-noted trend of placing the President in the company of purported leaders of the Muslim community who do not share the President's moral clarity on terror.
This supposedly "moderate" Imam from the Detroit, Michigan-based Islamic Center of America (ICA) has some disturbing connections to radical Islamists that cannot be overlooked by a conservative President who has been entrusted by the American people to fight a war on global terrorism.

For starters, Imam Qazwini's Islamic Center once invited Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to be the keynote speaker at a memorial for its deceased founder Imam Mohamad Jawad Chirri. At the time, Arab American News described his address as "dynamic" and "always controversial," and reported that he urged the Muslim community "to become politically active...[and] as powerful as the Zionists."

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press in November 1998, Imam Qazwini downplayed the fact that Louis Farrakhan would be the keynote speaker at Imam Chirri's memorial: "...I always say there are some similarities between us and Mr. Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and there are some differences. These differences are not so great that we would not give him the podium."

This raises a couple of questions. Can someone be a "moderate" Muslim if they associate with a figure such as Louis Farrakhan? And, what does it say about the nature of the Islamic Center of America if Louis Farrakhan is invited to be the keynote speaker at a memorial to honor its revered founder?

For those who do not recall, Louis Farrakhan is the man who once called Judaism a "gutter religion" and who has been banned - for security reasons -- from entering the United Kingdom since 1986. London's left wing journal The Observer has a profile of Louis Farrakhan that points out his "reliance on anti-Semitic imagery." A few examples: "Jews are 'bloodsuckers'"; "Hitler 'was a great man."

It also notes that "he talks of 'settling the score' with white people" and boasts proudly "that black street gangs are 'born warriors of true liberation.'"
Furthermore, in the lead up to the war that eventually liberated the people of Iraq, the Associated Press reported in October 2002 that Farrakhan believed Saddam Hussein was "making peace with his neighbors" and that the "[Bush] Administration is the greatest threat to world peace." He added, "Only Israel, the United States and Tony Blair...are willing to go along with an attack on Iraq."

Would Imam Qazwini consider these anti-war, anti-Bush viewpoints to be "similarities" or "differences" of opinion?

Imam Qazwini has other troublesome connections to radicals in the United States. He is a board member of the American Muslim Council and shares this position with some notable terror apologists.

For instance, the Conference Chair of AMC's upcoming Imam conference is Abdurahman Alamoudi. According to a January 2002 report by the Associated Press, Alamoudi is a supporter of Hamas and Hizbullah- two groups that are Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. In fact, both candidates Bush and Hillary Clinton returned his campaign donations citing statements he made.

Furthermore, during a Chicago fundraising event for the Islamic Association for Palestine on 29 December 1996, Alamoudi argued: "If we are outside this country, we can say oh, Allah, destroy America, but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America."

Other controversial AMC figures include:
Former Executive Director Eric Vickers. On 27 June 2002, Vickers appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and stated that al-Qaeda was "involved in a resistance movement."

In a written response to the President's State of the Union address, Vickers wrote on 23 January 2003: "In invoking God to be with American soldiers in our apparently imminent war with Iraq, what the president did not say is that he is calling on God to kill innocent Iraqi children."

AMC's Treasurer Ali Khan. Khan has retained Hamas attorney Stanley Cohen to represent him in a lawsuit against Northwest airlines (racial profiling).

Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown). The former president of the Executive Board of the AMC Board of Directors was Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown). Brown was twice on the FBI's own Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List and is now serving a life sentence for the 2000 murder of Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Deputy Ricky Kinchen.

Dr. Jamal Barzanji. Dr. Barzanji was involved with seven organizations that were raided by federal agents in connection with terrorist financing: the now-defunct SAAR Foundation; Amana Trust, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Mar-Jac Investments, Mena Investments, and Reston Investments and SAFA Trust. The seven are part of what has come to be known as "The Wahhabi Lobby."

The American Muslim Council's strong anti-war, anti-Bush activism deserves additional mention due to the fact that AMC has been invited repeatedly to attend events at the White House and to meet with high-level Bush Administration officials.

AMC press releases "saluted" Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, for "leading the charge for the Muslim community's role" in the anti-war protests; and touted AMC Treasurer Ali Khan's plan to lead a caravan of anti-war protesters to the Capitol in January 2003. Moreover, AMC acted as a surrogate for International ANSWER - the radical left wing, anti-war organization headed by Ramsey Clark (a man who wants to impeach the President). On 15 January 2003 it forwarded via email one of ANSWER's anti-war messages. That text read in part: “There is no better way than to truly remember the spirit and legacy of Dr. King than to organize a bold, visible protest against war and racism in Washington DC on the anniversary of his birthday. We will not allow the war makers in the Bush administration and on Wall Street to turn Dr. King into a harmless icon, rather than an inspiration for struggle...”

AMC also has a long and consistent history of making common cause with terror groups in the United States that have no relation to Islam or Mideast issues.
AMC is an "active member" of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a kind of legal aid for terrorists. Members include, the Puerto Rican FALN and Macheteros, Black Liberation Movement, Weather Underground, and persons on the FBI's Most Wanted list.

As an active member in the NCPPF, the American Muslim Council supports the cause of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, and Leonard Peltier, who murdered FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams at Wounded Knee.

The former President and current Vice-President of the NCPPF is Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was arrested and indicted on 20 February 2003 and stands accused of supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - a group that Attorney General John Ashcroft described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world."

It was remarkably easy to uncover Imam Qazwini's relationships to various radical entities. How then was the President put in a situation that permitted him to kiss a man who finds common cause with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, supporters of Hamas and Hizbullah, and in general someone who is not "with" the President politically?

(“How then” the Board of Trustees of the Cranbrook “Peace” Foundation has found common cause with Hassan Qazwini and made him an Honorary Trustee of its Board?)

Who is to be held accountable for this atrocious lapse in judgment?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 04, 2003

How Mohammed combined Judaism and Christianity and Invented Islam

By Dr. M. Kedar, Department of Arabic Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Muhammad, the Prophet, hardly made any innovations when he established Islam. He used the hallowed personages, historic legends and sacred sites of Judaism, Christianity and even paganism, by Islamizing them. Thus, according to Islam, Abraham was the first Moslem and Jesus and St. John (the sons of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron) were prophets and guardians of the second heaven. Many Biblical legends, which were familiar to the pagan Arabs before the dawn of Islam, underwent an Islamic conversion and the Koran as well as the Hadith (the Islamic oral tradition), are replete with them.

The practice of Islamization was performed on places as well as persons: Mecca and the holy stone - al-Ka'bah - were holy sites of the pre-lslamic pagan Arabs. The Umayyads' Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of Istanbul were built on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches that were converted into mosques. These are good examples of Islamic treatment of sanctuaries of other faiths.

Jerusalem underwent the same process. At first, Muhammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community, and in order to persuade them he established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, like the Jews. But after he failed in this attempt, he fought the Jews, killed many of them and turned the kiblah southward, to Mecca. His abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is not mentioned in the Koran even once.

After Palestine was occupied by the Moslems, its capital was in Ramlah, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, since Jerusalem meant nothing to them. Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Muhammad's death. In 682 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the Islamic rulers in Damascus, conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj. Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, needed an alternative site for the pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem which was under his control.

In order to justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (sura 17, verse 1) which states (translation by Majid Fakhri): "Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts we have blessed, in order to show him some of our signs. He is indeed the All-Hearing and All-Seeing.

The meaning ascribed to this verse is that "the furthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem and that Muhammad was conveyed there one night (although at that time the journey took three days by camel), on the back of al-Buraq, his magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and whose hoofs reach to the horizon. He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel.

On his way he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of heaven: Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Seth, Aaron, Moses and Abraham who accompanied him on his way to the seventh heaven, to Allah, and who accepted him as their master, (see the commentary of AI-Jalalayn on this verse). Thus Islam tries to gain legitimacy over other, older religions, by creating a scene in which the former prophets agree to Muhammad's mastery, thus making him Khatam al-Anbiya" ("the Seal of the Prophets").

The strange thing here is that this fantastic story contradicts a number of the tenets of Islam: How can a man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven? How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination? Questions such as these have caused orthodox Moslem thinkers to conclude that the whole story of the nocturnal journey was a dream of Muhammad's. Thus Islam tried to "go one better" than the Bible. Moses "only" went up to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven, whereas Muhammad went all the way up to Allah, and from Jerusalem itself.

So why shouldn't we also believe that the al-Aqsa mosque is in Jerusalem? One good reason is that the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did not believed this story. Only Abu Bakr, the firs t Calif, believed him and thus was called "al-Siddiq" ("the believer"). The second reason is that Islamic tradition itself tells us that al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in "Kitab al maghazi,” a book by the Moslem historian and geographer al-Waqidi (Oxford UP, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 958-9). According to al-Waqidi, there were two "masjeds" (places of prayer) in al-gi'ranah, a village between Mecca and Ta'if. One was the "the closer mosque" (al-masjid al-adana) and the other was "the further mosque" (al-masjid al-aqsa), and Muhammad would pray there when he was out of town.

This description by al-Waqidi was not “convenient” for the Islami propaganda of the 7th century. In order to establish a basis to the awareness of the “holiness” of Jerusalem in Islam, the Califs of the Ummayid Dynasty invented many “traditions” upholding the value of Jerusalem, which would justify pilgrimage to Jerusalem to the faithful Moslems. Thus was the al-kasjid al-aqsa “transported” to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted the myth of al-Aqsa and those “traditions” in order to recruit and inflame the Moslem warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th Century. Another aim of the Islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the legitimacy of the older religions, Judaism and Christianity that consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. Thus, Islam is presented as the only legitimate religion, taking the place of the other two because they had changed and distorted the Word of God, each in its turn. (About the alleged forgeries of the Holy Scriptures, made by Jews and Christians, see the third chapter of: M. J. Kister, "haddith U 'an bani isra'll wa-laharaja", IDS 2 (1972), pp. 215-239. Kister quotes dozens of Islamic sources).

Though Judaism and Christianity can exist side by side in Jerusalem, Islam regards both of them as a betrayal of Allah and his teachings, and has done and will do all in its power to expel both of them from the city. It is interesting to note that this expulsion is retroactive: The Islamic announcers of the Palestinian radio stations keep claiming that the Jews never had a temple on the Temple mount and certainly not two temples. Where, according to them, did Jesus preach? Arafat, himself a secular person (ask the Hamas), is doing today exactly what the Califs of the Umayyad dynasty did: he is recruiting the holiness of Jerusalem to serve his political ends. He must not give control of Jerusalem over to the Jews since according to Islam they are impure and the wrath of Allah is upon them (al-maghdhoub 'alayhim, Koran, sura. 1, verse 7, see al-Jalalayn and other commentaries; Note that verse numbers may differ slightly in different editions of the Koran). The Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (s. 5, v. 60). (For the idea that Jews are related to pigs and monkeys see, for example, Musnad al-lmam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (Bey rut 1969) vol. 3, p. 241. See also pages 348, 395, 397, 421, and vol. 6, p. 135.)

The Jews are those who distorted the holy writings that were revealed to them (s. 2, v. 73, s. 3, v. 72) and denied God's signs (s. 3, v. 63). Since they violated the covenant with their God (s. 4, v. 154), God cursed them (s. 5, v. 16) and forever they are the inheritors of hell (s. 3, v. 112). So how can Arafat abandon Jerusalem to the Jews?

The Palestinian media these days is full of messages of Jihad calling to broaden the national-political war between Israel and the Palestinians into a religious-Islamic war between the Jews and the Moslems. READ THEIR LIPS: for them Christianity is as good as Judaism, since both of them lost their right to rule over Jerusalem. Only Islam, Din al-Haqq ("the Religion of Truth") has this right, and forever (shaykh 'Ikrima Sabri, the mufti of Jerusalem, in Friday's khutbah 4 weeks ago, Sawt falastin - the PA official radio). Since the holiness of Jerusalem to Islam always was and still is no more than a politically motivated holiness, Arafat is putting his political head on the block should he give it up.

Must the whole world bow down to myths concocted by Islam, long after Jerusalem is, and has been, the true center of Judaism and Christianity? Should UN forces be sent to the Middle East just because Arafat recycles the Umayyads' political problems or even Muhammad's dreams about Jerusalem?

Dr. M. Kedar Dept. of Arabic Bar-llan University 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 01, 2003

Yasser Arafat’s eulogy of Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser


Chairman Arafat on the 33rd Anniversary of the Death of Egyptian President
Gamal Nasser: 'The Warrior-President is With Us in Self-Sacrifice in Battle …

(For those of you that have some question as to where Arab and Islamic nationalism is going, below is the speech of Yasser Arafat extolling the memory of Gamal Nasser, late “President” of Egypt whose claim to fame was nationalizing the Suez Canal from the British and the French and ending foreign colonialism in Egypt. Unfortunately, Nasser invited in another colonial power - the Soviet Union and became its client state. He quickly became totally indebted to the USSR for millions of dollars of armament that proved to be his undoing in the Six Day War with Israel. In the meantime, the Egyptian people continue to live in abject poverty, like the rest of the Arab world, dreaming of some sort of military conquest against the West who they blame for centuries of their own self-induced deprivation.)

Special Dispatch - Palestinian Authority/Egypt October 2, 2003

On September 28, 2003, Wafa, the Palestinian press agency, published a speech made by PA Chairman Yasser Arafat (1) marking the 33rd anniversary of the death of Egyptian president Gamal Abd Al-Nasser. The following are excerpts from the speech:

"The deceased Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, as an Egyptian, pan-Arab, and international commander, leader, and pioneer - it is not easy for me to write about the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser on the anniversary of his death, because he is not a memory but the soul of the Arab nation, which does not and will never die, and because he is the soul of the Palestinian resistance, about which he said, 'The Palestinian resistance came into being in order to live and to triumph.'

"The Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, through his spirit, courage and creative thought, and through the dream of the greater Arab homeland, is not a memory, nor is he yesterday's cause. He is the present, today's cause, the cause of the shining Arab tomorrow, to which the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser devoted his whole life and died a martyr, as a pan-Arab nationalist and Egyptian patriot and as a Palestinian resistance fighter on the soil of struggle and confrontation against colonialism, both old and new; against the usurpation of Palestine and its colonization; and against division and fragmentation.

He is glory and dignity. The cause of the Warrior-President Gamal Abd-Al Nasser and his message and struggle is the cause of each and every Arab from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf, whether he be a ruler or an ordinary citizen, because the principles of Abd Al-Nasser are the principles on whose basis our Arab nation is rising up and taking its place in the sun."

"The Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser devoted his life to the glory of the Arab nation and its unity and dignity, and to expelling the forces of colonialism from all regions of the Arab homeland. It is for the sake of wounded Palestine that this young Egyptian officer rose up from besiegement in Faluja(2) in Palestine to besiege and drive out the forces of colonialism from the land of Egypt, the throbbing heart of the Arab homeland. [It is Abd Al-Nasser who proclaimed], 'Colonialism should now pick up its walking staff and leave,' 'from now on, there is no place for colonialists, occupiers, and invaders,' and 'this land is Arab, and no flag but that of the Arab nation shall ever fly above it.'

“ The Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser is alive in his nation and in Arab minds, and in the Arab hands that carry his message about Arab liberation, unity and progress. They will never abandon his principles and never lay down the banner that president Abd Al-Nasser raised - a banner that is a lighthouse shedding a bright light for the whole [Arab] nation.

As for Palestine, Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, as both warrior and president, is its great martyr. He is the soldier, the self-sacrificing fighter, and the resistance fighter [who was] besieged in Faluja, who refused to surrender and showed steadfastness and resistance and carried Palestine in his heart and conscience and thought for all his life. He refused to accept [the idea of] the disappearance and nonexistence of Palestine. He deserves credit for reviving the Palestinian national entity after the catastrophe of 1948, when he decided to establish the Palestinian Legislative Council in the Gaza Strip so it would be the seed for the future Palestine, for which Gamal Abd Al-Nasser was making preparations in Egypt."

"The Palestinian people have not forgotten and shall never forget that the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser is the martyr of Palestine who ensured the establishment of the PLO to lead the Palestinian people in its war of liberation and reclaiming of the occupied Palestinian territory, and to establish the independent state of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, and for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and territory.

"And now the Palestinian people stand proudly in its war of national liberation from Palestinian occupation and from colonization by settlement. I say to you with confidence that the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser is with us in the trenches, with us under siege, with us in self-sacrifice [in battle]. [He is with us] with his thought and his manliness, creative spirit, and stature that neither bow nor retreat, no matter how difficult the struggle and how great the sacrifices."

The Arab Nation... Defeating the Forces of Hegemony and Colonialism

"If we can persevere and sacrifice as the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser persevered and sacrificed - for life has no value without homeland, without liberty, and without national dignity. From the heart of this brutal war against your people in Palestine, I call on all of you to raise your ambitions and spirit under the banner of the principles and values and struggle of the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, because the Arab nation has no path - in its history, culture, and holy places - other than that of dignity, liberation, unity, and defeating the forces of hegemony and colonialism, for the Arab nation is strong and glorious and fully deserving of a free, honorable life.

"We therefore have no path other than that of steadfastness and sacrifice for the sake of the homeland, the [Arab] nation, and the future. We salute the Warrior-President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, the lantern shining before the nation and its [future] generations. The warrior Gamal Abd Al-Nasser - the president, the commander, the leader, the pioneer - is alive in our midst and in our [future] generations. He has not died and shall never die. Peace and God's mercy and blessings be upon you." ##


The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070 Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org, www.memri.org


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

September 30, 2003

Colin Powell, “ A Free Middle East Key to Prosperity.”

Colin Powell finally admits to the heart of the problem in the Arab world with Israel having zero to do with the dynamic. After the speech U.S. Arab audience sits on its hands.

Secretary of state calls for reforms in Arab societies to build peaceful future in region.

By Gregg Krupa, The Detroit News, September 30, 2003

DETROIT — Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday night that "ensuring a prosperous, free Middle East" is a key to a peaceful future, but that it will not
occur until Arab societies reform. Powell further admitted that the Bush administration's plan for peace between Israel and Arab nations — the so-called road map — has stalled.

Speaking to an audience that included hundreds of Arab officials and business people at Cobo Center in Detroit, Michigan on the second day of the U.S.-Arab Economic Forum, Powell said that too often in the Middle East, young people are heard to say, "I am wasted."

" No peace or prosperity is possible, he said, "with so much frustration in every sphere of life. …I have come to ask you to build a new Middle East that is peaceful, and prosperous, and free," ... "This is a struggle that we must contest with every tool at our hands" … "Arab societies must be more open and democratic to generate more trade, attract more business and allow the money that is earned to enrich the masses, he said.

About 900 people originally greeted Powell, with a standing ovation. But, by the end of his speech —in which he defended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Bush administration's determination to foster democracy in the region —everyone who applauded him remained in their seat

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 28, 2003

Bush's Politics of Pandering to anti-American Arab Groups

By Frank Gaffney Jr., The Washington Times, September 28, 2003

Every once in a while a highly visible political gambit comes completely a cropper - particularly when it involves — saying nothing of embarrasses — the president of the United States, it generally gets considerable public notice. Often the proverbial head rolls. At the very least, a course correction is usually quickly effected.

What are we to make, then, of the astonishing silence, the utter lack of accountability and the absence of any apparent shift in electoral strategy that has
accompanied the meltdown of the one of the Bush political team's major initiatives: Its effort to recruit Muslim- and Arab-American voters (and donors) by pandering to foreign-funded organizations led by radical leftists and even pro-
"Islamists" — despite the fact that most members of those communities either are radical or subscribe to the virulently intolerant, and often violently anti-American, tenets of those who promote Islamism.

This courting formally got under way back in 2000, when senior advisers to then-Gov. George Bush invited representatives of highly problematic groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the American Muslim Council (AMC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations "(CAIR) to Austin. On the presidential campaign trail that year, he met with and received support from an Islamist activist named Sami Al-Arian and embraced Mr. Al-Arian's personal pet project the prohibition of the use of "secret evidence" by federal law
enforcement.

After Mr. Bush gained the White House, ISNA, the AMC, CAIR and like-minded groups and individuals such as Sami Al-Arian were invited to the White
House for meetings there with, among others, political guru Karl Rove
. In fact, on September 11,2001, a number of them were scheduled to hold a meeting in the presidential complex for the purpose of cashing in on the promised end to the use of secret evidence — one of law enforcement's few and most important pre-Patriot Act tools for protecting classified information while prosecuting suspected terrorists

Incredible as it may seem, in the wake of the attacks that day organizations with long record of support for radical Islam and sympathy for those who murder Americans and others in its name were afforded increased access to high-level administration officials and myriad federal agencies. Mr. Al-Arian's access only ended when he was indicted and held without bail on some 40 counts, including charges that he ran Palestinian Islamic Jihad for 10 years from his office at the University of South Florida. CAIR's access has continued, even though three of its officials have been arrested in recent months on terrorism-related charges.

Such "outreach" to Muslims was routinely justified by a legitimate, even laudable, desire on Mr. Bush's part to demonstrate that the War on Terror was not a war on Islam. But for some around the president, it had a more crass political impetus: pandering for votes in 2002 and 2004.

Unfortunately, the pro-Islamists and their friends had a very different agenda. They sought to use the access thus afforded to White House officials, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers and the FBI to undermine counter-terrorist techniques and initiatives on the grounds they were racially or ethnically motivated. Worse yet, they publicly exploited meetings with the president and his subordinates to shore up their dubious — and highly undesirable — claim to leadership both within and on behalf of their community.

Just how undesirable this phenomenon is became clear in an important hearing on Sept. 10 the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism headed by Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican. After establishing Saudi funding as a source of revenue for and influence over organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, witnesses and senators on both sides of the aisle condemned CAIR for its "extreme" agenda and its support for terrorist organizations like Hamas.

If any further evidence were needed that the Bush administrations embrace of groups like CAIR was as politically unjustifiable as it is strategically dangerous, it was provided recently in Chicago. Two weeks ago, tens of thousands of immigrant and black Muslims met there in separate conventions. Their inability to assemble in a single venue or to agree on a common agenda offered clear evidence that their communities are hardly monolithic. In fact, the only thing on which there was apparent accord was an announced determination on the part of the radical groups who sponsored these events that they would work to register 1 million Muslim voters to defeat George W. Bush in 2004.

It is clearly time for George Bush to reach out to moderate Muslims, not the radicals and Islamists his team has been romancing — to empower the
former and to diminish, for both compelling strategic and political reasons, the influence of the latter. If any pandering is to be done from here on, let it be lavished on those — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — who are committed to strengthening this country against its enemies, instead of those who sympathize
with them.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 24, 2003

The Candid Remarks of Reverend Pat Robertson

Redacted from interview by Michael Freund, The International Jerusalem Post, September 19, 2003

(When US televangelist Pat Robertson talks, millions of Americans listen. And what he's telling George W. Bush is to beware of dividing the Land of Israel and creating a Palestinian state.)

While driving along a verdant stretch of road near Virginia's popular beaches, it is hard to imagine anything in this pleasant and tranquil area stirring up nationwide controversy. The pastoral and well-tended lawns of Regent University, home to the Rev. Dr. Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, seem far-removed from the harsh media criticism that, from time to time, follows some of his remarks on his daily television broadcasts. Recently, Robertson found himself at the center of a storm after he called upon his followers to pray that three liberal justices of the US Supreme Court be influenced from Above to retire, thereby clearing the way for US President George W. Bush to appoint social conservatives in their place.

The 73-year-old former Republican presidential candidate and leading Christian televangelist also came under fire for criticizing US policy towards Liberia. But despite the tumult, Robertson and his Christian evangelical operation is still going strong ago. In the past two decades, Robertson's followers have become a prominent force in domestic US politics, pushing an agenda that is unabashedly conservative and self-confident.

Interviewed in his office, Robertson was especially keen to discuss an issue that has been on his mind a lot of late: the US-backed road map and how it will affect the future of Israel. Though a staunch conservative, Robertson does not mince words when it comes to criticizing President Bush over his desire to establish a Palestinian state and divide the Land of Israel. As far as Robertson is concerned, Bush is playing with fire, and making what he considers to be "a terrible mistake."

Following are excerpts from the interview:

Over the past 2,000 years, the Jewish people suffered terribly as a result of persecution by Christians. Yet, nowadays, some of Israel's most vocal supporters, particularly in the US, are Christians. Are we witnessing some kind of change in Jewish-Christian relations?

I am not sure the change is as dramatic as you think; it is just that now it is being noticed. My mother years and years ago always told us to bless the Jews and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. There is a repository of that kind of feeling, of great warmth towards Israel and the Jewish people.

How do you explain that?

The first thing that we have to realize is that evangelical Christians take the Bible very seriously, so the Old Testament figures, who were all Jewish, are to them their heroes in faith. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron. The prophets. David. All these people are preached about, talked about, and discussed and become part of our evangelical culture. The other point that we have to keep in mind is that Jesus was Jewish, and all of the early apostles were Jews.

Some observers have argued that behind this support for Israel lies an ulterior motive, a desire to convert Jews, to entice them to become Christians. Shouldn't Jews be concerned?

I think there is a bond of kinship that has no ulterior motive at all. In fact, it is sometimes costly. It isn't easy for a person like me to be allied with Israel as closely as I am, because I have death threats from certain Muslim extremists, so this kind of thing puts you in risk of your life.

You mentioned the Bible. Now, the Bible states that God gave the Land of Israel to the people of Israel as their eternal inheritance. But George W. Bush is trying to divide the Land of Israel and create a Palestinian state. Do you think he is defying the Divine will?

I don't think there is any question about it. I think he has made a terrible mistake. You know the prophet Joel speaks about those "who divided my land," that there is a curse on them. I think I would walk very, very softly if I were George Bush in this regard. I think he has been talked into this by the US State Department, by the European community, by the Arabs, to take away Judea and Samaria, or what amounts to the Jewish homeland.

If Bush presses ahead with the road map and compels Israel to divide the land, do you think that American Christians in 2004 should take that into consideration when deciding whom to vote for?

I think they will, but the problem is that the election is between two people. It isn't George Bush versus perfection, it is George Bush versus a liberal Democrat and the chances are that the liberal Democrat is as bad or worse on Israel than he is, and will be worse on a whole lot of other issues than he is. But if he moves against Jerusalem, if he tries to partition Jerusalem, then I think Christian leaders across the country will rise up and speak out very forcefully against him, and it could hurt him in a close election.

As a Christian, haw do you feel about the fact that Israel turned over Bethlehem with all of its important Christian shrines to Palestinian control?

I was in Norway when Shimon Peres was there, working on those Oslo Accords. I wasn't aware of the momentous nature of what was being done, but I think Oslo was a tragic mistake. And I think Ehud Barak gave away the farm. He made concessions that were undreamed of, yet Arafat spat in his face and started the intifada. I think it was a terrible thing to give up not only Bethlehem, but also Joseph's Tomb in Shechem [Nablus], Hebron as these areas do play such a large role in the early formation of Israel. To give them up to Yasser Arafat is unthinkable. Barak tried to do it, and I think he did so under the pressure of Bill Clinton and it was a mistake.

In your opinion, is the roadmap merely another reincarnation of Oslo?

I think so. I think this road map is ill conceived, and I don't think it is going to survive. You guys have to go in and take over that territory. Establish martial, law, disband the Palestinian Authority, begin to reeducate the children and take over the television and the radio so the propaganda stops. Then, over a period of years, see if Palestinians of goodwill can be put in office -people who can understand the situation.

Why do you think Israel refrained from dismantling the Palestinian Authority?

The United States has held Israel back from doing what was needed. What is needed is to go in, like we went into Afghanistan. They needed to go in and flush out this nest of terrorists and do the job completely. Not just a few little tanks surrounding Yasser Arafat's headquarters and all that nonsense. That takes force, and it takes resolute courage and it takes the cooperation of the United States. Unfortunately, they don't have that. The US holds them back from doing what-they need to do.

In recent years, there have been reports about the persecution of Christians living in areas under Palestinian control. Are you concerned about that?

Oh, yes. We have interviewed people on our television station, those who have been tortured, those who have gone underground for fear of their lives and for fear of being captured by the Palestinian Authority. There is no question that the Christians have suffered terrible persecution. Bethlehem was essentially a Christian town. To the best of my knowledge, that whole area has been cleansed of its Christian population. So, that is just one example of the type of persecution that has been going on against Christians.

Do you think Israel does a good job making its case to the American public?

'(Laughs) It does a terrible job. They have the worst public relations of anything I can conceive of.

There have been a number of reports in recent months highlighting the Christian Right and its growing influence in the Republican Party and the White House. How much influence do they wield?

I ran for president in 1988, and in the process, I trained up to 300,000 people in precinct politics. When I got through, I organized the Christian Coalition and these people served as the cadre for the organization. I think over the years this group has been extremely effective in having an influence in the Republican Party. But in terms of really influencing the nation, I think the big networks, the big newspapers, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, they are the ones that really have the influence. I think they are probably the dominant voices in our society.

Have you thought of running for president again?

I am too old, too tired and too smart to try something like that again.

What do you think the role of religion and religious leaders should be in a democracy?

I don't think the organized Church should dominate government policy and force a particular point of view onto the lives of individual people. As to the Supreme Court, I regard the capture of our constitution by five non-elected people as being a form of tyranny. We are 270 million people, and five un-elected officials determine our morals and what we are going to do, when our children can pray, whether they can read the Bible, or whether they can read the Ten Commandments... The Constitution never intended the Supreme Court to have this kind of power.

How should the United States deal with Saudi Arabia

I think it is time that the cozy relationship between the leadership of our nation and the banking and oil interests has got to stop. We have got to recognize that the Wahhabis are vicious. We must tell the Saudis we are not going to stand for this anymore. You are exporting tenor, you are funding terror and you cannot do this anymore. We are protecting you, and we are not going to continue protecting you with our military umbrella if you are continuously undermining Israel, undermining other regimes around the world and trying to export this fanatical brand of Islam. You've just got to stop it. They are here operating in the United States, they are operating in Africa, in the Middle East and they are trying to undermine Russia, as the Chechens are connected with that Wahhabi group. I mean, it is a very dangerous thing and I think that we have to deal
with it forcefully, but so far, there is nobody in our government who has got the will to do that.

How can American citizens, particularly American Christians, support Israel in this difficult time? What would you suggest that they do on behalf of Israel?

The best thing is to discuss the | legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of Israel's claims to the land on a Biblical basis. I think that for the American Christians, and for Israel itself, the strongest claim to integrity rests strongly in the Bible. | The Land was given by God. It was won by conquest maybe around 1200 BCE. We are talking about a long history. I think we need to emphasize that these people [the Jews] are the Chosen People and that there is a prophetic significance in what is happening. These are our friends and we need to support them, especially Israel, as the only island of democracy in the whole Middle East. I think Christians need to speak out and I am not sure they are. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 22, 2003

From Time Immemorial: Origins of Arab-Jewish Conflict


By Joan Peters

This monumental and fascinating book, the product of seven years of original research, will forever change the terms of the debate about the conflicting claims of the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East. A Five Star Must Read.

The weight of the comprehensive evidence found and brilliantly analyzed by historian and journalist Joan Peters answers many crucial questions, among them: Why are the Arab refugees from Israel seen in a different light from all the other, far more numerous peoples who were displaced after World War II? Why, indeed, are they seen differently from the Jewish refugees who were forced, in 1948 and after, to leave the Arab countries to find a haven in Israel? Who, in fact, are the Arabs who were living within the borders of present-day Israel, and where did they come from?

Joan Peter's highly readable and moving development of the answers to these and related questions will appear startling, even to those on both sides of the argument who have considered themselves to be in command of the facts. This book is one that has already had a major impact on the policy discussions of one of the most vital and intractable of the world's problems, shrouded until now in a fog of misinformation and ignorance.

"This book, if read, will change the mind of our generation. If understood, it could also affect the history of the future." - New Republic

"Everything in this book reads like hard news. . One woman walks in and scoops them all. . The great service provided here by Mrs. Peters - if only attention is paid - is to lay a groundwork for peace by clearing away the farrago of lies." -National Review

From Time Immemorial is available from ShopNetDaily now!

http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=36

------------------------------

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2003

University of Michigan Diversity Plan Is A Farce

Reprinted from The Detroit Jewish News, September 12, 2003

By Jerome S. Kaufman

It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down the University of Michigan's undergraduate point-based admissions program, envisioned the university's latest version of a legitimate system. The new program now demands financial information concerning the applicant s family and four essays — two of which have to be on diversity!

Can you imagine the chances of a student being admitted if he or she has the unmitigated honesty and gall to write that he thinks the whole diversity idea is a phony bit of social engineering, the results of which are at best questionable and reek of reverse discrimination?

How about financial divulgence? Is the child whose parents have been bright enough and hard working enough to obtain some financial success in the world to be punished?

What about the requirement that the student obtain an expanded counselor and teacher recommendation, including the applicant s ability to interact with different groups? Does the student who sucks up to the interviewer and gives him or her the answers that they know is expected suddenly become the best prospect for success in the university academic program?

Then each applicant will get an expanded review by "part-time" readers and a separate review by a U-M admissions counselor. Is there any doubt that those will be picked who will totally conform to this socially engineered prototype that the university has been defending tooth and nail with millions of dollars of taxpayer money and coerced donations from major corporations and foundations afraid of being labeled the bad guy?

Of course, the worst part of the whole scenario is the shocking diminishment of the requirement of plain old merit and the studied avoidance of the previous record of achievement in the whole contrived evaluation. Practically nowhere is it mentioned that the good bright student who has a proven record of brains and accomplishment should be rewarded and trained, especially by a state and federally funded institution, to ultimately represent this country and continue our success in the world. Are we hell-bent on becoming another socialized, underachieving country in order to pacify those insanely jealous of us?

Jerome S. Kaufman, Political Commentator

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 16, 2003

Race Hustlers continue their Destructive Demagoguery.

What is vital to the interests of black "leaders" and the Democratic Party is to keep blacks paranoid and dependent. For that, everything must be blamed on "racism."

By Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, September 15, 2003

There is nothing new about organizations and movements beginning with idealism and ending up as cynical rackets. Nevertheless, it was painful to listen to speakers who addressed a scattering of people gathered at the Lincoln Memorial for the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

Both the speakers and the small numbers of people gathered to hear them were a sharp contrast with the multitudes that covered the whole area around the Lincoln Memorial 40 years ago. Then, King spoke the immortal words that he dreamed of a time when people would no longer be judged by "the color of their skin" but by "the content of their character."

Yet, the speakers on the 40th anniversary of that occasion clearly rejected the idea of a colorblind society. These were no longer demands for equal treatment but for special benefits, based on skin color. Speakers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson certainly can't afford to be judged by the content of their character. The aging veterans of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s keep fighting the wars of the past with the rhetoric of the past, while the very different problems and opportunities of the present either are not addressed or are given prescriptions that fit an earlier time and a different disease.

Not only have the times changed, so have the demographic realities that translate into political realities. Blacks are no longer the nation's largest minority group. Hispanics have taken over that role. In California, Asians as well as Hispanics outnumber blacks. While some rejoice that whites are now a minority in California, do not expect Asians and Hispanics to have any feelings of guilt about the past that would lead them to pay reparations or make any other atonement for slavery or anything else.

Hispanics and blacks are not allies. They are rivals for everything from government largess to turf in neighborhoods and in prisons. Demographic realities threaten to push blacks more and more toward the periphery of public concerns and political attention. The old, broken-record rhetoric of black "leaders" tends likewise marginalize blacks.

The Democratic Party will still make its symbolic obeisance and even pretend to take race hustlers like Al Sharpton seriously. But the interests of its other constituents increasingly take precedence over the interests of blacks.

Nowhere is this more blatant than in the most vital of all black interests — the education of their children. Poll after poll shows blacks to be the strongest supporters of school choice to give their children a chance for a decent education, but vote after vote in Congress shows Democrats — black as well as white — to be the strongest opponents of such choice.

It is the same story, though not as widely known, when it comes to the environmentalists' restrictions against building, which push housing prices out of sight. These skyrocketing apartment rents and home prices are in turn pushing more and more blacks out of Northern California communities controlled by liberal Democrats.

Politically, green trumps black. Another constituency whose interests trump those of blacks are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, whose ideology favors the kinds of liberal judges who make it hard to control disruptive students in school.

When push comes to shove, the teachers' unions mean more to Democrats than the future of the next generation of blacks or to keep violent criminals behind bars. A handful of hoodlums can prevent a whole class from learning and a handful of criminals can make a ghetto neighborhood a hell to live in. But what the ACLU wants trumps what blacks need.

In medicine, it has long been recognized that even a quack remedy that is harmless in itself can be fatal when it substitutes for an effective medication or treatment. The time is overdue for that same recognition to apply to politics.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 14, 2003

What Americans really think about Islam

By Daniel Pipes

Americans are increasingly negative about Islam and Muslims - or so reports the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in an important opinion survey published last month. Perhaps the most dramatic change over time has been the jump in Americans who find that Islam, more than other religions, is likely "to encourage violence among its believers."

Other trends concerning Islam are also negative:

Muslim Americans: In November 2001, 59 percent registered positive views. That number declined to 54 percent in March 2002 and now stands at 51 percent.
Presidential candidate: Americans are much more disinclined to vote for a Muslim for US president than for a candidate of another religion: 31 percent say no to a Muslim, versus 20 percent negative regarding an Evangelical Christian, 15 percent a Catholic, and 14 percent a Jew.
Shared values: Asked if "the Muslim religion and your own religion have a lot in common," 31 percent answered affirmatively in November 2001, 27 percent in March 2002, and just 22 percent this year.

What explains this increasingly worried attitude? Clearly, much of it results from the ongoing reality of terrorism, hate-filled statements and other problems connected with militant Islam around the globe. But some of it also results from the problems concerning militant Islam's control of the institutions of American Muslim life. Whether it be the imam at the local mosque, the principal of the Islamic school, the Muslim chaplain in a prison or the armed forces, the editor of an Islamic publishing house, or the spokesman for a national organization, the American scene presents an almost uniform picture of apologetics for terrorism, conspiracy theories about Jews, and demands for Muslim privilege.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, with 17 offices across North America, has emerged as the powerhouse of Muslim organizations and best exemplifies this problem. Consider the sentiments of its leadership:

• Omar M. Ahmad (chairman) says suicide bombers "kill themselves for Islam" and so are not terrorists.
• Nihad Awad (executive director) proclaims his "support" for Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.
Ibrahim Hooper (spokesman) declares "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Nor does CAIR just excuse violence. Two of its former employees, Bassem Khafagi and Ismail Royer, have recently been arrested on charges related to terrorism. And a member of CAIR's advisory board, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by the US attorney as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in an attempted terrorist assault.

Despite this ugly record, the US government widely accepts CAIR as representing Islam. Nationally, the White House invites it to functions, the State Department links to its web-page, and Democratic senators rely on its research. In New York City, the mayor appoints its general counsel to the Human Rights Commission and the police department hosts its "sensitivity training" seminar.

In Florida, public schools invite it to teach "diversity awareness." The national media broadcasts its views. Which Muslim, for example, did the Los Angeles Times quote responding to the Pew report? Why, Ibrahim Hooper, of course.
CAIR, in brief, has established itself as the voice of American Islam, thereby battering Islam's noble reputation among Americans.

Moderate Muslims, of course, reject CAIR's representing them. The late Seifeldin
Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, dismissed CAIR as the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam." Tashbih Sayyed of the Los Angeles-based Council for Democracy and Tolerance accuses CAIR of being a "fifth column" in the United States. Jamal Hasan of the same organization discerns CAIR's goal as spreading "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."

Improving Islam's reputation will require two steps: that the great institutions of American life reject all contact with CAIR and like groups, while moderate Muslims build sound organizations, ones that neither apologize for terrorism nor seek "the government of the United States to be Islamic."

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 09, 2003

Survey finds Vast Majority of College Professors are Democrats

By Ellen Sorokin

THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 9-15 2003

A majority of college professors across the country are registered Democrats, most of whom end up teaching in disciplines where politics matters the most, a new survey released by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute shows.

More than 90 percent of the professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at schools like the University of Maryland, Brown, Cornell, Stanford, Penn State and Harvard belong to either Democratic, Green or Working Families parties, the survey found. Few faculty members are registered as Republicans or Libertarians.

"You can't get a good education if you only get half the story," said David Horowitz, author and editor of Frontpagemag.com, which has been following the issue of what he calls "one-party campuses" closely for several years. "This is a national outrage. You could understand this taking place in the [former] Soviet Union, but you can't understand why this takes place in the United States. This is McCarthyism in the extreme."

However, some analysts argue that those who end up teaching politics don't like politics. "The problem here is not that these professors are perpetuating liberal political biases, but being anti-politics," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal research and policy institute. "Many of them teach that politicians are to consumed with being re-elected and forget about what the people want," he said.

The survey found at the University of Colorado at Boulder, 116 of the professors whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and five were Republicans. Out of a sample of 37 professors who teach English, none were Republicans. Out of a sample of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Out of 19 political science professors,
two were Republican.

• At Harvard University, of the 52 professors whose affiliations were found, 50 were registered Democrats and two were Republicans. Of 15 sociology professors, none were Republicans. Out of 16 economics professors, one was Republican. Of 21 political science professors, one was Republican.

• At the University of California at Santa Barbara, a sample of 72 arts and sciences professors were registered Democrats and one was Republican. Out of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Of 21 English professors, none was Republican. Out of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Of 13 political science professors, none was Republican, and out of eight journalism professors, none was Republican.

•At the University of Texas at Austin, of the 109 professors whose political affiliations were found, 94 were Democrats and 15 were Republicans. Out of six philosophy professors, one was Republican. Of 19 political science professors, 15 were Democrats. Out of 14 history professors, two were Republicans. Out of 42 English professors, 35 were Democrats.

"Faculties that won't brook intellectual dissent in their own ranks feel more comfortable indoctrinating students than educating them, because genuine education requires a willingness to examine problems rigorously," said Winfield Myers, an education analyst in Delaware. "Intellectual rigor is the antidote to academic pieties and the key to great teaching, but a professorate afraid of internal debate is intellectually lazy."

David Salisbury, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, said the results reinforce the idea that colleges are now "hostile environments" for economic and cultural conservatives. The country needs more private colleges that still provide traditional curriculums, he said. "You don't want to suppress the opinions of these professors, but this is worrisome," Mr. Salisbury said. "There's no question that people's individually held philosophies influence their teaching. The whole purpose of going to college is for a student to get exposed to a diverse range of ideas, not a single viewpoint."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 08, 2003

Perverse Political Correctness

By Robert Bork

"For most of us, airport security checks are the only first-hand experience we have with counter-measures to terrorism, and their intrusiveness and often seeming pointlessness have, not surprisingly, led many people to question such measures in general. But minor vexations are not the same as an assault on fundamental liberties. As for ethnic profiling, that is another matter, and a serious one. It is serious, however, not because it is rampant but because it does not exist. [...]

"Ironically, it is the very randomness of the new security checks that has generated so much skepticism about their efficacy. Old ladies, children, Catholic priests — all have been subject to searches of San Quentin-like thoroughness despite being beyond rational suspicion. According to the authorities, this randomness is itself a virtue, preventing would-be terrorists from easily predicting who or what will draw attention. But it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with political correctness. Frightening as the prospect of terrorism may be, it pales, in the minds of many officials, in comparison with the prospect of being charged with racism."

Robert H. Bork, writing on "Civil Liberties After 9/11," in the July-August issue of Commentary Magazine

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 03, 2003

Enough of United Nations Perfidy

Enough of contributing 23% or more of the grossly inflated and irresponsible budget of the United Nations, an organization run by the European Union, the Arab nations and the nations of the Third World. The greater part of the time these nations vote against our interests, remain insanely jealous of us and yet we, the American taxpayer, continue to support them.

Recently founded was an independent grassroots, non-profit organization that is asking our support. Below is a petition they designed and which you may elect to send to the President. Also, you may elect to donate to the organization as listed below. Israel Commentary has no financial interest here whatever.

Petition to the President of the United States

Dear Mr. President,

Whereas, the United Nations, the Europeans and many of our so-called "allies" were hostile to American interests long before the Iraq war; and

Whereas, the United Nations frantic efforts to obstruct our strike against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its ongoing interference in our overall war on terror are systemic of a larger, overall effort to take control of our domestic, military and diplomatic policies; and

Whereas, neither foreign nations nor the United Nations have any business dictating domestic or foreign policy to the United States; and

Whereas, their demands to take more control and responsibility of our Iraq reconstruction policy and war efforts are simply the last straws; and

Whereas, the time has come to send the United Nations, the Europeans and the entire world a loud and clear message that the days of U.S. appeasement are over for good.

Therefore, I hereby urge you to initiate action with the Congress to officially and permanently withdraw the United States from the United Nations.


Respectfully ________________________________ Date: __________

Optional E-mail address:


Dear Sirs,

Yes, I share your anger over the United Nations never-ending, anti-American actions and rhetoric and agree the sole purpose of this globalist entity seems to be restraining America's military, economic and diplomatic sovereignty. I am also alarmed by their arrogant demands to dictate to us how best to rebuild Iraq and continue the war on terrorism.

Therefore, I believe we must act immediately to reverse the damage caused by eight years of appeasement and surrender by the Clinton White House and State Department. More importantly, I agree that the time has come for the United
States to officially and permanently withdraw from the United Nations.

That's why I am immediately sending my contribution in order that you are able to carry on this work vital to the well being of our nation.

TO:
SELOUS FOUNDATION
325 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Post Office Box 97207
Washington, D.C. 20090-7207
D $20 D $25 D $35
D $50 D $75 D $100
D $250 D $500 D $1000
D Other $ ________

The Selous Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) grassroots organization.
Your donation is tax-deductible and a receipt will be forthcoming

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 02, 2003

Go Back to the Bagel Business, Please!

Interview with Joe Lieberman’s Campaign Vice Chairman, Marvin Lender of Lender’s Bagels

By Melissa Radler – Redacted from International Jerusalem Post, August 29, 2003

The comments and opinions of Marvin Lender, former President of Lender’s Bagels and now simultaneously Chairman of Israel Policy Forum, a dead Left political organization and the National Vice Chairman for Senator Joe Lieberman’s presidential campaign!

Questions and stated opinions:

As far as Israel – Lender’s “primary goal is garnering support for the Roadmap!”

Asked if he is happy with Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to disarm the terrorist groups he replied, “ I think I understand that he does not have the capacity to do that and we must be patient and cautious and help him establish himself. (Evidently, never mind the number of innocent Israelis killed during Abbas’s break-in period!)

Lender wrote in a June LA Times that the Bush administration should provide the PA with weapons and training and that doing so would protect Israel’s security not harm it!

Lender has met Mahmoud Abbas twice and concludes that Abbas is a very clever, clever man with a nice appearance that makes you want to sit and talk to him! And he is an educated man. (What great reasons to allow the slaughter of Israeli citizens!)

After meeting Arafat several times, Lender was asked, After realizing that Arafat was not a partner for peace did it change your approach to the peace process? "No, it just convinced me that I would have to work harder.”

Where does the responsibility lie for the past three years of violence? Lender replied, “ I cannot assign the fault of the intifada to any one person or situation. All the parties have to bear some responsibility.”

What about incitement and anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Media and educational system? What does Abbas plan to do? “Abbas did not specify what he plans to do. But you have to understand, there is incitement by Right Wing Israelis as well.”

Conclusion: How then could anyone worried about the future of the State of Israel vote for Joe Lieberman when he appoints this guy as a vice chairman for his 2004 campaign? Can Lieberman’s own thinking be far behind? Too bad Lender did not stick with the business he knows – BAGELS.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 31, 2003

Arab Political Expediency

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Following the recent attack on the Shia Islam’s holy shrine in Najaf, Iraq, August 29, 2003, I found the statement of imam Sayed Hassan Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn Michigan quite revealing. The imam bemoaning the attack by fellow Arabs stated, “After the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, this is the most important shrine for us. This is a big, big blow for millions of Shi’ites around the world.”

Funny, for the last 36 years, (by “coincidence” since Israel in the 1967 Six Day War regained Jerusalem and King Solomon’s Temple Site which, by the way, was built approximately 3000 years ago - 1600 years before Muhammad was even born), I have heard nothing but how the Temple Mount was Islam’s “Third Holiest Site.” I guess, as many observers have suspected right along, claims vary depending upon what is politically expedient and necessary in order to justify whatever the fabrication of the moment.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

U.S. Troops in Israel – A Disaster Foretold


By Herbert Zweibon From: Outpost, August 2003

In recent weeks, former U.S. Middle East envoy Martin Indyk and Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, among others, have raised the idea of sending American troops to en- force peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The Bush administration, while not yet publicly endorsing the idea, has not ruled it out, either--a sure sign that it has not dismissed it out of hand.

A similar trial balloon was floated in 1994 in an attempt by the Clinton administration to sell the idea of an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Stationing U.S. troops on the Golan was a terrible idea, and stationing them in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is even worse. The Palestinian Authority wants U.S. troops because it knows from experience that such a force would serve as a shield for continued terrorism against Israel.

In Lebanon, groups of terrorists had no trouble penetrating UNIFIL lines to attack Israel, while the Israeli Army repeatedly found itself stymied when approaching UNIFIL's lines in pursuit of terrorists.

Another problem with Israel trading territory for GIs is that there is no way to be sure how long the GIs will stick around. America's hasty withdrawal from Lebanon and Somalia as a result of casualties inflicted by local terrorists is certainly an indication that if things turn ugly on the ground, domestic pressure may result in a sudden change in U.S. policy. Every Gl will be walking around Ramallah and Gaza with a bull’s-eye on his back. Palestinian terrorists will not long resist that temptation. The illusion that "America will protect us" will be shattered when coffins of GIs begin arriving back in the U.S.-but by then, Israel will no longer control the territory it needs to protect itself.

Nor is terrorism the only possible reason for the U.S. to break a promise. The American abandonment of Vietnam was due to casualties, but the U.S. abandonment of Taiwan was due to simple, cold political calculations. In 1956, the Eisenhower administration promised Israel that it would have free passage through the Straits of Tiran if it withdrew from the Sinai, but when that passage was threatened in 1967, Eisenhower was long gone
and the Johnson administration did not consider itself bound by its predecessor's pledge.

Stationing U.S. troops on Israel's borders would be detrimental in other ways, as well. It would involve huge expenditures and therefore introduce new strains on the American budget. It would also involve committing large numbers of American soldiers at a time when the U.S. military is already stretched thin. A recent CATO Institute report found that U.S. forces abroad "were stretched to the breaking point even before the latest
action against Iraq," and Army Times has reported that "the war in Iraq doubly burdened some Army families when soldiers who had returned from a six-month tour in Afghanistan or a year tour in South Korea found themselves quickly deployed to the Persian Gulf."

Furthermore, the relationship between Israel and the United States was always based on the understanding that Israel would fight its own battles, and was asking nothing from the U.S. except weapons with which to defend itself. It would turn Israel into a weak, vassal state that would owe its existence to an outside power. If Israel puts itself in the position of being dependent upon U.S. troops to protect it, the Jewish State will find every one of its policy decisions subject to the yardstick of "What will the Americans say?" Stationing GIs in Judea and Samaria would undermine Israel's national security, endanger the lives of American soldiers and change the U.S.-Israel alliance in ways that would serve neither country.

Herbert Zweibon is chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 29, 2003

India-Pakistan Divide Widens

Border fence depicts mistrust, suspicion in dispute over Kashmir.

(So, Israel is not the only one building a fence to protect its citizens from Moslem invasion. India has been creating such a fence for years, defending against a Pakistani Moslem invasion and a claim to the land of Kashmir that historically does not exist. The situation and history parallels in many ways, the fabricated Moslem claim to the territories of Judea and Samaria and Gaza in Israel.

Rarely however, does one hear of India’s 1800 mile fence while the 370 mile fence, of which only 1/3 has been built, to protect Israel’s citizens from the daily mayhem of homicide bombers, is in the news and universally condemned on a daily basis.

The sensitive reader will also note the slanting of this article developing a moral equivalency between the Indian claim and the Pakistani claim just as the media does with the Arab and Israeli claim, ignoring all historical facts and cleverly presenting the Moslem as the offended party.)

By JulietteTerzieff, San Francisco Chronicle August 25, 2003

NARLWAR, Pakistani-Indian border — From his resting perch under a small clump of trees, Mohammad Khalil casts an eye over the rice paddies he has worked all his life. Forty feet behind him is a line of rocks painted white, signifying where India begins. A few feet beyond is a 10-foot-high set of electrified double fences, replete with 25-foot-tall floodlights and guard posts evenly spaced along the other side.

"We didn't have these things when, I was a kid. That just shows how divided everything has become," muses the 42-year-old Khalil. The fence is part of an Indian initiative, begun in the 1980’s, to seal off its 1800-mile border with Pakistan. More than half the border fence is built, at a cost of more than $300 million. Building continues, despite a peace initiative launched by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee this spring.

The fence vividly depicts the deep mistrust and suspicion that exist after 55 years of troubled bilateral relations between the two nuclear-armed rivals. The Indian Border Security Force is moving ahead this summer with an effort to extend the fortification along a ceasefire line dividing the disputed state of Kashmir. India claims sovereignty over the state, but; Pakistan retains de facto control of the northern part. The two South Asian rivals have fought two of their three wars over the Himalayan territory.

India has long accused its smaller neighbor of funding, arming and training Muslim militants who have regularly slipped across Kashmir's poorly demarcated Line of Control to launch deadly attacks on Indian security forces. Pakistan vehemently denies the charge. Officials hope to have the border sealed by the end of next year. "Everyone has to defend themselves but it just seems so... fatalistic, like they expect peace talks to fail," Khalil said.

It wouldn't be the first time. Several times in the past 50 years, talks have broken down over the Kashmir issue — with India insisting on dominion and Pakistan demanding a plebiscite to determine the territory's future. The nations came to the brink of war as recently as last year after a December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament left 14 dead. India blamed Islamic militants and Pakistan's spy agency; Pakistan denied any role in the attack. Pakistani officials decry India's attempts to build a defensive fence in Kashmir. But Pakistanis also have taken precautions along their recognized international border.

In the area near Wagah, the only official land border crossing between the two countries, where Indian tanks penetrated in 1971, Pakistan created a canal with steep sides about 1,000 feet inside the border to prevent motorized infantry from passing. The construction encroached slightly on some Pakistani residents land, but they still work their field right up to its edge.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 28, 2003

The Good and the Bad

Fortunately, I did not see my name in today's newspaper obituary column.

It came as no surprise however, to see that my golf game had been listed.

jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 26, 2003

An Independent Palestinian State?

By FLAME

Would it be a peaceful neighbor of Israel or would it lead to war?

President Bush, prodded by the "international community" and in order to appease the Arabs, who are furious about our war against Iraq, has designed a "Road Map" for the Middle East, aided by the "quartet" of the U.N., the European Union and Russia. At the end of that road, presumably in 2005, an independent Palestinian state would arise as a peaceful neighbor of Israel.

What are the facts?

An aura of inevitability

The concept of a Palestinian state, which has by now acquired an aura of almost inevitability, is a fairly new and, quite unjustified one. It is unjustified because there are no distinct "Palestinian" people—they are the same Arabs as those of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The concept of a Palestinian state came about after the Six-Day War in 1967. It is the product of unrelenting Arab propaganda and insistence. A Palestinian state never occurred to the Ottomans who ruled the area until their defeat in World War I, nor to the British when they had the mandate over Palestine until 1948, nor to the Jordanians who ruled the "West Bank" from 1948 to 1967.

George Bush (father) declared, "...In accordance with U.S. traditional policy, we do not support the creation of an independent Palestinian state." It is therefore difficult to understand why his son, our current president, would declare that it was "...a vision of longstanding U.S. policy to create a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River."

The thought that a Palestinian state next to Israel would be a peaceful neighbor is ludicrous. The stated purpose of the Arabs, endlessly repeated and never excised from their "covenant," is to acquire whatever territory they can, in order to use it as a base for the final assault against the Jewish state and for the hoped-for extinction of the hated "Zionist entity" once and for all.


Even ten years after the ballyhooed Oslo Accord, the Palestinian Arabs still proclaim that "Palestine" would extend "from the river to the sea," which means that Israel would cease to exist, would be destroyed and absorbed by the new "Palestine." The State of Israel does not exist in Palestinian or any other Arab schoolbooks or on their maps. Tel Aviv does not exist. The Jewish holy places do not exist. The "West Bank" and Gaza are only the first step. They want it all!

"Palestine" demilitarized? Many, even those who concede the, unrelenting hostility of the Arabs, contend that Israel would be in no existential danger from a Palestinian state because it could be made a condition of its creation that it be demilitarized, for a number of years or perhaps even forever. But those who propose that know better, of course. Even today, as the Palestinians are under the severe weapons restrictions that they accepted in the Oslo Accord, which allowed only a police force with light weapons, they have artillery, rockets, missiles and all kinds of heavy weaponry that they have
smuggled into their territory.

A ship laden with 50 tons of deadly weapons was intercepted by Israel in the Red Sea. Many shipments of arms have been intercepted in the Mediterranean; and there is a steady influx of arms through secret tunnels from the Sinai, which, in quest of peace, Israel has foolishly ceded to Egypt. But the heavy weapons that "Palestine" would inevitably acquire, despite all solemn covenants to the contrary, aren't really necessary.

With an independent Palestine in control of the Judean ridges, and with Israel only nine miles wide at what would be its narrow waist, heavy weapons would not be required to make life impossible in the truncated and mortally vulnerable Jewish state. Katyusha rockets, one of the Arabs' favorite weapons, would cover virtually all of Israel—impeding civilian life, industry, civil and military aviation, and, in case it came to that, mobilization of troops.

The one million Arabs living in Israel as Israeli citizens would be a convenient and deadly fifth column, ready to spring into action. Israel would, of course, respond to any such attack. That would inevitably result in a major war, a war that would ultimately set the entire region on fire and would undoubtedly involve weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones. How can the world, how can the United States possibly promote such a project—a project likely to bring untold disaster to the world?

The Arab world is presently comprised of twenty-two states of nearly five million square miles and of one hundred forty-four million people. The greater Islamic world contains forty-four states with one billion people. Israel, with five million people, is smaller than Lake Michigan, smaller by half than San Bernardino County in California. There seems to be no need for another Moslem/Arab state, especially one that would certainly serve as an advance base for the ultimate destruction of Israel, the state of the Jews. How the President would promote the creation of a terrorist state, a state that without question would become a mortal enemy of the United States, and how he would countenance the inevitable destruction of the Jewish state, the only loyal ally of the United States and its only strategic asset in the area, is incomprehensible.

House majority leader Tom DeLay put it well when he said, "I can't imagine this president supporting a state of terrorists... The peace plan is a road map to destruction."

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 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 24, 2003

The Palestinian Arab Refugee (?) Problem


By Daniel Pipes

(The preposterous lie of “Palestinian” Arab Refugees aided and abetted by the near 21000 employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) who promote their own cause and cushy jobs feeding off the public trough. Over 90% of these employees are themselves Arabs with 40% of the funding coming from the American taxpayer!) Jsk


Here's a puzzle: How do Palestinian refugees differ from the 20th century's 135 million other refugees? Answer: In every other instance, the pain of dispossession, statelessness and poverty has diminished over time. Refugees either resettled, returned home or died. Their children — whether living in South Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey, Germany or the United States — then shed the refugee status and joined the mainstream. Not so the Palestinians. For them, the refugee status continues from one generation to the next, creating an ever-larger pool of anguish and discontent.

Several factors explain this anomaly, but one key component — of all things is the United Nations' bureaucratic structure. It contains two organizations focused on refugee affairs, each with its own definition of "refugee": The U.N. High Commission for Refugees applies this term worldwide to someone who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted is outside the country of his nationality." Being outside the country of his nationality implies that descendants of refugees are refugees. Cubans who flee the Castro regime are refugees, but not their Florida-born children who lack Cuban nationality. Afghans who flee heir homeland are refugees, but not their Iranian-born children. And so on.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, an organization set up uniquely or Palestinian refugees in 1949, defines Palestinian refugees differently from all other refugees. They are persons who lived in Palestine "between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." Especially important is that UNRWA extends the refugee status to "the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948." It even considers the children of just one Palestinian refugee parent to be refugees.

The High Commission's definition causes refugee populations to vanish over time; UNRWA's causes them to expand without limit. Let's apply each definition to the Palestinian refugees of 1948: By the U.N.'s (inflated) statistics, they numbered 726,000. (Scholarly estimates of the number range between 420,000 and 539,000.) The High Commission definition would restrict the refugee status to those of the 726,000 yet alive.

According to a demographer, about 200,000 of those 1948 refugees remain living today. UNRWA includes the refugees' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as Palestinians who left their homes in 1967, all of whom add up to 4.25 million refugees. The 200,000 refugees by the global definition make up less than 5 percent of the 4.25 million by the UNRWA definition.

By international standards, those other 95 percent are not refugees at all. By falsely attaching a refugee status to these Palestinians who never fled anywhere, UNRWA condemns a creative and entrepreneurial people to lives of exclusion, self-pity and nihilism.

The policies of Arab governments then make things worse by keeping Palestinians locked in an amber-like refugee status. In Lebanon, for instance, the 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property or even improve their housing stock. It's high time to help these generations of non-refugees escape the refugee status so they can become citizens, assume self-responsibility and build for the future. Best for them would be for UNRWA to close its doors and the U.N. High Commission to absorb the dwindling number of true Palestinian refugees. That will only happen if the U.S. government recognizes UNRWAs role in perpetuating Palestinian misery. In a misguided spirit of "deep commitment to the welfare of Palestinian refugees."

Washington currently provides 40 percent of UNRWAs $306 million annual budget; it should be zeroed-out. Fortunately, the U.S. Congress is waking up to this need. Chris Smith, a Republican on the House International Relations Committee, recently called for expanding the General Accounting Office's investigation into U.S. funding for UNRWA Tom Lantos, the ranking Democratic member on that same committee, goes further. Criticizing the "privileged and prolonged manner" of dealing with Palestinian refugees, he calls for shuttering UNRWA and transferring its responsibilities to the High Commission.

Other Western governments should join with Washington to solve the Palestinian refugee problem by withholding authorization for UNRWA when it next comes up for renewal in June 2005. Now is the time to lay the groundwork to eliminate this malignant institution, its mischievous definition and its monstrous works.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. His e-mail address is
Pipes@MEForum.org

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 18, 2003

Farmington High School International Affairs Course Crosses the Line to Propagandizing.

Speech given by Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman at Farmington School Board Meeting, August 12, 2003

First, I would like to thank all of those on the Board for devoting so many hours to what is many times, I am sure, a thankless job. It was also very reassuring to hear the pledge of allegiance recited at the beginning of the meeting. This gesture reminds us of the fact that this is an American school system where American values should be taught and American patriotism should be encouraged.

Which brings me to the subject at hand:
The course on International Affairs.

I was surprised to find when searching the web that the recent action by the Farmington Board starting a course on International affairs has been commented upon nationally.

An organization called The Center for Individual Freedom, which is a non-partisan constitutional advocacy group that protects individual freedoms and rights in the educational arenas, wrote the following article on its web page.

A High School International Affairs Program Crosses the Line to Propagandizing

www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/farmington_michigan.htm

“Learn today . . . Lead tomorrow”. That is the public relations campaign motto adopted this year by the Michigan Department of Education. It is a good motto in principle, but a terrible one in practice if the public school students are learning lessons that undermine American values and leadership.

A perfect example comes from the Farmington, Michigan, Public Schools which recently eliminated the requirement for 12th grade American government, replacing it with an International Affairs program that includes on its menu of courses a class on terrorism, with the strong implication that the U.S. is the terrorist.

Yes, you read that right, a course on “terrorism.” Approved course materials for the program will “explore” such ideas as:

· America’s “war against terrorism is a fraud;”
· “The U.S. has turned into a fascist state;”
· “The war against terrorism is “Bush’s Jihad;”
· “ The Taliban are victims of American Terrorism.”

‘Perhaps most astoundingly, one article encourages students to apply this definition to U.S. conduct in the world.’

Unfortunately, what is happening here is not unique. We are not just speaking about one International Affairs course. We are talking about a lethal, anti-American project that is currently overwhelming our entire educational system.

I had a personal experience with this attempted indoctrination. On March 3, 2001, I attended a course given at the Michigan State Library and Historical Center in Lansing, Michigan. The course was co-sponsored by the Michigan Humanities Council, the Arab World and Islamic Resources (AWAIR) and the Middle East Policy Council. Invited to the course were educators from all over the State of Michigan. We were there all day long listening to the political propaganda of Ms. Audrey Shabbas, a paid member of the Arab World and Islamic Resources organization. The Aramco Oil Company, a major oil producer in Saudi Arabia, underwrote the course.

Ms. Shabbas also volunteered to send out completely free, a huge teaching kit to those present. It consisted of tens of books, pamphlets, videos, and periodicals all devoted to extolling the virtues of the nations of the Middle East. From a teacher’s stand point it had to be completely irresistible. Here were all the lesson plans and material one would ever need as long as one went along with the program.

At our last meeting here, one lady in the audience astutely asked why is the International Affairs course dominated by affairs of the Middle East. That is a marvelously intuitive question. She asked, “Why are International Affairs courses not more about England, France, Europe, Australia, Africa, wherever else? The reason is simple. It is because addressing those very worthwhile subjects does not accomplish the public relations goal that is the raison d’etre of most of these International Affairs courses.

There is another illustrious non-profit organization that specializes in examining textbooks used in the public schools. The organization is called the American Textbook Council. Of interest to us are the conclusions that the Council made after analyzing textbooks concerned with the Middle East. Here is a direct quote from the summary of their 35-page article entitled, Islam and the Textbooks. www.historytextbooks.org/islam.htm

The study surveys the content of world history textbooks used across the country in grades seven through twelve. It reviews coverage of jihad, sharia, slavery, status of women, and terrorism, comparing the lesson content to factual material found in prominent histories and recognized sources. This review faults world history textbooks that deal with these most complicated and important subjects.

Its main conclusions include:
(1) world history textbooks hold Islam and other non-Western civilizations to different standards than those that apply to the West,
(2) domestic educational activists, Muslim and non-Muslim, insist at once on harsh perspectives for the West while gilding the record of non-Western civilizations,
(3) Islamic pressure groups and their allies seek to suppress critical analysis of Islam inside and outside classrooms, and distorted textbook content is one symptom of this phenomenon, and
(4) publishers respond to pressure groups on account of political expediency and sales.

As a result, they are giving American children and their teachers a misshapen view of the past and a false view of the future.That result is exactly what we, in the Farmington School District, should be diligently trying to avoid.

It is my understanding that there are over 12000 American students in this district. It would be truly tragic to have them graduate with a perverted understanding of their own great country and its relationship to the rest of the world.

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

August 17, 2003

James Baker back, Ugh

Israel’s wobbly ally?

By Caroline B. Glick

The Internet Jerusalem Post, August 15, 2003

(James Baker simultaneously representing the U.S. Government and his trillion dollar law firm client, Saudi Arabia. Are you kidding me?) jsk

Eyebrows were raised on Tuesday when, just hours after Fatah and Hamas bombed civilians in Rosh Ha'ayin and Ariel, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Palestinian terrorism would have no effect on US Middle East policy. "We will continue to move forward on the road map " he said. "We will not be stopped by bombs, we will not be stopped by this kind of violence."

The question arises: How can the US not reassess its policy of coddling the Palestinian Authority when the policy has already failed so abundantly?
Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policy on the Palestinian issue is part and parcel of an overall inconsistency in the administration's approach to the Middle East that bodes ill not simply for Israel, but for the US and its allies all over the world.

Laying out the foundations of the administration's foreign policy doctrine last week, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice explained that US foreign policy is aimed at making the world a safer and better place. The former, she said, is advanced through military campaigns like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. The latter is done by promoting freedom and democracy abroad.

"There is one region of the world where all the challenges of our time come together, perhaps in their most difficult forms: the Middle East," Rice said.
She's right. After the 9/11 attacks, it is inarguable that the Arab world, whose 22 states have not one democratic government among them and whose clerics daily call for jihad against the US, manifests the most direct threat to US and global security.

Iraq and the PA were Rice's two examples of how the US is advancing its dual agenda in the Middle East. She referred to the recently inaugurated Iraqi Governing Council as the "most promising" advance toward stability and democracy since Saddam Hussein's regime was deposed in April. In her words, "It serves as a first step toward Iraqi self-government and toward a democratic Iraq which can become a linchpin of a very different Middle East in which ideologies of hate will not flourish."

Yet there are indications that the Bush administration will squander much of the good work US forces have done in destroying the Ba'athist regime. Over the past month, reports have surfaced that the White House intends to appoint former secretary of state James Baker to lead the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Proponents of the appointment note Baker's tremendous experience in the region and his close association with regional leaders.

But a Baker-led occupation government is cause for alarm. "Putting Baker in charge of Iraq means the US is handing the country over to the Saudis," one senior diplomatic source told me this week. Baker is one of the Saudi government's chief supporters in the US. His law firm, Baker Botts, is now representing the Saudi government in the $1 trillion law suit filed against Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in the 9/11 attacks by the victims' families. Baker also serves as senior counsel and partner in the Carlyle investment group, which is a financial adviser to the Saudi government.

In view of this, it is not unreasonable to assume that as head of the Iraq occupation authority, Baker would not support the geo-strategically vital idea of keeping liberated Iraq out of the OPEC cartel.

As for the Palestinians, Rice applauded the "reformed" leadership of PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and security chief Muhammad Dahlan. "A new Palestinian leadership is emerging that says, in Arabic and in English, that terror is not a means to Palestinian statehood, but rather the greatest obstacle to statehood," she said. Then she added that "Israel has to fulfill its responsibilities to help that peaceful state emerge."
It is debatable at best whether either leader has made such anti-terrorist declarations. Not debatable is that Dahlan and Abbas refuse to take any action against terror groups.

Far from working toward reconciliation, they, like their boss PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, have used every opportunity to condemn Israel and to undermine the legitimacy of its actions to defend itself against the same terrorist aggression that they are supposed to be combating. In insisting on backing its hand-picked Palestinian leadership, the Bush administration is both rhetorically and effectively embracing a terror regime and abandoning a democratic ally.

Speaking of the US's own fight against terrorism, Rice briefly noted operations by the Homeland Security Department to secure potential targets like airports, power plants, and government buildings against attacks. "But if we in the United States are to preserve the nature of our open society there is only so much of this 'hardening' that we can do. We must also address the source of the problem. We have to go on the offense," she said. So while the Bush administration claims to be going on the offensive, it attacks every move Israel makes - both defensive and offensive - to protect itself against terrorism.

Last week, the administration attacked the newly passed legislation that makes it more difficult for Palestinians who marry Israelis to receive citizenship. This law, whose national security implications are clear, is no more draconian than procedures the US itself enacted in 1986 to protect itself against foreigners who enter into fictitious marriages to receive residency status. The decision to build a fence to protect itself against terrorists is even more strongly condemned. From Bush to Powell to their spokesmen, the entire apparatus of the US government seems to have ratcheted up its rhetoric in placing the IDF's counterterror operations on a moral par with the massacre of Israeli civilians.

The administration has also ordered Israel not to take action against the growing Hizbullah threat from Lebanon, which over the past month has taken the form of direct aggression against civilians and military installations. As for the greatest strategic threat presently emanating from the region, the Iranian nuclear program, the US is now moving steadily toward repeating with Iran the same failed policy of UN weapons inspections it used for 12 years against Iraq.
While Israel estimates that the Iranians are only one year away from nuclear capabilities, the US has moved discussion of the imminent threat to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

In a fine imitation of the policy of Iraq's former government, Iran is making a show of cooperating with IAEA officials. Now IAEA officials are apparently set to present a second inconclusive report about Iranian compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at their meeting in September.

The consequences of the Bush administration's policies for Israel can be simply put: We must no longer seek to coordinate our activities with Washington. The US is actively abandoning Israel, while embracing its authoritarian and terrorist enemies and neighbors even as it hollowly claims to be doing just the opposite. The unreformed and unrepentant PA leadership cannot be given control of territory today or statehood tomorrow.

Hizbullah bases in Lebanon must be destroyed. And the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran must not be allowed to materialize as the UN impotently engages the duplicitous Iranian government. The consequences of the administration's policies for US national security are no less apparent. Its current fetish with Israeli-Palestinian engagement has allowed the Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, and Saudis to continue with their support for terrorism and incitement against the US. Perceiving the US as unwilling to confront its open hostility, the Arab League did not bat an eyelash when it voted to refuse to recognize the Iraqi Governing Council.

As the Egyptians loudly proclaim their support for Israeli-Palestinian peace and blame its nonexistence on Israel, a weapons smuggling tunnel from the Sinai to Gaza unearthed this week was found to have originated in an Egyptian border guard base. On July 30, Egyptian religious authorities reiterated their call for all Muslims including women and old people to attack US and coalition forces in Iraq.

As for Syria, President Bashar Assad is directly arming and enabling Hizbullah as well as the guerrilla fighters in Iraq. He also continues to aid and abet Palestinian terror groups headquartered in his capital city.

For their part, the Saudis have taken no steps to close down the offices of their government supported charities either at home or abroad that have been directly implicated in global terror funding.

The US's abandonment of Israel is also liable to impact its strategic posture in Asia. Why should China be deterred from overrunning Taiwan when the US is abandoning Israel to similar totalitarian forces? Why should South Korea or Japan trust the US's commitment to their security from the North Korean nuclear threat when the US is not taking action against Iran and reportedly reining in Israel from taking action against Iran on its own?

In concluding her remarks, Rice said, "The desire for freedom transcends race, religion, and culture The people of the Middle East are not exempt from this desire. We have an opportunity and an obligation to help them turn this desire into reality. That is the security challenge and the moral mission of our time."

Again, Rice is correct. And yet, with its current Middle East policy of embracing terror regimes like the PA and anti-American tyrannies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while publicly condemning Israel for trying to advance the administration's own stated policy, the US is failing to meet this challenge. Instead, the Bush administration's policies are damaging America's credibility, moral standing, and national security.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Criticizing Israel’s Protective Fence – Another Bush/Powell Double Standard


Editorial – The Detroit Jewish News, August 15, 2003

Let's be clear about what this fence is and what it is not. It is a security barrier that Israel has had to put up to make it harder for the would-be bombers to cross over from the West Bank and blow up Israeli civilians at markets, pizza parlors and discotheques, and on buses. It is going up as a reaction to a hideous pattern of terror that the Palestinians chose to pursue after rejecting an incredibly generous peace settlement that Israel's Ehud Barak offered them three years ago at Camp David and again at Taba, in Egypt.

It is the same thing as the fence Israel has built around the Gaza Strip and at the borders with Lebanon and Syria. It is no more illegal than the barricades the United States has put up along the Rio Grande to slow the influx of illegally entering immigrants and, perhaps, it will be more effective. Its historic antecedent is the Great Wall of China. In its intent, it is the same as checkpoints at airports or security doors for businesses or a lock on the front door of homes. The point is to keep the bad guys out.
I

It is not a wall to enclose the Palestinians, who are free if they choose to cross over into Jordan — therefore, it is nothing like the ghetto walls that for centuries Jews were required to live behind in European cities. It also bears no comparison with the Berlin Wall that the Soviet Union put up to keep East Germans from seeing the success of Western democracy.

Yes, it is expensive, but what price should we put on the lives of the more than 800 Israelis who have died in terror attacks since the latest Palestinian uprising started 34 months ago? Yes, it interferes with the lives of many Palestinians, just as the Palestinian terrorism has disrupted ordinary life in the Jewish state. When Palestinians started the terror, did they think there would be no consequences or that the consequences would somehow be preferable to what they could have accomplished by continuing the peace talks?

Shouldn't they — and the rest of the world — consider the possibility that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are more responsible for the fence than is the Israeli leadership The security fence may not be completely compatible with the spirit of the road map for peace that the U.S., Russia, the United Nations and the European Union drafted, but nor is it necessarily an impediment to achieving the map's goals of building mutual trust that could lead to a long-range permanent settlement. It is surely easier for Israel to negotiate when the threat of suicide bombing is reduced — the primary goal of the barrier.

Israel should, however, do a great deal more to assure the civilized world that it does not intend to make the path of the current fence a permanent feature of the landscape. Israel should devise a convincing way of committing to a secure but less intrusive barrier that follows negotiated boundaries once the terror stops. (I do not agree with this part. Whose territory was it supposed to be in the first place? Israel’s!! So, any damn fence they put up is on what should have been the Jewish homeland in any case. Let all the Arabs go to Jordan, which was taken from what was to have been the Jewish Homeland in 1923! Let’s start with the basic irrefutable facts! Of course, the Arabs, the American State Department and the immediate world, don’t want to hear about that!) jsk

Of course, it would be wonderful if the fence were not needed, because the Palestinians had truly rejected their hatred of the Jewish state and their incitement against Israeli civilians. But as Tuesday's two suicide bombing attacks showed once again, for now the fence must stand. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 14, 2003

Whose side are you on?

By Tony Blankley, The Washington Times August 10, 2003

Senator Joe Lieberman has set in motion an important line of discussion concerning post-Iraq War policy and politics. While he made a partisan — but not entirely unfair critique of President Bush's management of prewar preparations and postwar execution of policy, the crux of his speech was a fierce criticism of those Democrats who displayed a "disquieting zeal" questioning the necessity of the war: "By their words, some in my party are sending out a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and more broadly, they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom." After his speech, he named Howard Dean, John Kerry and Richard Gephardt as fitting that description.

Jaded political analysts see his statement as merely an attempt to carve out a distinct position in the Democratic presidential primary contest. But it is more than that. Sen Lieberman is an inept campaigner, but a first-rate and serious statesman. And, he has essentially asked the age-old and crucial question in human affairs: Whose side are you on?

It is the question that many Republicans have been afraid to ask. It is the same question that Ann Coulter has notoriously asked and answered in her current best- selling book,"Treason." Sen. Lieberman has carefully avoided the pungency of the "T" word. But what would one call political leaders who were not prepared to use our military to protect our security and our freedom?

For those of us who believe that America and our way of life is in danger from jihadist terrorists and the WMD rogue states that help them (and that is at least two-thirds of Americans), it has been breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which elements of the media, the Democratic Party and our former allies in Europe have been attempting to turn our military victory in Iraq into a postwar debacle.

If we succeed in bringing order out of the chaos of Iraq, we advance measurably the effort to defeat the will and hope of the terrorists and their supporters. If Iraq becomes peaceful and law-abiding, can Iran, Syria and others be far behind? The dreadful sickness that has had the Middle East by the throat for generations will begin to abate, and we will be able to realistically dream of a more secure life once again. But if we fail, then a hard and grievous future is before us.

There is an old phrase that if you shoot at a king — don't miss. Vastly more so is that true about going after the will of terrorists. If our effort at showing strength reveals only weakness, if we are driven from the field in ignominy, we will surely reap the terrorist whirlwind. As Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur once instructed: "There is no substitute for victory."

And so, we return to Sen. Lieberman's implicit question: Who's side are you on? Of course, it is fair game to criticize the president's handling of any aspect of his administration. Constructive suggestions for how to do a better a job are both fair and needed. Even cheap, vicious, lying accusations against the president's domestic and non-critical foreign policies and politics are (perhaps regret- fully) part of our political tradition. But what are we to conclude about the breathless Washington journalists who incorrectly, but genuinely, think they smell Watergate and Pulitzers as they obsessively try to destroy a president by undercutting public support for his vital Iraq effort?

How are we to judge Democratic presidential aspirants who, half-crazed by their desperate search for votes, don't even address the consequences of their opposition? Undercutting a life-and-death presidential policy without even considering the consequences is like tearing down a dam without first draining the water it contains. Only a flood of death can follow: American death; here, at home.

Democratic Sen. Lieberman has said that Democrats Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt and John Kerry are sending a message that they are "not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom." Would it be unfair for a fearless Washington press corps to ask those men, "Whose side are you on?"

Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times.
He can be reached via email at tonyblankley@erols.com.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 13, 2003

The Fate of Arab versus Jewish Refugees in the Middle East

By George Bornstein

The Middle East is rapidly becoming Jewish-free. A look at the reasons why, helps to put into perspective the debate about Palestinian refugees from Israel. The number of Jews in the Muslim Middle East stood at 1.5 million after World War II. Today it stands at 40,000, of which fewer than 5,000 remain in Arab countries.

Throughout the Arab world, Jewish communities have been persecuted and forced to emigrate, often with their property confiscated. From 1948 to 2001, according to "The Atlas of Jewish History" and the textbook, "Myths and Facts”:

· Jews in Morocco declined from 285,000 to 5,700!
· Jews in Tunisia declined from 110,000 to 1,500!
· Jews in Algeria declined from 140,000 to less than 100!
· Jews in Egypt declined from 75,000 to less than 100!
· Jews in Syria from 30,000 to less than 100!
· Jews in Lebanon from 20,000 to less than 100!

Iraq is a vivid example of this trend. The 2,700-year-old Iraqi Jewish community, which dated back to Biblical times and numbered 150,000 in the mid-20th century, has been ethnically cleansed from Iraq during the past half-century. Persecution has reduced the once-vibrant community to less than 100 people today. Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Iraq as early as 854-859 and again in 1344.

More recently, the pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali in 1941 inspired a pogrom in which armed mobs with the complicity of the police and army murdered 180 Iraqi Jews and injured almost 1,000. In the 1940s, the regime declared Zionism a crime and used it as a pretext for hanging Jews.

The nadir of persecution came in 1968, when the Baath regime jailed scores of the remaining Jews and hanged n of them in the public squares of Baghdad. Half a million Iraqis paraded and danced through the streets and past the scaffolds of the bodies where the Jews still dangled, a well-documented display that for once caused public protests outside Iraq.

Most of these refugees fled to Israel. The number of Jewish refugees from the Middle East equals or exceeds the number of Arab refugees from Israel. Exact figures are notoriously problematic, but the number of Jewish refugees is more than 800,000, of which at least 650,000 came from Arab nations and the remainder from non-Arab but still Muslim countries like Iran and Turkey.

The number of Palestinian Arab refugees from Israel is similarly about 650,000, though partisans on both sides make larger claims for their respective groups. To check against inflated numbers, the last British census taken in Palestine indicated 1.2 .million permanent Arab residents in all of then Palestine, which included what is now Israel and the West Bank.

But if the numbers were similar the fates were not. Jewish refugees from Arab countries were resettled immediately by the Israelis into Israel and integrated into the socioeconomic fabric of that tiny democracy, which comprises less than 1 percent of the Middle East. Arab refugees from Palestine were kept in camps by the non-democratic countries to which they fled, even though those nations had more than 100 times the land mass and population of Israel and could have integrated them far more easily. A complex panoply of laws evolved to keep Palestinian refugees from becoming citizens, exercising full legal rights and often even owning land in surrounding Arab countries.

Palestinians living in Lebanon, for example, lack basic rights and cannot become citizens. The treatment of Palestinians was unprecedented globally after World War II. At that time, the world had more than 50 million displaced people, including millions of Germans from Eastern Europe, Jews who had escaped the Holocaust and more than 10 million Hindus and Muslims on the India-Pakistan border alone. All of them, except the Palestinians, were resettled by the countries to which they emigrated.

Ironically, more than half as many Palestinian refugees were expelled from Kuwait alone after the First Gulf War as from Israel in 1948. Although Arab partisans sometimes argue that all anti-Jewish feeling in the Middle East derives from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the facts indicate otherwise. True, Jews were often better treated in the Islamic Middle East than in Christian Europe, but the lack of a Holocaust there hardly testifies to humane treatment. Indeed, an influential Palestinian leader of the times, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, tried to persuade the Nazis to sign a declaration that “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries” – that is to kill all the Jews.

Jews and Christians suffered grievously in Arab lands for centuries before the mufti's effort. They were barred from public office or armed service, forbidden to ride horses or camels, subjected to forced service and compelled always to defer to Muslims in public and not to testify against them in court. The British vice consul in Mosul, Iraq, noted in 1909 that "The attitude of the Moslems toward the Christians and the Jews ... is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place."

Scholar Bernard Lewis's landmark study "The Jews of Islam" indicates that the same phenomenon occurred regularly throughout the region. The fate of the Jews of Islamic lands reminds us that the history of. the Middle East and Israel-Palestine is more complicated than current simplifications sometimes suggest. Only the strength of Israel and its allies guarantees the survival of the "other refugees" in their native region, from which they have elsewhere already been purged. ##

George Bornstein is a professor of literature at the University of Michigan. This article appeared in the Detroit News, August 5, 2003

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 12, 2003

Israelis Fence Building Doesn’t Merit U.S. Sanctions

Editorial from The Detroit News, August 11, 2003, Editor – Nolan Finley

Every country has the right to take extraordinary measures to protect against terrorism Critics of Israel would have us believe that it is a fence that blocks the road to peace in the Middle East. It's not the fence. It's the terrorism.

Israel began building the 380-mile security barrier, now partially completed, for no other reason than to stem the flow of terrorists entering the country from the West Bank. It is an extremely costly, last-ditch response to the three-year campaign of terror. Palestinians equate the fence to the Berlin Wall, and accuse Israel of using the barrier to solidify borders that are still in dispute. They are winning support in the U.S. State department, which reportedly is recommending economic sanctions against Israel if the fence building continues. The Bush administration may withhold a portion of U.S. aid to Israel. That's both unfair and unwise.

The Palestinians have the power to stop the fence building by stopping the terrorism. They are unwilling to do that, so Israel must do what it; must to protect itself. While not a perfect solution, the fence construction began because fences have proven to be an effective anti-terrorism tool. A fence separates the Gaza Strip from Israel, and not a single suicide bomber has entered Israel from Gaza. But more than 100 terrorist attacks have been launched from the West Bank, where the border is open.

Palestinians see the fence as walling them off from jobs and economic opportunities in Israel. That is a legitimate concern, and, again, one that the Palestinians can address by stopping the terrorism.

It is hypocritical of the Bush administration to threaten Israel with economic harm for taking positive measures to protect itself, while allowing the Palestinians to flaunt key conditions set down in the president's road map to peace. Specifically, the road map demands as a first step a dismantling of the terrorist organizations. That hasn't happened.

Instead, the peace process was allowed to commence with only the shaky promise of a three-month truce from the Palestinians. The road map also demands democratic reform of the Palestinian Authority. That was initially read to mean the ouster of Yasser Arafat, as chairman of the authority. But Arafat is still in place, and still apparently making most of the decisions. Appointed Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has said emphatically that he clears everything with Arafat.

So why, then, focus on Israel's fence building, when the Palestinians have not met a single condition of the road map to peace? Phase One of the road map asked Israel to start dismantling illegal settlements on the West Bank. It is doing that. But it did not require Israel to halt its fence building.

To punish Israel for taking every possible step to protect itself from terrorists, while allowing the Palestinians to continue harboring and supporting terrorist networks, is poor policy that will jeopardize the security of the Israeli people. The United States should never put itself in the position of discouraging the victims of terror from protecting themselves.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Setting free Palestinian killers would encourage other terrorists

By Nolan Finley

When it comes to posting outrageous demands, grafting clever defenses for terror and making murder sound like a most noble act, nobody beats the Palestinians. They're now skating around the real obstacle to peace in the Middle East — terrorism — by diverting attention to the 6,000 or so Palestinians locked up in Israeli jails.

If Israel truly wants peace, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas says, it will swing open the cell doors and let all the prisoners dance out. Yeah, that'll happen. To its credit, Israel is releasing those detained for minor offenses like rock throwing. Several hundred prisoners are now back home, mostly unrepentant, and many still agitating for violence. But Israel says it won't free those with blood on their hands, a position the United States has to support. Abbas, however, told Newsweek that every prisoner should be freed. "Both sides killed each other," he said. "We must ask the people to forget about the past and to live for the future."

Forget about Shalhevet Pass? She was the 10-month-old Israeli baby shot by a sniper in Hebron in 2001, while out with her father. Mahmud Amru intentionally placed the infant's head in the cross hairs of his rifle and squeezed the trigger. This cold-blooded killer is among the prisoners Abbas would see unchained in the name of peace.

What Abbas is doing is making another back door attempt to legitimize terror as a military tactic. Once again, the Palestinians are floating the defense that terrorist killings are no different than killings by soldiers responding to terror. If the release of baby killers is bartered for as part of the peace deal, their classification changes to combatant from murderer, since no civilized nation would free murderers. And the moral equivalency debate is won.

Israel must be careful how far it moves in this direction. Already, one freed prisoner, Ahmed Jbarra, who served 28 years of a life sentence for killing 14 people, is using his freedom to rally Palestinians to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Freeing a few rock throwers is one thing. But no one who actively engaged in terrorism, encouraged terrorism or lent support to the terrorist networks should ever see daylight again. To let them go reinforces the message that terrorism is acceptable, as long as the cause is just.

The problem is that every terrorist believes the murders they commit are justified by the righteousness of their cause. The Palestinians are the all-time champs of rationalizing murder. They're so good at the game that they've leveraged a withering campaign of violence to force negotiations that will eventually lead to statehood—and without having to answer for terrorism.

Allowing the peace talks to go forward without first destroying the terrorists was a mistake, abetted by an American administration too eager to show results in the Middle East It would be compounded by freeing those terrorists who have been caught and punished. Try then to convince the world's insurgents, rebels and malcontents that terrorism doesn't work.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The Detroit News.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 08, 2003

Global Warming – A Legitimate Issue or …

just a way for the European Union and the Third World to cut down the United States while aided and abetted by a Democratic Liberal Party that would like to get back in power.

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, August 8, 2003

Senate Republicans are pushing back on the issue of global warming, with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee questioning not only the evidence for warming, but also the link between human actions and climate change.
"This research begs an obvious question: If the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than the age of coal-fired power plants and SUVs, what role do man-made emissions play in influencing climate?" asked Chairman James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma. " "I think any person with a modicum of common sense would say, 'Not much,' " Sen. Inhofe said.

His July 28 speech and a committee hearing on July 29 in which two scientists discussed their research questioning the human link to climate change were a precursor to a showdown on carbon emissions expected as the Senate debates the energy bill.

Republicans said they expect to defeat amendments that would impose curbs on carbon dioxide emissions, but sources in both parties said some weaker amendments that would require industries to report their carbon emissions to the government are likely to pass. Sen. Inhofe called the amendments "politically driven" and pointed to the sponsors — some of whom are running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination — as evidence that climate science is being overtaken by politics."

All of the Democrats running for the nomination — the one group that is the most cherished to them in order to get the nomination is the environmental groups," Sen. Inhofe said. Democrats said the evidence for warming is overwhelming and criticized those who pushed for more studies rather than action. "One would have to be madder than a March hare to fail to see the need to act," said Sen. James M. Jeffords, Vermont independent, who Democrats have tapped to be the ranking opposition member on the committee. Sen. Inhofe is chairman of the committee that has direct power over the issue, so a bill that mandates curbs on carbon emissions is not likely to pass the panel. Therefore, those who favor restrictions can best get their way by attaching amendments to the pending energy bill. Burning fossil fuels puts carbon dioxide in the air and, according to some models, the gas then traps the sun's heat inside the atmosphere and changes climate patterns. But, some scientists have argued that there’s no evidence of a link between recent warming and human activity.

In the hearing, called by Senator Inholfe, Willis Soon with the Harvard Astrophysics, said he and his colleagues had catalogued hundreds of studies and concluded that local and regional climate change, which has been detected, matters more than global climate change. Mr. Soon also said there was a "Medieval Warm Period" from 800 to 1300 A.D. and a cooling from 1300 to 1900, and that there exists no proof that current warming trends are out of line with the earlier warming period.

"There is no convincing evidence from each of the individual climate proxies to suggest that higher temperatures occurred in the 20th century than in the Medieval Warm Period," he said. "Nor is there any convincing evidence to suggest that either the rate of increase or the duration of warming during the 20th century were greater than in the Medieval I Warm Period."

Michael E. Mann, a professor at the University of Virginia and one of the authors of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said , that Mr. Soon's study was "unsound." He said most scientists have reached a consensus that warming in the late 20th century "cannot be explained by natural factors but, instead, requires significant human influences during the 20th century."

Still, Sen. Inhofe said, he is convinced by Mr. Soon and his colleagues that "the balance of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability is the " overwhelming factor influencing climate."

Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist on environmental issues, said Sen. Inhofe's public criticism "makes it easier for Republicans to be where they should be on the issue, and he makes it more difficult for Democrats to create random mischief because they know they have an opponent who has substantive knowledge on the issue."

For the past five years, the debate on climate change has focused on the Kyoto treaty, which most Democrats and some Republicans have urged the United States to ratify in recent years.

The 1997 treaty, which President Clinton signed but did not send to the Senate for ratification after a 95-0 vote warning him against submitting the pact, would require industrial nations to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to slow global warming. But the treaty excludes such developing nations as China and India, and opponents say it would devastate the economies of the affected nations.

When British Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint meeting of Congress on July 17, he made a plea for U.S. leadership on implementing the Kyoto treaty, and supporters of the treaty say it is an important indicator of U.S. standing in the international community. “The climate change issue is important because it reflects whether our country is going to be in the mainstream, “ said Senator Rob Wyden, Oregon Democrat and a member of the environment panel. ("In the mainstream" attempting to pacify nations whose primary goal is to diminish our power?)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 07, 2003

Terrorism Link in California Governor Davis Recall

(Redacted from original article by Debbie Schlussel)

I’m a proud conservative Republican from Michigan, but I’m appealing to Californians of all political stripes not to support the recall of Gov. Gray Davis. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) — funder of the recall effort and the only announced candidate to replace Davis." Instead of communists, Issa’s allies are radical Islamists and supporters of terrorism against Americans, Israelis, Christians and Jews.

In a short political career, Issa’s statements and actions consistently defend terrorists, terrorist groups and terrorist sponsor states.Saudi Arabia’s longtime lobbyist, James Gallagher, contributed to Issa’s campaign in November 2002, and Issa tried to overturn key classified evidence portions of President Bill Clinton’s 1995 counterterrorism bill. Issa is also credited with "declawing" the Patriot Act.Then, there’s Issa’s dance with Hezbollah, an organization that is on the State Department’s terrorist list and one of the largest components of Al Qaeda.

In the 1980s, Hezbollah — which means "Party of Allah" — murdered more than 260 U.S. Marines while they slept in Beirut and tortured to death Col. Richard Higgins (in 1990) and CIA attache William Buckley. Hezbollah endorses "the use of hostages," "suicide in jihad operations" and "the duty of all Muslims to engage in Islamic jihad if it ensures the ultimate goal [of] inflicting losses on the enemy."

Less than a month after Sept. 11, Issa visited Syrian President Bashar Assad, praising Hezbollah and lauding Assad’s policies (Syria is on the State Department’s terrorist list). The Tehran Times and IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency, the official Iranian news agency) quoted Issa’s statements to Assad in Damascus: "Hezbollah acts legitimately and has never been involved in terrorist activities.... Hezbollah and any other Lebanese group has the right to resist the occupation of its territory.... Hezbollah’s humanitarian and governmental actions were legal.... Such behavior would be customary in any country."

Issa denies the statements, but as a recent Los Angeles Times cover story demonstrates he has a record of stretching the truth — about his military record, his criminal history, his business affairs and his political positions. In November 2001, for instance, Issa told syndicated columnist Debra Saunders he was vehemently against Arabs suing the airlines and government over profiling. At the same time, he told the rest of the press of his plans to introduce legislation to make it easier for Arabs to collect monetary damages for airline and government profiling.And Issa’s other statements and actions corroborate their veracity:·

Less than a month after Sept. 11, in an Oct. 9, 2001, interview with the Beirut Daily Star’s Ibrahim, during a trip to Lebanon, Issa said, "It is Lebanon which will determine whether the party’s [Hezbollah’s] activities constitute terrorism or resistance ... If [Hezbollah] wants the world to understand that its activities are legitimate, they should say it.... Resistance is a legitimate right recognized [by the U.N.].... I have a great deal of sympathy for the work that Hezbollah tries to do." He expressed hope that Hezbollah would "reform" and become a "government" like the P.L.O. ·

On Oct. 31, 2001, the London Arabic newspaper, Al-Hayat, reported, "U.S. Congressman of Lebanese origin Darrell Issa, during his recent visit to Beirut in the mid of October," conveyed a proposal to Hezbollah leadership to remove Hezbollah from the State Department’s terrorist list and "normalize U.S. relations with" the group. Hezbollah refused the offer. ·

Days after Sept. 11, Issa, during his House International Relations Committee’s discussion of fighting terrorism, tried to draw a distinction between "Palestinian groups that are resisting Israeli occupation" and Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. · During his November 2001 trip to the Middle East, Issa told his hometown newspaper, the North County Times, that he was "particularly impressed with Arafat." "He is quite a charismatic individual, despite being a very small man and very old," the congressman said. "He has a wry sense of humor. He gives you food off his plate if you sit next to him." In April 2003, Issa spoke of Arafat’s "charm" (also in the North County Times).

Issa’s softness on Syrian-sponsored terrorism is legendary, too. Syria is home to several fugitives, including Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner, Hamas political director Moussa Abu Marzook, Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Abdullah Shallah and Jamil Al-Gashey, the only surviving perpetrator of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre — all wanted and/or indicted in the United States. However, Assad refuses their extradition.· Issa vehemently opposes the Syrian Accountability Act, which imposes sanctions on Syria until it stops sponsoring Hezbollah and other terrorists. Issa said Syria is "cooperative." · In June 2003, Issa attended the Beirut signing of a major oil deal between Syria and two U.S. firms. The contract states the companies will spend $29 million in Syria and train the state-run Syrian oil company.

Darrell Issa wants to be governor of California and ultimately president. With a record like this, do you want to help him?

Debbie Schlussel, a Detroit-based attorney, radio talk-show host and conservative political commentator. dschlussel@yahoo.com.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 06, 2003

Lest we forget our “Arab ally”, Syria



Back in Damascus …

By Carole B. Glick

The American effort to seed democracy in and uproot violence from postwar Iraq has understandably shifted the world's attention away from the political ailments that plague neighboring countries. However, the despotism and belligerency that characterize the regimes in Teheran and Damascus continue to threaten the Middle East's stability and prosperity. Only the future will tell just how far-sighted and effective the American response to the recent student upheaval in Teheran has been. As for Syria, there are reports that Washington is actually about to make a move. The US reportedly has told Damascus categorically to withdraw from Lebanon, deport terrorist leaders who are headquartered in Damascus, and dismantle Hizbullah.

Under the present circumstances, Damascus, if it has any sense at all, will take such a statement from Washington seriously. Then again, if past performance is any indicator of future behavior, Syrian President Bashar Assad has shown that he can be counted on not to believe the US is serious and not to adhere to Washington's demands. In the past, this behavior has not served Assad badly. After Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Syria in May, for instance, the US expressed satisfaction that Syria was moving to dismantle terrorist headquarters in Damascus. In fact, Syria dosed down no terrorist headquarters and has reportedly continued to transfer terrorists and supplies to Iraq to aid in the widening guerrilla war being fought against US and British forces there.

Syria's role in the global terrorist war against the US, Israel, and other Western countries is a known quantity. Syria houses terrorist headquarters. Syria has provided Hizbullah with a territorial base in Lebanon. It arms Hizbullah, allows the transfer of Iranian arms to Hizbullah from Damascus's airport, and allows Iranian Revolutionary Guards to operate in Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley.

As Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington, points out in an article in the latest issue of Commentary magazine, with its sophisticated armaments, territorial base, state sponsorship by Syria and Iran, and financial resources, Hizbullah has out-stripped al-Qaida as the most dangerous terror organization with global reach.

Whereas al-Qaida is generally viewed today to be in the possession of antiquated Soviet-era anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles and small arms, Hizbullah is armed with modem Iranian missiles and rockets. These munitions render it capable of shooting down planes, destroying tanks, and launching attacks against targets in Israel that cover fully a quarter of the population. In fact, ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claimed that Iraq was moving its weapons of mass destruction through Syria to Lebanon. This view has been repeated since the war by Western intelligence sources.

Well before Operation Iraqi Freedom, key US policymakers and lawmakers were fingering Syria and Hizbullah and arguing that the two pose a greater threat to US national security than Iraq. One of the reasons given behind the scenes for the US aversion to fighting either the Syrians or Hizbullah was that such action would make it impossible for the US to continue differentiating between its war on global terrorism and Israel's. A US operation in Syria or Lebanon would expose the reality that many in Washington desperately wish to ignore - that the US and Israel are fighting the same war.

If the US is finally reaching the conclusion that Syria's sponsorship of global terrorism can no longer be brushed aside and that Hizbullah can no longer be allowed a free pass because its primary target has always been Israel, this is wonderful news for the war on terror. If, on the other hand, the US is unwilling to join forces with Israel in combating this common threat, then there can be little long-term gain from a US operation against either Syria and its proxies have never concealed their enmity to the Jewish state.

If the US decides that it must launch military operations somewhere between Syria and Lebanon, Israel must be a partner. For Israel, being kept at arm's length during such US actions would send a message of weakness and impotence to its neighbors that would only sow the seeds of future aggression. If the US retains its military credibility at the expense of Israel's regional legitimacy, the Middle East will never be stabilized.

From: International Jerusalem Post, July 25, 2003

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2003

Middle East Scholar, Pipes Gets Smoked By False Accusations


By Adam Kaplan, Washington D.C. Correspondent, Boycott Watch

Summary: A Congressional nomination is being derailed based upon misquotes and words taken out of context. Boycott Watch uncovered the false accusations and is bringing to your attention so you can see the results of blatantly false information used at the highest levels of government.

Dr. Daniel Pipes (www.danielpipes.org), head of the Middle East Forum, was nominated by President Bush to serve on the U.S. Institute of Peace on April 4.(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030401-1.html) As the information below will tell you, what has happened since the nomination is that Pipes has been unfairly discredited and made to appear as an intolerant bigot by extremist organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), Arab American Institute (AAI), and Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation (MAS). This is despite Pipes' years of publications which distinguish, as President Bush and most Americans agree, the differences between moderate Muslims and militant, fundamentalist Islamists. Pipes has received letters of endorsements from the ZOA, ADL, American Jewish Committee, Pakistan Today, American Mideast Associations (comprised of Muslim moderates, Christians or expats from Iran, Syria, etc.), and a plethora of academics. The letters can be viewed at (www.supportingdanielpipes.org).

At the Senate Health/Education/Labor/Pensions committee nomination vote for Pipes on Wed. 7/23, Sen. Ted Kennedy came out and based his whole anti-Pipes argument on a quote that Pipes wrote in 1990. According to Kennedy (reading straight from CAIR's talking points), Pipes said that "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…"(11/19/90)-National Review "The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are Coming."

However, if you go back and read this article, the quote is taken out of context. Pipes, in a tongue and cheek manner, is referring to intolerance of Western Europeans towards immigrants, particularly the Turks. In fact, Pipes portrays an optimistic view of Muslim integration to European society, providing that the immigrants practice a moderate, non-militant form of the religion. "If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy to their best societies…if they modernize, Muslims have a good chance to become literate, affluent, and politically stable" write Pipes.

What this means that the primary argument of the committee's ranking member is based on propaganda formulated by CAIR and poorly researched by Kennedy's staff. Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Jeffords went along to brand Pipes as a "highly controversial individual who is not qualified for this position." "When [Pipes] talks about Muslims being funny looking, maintaining different standards of hygiene…I don't know why we are even considering this person, Mr. Chairman," said Sen. Harkin. The other Democratic Senators present, Sen. Clinton, Murray, and Reed (RI), remained silent while one Republican, Sen. John Ensign (NV) spoke out in favor of Pipes.

All of the other Republicans besides Chairman Judd Gregg (NH) left the meeting, making a vote on the Pipes nomination impossible due to there not being a quorum present. Also of note is that Sen. John Warner (VA) said after hearing Harkin's pathos-filled speech about how his mother was an immigrant and 'looked and dressed funny too', (which by the way was based on the misquote from National Review), he would look further into his decision on Pipes.

Sen. Gregg then adjourned the meeting and postponed the Pipes nomination until after the recess once members had a chance to "talk to each other." It is clear that the opposition's smear campaign against Pipes is continuing. Yesterday CAIR issued a press release which claims that Pipes in a July 25th speech to a young conservative group compared all Islamic people to Nazis (http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=149&page=AA). This too was a lie. The article that CAIR opportunistically used was based on an article from Cybercast News Service which covered the Pipes 7/25 speech. After I had a conversation with CNS Executive Editor Scott Hogenson who was in the process of issuing a retraction to the article that was so opportunistically used by CAIR, CNS news put out this: http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200307/FOR20030729f.html

Another one of the alleged Pipes "quotes" which Sens. Kennedy/Harkin were so appalled by had the nominee saying "The Palestinians are a miserable people…and deserve to be" to an audience at Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. An article by Ira Stoll from the April 14th New York Sun refutes this allegation profusely.(article can be found on www.supportingdanielpipes.org).

Basically, CAIR/AAI/AADC, etc. ran a campaign of lies and distortions to defame Dr. Pipes. After the hearing, they had an impromptu press conference in the hall of the Dirksen building, where opposition leaders such as Nihad Awad (exec. Dir. Of CAIR), Jean Abi-Nader (Arab American Institute), Mahdi Bray (Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation), and Mary Rose Oaker (AADC) gloated to Al-Jazeera reporters that they considered the postponement a major victory. "The American Muslim and Arab communities will remember who voted which way on Pipes for a long time to come. We are very pleased with the outcome of today's hearing, but the fight is not over," said MPAC spokeswoman Sarah Eltantawi.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 01, 2003

Politicians take note!

Beyond Iraq: The Next Move, a book that claims Israel is being used as a pawn to pay the appeasement bill for the US war in Iraq, has reached The New York Times best-sellers list. Published in April by US evangelical author Mike Evans, founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team (www.jerusalemprayerteam.org), the book made news in June by briefly ranking second between Harry Potter and Hillary Clinton on Amazon's best-sellers list. Evans attributed the phenomenon to the fact that America's Bible-believing Christians are voting against the Road Map by buying the book.

"There is no other way in the world that a book that was totally unknown the first week in June could take off like this. These are the same Christians who voted for President George W. Bush," Evans said, "and I think they are attempting to send a signal to him that they are not happy campers and want him to back off."

Bush is greatly admired by Bible believers, Evans noted, "but if he forces us to choose between him and the Bible, he could very well experience the same problem his father did after the '91 Gulf War when he did not get reelected." Christians are very concerned. They believe that God will curse America if America touches prophecy, and they believe that the Bible land is prophecy.

The fact that Jerusalem is part of the road map really worries all Bible-believing Christians, in that the prophecies say that Jerusalem will be in the hands of the
Jewish people when the Messiah returns. "Christians believe that, if Jerusalem is
divided, America will have challenged the word of God and the power of God and
will bring a curse on our nation. This is taken from the Abrahamic covenant 'I
will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee.'"

From the International Jerusalem Post, August 1, 2003


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

America/Israel Double Standard

(How about a little moral equivalency instead of hypocritical condemnation)

BY LIAT COLLINS AND SARAH HONIG

Israelis understand what America is up against, because we have been suffering casualties, not only among our soldiers and not in a foreign land. We have suffered fatalities at the hands of terrorists in restaurants, town squares, wedding halls, buses and even our homes. We do not begrudge America happiness on this success, (the killing of Saddam Hussein’s sons) but we wish it were matched by similar feelings toward our own fight against terrorism.

Instead, we must constantly contend with international indignation and condemnation - even from Washington - that our own war on terrorism triggers. The international community always requires Israel to meet very restrictive criteria for targeting even the most vicious terrorist chiefs: Did they pose a clear and present danger? Were they "ticking bombs?" Are they "political" leaders who should enjoy some immunity as they commission mass-murders? We can imagine, for example, the reaction if the 14-year-old son of a terrorist kingpin died with his targeted father. Qusai's son, Mustafa, was killed alongside his father and uncle, but the Americans consider him collateral damage – a luxury not afforded the Israelis.

We congratulate America and yet caution against double standards. We face the same enemies and fight the same defensive fight for freedom, justice and enlightenment. The difference is only that the threat against us is far more menacing and existential. We deserve support and not censure if, once again, we need to take steps like those of the US against Saddam's heirs. No one understands America better than we do; no one has earned America's understanding more than we do.

Excerpted From: WEEK IN REVIEW
The International Jerusalem Post, August 1, 2003

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 31, 2003

President Bush speaks directly to Mahmoud Abbas

(Excerpted from Associated Press report by Barry Schweid, July 30, 2003)

In talks last week with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and then on Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the president put anti-terrorism first. This emphasis aligns him closely with Sharon, whose own campaign against Palestinian extremists has guided Israel's approach to peace-making and made concessions difficult for Abbas to extract. And Abbas, despite gaining approval from the White House as a moderate and a reformer, found Bush holding to a steady but slow course.

The president offered little help to the Palestinians, for instance, in rolling back Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Bush said he had spoken out constantly "for the need to end the settlements," but he said security was the central issue in the Palestinian-Israel dispute. Ending terror would mean, "More progress will be made on difficult issues," Bush said.
.
On another Palestinian demand, that Israel release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, Bush appears comfortable with the promised, limited release of 540 of them. "Surely nobody would want to let a cold-blooded killer out of prison. I would never ask anybody in any society to let a prisoner out who would then commit terrorist actions," Bush said.

Turning to Abbas, who stood at Bush's right hand in the sun baked White House Rose Garden, the president said: "I'm going to tell you point- blank that we must make sure that any terrorist activity is rooted out in order for us to be able to deal with these big issues."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay speaking in the Israeli Knesset July 30, 2003


(Redacted from part of his speech)

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your invitation and for that warm reception.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the citizens of Israel for their generous welcome and hospitality to my wife, Christine and me over the last three days.
I also look forward to sharing my experiences with President Bush, whose leadership and clarity make peace in the Middle East possible and victory in the war on terror inevitable.

In his comments yesterday, the president reaffirmed America's support for Israel's security and our commitment to fight "terrorism wherever it is found."
He made clear that the prospects for peace are the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. They must maintain sustained, targeted and effective operations to fight terror and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure
.

The solidarity between the United States and Israel is deeper than the various interests we share. It goes to the very nature of man, to the endowment of our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the universal solidarity of freedom. It transcends geography, culture and generations. It is the solidarity of all people — in all times — who dream of and sacrifice for liberty. It is the solidarity of Moses and Lincoln. Of Tiananmen Square and the Prague Spring. Of Andre Sakharov and Anne Frank.

And in its name I come to you — in the midst a great global conflict against evil — with a simple message: "Be Not Afraid." I do not say this as a foreigner, cavalier in my estimation of the dangers that surround you. Instead, I say it as an ally, in spite of the terrifying predators who threaten all free nations, especially Israel. My country is not ignorant, nor are we indifferent to your struggle.

We know our victory in the war on terror depends on Israel's survival. And we know Israel's survival depends on the willingness of free nations — especially our own — to stand by all endangered democracies in their time of need. We hear your voice cry out in the desert, and we will never leave your side. Because freedom and terrorism cannot coexist. Terrorism cannot be negotiated away or pacified. Terrorism will either destroy free nations, or free nations will destroy it.

Freedom and terrorism will struggle — good and evil — until the battle is resolved. These are the terms Providence has put before the United States, Israel and the rest of the civilized world. They are stark, and they are final. Israel's liberation from Palestinian terror is an essential component of that victory. And it's a liberation we are determined to secure — not merely a paper-thin cease-fire. False security is no security, and murderers who take 90-day vacations are still murderers. The violence must stop. An immediate and total end to Palestinian terrorism is not a concession the civilized world asks of the Palestinian Authority to advance the peace process. It is a prerequisite to the Palestinian Authority's invitation to it.

In the United States, we have two chambers in our national legislature: the House of Representatives, where I serve, and the Senate. But the voice of the people resides in the House. And one month ago, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution — which I was proud to co-author — that states unequivocally the position of that body. That resolution reads in part — "Whereas Israel has no choice but to use its own measures to fight terrorism if the Palestinians are unwilling to do so...Therefore be it resolved that the House of Representatives recognizes and respects Israel's right to fight terrorism and acknowledges Israel's fight against terrorism as part of the global war on terrorism."

This echoes years of continuous support for Israel in Congress, where we remain committed to Israel's strength, security, and qualitative military superiority. This war we fight — this war on terror the United States shares with free nations, like Israel, around the world — we fight for this reason: to establish and secure a community of nations safe to be free, and free to be prosperous.

As President Bush said: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." The war on terror is not a misunderstanding. It is not an opportunity for negotiation or dialogue. It's a battle between good and evil, between the Truth of liberty and The Lie of terror. We learned September 11th what Israelis have known for decades: that evil cannot long be ignored or accommodated. The common destiny of the United States and Israel is not an artificial alliance dictated by our leaders. It is a heartfelt friendship between the citizens of two democracies at war, bound by the solidarity of freedom.

Brothers and sisters of Israel: "Be not afraid." The American people stand with you, and so does our President. George W. Bush is a man of integrity and honesty. He is a man committed to the security of Israel and its destiny among the great nations of the earth.

One day, Israel — with the United States by her side — will live in freedom, security and peace. And terrorism will perish from the earth. But until that day to dawns, free men the world over — whether of the cross, the crescent, or the Star of David — will stand with Israel in defiance of evil. Free men will never succumb to the ease or expedience of The Lie because we will never forget that when fighting evil, determination is destiny.

May the God of Abraham continue to bless the United States, Israel, and each and every one of you.'

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

July 30, 2003

Alert! For those interested in Weapons of Mass Destruction

Since President Bush decided to take action and eliminate some of our lethal enemies, the United Nations, the European Union and all the misguided peaceniks of the world have attempted to obstruct him in this vital task. The constant challenge to him has been, “where are the weapons of mass destruction?” Of course, never mind the necessity of eliminating these very same enemies for the simple reason that they make no secret of wanting to destroy us. Or, that they make no secret of wanting to eliminate our way of life and replacing it with all the good things of Islamic fundamentalism that we saw so ably administered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the imams of Iran and millions of other Islamic fundamentalist round the world.

As to the weapons of mass destruction, there is a man who has spent a great portion of his life tracking our enemies and the very weapons of mass destruction in question. His name is Gregory R.Copley, historian, author and strategic analyst and his web site is www.strategicstudies.org. Visit it for some well-hidden information.

Bill O’Reilly recently interviewed Mr. Copley and asked him why this vital information has not been made public. Mr. Copley gave O’Reilly a very straightforward answer – Then the American government would have to deal directly and forcefully with the Syrians, the Saudis, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Palestinian Arabs and fundamentalist Islam all over the world – a daunting task, indeed. Better to sweep it all under the carpet, ala Bill Clinton. I don’t think so.

Quoting Copley directly:

“…The WMD moved into Syria (and now supposedly sought by the American administration) were not buried, but are in a compound at Hsishi, at al-Qamishli (Kamishli) in Syria.

I would direct you to our open website, www.strategicstudies.org, where you will find, after you open the site, a link to 2003 Iraq War Special Reports. Click on to that. There are many reports which were transferred to this site from our restricted website. The October 28, 2002, report, in particular details the movement of WMD into Syria. That report (and all of the others, plus many more) did go into the US and other countries' intelligence communities.

Most of our work is not published openly, but our monthly journal, Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, is openly available by subscription.”

Gregory Copley,
President, International Strategic Studies Association

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 29, 2003

Abu Mazen mock's President Bush Requirement

ABU MAZEN AGAIN PLEDGES LOYALTY TO ARAFAT;
MOCKS BUSH'S REQUIREMENT FOR "NON-TERRORIST LEADERS
"

NEW YORK- Mocking President Bush's requirement that the Palestinian
Arabs must have leaders who are "not compromised by terror," Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has again pledged his unswerving loyalty to arch-terrorist Yasir Arafat.

Abu Mazen, who co-founded the Fatah terrorist movement with Arafat and
served as his second-in-command for nearly 40 years, was chosen by Arafat to serve as prime minister in April of this year. In his first speech as prime minister, delivered before the Palestinian Legislative Council on April 29, 2003, Mazen turned to Arafat and said "This government, Mr. President, is your government."

In an interview with the Washington Post & Newsweek (July 27, 2003),
Mazen was asked: "Does Arafat have to approve the actions that you take?" Abu Mazen replied: "All the actions, all the actions. He is the leader of the Palestinian people."

The interviewer then asked: "People are hoping you can be an independent actor." Abu Mazen replied: "No, I cannot be independent. I am part of the authority."

To emphasize the point, the PA's official Palestine Media Center issued
a statement on July 27, 2003, headlined: "Arafat 'Is the Leader of the
Palestinian People,' PM Abbas Confirms," and then quoted from his
Washington Post/Newsweek interview.

President Bush, in his June 24, 2002 Mideast speech, called on the
Palestinians to "elect new leaders, not compromised by terror." Likewise, the Road Map plan stipulates that the Palestinians must "have a leadership acting decisively
against terror."

Morton A. Klein National President of the Zionist Organization of
America (ZOA), said: "The Bush administration acknowledges that Arafat is a terrorist and refuses to have any dealings with him. Abu Mazen's pledges of loyalty to Arafat demonstrate that he, too, is still a terrorist. He does not qualify as the kind of non-terrorist leader that President Bush has demanded. He is no more worthy of U.S. support than Saddam Hussein's second-in-command."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 28, 2003

Bush bushwhacks Daniel Pipes and the American People

By Caroline Glick – International Jerusalem Post

Wednesday, the US Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee postponed indefinitely its vote on the White House's nomination of Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes to the board of directors of the federally mandated and financed United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC. The Senate committee's tabling of the nomination of a scholar to a think tank is in itself a small story. After all, it can be argued, no lives are at stake, and no government contracts large or small hang in the balance.

If it so desired, the White House could override the Senate's inaction by appointing Pipes to the think tank's board while Congress is in summer recess. This would not be unprecedented. President Clinton side-stepped the Senate on a number of occasions during such recesses when he appointed ambassadors and federal judges who would otherwise have had their appointments buried in the Senate. And yet, the White House is not expected to act in this manner. Rather, it is expected to disengage and essentially allow Pipes' nomination to wither on the vine.

Pipes, a renowned scholar of Islam and the Arab world who heads the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, is the bane of the existence of Arab-American terrorism apologists and radically anti-American Middle East scholars. These detractors understand the importance of Pipes' unapologetic and intellectually-anchored attacks on radical Islam and the threat such radicalism manifests both to Islam itself and to the US.

These terrorism apologists, heavily concentrated in high-profile organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Council on Public Affairs, and the Middle East Studies Association among others, launched an intellectual and public relations war against Pipes years ago. This war was intensified after the 9/11 attacks when millions of Americans woke up to the stark reality of the malignant force of radical Islam on US national security.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Pipes, who had been warning of this threat for over a decade, suddenly rose to national prominence. Pipes's detractors rarely debate the actual issues that he raises. Rather, they ignore the inarguable substance of his claims and seek to smear his reputation by resorting to the gutter tactic of launching an unrelenting stream of ad hominem accusations of bigotry and war mongering against him.

In nominating Pipes to the previously obscure US Institute of Peace, the White House was making an important statement. It was saying that it recognizes that in the war on terrorism, no less than in the Cold War, the intellectual foundations and rationales guiding the war effort are in many respects as important, if not more important for eventual victory, than the military battles. If the US is not able to intellectually discredit its enemies then it will not long sustain the will to fight them on the military battlefield.

In backing away from Pipes's nomination when it found itself exposed to baseless Muslim allegations of racism, the Bush administration is following the pattern of policy inconsistency that has marked its path since it entered office. Writing this week of this inconsistency as it relates to the president's domestic agenda, commentator George Will argued that "the administration's principal objective may be to avoid fights about cultural questions."

As if to prove the salience of this inconsistency, last week, The New York Sun published an article about a new advisory group formed by the State Department at the beginning of the month to guide US public diplomacy towards the Arab and Muslim world. The group, which is charged with recommending policy initiatives, "will report its findings and recommendations to the president, the Congress, and the secretary of state." Given its mandate, it should be noted, this new panel is infinitely more influential on US policy than the board of directors of the Institute of Peace.

Disturbingly, the group's members share none of Bush's expressed commitment to bringing freedom to the Arab world but rather have argued for years that Israel is to blame for the instability in the Arab world and the terrorism that emanates from it. The group's chairman, former ambassador to Syria Edward Djerejian, has for over a decade been a firm advocate of appeasing Arab dictatorships, generally at Israel's expense. Djerejian has often issued public apologetics for Arab rejectionism and for Palestinian terrorism, which he claims are a result of Israeli foot-dragging in negotiations. With Secretary of State Colin Powell's approval, Djerejian appointed as members of his group people like John Zogby, Shibley Telhami, and Stephen Cohen who have distinguished themselves as some of Israel's harshest critics among American intellectuals and consistent foes of those who propose democratization of the Arab world.

So, as the White House backs away from Pipes's appointment rather than contend with the political outcry from terror apologists masquerading as civil rights activists, the State Department announces the formation of a policy group filled with appeasement of tyranny specialists masquerading as public diplomacy experts.

But does any of this really matter? In the vast scheme of things, what is the importance of a board of directors here or an advisory group there? Perhaps all that stands in the balance here is a highbrow intellectual debate.
Unfortunately, this is far from the case.

The question of the nature of the war the US is fighting is critical to determining whether or not the US is adopting strategies capable of winning the war. The intellectual split between Pipes and Djerejian and the policies their views prescribe could not be starker. Pipes and his intellectual allies view the war as a cultural battle which pits Arab fascists and Islamic totalitarians against their own people as well as against Western democracies. Djerejian and his fellows view the war as a conflict between helpless and pitiable masses led (happily) by exotic and oil-rich Arab leaders and what they perceive as Western imperialism best manifested in Israel.

In Pipes's formulation of the struggle, the US must be firm and unapologetic in its war against these regimes and their guiding ideologies. In Djerejian's view, the war will end when the US sacrifices Israel and in so doing shows the desert sheikhs and their wretched masses that the US has nothing against them. The view adopted by the White House of the nature of the war then has enormous implications for the strategies adopted in fighting it.

As if on cue to show the consequences of Djerejian's approach, this week Newsweek published an article that exposed an apparent Bush administration cover-up of suspected Saudi governmental collusion with the 9/11 terrorists. Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi agent, met with two of the hijackers in 2000 right after he left the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles. He paid their apartment rent for two months and is suspected of having arranged for them to receive Social Security cards and flight training in Florida. The administration is currently insisting that 29 pages of Congress's 900-page report on intelligence failures that preceded the 9/11 attacks be expunged. These 29 pages deal with Saudi involvement in the attacks. Powell, Djerjian's political patron and close friend, is one of the administration officials most associated with the Bush administration's policy of backing the Saudi government.

The backing continues unabated in spite of the fact that Saudi citizens have provided al-Qaida with the bulk of its funding and soldiers.
As well, Powell and his associates have succeeded in convincing Bush to reverse his policies regarding the Palestinian Authority. Whereas a year ago, Bush conditioned US support for Palestinian statehood on the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership "untainted by terrorism" and on Palestinian democracy, today Bush is meeting with Arafat's deputy of 40 years in the Oval Office. Mahmoud Abbas, the Bush administration's new great white hope for Palestine, has consistently stated that he will not dismantle terrorist organizations. Rather than disavow his leadership in light of his intransigence and extremism, the administration follows in the footsteps of the previous two administrations. Bush embraces this Palestinian thug and his corrupt and terrorist cronies and does so while pressuring Israel, a key and stalwart US ally, to make dangerous concessions to terrorism. Israel is today being pressured to withdraw its troops from Palestinian cities and release murderers from jail in the empty-headed hope that doing so will magically transform Abbas from a terrorist to a peacemaker.

In contrast, in Iraq, where Pipes's belief that tyranny must be defeated has been adopted as policy, the US is making progress in establishing the foundations of democracy and political stability in a land where such notions have never been allowed to take root. This successful, robust, and deeply moral policy was over the past decade firmly and publicly opposed by the members of Powell's advisory group as well as by Powell himself.

As Democrats and Europeans yammer vacuously about the fact that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found, they not surprisingly ignore the real weakness of the Bush administration's strategy of fighting the war on terrorism. The most damaging aspect of the administration's policy is that it is weakening its chance of winning the war by refusing to consistently apply the proper intellectual foundations of the war to its policies.

The longer the Saudi government is allowed to infect the Arab and Islamic world with its totalitarian message and money, the longer US national security will remain at risk. The longer the Palestinians are rewarded for their terrorist war, the longer they and their sponsors will serve as a source of instability and chaos in the region.

The Senate's tabling of Pipes's nomination is a small yet vital test of the administration's resolve. Unfortunately it seems that the administration is intent on failing this test.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Palestinian Arab War Tactics

(Redacted from an article by Cynthia Ozick, The Wall Street Journal, July, 2003)

…The most ingeniously barbarous Palestinian societal invention, surpassing any other in imaginative novelty, is the recruiting of children to blow themselves up with the aim of destroying as many Jews as possible in the most crowded sites accessible. These are not so much acts of anti-history as they are, remarkably, instances of anti-instinct. The drive to live is inherent: The very mite crawling on this sheet as I write hastens to flee the point of my pen. The child who has been taught to die and to kill from kindergarten on via song and slogan in praise of bloodletting represents an inconceivable cultural ideal.

And it is a cultural grotesquerie that Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantissi, a pediatrician entrusted by his vocation with the healing of children, is, in fact, a major recruiter of young suicide bombers. (When his wife was asked by a neighbor why her husband did not outfit his own teenage son in a bomber's vest, the good doctor instantly sent the boy abroad.)

Confronted by this orgiastic deluge of fanaticism and death, there are some who would apply the term psychopathological. But it is metaphysics, not Freud that is at stake: The life force traduced, cultism raised to a "sinister spiritualism — not because the "martyrs" are said to earn paradise, but because extraordinary transformations of humane understanding are hounded into being.

A Palestinian ethos of figment and fantasy has successfully infiltrated the West,
particularly among intellectuals, who arc always seduced by novelty. We live now with an anti-history wherein cause and effect are reversed. Protection against attack is equated with the brutality of attack. Existential issues are demoted or ignored — "cycle of violence" obfuscations all zealously embraced by the State Department and the European Union.

The road map permits no contradiction to the Palestinians' emerging nationhood. But if it is teachings and usages that characterize a nation, then what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches out of Bethlehem to be born?

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

July 25, 2003

The Supposed Arab Vote

By Jerome S. Kaufman

According to an article in the Detroit News, both political parties, including the President of the United States are coming to Michigan intent upon obtaining the Arab vote in this area. Of course, every vote and every ethnic group is important – either because of their numbers or the amount of funds they contribute to the political party.

Evidently, some of the political strategists mentioned have been mislead by notoriously inflated numbers as to the number of Arabs there are in the country and specifically in the Metro Detroit area. Larry Witham in the Washington Times reported on the results of an independent, extremely reliable survey conducted by the Religious Congregations and Membership of 2000. The every-decade survey, a project since 1966 of the Glenmary Home Missioners, a Catholic organization in Cincinnati, is considered the most reliable database on religious affiliation at the county level. Its findings were based on the number of Muslims affiliated with America’s more than 1000 mosques. The number came to 1.6 million, far below the estimates of 7 million put out by Islamic groups.

Understandably, the pro-Arab Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took great exception to these numbers since their supposed political influence would wane accordingly. In fact, Mr. Witham reported that other national surveys have also argued that the U.S. Muslim population is below 2 million.

In Dearborn Michigan there was a similar problem with a serious inflation of numbers. The Detroit Free Press in May 2001 reported on an Arab American, Abed Hammoud possibly running for Mayor of Dearborn – the area where we have been told repeated that is the home to 200-300,000 Arabs. The article surprisingly reported that the area has approximately 59,000 Arab residents and only 17% are registered voters. That comes down to about 10,000 votes if they all showed up!

Finally, there is the question of the authenticity of polls. Has the pollster a political agenda of his own. Zogby International polling mentioned in the News article estimates 450,000 Arabs live in Michigan and that 150,000 – 160,000 are registered voters. John Zogby, who runs Zogby International, also happens to be the brother of James Zogby, the most well known Arab propagandist in the United States. Furthermore, the results of John Zogby’s polls relative to Arab Americans and issues that affect them have been questioned in the past. It would seem only prudent to have less politically attached pollsters run surveys before various politicians run to Michigan to start making ill-advised promises to a non-existent plurality.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 23, 2003

Heartbeat Away from Jihad Nukes


(Redacted from an article by Arnaud De Borchgrave, The Washington Times July 27, 2003)

While Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was in the U.S. last month to reassure his interlocutors about his pro-American bona fides, his own chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Committee, Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan, said, at a public meeting, "America is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world and is conspiring against Muslim nations all over the world."

As the Army Chief of Staff, Mr. Musharraf outranks Gen. Aziz Khan. Backed as he is by other Islamist generals in the army, Gen. Aziz Khan must have felt sufficiently secure to, in effect, challenge the president for his pro-American policies. Clearly referring to his chief of army staff, Gen. Aziz Khan said politics should not be practiced while in "uniform." Sensing that Mr. Musharraf, with President Bush's financial sweetener, is looking for a way out of the Kashmir morass, he added that even with a solution to the long-running dispute, India and Pakistan could never be friends.

Following September 11, 2001,and the abrupt about-turn of Pakistan's foreign policy, when Mr. Musharraf— after hearing Mr. Bush telling him, "either you're with us or against us," — ditched Taliban in Afghanistan and backed me U.S. unconditionally, Gen. Aziz Khan and his following, among politico-extremist groups, became security risks. So, Mr. Musharraf kicked him upstairs where he was neutralized. At least so Mr. Musharraf thought. Khan has used his ceremonial job —and loyal following among field-grade officers in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) -to organize army opposition to Mr. Musharraf.

This demonstrates yet again that Pakistan is still a heartbeat away from becoming the world's first Islamist nuclear power. Pakistan's arsenal is variously estimated at between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons.

Mr. Musharraf has survived at least six assassination plots. His support for the U.S. war against terrorism is unpopular in many segments of society. Some 500 al Qaeda suspects have been arrested in Pakistan and most have been handed to the U.S., according to the government. Mr. Musharraf also put the squeeze on the army's support for the anti-Indian guerrillas in Kashmir. For Pakistan, they're "freedom fighters"; for the Islamist clergy, "jihadis (holy warriors); and for India, "terrorists." Fact is many of them are terrorists who were trained in al Qaeda's Afghan camps. They switched to the Kashmir front after Taliban's defeat in November 2001. ISI organized their transfer from Afghanistan to Kashmir. Kashmir is the Pakistan army's principal raison d'etre, as a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. put it.
"Demonstrate that your support for the liberation of Kashmir is waning, and you automatically curry disfavor among senior officers," the ex-envoy explained. And Mr. Musharraf has done just that. Infiltrations from Pakistan-held Kashmir into the Indian side continue, but are much reduced.

Mr. Musharraf also is preparing his public opinion for Pakistan's recognition of Israel if the Bush peace plan becomes reality. "If Arab nations can recognize Israel, why not Pakistan?" he asked. By acquiescing to U.S. wishes and sending troops into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) for the first time since independence half a century ago, where they are not allowed to go by treaty commitment, Mr. Musharraf triggered much grumbling in the ranks.

Some tribal leaders in FATA-land have told government troops to butt out. They like Taliban and admire al Qaeda. The recent sectarian carnage in a Shi'ite mosque in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan, killed 50 and wounded more than 300, and was immediately exploited by another redoubtable Musharraf opponent. In a July 9 interview with Nawa-e-Waqt, anUrdu daily, retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief and now "strategic adviser" to politico-religious leaders, said: "America is directly involved in all terrorist attacks in Pakistan, including the Quetta bloodbath."

Gen. Gul's calcinatory rhetoric accused the U.S., India and Israel— the three arch-villains in the Islamist lexicon — of establishing "more than 20 base camps in Afghanistan from where these powers foment civil unrest in Pakistan. Their aim is to crush jihad."

The Pakistani president's fight to stay in power does not necessarily conjugate with America's war on terror. Broken so many times in the past, no one trusts U.S. pledges and promises. Mr. Musharraf can still dissolve parliament and declare martial law or call new elections. The billing and cooing between the two presidents at the Camp David Summit in June is already a faint warble in July.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 22, 2003

From: Zen Golf - Mastering the Mental Game


By Dr. Joseph Parent

What with my golf game going to pot, I reached out in sheer desperation and bought a book on the mental aspects of the game. After reading the opening paragraph, quoted below, it dawned upon me that the recommendations listed applied to just about anything one might try to do!

Preparation is the first stage of the PAR Approach to playing better golf. The key factors in preparation are the three Cs: clarity, commitment and composure.

Clarity is having a vivid image of the shot you intend, both the target and the path the ball will take to get there.

Commitment is being free from second-guessing, doubt or hesitation.

Composure is being calm and focused, poised and at ease.

These are what you need to be properly prepared to play a shot. The material in the book progresses through these concepts, helping you make the three Cs part of your game. When you do, they'll add up to the most Important C of all - Confidence.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2003

How About an Honest Media Source? Not likely

From: The Washington Times, July 13, 2003 By Arnold Beichman

(BBC joins NY Times in Deliberate Lies)

The British Broadcasting Co., the BBC, in May premiered a four-part television documentary, titled the "Cambridge Spies." The film's episodes, each an hour long, purport to be the true story of the four British traitors, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald MacLean and Anthony Blunt. All four betrayed their country to Josef Stalin. The docudrama, which cost the British taxpayer $10 million, is a combination of lies and whitewash. So reports John Gross, the distinguished British critic in the June issue of the New Criterion.

His judgment is irrefutable. The miniseries has yet to be shown in the United States but undoubtedly some PBS station somewhere is negotiating with the BBC for the privilege of showing this film monstrosity in this country. The BBC depends on PBS' "Masterpiece Theater" to help meet the expenses on BBC productions. And if PBS does plan to show it, I would hope Russell Baker, the "Masterpiece" host, would in this instance decline the honor of introducing it. Actually, PBS should reject buying this miniseries, as it would reject a miniseries glorifying fascism or apartheid. The BBC has transformed treason on behalf of communism into an act of nobility.

American public television should not be complicit in BBC's conspiracy against decency. The most important count in the John Gross indictment is that the documentary gives "no idea of the nature of the regime which Philby and the others chose to serve." Why the cover-up? These so-called idealists were betraying their own democratic country to a Gulagian dictatorship headed by a mass murderer. Would BBC show a documentary about Nazi Germany and glorifying four British spies who sold out to the Nazis without indicating what the Hitler regime was like?
|
The docudrama portrays these traitors as loving innocents, misunderstood idealists "who were animated by their detestation of fascism," writes Mr. Gross. At some point in the film, one of the characters says, "To fight fascism, you have to be a communist." In other words, you couldn't trust the British government, the snobbish upper classes or the British Trades Union Congress to fight the fascist beast. You could only trust the Soviet Union, which, it will be recalled, signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, thus betraying the fight against fascism.

Two incidents in the so-called documentary are shown in order to underline why the Cambridge Four became communist spies. In one of them, a drink in the hand of Philby's Jewish girl friend is knocked over by some Cambridge right-wing lout who refuses to apologize for his fascist behavior. That never happened. In the other, right-wing undergraduates are shown beating up striking college waiters at Cambridge. C'mon now, how can you blame Philby for turning traitor? An even more dramatic incident that never happened shows a KGB plot to assassinate Generalissimo Francisco Franco that fails because Philby, writes Mr.Gross, "decent and humane fellow that he is, can't bring himself to pull the trigger." Mr. Gross calls these nonevents "fabrications." I prefer a simple word "lies."

How does BBC explain the inexplicable? Listen to Janet Tranter, the BBC executive who commissioned the miniseries: "It would be a very boring drama indeed if it didn't provoke a divided opinion. Otherwise, we are going to have a drama saying, 'What ho. These chaps are traitors and we hate them.' It is much more complicated than that. [...] We are trying to put their treachery into perspective."

Oleg Gordievsky, the former KGB colonel who spied for Britain while he was the KGB station chief in London, was commissioned by the London Daily Telegraph to vet the docu-drama. His conclusion was that the BBC film "resembled an official KGB textbook." He told the Telegraph, "The films present so distorted a version of the history they claim to portray that they do not tell the story of the Cambridge spies. What they portray is more akin to a piece of propaganda. In true KGB fashion, the programs treat the Cambridge spies as heroes. [...] Most of the dramati- cally powerful moments are not based on fact. They are fictional." In defending the BBC, a spokesman said, "the truth is elusive."

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institute research fellow, is a columnist for the Washington Times.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 20, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell Certifies Red Cross Efforts

(But, his certification is wrong!)

New York/Jewish Telegraph Agency, July 18, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell has certified that Israel's emergency relief agency is fully participating in the functions of the International Red Cross. Powell's designation allows the U.S. government to give $ 11 million in aid to the international movement. Last week's decision comes even though the Red Cross movement has not allowed Magen David Adorn to formally join because it does not utilize a cross or crescent as its emblem, and Arab groups have prevented the movement from accepting the star of David, (and this double standard directed against Israel is one of the main reasons the previous lady director of the American Red Cross resigned!).

Earlier this year, the Red Cross and Magen David Adorn agreed to international committee support for the Israeli agency in emergency medical preparation, disaster management and tracing of missing persons.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 17, 2003

Islam invades naïve American Educational System


From: American Textbook Council

(Please view their site for some frightening information as to how our children are being educated)

Islam and the Textbooks surveys content in seven widely adopted world history textbooks used across the country in grades seven through twelve. It reviews coverage of jihad, sharia, slavery, status of omen, and terrorism, comparing lesson content to prominent histories and recognized sources. It focuses on the high school textbooks adopted in Texas in 2002.

This review faults world history textbooks on one of the most complicated and important subjects teachers face in classrooms today, hat may seem on the surface to be a minor curriculum controversy as far-reaching implications for civic education and the promotion of American institutional values. Its main conclusions include: (1) world history textbooks hold Islam and other non-Western civilizations to different standards than those that apply to the West, (2) domestic educational activists, Muslim and non-Muslim, insist at once on harsh perspectives for the West while gilding the record of non-Western civilizations, (3) Islamic pressure groups and their allies seek to suppress critical analysis of Islam inside and outside classrooms, and distorted textbook content is one symptom of this phenomenon, and (4) publishers respond to pressure groups on account of political expediency and sales. As a result, they are giving American children and their teachers a misshapen view of the past and a false view of the future.

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

July 16, 2003

3.9 Billion per month to sustain 145K U.S. troops to police Iraq!

U.S. total will stay steady until leaders can run country. (Good luck!)

Detroit News wire services, July 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — The U.S. force size in Iraq likely will remain at about 145,000 for "the foreseeable future," possibly scaled back only by several thousand as foreign troops, rotate in this summer, the war's top two commanders said Wednesday. The assessment was one of the most precise descriptions" so far of the U.S. military plan for postwar Iraq, where U.S. troops are dying at a rate of almost one a day in either hit-and-run raids or accidents.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and recently retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the military commander in Iraq, told a Senate panel that NATO is being consulted on possibly contributing troops. But they said U.S. forces would remain in Iraq in large numbers until Iraqis can police themselves and begin to install a stable government.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, said 1,044 American troops have been injured since the war in Iraq began March 20. Rumsfeld also said the United States expects to spend an average $3.9 billion per month on Iraq from January through September this year.

(I guess my wife is right. I am a one-trick pony. I read with chagrin the number of American boys being killed and the amount of money we are spending in trying to obtain a civilized society in Iraq. And I have no problem with the original need. Saddam Hussein had to be taken out. He was a threat to our own well-being. What are responsibilities are after that is another story. I do know that it is not our job to keep peace in the world all by ourselves. Such a project is impossible.

The number that really shocked me was the 3.9 Billion dollars a month that we are spending in Iraq. I think of the haters that criticize our aid to Israel. The amount is all of 2.7 billion per year and the biggest part of that comes back to the United States in mutually beneficial arms contracts and domestic purchases. This relatively small sum helps to sustain our staunchest ally in the Middle East. No American troops are ever required or demanded. No American lives are at risk. In the meantime, we are helping ourselves tremendously. We are maintaining a true military partner and a genuine representative democracy - the perfect example of what we are supposed to be trying to achieve all over the world. Sounds like a damn good deal to me)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Our Saudi Arabian “Allies?”

Dore Gold: "Saudi provides most of Hamas funding"

By Janine Zacharia Jul. 15, 2003 The Jerusalem Post


More than 50 percent of Hamas's current funding comes from Saudi Arabia and is increasing despite US President George W. Bush's call to the kingdom to halt aid to Palestinian terrorist groups, Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN and a researcher of terrorist financing, said Tuesday in Washington.

"The Saudi share of Hamas funding is growing, not declining. We're getting no change in Saudi behavior," Gold said at a roundtable on Saudi terrorist financing and September 11 organized by Reps. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-Florida), chair of the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, and Gary Ackerman (D-New York), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

Gold, author of "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism," said the percentages were according to an Israeli national assessment. Saudi Arabia, he said, continues to directly fund Hamas's military wing, provide funding for civilian, terrorist-front organizations, and writes checks to families of suicide bombers.

Gold said Saudi funding of Hamas would undermine any peace process the US
tries to push forward and called for the US and Israel to jointly "stop the channels" of funding by Saudi Arabia to terrorists.

President Bush repeatedly urged Saudi Arabia to stop funding Hamas during and after the early June summits in Egypt and Jordan. And phase one of the US-sponsored road map for a two-state solution calls for Arab states to "cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror." Last month, Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, denied accusations that the Saudi government systematically supports Palestinian terrorist groups.

"I hear reports constantly or charges about Saudi funding Hamas. We've said no, that's not the case. Could it be that some Saudi individuals are funding Hamas? Very likely. Hamas raises a lot of money in the United States. But in terms of as a government or a policy, we have taken a position that we condemn terrorism in all its forms, and regardless of where it occurs, and we do not fund terrorists."

During his presentation, Gold outlined contents of documents discovered by Israeli troops in Palestinian offices during a sweep of the West Bank last year, which he said proved that Saudi Arabia sends money to Hamas. Among them, was a hand-written letter by now Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from December 2000, complaining to the Saudis about their support for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, he said.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said the State Department "continues to treat the Saudis far too gingerly," and announced she would convene a hearing in September to examine the alliance between Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda.

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 14, 2003

A Litany of Torture, Rape and Murder of Christians by “Moderate Islamists"


By Julia Duin, The Washington Times, July 13, 2003

The photos from Pakistan were anything but travel brochure material. One showed a 9-year-old girl with dark eyes, large black burns on her legs and a heavily bandaged right arm. Another showed a 14-year-old girl with a face partly melted away like candle wax. The right side was a mass of charred skin after an assailant threw acid into her eyes. Their attackers said the girls' injuries are payback for the American invasion of Iraq. Americans may not have seen much retaliation on their own soil because, several human rights groups say, Christians in Pakistan are taking the brunt of it. The 9-year-old, Razia Masih, was beaten and raped on April 26 in the town of Faisalabad, near Lahore, ending up in the hospital with multiple burns, a lacerated left eye, a broken right arm and rope marks around her hands and mouth. "She was working as a maid in a Muslim house," said Shabazz Bhatti, chairman of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance.

"When the Iraq war happened, it was on the TV," he said. "The family [that she worked for] would call her into the TV room and start torturing her. Her skin was burned bythe irons, her body wounded by a cricket bat and a medical report showed 15 wounds on her body. She was told by them, 'You are Christian and infidel, and we will take revenge on you for the killings of Iraqi children.' "The case has been registered [with police], but the culprits have not been arrested. Meanwhile, the girl's family has fled elsewhere, just to save their lives. The government authorities are not giving them protection."

According to International Christian Concern (ICC), a religious-persecution watchdog group, the girl's family had unsuccessfully tried to get her out of her employers' home several times. After beating and burning her for a final time, the family sent her home to die. The All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, representing Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Balmeek, Bheel, Maingwal, Zoroastrian, Bahai and Kelash communities, has compiled a "catalog of terror" on attacks
against female Christians, beginning with the May 3, 2000, gang rape of eight Christian girls by militant Muslims near Lahore.

A series of either gang rapes or acid-in-the-face attacks happened in July 2000, twice in 2001, twice in 2002 and three times so far in 2003. On March 31, Natasha Emmanuel, 10, from a town near Rawalpindi, was raped by a Muslim neighbor linked with extremist Islamic organizations. The girl ended up in a hospital intensive care unit for three days, the ICC says, "Christians in Pakistan are increasingly vulnerable to religiously motivated hate crimes, and Christian girls and women seem to be specially targeted," said Stuart Windsor, director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide in London. "We are outraged by the unwillingness of the police to investigate the complaints as this only emboldens extremists to continue to victimize Christians and other non-Muslims."

Fearing such reprisals, the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on March 19, asking him to remind foreign governments of their responsibility to protect religious minorities. "The commission is concerned that extremists have tried ID portray military action against Iraq as part of an alleged U.S. attack on Islam," they wrote, "and that retribution will be sought against Christians, Jews and others throughout the Islamic world [...]."

The commission also asked President Bush to bring up the matter with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf during their meeting on June 24 at Camp David, Md. "Since the U.S. military action began in Afghanistan," they wrote two weeks ago, "Christian institutions in Pakistan repeatedly have been targeted by religious extremists, resulting in over 50 deaths." But neither Mr. Bush nor Gen. Musharraf mentioned religious minorities at a June 24 press conference to announce a $3 billion U.S. military and economic aid package for Pakistan.

"The Bush administration has with this package applauded Pakistan for carrying out egregious human rights abuses and religious- freedom violations," said Joseph Grieboski, president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. "President Bush told the world that the United States will turn a blind eye to universal values and fundamental freedoms in exchange for political expediency and convenience." |

There are only about 3 million Christians among Pakistan's 140 million citizens. Gen. Musharraf said on June 25 that he knew nothing of the recent attacks on Christian women and denied there is an ongoing problem. "All the people involved in attacks have been eliminated or put behind bars," he said at a meeting sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace. "There has not been an
attack in the last year against a Christian minority."

Mr. Grieboski said Gen. Musharraf was either uninformed or lying. "He gives a speech about Islam being a moderate religion every time he panders to the West," Mr. Grieboski said, "But there's an ongoing targeting of Christians in general, with women being raped and men beaten and arrested.

The government has yet to do anything to protect the rights of minority religious believers, whether they be Christian, Ahmadi Muslim, Hindu or any other faith."

The plight of Christian women is entangled with the politics of rape in Pakistan, which has engaged human rights and women's groups for years. There is no category for rape in Pakistani law; only for "zina," which is either adultery or fornication. Unless four male Muslim witnesses can be found to back the woman's story or if the attacker denies the charges, the woman is
blamed and usually jailed on charges of illicit sex.
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a woman in that country is raped every six hours and another is gang-raped every fourth day. Since women often do not report rape in the country, the actual numbers are likely to be far higher.

Since September 11, Pakistan's government has stepped up its security measures for Christians, providing extra armed guards for churches and other Christian buildings after a series of bomb and grenade attacks on churches, foreign tourists and western embassies killed 40 persons and injured dozens more. On Sept. 29,2002, two gunmen broke into the offices of a Christian charity in Karachi, killing seven Christians and seriously wounding two others. On Christmas Day 2002, three girls were killed and 17 persons injured when masked terrorists threw hand grenades into their Presbyterian church in Punjab province.

Christians are being accused of transgressing Pakistan's blasphemy law, where to criticize the Prophet Muhammad by word, deed or imputation is a capital crime. However, Gen. Musharraf said the law has not targeted Christians in particular. "Under this blasphemy law, more Muslims have been acted against than non-Muslims," he said. "Secondly, no capital punishment at all
till now has been given on the basis of blasphemy." But there are long jail sentences on trumped-up charges. One Christian, Aslam Masih, imprisoned since 1998 on blasphemy charges, was recently acquitted. Mr. Masih,a local pronunciation of Messiah, is a common family name among Christians in Pakistan, which recently required people to have a given and family name; until then, many rural villagers went through life with a single name. Two other Christians, brothers Saleem and Rasheed Masih, were acquitted in March 1999 of blasphemy charges stemming from a dispute with an ice cream vendor in the Pasrur region in northeast Pakistan. But while Saleem Masih was in prison, his wife was raped in July 2000.

"The police refused to investigate it," said Ann Buwalda, director of the Jubilee Campaign in Fairfax, Va. "Most people feel it was connected to the case of her husband." She is trying to get all three men and their families out of the country. "As long as they stay there," she said, "it's open season on them by any radical Muslim."

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

July 13, 2003

The “Roadmap” = Peace or War?

Will it lead to peace or to devastating war?

The United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia - labeled, collectively, the "Quartet" - have devised a plan called the "Road Map." The Road Map attempts to bring about peace in Israel/Palestine over a three-year period. At the end of that period, the emergence of a Palestinian state is envisioned, a state that is expected to live alongside of Israel in "peace and security."

What are the facts?

Unfriendly promoters: Of the four promoters of the Road Map, only one - the United States - can be considered friendly to and supportive of Israel. In the European Union, the centuries-old virus of anti-Semitism has again reared its ugly head, now disguised as anti Israelism or anti-Zionism. Russia has always been hostile to Israel and has been an enthusiastic supplier of weapons to the enemies of the Jewish State since its creation. The UN seems to take up most of its time in condemnation of Israel and in discriminating against it, to such an extent that Israel is the only country that is ineligible to become a member of the Security Council. It is likely, therefore, that the interests of three of the four designers of the Road Map are not in promoting peace, but, hypocritically, rather in the destruction of Israel or at least in its not surviving as a Jewish State.

Palestinian State: a new and unwarranted idea. The idea that the so-called "Palestinians" should have their own state has now been accepted as a just and desirable goal by most of the world. Sad to say, our own president has bought into this concept. One must regretfully assume that he did so mostly in order to appease our "Arab friends," who are outraged about our waging war against Iraq.

It buys into the myth that the Israeli-Arab dispute is at the heart of the endemic conflicts in the area and that forcing Israel to "take risks for peace" is a means of assuaging Arab humiliation. But should the safety of Israel, America's only true and reliable ally in that part of the world, be jeopardized or sacrificed on the illusive altar of "Arab friendship?"

A Palestinian state did not occur to anybody (even to the "Palestinians" themselves), when the Ottomans were the rulers in the land, when Great Britain had the Palestine Mandate, or when Jordan was in occupation of the "West Bank" for nineteen years after Israel's War of Independence in 1948. The concept of a Palestinian state did not arise until after the Six-Day War of 1967, in which Israel was victorious, regained the "West Bank" from Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and has been in administration of those territories since.

Israel js a tiny country, a sliver on the Mediterranean coast. It is even now in a strategically almost impossible position. Without the "depth" of Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") and without full control of the Jordan Valley it would be utterly indefensible. Israeli generals know that and American generals know that. And, of course, Arab generals know that also.

But Israel needs to be able to defend itself, because all of its immediate neighbors - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon - no matter what they may be saying for public consumption, have only one primary military and foreign policy objective and that is to destroy Israel, to drive the hated Jews into the sea, and to finish what they call the "Zionist Enterprise" once and for all. To believe that the "Palestinians," once they had their own state, would be peaceful neighbors of a truncated and mortally vulnerable Israel or that the other Arabs states and Iran would turn from wolves to lambs is to either engage in wishful thinking or quite deliberately be co-conspirators in the eventual destruction of the Jewish State.

The Road Map will inevitably go the way that other previous "peace plans" have gone - all of which demanded "sacrifices for peace" from Israel, yielding large chunks of territory for only empty words from the Arabs. But even if Israel, tired from decades of bloodletting and under unbearable pressure from the "international community," would acquiesce to such a suicidal path, the "Palestinians" would not allow it to happen. Their hatred of the Jews and the inculcation of their children to die as martyrs are such that they would be unable and unwilling to stop the terror that they have visited upon the Holy Land. Another bloody war, rather than peace, is the likely outcome of the Road Map.

What is the "solution" that so far has eluded everybody? It is what Israel has always been willing to grant: total autonomy for its Arab minority within Israel, the Jewish State. It is a reward to which so many minorities in the world have aspired, but which has been granted to only a very few.

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 03:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 11, 2003

So, You think your rent is high.


How’s $3750 per square foot?

$45 million condo a record for New York

Offer for 12,000 square feet atop AOL's new headquarters by an unnamed
British financier could revive demand for luxury apartments. Price doesn't include interior work (like walls?).

By Thor Valdmanis
USA TODAY – July 11-13, 2003, excerpted

NEW YORK - A publicity-shy British financier plans to pay $45 million in cash for a 12,000-square-foot perch in AOL Time Warner's intended new home at the edge of Central Park, the most expensive apartment sale in Manhattan history.
The mystery banker has put down a non-refundable $5 million deposit for the entire 76th floor of the south tower at the two-tower structure soaring 80 stories above Columbus Circle at the park's southwest corner. "It's great for the economy and shows how strong New York is," says veteran developer Donald Trump.

(Yeah, but what about us pore folk?)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 10, 2003

What don't you know about Middle Eastern terminology? What are they really saying?

JERUSALEM CENTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ADVOCACY TRAINING


By David Olesker, Director

The events of September 11th, 2001 thrust the complex world of Islam into the forefront of the Western mind. I wanted to -write a short article to explain the ideological roots of Islamism, but gave up the job when I reached six pages... and it wasn't long enough! So I'm contenting myself with a "pop quiz" to try and demonstrate the lack of knowledge on the basic issues of the ideology of Islamism, and how it selects concepts from the complex theology of Islam to create its political program.

If you can't answer the following basic questions, then you are missing the point of what is happening in the Middle East If you would like to learn more, see the recommended book list at the end.

1. What does the word "Islam mean?
2. What was the majority religion in the Middle East before the rise of Islam?
3. What does the word "jihad" mean?
4. What are the "Dar al Islam" and the-'Dara/Warb"?
5. What does the word "fatah" mean?
6. What does the word "dhimmi" mean?

1. Although entomologically related to the same root as "peace", Islam is generally viewed as meaning "submission" to the will of God. This will was revealed in 'Scriptures that have been successively given to mankind by various prophets. Therefore, according to Muslim thought, Adam was a Muslim, as was Abraham, King David, and Jesus Christ. Muhammad was the last and final prophet, whose revelation was meant for all mankind. Islam, like Christianity therefore sees itself as a universal religion, and seeks to evangelize the world.

2. Almost the whole Middle East was Christian before the rise of Islam. Muslim armies evangelized the region by force, and Arabized much of the local populations.

3. Although Jihad can mean all of the above - just as a westerner might talk of a "war on drugs" or a "war on overeating", without changing the root meaning of "war" as armed conflict - so to a Muslim might use the word in any number of settings. However it's root meaning was, and remains, armed struggle to defend Muslims, and extend their rule. It was via jihad that the Muslim empires were built

4. Dar al Islam means '"the home of Islam", an area that is, or ever was, under Muslim rule. For the Islamist, if part of this area falls under non-Muslim rule, it must be redeemed. Osama bin Laden and his ilk seek the redemption of Saudi Arabia, since it is ruled by allies of non-Muslims, and the non- Muslims have their troops there. They seek the "defense" of Iraq, since it is under attack by non-Muslims. They seek the re-conquest of Israel, since it is ruled by dhimmis (see below). Dor al Harb is the "home of war"; those countries that are not yet Muslim, and await - as far as the Islamist is concerned -jihad.

5. When jihad is successful, the area conquered becomes part of the Dar al Islam, and its inhabitants must convert to Islam, or (if Jews or Christians) submit to dhimitude.

6. In traditional Muslim societies only Muslims can be full citizens; "un-believers" cannot live in such a society at all. Jews and Christians, as monotheists can be tolerated, but only as second class citizens, forced to pay a special tax, and subject to restrictions on their religious and other rights. Islamists have the goal of subjecting Jews and Christians to this quasi-apartheid status in the Middle-East, and ideally, in the whole world.

In short, the Islamists see themselves as the heirs to the soldiers of Muhammad. The are striving to first 'liberate" their own, Muslim majority states from western domination, and -what they see as corruption. They are then seeking to establish a -world Muslim state, under a reconstituted Khalifa (theocratic monarchy). Not all Muslims are Islamists, and some principles of Islamic doctrine oppose those listed above, but the fact that Islamism draws (selectively) on the Islamic tradition makes it attractive to many Muslims, and
difficult to oppose for many more.

For more information on these basic concepts, and how they affect the contemporary Middle East, read the following books:

In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power by Daniel Pipes, Basic Books, 1985
Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam by Bat Ye’or, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1998

FOB 2534, Jerusalem 91024, Israel • TeL +572-2-651-2610 • Fax +972-2-652-4968 • e-mail: jccat@inarne.com

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 08, 2003

Gary L. Bauer, in Support of Israel – Asks your help

And G-d spoke, “He who blesses Israel I will bless, he who curses Israel, I will curse.”


Dear Friend,

My name is Gary Bauer and I am President of American Values. Perhaps you know me. I am working hard to build a coalition of Jewish and Christian communities to defend Israel. Over the past two years, I have met with Prime Minister Sharon, I have traveled to Israel and I have worked at educating the American public about the importance of total support for Israel.

In recent weeks, I have debated Israel's opponents on dozens of television shows on FOX, CNN and every major network. I have spoken at synagogues, churches, civic clubs and other groups. I have spent hours on Capitol Hill urging our Senators and Congressmen to stand with Israel and I promise you that I will not abandon the Jewish people.

But to ensure our success, I need your help. Will you join me and sign the enclosed Open Letter of Support for Israel to President George W. Bush.

This Open Letter of Support for Israel to President Bush will let him know that you want him to stand with Israel and protect the covenant land from being stolen by Yasser Arafat and the terrorists who every day try to kill innocent women and children in Israel. As people of faith, it is our duty to stand up for Israel and show our support to our leaders who are on the frontlines fighting the battle on our behalf.

That's why I am sending you the enclosed Letter to President George W. Bush.
Please read and sign the enclosed letter and return it to me today at our

American Values •A 2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 610 • Arlington, VA 22206

A few weeks ago, President Bush shocked many of us when he was publicly
critical of Israel for going after the head of Hamas. Fortunately, when Christians and Jews spoke up the White House retracted and reaffirmed that Israel has the same right to defend itself against terrorism as the United States does. Especially with extreme elements of militant Islam and other, anti-Semitic forces
constantly trying to destroy the state of Israel.

It breaks my heart everyday when I hear about another innocent Jewish life being brutally taken because of hatred for people of the Jewish faith.
No child should be scared to walk home from school or from the market because
of constant death threats and anti-Semitic intimidation.
No one deserves to have one of their children murdered by radical Islamic thugs. But, that is exactly what is happening in Israel and throughout Europe.
And that is why your letter to President Bush is so critical at this juncture in this
historic fight.

Will you join me and let President George W. Bush know where you stand?
The President needs to hear from millions of Americans who believe that
terrorism should never be rewarded. We must remind him that Israel is America's only reliable friend and ally. We must make it clear that appeasement never works.

I believe with all my heart that the land of Israel is Covenant Land that G-d
promised to you and your people. I am shocked that some are arguing that Jews must be forcibly removed from Judah and Samaria, land that Jews have lived in for thousands of years.

I know you do not want Israel to be divided just so some shortsighted world
leaders can look good on television. America and Israel have been partners — joined at the hip and the heart — for many years because both of our nations understand the disastrous consequences of breaking up Israel.
Now is not the time to back down and let the terrorists destroy Israel.
G-d has spoken and the Word of G-d cannot be altered by anyone, especially an
anti-Semitic terrorist like Yasser Arafat.

As recorded in the Old Testament and in the Torah "He who blesses Israel I will bless, he who curses Israel, I will curse." The time has come for Christians and Jews to unite in this historical battle to preserve the land G-d deeded to Israel.

In order for President Bush to know where you stand on this important issue, I
need you to sign and return your Letter of Support to me today at American Values. Once I receive your signed letter I will then forward it to President Bush, along with hopefully thousands of other similar letters, so that he knows where you stand. I am counting on your reply.

Make no mistake, as a supporter of Israel, there is no greater action you can take. than by returning your signed Open Letter of Support and returning it to me today. But, your signed letter of support is not enough. I also must ask you to send a generous gift of $1,000, $750, $500, $250, $100 or $25 to American Values so we can reach other Pro-Israel supporters.
Thank you for your support.


Sincerely,

Gary Bauer

Yes, you can count on my support. To help you educate the public about the on-
going crisis in Israel and rally support for defending Israel, I am returning my signed Open Letter to President George W. Bush and my most generous gift to help American Values.
- $1000 - $500 - $200 - $100 - $50 - $25 Other $______

Your gift to American Values is tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by
law.

Please make checks payable to: American Values
2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 610 • Arlington, VA 22206


President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,
As an American citizen and a concerned supporter of Israel, I am joining Gary Bauer to demand that you not abandon Israel during the current international crisis. Right now, the radical Palestinians are using violence and anti-Semitic intimidation to force Israel to leave land, which has been its home for thousands of years.

Over the past several months, Palestinian led terrorist attacks have resulted in the taking of hundreds of innocent lives. In many cases, women and children are the target of these barbaric thugs. Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have proven to be cowardly terrorists with only hate in their hearts and must not be negotiated with by you or anyone else within your Administration.

I am asking you to stand with Israel, our only reliable friend and ally in the Middle East. Remember what the scriptures say in both the Torah and the Holy Bible, "He who blesses Israel I will bless, he who curses Israel, I will curse".
I hope and pray that you will continue to support a strong and secure nation of Israel.

Sincerely,

Your name and address

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iran's New French Connection

(Quite a combination – Iran, The French and the usual irrational priorities of the American State Department.)

By Arnold Beichman, The Washington Times, July 2003

It is 1942; France has been overrun by the Germans who have installed a puppet regime in Vichy. Out of a clear sky, conies a thunderclap report: Great Britain has made a deal with Vichy. Since the fall of France in June 1940, Charles de Gaulle has been living legally in Britain as he organized the democratic resistance to Fascism. Suddenly it is announced that the British have agreed to extradite de Gaulle to Nazi-occupied France and to certain death.

Of course, that never happened but something tragically analogous has just happened involving France and its newfound ally, Iran, a country President Bush has designated as part of the axis of evil.

Living legally in France as a political refugee and granted round-the-clock French police protection, Maryam Rajavi, 51, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), was suddenly jailed on fictitious grounds along with 163 other Iranian exiles. Some 1,300 French police on June 17 raided the NCRI offices located for 22 years at Auvers-sur-Oise, a village 18 miles northwest of Paris (where Vincent Van Gogh in a 10-week stay in 1890 produced 70 of his greatest canvases).

To this day, the French government has offered no evidence of criminal acts committed by the arrestees, according to Liberation, the French daily.

Mrs. Rajavi leads a democratic resistance movement seeking overthrow of the theocratic tyranny that now dominates the Iranian people. These disgraceful French arrests, made no doubt at the request of Iran's theocrats, take place at a time when the streets of Tehran are jammed day after day, night after night with courageous students and their elders who won't take it anymore; at a time when the Bush administration has designated the fundamentalist regime as the most important sponsor of terrorism in the world and at a time when Iran is rushing to build nuclear weapons with Russian help and ignoring legal demands for inspections of its nuclear program.

What Jacques Chirac has obviously done is to bring France into a strange alliance with Iran, in hope of winning over Islamists in the Middle East and especially the swelling Muslim population in France itself. Mr. Chirac is determined to replace the U.S. and Britain as the dominant power in the Middle East. In fashioning this history-making Franco-Iranian affiance, Mr. Chirac is aided by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is strengthening Russiasties with Iran while protesting his friendship with President Bush.

The French crackdown on the anti-ayatollah forces in exile has aroused uproar in Congress and in other parliaments in Europe.

In Washington, Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, Reps. Ed Towns, New York Democrat, William Lacy Clay, Missouri Democrat, Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, have sent written protests against the arrests to the French government. They are among 28 senators and more than 200 representatives who have called the Mujahedeen "a legitimate resistance movement."

The NCRI, a victim of French despotism, has been endorsed by huge parliamentary majorities in Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg and as the topper; it was even endorsed last year by 150 French deputies. What does Jacques Chirac know that these parliamentarians in Europe don't know?

And what does the State Department, which lists NCRI as a terrorist organization, know that some 200 members of Congress don't know? As it stands now, the NCRI is a casualty not only of French foreign policy but it seems also to be a casualty of American tacit consent.

It is time for an end to secret diplomacy as far as American foreign policy toward Iran is concerned, especially since Iran remains an implacable foe of President Bush's "road map" for peace in the Middle East. And it is time, now that France has become Iran's ally, to recognize the NCRI as a legitimate force for democracy and regime change in the Middle East.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times.

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

India's fate and Israel's in the Balance - Negative

The result of deluded or perfidious “friends” and clever, dedicated enemies.

(A fantastic article analyzing how the United States treats its friends, its fellow democracies as if they were instead, the so-called “Islamic militants” - as if there were some other variety.)

BY M.D. NALAPAT, The International Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2003

On August 15, 1947, India became free. But the day before, nearly a third of the country had been cut away from it to form Pakistan. Since 1948 Pakistan has conducted a continuous war with India, from overt conventional assault as in 1948, 1965 and 1971, to the covert war that has engulfed Kashmir since 1989. The bigger neighbor has exhibited all the hesitation and restraint typical of a democracy, while Pakistan, where the army has been in effective control since the first declaration of martial law in 1958, has shrewdly played its limited cards to great effect, combining with the United States "against communism," and with Communist China against India, getting repaid with weapons for use against one of the only three consistently democratic countries in Asia, together with Israel and Japan.

After India's first nuclear test in 1974 China began funneling technology to Pakistan which, by the end of the 1980s, made it the, only Muslim country with a nuclear device, together with missiles that could hit large parts of India. The US, which after the Soviet collapse had bought the Saudi argument that Pakistan could be a bridge into Muslim Central, Asia, looked the other way while this cross-border proliferation took place, while putting a virtual technological quarantine on India.

By creating a state with an ideology totally opposed to that of its neighbor, Britain condemned India to a constant state of external conflict and internal insecurity. Looking at the present meltdown in Pakistan, it does not seem likely that peace will break out anytime soon.

The constant chatter about an "imminent" India-Pakistan conflict has resulted in a flow of foreign investment to India that is less than 10 percent of that going to China. Most of the diplomatic interaction between New Delhi and the European Union or the US is an endless rehash of formulae for "resolving" differences between the two countries. For that to happen, either Pakistan or India would have to give up its core ideology, for Pakistan is an Islamic republic where jihad is the official motto of the army, while India is a democracy.

Were an independent state of Palestine to be established alongside Israel, the latter would be condemned to the same fate that India has faced for the past 55 years - a permanent state of insecurity. Just as Pakistan believes it is the successor to the Mughal Empire and that therefore historical justice demands it reestablish Muslim rule over the whole subcontinent, almost every Palestinian believes that the entire territory "from the river to the sea" belongs to him by right.

Yet just as the "Pakistani" identity was a fiction brought to life by the colonial power, so was the "Palestinian" identity. In reality, there is no "Palestinian people" with features distinct from the other Arabs of the region.

Were an independent state of Palestine to be created, Arab Israelis might suffer from dual loyalty. Just as Pakistan tries to establish its influence over India's 156 million Muslims by posing as their champion, elements within the proposed Palestinian state would try to create an allegiance between Arab Israelis and
the new country.

In brief, the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the lines laid out in the road map would not bring peace. Instead, it would condemn Israel to decades of conflict with its new neighbor. If Israel tries to please the US, the UK, the rest of the EU, and assorted busybodies around the world by failing to ensure that it has defensible borders, and if it agrees to the creation of an entity that by its very nature will be hostile to it, its present leaders are creating a monster that will certainly emaciate and may even devour, their nation.

What needs to be done is for Israel to annex the territory required to be secure, while ensuring that the residue gets formed, not into a single state but into several entities such as a city-state of Gaza, on the Singapore model. Some of the territory abandoned by Israel could get absorbed into Jordan, where One Person, One Vote would then become the norm, as it is in India or Israel.
India and its people are still suffering from the "unwisdom" of its leaders in permitting the creation of a country that has become an ulcer on its flank. Will Israel's leaders learn from this example, or will they too condemn their people to the kind of hell Pakistan has created for its neighbor?

They must not allow Israel's borders to be militarily indefensible nor welcome the creation of a state whose people find their identity solely in the quest for Israel's destruction.

The writer is director of the School of Geopolitics, the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 07, 2003

U.S. State Dept. Surrenders Israel to Terror


July 7, 2003

NEW YORK - A senior Israeli cabinet minister, meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, called the Bush administration's Road Map plan is "a great victory for terrorists" and said that the Israeli government accepted the plan "only because of the tremendous pressure that the Bush administration put on Israel."

Efraim Eitam, Israel's Minister of Infrastructure and former Brigadier General in the Israel Defense Forces, made his remarks at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in New York City on Monday afternoon, July 7.

The "Hudna" cease-fire allows the terrorists to rebuild: The so-called "Hudna," or temporary cease-fire by some of the terrorist groups, "simply gives the terrorist time to repair their damaged infrastructure." He added: "Under the cover of this so-called cease-fire, the terrorist groups are already greatly accelerating their production of rockets and preparing for the next round in their war to destroy Israel."

The Road Map was formulated without consulting Israel: "The Road Map was invented by the State Department to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state. It was designed without the U.S. consulting a single important Israeli leader."



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

As to Sen. Joe Lieberman's Orthodox Kippa

(Excerpted from article by Audrey Hudson, the Washington Times, July 6, 2003)

Democratic candidates who support civil unions for homosexuals include Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, according to the Boston Globe, which surveyed candidates on the issue.

Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said the decision should be left to the states. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida said the issue should be studied further.

According to the survey published in May, all Democratic candidates support homosexual couples' eligibility for domestic partner benefits, including health care and pension plans. The Vermont law was not proposed by Mr. Dean, but by the state courts. "But it helped make a name for the then-unknown governor, who has been capitalizing on his status as a gay-rights path breaker to raise money from the gay community”, the Globe said.

President Bush does not support civil unions or same-sex "marriage."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 06, 2003

U-M ruling shows no end to racial preferences


(Justice Sandra Day O’Conner demonstrates preference for Social Engineering over Constitutional Law)

There was some talk recently about upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court because some retirements were expected. However, the high court's decision on affirmative action suggests that there are already vacancies, even though no one has resigned. We can only hope that, when President George W. Bush gets a chance to nominate replacements, he does not fill an existing vacancy with another vacancy.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority decision upholding affirmative action in admissions to the University of Michigan Law School was her classic split-the-baby formula, making a mockery of the law. This decision provoked not only dissent from four other justices, but sarcasm and disgust — as it should have.

Justice O'Connor's argument is hard to summarize because it consists largely of repeating unsubstantiated claims about the "educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" and the need for a "critical mass" of minority students for their own educational needs and those of other students. She uses the phrase "compelling interest" to get around the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal treatment, much as earlier generations of justices used the phrase "interstate commerce" to evade constitutional limits on the powers of Congress.

This exercise in verbal dexterity included the pronouncement that "race conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," that "all government use of race must have a logical end point." But, having uttered these pieties, Justice O'Connor imposed no time limit nor defined any criterion for an end point.

Justice Antonio Scalia's response was that the "mystical 'critical mass' justification" for racial preferences "challenges even the most gullible mind”. He pointed out how academics who talk about multi-culturalism and diversity in the courts have "tribalism and racial segregation" on their own campuses, including "minority-only student organizations, separate minority housing opportunities, separate minority student centers, even separate minority-only graduation ceremonies."

Verbal pieties and cynical realities have corrupted affirmative action from the beginning. A quarter of a century ago, the Bakke case brought a great outpouring of noble rhetoric from the Supreme Court, but the bottom line was that you could continue to have racial quotas, so long as you don't call them racial quotas.

Today's Supreme Court has not only reaffirmed that principal by what Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent called "the know-it-all elites”. It has become a badge of their identity and what its actual consequences are for others in the real world is of no real interest to them. Justice Thomas is unimpressed by the endlessly repeated mantra of "diversity”, which to him is just "a fashionable catch-phrase”. Far from buying, Justice O'Connor's many reiterations of claims for its educational benefits. Justice Thomas cited empirical studies indicating that the much-vaunted diversity "actually impairs learning among black students”.

No one epitomizes the know-it-all elites more than the New York Times, whose front-page story referred to "the broad societal consensus in favor of affirmative action in higher education”, despite polls that have repeatedly shown the public's grave misgivings about racial quotas and preferences.
Justice Thomas' devastating dissent is deftly evaded by the Times, which says he "took as his text not the briefs but his own life story”. If you want to find out whether you can rely on what the New York Times says, now that Jayson Blair is gone, read Justice Thomas' dissent for yourself and see if you can find anything there that would lead you to believe it was about his own life story.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 94305 and writes for Creators Syndicate

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One Thing Hitler liked about America

By Rafael Medoff, Ph.D.

(Re-printed from an article in the Detroit Jewish News, July 4, 2003)

A GENERALLY unknown sequel to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf will soon be published in English, according to a recent article in the New York Times. Written in 1928, Hitler's Second book as it is known, includes revelations about Hitler's global strategy, including his determination to wage war against the United States.

Yet the book also reveals that there was something about the United States that Hitler liked — America's then newly adopted, race-based restrictions on immigration. "The American nation appears as a young, racially select people," Hitler wrote. "By making an immigrants ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements on the one hand as well as a certain level of physical health of the individual himself, the bleeding of Europe of its best people has become regulated in a manner that is almost bound by law."

Hitler was referring to the National Origins immigration bills of 1921 and 1924, which virtually shut America’s doors to immigrants. The ideas that led to America's immigration restrictions in the 1920s actual formed the basis of Hitler's ideology.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Americans and Europeans alike came under the sway of anthropologists and eugenicists on both continents who amended that Anglo-Saxons were biologically superior to other peoples This race-dominated view of human society played a key role in shaping Americans' attitudes toward immigration in the years following World War I. It gained prominence at he same time that Americans' anxiety about Communism was growing as a result of the establishment of the Soviet Union.

The combination of racism, fear of communism and general resentment of foreigners provided the background of public support for immigration restriction.

The law passed in 1921, known as the Johnson Immigration Act, stipulated that the number of immigrants from any one country during a given year could not exceed 3 percent of the number of immigrants from that country who had been living in the United States at the time of the 1910 national census.
In other words, if there were 10,000 individuals of Irish origin living in the United States in 1910, the number of immigrants permitted from Ireland in any year would be a maximum of 300. In 1924, the immigration regulations were tightened even further: the percentage was reduced from 3 percent to 2 percent, and instead of the 1910 census, the quota numbers would be based on an earlier census, the one taken in 1890.

The reason for tightening the restrictions was obvious: It would reduce the number of Jews and Italian Americans, since the bulk of Jewish and Italian immigrants in the United States had not arrived until after 1890. Indeed, the original version of the Johnson Act had been submitted to Congress with a report by the chief of the United States Consular Service, Wilbur Carr. That report characterized would-be Jewish immigrants from Poland as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits ... lacking any conception of patriotism or national spirit." No wonder Hitler admired the spirit behind the movement to restrict immigration to America.

As the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified during the middle and late 1930s, the U.S. quota system functioned precisely as its creators had intended: It kept out all but a handful of Jews. The annual quota for Germany and Austria, for example, was 27,370, and for Poland, just 6,542. Even those meager quota allotments were almost always under-filled, as zealous consular officials implemented the bureaucratic method proposed by senior State Department official Breckinridge Long — in his words, to "postpone and postpone and post-Road Blocks.

A deliberately designed bureaucratic maze — a series of "paper walls," to borrow the title of Prof. David S. Wyman's 1968 book — ensured most Jewish refugees would remain far from America's shores. Therefore, during the period of the Nazi genocide, from late 1941 until early 1945, only 10 percent of the already miniscule quotas from Axis- controlled European countries were actually used. That means almost 190,000 quota places were unused almost 190,000 lives that could have been saved even under the existing immigration restrictions.

Thus, Jews desperately seeking to escape Hitler found no haven in the United States. The nation with the tradition of welcoming "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free" chose to turn a blind eye in Jewry's most dire hour of need. More than two decades would pass before the quota system that Hitler so admired was finally abandoned. The passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 "lifted the shadow of racism from American immigration policy”, as Prof. John Higham put it. Tragically, it came 25 years too late for the millions of Jews trapped in Hitler's inferno. ##

Rafael Medoff, Ph.D., is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which focuses on issues related to America's response to the Holocaust. His e-mail address is Rafaelmedoff@aol.com Dr. Medoff's most recent book, coauthored with David S. Wyman,
is 'A Race Against Death: Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust', published
by The New Press, which may be ordered by calling 1-800-233-4830 or through
www.thenewpress.com


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 04, 2003

On the Way to the Re-sale Shop

By Jerome S. Kaufman

(redacted from original article appearing in the Detroit Jewish News, July 4, 2003)


How about a human-interest story? A friend from synagogue name Jack Ginsberg, shule gabbai first class and former elegant haberdasher, was in the process of opening a non-profit, all encompassing re-sale shop called Knightsbridge Charities. People brought in all kinds of stuff. Someone evidently left, in error, a thick brown folder with old documents. Jack decided to seek help finding the rightful owner and called his Zionist friend, Jerry Kaufman.

Jerry was intrigued both as a Zionist and a minor Jewish people historian. He opened the brown folder and saw many old family pictures of bar mitzvahs, weddings, birth certificates and German passports dating to 1938 – a true treasure of mementos.

How to find the rightful owner? On one of the envelopes was the name of Max Rothschild, West Bloomfield and telephone information was called. “Sorry, this number has been disconnected.” What else? There was the draft of a master’s thesis written at the University of Michigan all about the early history of the Jewish Community in Detroit – Alfred Street, Watson Street, names my mother used to eulogize. The date of the paper was October 28, 1974 and the author was Stephen B. Rothschild. Well, how many Stephen B. Rothschilds can there be? The name was looked up on the Internet, several with that name were found and a letter was written to the most likely candidate, a lawyer in Spring Valley, New York. No response.

It was then determined that the University could help. The department that finds former students, looked up the name, Stephen B. Rothschild, circa students 1974 and found one, but no direct contact was allowed. They said however, that a message could be written and placed in an envelope with their ID number. They would then forward the letter.

Two weeks later, a call came in from Stephen B. “ How nice of you to search us out. Yes, that is my Dad, Max Rothschild, who just moved to Coconut Creek, Florida. I’ll have my Dad call you.” Fine. Max called a short time later; a great conversation ensued and the documents were mailed out. He was delighted to receive the documents and mailed back two videos portraying his life and his experiences in Germany.

Who is Max Rothschild? Max happens to be a survivor from Adolph Hitler. He was 11 years old in 1938. His Dad was a very successful businessman in the idyllic German town of Bruchsal, Germany. There were 162 established, relatively wealthy Jewish families in a population of 16,000 Germans. They were very well integrated, participated in all the sports leagues, all the various government and private schools and had many German friends.

Then the denouement: Adolph Hitler was appointed Vice Chancellor of Germany on Jan. 30, 1933. That very night, the Rothschilds heard Nazi Brown Shirts beating up all the Jews they could find on the streets. Events moved fairly slowly until Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. These laws deliberately targeted the Jews, removing all their civil rights and created a class of untermenchen.

Fortunately, Max’s father had the good sense and means to get his family out in time. They left in September 1938, with their lives intact, leaving only their business, their property and all their money - confiscated without recourse by the Germans. Max came here at age 11, penniless but quickly became assimilated and has had a marvelous, typically American Jewish life with pew, pew, pew 21 grandchildren to prove it. He, in later life, became a speaker at the West Bloomfield, MI., Holocaust Memorial Center. It was there, in an effort to preserve as much evidence as possible of the period, that the Center created the tapes that Max sent to Jerry and which can still be viewed at the Center.

Finally to the point of the story: Max is asked at the end of his personal video interview, “What have you learned after all this and what would you tell other Jews?” Max said that we should not sit still for intolerance against any group of people. Well, we all know that and have been perhaps, over responsive in our zealous defense of others, many times to the neglect of our own issues. What else did he say? “ Beware of complacency!”

What happened to Max Rothschild’s family in this idyllic German town and in a country in which his ancestors had lived for centuries proved it can happen anywhere. “Beware complacency.” Be quick to protect Jewish interests and do so as part of your life’s work. As the centuries have proven time and again, the “Jewish Problem” is a Jewish problem. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 02, 2003

Civil Liberties After 9/11

by Robert H. Bork

(Final paragraphs from excellent article in Commentary July-August, 2003)

What Remains to be Done?

THE FACT that opponents of the Bush administration’s efforts to protect American security have resorted to often-shameless misrepresentation and outright scare mongering does not mean those efforts are invulnerable to criticism. They are indeed vulnerable—for not going far enough. In addition to the lack of properly targeted security procedures at airports, and the failure to resist the gutting of TIA, a truly gaping deficiency in our arrangements is the openness of our northern and southern borders to illegal entrants.

In the south, reportedly, as many as 1,000 illegal aliens a day enter through Arizona's Organ Pipe National Monument park, where they have become so brazen that they have cleared their own private roads. In the north, there are plenty of easily accessible and unmanned entry points from Canada. So far, Washington has not adequately responded to calls for more park-ranger staffing and military assistance, let alone addressed the lamentable condition of our immigration procedures in general.

There is, in short, plenty of work to go around. The war we are in, like no other we have ever faced, may last for decades rather than years. The enemy blends into our population and those of other nations around the world, attacks without warning, and consists of men who are quite willing to die in order to kill us and destroy our civilization. Never before has it been possible to imagine one suicidal individual, inspired by the promise of paradise and armed with a nuclear device, able to murder tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single attack.

Those facts justify what the administration has already done, and urgently require more. Of course, to say this, or to question the arguments of critics, is to risk being accused of censorship, actual or preemptive, or even McCarthyism. Here is an article in the New York Times raising the alarm about statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft: In the past, Mr. Ashcroft has gone so far as to question the loyalty of those who challenge the constitutionality of his tactics, in a defining moment in December 2001 at a Senate hearing, Mr. Ashcroft declared: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

As it happens, "phantoms of lost liberty" is a perfectly apt description for much of the commentary that has been offered on the administration's initiatives. It is demonstrably true, moreover, that people who recklessly exaggerate the threat to our liberties in the fight against terrorism do give ammunition, moral and otherwise, to our enemies. Asserting as much does not impugn the loyalty of such people. They are perfectly free to say what they think, and as loudly as they please. But neither should they themselves be immune from criticism, even by a government official.

Robert H. Bork is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Tad and Dianne Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute.

(He is also the unfairly maligned former candidate to the United States Supreme Court)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 01, 2003

Iraqi Rebels Targeted

(How about Palestinian Arab terrorists?)

By Borzou Daragahi Associated Press, June 29, 2003


Hurray for US Armed Forces – “crush the resistance of your enemy and stem the wave of deadly attacks on American troops” …And the troops go in with “overwhelming combat power” so as to diminish the loss of American lives.
But, how is it that President Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice criticize Israel for doing exactly the same thing? Especially when, with the Israelis, it is their own citizens that are being killed by terrorists in their own homes, schools, market places, city buses and not in a foreign country thousands of miles away?


CAMP BOOM, Iraq — U.S. forces kicked off a massive sweep Sunday, raiding more than 20 towns across a wide swath of Iraq and netting at least 60 suspects in a show of air and infantry power designed to crush resistance and stem a wave of deadly attacks on American troops. The raids by the 4th Infantry Division and Task Force Iron-horse troops came as the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq said American forces must kill or capture Saddam Hussein so he no longer can be a rallying point for anti-coalition attacks.

The latest operation, dubbed "Sidewinder”, began at 10 a.m. EST, across an area of central Iraq stretching from the Iranian border to the areas north of Baghdad. It's expected to last for several days, according to military officials in Camp Boom, near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. The region has become "the nexus of paramilitary activity in central Iraq”, the military said in a statement. There were no reports of U.S. casualties, the military said. "We go in with such over-whelming combat power that they won't even think about shooting us," Lt. Col. Mark Young said before the start of the operation.

The raids targeted loyalists from Saddam's former Baath Party, "terrorists suspected of perpetrating attacks against U.S. forces and former Iraqi military leaders," the military said. At least 63 American soldiers have died in Iraq since major combat was declared over May close to one-third of them killed in attacks, raising the total U.S. death toll to more than 200 since the March 20 start of the war.

Insurgents have stepped up their attacks against U.S. troops in recent days, carrying out ambushes against military convoys, shooting soldiers and lobbying grenades. The top U.S. official in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, stressed the need to capture Saddam, although there is no evidence the former Iraqi leader is behind the violence.

"I think it is important that we either catch him or kill him," Bremer told the British Broadcasting Corp. "There is no doubt that the fact that we have not been able to show his fate allows the remnants on the Baath regime to go around the bazaars and villages and say Saddam will come back, so do not cooperate with the coalition."

Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi said Sunday he believes Saddam had issued a written plan to foment postwar chaos in case of his defeat, including attacks on U.S. forces and the sabotaging of oil pipelines, electricity and water...."I think that Saddam had this plan done, and it's being implemented by the remnants of his regime," Chalabi said on CNN's "Late Edition”.

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

June 26, 2003

How Politically Correct – the “War Against Terrorism".


But what sort of double talk is that? Is terrorism some sort of rootless boogieman?

Worldwide Islamic Terrorism (excerpted from article by FLAME)

Are the U.S., Israel and other nations fighting the same enemy?

The world is being victimized by an epidemic of terrorism—from the September II attacks, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen and suicide bombers in Israel, to murderous kidnappings in the Philippines, a nightclub bombing in Bali, the deadly guerrilla takeover of a Moscow opera house, and the fatal hotel bombing in Kenya. Is there a connection among these far-flung terrorist acts?

What are the facts?

Radical Islam is the common denominator.
Four Al Qaeda conspirators were recently convicted of the deadly bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Suspects linked to Osama bin Laden bombed the USS Cole in 2001. That same year, the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines kidnapped and beheaded Christian missionaries. A group called Jamaah Islamiah committed the Bali nightclub massacre in October 2002, which killed more than 200 innocent victims. In late 2002, an Islamic Chechen guerrilla group seized a packed Moscow opera house, causing the deaths of more than 100 people.

But clearly, Israelis and Jews are primary targets of these terrorists. Last November, Muslims bombed an Israeli hotel in Kenya, killing 13. In Israel itself, the Islamic groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbollah have murdered more than 800 civilians and injured over 4,000 in the last two years—a devastation in that tiny country equal to having more than 35,000 U.S. citizens killed and 230,000 wounded.

These worldwide terrorist acts have two glaring elements in common. First, all were committed by radical Islamists - groups that advocate overthrowing Western democratic governments and replacing them with fundamentalist Islamic regimes. Second, all these groups believe that killing innocent people in terrorist acts is a legitimate way to achieve their goals.

What does radical Islam really want? Despite the nationalistic focus or some of these terrorist groups, they all share dedication to a common purpose: carrying out a jihad, or holy war, to rid the world of "infidels," such as Christians, Jews and Hindus, and the establishment of a world- wide Islamic order. Of course, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden makes no secret of his murderous global design: To create worldwide Islamic rule by killing or subjugating non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians.

Why does radical Islam use terrorism? To most of the world, the idea of purposeful killing innocent people—even for a noble cause—is unthinkable.

Likewise, the notion of suicide bombers: Most of the world s religions consider human life to be God s most precious gift, not to be sacrificed, except to save others. The jihadis believe otherwise. They justify heartless, cold-blooded killing of innocent women and children on behalf of Allah. They entice youngsters to commit suicide, to become "martyrs”, with the promise of sensual pleasures in the hereafter.

What can be done?
When our leaders tell us we are threatened by terrorism, they only tell half the story. Terrorism is clearly dangerous to our people and anathema to our social, religious and democratic values. Yet terrorism is not a goal in itself—it is a vicious tactic of warfare, used to achieve totalitarian ends. Indeed, if we declare our enemy to be terrorism, we fail to see our real enemy. The enemy is militant Islam, which uses terrorism to destroy democratic institutions and deny our basic freedoms. It is a tool being used ruthlessly to supplant our civilization with religious fundamentalism—to impose upon us a world order based on orthodox Islam, with its harsh rules of behavior, intolerance of diversity, subjugation of women and totalitarian political rule.

It s time we speak out: Radical Islam-not just the tactic of terrorism-threatens our country, the state of Israel and other democratic nations. It is also time for moderate Muslims and their imams to raise their voices ... and unequivocally condemn he violent aims of their brethren.

Finally, it’s time to fight back: We cannot pretend that we don’t know who is responsible for today’s deadly terrorist attacks, and we cannot suffer them passively. Just as the U.S. is responding aggressively to the threat of terrorism so must Israel respond, since its people are being killed and maimed by terror attacks on a daily basis. Above all and for everyone s good, militant Islam must be fought and defeated through a united effort by all civilized nations.

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


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 24, 2003

Gary Bauer, the Israelites and the Bible


Ambassador Bauer brought tears to the eyes of 350 participants, from all over the U.S., in the Zionist Organization of American lobbying mission in Washington D.C. June 18, 2003:

Quoting from the Jewish Bible: the Book of The Prophet, Joel, Chapter 4

The Judgment of the Nations

“For in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I am going to gather all the nations and take them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; there I intend to put them on trial for all they have done to Israel, my people and my heritage. For they have scattered them among the nations and have divided up my land among themselves. They have cast lots for my people; they have bartered the boys for prostitutes, have sold the girls for wine and drunk it." …

The days of Yahweh

Sun and moon grow dark. The stars lose their brilliance. Yahweh roars from Zion, makes his voice heard from Jerusalem. Heaven and earth tremble.
But Yahweh will be a shelter for his people, a stronghold for the sons of Israel.

“You will learn then that I am Yahweh your God, dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain. Jerusalem will be a holy place, no alien will ever pass through it again.”

Gary Bauer, President of American Values and Republican Party contender for the U.S. Presidential nomination year 2000.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2003

Exaggerated Arab U.S. Population Claims


(Once again, the facts get in the way of Arab propagandist Jim Zogby and his pollster brother, John. Their numbers are grossly inflated, as might have been anticipated; in their attempt to exaggerate the importance of the Arab vote to American politicians and other decision makers. The American Arab population is, in fact, about 1/3 Arab claims.)

More Arabs move to area

The Detroit News June 14, 2002 by David Shepardson

DEARBORN — Metro Detroit is home to the largest concentration of Arab Americans and Arab immigrants, newly released U.S. Census figures show. Dearborn's Arab population more than doubled by 2002 to become 30 percent of the city's population. Home to more Arab Americans than any other Michigan City, Dearborn saw its population of Arab Americans, as well as Arab residents who aren't American citizens, jump from 14,000 to 29,344.

Metro Detroit's Arab-American population jumped 56 percent in the last decade, according to newly released figures by the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2000, 92,328 people reported primary Arab ancestry, up from 59,029 in 1990. But the new figures, which come from the long-form census questionnaire that went to one in six households in 2000, only furthers the debate between demographers and community leaders on the accuracy of the count.

Arab-American leaders and some demographers argue the census still far undercounts Arabs, especially recent immigrants. "These numbers are bizarre. They are so low," said James Zogby, president of the American Arab Institute in Washington. John Zogby, a New York pollster, attributes what he calls an undercount to confusion by immigrants and their suspicion of government. But he noted that the new census numbers reinforce his belief that although southern California has a larger number of Arabs and Arab Americans,
Metro Detroit has a higher percentage.

"There is no doubt that Metro Detroit has the highest- density community of Arab
Americans in the country, "said John Zogby, who estimates there are more than
400,000 Arabs in Michigan. James Zogby and the Arab American Institute estimate the Arab population in the United States is at least 3 million. But, the United States Census Department puts the Arab population at 1.25 million, up from 940,000 in 1990.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 19, 2003

A Day in the Life of your U.S. Senator

Just in case you wonder what your Senator does all day long – below is a statement sheet I stumbled upon for those involved in an appeal in one of the Russell Senate Office Bldg. Conference Rooms.

STATEMENT PROVIDED BY STEVE BRADY, SR., HEADSMAN OF THE
NORTHERN CHEYENNE CRAZY DOG SOCIETY, BOARD MEMBER OF THE
MEDICINE WHEEL COALITION FOR SACRED SITES OF NORTH AMERICA,
CO-CHAIR OF NORTHERN CHEYENNE SAND CREEK MASSACRE SITE
COMMITTEE, MEMBER OF NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH, AND BOARD
MEMBER OF NORTHERN CHEYENNE CULTURAL COMMISSSION BEFORE
THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS ON JUNE 18™, 2003,
REGARDING NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED PLACES, SPECIFICALLY ON THE
ISSUE OF CONSULTATION ON USE AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE
AMERICAN SACRED PLACES.

First of all I would like to thank the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for allowing me to provide testimony this morning on the issue of consultation on use and maintenance of Native American sacred places. I have been directly involved in the protection of several sacred sites for the purpose of perpetual ceremonial access and use by traditional Native American practitioner and spiritual leaders and they include the Medicine Wheel and Medicine Mountain in the Bighorn National Forest in north central Wyoming, the Bear Lodge (commonly referred to as Devils Tower), a National Monument under the National Park Service in northeastern Wyoming, and Noah vose' (commonly referred to as Bear Butte) in western South Dakota, among others.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hillary vs. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Hillary Clinton’s book may be flying off the bookseller’s shelve. But it will never match the still extremely popular, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, especially among the Arabs and bigots of the world.

The Protocols Come to America

Compiled by American Jewish Historical Society

At the turn of the century, the Russian Czar's secret police forged a
document, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which purported to
outline a plan for Jewish world domination. The Russians claimed that the
radical Jewish intelligentsia gathered in 1897 at the First Zionist Congress
in Seal, Switzerland, wrote the Protocols. The document "showed" how a Jewish
cabal was fomenting terror, causing famine and promoting war. Publication
of the Protocols sparked anti-Jewish pogroms in Kiev and Kishineff.

While the Protocols were whispered about in anti-Semitic circles in
the United States, they did not reach American shores in English
translation until 1917. A Russian monarchist émigré, Boris Brasol, translated the
Protocols into English and passed a copy to the State Department,
hoping to persuade the United States government to withhold recognition of the
Soviet regime. He was convinced that the Bolsheviks were in the pay of
American Jewish bankers of German background - Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg in particular - who had financed the Czar's overthrow to advance German interests in World War I.

An American Army Intelligence officer in Brooklyn, Hams Ayres Houghton, MD,
obtained Brasol's translation of the Protocols and became convinced of their
authenticity. An ardent anti-Semite and anticommunist, Houghton had the
authority to act on his fantasies. According to historian Robert Singerman,
writing in the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society, Houghton "ordered one of his subordinates to investigate any Jew as long as he
was prominent" for signs at subversion.

In 1918, Houghton passed a copy of the Protocols to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, chair of a government committee investigating a scandal in American wartime aircraft manufacture. Houghton was certain that "Jewish International Bankers" had caused the manufacturing problems, but Justice Hughes scoffed at the idea and denied the authenticity of the Protocols.

At first, the American Jewish community made no formal response to
the typescript versions of the Protocols in circulation. They believed it
best not to give them publicity. In 1920, however, a version was published
in England and both Brasol and Houghton planned to bring out annotated
versions in the United States. Brasol found a respectable company named Small, Maynard to publish his version. Putnam and Son publishers agreed to publish Houghton's.

When the American Jewish Committee learned of Putnam's plans, its
president, Louis Marshall, contacted General George H. Putnam directly to
discuss the publication project. Putnam defended it on the grounds of free
speech, but Marshall countered that free speech is only protected if it is not
libelous.

Since there was ample proof that the Protocols were forgeries written
to stir up violence against Jews, it would be irresponsible for Putnam to
publish it without clearly labeling it a fraud. Putnam agreed, and withdrew from
the project.

Undaunted. Houghton found a financial sponsor purchased the plates from
Putnam's, and published the work privately under the pseudonym of Peter
Beckwith. The book sold poorly, however when Small, Maynard published
Brasol's edition, bookstores refused to carry it. Sales were robust by mall
order, but Brasol's hopes of reaching masses of Americans to convince
them that communism was an outgrowth of Zionism were dashed, at least
temporarily.

Resilient in his efforts, Brasol sent a copy of the Protocols to automobile
manufacturer Henry Ford, who was convinced that they were authentic. For the next two years, Ford gave the Protocols wide circulation in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent. Nothing did more to poison the atmosphere against American Jewry in the years between 1920 and 1922 than Ford's publication of the Protocols.

Apparently, at Ford’s urging, the editor of the Dearborn independent, William
Cameron, reworked the Protocols into a series of articles, "The International
Jew” Cameron described the Protocols as "the most comprehensive program
for world subjugation that has ever come to public knowledge. Cameron believed the Protocols probably did not originate with the Basle Congress, but "may have come to them as part of their ancient Jewish inheritance" The Zionists probably reported to a modem Sanhedrin presided over by a direct descendant of King David. Cameron believed that, at that point, the United States was "very largely in the hands of, or under the influence of, Jewish interests!

Liberalism, jazz and the decline in Christian virtue were all signs, for Cameron that the Jewish conspiracy was on its way to success. According to the blueprint, Jews would cause more wars, famines and revolutions - of which the Bolshevik was only the first - as a means to world domination.

The "International Jew" series stopped running in 1922, but it was widely quoted. It was not until 1927, after a libel suit and Jewish boycott of Ford products that Henry Ford recanted. In a letter to Louis Marshall, Ford claimed not to have paid any personal attention to the series. Ford professed to being "deeply mortified" to learn that the Protocols were forgeries and that his newspaper had offended Jewish sensibilities.

Nazi Germany adopted the Protocols as a pretext for its war to exterminate European Jewry. The Protocols still circulate in print and on the Internet, inspiring radical fringe groups in their deranged beliefs in Jewish conspiracies. Sadly, each generation must relearn that the Protocols are one of the grossest and most damaging libels in history.

Compiled by American Jewish Historical Society
Kenneth J, Bialkin, President *
Michael Feldberg. PhD, Director and Series Editor
2 Thorton Road, Waltham. MA 02453

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2003

Muslims in Canada

Internation Jeruslem Post June, 2003

Maybe this population growth plus similar ones all over Europe is why the Canadian government and many in Europe have taken on so many anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and yes, anti-American stances.

But … I think it deeper than that – perhaps something called resentment, envy but also fear of violence from these dedicated, relentless zealots. “Maybe if we just leave them alone, they will go away?” Good luck!
Woe to those that surrender to the pressure of the bully and his terrorism. His demands become endless. Each surrender begets another demand.

More Muslims than Jews in Canada, International Jerusalem Post, June 8, 2003

Canada's Jewish population rose 3.1 percent over the past decade, from 318,000 in 1991 to 330,000, and now accounts for 1.1 percent of the overall population, according to new census data released by the Canadian government last week. The study also showed that Muslims have now surpassed Jews as the second-largest religious group in the country, climbing by 129 percent from 253,000 to 579,600, with Muslims now accounting for 2 percent of Canada’s population.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 15, 2003

Belgium Complicity – The International Jerusalem Post, June 6, 2003

(Item below for the critics of Goldhagen’s “Willing Executioners” which described in detail how Hitler had no shortage of willing killers of Jews throughout the nations of Europe. Is it not ironic that it is these same nations that are the sponsors of the so-call Roadmap to peace with the Arabs? Perhaps the Israelis and the USA should beware of allowing their enemies to dictate the terms of anything.)

Belgian complicity Belgian historians are to be given unprecedented access to private and public archives to investigate the complicity of Belgium's authorities in the deportation and death of the country's Jews during World War II.

Official figures show that 30,544 Jews of mixed European nationalities were deported from Belgium to death camps between 1942 and 1944. Only 1,524 survived and at least one-fifth of those who died were children.

Now the government has commissioned historians to "establish the eventual responsibility of the Belgian authorities for the deportation and persecution of the Jews," according— to a report in the London daily, The Guardian. The historians will consider the veracity of claims that the local authorities and police actively collaborated in rounding up Jews for deportation, compiled a national register of Jews which was handed over to the Nazis, enforced the wearing of the yellow Star of David, and scrupulously followed German orders relating to Belgium's Jewish community.

Jewish groups are also said to be pressing for an investigation into the role of the Catholic Church, which stayed silent throughout the deportations, and clarification of the role of certain Jewish by groups, which, they believe, collaborated with the Nazis.

As in France, the Belgian authorities have been reluctant to investigate the role of their officials, many of whom enthusiastically complied with the occupying Nazis and then went on to hold senior positions within the political and bureaucratic classes after the war.

The subject was taboo," says Jose Gotovitch, director of the Study and Documentation Center on War and Contemporary Society, the institute charged with carrying out the inquiry. “We needed the example of France to act. Pressure [to ignore the past] was very strong. Belgium's image during the war was even angelic."

Individuals in Belgium were tried for crimes, but an inquiry that was held
after the war did not examine the issue of deportations. More recently, an official
inquiry confined itself to the question financial compensation for Belgian
Jews whose property was confiscated. But Gotovitch noted that many of the officials accused of complicity in the deportation of Jews are dead when such an inquiry is finally possible. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 11, 2003

George W. becomes Slick Willy

by Michael Freund The Jerusalem Post, June 11, 2003

There is a story making its way around the Internet, as such stories
inevitably do, about a recent encounter which took place between US
President George W. Bush and one of his former Yale university classmates on
the eve of the president's much-publicized visit to the Auschwitz death camp
in Poland.In tones alternating between respect and outright veneration, the author tells us to have no fear, because the president assured him personally that he would not harm Israel's security.

"There he was--the most powerful man in the world--telling me once, then
reassuring me again, that Israel's security is of utmost importance to him",
notes the e-mail's author. And, lest we doubt the president's commitment, our faithful correspondent nforms us that Bush's pledge "was sealed with two firm hugs".

Not one, you see, but two.
Well, that certainly makes me feel better.

After all, it has barely been a week since Bush flew in to the Middle East
and forced Israel into submission, compelling the Jewish people to agree to
divide their land, create a terrorist state next door and forego the right
to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction.

Bush also embraced Palestinian prime minister and renowned Holocaust-denier
Abu Mazen as a man of peace, refused to compel the Arab states to normalize
relations with Israel, and effectively demanded that thousands of Jews be
thrown out of their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza against their will.

So, I guess it's a good thing that Israel's security is "of utmost importance" to him. Otherwise, we might really have reason to be worried. But worry we should, because by all indications, Bush has now decided to adopt the approach of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who continued to court the Palestinians even as they violated their commitments and carried out acts of terror against the Jewish state, all the while twisting Israel's arm to refrain from protecting its national interests.

It is interesting to note that before he was elected, Bush was singing a very different tune. He went to great lengths to differentiate himself from Clinton's policy on the Middle East peace process, which often seemed to stress speed over substance.

On May 22, 2000, in an address to AIPAC, Bush took a swipe at the
Clinton-Gore team, saying, "In recent times, Washington has tried to make
Israel conform to its own plans and timetables. This is not the path to
peace."

Subsequently, in October 2000, in his third presidential debate with Al
Gore, Bush again attacked Clinton, stressing that "the next leader needs to
be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable.
It's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to
the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace."

Yet now, just two-and-a-half years later, that is exactly what Bush is
attempting to do. In laying out the road map leading to the creation of a
Palestinian state, Bush has sought both to impose a series of timetables as
well as to dictate the outcome of the process.

In other words, he's become George W. Clinton, only without the intern.

And so, we now find ourselves once again confronting an awfully similar
scenario, one in which Israel is forced to make concessions even as the
Palestinians persist in killing Jews.
Indeed, in the first three days following Bush's June 4 summit in Aqaba,
there were a total of 24 Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis,
including shootings, bombings and rocket attacks.
Then, this past Sunday, five Israelis were murdered in yet another
post-Aqaba measure of the Palestinian commitment to peace.

And so how did the Bush team react to this new spasm of Palestinian
violence? Why, by turning up the pressure on Israel, of course.

The Sharon government's sudden decision on Monday to start dismantling
Jewish outposts in the territories reportedly came about only after America
demanded immediate action on the issue. Within hours, the bulldozers were
unleashed, and Jewish homes were under assault.

It is safe to assume that the lack of an Israeli military response to the
recent spate of Palestinian attacks is also the result of Washington's
diktat, since the Jewish right to self-defense was apparently not considered
worthy of inclusion in the road map.

At first glance, it is difficult to comprehend the Bush team's infatuation
with the new Palestinian premier. Since assuming his post, Mahmoud Abbas
(a.k.a. Abu Mazen) hasn't shut down a single terrorist training camp, he has
not confiscated any illegal weapons, and he has failed to halt anti-US and
anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media.

Not one terrorist group has been disarmed or disbanded, and no Palestinian
terrorists have been arrested or detained by the security forces under Abbas' control. And, in a press conference held Monday in Ramallah, Abbas openly ruled out the possibility of confrontation with terrorist groups such as Hamas andIslamic Jihad, saying only that he would use "dialogue" in his dealings with them. Nevertheless, despite Abbas' dismal record, Bush and his aides continue to deny reality, overlooking the Palestinian leader's failure to do more than just offer up a few platitudes about peace.

Nowhere was this willful obfuscation more on display than in US Secretary of
State Colin Powell's interview on Fox News Sunday, where he said, "We've
made our choice. We are going to be supporting Prime Minister Abbas."
And so, it doesn't really seem to matter whether or not Abbas lives up to
his end of the bargain. Either way, the Bush team will not hold him
accountable, because, as Powell so clearly stated, "We've made our choice."

This, too, is a throwback to the Clinton era, when Washington purposefully
made a choice to overlook PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's complicity in terror,
just because it conflicted with their vision for resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

But as the decade since the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords so amply
demonstrated, such an approach is not only short-sighted, it can be deadly
too, for it sends the Palestinians a dangerous message, leading them to
believe that they can murder Israelis with impunity.

On a flight to South America this past Monday, Colin Powell told reporters
that regardless of the recent attacks on Israel, "we can't let the
terrorists win." What he fails to realize is that by following in Clinton's footsteps, and pressing for the establishment of a Palestinian state, that is precisely
what he and his boss in the White House are doing.

The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in
the Israeli Prime Minister's Office.
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 09, 2003

The Myth of Anti-Muslim Backlash and Hate Crimes


By Michele Malkin, The Washington Times, June 8, 2003

Do you believe that a "post-September 11 backlash" has resulted in a nationwide wave of violence and bigotry against Muslims in the United States? The hype artists and book-cookers at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) want you to think so. The group's new report purports to document "a massive increase" of hate crimes targeting Arab-Americans. But in order to concoct a Muslim hate-crime epidemic, the ADC report lumps together faulty citations, dubious anecdotes and grossly over inflated claims.

As an example of a typical post-September 11 campuses hate crime, the ADC report highlights an alleged incident in Tempe, Ariz., where "a Muslim student was pelted with eggs at Arizona State University." From where did the information about the incident come? The ADC refers to a student op-ed piece in the Sept. 17, 2001, edition of the Arizona Daily Wildcat, which attributes the egg-pelting incident to a "National Public Radio report." What the ADC is not telling you: Of two egg-pelting incidents involving ASU students logged by campus police, one was a complete hoax and the other was a non-racial, nonreligious} juvenile prank.

As I reported in a column back in October 2001, ASU student Ahmad Saad Nasim lied to cops about being assaulted and pelted with eggs in a parking lot while assailants screamed "Die, Muslim die." Mr. Nasim confessed to fabricating the attack when cops interviewed him after he attempted a second hate-crime hoax in which he locked himself in a library restroom with the word "Die" written on his forehead, a plastic bag tied over his head and a racist note stuffed in his mouth.

Bin Fitzgerald, spokesman for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, told me two weeks ago that Mr. Nasim recently pled guilty to two counts of providing false information to police. His punishment? A measly one year's probation, 50 hours of community service and an order to seek psychological counseling.
The other egg-pelting incident at ASU involved two 18-year-olds and two juveniles who threw an egg at an unidentified, 31-year- old ASU student. University spokeswoman Nancy Neff told me police never classified it as a hate crime. No racial or ethnic slurs were allegedly uttered, according to a police account. "It was a bunch of guys on a joy ride," Ms. Neff said.

The ADC researchers' approach to creating the myth of the Muslim hate-crime epidemic is simple: throw in everything plus the kitchen sink. The ADC report trivializes a few truly heinous, violent attacks — such as the post-September 11 murder of Sikh gas station owner Balbir Singh Sodhi in Mesa, Ariz. — by mixing in unverified reports by schoolchildren who say classmates made fun of their Arabic names, gave them "dirty looks" or pulled off their head coverings. Obnoxious behavior, for sure. But "hate crimes"? The report cites a female student complaining that someone told her to "go back to wherever she came from." I get one or two idiotic e-mails expressing the same sentiment every week. Small-mindedness can sting. But should it be a reportable physical offense?

To further pad the hate crimes report, the ADC decries the "hostile commentary" of Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, terrorism expert Steven Emerson, syndicated columnists Mona Charen, Jonah Goldberg and Ann Coulter, Washington Post columnists Richard Cohen and Charles Krauthammer, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Weekly Standard, National Review and jewishworidreview.com, not to mention talk radio and the entertainment industry as part of an orchestrated "campaign of racism."

The ADC report suggests that every expression of support for law-enforcement profiling, every analysis of how the Muslim terrorist network has infiltrated American universities, mosques, prisons and charities, and every condemnation of radical Islam, qualifies as "defamation" that leads to widespread anti-Muslim crimes.

Herein lies the real agenda of the ADC and other apologists for Islamic extremism: to liken out-spoken critics to murderers, to equate speech with violence and to exploit victim hood status in a cynical attempt to distract attention from the true sources of terrorism in the United States.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 08, 2003

Secular Judgments


By Bill O’Reilly, Washington Times June 8, 2003

If personal perfection was the standard for making moral pronouncements no one would be able to make any. And that is the goal of the secularists, a judgment-free society. They believe there is no place in American society for standards of conduct based on moral principles. The secularists want a behavioral free-fire zone, and God, pardon the spiritual reference, help you if you disagree with that.

Bill O'Reilly is a nationally syndicated columnist and talk show host

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 07, 2003

Diversity, Black Power and White Guilt


Slaves to a New System

By Lucas Morel

"We've come a long way from the glory days of the civil rights movement, which culminated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. These were to
guarantee the full participation of black Americans in the social and political life of a nation that long treated them as strangers in a strange land.

"Unfortunately, the desire for quick results transformed affirmative action from a policy of equal treatment under the law —and punishment for its violation —to a system mandating racial representation. Pressured by calls for 'Black Power!' and white guilt for the sins of the past, government began treating citizens not as individuals with rights but as subjects to whom benefits or burdens were granted according to racial categories. This misplaced priority has masked a quota-driven admissions policy that simply accepts students according to racial percentages in society. [...]

"When asked what the black man wanted, Frederick Douglass consistently replied: 'Give him fair play, and let him alone.' Americans black, white, and in between, should ask no more and no less of their common government."

Lucas Morel, writing on "Equality, Liberty and American Diversity," in the May issue of On Principle

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Jews and Catholics after John Paul II?

Cardinal Keeler says church committed to its friendship with Jews

By Tracy Early, Catholic News Service

FAIRFIELD, Conn. (CNS) -- Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore told an interreligious group of seminarians that the commitment of the Catholic Church to friendship with Jews would continue regardless of who the next popes may be.
Pope John Paul II has taken notable steps to advance relations, but the new approach of the church is now firmly embedded in its teaching and does not depend on which individual may later be chosen for the papacy, the cardinal said.

The church's teaching on Catholic-Jewish relations is now set forth "at all levels," he said, and has the affirmation of the Second Vatican Council's 1965 declaration "Nostra Aetate," which repudiated all forms of anti-Semitism and called on Catholics to build mutual respect and understanding with Jews.
Cardinal Keeler was the concluding speaker of a June 2-4 institute at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield for Catholic, Protestant and Jewish seminarians.
About 20 male and female seminarians from a dozen institutions, including four men from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore, attended what was the fourth annual institute sponsored by the university's Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding.
Rabbi Joseph H. Ehrenkranz, center director, called Cardinal Keeler, an adviser to the center, "a great leader of the Catholic people and a great leader of the dialogue."
For the seminarians, the cardinal did not present a formal lecture, but recounted some of his experiences in Jewish relations and responded to questions.
He had each student introduce himself or herself at the beginning, and heard that some were studying to become teachers but not planning to seek ordination. When he finished his session with them, he went around to shake hands and speak with each one individually.
In the presentation, the seminarians got a view of important events in Catholic-Jewish relations, over the past two decades particularly, from someone who has played a key role at national and international levels.
Cardinal Keeler told how he as former chairman of the bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs had worked with top Jewish leaders and Catholics such as the late Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York and the former president of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Cardinal Johannes Willebrands.
Their ability to work cooperatively with mutual respect, Cardinal Keeler said, enabled them to defuse controversies such as one in 1987 over the pope giving an audience to Kurt Waldheim, then the president of Austria, who was accused of participating in Nazi crimes.
There was "not much understanding" in the Catholic community of why that would be a problem, but it was a major issue for Jews, he said. However, he said that he also pointed out that many Catholics suffered from the Nazis, and Jewish charges about the alleged silence of the church during the Holocaust were "offensive to us."
Recounting other top-level discussions, he said that in the years when the Vatican had not yet entered into diplomatic relations with Israel, Jews were assured that the reservations were not theological but based on human rights concerns. After Israel and the Palestinians entered into the Oslo peace process, the Vatican saw ways those concerns could be addressed, he said.
But, he said, he pointed out that Jewish organizations had been among the strongest opponents of the Vatican having diplomatic relations with the United States.
Adding flavor, Cardinal Keeler gave the seminarians sidebar stories such as one about a Catholic-Jewish group eating lunch at a Rome hotel owned by the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher -- one of very few occasions, he speculated, when a kosher meal was served on plates bearing crusader crosses.
Asked by a Jewish seminarian what he would like the Jewish community to be told about the Catholic Church, Cardinal Keeler said the first thing would be "what the church really teaches about Jewish relations."
Although not every individual Catholic expresses the church's outlook perfectly, the message of "Nostra Aetate" has set the church's official direction, and this is what is taught to future priests in Catholic seminaries, he said.
Cardinal Keeler said that during a recent appearance at a synagogue he talked about "Nostra Aetate," and found its message was "new to the rabbi." So there is still a need to tell people about it, he added.
The cardinal said in response to another question, however, that the theological implications of the "Nostra Aetate" statements about Jews have not been fully worked out.
The relationship of the church to the Jews "transcends our understanding, but we're now trying to explicate it," he said.
But Catholics do not make Jews special targets for conversion in the way some other Christian groups do, he noted.
Cardinal Keeler also asked that Jewish congregations be told about the Catholic Church's commitment to religious freedom. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 06, 2003

(Let's Lighten Up - Bob Hope)

Thanks Ski-Nose, for the Memories

Redacted from Pruden on Politics, The Washington Times, June 8, 2003

Like so many typical Americans, Leslie Townes ( Bob) Hope was an American by choice, coming with his family to Cleveland when he was 4. ("I left England as soon as I found out I wasn't eligible to become king.") He joined a vaudeville troupe as a teenager, once working "third billing to Siamese twins" and sometimes as warm-up for Fatty Arbuckle. He even worked for a while as a newspaper reporter before going to Hollywood just as the movies were entering their golden era.

He and his pal Bing Crosby (who coined the mock insult "Ol' Ski-nose") invented the road movie. Critics panned their slapstick humor decorated with gorgeous babes like Dorothy Lamour and Jane Russell, but the movies earned millions.

After another disappointing night at the Hollywood Academy Awards, Hope once said, "I would have won the Academy Award if not for one thing: my pictures. Academy Award night at my house was called Passover.”

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 05, 2003

Who is the leader of the Palestinian Authority - Arafat or Abbas?


By Itamar Marcus, Director PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH
http://www.pmw.org.il


The world's optimism about the peace process is largely a function of seeing
PM Mahmoud Abbas, as the new accepted leader of the PA. But how do the
Palestinians see things? A quick look at the front page of the PA's official
daily, Al Hayat al Jadida, gives an interesting perspective.

Since June 19th, the front page of the PA daily has had 17 pictures of
Yassir Arafat and only 6 pictures of the Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu
Mazen). Most of the Arafat pictures are large and appear at the very top of
the page, while Abbas' face is always small, the size of a coin. Arafat's
face is often the entire picture while Abbas is always with other people in
meetings. In one picture Arafat is kissing a little girl.

Even today, the day after the Aqaba Summit, Arafat's close up picture
appears on the top of the page, while Abbas appears from a distance and
lower down. An article on the front pages reports that Arafat called the
Palestinian delegation to give them instructions.

One of the few days when a picture of Abbas appeared without Arafat, the
headline of the front page was: "Abu Mazen: Arafat is the legitimate chosen
leader." [May 21, 2003]
This message also appears today in the PA daily Al
Ayyam: "Abu Mazen attacks the attempts to distance Arafat, who is the symbol
and the chosen President. his relations with Arafat are good and he coordinates his steps with him."

There is a great difference between the world's perception of the leadership
roles in the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian's perception. Within
the PA today Arafat is still the supreme leader and the one who will make
all the decisions regarding the future relations with Israel.

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


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Can the Jews Ever Shake the Myth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Jewish Cognitive Dissonance

BY IRWIN SAVODNIK in the International Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2003

One evening in 1996 my wife and I were sitting in a French bistro with a physician and his wife we had known for years. I told them that I was entering the Republican congressional primary, and, since we were both doctors and concerned about health care, they might have some interest in the campaign. We were greeted with a tirade. My friend's face reddened as he screamed that he would do everything he could to see that I was trounced at the polls. My wife and I were stunned. "You're a Jew and a Republican," he proclaimed to the entire restaurant. "That is despicable."

We have not spoken since. I'd like to say this was a singular experience - I'd like to, but I can't. When I mentioned to one woman at our synagogue that I was running for Congress she refused to talk to me, and to this day has snubbed us during High Holy Day services. One internist who had been to our home and had just opened her practice slammed down the phone when my wife called her. "It's impossible to be Jewish and Republican," one expert on Jewish life exclaimed after services. "Ifs a shanda [scandal]." Anyone who has read the edict of excommunication against Spinoza would have a good idea of the chill that surrounded us every time we entered the synagogue.

Today however there is a quiet, if seismic, realignment beginning to take shape. Consider the signs: It should be obvious that most of Israel's unflinching friends are on the Right - from Reagan-era ideologues to George W. Bush neo-conservatives to the growing chorus of evangelicals whose religious interests intersect with Israel's geopolitical goals.

More recently a one-term Jewish congressman from Virginia - the only Jewish Republican member of the House - Eric I. Cantor, has leapfrogged into the majority leadership, becoming chief deputy whip. Cantor is a fervent defender of Israel and, unlike his Jewish compatriot in the Senate, Arlen Specter, a self-confident conservative who speaks openly about his Jewishness and his politics in the same breath.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, once a diminutive political presence whose members could barely eke out a minyan in 1985 (the year it was founded), now has 15 chapters around the country, including Birmingham, Alabama, Kansas City and Palm Springs.

Perhaps most importantly, Jews have been willing and able to topple politicians deemed hostile to the Jewish state. Most notably, Atlanta's Cynthia McKinney and Birmingham's Earl Hilliard learned last year that sympathizing with Palestinian terrorists cost them at the polls. That these were Democratic primaries should not obscure their significance to both parties.

As a psychiatrist and former liberal I can empathize with the struggle inside the
Jewish psyche. The values at stake are at the heart of Jewish identity in America, and represent a long and noble collectivist tradition. But that tradition - rooted in the struggle of organized labor to win basic rights for workers - has become an anachronism in the post-industrial, hyper-digital 21st century.

Relinquishing this tradition, and all its parental-cultural trappings, is nearly unimaginable. Turning your back on this fight feels like rejecting your family, your community and your whole worldview. All of which leads me to infer that US Jews are in the midst of an identity crisis not unlike adolescence. The dynamics of this loosening up of old belief systems can be summed up in a single phrase: cognitive dissonance.

When a person finds his or her long-held beliefs - that the Left is the fountain of social progress - in conflict with a reality in which the most vocal anti-Semites in America are left-wing, from black Jew-haters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to anti-Zionist academics like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, that individual feels destabilized, even hurt, and may try to explain away the dissonant belief.

Such explanation usually amounts to little more than a rationalization that denies
reality. Examples of this denial when it comes to Israel fall into three roughly construed camps:

First, debase and attack the Jewish state by claiming it has been taken over by a bunch of right-wing thugs personified by Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu.

Second, elevate the Palestinians to a freedom-loving band of would-be democrats whose fight mirrors that of the Jews circa 1947.

Third, with nearly psychotic chutzpa, refuse to acknowledge that the Left is anti-Israel at all.

The result of this noxious state of mind is an identity crisis. Now, though, Jews are faced with surrendering their prevailing ideology and transcending long-established myths about both political parties. Can they do it? Yes, but for American Jews, changing political parties is akin to religious conversion. As for my friend, were he to approach me, I would say: "Judaism is not politics. One can't supplant the other. You're free to choose without relinquishing your spiritual inclinations."

The writer is a psychiatrist based in California.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 04, 2003

More Arab "Peace" Gestures

(And this is before yet another Arab terrorist state called "Palestinian" even exists! Just what we Americans need.)

As PA PM Abu Mazen meets with PM Sharon and Pres. Bush: Bloody Anti-American and Anti-Israeli cartoons featured on official PA website

The following are descriptions of cartoons appearing on the website of the
Palestinian National Authority State Information Service - International
Press Centre

#1 Uncle Sam in death mask recruiting poster: "I want you for the "Iraqi
Freedom" Join our forces and massacre the Iraqis"
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_Carcature/ipc-e_car7.html

#2 Ariel Sharon with whip and Palestinian citizen tied to a post. Sharon:
"You must stop the violence"
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_Carcature/ipc-e_car1.html

#3 Ariel Sharon in bloody shirt holding a bloody butcher knife over a
bleeding baby on a butcher block in a butcher shop with two bodies hanging
on meat hooks with a sign "Palestinian Blood" and another sign "sale".
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_Carcature/ipc-e_car2.html

#4 Sharon in army uniform holding a list and a pencil. Next to him is a
soldier holding binoculars asking "We've killed 80 Palestinian, is that
enough". Sharon replies "Just 19 more..."
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_Carcature/ipc-e_car3.html

#5 A Palestinian women holding a Palestinian flag in one hand throws a rock
that bounces off of the helmet of one of two Israeli soldiers in a tank. One
Israeli soldier is telling the other "I told you before all of them are
terrorists"
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_Carcature/ipc-e_car4.html

#6 Ariel Sharon with blood dripping all over him holds a knife dripping
blood. Shimon Peres holds a mop to clean up the blood on the floor.
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_Carcature/ipc-e_car5.html

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

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 03, 2003

The Saudi Charade


Saudis will have to prove just what side they are on

By Frank Gaffney

Plus: American Woman as Saudi Slaves by John McCaslin
The Washington Times, June 1, 2003

With the grace and speed of a child's toy top, Saudi Arabia's top public relations "spinner," Adel al-Jubeir, has been whirling across the airwaves and newsprint of the American media ever since the kingdom experienced the recent wave of murderous, terrorist bombings. Mr. al-Jubeir’s ubiquitousness (notably, in place of Prince Bandar, the equally charming, but less-Western and more controversial Saudi ambassador) is evidence of how much trouble the Saudis now know they are in. His mission: to ensure that American audiences see Saudi Arabia as a fellow-victim of radical Islamic (or Islamist) terrorism — not as its most important source.

Toward this end, the man whose day-job makes him the foreign policy adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah employed his many impressive linguistic and other skills (in particular, an unaccented and idiomatic command of the English language, a magician's gift for dissimulation and verbal prestidigitation, even choking-up theatrically at one point). And he largely got away with it. Until, that is, he made the mistake of appearing with Tim Russert on NEC's "Meet the Press" on May 18.

Mr. Russert earned a reputation for thorough and tough, but fair, cross-examinations of his guests. In Mr. al-Jubeir's case, he used lengthy questions to put before the public hard facts about such conduct as: Saudi calls for holy war (jihad) from state-sponsored Wahhabi clerics; virulently anti-Western incitement widely disseminated via such means as Saudi government-controlled media and 8th grade textbooks; comments by the Saudi interior minister that suggest sympathy for Islamist terrorists and hostility to U.S. efforts to bring them to justice; and funding by Saudi-based and –controlled "charities" that support suicide bombers and their families.

Before it was over, even as accomplished an artful dodger as Mr. al-Jubeir was reduced to declaring that reports of such activities in Saudi Arabia were "overblown," characterizing this sort of behavior as "wrong" '" and promising that it would be stopped in the future.

Let us earnestly hope so. But since Mr. al-Jubeir (and, to an even greater degree, other less-skilled Saudi spokesmen) seem unable fully to acknowledge the extent of Saudi complicity in terror at home, and since in any event it is difficult for Americans to monitor exactly what is happening in the closed and secretive kingdom, there are several other things the Saudi royals, their clerics, companies and other agents could do in this country that would be both helpful — and relatively transparent:

1. Stop their organized efforts to recruit convicted felons in the U.S. prison system as cannon fodder for the Wahhabist jihad.
2. Stop certifying and placing Wahhabi chaplains in the U.S. military, enabling them to convert service personnel (perhaps including Sgt. Asan Akbar, who allegedly "fragged" his commanding officers just before the 101st Airborne's "jump-off" into Iraq) to a murderously hostile view of this country and its foreign policy a purposes.
3. Stop trying — through, for example, the underwriting of, by some estimates 80 percent of the mortgages of American mosques — to dominate the Muslim community in this country and to make it an instrument for transforming this nation into an intolerantly Islamist one.
4. Stop Wahhabi-funded and orchestrated indoctrination and recruitment efforts on more than 500 college campuses around the United States.
5. Stop funding organizations in this country that purport to be "mainstream" Muslim- and Arab-American groups but that, in fact, express sympathy for Wahhabist and other terrorist groups and work to advance their agenda in this country and around the world.

Their political-influence operations aimed at the White House, the Congress, the media and law enforcement — arguably pose an even greater long-term danger than the homicidal attacks they excuse and otherwise enable.

Of course, when challenged, such organizations usually seek to justify their activities with the contention that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." For years, the Saudis have made a similar excuse for the foregoing activities — claiming that they did not amount to support for terror, just legitimate efforts to proselytize on behalf of their state religion, the Wahhabi sect of Islam.

This, then, will fulfill the many, sweeping promises Mr. al-Jubeir is making. Will they truly renounce terror and end official and officially-sanctioned support of it — even if that means abandoning the central organizing principle and justification for Wahhabism: the subordination to its discipline, by force if necessary, of all other Muslims and non-Muslims alike?
Anything less from the Saudis will be tantamount to them remaining, as President Bush has put it, "with the terrorists" and condemn them to being treated accordingly.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.



Saudi 'slaves'

On the heels of three deadly terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia, an American woman whose daughters have been held as "slaves" in the Saudi kingdom for nearly two decades is appealing to President Bush to free them and hundreds of other American women and children unable to come home.

"These women are being kept as contemporary slaves of the male guardians that control their physical body and soul," Patricia Roush writes in a letter to Mr. Bush. "Get them out now and send them home to America."
The woman's daughters, Alia and Aisha, were kidnapped more than 17 years ago by a Saudi father they barely knew. They were 3 and 7 at the time.

Mrs. Roush recently revealed in her book "At Any Price" that she made several desperate and risky attempts to rescue her daughters. Now she's hoping that Mr. Bush, at a time when U.S. heat has been turned up on the Saudi royal family, will initiate a policy change with the country.

Margaret Scobey, deputy chief at the U.S. mission in Saudi Arabia, said recently "although the embassy will continue to press for the rights of all American women to depart the kingdom without the permission of a male guardian, the embassy does not yet have such a broad commitment from Saudi authorities."
Mrs. Roush recommends the State Department issue a powerful demarche to the Saudi family, rather than merely exchanging diplomatic "pretty pleases."

John McCaslin, nationally syndicated columnist, the Washington Times

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 31, 2003

The Gifts of the Jews


Excerpted from the Introduction to The Gifts of the Jews.

By Thomas Cahill, Author of How the Irish Saved Civilization

How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels

The Jews started it all—and by "it" I mean so many of the things we care about, the underlying values that make all of us, Jew and gentile, believer and atheist, tick. Without the Jews, we would see the world through different eyes, hear with different ears, and even feel with different feelings. And not only would our sensorium, the screen through which we receive the world, be different: we would think with a different mind, interpret all our experience differently; draw different conclusions from the things that befall us. And we would set a different course for our lives.

By "we" I mean the usual "we" of late-twentieth-century writing: the people of the Western world, whose peculiar but vital mentality has come to infect every culture on earth, so that, in a startlingly precise sense, all humanity is now willy-nilly caught up in this "we." For better or worse, the role of the West in humanity's history is singular. Because of this, the role of the Jews, the inventors of Western culture, is also singular: there is simply no one else remotely like them; theirs is a unique vocation. Indeed, as we shall see, the very idea of vocation, of a personal destiny, is a Jewish idea.

Our history is replete with examples of those who have refused to see what the Jews are really about, who—through intellectual blindness, racial chauvinism, xenophobia, or just plain evil—have been unable to give this oddball tribe, this raggle-taggle band, this race of wanderers who are the progenitors of the Western world, their due.
Indeed, at the end of this bloodiest of centuries, we can all too easily look back on scenes of unthinkable horror perpetrated by those who would do anything rather than give the Jews their due.

But I must ask my readers to erase from their minds - the horrors of history -modern, medieval, and ancient but, (so far as one can) the very notion of history itself. More especially, we must erase from our minds all the suppositions on which our world is built—the whole intricate edifice of actions and ideas that are our intellectual and emotional patrimony. We must re-imagine ourselves in the form of humanity that lived and moved on this planet before the first word of the Bible was written down, before it was spoken, before it was even dreamed.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 28, 2003

Place Not Your Trust in Princes


By Isi Leibler, May 27, 2003, International Jerusalem Post



President George W. Bush is a friend of Israel and has displayed understanding for our security concerns. Washington is the shield that protects Israel from total isolation in the international community. More than that, the United States is the power that stands between Israel and the abyss.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is therefore to be commended for doing his utmost to maintain that relationship. But having said that, the litmus test of a good relationship cannot be based on being obliged to endorse a blueprint that many experts, including the minister of defense, insist pose grave dangers to Israel's future.

The government's decision is an enormous gamble if it based solely on the vague American understandings we have heard about. It could lead to a historic catastrophe possibly eclipsing anything that the Oslo disaster has wrought.

The potential for disaster is exemplified by recent Kafkaesque State Department outpourings. Example: in the presence of the French foreign minister, Colin Powell pontificated that the road map was "a good document" and insisted that taking account of Israeli government reservations "does not require us to change the road map."

Even were we dealing exclusively with the United States, vague warm words of good intentions would not suffice. But we are dealing with the Quartet.
And three of its members have a long track record of ugly bias against Israel.

The European countries continue to publicly pay homage to Yasser Arafat. The perfidious French consider the existing road map to be biased in the interests of Israel! The Middle East coordinator of the dysfunctional United Nations, Terje Larson, has a long history of anti-Israel bias. He even participated in the libel against the IDF over Jenin, insinuating that massacres had taken place despite knowing the truth.

So unless there are secret protocols protecting Israel's interests to which we cannot be privy, Prime Minister Sharon should have told President Bush that he was unable to proceed down a path which could jeopardize Israel's very future.
He was in a strong position to do so. Saddam Hussein's terror regime is no more. The US Congress carried a bipartisan resolution by a huge majority, urging the president not to pressure Israel into a road map that did not satisfy Jerusalem's priorities. The Christian lobby is solidly pressing the president not to coerce Israel.

Given the spate of recent terror bombings, US public opinion is generally sympathetic to Israel's case. Sharon consequently had no cause to "place our faith in princes" no matter how well intentioned or friendly they might be.
NOR DID Palestinian behavior oblige Sharon to placate Washington. Mahmoud Abbas's (Abu Mazen) brief record is outrageous. He made it abundantly clear that Arafat remains the chief Mafioso "For us," he said, "Abu Amar (Arafat) is the president elected by the Palestinian people, and we do not do anything without his approval."

Even Abu Mazen's inaugural speech, hailed for its moderation, reiterated that Palestinians have "fought with honor." Whilst conceding that violence "has not benefited" the Palestinian cause, all that he has sought is a temporary cease-fire within the Green Line, enabling terror groups to regroup and initiate a new offensive at a time of their choosing.

It all has an eerie déjà vu ring to it, a replay of when we resurrected the already marginalized duplicitous murderer at the end of the first Gulf War, brought him into our very midst from Tunis, and transformed him into a Nobel Peace Laureate.

Yes, the road map has all the hallmarks of Oslo Accords Mark II - compromises without reciprocity to be hailed by the Quartet, who will replay all the old themes of "moral equivalency" and "cycles of violence" to induce Israel into unilateral concessions.

And this, just when Palestinians were slowly coming to the realization that Israel is here to stay and that Arafat's resort to violence has only inflicted enormous misery on them without dividends.

With Abu Mazen refusing to destroy the terror infrastructure, the road map could well provide suicide bombers with a new lease on life. Surely it is time to say enough is enough. The bleeding hearts here and abroad who urged us to negotiate under fire have had their say. Sharon must remain true to his oath not to negotiate under fire. He must remind President Bush of his oath not to entertain any truce with al-Qaida. And that is precisely what Abu Mazen's relations with Hamas and Islamic Jihad amount to.

We must insist that we will continue to confront evil and terror by military force. Indeed, it is time to go after the head of the snake, those who incite to murder and publicly exult when our women and children are blown to pieces. They should be made to realize that their lives, and not only those of the actual killers, are at stake.

We may not be able to totally overcome terror. But despite 100 years of it, we have built up an extraordinary nation. We could not have done so in the absence of tough responses. The last one, Operation Defensive Shield, unquestionably radically reduced the incidence of terror. Our American friends should understand and appreciate that in the current climate, they face the same enemy.

A FEW weeks ago in the presence of Prime Minister Sharon, I asked the head of his Bureau, Dov Weisglass, why we were not promoting our case more assertively in the United States, especially as we have such strong support in Congress. His response, "leave it to us," was not reassuring. It was reminiscent of remarks we were hearing from Israeli leaders during the Oslo heyday.
The extraordinary haste and unwillingness to provide for a thorough discussion in relation to an issue which could have such enormous ramifications for our future is equally reminiscent of the way the Oslo Accords were rushed through without adequate debate.

So yes, we can only hope and pray that the prime minister did enter into secret agreements with the Bush administration involving more than mere understandings. If by endorsing this road map we endanger our future, our prime minister must bear the full burden of responsibility. We had a good case with ample time to prepare our friends. Central to that case was Yitzhak Rabin's Oslo gamble, which created a disaster for the nation because we never had a genuine partner. We still don't.

And if our prime minister is leading us to yet another strategic disaster, it will be far worse than Ehud Barak's blindness because at least Barak was negotiating for an end game.

Even now at this late stage, Prime Minister Sharon should avoid adopting the disastrous Napoleonic postures of some of his predecessors and listen carefully to his allies and critics. They will urge him to endorse one thing: the sound principles outlined by President Bush in his June 24, 2002, Middle East speech, not the Quartet's corruption of them. To that end, we would indeed be willing to make "painful sacrifices."

The road map as endorsed this week by the Cabinet does not warrant painful sacrifices, for it has the potential of evolving into an inferior recycled version of the Oslo Accords which have already cost us too much blood.

The writer is senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 09, 2003

Can't anybody here read a "roadmap?"

By Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief of the Washington Times, May 11, 2003

From the mountains of fire came the rebels
Everywhere there are settlements
Oh, brave Nablus, keep the cauldron alive
Pour over the settlements great flames
Foreigners have no place on this land.

This heroic Palestinian doggerel, not much in the way of art, is part of a video broadcast by Official Palestinian Authority Television on the eve of the occasion we've all been sitting up for, the introduction of the celebrated "road map to peace" in the Middle East. The words to the music, which every Palestinian child will want to sing on the road to peace — or at least to the peace process — urges killing Jews and seeks to inspire with scenes of masked gun- men firing their AK-47s, and aerial photographs of targeted Israeli towns, of an Israeli couple on a stroll and of groups of teenage Israeli girls. Young Palestinian men are encouraged — usually by old Palestinian men who keep themselves carefully out of harm's way — to prove their manhood by killing women and children, the frailer, the smaller, the more vulnerable the better.

The Palestinian "martyrs" of Hamas and Fatah, armed with the new road map,
celebrated the beginning of the journey by dispatching a homicide bomber to kill three Israelis and wound 55 — the dead after these bombings are often more fortunate than the hideously wounded — in a seaside pub just a few dozen yards from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. Message sent, if not necessarily received.

The new prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, alias Abu Mazen, took office saying brave things. "There is only one authority," he said, and told his thriving terrorist groups that, "there is no military solution to our conflict." He vowed to take guns out of the hands of troublemakers. It's fashionable, even among the skeptics, to take Mr. Abbas, alias Mazen, at his word, and to treat him as more or less legitimate. Maybe he really is who he wants us to believe he is, and maybe George W.'s famous road map really is a map to a genuine destination and not, as events will probably show it to be, a road map to another dead end. No pun intended.

Taking "the peace process" seriously requires a strong stomach and a taste for fantasy and satire. Mr. Abbas, alias Mazen, was sworn in on Holocaust Remembrance Day, but the irony was lost on the new prime minister because he says there was never a Holocaust to remember. He wrote his doctoral thesis at Moscow University on Holocaust denial, entitled "The Other Side The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism."

The sheer unreality of this whole business is underlined by the fact that the great moderate hope is a man with a past that sickens decent men and women. "Maybe we can see it this way," says Jay Nordlinger in National Review Online. "The gentlest are Holocaust deniers; the less gentle acknowledge the Holocaust – and applaud it."

This is the man who was chief Palestinian negotiator at Camp David three years ago, scorned a far better deal than any road map will lead to, and was pleased
with his display of bad faith. "Camp David was a trap," he said of the agreement that gave the Palestinians 97 percent of what they had bargained for, "and we managed to get out of it." Nevertheless, George W. says Mr. Abbas, alias Mazen, is "a man I can work with."

It may be that Mr. Abbas, alias Mazen, has had, like Saul of Tarsus, a dramatic conversion on the Damascus road. Maybe he didn't really mean it when he said, barely a month ago, that, "the intifada must continue, and it is the right of the
Palestinian people to rise and use all the means at their disposal." The means at
their disposal, of course, are the tools of the assassins of the young, the helpless and the vulnerable. But if the president wants the exercise and is willing to put up with the stench of working with such men, who are we to say nay?

The president is an optimist, as all presidents must be, and the warmth, humility and good humor he demonstrated on May 1 from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, declaring the war in Iraq all but over, was impressive. George W. is a man who lends other men stout heart, and brave and courageous men follow such a president cheerfully. The photographs of the president, surrounded by his fellow fighter pilots aboard the Abe Lincoln, tell us everything about what the men who won the war in Iraq think about their commander in chief.

He will need all the heart he can muster over the next few months, both in Palestine and Iraq and everywhere else in a society and a culture that has never grown beyond its flowering a thousand years ago. The grotesque rhetoric, wrapped in a bitter ideology masquerading as religious faith, from men the West must take seriously, or at least pretend to, sounds to us like something from a backwoods minstrel show. But they believe it, and they don't read road maps.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 29, 2003

'The Souls of Black Folk'

Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal April 28, 2003

‘The Souls of Black Folk’ By Steele


More than 100 amicus briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court in support of racial preferences not because they work (they don't) or because the nation wants them (it doesn't). Preferences allow institutions to engineer a diversity that has not been earned through genuine human transformation.

This is the DuBoisian model of black protest and white responsibility intervening mechanically and socialistically. And today's ubiquitous question--if we take affirmative action away, what will there be is a DuBoisian question presuming that only white responsibility can save blacks. The historic resonance of this case comes from the fact that the court is fiddling with the DuBoisian model of racial reform by adjusting the precise range of white responsibility--of white burden.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 28, 2003

Brian Wms. vs Larry King

Please don’t tell me that All-American boy, heir-apparent Brian Williams, MSNBC anchor has found himself on to the Saudi Arabian/Syrian Pension Plan – and at such an early age too?

How else could one explain the powder puff, Larry King-like, obsequious interview given to two of the most pro-Arab, out of reality members of the U.S. Congress – Nick J. Rahall II from West Virginia and Darrell Issa of California - both just returned from a self-starting visit to Bashar Assad of Syria.

Rahall in the spring of 2002 was one of only 21 Congressman of 435 who voted against Resolution 392 supporting Israel’s war against Palestinian terrorism. Just now, in April 2003, he was again one of only 23 members of 435 who voted against a similar resolution supporting Israel and our mutual war against terrorism.

Darrell Issa is another different Congressman with questionable loyalties. Debbie Schlussel, political commentator writing in Political USA of November 30, 2001, calls him “Jihad Darrell.” It seems Issa made a similar trip to the Middle East in November 2001. Upon his return Issa announced that the terrorist organization Hezbollah was a legitimate organization! He somehow ignored the fact that it was Hezbollah who blew up 241 US Marines in Beirut in the 1980s and also tortured and murdered U.S. Military attaché, Cleo Noel and later kidnapped, tortured and murdered CIA Chief William Buckley in the US Embassy in Beirut. Issa also applauded Yasser Arafat as a “charismatic individual who gives you the food off his plate when you lunch with him.”

Rahall and Issa, fellow Arab American members of the House International Relations Committee, just came back from their latest jaunt to Syria and were interviewed as if conquering heroes by Brian Williams. The two Congressmen described Bashar Assad, President of Syria as some young innocent. Williams forgot to ask the Congressman if they had gone on their own, despite Administrative or even State Department recommendations. He also forgot to ask them if they had queried Assad about Syria’s incorporating, through conquest, Lebanon into Greater Syria or the use of the Bekka Valley in Southern Lebanon as one of the largest heroin plantations in the world. He forgot to ask them about Syria’s role supplying weapons to Iraq during our recent war and the importing illegally of Iraqi oil in a private deal undermining UN resolutions. He also forgot to ask them about Syria as the terrorist headquarters of all the sleazy, killer organizations of the world. He forgot to ask them about a lot of very pertinent, damning behavior, both by themselves and by Syria and Bashar Assad.

Brian Williams did allow them to leave the impression of Bashar Assad as just an innocent, misunderstood young man with a kind, westernized heart. The interview proved to be about as sickening as those of Larry King slobbering over every despot in the world.

We can only hope that this Williams interview was an aberration and Brian Williams is not indeed making an early application for the Saudi Arabian/ Syrian Pension Plan as offered to important media people and retiring members of the American State Department and Administration.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Political Commentator

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

April 21, 2003

Thomas Friedman Admisssion

Please indulge me for dwelling on this series of three articles. They all concern my most unfavorite phony, Thomas Friedman, who has been finally challenged by one of my favorite honest guys, Jeff Jacoby.
As companion pieces, I am taking this opportunity to also present two articles that I wrote previously, October 24, 2001 and January 15, 2003 concerning the aforementioned Friedman.

The recent article by Jeff Jacoby in many ways vindicates my own writings relative to Friedman who vindicates them himself in his third person discussion of news perversion written to please Arab despots. It is not a big stretch to convert Friedman’s third party discussion to one in which Friedman himself is the guilty party.

Hopefully the despicable Eason Jordan confession and articles by Jacoby and even Jerry Kaufman will further expose the culpability of journalists and TV anchors toady to the Arabs. Perhaps their sickening distortions will finally obtain the irrelevance and disdain they deserve rather than Pulitzer and Nobel prizes that have become laughing stocks in their later proven inappropriateness.

Jerome S. Kaufman


TRADING TRUTH FOR ACCESS?

By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, April 17, 2003

When Saddam Hussein's psychopathic son Uday told
CNN's top news executive, Eason Jordan, that he
planned to assassinate his two brothers-in-law who had
defected from Iraq, he wasn't concerned that Jordan
would rush the explosive scoop onto the air. Uday
figured the influential journalist would sit on the
story and say nothing -- and he was right. The news
didn't leak and the brothers-in-law were murdered soon
after.

We know about that conversation, and about CNN's
silence, because Jordan admitted it last week. In a
New York Times column titled "The news we kept to
ourselves," he confessed that CNN habitually
suppressed stories of torture, mutilation, and other
atrocities -- "things that could not be reported
because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of
Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. . . .
I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside
me."

Jordan's disclosure triggered a storm of
criticism, and no wonder. It is scandalous that a
network calling itself "the most trusted name in news"
would sanitize the truth about a dictatorship it
claimed to be covering objectively. And the scandal
is compounded by Jordan's lack of contrition. He
makes no apology for downplaying the horrors of
Saddam's regime. If CNN hadn't done so, he says,
innocent people would have died.

But as Franklin Foer reported in The New Republic
last October, CNN didn't bury stories only out of
fear. It bent over backward to remain on good terms
with Saddam's Ministry of Information, which
controlled the all-important visas needed to stay in
Iraq. "Nobody has schmoozed the ministry harder,"
Foer wrote, "than the head of CNN's News Group, Eason
Jordan, who has traveled to Baghdad 12 times since the
Gulf War."

What emerged from those meetings, it seems, was a
policy of going along to get along. CNN's stories
frequently echoed the Baath Party spin, deferentially
covering its agitprop or toadying to Saddam. ("It's
… a vote of defiance against the United States.
. . This really is a huge show of support!" -- CNN's
Jane Arraf on Saddam's 100 percent "election" victory
last Fall.) Rarely was there an unvarnished look at
the regime's cruelty and deceit. That, Jordan now
admits, was "the news we kept to ourselves."

But CNN wasn't the only offender, and it doesn't
just happen in Iraq.

News organizations boast that they cover even the
toughest beats without fear or favor. Sometimes it's
true. But sometimes journalists choose to censor
themselves instead -- to toe a vicious regime's line,
to soft-pedal its ruthlessness. They may do it to
save their skin, or to ingratiate themselves with the
dictator, or to protect the bragging rights that come
with access to a big story. Whatever the excuse, the
results are the same: The public is cheated, the news
is corrupted, and a despot is strengthened.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Thomas
Friedman, who described in his 1989 best seller "From
Beirut to Jerusalem" what it was like to be a reporter
in Beirut during the years when southern Lebanon was
dominated by Yasser Arafat's PLO and Syria's
Palestinian loyalists.

"No discussion about the reality of Beirut
reporting would be complete," he wrote, "without
mentioning a major reporting constraint journalists
there faced: physical intimidation." He explained,
for example, how Syria's agents dealt with one
journalist they didn't like: He was found with a
bullet in his head and his writing hand mutilated with
acid. Earlier, Friedman recalled his own terror on
learning that Arafat's spokesman wanted to see him
"immediately" about the stories he'd been filing to
New York:

"I lay awake in my bed the whole night worrying
that someone was going to burst in and blow my brains
all over the wall." No "major breaking" news story was ever suppressed
because journalists were too intimidated to report it,
Friedman insisted. But behind that fig leaf, he
conceded a shameful truth:

"There were . . . stories which were deliberately
ignored out of fear. Here I will be the first to say
`mea culpa.' How many serious stories were written
from Beirut about the well-known corruption in the PLO
leadership. . .? It would be hard to find any hint of
them in Beirut reporting before the Israeli invasion."

And then, an even more damning admission:
"The truth is," Friedman wrote, "the Western press
coddled the PLO. For any Beirut-based correspondent, the
name of the game was keeping on
good terms with the PLO, because without it would you
not get the interview with Arafat you wanted when your
foreign editor came to town."

There are moral costs to doing business with thugs
and totalitarians. Reporters who forget that
accuracy, not access, is the bedrock of their
profession can too easily find themselves paying those
costs -- trading off truth for a coveted interview or
visa, turning a blind eye to dissent, treating
barbaric criminals with deference. Or saying nothing
when the dictator's son says he is planning a double
assassination.

When "the name of the game" becomes "keeping on
good terms" with the world's most evil men, journalism
turns into something awfully hard to distinguish from
collaboration. It didn't start with Eason Jordan, and
it didn't end in Baghdad.

__________________________________________________

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thomas Friedman, Suspect Expertise, Jan. 15, 2003



By Jerome S. Kaufman


Once again Thomas Friedman finds a way to blame Israel for the animus of the Arabs toward the United States. What Friedman instead displays is Friedman’s own perverse on-going animus toward the land of his own ancestors. Friedman conveniently ignores Muslim wars occurring all over the world that have nothing whatever, to do with Israel.

Samuel P. Huntington, Professor at Harvard University calls this “The Age of Muslim Wars.” Quoting from Professor Huntington’s article, “According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in year 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. The Economist reports Muslims were responsible for 11 or 12 of the 16 major act of international terrorism that occurred between 1983 and 2000.” In the 1990s violence occurred most frequently as a result of Muslims under the banner of Jihad, attempting to once again conquer Christian and other non-Muslim areas and regain their long lost glory and territory of the 7th – 13th centuries. The Jihad continues to this very day in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. etc.

But, never mind all that. Friedman has his own sources of “expertise” Just a few months ago; Friedman got his information from the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and dutifully presented their farcical, obviously propaganda ploy “Peace Plan” to the West.

This time Friedman spent the afternoon in noon prayers at Cairo’s Al Azhar mosque and then later interviewed “30 bright young Egyptian entrepreneurs” and then students at Cairo University! What impeccable sources of information and what an obvious base from which Friedman can once again tell the President of the United States how to formulate his foreign policy! No wonder Friedman is so well received in Arab countries.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thomas Friedman Fantasy, Oct. 24, 2001

By Jerome S. Kaufman October 24, 2001


Thomas Friedman once again indulges his fantasies as a self-styled expert on the Middle East and presumes this time to give unsolicited advice to President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat. He creates several problems for his "expertise" by ignoring facts and by creating a moral equivalency between Sharon and Arafat. He chooses to ignore the fact that Ehud Barak, Israel's former Prime Minister, resoundingly defeated by his own electorate, gave Arafat an offer of land and power and nationhood that would in itself guarantee the demise of Israel as a Jewish state. The offer, by the way, was never approved by the Knesset or the Israel public and certainly is not now on the table. Arafat refused and opted, as usual, for terror. In just the last 4 1/2 months, the Israel Defense Forces reported 2,842 attacks (exclusive of stone and flame throwers) against Israeli civilians! By population proportions, that number would be equal to 153, 468 attacks on American citizens! Yet, Friedman or anyone else has the gall to tell the Israelis that they are not entitled to do any thing necessary to protect their own citizens or they are using "excessive force."

As to Friedman's admonishment to the Israelis to not do anything that would disrupt the American coalition: Of course, the coalition itself, except for the British, is a total farce. The Arab nations to whom we give billions of dollars contribute nothing - no men, no resources and the utilization of air space only if we fly by quietly.

But, once again Yasir Arafat and the rest of the Islamists have scored a major tactical victory. They have found a way to blame Israel for their direct killing of some 3000 American citizens. The only problem is that Israel had absolutely nothing to do with it. Israel is just a convenient ad on to the Islamic want list. Their war is against the "Great Satan" and that's us.

If this country does not allow Israel to defend itself in every way possible and help her in the process, we are weakening our own ultimate defense. We are submitting to Islamist extortion and intimidation, as we are doing at this very moment, and guess who obtains an even more attainable role on their want list for elimination.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 20, 2003

Remember Our Enemies

By Joseph Farah, The Washington Times, April 20, 2003

President Bush still seems hell-bent on creating a Palestinian Arab State, with people like this represented in leadership, as soon as he finishes the war in Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake. If we do, we will be, in effect, creating a future Iraq – maybe something worse.

When this war is over, we must remember who supported us and who opposed us. Recently, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, one of the most active suicide terrorist groups in the Middle East, called on Muslims throughout the world to attack British, American and Israeli targets in response to the war in Iraq.

Who is the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade? It is a faction of Yasser Arafat's Fatah Party.
It is not a militant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization opposing Mr. Arafat. It is not Hamas. It is not Hezbollah. It is not Al Qaeda. It is Yasser Arafat's own group of storm troopers. Of course, as always, Mr. Arafat tries to distance himself from such rhetoric. But he can't— not for people who understand the truth. And that's why it is so important to understand who this group is and whom it represents. It is Mr. Arafat's will put into violent action. It is nothing more, nothing less.

Nevertheless, President Bush still seems hell-bent on creating a Palestinian state, with people like this represented in leadership, as soon as he finishes the war in Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake. If we do so, we will be, in effect, creating a future Iraq — maybe something worse.

This is hardly the only evidence we have seen from the Palestinian Authority
that it supports —100 percent—Saddam Hussein's unholy reign over Iraq. The news of the first American and British casualties was greeted with joy in the Palestinian Authority. Here are some excerpts from a recent Friday sermon delivered at the Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza by Palestinian Authority preacher Sheikh Ibrahim Madeiris and broadcast live on Palestinian Authority TV: "... Allah drowned Pharaoh and those who were with him. Allah drowns the Pharaohs of every generation. Allah will drown the little Pharaoh, the dwarf, the Pharaoh of all times, of our time, the American president …

(As usual, the Arabs subvert Jewish and Christian bible history and claim it as their own. The G-d of the Jews suddenly becomes the Arab Allah and Pharoah instead of the Egyptian Pharaoh that was enslaving the Jews becomes President Bush enslaving the Arabs. How could one ever deal with an entire culture that has such an advanced sophisticated system of lying to themselves and projecting all their failures, problems and, lies on to you as the guilty party? Jsk)

… Allah will drown America in our seas, in our skies, in our land. America will drown, and all the oppressors will drown. ‘Oh, people of Palestine, Oh, people of Iraq. The Crusader, Zionist America, has started an attack against our Iraq, the Iraq of Islam and Arabism, the Iraq of civilization and history. It opened a Crusader Zionist war against Iraq. If Iraq is defeated, if the nation (of Islam) is defeated in Iraq — this will be our last breath of life.... It was only natural that
America would invade Iraq. When Afghanistan was devoured we said that if Afghanistan would be devoured, Iraq too would be devoured, and I warned that if Iraq is devoured, south Lebanon will be devoured, too, and Syria should also start preparing because the rest of the Arab world fell without war.

This is a Zionist Crusader war. It is not I who say this; it was the little Pharaoh (Bush) who announced it when he stated that this was a Crusader attack. Hasn't he said this? I'm amazed at some of the clerics of the nation (of Islam). who cooperate with their (treachery). ... I am amazed that they are trying to keep the nation away from Jihad ... and they issue Fatwas according to which this war
is not against Islam, but against Iraq, as though the people of Iraq are calf worshippers or fire worshippers. Are not they Muslims? I am speaking about the people not about the regime. AMERICA WILL be destroyed, Allah willing, and Palestine, Iraq and the Middle East will become a cemetery for oppressors …”

Care for more?

The Palestine Liberation Organization’s Faruq Qaddumi told Al Jazeera TV last moth that Iraq’s battle is Palestine’s battle. “First of all, we salute the Iraqi people for their brave resistance, he said. They are defending Iraq but indeed they are defending Pan Arab security. Therefore all the Arabs must stand by the heroic Iraqi people because Iraq’s battle is Palestine's battle, the Arab nations battle. Therefore, we salute them God bless them in their heroic defense "

You saw the demonstration in the streets of the Palestinian Authority. Understand that those Pro-Saddam, Pro-Iraq rallies and marches cannot take place without the specific approval of the tyrant-in-waiting Yasser Arafat. Why would we topple one anti- American terrorist only to create a new state for another?

Joseph Farah is the founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com and former editor of the Sacramento Union.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 15, 2003

The Role of the U.N. in Postwar Iraq

By George Will

The task of reconstructing Iraq — more its civil society than its physical infra-structure — is entangled with the less urgent task of reweaving the frayed relations between America and France and Germany, and with the optional task of rehabilitating the United Nations. The United Nations has proved itself unsuitable as an instrument of collective security. It is a stew of starkly conflicting political cultures and incompatible assessments of the world's dangers and what to do about them. Hence it cannot function as a policy-making body. The United Nations can, however, be invited to help with certain brief relief and civil administration chores. This invitation should be extended for the same reason France was made a permanent member of the Security Council in 1945 —as psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.

Note the verb "invited." There is no entitlement for France, Germany, Russia and the United Nations. They did all in their power to keep Saddam Hussein in power, which makes them accessories to tyranny and war crimes. All Iraq's debts incurred to Russia, France, and Germany — U.S. officials at the United Nations say Germany was even more troublesome than France "in the corridors," meaning in the prewar politics outside the Security Council — during Saddam's regime should be canceled.

Some European militaries, like Canada's, can barely be considered real military — meaning war-fighting— forces. The New York Times reports that more than half of Germany's defense budget of just $27 billion goes to salaries and benefits for personnel — a third of them civilians who, after 15 years, are guaranteed lifetime employment. Germany had to lease Ukrainian aircraft to get its peacekeeping forces to Afghanistan.

Still, such militaries can perhaps earn their keep by maintaining order in an Iraq where tribalism is reasserting itself and civil war might now fester. Besides, there is a danger that peacekeeping will diminish the U.S. military services' aptitude for their' real purpose, which is war-fighting. Furthermore, the services are stretched perilously thin and were exhausted by the tempo of operations even before the war began.

The crisis with Iraq, which became an overdue crisis of U.S. relations with the United Nations and portions of Old Europe, arrived as U.N. was publishing "State of the World Population 2002." To the extent that demography is destiny, Europe's collective destiny, for decades, will be beyond the choice its governments, and will be a continuing decrescendo. Today Europe's population is 725 million. The populations of 14 European nations are declining, and the lines are driven by powerful social values and trends that would be difficult for governments to reverse, were they inclined to try, which they do not seem to be. The growth rates of the populations of other European nations are at or near zero. So the European population is projected to be 600 million in 2050.

In developed countries, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is replacement rate, producing population stability. Only Albania has that rate. Catholic Ireland's rate is 2.0, but the rates of the Catholic nations of Southern Europe are among Europe's lowest -1.2. The estimated European average is 1.34.

Stein Ringen, an Oxford sociologist, writes that, "without emigration or immigration and with a stable birthrate of 1.5, a population would be reduced to about half in 100 years, and with a birthrate of 1.2 to about 25 percent." On those assumptions, Germany's population would shrink from 82 million to fewer than 40 million by the end of the century, and Italy's 57 million to fewer, than 20 million.

Ringen acknowledges that population trends can change rapidly and unpredictably. But with the exception of the post-1945 baby boom — before working mothers became the norm— Europe's birthrates were low for most of the last century, and higher rates are unlikely because the "modern conventions for family life are built around the now firm idea, and economic necessity, of both parents working and earning." Economic anemia and further military impotence are probable consequences of Europe's population collapse. Which will trouble some Americans with peculiar political sensibilities.

Americans who are apt to argue that U.S. foreign policy needs constant infusions of legitimacy from the approbation of European governments are also apt to deplore, in the domestic culture wars, Eurocentrism in academic curricula. Such Americans resist the cultural products of Europe's centuries of vitality, but defer to the politics of Europe in its decadence. Why? Perhaps because yesterday's European culture helped make America what it is, and today's European politics expresses resentment and distrust of what America is. Both sensibilities arise from the distaste of some Americans for America.

George Will writes for the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th NW, Washington, DC, 2007:

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 10, 2003

An Inadvertent Testimonial to Mort Klein

An Inadvertent Testimonial to the Great Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America by Left Wing Israeli Newspaper Ha’aretz

Ha'aretz: US Jewish leaders detest ZOA head Klein for effectively fighting
Arafat – While American Jewish public enthusiastic

(Independent Media Review and Analysis: The following article about Morton Klein, www.zoa.org, is as much a devastating piece about other American Jewish leaders as it is a tribute to Klein, the voice of right-wing American Jewry)

By Shlomo Shamir Ha'aretz 9 April 2003

Heads of Jewish organizations in the U.S. can't understand why Morton
Klein is becoming so popular.

NEW YORK - At a Jewish event in Detroit last Sunday Morton Klein received
an enthusiastic welcome of the kind reserved for an American politician who
has wound up a primary with an impressive victory.

"It's amazing," Klein told his audience, "that in both the American administration
and the Israeli government there are those who relate to Holocaust denier Abu Mazen as a serious negotiation partner."

Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is not exactly the
image of a speaker who can enthuse the masses. He has a nasal voice, the result of a congenital defect, and he has difficulty finishing a long sentence without pausing for a deep breath. But the crowd in Detroit loved what he said about the "road map." "It is a worse initiative than the first Oslo accord," he declared. "In Oslo, the Palestinians were not guaranteed a Palestinian state and Israel was not ordered to stop building settlements."

A local journalist noted this week that the enthusiasm of the audience reached a climax when Klein ridiculed the Jewish leaders who are afraid to openly express their opinions against the road map and publicly denounce Abu Mazen."The heads of the organizations are afraid to speak out against Abu Mazen
because they do not want to annoy President [George W.] Bush and Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon," said Klein. "I am very disappointed with Sharon,
who expressed willingness to negotiate with Abu Mazen. Jewish leaders were
also afraid to shake off the first Oslo accord because they were afraid to
annoy President [Bill] Clinton and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin."

The warm welcomes that Klein is receiving at his appearances before the
Jewish public in the United States stand in direct contrast to the reactions
he elicits from the Jewish establishment. A few leaders and heads of
Jewish organizations blatantly shy away from Klein and are openly derisive of his
statements. When Klein gets up to speak at sessions of the Conference of
Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, those present do not hide their
contempt for the man and his views.

At a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last
week, Klein suggested 10 amendments to the organization's declaration of
principles. Nine of the amendments were rejected outright and one was
discussed briefly. In a conversation with Klein he said that even the
White House is avoiding him thanks to his statements denouncing Bush's policies
toward the Middle East. Klein was not invited to a Hanukkah event at the
White House, to which other heads of Jewish organizations were invited. He says White House aides explicitly told him, "We won't be nice to you if you are not nice to us."

Ammunition for anti-Semites ?

The list of things that Klein has done that irk the Jewish establishment
includes his appearance at a recent demonstration in Times Square in
support of the war in Iraq. Klein is the first president of a Jewish organization
that has so far publicly expressed support for the war. What angered major
Jewish figures in New York was that the demonstration was organized by the
coalition of the Christian right.

"I received angry phone calls from Jewish leaders, denouncing me for
participating in the demonstration," Klein recalled Sunday. "They claimed
that the participation of Jews in the demonstration would provide
ammunition for the anti-Semites who claim that the Jews and Israel pushed America into the war," Klein chuckled. "Nonsense. And before the war did the anti-Semites not accuse us of any trouble? My father lost his whole family in the Holocaust, including eight brothers and sisters, and I vowed I would never
be afraid of expressing my opinion in public."

Jewish leaders are visibly uncomfortable when asked to talk about Klein
and respond to his statements. "Klein has no support among the Jewish
leadership in America," declared one senior Jewish official in New York Sunday.
"He is alone and evokes alienation." Even so, the official admitted that Klein "arouses sympathy and even enthusiasm during his public appearances
because he gives expression to the right-wing public in the community. Without him they would have no voice."

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League is perhaps Klein's
sharpest critic in the Jewish establishment. A few years ago Foxman coined
a definition of Klein that Jewish officials love to repeat. In response to
Klein's negative remarks against the league Foxman called him the "attack
dog of the Jewish thought police." (I don’t know why Foxman would be concerned since he is not involved with any genuine thought - jsk)

Foxman says the worst thing about Klein's behavior is that he lashes out
against people and organizations that express opinions opposing his.
Foxman also feels that it is the "height of arrogance [for Klein] to sit in
Philadelphia and tell Sharon, `Don't speak to Abu Mazen.' Is that the new Zionism that Klein is preaching?"

Klein himself is unfazed by those who ridicule him. "Their activities and
statements are motivated by prestige," he says. "They are interested in
invitations to the White House while my activities are anchored in my care
for Israel and Jews."

Klein celebrated his sweet revenge on the Jewish establishment when he recently won the most coveted recognition in the eyes of Jewish leaders
and heads of Jewish organizations - his picture and an editorial about him in
The New York Times. "Mortimer Zuckerman just finished serving two years as
chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations,
but it was Morton Klein who got an article about him in The New York Times,"
lamented the head of one large American Jewish organization.

Klein noted Sunday that none of his colleagues in the conference bothered
to phone and congratulate him on the article. "Only one senior member of the
conference phoned and asked me to tell him how I managed to get into that
prestigious publication," he said. What surprised Jewish officials most
was that this liberal newspaper portrayed the right-wing symbol of the Jewish
community in a favorable light.

One Jewish leader suggested that perhaps the motive for the positive
article about Klein was that the paper, which opposes the war in Iraq, wanted to
present a Jewish official who supports the war and is viewed as a controversial and embarrassing figure and to let the readers draw the conclusion that Jewish support for the war is also not so broad.

Promising young scientist

The continuing polemic surrounding Klein and his activities overshadows
his fascinating life story. He was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany
in the early 1950s and immigrated to the U.S. with his family, settling in
Florida. As the son of a rabbi and Torah scribe, Klein delved into Judaic
studies as well as secular studies. He particularly excelled in mathematics
and chemistry and was heralded as a promising young scientist destined for
greatness. For 20 years he worked as a close associate of Linus Pauling,
who twice won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Klein also served as a senior
economist in the administrations of presidents Nixon and Ford.

In the 1980s, Klein published a series of innovative studies linking
nutrition to heart disease, winning him national recognition. Along with
his colleagues at Los Angeles University, Klein conducted research that
scientifically proved for the first time that vitamin C reduces the risk
of heart attack by 40 percent. At the time Discovery magazine called Klein's
research "one of the 50 most important studies published in the U.S. in
1992."

Klein says he began his public activities in the 1980s in response to the
hostile attitude of the media toward Israel. He began to follow articles
published about Israel and responded to them in articles in the Jewish
press, attracting the attention of some of the leaders of the ZOA, who invited him to run for president of the organization. He was elected to this post nine years ago and to this day some people claim his takeover of the organization was not completely above board. (a malicious lie. I was there. – jsk)

The ZOA was founded in 1897 and Klein likes to present the organization as
"the oldest pro-Israel organization in America." Until the 1940s, the ZOA
was considered one of the most influential organizations in the community.
It gained acclaim thanks to the people who stood at its helm, including
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver.
There is no disputing that Klein, who was elected president of the organization when it had hit a low point had brought the diminished ZOA back into the Jewish arena and turned it into an organization whose presence is felt in the community.

"Morton Klein owes his notoriety to Yasser Arafat," said a New York public
relations expert. "Ever since the signing of the first Oslo accord Klein
has been focusing on one goal - the exposure of Arafat as enemy number one of
Israel and the Jewish people. He has also become a familiar figure among
lawmakers on Capitol Hill, especially among republicans."
"Senators and congressmen cannot fathom how or why there are leaders and
politicians in Israel who are discussing a Palestinian state," says Klein. "I know some senators who are simply in shock."

Few leaders of the Jewish establishment can belittle Klein's ability to stack up obstacles in Abu Mazen's path to the hearts (and pockets) of senior lawmakers in Washington."It was Klein who ruined Arafat's image in Washington and Abu Mazen can expect trouble too," said a senior Jewish official in New York. Klein
disclosed that he is already planning his response to Abu Mazen's visit to
the White House - a demonstration opposite the White House with the
demonstrators wearing striped concentration camp garb and yellow Stars of
David. "Such a visit will not go over quietly," promised Klein.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Companion piece to adjacent "Mort Klein" article

Please read this as a companion piece to the adjacent one, “An Inadvertent Testimonial to the Great Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America.”

This article, published in the Detroit Jewish News November 3, 2000, was an attempt to explain the inexplicable antagonism of the Left to those who saw Oslo as a disaster from day one – Just like those of us who have no doubt that the “Roadmap” proposed by Israel’s “friends”, Russia, the European Union, the United Nations and a naïve United States is an even greater, G-d forbid, terminal disaster. This article also relates to the current bizarre destructively small- minded jealousy of other Jewish “leaders” toward Morton Klein.

Blaming The Right For Being Right

By Jerome S. Kaufman The Detroit Jewish News, November 3, 2000

The editorial response of the Jewish News to the current crisis in Israel is disturbing. The paper and many of those somehow still on the Left, still "don't get it." It was certainly grand of the editors to admit, "We are as guilty as the others who have been hoping since the Oslo Accords of 1993 that Israel had a true partner in peace. We were wrong . . ."
("Breaking The Peace," Oct.13, page 39).

Fine. But, then the admission of guilt becomes illogically blurred. The editors disagree with guest columnist Daniel Pipes when Pipes declares that the violence signals "Palestinian triumphalism." Rather, The Jewish News prefers the preposterous Arab lie that the Palestinian rioting was simply "born in frustration and anger" — a proposition right out of Hanan Ashrawi's well-thumbed playbook.

What is burning Israeli flags, parading Palestinian ones, showing off hands dripping in Israeli blood, hanging mutilated Israeli soldiers from outside windows, erasing Israel from their maps and textbooks, if not "Palestinian triumphalism?" Is this simply an understandable response to economic frustration, as the Arabs, the Jewish left and the Jewish News would have us deluded into believing?

The following weeks editorial ("A Silence At The Center," Oct. 20, page 43) is equally schizophrenic. Somehow, it is the fault of the right that there is no peace; and the right is also blamed for having no solution — that is, at least, one satisfactory to the left.

Another questionable conclusion is that the lack of peace will cause "American Jews to lose interest in Israel as a source of their identity." American Jews, with their "unprecedented security and prosperity," won't be able to "explore" their "cultural and religious identity" and bask in the "sunny heat of Masada, in the milk and honey of the resorts and in the solemnity of the Western Wall." What a tragedy for American Jews while our Israeli brethren are only bleeding to death!

Finally, the dubious editorial conclusion — "We continue to believe that peace is both necessary and inevitable." Swell, but peace with whom? Switzerland? The so-called peace process, as conceived by the left and with which they harassed us for the last seven years, is dead. Cannot the local Jewish leadership and their organizations stop from belaboring us with their endless parade of "peace process" shills as speakers? Stop promoting your deservedly bankrupt agenda.

Finally comprehend, in your heart of hearts, that the Arabs have no desire for peace with Israel? Instead, genuinely promote the concept of a strong, self-reliant Israel desperately in need of help defending the few dunams that it has left. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 07, 2003

The Marriage of Western Women to Saudi Arabians

IF THE MARRIAGE FAILS

From: The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2002

In the worst scenario, an American wife can find herself summarily divorced, deported, and deprived of any right of visitation with her dual-national children.
Sharia law decidedly favors men in the dissolution of marriage. And the laws of Saudi Arabia require that a Saudi citizen sponsor all individuals in order to receive a visa, resident or otherwise. Therefore, once a marriage breaks up, the ex-wife must leave the Kingdom and may only return with the explicit permission and sponsorship of her ex-husband. (In cases where the Saudi husband attempts to prevent his spouse from leaving, the Embassy can call upon Saudi authorities to facilitate the American wife's departure. The Embassy cannot force a Saudi husband to relinquish the children.)

In one instance, an American who had undergone a bitter divorce and child custody battle with her Saudi husband, applied for and received a visa to work with a company located in the Kingdom. Once the Saudi husband and the Saudi authorities discovered her presence, she was thrown into jail and ultimately forced to leave her position and the country.

What custody rights do women have under Sharia law? Theoretically, a mother should maintain custody of the children until the ages of 7-9, when their primary care would be transferred to their father. However, the ultimate objective of a Sharia court in the settlement of custody issues is that the child be raised a good Muslim. Whether a convert or not to Islam, an American woman will not overcome the prejudice against her upbringing and society. The Embassy has no knowledge of an American or any western woman ever winning custody of dual-national children in a Sharia court.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Versatility of Bigots

By Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman

Detroit Jewish News April 4, 2003


One can’t help but be impressed by the versatility of the bigots of the world. The old canards blaming the Jews for the killing of Christ; for using Christian children’s blood to make matzos at Passover; for causing bubonic plague; for killing themselves while in cahoots with Adolph Hitler to gain world sympathy while the Holocaust never occurred, just don’t sell anymore. Even the most uninformed, the most dedicated bigot, doesn’t buy that garbage. So, let’s invent some new garbage - a new Hate-the-Jew message to re-kindle the fires of rabid anti-Semitism and in the process help to destroy the State of Israel and curry favor and probably hard cash from our Arab friends.

Let’s round up some of our old tried and true anti-Semites - the dedicated liars and professional Arabists - many evidently, already on the Saudi Arabian Pension Plan - to proclaim the new message. You have seen them inundating the media, pouring out their venom while unencumbered by truth or logic.

But, what’s the new Hate-the-Jew message? Why, of course, it is that the Jews of the world are the ones causing the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the problems with the rest of the Muslim friends in the world. The Jews and the Israelis with their settlements that constitute less than 2% of the land of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) are the ones at fault. If it weren’t for the Jews and the State of Israel, we would be all living happily ever after.

What with anti-Semitism resurgent all over Europe and naturally in the countries containing 1.3 billion Muslims and what with the enthusiastic support of the confused political far Left and confused far Right, this is not a hard sell. Anti-Semitism, in its most crass form, has become politically correct. Emily Post and Miss Manners, as usual, don’t apply to Jews. Hating the Jew is totally permissible and even to be admired.

But what are the facts? In fact, there are conflicts going on all over the world - between Muslims and the West that have absolutely nothing to do with Jews or Israelis. There are approximately 30 major world conflicts going on right now and 27 of them are between Muslims attempting to regain their glory of the 7th - 11th century and Christians or other ethnic groups that have no desire to return or become newly a part of Muslim domination.

Nevertheless, somehow it is the Jews that are the ones to blame for the centuries-old wars between Muslims and Hindis in India, Pakistan, and Kashmir; for the insurrections of Muslims in the South Philippines, for the reversion to recidivism in Armenia, Chechnya, Indochina, Bosnia, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. You name it. The list is virtually endless.

Also, never mind the fact that the American Jewish community and the Israelis themselves have mixed feelings about the war of Iraq. There are many Jews and Israelis, comfortably at the forefront of so-called “peace movements,” that don’t even welcome their participation any more. And there are many less bubbly-minded Jews that wholeheartedly support the actions of President G.W. Bush and the Congress of the United States of America.

But so what! Hating Jews has always been a favorite indoor sport. And now with Passover just around the corner and a shortage of Christian children disappearing to make all that matzos, we have to find a new outrageous lie. Let’s blame the Jews for the war in Iraq. That should sell easily. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Religious Zealotry not Poverty

By Morton Klein, National President Zionist Organization of America

It is widely assumed that poverty is a prime factor in motivating Palestinian Arabs to become terrorists — that material deprivation makes young Arabs feel desperate, which leads them to terrorism. This theory is the reasoning behind the nearly $1 billion the United Stares has given to the Palestinian Arabs since 1994, and the even larger amounts that the European Union has given them. These governments claim that if young Arabs have jobs, they would have something to lose by becoming terrorists, so they would have a strong incentive to maintain normal, peaceful lives. In fact, however, many of the leading Palestinian Arab terrorists — including some suicide bombers — are university graduates, are married and have good jobs.

Consider one example from many: Muhammad Abu Jamous, who was part of a terror squad that murdered four Israelis in Gaza on Jan. 9. According to the New York Times, Abu Jamous was "a member of the Palestinian navy and something of a minor celebrity. He had been a runner on the Palestinian national team, competing in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He married just three months ago, and his wife is two months' pregnant." In other words, he had every logical reason to live peacefully and quietly. Yet, he picked up a gun and went out to murder innocent Israelis.

The Palestinian Arabs know that if they made peace with Israel, their economy would improve dramatically, as would their material lives. Yet, they continue to wage war against Israel because the problem is not the economy. The problem is their ideology of hatred for Jews and refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in their midst.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post once pointed out that "there is no reason to believe that money would ... persuade Palestinians to co-exist with Israel... not all problems can be solved with money ...Americans are particularly aware of the limitations of financial aid in resolving social and political problems.
"Throwing staggering amounts of government and private funds at inner-city slums, the drug problem and affirmative action for minorities had done little to ameliorate intractable problemsd.

"It is even less likely that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be reduced to materialist terms. The intolerance in the Arab world for Israel's existence does not stem from economic hardship. It is mostly religiously and nationalistically inspired."

Khalid M. Amayreh, a Palestinian Arab journalist, has written: "Several studies have shown that a substantial majority of Islamists [Muslim fundamentalists] and their supporters come from the middle and upper socio-economic strata ... The claim that 'Islamic terrorism in Israel, as elsewhere, is the product of poverty, backwardness and ignorance' is simply nonsense."

The historical record clearly demonstrates that Arab extremist ideology, rather than poverty, is at the core of the Arab-Jewish conflict. During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Jewish immigration to Palestine brought the country a variety of economic improvements, including new jobs for many Arabs, yet there was mass Palestinian Arab violence against Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929 and throughout 1936-1939.

Nor were the Arab wars against Israel (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973) fought for economic reasons. Nor was the constant Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israel during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s motivated by economic troubles. Whether in good economic times or bad, the Arabs remained committed to murdering Jews and seeking Israel's destruction.

The Well-To-Do ranks of the current Palestinian Arab terrorist groups have been filled by a generation of radical young Arab nationalists, many of them university-educated (Israel built six universities and 16 other institutions of higher education in Judea-Samaria-Gaza) and relatively well to do. They organized mass violence for ideological, not economic, reasons.

As the late Professor Amos Perlmutrer once pointed out, the leadership of the Hamas terrorist movement, which supplies the majority of suicide bombers, "is made up of modern middle- and upper-middle class professionals, of journalists, lawyers, engineers and doctors."

Indeed, news accounts of the 400 Hamas leaders who were temporarily deported to Lebanon in 1992-93 described the deportees as well-educated professionals. Building factories or hospitals will not put an end to hatred of Israel.

Devoted to ideologies of extreme Arab nationalism or extremist Islam, the Palestinian Arabs reject the concept of a sovereign non-Muslim state in the Muslim Middle East. Giving them American taxpayers' dollars won't change that one iota. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 06, 2003

USA vs. Israel Usual Double Standard

Redacted from article by Jeff Jacoby, Columnist for the Boston Globe

In exchange for a withdrawal of U.S. and British troops, Saddam Hussein sends word that he is prepared to share some of his power with a senior member of his Baathist inner circle. Instead of maintaining absolute control over the Iraqi state, Saddam agrees to name Tariq Aziz his official deputy. The job will carry some limited authority, such as the right to appoint cabinet members without Saddam's prior approval. But Aziz will hold office at Saddams pleasure. He will not be in control of the country's foreign or military affairs, and the Iraqi security forces will continue to take their orders from Saddam.

Sound like a good deal? Like the kind of democratic "regime change" that George W Bush and Tony Blair would gladly embrace? Of course it doesn't! Any arrangement that left Saddam or his henchmen in control would be an ignominious defeat for the allies and a shameful betrayal of the Iraqi people. Whatever else regime change in Baghdad entails, at a minimum it must sweep the dictator and his accomplices from power.

Why should it do any less in Ramallah? In a signal address last June, Bushcalled for a radical transformation of the Palestinian Authority. "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership," he said, vowing that the United States would not support statehood for the Palestinians until they had "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," and had built "a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." It was a demand for regime change in all but name, and its meaning was crystal clear: Yasser Arafat and his accomplices had to be swept from power.

Yet when Arafat recently named Mahmoud Abbas — his longtime confederate in the Fatah and PLO terrorist organizations — as the new Palestinian prime minister, the Bush administration was all smiles. "We respond favorably to it," beamed Secretary of State Colin Powell. "This, I think, is a positive step forward."

National Security Assistant Condoleeza Rice said Abbas would be welcome at the White House. Neither seemed to care that Arafat remained firmly in place atop the Palestinian Authority, that Abbas' new powers would be sharply limited, or that a P.A. headed by Arafat and Abbas was the furthest thing imaginable from "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

The press was upbeat, too. Abbas, reported Ibrahim Hazboun in a widely reprinted AP story, "is a veteran advocate of peace with Israel and the most
out-spoken critic of the 29-month-old uprising." A few days later, his colleague Karin Laub identified the new prime minister as a "pragmatist and moderate," describing his appointment as "the first real promise of ending the bloody Israeli-Palestinian deadlock."

But Abbas is no more a "moderate" than Tariq Aziz, and notwithstanding his reputation as an "advocate of peace," he calls openly for violence against Jews. Stories about Abbas routinely mention that he is known by the nom de guerre "Abu Mazen." Few if any remarks on the anomaly of a supposed peacemaker using a nom de guerre. Fewer still have noted that as recently as four weeks ago, Abbas made it clear that he does not support an end to the terror war against Israel.

Discussing the PLO's recent terror summit in Cairo with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Abbas told the Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat on March 3, "We didn't talk about a break in the armed struggle ... It is our right to resist. The intifada must continue and it is the right of the Palestinian people to resist and use all possible means." His only caveat was that terrorism should be confined to the disputed territories — Gaza., the West Bank, and eastern Jerusalem. Such is the nature of Abbas' "moderation."

At Camp David in 2000, Abbas was among those who pressed Arafat to reject Israel's comprehensive peace proposal, notes political scientist Dan Schueftan, a former adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Palestinians should have no regrets about refusing Israel's offer of 95 percent of the land, Abbas has since said, "because 95 percent is not 100 percent." He insists not only that Israel surrender every inch of land occupied in self-defense in 1967 - including the Old City of Jerusalem and its Jewish holy sites — but also that millions of Palestinians be given an unlimited right of immigration into Israel proper. Of course, that would spell the end of the Jewish state — just what Fatah and the PLO have sought for 40 years.

In the 1980s, Abbas wrote a book suggesting that the Nazi Holocaust had been wildly exaggerated. Zionist propaganda had inflated the number of Jewish murder victims to 6 million, he claimed— the true figure might well be "only a few hundred thousand."

What's more, he wrote, the Nazi slaughter had been carried out with the help of Zionist leaders, who colluded in persecuting Europe's Jews in order to promote Jewish emigration to Palestine. Whether Abbas still believes these grotesqueries is unclear. But this much is very clear: An inflexible radical who supports terrorism is neither a moderate nor an advocate of peace — even if he does speak good English and wear well-tailored suits.

A lifelong accomplice of Yasser Arafat is not an exemplar of democracy and tolerance. A Palestinian Authority ruled by the same aging terrorists who have ruled it from the start — albeit with a slight shift of powers and portfolios — is not a "new and different Palestinian leadership."

As the Afghans deserved better than Mullah Omar and his Taliban thugs, as Iraqis deserve better than Saddam and the Baathist SS, so the Palestinians deserve better than Arafat and Abbas. President Bush was firm on that point last June. This is no time to go “wobbly.”

jacoby@globe.com


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 04, 2003

Israeli Military in Iraq

Israeli Military Technology in Iraq

U.S. COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ ARE USING A WIDE ARRAY OF STATE-OF-THE-ART ISRAELI WEAPON SYSTEMS AND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES.

The Bush administration has made clear it wants Israel to stay out of an Iraq war so as not to provoke Arab and Muslim countries assisting the United States.
But that won't stop Israel's weaponry and arms technology from being used against Iraqis.

After decades of U.S. military aid and defense cooperation, the U.S. military is permeated by technology developed in Israel — from the Army's Hunter drones to the targeting systems on the U.S. Marines' Harrier jets to the fuel tanks on its F-15 fighters.

"We'll be shooting down some [French-made] Mirage'3s, I think, if the Iraqis ever come up. We may shoot them with an Israeli missile, from a U.S. warplane," said Joel Johnson, spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association, a Washington-based industry lobby. It would be hard to find a modern military that manages without technology developed by the Jewish state's feisty industry. Israel emerged last year as the world's No. 3 arms and military services exporter — ahead of even Russia's massive arms industry, according to Jane's Defense Weekly.

That Israel's weaponry has found a place inside the mighty U.S. military points to the country's engineering prowess — and its status as a favorite ally, said Yiftah Shapir of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.
Iraqi forces might be on the receiving end of Israeli technology in several scenarios:

A Multitude of Israeli Systems A B-52 bomber could fire Popeye air-to-surface missiles dubbed AGM-142 by the U.S. Air Force — at ground targets. The precision-guided Popeyes were designed by Rafael, a company partially owned by the government of Israel. Israeli-designed Hunter unmanned aerial vehicles are in the service of the U.S. Army, and its cousin, the Pioneer, is being used by the U.S. Marines to scout Iraqi defenses. Both originated in the design labs of Israel Aircraft Industries, the country's largest private company.

The Hunter dropped anti-tank munitions in recent U.S. rests, and could be used alongside the Air Force's armed Predator missile-firing drone in a ground attack role. Some of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicles are guided by on-board computers supplied by a subsidiary of Israel's Elbit Systems, Shapir said. U.S. troops riding in the Bradleys might also be protected by armor from Rafael, said Lova Drori, Rafael's director of international marketing.

Rafael is also the designer of the Litening Targeting Pods used to fire precision weapons from the Marines' AV-8B Harrier jet, as well as F-15s and F-16s flown by the Air Force Reserves and Army National Guard, Drori said. Israel also makes or designs multiple-rocket launchers, mortars, laser target designators for the Army's Comanche helicopter and other components, Shapir said.

Much of the equipment is manufactured in the United States by subsidiaries
of Israeli companies, or through joint ventures with U.S. weapons manufacturers.
According to Jane’s, Israel made more than $3.5 billion in arms sales last year, roughly equal to Russia's massive arms export industry. Only the United States and Britain sold more, Jane's reported.

Other sources don't factor in Israel's exports of services — such as upgrades to tanks and fighter aircraft—and rank Israel as a smaller exporter. London's International Institute for Strategic Studies called Israel the world's No. 5 arms exporter last year. Besides the United States, Israel's top customers include Turkey, India, Brazil, Canada and Germany. China used to be a major client, but Israel backed off after protests from the United States, Shapir and others said.

Jim Krane Krone is an Associated Press technology writer © Associated Press
(Reprinted from American Israeli Public Affairs Bulletin)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Palestinians Name UN Square


Palestinians Name Square for Killer of Four US Soldiers

By Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Director

Celebrating of the killing of 4 American soldiers by an Iraqi suicide bomber, Palestinian Authority officials have named the center of the Jenin Refugee Camp after that suicide bomber - Ali Alna amani. [In addition to the moral issue, it should be remembered that Palestinian refugee camps are UN property and funded by the UN, so that all expenses involved in the name change may be from the UN budget. Likewise it should be checked to what extent UN salaried officials are involved in agreeing to the name change and implementation.]

The following is the announcement in the PA newspaper:

The officials, the institutions and the National Islamic Forces in the Jenin Refugee Camp ... decided to continue the blood donor campaign for Iraq and decided to name the center of the refugee camp Ali al-Naamani after the Shahid [died for Allah] who was the first suicide bomber in Iraq... [killing Four American soldiers at a checkpoint.]

Al Quds, April 2, 2003

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

April 02, 2003

Whose Collateral Damage

Whose Collateral Damage and Why

By Stephen Plaut, Professor Haifa University, Israel


It is with the greatest sense of irony that we read that on the very
day when US troops in Iraq killed a large group of Iraqi civilians because
they were suspected of containing terrorists and disguised soldiers
planning to attack the Americans, the US State Department issued yet
another of its biased reports declaring that Israel is committing human
rights abuses in the "occupied territories". Yes, this time it did
manage to sneak in a sentence or two about Palestinian terrorism as well.

Do not get me wrong. Even if in retrospect it turns out that the US
troops killed many innocent Iraqis unnecessarily, it is clear that the
responsibility for those deaths rests entirely on the Iraqi regime that
has been routinely ordering its troops to disguise themselves as civilians
or to hide themselves among civilians and then open up fire on the
Coalition troops or set off bombs among them. It is absurd to expect that
these US and British troops will agree to be murdered rather than treat
all Iraqi civilians as suspect or to protect themselves by opening fire
when they believe they are under threat. The inevitable result of their
protecting their lives must be dead Iraqi civilians. The responsibility
for that is Saddam's.

When Palestinian ambulances are routinely used to transport bombs and bombers, any Palestinian civilians dying because Israel refuses to allow
Palestinian ambulances to pass into Israel or because Israeli troops fire
on ambulances acting suspiciously are entirely the fault of the PLO. The
many dead Palestinian civilians are dead because the PLO and its sister
terrorist groups always open firefights and attack Israelis while among or
near Palestinian civilians. The PLO routinely orders mobs of Palestinian
civilians to attack Jews and IDF troops and so get themselves shot to help
get the PLO good Western press
.

Israeli troops, like US troops in Iraq, have the right to treat
enemy civilians as suspects and belligerents until proven otherwise. They
have the right to shoot civilians who are suspect. They have the right
to defend their own lives. People upset that Palestinian civilians are
getting hurt should complain to the PLO and its apologists.
>

And as for reports that the US bombed a bus carrying Western "human
shields" trying to help Saddam defend his regime, this a few days after
the whole world rolled its eyes in fake horror over the communist who got herself killed playing chicken with an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraqi "gift" to Palestinian Arabs

Palestinian "Gift" to Iraq Makes Peace More Distant

The Detroit News Editorial April 1, 2003

Suicide bombing should return emphasis to ending terrorism

That was quite a present the Palestinians offered the Iraqi people over the weekend. To show solidarity with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Islamic Jihad terrorist group dispatched a suicide bomber to blow up a cafe in the Israeli seaside city of Netanya.

Thirty people were hurt. An Islamic Jihad spokesman described the bombing as a "gift" to the people of Iraq from the Palestinians. Saddam has spent millions of dollars in the Palestinian territories to encourage violence against Israel and to reward the families of suicide bombers, so it's not surprising the Islamic Jihad wanted to do something in return.

The “gift” arrived just as both Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were declaring a desire to push ahead rapidly with the Bush administration's road map for peace in the Middle East.

Much of that road map is dependent on the Palestinian Authority adopting democratic reforms and ending the terrorist attacks against Israel. But there is growing pressure on the United States to force Israel to the bargaining table without ironclad assurances that the terrorism will end. Rice and Powell each expressed a desire for speed in restarting talks, and Powell on Sunday urged Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. That's a fine goal. But making peace while there are those among the Palestinians who consider killing and maiming Jews to be a gift from one Arab people to another is a lot to ask. And it suggests there may be more to overcome in bringing peace to the Middle East than settling conflicting land claims.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Diversity or Racial Quota

Diversity doesn't justify breaking guarantee of equal protection
under the law permanently

By Curt A. Levey The Detroit News April 1, 2003

Today, the Supreme Court will consider -whether the University of Michigan's race-based admissions policies violate the Constitution and the nation's civil rights laws. Much more will be at stake than just Michigan's two-track segregated admissions systems and its policy of awarding bonus points — the equivalent of a full grade point — to black, Hispanic and Native American applicants.

At stake will be a fundamental choice between the original vision of affirmative action as a temporary remedy and the bleak prospect of a nation split indefinitely into two opposing groups — those races entitled to preferential treatment and those races required to forfeit their right to equal treatment.

The traditional defense of racial preferences was that a temporary exception to the constitutional and statutory guarantee of equal protection was warranted as the nation overcame past discrimination. Even Justice Lewis Powell—the only Supreme Court justice to endorse the oft-cited diversity rationale for race-based admissions — envisioned his limited 1978 endorsement as a compromise that would allow preferences to be phased out.

Instead, the size of the racial bonuses awarded by the nation's most selective universities — as well as the racial disparity in grades and test scores that "necessitates" them — is unchanged after 30-plus years of race-based admissions. This is no surprise. After all, there is likely not an instance in human history when holding a group of people to a lower standard helped them to excel.

What is surprising is that supporters of race-based admissions have now dropped all pretense that racial preferences are a temporary measure. Witness the University of Michigan's argument in its latest brief that the Supreme Court should not strike down the diversify rationale for preferences because it "would upset the settled expectations of universities."

The diversity rationale "has become so woven into the fabric of our national
culture, that overturning it would cause... significant damage to the stability of the society," Michigan argues. But the plaintiffs note that, if diversity-based preferences have indeed become so woven into the national culture that their elimination would damage society's stability, then they are certainly not temporary.

Fortunately for the nation and its equal protection guarantee, the Supreme Court is unlikely to view the diversity rationale as a settled expectation. The court has systematically rejected racial preference rationales that are "timeless in their ability to affect the future."

Moreover, the justices know a policy that is barely tolerated by the American people can hardly be a settled expectation. Recent poll results in Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and in Michigan show that, by overwhelming margins, all races oppose the use of race as a factor in admissions. Yet the University of Michigan continues to claim that a policy rejected even by its intended beneficiaries is a settled expectation. Perhaps Michigan's perception has been distorted by its own public relations campaign, which points to the long list of corporate and academic supporters in the university's camp.

However, since virtually all those supporters have their own legally dubious racial preferences to justify, their support is about as meaningful as a long list of criminals endorsing the legalization of bank robbery.

The American people have made up their minds. Now it's up to the Supreme Court to follow its precedents by rejecting permanent victim status for certain races and burying the nonsensical notion that equality can be achieved by treating people unequally. If the court does so, it will strike down Michigan's segregated admissions systems and usher in an era in which our nation is forced to confront the educational and social causes of racial disparities rather than covering them up with the Band-Aid of preferences.

Curt A. Levey is director of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Rights, which represents the plaintiffs in the U-M case.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 31, 2003

America WAKE UP

America WAKE UP

Speech by United States Navy Captain Dan Oimette,
Executive Office NAS, Pensacola

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then. It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized right sized since the end of the Viet Nam war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued:

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait and America continues her slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe:

In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers
in Madrid.

August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate
of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main
, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed four.

Most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war...the Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America:

In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a
rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City.
Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision - they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 29, 2003

Jewish Dietary Laws

Jewish Dietary Laws Reflect Ethics not Health Concerns

Rabbi Joseph P. Klein, Temple Emanu-El

(Redacted from an article in the Detroit Jewish News, March 28, 2003)

This weeks Torah portion declares which animals are and which animals are not permitted to be eaten. Leviticus 11 is the primary source of the vast literature of Jewish dietary requirements. Beginning more than 2,000 years ago, the Pharisees and the rabbis constructed a complex system of dietary regulations called the laws of kashrut.

As early as the 4th century B.C.E., Cleachus, a pupil of Aristotle, reported that his master had a conversation with a Jew, and came away from it deeply impressed by two things: the Jew's philosophy and the Jew's strict diet. And still today, a good 2,500 years since Aristotle, and more than 2,000 years since the Pharisees began to codify their system of dietary laws, most non-Jews know something about "keeping kosher."

The very word kosher has entered our English language with universal acceptance. It is ubiquitous — appearing everywhere from pickle labels to the Congressional Record. We freely use the term in everyday English, though almost always divorced from its religious and legal use. Probably no other subject of Torah has generated as much literature, discussion and speculative justifications as have the dietary restrictions.

Our Torah portion for this week delineates acceptable and forbidden animals, fish, fowl and insects. The text, however, gives no specific reason why one animal is okay and the other not. We have only the statement, found at the end of this section of Leviticus 11:44-47: "For I am the Lord who brought you out of Egypt to be your God; you will therefore be holy because I am holy."

The apparent purpose is to achieve "holiness." It has nothing to do with health or personal cleanliness, or with communal methods of slaughtering and sanitation. In following the dietary laws, we come to understand and establish a certain reverence for life. Kashrut becomes a moral imperative.

What does it mean then to use the term kosher? Surely it transcends the sanitary cleanliness of food, or the "purity" of food products. Kosher does not mean "clean," and certainly not "holy" or "blessed." It means "proper and appropriate," indeed even ethically and morally proper and appropriate.

The purpose of the dietary laws of kashrut is to help us choose guidelines for right behavior. As living creatures, we interact in the natural world according to our basic needs. But in so doing, we must remember that we are more than animals; that our humanity demands we interact with righteousness and with respect for all life. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 28, 2003

Rabbinic Viewpoint

Rabbinic Viewpoint

(Excerpt from article by Shelli Dorfman, The Detroit Jewish News, March 28, 2003)

Rabbi Elimelich Silberberg

"I find it odd when people pray for peace," said Rabbi Elimelech Silberberg of the Sara Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Center in West Bloomfield. "What's wrong with praying for an American victory and realizing that there can't be peace without a decisive victory?"

Maintaining that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of both the United States and Israel, the rabbi said, "He is evil — not crazy, but evil — and this is a war against evil.

"The president has the best interest of America in mind and while this is not a Jewish war and President Bush is not fighting for the Jews or for Israel, it is a war against Saddam Hussein, who is a sworn enemy of Israel. So in effect, our troops are also fighting Israel's battle against a vicious and implacable enemy. American Jews owe the U.S. armed servicemen a special debt of gratitude for this."

Rabbi Silberberg also spoke of the importance of prayer. "As Jews, our obligation to pray for the safety of our troops in Iraq and the Middle East goes beyond the obligation of other American citizens," he said. "Aside from stressing the importance of prayer, Torah also teaches that mitzvot and good deeds elicit God's protection. Hopefully, all of us will increase not only our tefillot (prayers) but also our daily acts of kindness that God may have mercy on our troops and protect them from harm. The essence of prayer is when you recognize your ultimate destiny and victory is through the hands of God.

"The Midrash tells us (Bereshit, Rabba 42:7) that when the world is in turmoil it is an auspicious time to pray for the coming of Mashiach (Messiah), who will usher in an era of peace and tranquility."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 23, 2003

Palestinian Arabs rally for Saddam Hussein

Why is the American State Department and Administration planning to try and enforce a “Roadmap Plan” that will ultimately dismember our ally, Israel while the Palestinian Arabs show their true colors rallying with Saddam Hussein and burning our flags. Does the Administration really believe they could ever buy Arab or Islamic loyalty for more than 10 minutes?

Jerome S. Kaufman

Palestinian hoard supplies, rally in support of Saddam

By Yoav Appel , Associated Press March 21, 2003

TEI. AVIV, Israel — Israelis seemed of two minds about how to deal with what officials say is, essentially, the small chance of a great calamity — that Iraq could fire Scud missiles carrying chemical or biological warheads. Many fearful parents kept their children home from school Thursday. Other residents said they were more afraid of Palestinian attacks.

In the West Bank and Gaza hundreds of Palestinians marched in support of Saddam Hussein in two rallies. In Gaza City, a Palestinian Cabinet minister, Abdel Aziz Shaheen, told a crowd of about 1,500, “This is a war against all Arabs and Muslims." In the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, about 700 Palestinians, most of them school children, waved Iraqi flags and posters of Saddam and burned two U.S. flags. They shouted "Death to America,'1 death to Bush!" and "We will sacrifice our soul and our blood for Saddam"

The Palestinian Authority said it opposes the U.S.-led war, but it stopped short of siding with Saddam, as Yasser Arafat did 12 years ago.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a spokesman for Hamas, said it would continue its fight against Israel but would not target Americans. The militant Islamic group has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks that have killed hundreds of Israelis.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Cabinet ministers kept to their state policy: Israel has no part in the offensive but is prepared should Iraq attack.

Meanwhile teachers led students in gas mask drills. At Tel Aviv's Tel Nordau School an art teacher helped children decorate their masks with paints. Children who showed up at school without gas masks were sent home. Five youths were injured by accidental injections of atropine, a drug that counteracts nerve gas poisoning. Israel's medical rescue service said one of the injured was a 4-year-old was hospitalized. Several thousand Israelis in the Tel Aviv area, a target of Iraqi Scuds in 1991, fled to safer parts of the country such as Jerusalem, unlikely to be hit because of its holy sites, or Eilat, far out of range at Israel's southern rip. But cafes, bars and restaurants remained busy Thursday evening, the beginning of the Israeli weekend. One bar invited patrons to a "gas mask party."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:39 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 12, 2003

Street Support of Suicide Terrorists

Community acceptance makes terror attacks possible, analyst says.
By Matt Kelley, Associated Press.

WASHINGTON - Suicide terrorists may be lured by ideology, religion and promises of help for their families, but the groups that recruit, equip and direct them get the most benefit from their actions, a University of Michigan researcher concludes. Stopping suicide attacks may require finding the right mix of pressure and inducements to get the communities themselves to abandon support for institutions that recruit suicide attackers," researcher Scott Atran writes in today's edition of the journal Science.

Other experts who reviewed Atran's analysis said his view is well accepted among terrorism researchers, even if it goes against the conventional wisdom that attackers like the Sept. 11 hijackers are zealots. “Most of the Sept. attackers were well-educated men from relatively prosperous families, and the same can be said of many of the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel and Tamil suicide attackers in Sri Lanka,” said terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman.

"Suicide bombing is an instrument of warfare. That's how to understand it," said Hoffman, an analyst with the independent RAND Corp. think tank. It's a strategy that's effective because it conveys the image of a crazy, irrational adversary — if I'm up against an irrational, fanatical adversary, what can I do?"

Leaders of terrorist groups deliberately manipulate their followers' religious beliefs and feelings of being politically powerless, oppressed or humiliated, Atran writes, just as fast-food companies manipulate people's cravings for fatty foods. "For the sponsoring organization, suicide bombers are expendable assets whose losses generate more assets by expanding public support and pools of potential recruits," Atran writes in a review of articles published on the issue. Targeting those terrorist groups is the most effective short-term tactic against suicide attacks, said Gideon Rose, a terrorism expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.

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

March 07, 2003

Growing American Support for Israel

As anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiment grows in many parts of the world, polls show that the already high American popular support for Israel continues to rise. In February, the Gallup polling organization released results of a survey showing an increase in support for Israel among the American people. The poll indicates that Americans give Israel an overall favorable rating of 64 percent, an increase of more than 10 percent since last year. Among those, 22 percent of Americans rate their opinion of Israel as "very favorable," the highest such rating in over a decade and a 6-point jump since 2002.

In addition to high favorable ratings, the poll illustrates that Americans continue to support Israel in its war against Palestinian terror. Fifty-eight percent of the public expressed more sympathy toward Israel than toward the Palestinians, while only 13 percent said they sympathized more with the Palestinians.

Significantly, support for Israel has increased since last year among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike, according to this latest poll. It is also notable that this increased support for Israel — the highest since the Persian Gulf War in 1991 — once again comes at a time when Saddam Hussein threatens both countries. "These historical patterns may suggest that a focus on nations or groups that are enemies of both the United States and Israel may have the side effect of increasing the American public's sympathy for Israel, the United States' chief ally in the Middle East," wrote Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones upon presenting the survey's findings.

Another poll, released in January by Zogby America, also found broad popular support for Israel. Perhaps recognizing Americans favor Israel that the two nations share a common enemy in fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, the American people, according to this poll, overwhelmingly consider Israel to be its greatest Middle East ally in the war on terror. In fact, the number of people surveyed who characterize Israel, as an "excellent" ally in the U.S. war on terrorism is seven times that of the number two-rated Middle Eastern state. Other figures released in this poll included a 59 percent favorable rating for Israel, also the highest among Middle Eastern states. A full 85 percent of those surveyed agree that the Bush administration should improve relations with Israel.

Upon assuming office in 2001, President Bush reaffirmed the alliance between the United States and Israel. "One of our most important friends is the State of Israel," he said in a speech to the American Jewish Committee. The polls indicate that the American people agree.

From the Near East Report

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 06, 2003

Kofi Annan, Our Latest Spiritualist

Excerpted from great article by Martin Peretz, The New Republic, March 3, 2003

NOT SINCE THAT LOFTY SPIRITUALIST, Dag Hammarskjold has there been a U.N. secretary-general whom the worthy have so taken to their bosoms. A great moral aura attaches to Kofi Annan, even though—as a lesser U.N. official in both bloody Bosnia and bloodier Rwanda—he kept armed multinational forces under his command from impeding the macabre work of mass murderers. But, at the Secretariat, the salient comparisons are to ex-Nazi KurtWaldheim. So it is not surprising that Annan considers himself the embodiment of all that is virtuous in world affairs.

Hammarskjold claimed to "represent the detached element in the international life of the peoples." Annan is not so abstract, but he does annex to his person the interests of everyone. Speaking for "the international community as a whole," he admonishes the United States and its allies that "there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council. "And so he does not want the American- and British-led alliance to remove Saddam Hussein unless the French, Germans, and Russians assent.

IT'S A STRANGE BUNCH ON WHICH TO RELY for ethical validation. These are the same governments, after all, that for years conspired with Saddam to get the Security Council to abrogate its sanctions against his regime—that is, to rescue him from the legal consequences of the Gulf war formulated by the Security Council itself. And it was their companies that provided Saddam with perilous chemicals, biologicals, and maybe even nuclear know-how.

It is an intellectual scam for the Security Council and the secretary-general to charge the United States with endangering the United Nations when it is they, through their years of appeasement, who have made the world organization an object of justifiable ridicule. …

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 03, 2003

Same as it ever was

By Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post International

Sometimes it seems that September 11 changed how everyone, but particularly the US administration, sees the world. An increasingly out-of-the-box Saddam Hussein is not to be ignored, but confronted. Yasser Arafat should not be wooed, but replaced. And democracy in the Arab world is not a threat to stability, but a key American objective.

Yet one ide'e fixe seems to remain: Settlements are an obstacle to peace.

Even the hawkish US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that "dealing with settlements" was one of the "concrete steps" that must be taken after the expected war in Iraq. That high-level Bush administration officials are even paying lip service to the centrality of settlements betrays a case of old-think that calls into question America's understanding, not just of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but of the war against militant Islam in general.

The problem starts with terminology. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed in a recent New York Times op-ed that there are 400,000 "settlers." Such an inflated figure can only include the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem built since 1967, which even the most dovish Israelis would not consider evacuating.

But it gets worse. The Palestinian Authority routinely refers to Israel cities and towns as "settlements" and "colonies." According to a study by Palestinian Media Watch, Netanya, Hadera, Zichron Ya'akov, Kfar Saba, Acre, Petah Tikva, Ra'anana, and kibbutzim, (all in the very heart of tiny Israel), have all been labeled "settlements." Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias, Lod, Ramie, Safed, Caesarea, Belt She'an, and Acre have been tagged as "captured Palestinian cities."

As Ehud Barak belatedly pointed out, Arafat does not even accept the existence of a Jewish people, let alone that this people has a right to self-determination in the area that was called Palestine

To the Palestinian ears, then, the settlement problem is the Israel problem. American preoccupation with the minutiae of caravans on barren hilltops, or how to define "natural growth," misses the point. Worse, it plays into the Palestinian attempt to distract from the real obstacle to peace, which is the refusal to accept a Jewish state, regardless of its borders.

It is possible that the Bush administration knows this, and that talk of settlements, like the road map, is simply a way of throwing a bone to the Europeans and Arab states that are upset over US plans in Iraq. But the Bush administration has shown almost no signs that the penny has dropped: the Arab-Israeli conflict is not separate from, but a subset of militant Islam's war against the United States.

In this context, playing into the settlement distraction is a serious mistake. The more the Bush administration talks about settlements, the longer the Arab world can pretend that Israel, not their rejectionism, is holding up peace.

Imagine that the United States were to focus on Arab rejectionism, the real obstacle to peace. It would insist that Egypt and Jordan return their ambassadors to Israel, that Arab leaders enter face-to-face talks with Israeli leaders, that the "right of return" to Israel be renounced, and that a "warm peace" be sketched out for the day after permanent borders are drawn. US policy should be restructured along these lines not just for Israel's sake, but also for America's.

Appeasing Arab rejectionism of Israel is the same as appeasing countries that harbor terrorism. Until Bush more fully integrates his thinking on the Arab-Israeli conflict into the wider war, he is facing the same enemy with contradictory strategies: moral clarity on the one hand and appeasement on the other"

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 02, 2003

Jordan and American War Effort

Israel’s vaunted “peace treaty” with Jordan

(Non-italicized part from Jerusalem Post International Jan. 31, 2003)

Jordan's King Abdullah II told reporters in Amman last week that negotiations were under way with an undisclosed European country to purchase three missile batteries that he planned to deploy along the border to prevent Israel Air Force planes using Jordan's air space to respond to an Iraqi attack.

According to reports, Abdullah said the aim is to block Israel's participation in the war and at the same time makes it "unnecessary" to deploy US troops on Jordanian soil. Abdullah, despite being the recipient of millions of dollars of US aid over the years, is another Arab ally that will not help the US in its war against Iraq.

What will be interesting is if Saddam Hussein or a similar Iraqi leader elects to simply wipe Jordan off the map and declare it part of Iraq just as they did with neighboring Kuwait in 1991. Then to whom will Jordan come running for help? Both the US and Israel!

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 26, 2003

USA, Israel, India Partners against Terror

JINSA Report #312
February 26, 2003

India-U.S.-Israel Conference Leads to Joint Front Against Terrorism

JINSA and the Manipal Academy of Higher Education in India sponsored a conference in New Delhi this month, in which participants from both countries plus Israel met to discuss international security and a common approach to international terrorism. The participants issued a joint statement that read, in part:

"India, Israel and the United States are united by a shared commitment to democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet all three are confronted by terrorism in its multiple forms… there can be no justification for any form of terrorism; no cause can justify it…

India, Israel, America and other countries have been victims of terrorism for many years. But it took the events of September 11, 2001 to convince many that concerted action to confront this global menace is necessary. So, while we applaud the successes in Afghanistan… the menace of terrorism persists across the world. "The ultimate threat to humanity is the combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction."

The conferees agreed:

"The U.S., India and Israel, as sister democracies and common victims of international terrorism should pool their resources and experiences in dealing with this menace. We urge the creation of a trilateral governmental mechanism to promote cooperation and concerted action against terrorism, and we call on other like-minded nations to join in. At the same time, we conferees will continue to work together as a private organization informing the public and influencing governments toward this goal.

"All three countries have been victims of terrorism… All three must take appropriate action against those who fund, incite, train or give safe haven to terrorists."

JINSA's delegation included President Norman Hascoe, Chairman Mark Broxmeyer and Communications Director Jim Colbert. The American panelists were legendary CIA Anti-Terrorism official Duane “Dewey” Clarridge; former Deputy FBI Director Steven Pomerantz; and former deputy UN Ambassador Harvey Feldman. Israel was represented by former National Security Advisor and IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan; former Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit; and Prof. Martin Sherman of Tel Aviv University. The Indian panelists were: renowned terrorism fighter K.P.S. Gill, now President of the Institute for Conflict Management; B. Raman, director of the Institute for Topical Studies and head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, from 1988 to 1994, as well as;
Gopalaswami Parthasarathy, a recent High Commissioner to Pakistan, career diplomat and currently with the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi.

JINSA 1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 515
Washington, DC 20036 202-667-3900 202-667-0601 fax

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Islamic Fanaticism

Arab-Moslem Fanaticism and Intransigence
Are they the root cause of Middle East turmoil?

For the last five decades, the world has been convinced, mostly because of unrelenting Arab propaganda, that the conflict between Israel and the "Palestinians" is the root cause of the constant turmoil in the Middle East and that Israel should make "concessions" to the Arabs. But is that the real reason for the turmoil and for the violence? Or is there another much deeper, more fundamental reason behind it?

What are the facts?
Islam's hatred against the West

We Americans are reluctant to criticize or even to discuss the religions of others. We consider it a personal matter. But the hatred of the Moslem-Arab world against the West, especially against the United States (the "Great Satan") and Israel (the "little Satan"), can only be explained by comprehending the psychology and the principal religious tenets of Islam. Islam is a worldwide religion, but it originated in Arabia and it survives in Arabia in its purest form, unaffected by any outside influences. Islam dominates the policies of the Arab countries.

Islam believes itself to be in possession of the holy truth, in the name of which any act of violence is permitted and encouraged. It is only with that understanding that the acts of savagery, the suicide bombers in Israel, the bombing of the World Trade Center, and other acts of murderous fanaticism all over the world can be explained.

Decline and rise of the Arab Moslems

For the first six centuries after the Moslems spilled forth from Arabia, they conquered much of the world. The Arab Moslems did, in their ascendancy, give rise to a substantial civilization. But, beginning with their expulsion from Spain, a long decline set in that lasted until the early 20th century. That decline was the more bitter, because it was inflicted by the despised "infidels." It was something that had to be remedied by whatever means. Injured pride had to be salved; the enemies who caused this humiliation and this injury had to be destroyed.

The 20th Century brought national independence to the Arab states. Two other fundamental events occurred: 1) The discovery of the world's largest oil deposits under the Arabian peninsula, and 2) The creation, in 1948, of the state of Israel, which ever since its birth has been the concentrated focus of the hatred and venom of all Moslem Arabs, a hatred that unites them, that even surpasses their hatreds against each other, and that has launched them into five disastrous wars against Israel. Even the rape of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's Iraq was explained as being a step towards the 'liberation of Palestine," a claim so bizarre, so patently absurd, that it can only be comprehended and given credence by a mind obsessed with the ideology of Arab Islam.

Modern Arabs obsessed with Israel

The obsession of the Moslem Arabs with Israel is totally irrational. To have Israel as an independent country in the middle of the Arab-Moslem world is utterly intolerable to them. That is the reason that, making allowance for the very cold peace with Egypt and the recently concluded peace with Jordan, the 21 Arab states, among them the richest countries in the world, with a combined population of more than 200 million and with a land area greater than that of the U.S., have concentrated obsessive ferocity by military, economic, ideological, political, diplomatic, and any other means to destroy the tiny Jewish community of Palestine, and its successor, the Jewish state of Israel - only 5 million people, in a country just one-half the size of San Bernardino County in California.

Acts of terror in the United States, Argentina, England, and Israel have sobered many who had believed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be the cause for the unrest in the Middle East. The fact is that war is endemic in the Arab world and that the Moslem Arabs have been waging war against each other and against their non-Arab neighbors for centuries. But, as much as the Moslem Arabs hate each other, most of them are united in their greater hatred against the "infidel Jews" and their any country, and they have built vast war machines for the ultimate “jihad" to nuke the Jews, to poison them by chemicals or biologicals, or to chase them into the sea. The focus on the Palestinian plight is designed to divert attention from the many domestic problems and inter-Arab conflicts, and to direct the Moslem-Arab frustration against Israel, the "infidel Western outsider."

The suggestion that Israel divest itself from its historic heartland, the 2,362 sq. mi. "West Bank," and from the Golan would lead to strategic suicide.

The real cause of the never-ending turmoil in the Middle East is the unremitting desire of still most of the Arab-Moslem states to destroy Israel, their inability to come to terms with its very existence. That hatred and that intolerance are fueled by Arab-Moslem fanaticism and intransigence and unwillingness to accept diversity in the region. Only when that will be overcome can peace and tranquility finally come to the Middle East

FLAME
Facts and Logic about the Middle East, P.O. Box 590359 • San Francisco.CA 94159

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

European anti-American Arrogance

by George Will, February 24, 2003

In Europe, anti-Semitism has been called the socialism of fools, which is confusing because socialism is the socialism of fools. Confusion has been compounded because Europe, nearly six decades after the continent was rendered largely Judenrein, has anti-Semitism without Jews, as when the ambassador to Britain from France — yes, our moral tutor, France — calls Israel a ",——ty little country."

But some clarity can be achieved by understanding that America has become for many Europeans what Jews were for centuries. From medieval times until 1945, Jews often were considered the embodiment of sinister forces, the focus of discontents, the all-purpose explanation of disappointments. Now America is all those things.

"These were not only young, politicized people," said Romano Prodi, head of the European Commission, speaking of the European demonstrations protesting U.S. policy toward Iraq. "This was the whole society that took part in a spontaneous way." America approached this endgame with Iraq worrying about the "Arab street" but finds more trouble in the "European street." However, if Prodi's assessment is essentially correct, the broad-based demonstrations could not have been essentially motivated by concern for Iraq's rights. European demonstrations protesting U.S. involvement in Vietnam arose largely from the European left's residual sympathies for communist regimes and insurgencies.

And the last time U.S. policy —actually, it was the policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization caused large numbers of Europeans to take to the streets was in the early 1980, when intermediate-range missiles were deployed, at the request of Europe's governments, to counter a Soviet deployment. Those demonstrations drew upon the caricature of President Ronald Reagan as a reckless "cowboy," upon residual sympathy for the Soviet Union and upon fear of Europe becoming a nuclear battlefield.

Today's demonstrators against a war to disarm Iraq can hardly be explained by fear for their safety or by sympathy for Saddam Hussein's fascism. The London demonstration — 1 million strong, much the largest in British history — was not as large as the death toll from the war Saddam Hussein launched against Iran. The demonstrators simultaneously express respect for the U.N.'s resolutions and loathing for America, the only nation that can enforce the resolutions. This moral infantilism — willing an end while opposing the only means to that end — reveals that the demonstrators believe the means are more objectionable than the end is desirable.

The demonstrators must know that Slobodan Milosevic and the Taliban would still be tyrannizing Muslims were it not for U.S. power. But they do not care. And the demonstrators must know that if they turn President George W. Bush into "the noble Duke of York" (who "had ten-thousand men, he marched them up to he top of the hill, and he marched them down again"), Hussein will bestride the Middle East, and emulators — and weapons of mass destruction — will proliferate. That the demonstrators do not care is a measure of their monomania —anti-Americanism.
For Europe's elites, anti-Americanism is a sterile response to the galling fact that Europe committed semi-suicide in the 20th century.

But many of these elites' economic and defense policies are deepening Europe's self-inflicted anemia. For example, Germany, which accounts for one-third of the euro zone's economic output, had Europe's worst average annual growth rate during the past decade - 1.3 percent, barely better than Japan's 1 percent). Business Week, calling Germany 'Japan on the Rhine," reports that the nation that gave the world aspirin was in the l960s the world's leading producer of pharmaceuticals, but now does not have a pharmaceutical company among the world’s top 15.

The curdled arrogance of some European elites, and especially of lose clinging to a status that they sense is eroding, was displayed last Monday in Jacques Chirac's dressing down of Eastern European leaders who support U.S. policy. Speaking of them with the disdain of a duke deploring bad manners among the servants below stairs, Chirac said they were guilty of "not well brought up behavior" — something like using the fish fork during the salad course — and that "they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet" because several are still applicants for membership in the European Union.

There is not much to be gained just now from additional attempts to reason with a leader that tone-deaf, or from attempts to soften the monomania of those swarming in the "European street." Perhaps U.S. policy can change European minds by changing facts in Iraq. Perhaps not. However, America's vital interests are more dependent on those facts than on those minds.

George Will writes for the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th,
NW, Washington, DC, 20071.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 25, 2003

WHY WE KEEP GETTING ISLAM WRONG

A Speech By Don Feder
To The Christian Coalition Symposium On Islam
"Muslims And The Judeo-Christian World, Where Do We Go From Here" February 15, 2003

Let me to begin by thanking the Christian Coalition of America and its president, Roberta Combs. It took a lot of guts to hold this forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to say a few words to you -- Nigeria, the Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Armenia, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, Russia, the Kashmir, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines.

What do they all have in common? In each country or province, there isan ongoing struggle involving Moslems and non-Moslems. Samuel Huntington, author of 'The Clash of Civilizations,' tells us that out of 22 active conflicts in the world today, 20 involve Moslems and someone else" Moslems and Christians, Moslems and Jews, Moslems and Catholics, Moslems and Orthodox, Moslems and Hindus.

This phenomenon might be explained in one of three ways:

Possibility #1 -- For some bizarre and inexplicable reason, no one else can get along with Moslems, and so we all are driven to make war on and persecute them. By the way, many Moslems - who have an active persecution complex, notwithstanding that they are the ones usually doing the persecuting - firmly believe this.

Possibility #2 -- These jihads, terrorist wars, religious persecutions and instances of ethnic cleansing all are the work of Moslem militants, extremists, fundamentalists, fanatics who have somehow, again inexplicably, gotten it all backward and transformed a religion of peace into a religion that looks remarkably like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. I'll let you in on a secret: World War II wasn't the work of Nazis and Japanese militarists, but of Nazi 'militants' and 'fundamentalist' Japanese militarists.

Possibility #3 -- In fact, Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion which, throughout its 1,400-year history, has lent itself well to fanaticism, terrorism, mass murder, oppression and conversion by the sword. Long before the age of political correctness and multicultural indoctrination, Winston Churchill, that keen observer, described Islam as, 'that religion which above all others, was founded and propagated by the sword, the tenets and principles of which are incentives to slaughter and which in three continents had produced fighting breeds of men (and) stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.'

It's so obvious that it hardly bears repetition. You don't have Orthodox rabbis hijacking airplanes in response to Jews for Jesus. Jesuits don't shoot up Baptist seminaries to protest the Reformation. Members of the Church of Latter Day Saints don't tell you they'll cut your throat if you don't accept the prophetship of Joseph Smith and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Buddhists don't put out contracts on those who offend them. Hindus don't call members of other religions, dogs, pigs and the sons of apes.

And still our leaders desperately insist that Islam is a religion of peace. As the body count mounts, and the atrocities become more outrageous, the pronouncements become more bizarre. Islam is a religion of peace. No, wait, it's not just a religion of peace, it's also a religion of tolerance, charity and compassion. Jihad isn't holy war. Why no indeed, it's a spiritual struggle, an effort to overcome bad habits, a Tony Robbins-style self-improvement program. Said the White Queen to Alice: 'When I was young, I practiced believing three impossible things before breakfast. Now, I can believe anything.' At times it seems like the White Queen is advising the White House on Islam.

This morning, you've had lectures about Islam by some distinguished experts. I am neither distinguished nor an expert. But I spent 20 years of my life as a journalist observing the affairs of men and nations. I believe in common sense, in arriving at conclusions based on the evidence at hand, and in logic. And when I encounter something as absurd as the establishment's pronouncements on Islam, I want to know why?

Why do our leaders insist on telling us these soothing lies? And why does a credulous public readily believe them?

Basically, there are three reasons for these delusions about Islam:

Reason #1: Pragmatism. Arab Moslems have the oil energy resources on which the West, thanks to environmentalists, is heavily dependent. Further, a number of Moslem states are ostensibly allied with us - Egypt and Saudi Arabia most prominent among them. Our leaders have decided that to tell the truth about Islam would offend our Moslem friends and suppliers - the guys we supposedly need to help us control the extremists and keep the pumps operating. By the way, relying on Saudi Arabia to control Moslem 'extremists' is like expecting Tony Soprano to fight organized crime.

Reason #2: The American tradition of tolerance. Religious tolerance was one of America's founding principles. It was enunciated by George Washington, in his message to the Hebrew congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. From America's inception, we had no religious test for public office. There was no established church. There was no official persecution of religious minorities. Compared to the Old World, the New World was blessedly free of sectarian strife.

And, lo, it was good. America grew up without an official church, but with thriving religious communities. In the 1950s, when I was growing up, it was an article of faith that religion is a social good. It didn't much matter which faith an individual professed - whether little Johnny took communion, or wore a skull cap, or lit candles and burned incense - as long as he believed in a God who required moral conduct, that was enough.

In this frame of reference, candor about Islam seems like vile bigotry, the type of religious intolerance that goes against the American ethos. The problem is, today's situation is unique. America has never experienced a phenomenon like Islam before. The closest we came to it was in our encounters with fascism and communism in the 20th century - ideologies that were, I hasten to add, quasi-religious in character.

How does one tolerate the intolerant? How does one accommodate a creed that elevates homicide to a religious obligation, which - in the name of its faith - is killing Christians, Jews and Hindus the world over, a religion which, given the opportunity, would remake America in the image of Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Reason #3: Fear. If Islam isn't a religion of peace, what are the implications for the West and others in a world with almost a billion Moslems - a world where Islamic states have powerful armies, ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction, terrorist auxiliaries and millions who are willing to die, and kill - for the glory of Allah and his prophet? What are the implications for Europe, with its burgeoning Moslem populations? What does it mean for the United States, whose
Moslem population could reach 10 million by the end of this decade? What does it mean for the West, where a new mosque opens twice a week?

It's simply more comforting to tell soothing lies than to confront unpleasant truths. The West has become very adept at this. Consider the lies appeasers told about Nazism in the 1930s. (When Hitler first came to power, commentator Walter Lippman hailed him as a sincere nationalist. After Munich, Neville Chamberlain said the Fuehrer was a man he could do business with.) During the Cold War, liberals closed their eyes to the reality of communist brutality and imperialism. Today, our elite -- the media and academia, Democrats and Republicans -- are doing the same with Islam. Call it old appeasement in a new bottle.

Regrettably, avoiding reality doesn't change reality. In and of themselves, words do not alter that nature of things. We can tell ourselves until we're blue in the face that Islam is kinder and gentler - a Methodist service, but in Arabic, with prayer rugs and sans shoes - and terrorists will still be trying to kill us in the name of their god. In the Third World, the Islamic advance will continue to creep down the West and East Coasts of Africa, into the Balkans, the Indian subcontinent and East Asia. Islamic immigration to the First World will continue to challenge Judeo-Christian civilization. And millions the world over will continue to believe that they have a divine mandate to conquer us, to rule us and - if we resist - to kill us.

What should our response to Islam be? That's the subject for another speech. However, in closing, let me repeat something I said a moment ago - because it bears repetition - hiding from the truth doesn't change it.

In the 20th century, Western man became expert at make-believe -- one reason for the decline of the West. After the Second World War, we told ourselves that the danger was over. The United Nations would make war obsolete. (Today, the UN is trying to make deterrence obsolete.) After the Cold War, we supposedly had reached the end of history. Still, history rolled merrily along. In many ways, the world a more dangerous place today. When your head is firmly in the sand, another part of your anatomy is fully exposed. ##

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 24, 2003

Isn't It Strange

By Morris Amitay

Old timers here in Washington and elsewhere might remember a popular comedian of the Fifties called Red Buttons. One of his regular shticks was “strange things are happening”. Well, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq “strange things” are indeed happening, and worth mentioning.

For instance, isn’t it strange that the UN official sent to Tehran last week to inspect Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities is the same El-Baradei that recently stated (with a straight face) “We are not getting cooperation with Iraq, but hope to get it in the coming weeks”! If the UN didn’t get it for twelve years, why should El-Baradei harbor even the slightest hope of getting Iraqi cooperation in the “coming weeks”? And what should this tell us about his effectiveness in preventing Iran from producing “the bomb”?

Isn’t it strange that peacenik Jews here don’t realize that despite their opposition to a war against Iraq, this will never count with the radical anti-Semitic elements that control the anti-war movement? To paraphrase Pogo – “how can they hate us, when we are so sincere”?

Seeing “Rabbi” Michael Lerner (who has yet to produce proof of his rabbinic ordination) being rejected as a speaker at the recent big anti-war rally speaks volumes about the orientation of the organizers of these pitiful events.

Isn’t it strange that it took our Justice Department nine years to indict Florida professor Sami al-Arian after Steve Emerson first “outed” him in his brilliant “Jihad in America” television expose? And isn’t it strange that even now Arab human rights groups are rushing to defend him charging “racism”, and bleating about violations of “freedom of speech” and academic freedom?

Strange isn’t it that a charlatan and racist demagogue, a mediocre ultra-liberal Representative (who as a former Mayor of Cleveland led the city to financial ruin), and an ethically challenged one-term Senator are all mounting Presidential campaigns? Wouldn’t the media do us all a big favor by denying them the coverage they are obviously seeking – and also spare us the exaggerated deference with which they will be treated by serious Democratic candidates?

Isn’t is strange that Jewish Americans still remain (although in diminishing numbers) supportive of the Democratic Party when most of Israel’s Congressional critics are Democrats – and Israel’s most stalwart friends in Congress, like Senators Sam Brownback, Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, and John McCain are Republicans? (And isn’t it strange that this observation comes from a card-carrying Democrat?)

It seems quite strange that the Israel-bashing Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) would often include stories from a widely read Israeli daily newspaper. But when that newspaper is Ha’Aretz, it really isn’t that strange at all with the likes of columnists Amira Hess (“the sweetheart of El-Fatah”) and Akiva (“off the wall”) Eldar gracing its pages and giving aid and comfort to Israel’s bitterest enemies.

Isn’t it strange that a Muslim FBI agent could refuse to wear a wire in order to nail a suspected Muslim terrorist – and still remain an FBI agent? Could it be FBI Director Mueller, who recently hosted a love fest with Muslim Americans – many of whom were some pretty suspicious characters – has a blind spot when it comes to identifying the very people he should be investigating?

It seems strange that so many Jewish American diplomats are still directly involved with the “peace process”. But when you consider how these officials invariably bend over backwards to demonstrate they are not pro-Israel, the State Department apparently knows a good thing when they see it. Even with the departures of Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, and Aaron Miller, we still have Richard Haase in Policy Planning at State, Dan Kurtzer our Ambassador in Tel-Aviv, and the Jerusalem Consulate’s Charge d’affairs, Jeff Feldman. Where is that old-fashioned anti-Semitism at State when Israel could really use it?

It is at all strange that a poll commissioned by the New York Times would support the Times’ contention – expressed ad nauseam editorially, in its op-ed columns and by its slanted news coverage that - “Poll Find Most in U.S. Support Delaying a War.” It is stranger still whenever the Times ever reports anything contrary to their incessant anti-war campaign.

Isn’t it strange that the following quote by an American President was by one William Jefferson Clinton (12/19/98) – not by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties…. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people…. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.”

And finally, perhaps the strangest thing which happened last week was when Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, publicly described Iran as a democracy? Did we hear right, or having failed to save Saddam, could it be State is now defending the mullahs’ terrorist regime? On the other hand, maybe Armitage meant to say “theocracy” – not democracy, and it must have been a strange slip of the tongue? We certainly hope so.

Morrie Amitay is a former Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 18, 2003

Americans Oppose Palestinian State

By ELLI WOHLGELERNTER The Jerusalem Post Feb. 18, 2003

Seventy-one percent of Americans believe that the Palestinians should not be given a state, since they have not fulfilled President George W. Bush's conditions for creating a state, which he outlined in his speech of June 24.

These were the findings of a poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by John McLaughlin and Associates and sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America.

Bush's conditions include "fighting terrorism, stopping the promotion of hatred in its media, ending the encouragement of murder in its schools,becoming a democracy, and respecting human rights."

Approximately 13% believe the Palestinians have fulfilled these conditions and should be given a state.

The respondents were 36% Republicans, 37% Democrats, and 21% independents;

53% Protestants, 28% Catholics, and 2% Jews; 76% Caucasians, 11% African-Americans, and 10% Hispanics.


The survey also found that:

By a margin of 77% to 12%, Americans say "the United States should stop giving the Palestinian Arabs $150 million" in aid each year.

61% believe "the goal of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority is the eventual destruction of Israel," while

19% say the goal is "to have a small state living in peace alongside Israel."

51% say a Palestinian state will be a terrorist state, compared with 25% who believe it will be a civilized democracy.

73% want the US government to demand that the PA "turn over all Palestinian Arabs accused of killing or wounding American citizens," while 16% say the US should not make that demand.

64% believe world leaders should refuse to meet with Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, who claimed that the Nazis did not murder 6 million Jews, while 20% say world leaders should meet with him.

"Here you have a question: 'Do you think the Palestinians fulfilled Bush's requirement?' It has nothing to do with Israel. So this question is as fair as you can get.

It also sends a message to politicians like [Connecticut Senator] Joe Leiberman, who says in speech after speech that most Americans support a Palestinian state. This shows that most Americans are overwhelmingly against it."

Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America said the survey reflects a growing American awareness of the threat of Islamic terrorism. "They do not want to create yet another state that will be a mini-Iraq promoting hatred and murder," he said. "They understand that Islamic terrorism threatens not only Israel, but also America and the world."

Posted by Elli Wohlgelenter, JPost at 02:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 12, 2003

Comparing the Israeli/American Experience

It is fortunate that Americans have not had to experience the terrorism that has engulfed Israel. Maybe a simple chart ratio will give us some idea?

As we know, there are about 280 Million Americans and there are about 5 million Israeli Jews.

Since the Arabs began their present so-called Intifada against the Israelis in September 2000 through Jan.25, 2003, which is less than 2 and ½ years, there have been:

724 Israelis killed – mostly innocent civilians with the greater proportion being women and children.

5,055 Israelis injured.

This has resulted from 16,209 separate attacks!

By simply using the proportion ratios shown above, these figures would transpose into:

40,544 Americans killed and 283,000 injured as a direct result of terrorism in a 2.5-year period!

What do you think our response would be? Would the world accuse us of excessive force no matter what we did to protect our civilian population? Would we be worried, as are the Israelis constantly, about collateral civilian damage? Would we put our soldiers at extra risk protecting injury to an enemy that has declared its intent to remove us from the face of the earth?
I DON’T THINK SO.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 10, 2003

A Tribute to Ilan Ramon, Israeli Astronaut

By Caroline Glick, The International Jerusalem Post, Feb. 1, 2003

In 1981, IAF Col. Ilan Ramon flew one of the F-16 jets that blew up the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak. In so doing he saved the country and perhaps the entire world from the specter of a nuclear holocaust.

For the past 16 days, as Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon again saved us. This time he was not armed with a payload of bombs. This time Ramon set off for outer space on the Columbia space shuttle, armed with a picture of the Earth as seen from the moon drawn by a Jewish boy in Theresienstadt concentration camp, a Torah scroll from Bergen Belsen, a microfiche copy of the Bible, the national flag, a kiddush cup, and the dreams and hopes of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

Ramon saved us this time not by clearing our skies of the threat of nuclear attack, but by reminding us of who we are and of what we can accomplish if we only have faith in ourselves. Ramon made clear at every opportunity that he went to space, not simply as a citizen of the State of Israel, but as a Jew. As the representative of the Jewish people he recited kiddush on Friday night. As a Jew he said Shema Yisrael as the space shuttle orbited over Jerusalem. As a Jew he insisted on eating only kosher food in outer space. And as a Jew he told the prime minister from his celestial perch, "I think it is very, very important to preserve our historical tradition, and I mean historical and religious traditions."

In so doing he showed that there is no limit to what a person can accomplish as a Jew. He said to all Jews, here in Israel and throughout the world, even as anti-Semitism again threatens us, even as Jews in Israel are being murdered just for being Jews, our enemies will never define us or tell us there are limits to what we can do.

But Ilan Ramon was not simply a Jew. He was an Israeli Jew. And, as a scientist and fighter pilot his was the face of Israeli exceptionalism. Ramon excelled in all he did. He was first in his class in high school. He was first in his class in flight school. He was first in his class in astronaut training. On a break from the air force in the 1980s, after completing his studies in electrical engineering and computer science at Tel Aviv University, Ramon joined the team at Israel Aircraft Industries that developed the Lavi fighter jet.

On the Columbia, Ramon conducted environmental research on desertification.
Today, when mediocrity seems to be the unifying characteristic of so many of the personalities that make up our national landscape, Ramon reminded us of what we can and should aspire to. Speaking of Ramon a few months before the shuttle launch, his fellow astronauts praised his professionalism above all.

As we have been consumed for more than two years with our daily reality of terrorism and pain, Ramon reminded us that there are other sides to our lives in Israel. Our mastery of science has placed our tiny state at the cutting edge of space research. Like our friends, the Americans, we will not be limited by gravity in our quest for answers to the riddles of the universe.

Finally, Ramon was a husband to Rona and father to Assaf, David, Tal, and Noa. Our hearts go out to his family members. But we can only pray that they will take comfort in the fact that in his life, their Ilan saved both the life and the spirit of his country. ##


Posted by Carolyn B. Glick at 09:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 30, 2003

UN Animus toward Israel

Redacted from an article by FLAME

Is the Jewish state getting a fair shake from the world body?

Several years ago, we published one of our clarifying messages under the heading of "The UN and the Middle East." In it, we described how the UN seems to be totally obsessed with Israel. Now, a few years later, it might be time to revisit the topic.


What are the facts?

An outcast: Israel is indeed an outcast in the United Nations and thus, by extension, a pariah in the whole world. Though founded in 1948 - over fifty years ago and at about the same time as many other countries in the wake of World War II - its "legitimacy," its "right to exist," are still being questioned and a topic of constant debate in the UN. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, the hostility of the United Nations against Israel expanded out of all bounds. Between 1967 and 1988, the UN Security Council passed 88 Resolutions against Israel and the UN General Assembly passed more than 400!

In 1974, Yassir Arafat addressed the General Assembly with a bolstered pistol on his hip and received a standing ovation by that body. The hostility against Israel reached its peak in 1975, when the General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 declaring "Zionism as a form of racism.” This infamous Resolution remained in effect for sixteen years when, under intense pressure
from the United States, it was finally repealed.

What is the reason for the collective hostility of the UN against Israel?

All of this hostility is based on the very structure of the United Nations. In the General Assembly, 130 of the 190 members will always, automatically, vote against Israel. The inner circle of this hatred is the core of twenty Arab nations, which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. Those countries are part of the larger 56-member Muslim group, which can reliably be counted on automatically to join the Arab block in their anti-Israel Resolutions.

And, those countries are almost always joined by the "non-aligned" group, which are essentially the underdeveloped countries of the world. They have little interest in Israel, but they are united in their hatred of the United States and consider Israel its surrogate. Each country in the General Assembly counts the same. The vote of the United States counts the same as that of, say, Rwanda or the Ivory Coast. The greatest outrage is that of the 190 members of the UN, Israel, not being a full member of any of the "regional groups," is the only country that cannot be a member of the Security Council, the most important body of the UN. Syria, deservedly classified as a terrorist state, has just been elected to a 2-year term on that Council. Such outlaw countries as Libya, Iran, North Korea, and even Saddam Hussein's Iraq are eligible for membership. Israel is not.

The most virulent center of anti-Israel activities within the UN


The Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) has classified Israel as the principal human rights violator in the world today. Since its inception, about 25% of its resolutions have condemned Israel. Such egregious human rights violations as those of China in Tibet, or of Russia in Chechnya don't even come to the floor for discussion. The genocide in Rwanda, the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, the horrifying "communal strife" in Indonesia's East Timor, the "disappearance" of a few hundred thousand refugees in the Congo, and the ruthless rampage of the Sudanese Muslims against the Christians are not found worthy of the attention of the Human Rights Commission. Such outlandish canards as the "blood libel," that Jews use the blood of Muslims and Christians for the baking of their Passover matzos or of the Israelis injecting Arab children with the AIDS virus are earnestly discussed in that forum.

Finally, there is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which was established in 1949 to assist the Palestinian "refugees" created by the Arabs' attempt to destroy Israel at its birth. For more than 50 years, UNRWA has fully funded and essentially administers the so-called "refugee camps" - hotbeds of murderous anti-Israel activity, including the notorious camp in Jenin, which is the source of most of the suicide bombers who have so far killed over six hundred Israeli civilians and wounded thousands more.

Obviously, the pressure that the Arabs and other Muslim countries are able to exert because of their disproportionate economic power is the main cause of the anti-Israelism (anti-Semitism) of the UN. But most disturbing is the participation and acquiescence in such activity on the part of many of the European nations which, by their actions or inaction, were complicit in the Holocaust. As to the underdeveloped nations of the world, all of which are represented in the General Assembly, one would hope that they would look to Israel as a country from which they could learn and that they would wish to emulate. Virtually all of the countries created after WWII, most of them in Africa, have regressed socially, politically, economically, and in virtually all other respects since freeing themselves from their colonial condition. Millions and millions have died in fratricidal wars. Millions have died of starvation and millions are condemned to die by famine and by AIDS. Instead of condemning and hating Israel, they should take it as an example of how to build an advanced, prosperous and competent nation. #

FLAME – Facts and Logic About the Middle East, PO Box 590359, San Francisco, CA 94159

Posted by FLAME at 07:03 AM | TrackBack

August 08, 2001

Seeds of Peace - Camp or Brainwash?

August 8, 2001

About three years ago we began hearing about an idyllic camp, Seeds of Peace, in Maine whose objective was to bring Israeli and Arab teenagers together for a month in the summer. There the campers participate in sports, camp activities and discussion groups and really get to know each other and discuss their animosities and lay the foundation for peace in the future. What a grand idea! How could anyone criticize? Then I saw the names of some of the supporters of the camp.

One local name stuck out immediately - Terry Ahwal. Have you ever read any of the articles she writes in our papers? They are virulently anti-Israel and full of Arab lies and propaganda. Another supporter listed was Saeb Erakat, who has long been chief advisor to Yasser Arafat! Do you know of any good works done by Yasser Arafat?

Then two years ago several campers - Palestinian Arab and Israeli Jews made a movie depicting the life of the campers and their experiences back in their native lands. David Bar-Ilan, former editor of the Jerusalem Post wrote an article in the Post of February 4, 2000. He stated that the film was "so tilted in favor of Palestinian Arab arguments, so unquestionably sympathetic to Palestinian grievances, that it becomes a propaganda instrument rather than an ode to friendship. "

Bar Ilan received a letter from three of the four Israelis featured in the film who took part in its production. They wrote, "We did not make the movie as it claims. The movie was produced, only in part, by us and most of our footage, including its most significant statements from our point of view was discarded. We did do some preliminary editing. …But the final version is not really ours …

Just this week many of us received an elegant invitation to attend a fundraiser for this camp and suspicions of the last few years were enhanced despite the impressive list of people involved that had understandably been attracted to this apparently worthwhile cause. The special honored guest is Ambassador Martin Indyk, long known to have taken every possible anti-Israel position while a member of the American State Department. As far as he has been concerned Israel could never give enough and he was happy to appoint the son of John Zogby, pre-eminent Arab propagandist to his staff. Other surprising names on the Honorary Committee included Congressman David Bonior and Congressman John Dingell and former Senator Abraham.

Just before the last Congressional election Jonathan Tobin, Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent and frequent contributor to the Jewish News treated us to a mind-boggling summary of Congressional voting as determined by the Arab Lobby. The Lobby created a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Shame list depending upon how the Congressman voted on Pro-Arab, Anti-Israel legislation. Unfortunately, Michigan did very well with the Arab Hall of Fame electing Bonior and Dingell along with John Conyers and then Senator Abraham.

Is it unreasonable to suspect the format of a camp supported by known Arab political leaders, Arab sympathizers and anti-Israel politicians? I don't think so.

If one is able to throw off the blanket of apparent idealism, what is the purpose of the camp as far as the Arabs are concerned? Is it not possible that the purpose is to make the vulnerable Jewish child, frequently uneducated in the history of his own people, sympathetic to the gross lie that the Jews have stolen Arab land and they have no business being there? What do you think those discussion groups are about in the camp?

Do you think they discuss the five major wars in which the Arabs have attacked the Jews attempting to drive them into the sea or the 2000 years of persecution of Diaspora history or the Five Books of Moses or the fact that the land of Israel was Jewish over 3000 years before the Arabs even existed? Or does the history lesson start in 1948 when the Jews "first came out of the ghettos of Europe and stole Arab land?" Do you think the Arabs are advised that Israel was created as a Jewish homeland, a final sanctuary for persecuted Jews the world over? Are the Arabs advised that they have 21 other nations with over 250 million people in which to live? Or are they are told there have been 1179 attacks on Israelis in the last 60 days?

Or rather do you think the Jewish kids are told that it is only fair that they share this land with their camp buddy and all of the above is just rumor and ancient history? The decision is yours.


Jerome S. Kaufman, Political Commentator

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack