WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

December 21, 2002

Al Qaeda-Fatah assassination attempt of German diplomat fails

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

German diplomat and member of European Union Commission Christian Waldrahs was saved by his bulletproof jeep from an assassin’s bullets, fired as he came out of Jenin Fatah commander Mussa Kadura’s home on Saturday, December 21.

DEBKAfile’s military and counter-terror sources report that Waldrahs has the unhappy distinction of being the first target of an al Qaeda assassination plot executed by a Fatah-al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades operative against a Western diplomat on Palestinian territory.

The masked gunman waited for his prey outside Kadura’s home. He starting shooting his Kalashnikov assault rifle at close range – but not fast enough. The German diplomat was able to drive off at top speed, heading for the nearest Israeli military roadblock to ask for help.

As one high-placed Israeli security source put it: “We now have living, incontrovertible proof of operational collaboration between al Qaeda and Fatah-al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades”.
In full
One of the notorious anti-Israel myths that has been around for a number of years is the story concerning the sinking of the U.S. Liberty, an American ship, said to have been sunk by Israel on purpose. Anti-Israelis have used this story to point to the strength of the Jewish Lobby and its ability to silence criticism of this alleged incident. Here in a recently published book, a refutation The Liberty Incident

Shared Values

Why America Supports Israel is an article by Irwin N. Graulich
The reason for America´s support is clear. Israel is a democracy and happens to be the closest nation in the world to America in terms of values, capitalism, entrepreneurship, love of "moderate" religion, freedoms, an open/transparent press and a passion for enjoying life within guidelines. In fact, the ultimate proof that Americans love Israel for ideological reasons is that percentage-wise, more Christians are vehemently pro-Israel than Jews!

al Qaeda assassination plot executed by a Fatah-al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades operative against a Western diplomat on Palestinian territory.
First Al Qaeda-Fatah Operation Misses Target: German Diplomat

December 20, 2002

Saudi Arabia's Education System

Preliminary Overview. - Saudi Arabia's Education System: Curriculum, Spreading Saudi Education to the World and the Official Saudi Position on Education Policy.

For the past two decades, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been engaged in an extensive effort "to spread Islam to every corner of the earth."[1] This has meant supporting or creating schools with a curriculum primarily based upon the teachings of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, the 18th century founder of the Islamist Wahhabiyya movement.[2]

This report offers a preliminary overview of the Saudi education system focusing on its main principles, aspects of its organizational structure, translations from its textbooks and statements made by high ranking Saudi officials on the Saudi education policy.

Full report at MEMRI

Out,Out, Damned Spot

Earlier today, Joseph Alexander Norland posted a piece written by him entitled Der Meister-appeaser von Berlin (with obeisance to Wagner). It clearly condemns Germany for making a pact with the devil. So it was no great surprise when I came upon this article entitled "THE ETERNAL NAZI:
A German audience views Roman Polanski's "The Pianist".
by William Grim Iconoclast Contributing Editor.
There's an old joke that inside every German there's a Nazi yearning to get out. While a gross overstatement, there is, I'm unhappy to report, more than a little truth to that old chestnut. But more about that later.

Last week I had the opportunity in Munich to attend a screening of Roman Polanski's new film The Pianist, a film that will not premiere in the United States for another month. This film is based on the true story of the Polish Jewish piano virtuoso Wladyslaw Szpilman, who survived the entire Nazi occupation of Warsaw hiding in the Ghetto and at times being hidden right under the noses of the Nazis in safe houses maintained by the Polish Resistance. Simply put, POLANSKI'S film is a masterpiece. It is considerably better than Schindler's List and is undoubtedly the greatest Holocaust movie of all time. The Pianist has already won the Palm d'Or at Cannes. It deserves to win the Oscar.

What is remarkable about the film is its brutal and unflinching honesty. It avoids the cheap sentimentality that marred the otherwise exemplary Schindler's List. The film also avoids stereotypes as much as possible. Not all of the Jews behave nobly, and one Nazi officer at the end of the film is shown to have at least one spark of humanity left in his otherwise accursed soul. Adrien Brody delivers a stunning performance as Wladyslaw Szpilman, an incredibly demanding role as he is in virtually every scene. The cinematography is brilliant, and even when we are not seeing the title character in action, the events occurring on film are from the point of view of the protagonist, as though we are watching along with him as he peeks out of his hiding places to see Germans murdering Jews just for the sheer sport of it, and later on, Germans getting a taste of their own medicine when the Warsaw Uprising begins.

In addition to exposing the full range of Germanic horrors that made up the Holocaust -- I don't want to give too much of the movie away, but there is one scene in which the Germans summarily execute an entire family of Jews that is so shocking in its brutality that you'll want go home and break every piece of Dresden china in the cupboard and take a sledgehammer to every yuppie scum's Beamer in the parking lot -- The Pianist is a testament to the indefatigable spirit of life that refuses "to go gentle into the night." In particular, the humanizing influence of art, of the will to create, is expertly juxtaposed by Polanski to the German will to destroy, indeed, to the Germanic tendency to embrace all of the negative energy of the universe. In the battle between artistic matter and Germanic anti-matter, it is art that ultimately triumphs.

The execrable German Marxist philosopher Theodor W. Adorno (who is best known today as the model for the character Wendall Kretzschmar, one of the manifestations of the Devil in Thomas Mann's novel Doktor Faustus), once famously remarked that "after Auschwitz there can be no art." Although Adorno was no Nazi (indeed, he spent World War II in exile in Hollywood where he devoted his time to denouncing America and ridiculing American culture, especially "Negro jazz"), his willingness to deny art to those who had been brutalized by his fellow countrymen reveals an arrogance so profound that it is simply beyond the capacity to analyze. It also is a clear demonstration of how easily all Germans (whether of the left or the right) fall into the risible delusion that they somehow constitute a "master race." For what Adorno is really saying is that since German culture has been found wanting no one else may be permitted to seek meaning and solace from art.

There can be only one response to Adorno, and it is found in the final scene of The Pianist. The War is over and life has returned to Warsaw. Wladyslaw Szpilman is performing a concerto accompanied by a full orchestra. No words are spoken, and the scene continues as the credits are rolling. But the message is clear. It is the raised middle finger, proudly held aloft, and it points towards Germany, the remnants of the Nazi Party and Theodor W. Adorno.

Now, back to the Germans yearning to rediscover their inner Nazis. I have to admit that it is a strange experience to watch a Holocaust film in Germany. It's even stranger when you're the only American in the midst of about 200 Germans. But perhaps the strangest thing of all is to watch the reactions of the Germans as the events of the movie unfold. You hear a lot about how Germans are so ashamed today of the behavior of their countrymen during the Nazi period and about how much they've done to atone for their past sins. Don't buy that bill of goods. If the audience of the screening I attended is any indication of German attitudes in general, it doesn't augur well for the future. Remember, this wasn't an audience composed of skinheads from the neo-Nazi enclaves in Karlsruhe and the former DDR. This was a group of Germany's best and brightest: educated, middle class, sophisticated denizens of a major cosmopolitan city.

One scene in particular is seared into my consciousness. It happens about halfway into the film. The Jews of Warsaw have been herded into the Ghetto. A street used by the Germans bisects the Ghetto. While a group of Jews is waiting to cross to the other side of the street, several Nazi thugs force some elderly Jews to dance at an increasingly faster tempo. Weakened by malnutrition, hobbling on crutches, riddled with heart and lung infirmities, many of the Jews fall to the ground in sheer agony. It's a sickening scene. It's the kind of scene that makes you ashamed that your last name is Grim. Hell, it's the kind of scene that makes you ashamed that you listen to Beethoven. If an American soldier had done the same to a German or Jap POW he would have been thrown into the brig for life or cashiered out of the service on a Section 8. But there they were, today's educated, freedom-loving, let's-all-hold-hands-and-love-one-another Germans, laughing at torture.

If there is a more sickening spectacle than Germans finding humor in what their fathers and grandfathers did to the Jews, if there is a more perfect example of the utter lack if humanity at the core of the German nation, I am unaware of it. There is something terribly wrong with Germany and the German Volk. The German soul is a deep abyss, a fetid, stinking morass that befouls the community of nations. But wait, there's more.

Another scene from the movie that stands out is when an SS guard announces to a half-starving Jewish work detail that they will be receiving an additional portion of bread with their rations, one that they can sell to other Jews, because "everybody knows how clever the Jews are at selling things." This time the audience fairly rolled with laughter.

I was tempted to call in an airstrike on the theater, or at the very least to bitch slap a couple of hundred Germans, but I managed to hold my fire knowing that ultimately any World War II movie ends badly for the Germans. Normally I don't talk back to the screen at the movies, but I do have to admit that I did yell out " U S A" and pumped my fist in the air when the Szpilman family listened to the announcement on the radio that the United States had declared war on Germany. And I also do have to admit that it felt mighty fine to yell out "Shoot those damn Nazis!" when the film showed the Jews starting to fight back during the Warsaw Uprising.

It's funny how quiet the theater became when near the film's end a group of SS goons were shown in a holding camp awaiting transportation to a deserved harsh fate in the Russian gulag. And then it became clear as a bell. German shame for World War II does not result from a moral awareness of the innumerable crimes and atrocities committed by the Germans. No, the Germans are ashamed because they got their rear ends handed back to them by a bunch of Yanks, Russkies and Brits who they considered -- and still consider -- to be members of inferior races.

After the movie was over, I strolled along Schellingstrasse in the Schwabing district of Munich. By chance I happened to pass the site of the original headquarters of the Nazi Party. It's an interior decorating company now. How appropriate. On the surface Germany may be a changed nation, far removed from the heyday of its Nazi period. But it's all a façade. The wallpaper and carpeting may be new, the portraits of Hitler may have been replaced by African objets d'art, but the foundation of the structure is Nazi through and through.

And as the German economy plunges further into a recession that is largely of its own making, as even German economists begin to notice the disturbing parallels between the economies of 2002 and 1932, the question remains as to how long it will be before the Germans let their inner Nazis manifest themselves in public. The Eternal Nazi, I'm afraid, will be with us as long as there is a German nation. The Pianist is a great film and an even greater cautionary tale, because history has an unfortunate way of repeating itself.
If only the Germans were as remorseful or as prescient as Macbeth when he uttered, "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green--one red".

More on the Demographic War in Jerusalem

The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs has just published a study entitled Illegal Constuction in Jerusalem by Justus Reid Weiner. This is its introduction to it.
Arab Jerusalemites claim they have no choice but to build their homes illegally since the municipality systematically rejects their applications for building permits. They must then contend with municipal inspectors who send bulldozers to demolish their homes.

Human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner, a scholar-in-residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has just completed the first systematic study of illegal construction in Jerusalem. Based on scores of interviews, original documents, and on-site inspections, Weiner's new book discredits the conventional wisdom about the causes and effects of illegal building, and documents a pattern of politically-motivated behavior and criminal profiteering that characterizes much of the construction in the Arab sector of the Holy City:

Illegal construction has reached epidemic proportions. A senior Palestinian official boasted that they have built 6,000 homes without permits during the last 4 years, of which less than 200 were demolished by the city. This frantic pace of illegal construction continues despite the fact that the city has authorized more than 36,000 permits for new housing units in the Arab sector, more than enough to meet the needs of Arab residents through legal construction until 2020. Arab residents who wish to build legally may consult urban plans translated into Arabic for their convenience and receive individual assistance from Arabic-speaking city employees. Both Arabs and Jews wait 4-6 weeks for permit approval, enjoy a similar rate of application approvals, and pay an identical fee ($3,600) for water and sewage hook-ups on the same size living unit.

The same procedures for administrative demolition orders apply to both Jews and Arabs in all parts of the city, as a final backstop to remove structures built illegally on roadbeds or land designated for schools, clinics, and the like.

The Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an intentional campaign to subsidize and encourage massive illegal construction in the Arab sector, seeing this as part of their "demographic war" against Israel.

Many large, multi-story, luxury structures have been built by criminals on land they do not own, frequently land belonging to Christians living abroad. More than any single factor, the 35-year-long boycott of municipal politics by the Palestinian leadership has resulted in the continued imbalance in municipal services in Arab neighborhoods.

Despite accusations that the city's planning policy seeks to "Judaize" Jerusalem, the Arab population of the city has increased since 1967 from 27% to 32%. Moreover, since 1967 new Arab construction has outpaced Jewish construction.

Who will ultimately bear the burden of chaotic development and an eroded quality of life in the Arab neighborhoods? Are their long-term interests served by the Palestinian Authority's "demographic war" or by the profiteering of land thieves?

In a rather long article in Foreign Affairs, Fouad Ajami speculates on what Iraq and the Arab world will be like if America goes to war to rid the region of Saddam. How will such an invasion affect Arab countries in the region?
Iraq and the Arabs' Future

Palestinian funds inquiry may damage Commission

May damage ? The EU is totalled when it comes to the ME .

JEDDAH, 20 December 2002 Saudi Arabia is planning a brand new state sponsored terror fundraiser for their Palestinian brethren. What a total surprise this is. Up till now, they have been such a good ally in this war against terror, and now this. What are we ever to make of it? This could give people the wrong idea.
One million people, each contributing a riyal, are to be involved in a massive signature campaign launched at King Abdul Aziz University here yesterday to express solidarity with the Palestinians.

The proceeds of the campaign, organized by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, will go to WAMY’s charitable projects for the Palestinians. The first day of the signature campaign was reserved for the staff of the Faculty of Science. Students of the department will start the signature process tomorrow, then the campaign will move from one faculty to another until the entire university is covered.

Dr. Hisham Abunnaja, administrative manager of the Faculty of Science, called on all the staff, students and workers to support the campaign. Participation of the teaching staff would be a good stimulant for the campaign, he added.

Dr Abdullah Al-Harbi, professor of statistics, said he considered the drive a religious obligation for each individual. He thanked Makkah Governor Prince Abdul Majeed who has sponsored the program. Other university staff described the campaign as an ideal means of fundraising, with each person having to contribute only a riyal for a worthy cause.


EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it

International Ad Campaign opposing Palestinian state

Fifty prominent Jewish and Christian leaders, as well as former U.S. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and former Secretary of Education William Bennett, have signed a full-page newspaper advertisement opposing the creation of a Palestinian Arab state, sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). IMRA has the scoop.

The ad will be appearing in the days to come in the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, leading Israeli newspapers such as Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post, and Jewish newspapers throughout the United States.

The ad is headlined "President Bush, Creating a Palestinian Arab State Means Creating a New Terrorist State. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya were given sovereignty. That didn't turn them into peace-loving nations."

The ad is signed by:

Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; William J. Bennett, Former U.S. Secretary of Education and author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism; Ambassador Alan Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; Gary Bauer, president of American Values and former senior White House aide; the Rev. Dr. Pat Robertson, Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network and host of the "700 Club" television show; ZOA National President Morton A. Klein; Former U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota; Irwin Hochberg, Past Chairman of the Board of the UJA-Federation of New York and past National Campaign Chair of Israel Bonds; and Leon Levy and Rabbi Herschel Schachter, who are both past chairmen of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Other signatories include author Midge Decter; two past national executive directors of AIPAC, Neal Sher and Morris Amitay; Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; Pastor Dr. James H. Hutchens, U.S. Army Brigadier-General (ret.), past Deputy Chief Chaplain of the U.S. Army, and president of Christians for Israel; Rabbi Joseph P. Sternstein, past president of the Jewish National Fund; Janet Parshall, the nationally syndicated radio talk show host; Daniel Weiss, National Commander of the Jewish War Veterans USA; Dr. Julio Messer, president of Americans Friends of Likud; Harvey Friedman, past National AIPAC Vice President; Dr. Arnold M. Soloway, president of the Center for Near East Policy Research; Dr. John C. Hague, host of the Worldwide TV Ministry and pastor of the Cornerstone Church; Frank J. Gaffney Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense and president of the Center for Security Policy; Dr. Alex Grobman, former director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, Esq., president of the National Council of Young Israel; Stephen M. Flatow, Esq., chairman of the Alisa Flatow Memorial Fund; Rev. Dr. Franklin H. Littell, a founding Board Member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; Dr. Michael Franzblau, Life National Commissioner of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); Richard A. Hellman, Esq., president of the Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign; Ed McAteer, president of the National Religious Roundtable; Shimon Erem, a member of the AIPAC Executive Committee; Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, Professor of Medical Ethics & Talmudic Law at Yeshiva University; Michael D. Little, president and CEO of the Christian Broadcasting Network; Nathan Lewin, Esq., Honorary President of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists; Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, past president of the Rabbinical Council of America; Ivan Novick, past chairman of the American Friends of Tel Aviv University; Rosalie Reich, Honorary President of Emunah of America; Gary Erlbaum, vice president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia; Robert I. Lappin, past president of the Jewish Federation of North Shore (MA); Norman Hascoe, President, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs);ZOA national officers Nina Rosenwald, Taffy Gould, Dr. Alan Mazurek, Henry Schwartz, Dr. Michael Goldblatt, Dr. Stanley Benzel, and Michael Orbach; and the singer and actor Ed Ames.

The text of the ad reads:

"President Bush, creating a Palestinian Arab state means creating a new terrorist state.

"Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya were given sovereignty. That didn't turn them into peace-loving nations.

"In his June 24, 2002 speech, President Bush spelled out specific conditions that the Palestinian Arabs must fulfill before the U.S. will support giving them a state.

Here's what happened since:

"Bush's condition: They must 'engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.'"

"The Palestinian Arabs' record: They haven't arrested terrorists, outlawed terror groups, shut down bomb factories, or confiscated the terrorists' tens of thousands of weapons. The Palestinian Authority (PA) itself regularly orders, pays for, and glorifies the murders of Israelis.

"Bush's condition: They must 'end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombings.'"

"The Palestinian Arabs' record: The PA promotes a culture of anti-Jewish and anti-American hatred in its media, schools, summer camps, officials' speeches, and sermons by PA-appointed clergymen.

"Bush's condition: They must 'elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.'"

"The Palestinian Arabs' record: Yasir Arafat and other arch-terrorists are still the leaders of the PA, and the "new" cabinet Arafat recently appointed consists almost entirely of his previous cabinet ministers.

"Bush's condition: They must 'build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.'"

"The Palestinian Arabs' record: Newspapers that dissent from Arafat's line are shut down ... Women are treated as second-class citizens ... Christians are persecuted and pressured to emigrate ... Jewish holy sites are desecrated.

"Mr. President, please don't ignore the Palestinian Arabs' record of violating your conditions. Giving the Palestinian Arabs a sovereign state will only strengthen their underlying culture of hatred and violence. It will enable them to bring in troops and advanced weaponry from Iran, Iraq, and other terror regimes, as well as shoulder-launched missiles --like the ones recently fired at an Israeli airplane in Kenya--which will threaten every plane taking off from Israel's airports.

"No wonder a recent poll by Israel's most respected polling agency, the Hanoch Smith Institute, found 68% of Israelis believe that 'regardless of the size or strength of a Palestinian state, if one is established it will constitute a threat to the State of Israel.'"

The ad concludes by urging readers to send a message to President Bush, applauding his pledge to end terrorist states and asking him to oppose creation of a Palestinian Arab state, which would be a terrorist state.

UK's Middle East talks plan criticised

With Arafat in place, there will be no reforms, says Binyamin Netanyahu
The Israeli Foreign Minister has criticised a British plan for talks with Palestinian leaders, aimed at boosting the Middle East peace process.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday invited Palestinian ministers to London in January, for a conference on Palestinian "reforms".

There's about as much chance of having significant reforms under Arafat as there are... under Saddam Hussein

But Binyamin Netanyahu said the talks would be futile as long as Yasser Arafat - not himself invited to the talks - was leader of the Palestinian Authority.

Mr Netanyahu, who is flying to London on Friday for a meeting with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, said there was no political room for reform under Mr Arafat's leadership.
This is what Syria seems to have told its client state Lebanon to do. Let freedom ring.Lebanon bans TV spots aimed at improving US image
Der Meister-appeaser von Berlin (with obeisance to Wagner)

In the second week of December, 2002, Israeli President Katsav visited Germany and, inevitably, the question of purchasing military hardware by Israel came up.

It will be recalled that in April, 2002, Germany suspended arms sale to Israel as reported by Ha’Aretz on April 16, 2002:
German Defense Minister Rudolph Scharping confirmed Sunday that his country has temporarily suspended the sale of military equipment to Israel.
The reports as to whether Mr Katsav succeeded in having the Germans remove the embargo are quite ambiguous. One report suggests that the Germans will not supply Israel with the APC’s Israel wishes to buy (though, I am sure, Germany will be most happy to sell as many BMW’s as North America can absorb). The Jerusalem Post reported on November 30 that:
Exports of armaments which could be used for offensive purposes are vetted by Germany's secretive Federal Security Council. Government policy is to block such deliveries to areas of conflict.

A Defense Ministry official, Hans Georg-Wagner, said Friday that he was "absolutely sure" that the council would oppose the Israeli request for the APCs.
To illustrate the hypocrisy of the German attitude, note that Germany may have major problems with “areas of conflict” when it comes to Israel, but not when Iraq is concerned. This statement may be illustrated by a news story in Deutsche Welle, December 12, 2002, which, confirming what everyone already knows, stated:
Iraq’s declaration of its weapons programs contains explosive news for Germany, a Berlin paper has reported. The dossier is said to detail covert arms deals between German defense firms and Iraq.

Just as the heated debates within the German government over the role of German troops and equipment in a possible war against Iraq seem to be cooling down, another potential bombshell threatens to reignite the fires.

On Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung reported that aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons programs, submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly embarrassing for Germany.

The newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the top-secret dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains the names of 80 German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said to have helped Iraq develop its weapons program.

Germany, Iraq’s number one arms supplier?

The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq.

They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.

In some cases, conventional military and technical dealings between Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the second Gulf war and a time when international sanctions against Saddam Hussein are still in place.

These facts notwithstanding, Germany has been perpetuating the myth that she is “Israel’s best friend after the US”; since Germans have a reputation for precision, may I humbly suggest that it would be more appropriate to rephrase the epithet to read, “Israel’s less-hostile enemy”.

In fact, hostile steps against Israel are very much in line with Germany’s policy of appeasement towards the Arab states, a policy that has led to hostile steps against the US as well. For the record, two sets of facts warrant emphasis and documentation.

First, let us illustrate the German anti-US steps, by recalling the obstacles the German leadership keeps laying on the US path to disarm Iraq of WMD. Thus, on August 3, 2002, CNN (or Google cached) reported:
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer have cautioned against a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, stressing the need to solve the broader Middle East conflict first.

The broader Middle East conflict first part is, of course, DiploSpeak for “go bully Israel”; the “first” implies never opposing Iraq, since the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is not about to be resolved.

Germany is also not a country to pass an opportunity for petty jibes and cheap shots, as the following AP news story, dated August 31, 2002, indicates:
Germany has told the United States it will withhold evidence against Sept. 11 conspiracy defendant Zacarias Moussaoui unless it receives assurances that the material won't be used to secure a death penalty against him, Germany's justice minister said in remarks released Saturday.
Second, Germany’s history of appeasing Arabs is as long as it is sordid. On December 14, 2002, for example the Jerusalem Post reported about Germany’s “progress” in pursuing the investigation of the terrorists who murdered 16 people, of whom eleven were German tourists, in Tunis on 11 April, 2002:
A second man under investigation in connection with a deadly attack on a Tunisian synagogue in April has left Germany, a German news magazine reported Saturday.

The man left Germany for Sudan back in May, the Der Spiegel weekly reported. It identified him only as Musa A.

According to the report, investigators suspect the man of being a recruiter for the al-Qaida terror network. A month before the attack on the Tunisian resort island of Djerba, he had traveled to Saudi Arabia, from where he brought back videos featuring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the report said.
That sure rings a bell - many bells, in fact.

Following is an account of the German connection to Pan Am flight 103, as told by:

Livingstone, Neil C. and Halevy, David. Insiee the PLO. New York: William Morrow, 1990. Quotation are from pp. 212-216; bold font added.

Flashback to September 1988. Jibril’s people (of the PFLP-GC terrorist gang) in Germany were busy plotting the demise of Pan Am flight 103 in cahoots with the Iranian government. The Palestinian liaison operative who connected the Iranians, the PFLP and the terrorists who actually planted the bomb was Hafez el-Dalkamuni.
In September 1988, Dalkamuni surfaced in West Germany and immediately was detected by agents of Israel's Mossad. The Israelis tipped off West German authorities, who ultimately arrested Dalkamuni and twelve other PFLP-GC operators, after raiding PFLP-GC safe houses. Despite the fact that the West Germans discovered two fully assembled bombs with barometric detonators set for thirty-one thousand feet, which were clearly designed to be used against jetliners, they failed to mobilize quickly to head off a disaster.
Despite their discovery of a large stock of weapons and explosives, including eleven pounds of the Czech plastic explosive Semtex, in the terrorist safe houses, the West German authorities released all PFLP-GC members but Dalkamuni and Abdel Ghandanfar. Ghandanfar is believed to be an Iranian, although he doesn't appear under that or any other name in any of the major data banks of Western intelligence agencies. The West Germans said they had insufficient evidence to hold the others.
All of the PFLP-GC operators who were released immediately went underground and most slipped out of the country, returning to either Lebanon or Syria. In addition to the two jailed members of the organization, two other members remained behind: a bomb technician and a Palestinian known in intelligence slang as a "charmer."
As soon as the bomb technician was sure that the bomb was working properly and the “package" had been delivered, the two PFLP-GC operators departed Germany, at least initially for Libya and Algeria. On December 21, four days before Christmas, Pan Am Flight 103, with 259 people on board, left London's Heathrow Airport. As it reached cruising height, thirty-one thousand feet, it exploded in midair [over Lockerbie].
Two days after Pan Am 103 went down, the Iranian Embassy in Beirut received a communication from the Interior Ministry in Teheran, which was intercepted. In this message, Teheran congratulated the ambassador on a "successful operation" and gave instructions to hand over the rest of the funds promised to the PFLP-GC.
Had we not known what transpired before 1988, we could have granted the Germans the benefit of the doubt for releasing the terrorists whom they arrested. But we know a great deal about the dealings of the Germans with terrorists, as the following narrative will outline. In his recent book on terrorism, Alan Dershowitz lists an endless succession of incidents in which the Germans caved in to terrorism. The following quotation is taken from pp. 39-47 of:

Dershowitz, Alan M. Why Terrorism Works. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

[On February 11, 1970] an airplane bus taking passengers to an EL AL plane at the Munich airport was attacked. One Israeli was killed and eight people were wounded. Three Arabs were arrested but quickly freed following another hijacking.
[Shortly afterwards] three Arabs were arrested for conspiring to hijack an El AI plane in Munich. They were sentenced to three months' imprisonment but were released after two months.
In December 1970, five Arab terrorists were arrested for conspiring to sabotage an E1 AI plane. They served a three-month sentence in Germany.
This record of German appeasement set the stage for the “mother of all appeasements” - the case of the 1972 Munich massacre. After eight terrorists seized eleven Israeli Olympic athletes, the Germans bungled a rescue operation in which all the seized athletes were murdered. The Germans, did, however, capture three of the terrorists. But...
... not one of them was ever brought to trial.

Less than two months after the murders, Chancellor Willy Brandt made a secret deal with the Palestinian terrorists. Together they arranged for other Palestinian terrorists to hijack a Lufthansa plane from Beirut carrying eleven German men and a skeleton crew and to hold these Germans hostage, threatening to kill them unless the three Munich murderers were flown to freedom in an Arab country... Feigning terror at the prospect of Germans being murdered on a Lufthansa plane, Brandt gave in to the "demands" of these terrorists. Many observers suspected that the Lufthansa hijacking had been staged by the Brandt government to concoct an excuse for releasing the three terrorists, as a way of avoiding a real hijacking. Until recently there was no proof of this cynical secret deal between the government that had botched the rescue of the Israeli Olympic team and the terrorists who had murdered the Israelis, but it has now been confirmed by both Palestinian and German sources that the Lufthansa hijacking was a sham and that the Germans were all too eager to free the murderers.

The captured terrorists were released, receiving a hero's welcome when they returned home.
The Israeli secret service subsequently assassinated two of the three surviving Munich terrorists. The third remains alive, residing somewhere in Africa with his wife and two children.
On March 2, 1973, only five months later, the Palestinian terrorists murdered Cleo Noel, the US ambassador to Khartoum.

Here is a thought to conclude this tale of woe. If you were a politician involved in caving in to terrorists, you might feel unconsciously dishonourable. And you too might seek a framework that would mitigate the shame by contending, for example, that the Palestinian-Arabs’ cause is just, and that the “sh---y little country” (to quote the heirs of Petain) is a menace to the world anyway. As soon as you start believing these myths, the disgrace of appeasement is reduced. I wouldn’t be surprised if this psychological mechanism is at least partially behind the rabid anti-Israeli policies of the European entity.

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland. This piece is cross-posted on IsraPundit and Dawson Speaks.

al Qaida Statement Regarding US War with Iraq

Internet Haganah has posted this translation of al Qaida's statement regarding an upcoming war between the United States and Iraq.

"The Iraqi conflict in light of the experience of the war with the Americans in Afghanistan"
by Salm al-Maqi

Summary of this article

1. The motives for the war against Iraq
2. The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Political and military advice from the experience of the war against the Americans

1.The Protestant US and its allies (Jews, and English first, then Catholics like France and Italy) is working towards world domination. They want to be the sole benefactor of the world's riches in matter and people. However, the allies have disagreements on the share of the spoils each of them should get. We (Muslims) should take advantage of this window opportunity before it shuts down, when they agree to share the spoils each by his natural power and ability to destroy. The author even claims that the Muslims are just the first - on the way are the Catholics, and then the Pagans - India, China, Japan, North Korea and several African countries. Stresses that the cause for the war is religious.

2. The US goes to total war in the arab area to achieve its interests that stem from its treaties and economy. (This is the best part - TRANS.) Those interests are tied to the Jewish enemy whose dream is to erect the temple, achieve the "big Israel", their persisting will to rule the sources of wealth in the world, and the turning of humanity into slaves in their fields and factories. (How come I never knew I wanted to do all that? TRANS.). Mentions the Republican party and how they'd support Israel in anything for religious reasons, thinking we'll bring Armageddon. They're afraid of the Muslim ways of Jihad, born in the war against the Russians in Afghanistan, and also think that Islam is evil and should be destroyed in Armageddon. Another reason for war is the economic destruction that the US suffers from since the years of the cold war, which was enhanced by the blessed strikes of the believers in New York and Washington. To solve this problem they want to control the oil of the gulf, from Iraq to the Emirates.

3. In going to war the US wants to achieve the following goals:
a. The foundation of a "Big Israel", ensuring its military dominance over all its neighbors, and making it the policeman of the middle east, working on behalf of the American interests.

b. The destruction of the Arab military force, and taking away all its different types of weapons to ensure the Jewish existence in the area for the religious purposes mentioned above (Armageddon etc. - TRANS.)

c. Stopping the Arab growth of population in the area, by having millions of them killed trying to prevent the Jewish spread in the area.

d. The re-drawing of the political map in the area, widen the disagreements between arab countries, especially populous ones like Egypt, Iraq and Iran on the question of the Jewish presence.

e. The control of the rich areas by putting them under direct occupation, or in the hands of cooperators, to facilitate getting out of the economic state of destruction and secure the welfare of the American citizens.

f. The de-militarization of the rest of the world so they'll bow to the Christian-Jewish way and become slaves under white man domination.
Conclusion: We see that the western persecution is not concerned with Muslims alone, but also with the eastern Christians, who follow a different path from the western (Protestant) alliance with the Jews. The eastern Christians, those in Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Lebanon, Palestine, Eastern Europe and Russia should join the Muslim in an alliance against the western alliance. This is the opportunity. I eagerly expect the coming war. We don't know how this will come to pass and when. All is in the hands of Allah.

A Thought On Israel Bashers In Israel
By Steven Plaut

For many years, it has been obvious to us that anti-Israel propaganda and Israel bashing around the world are little more than disguised anti-Semitism. No one on earth really cares about the Palestinians, least of all Palestinian leaders. People pretend to care about the Palestinians because this helps them delegitimize Israel.

When King Hussein of Jordan murdered 10,000 Palestinians in September 1970, no one cared about the Palestinians, no one noticed they were having their "rights violated" no one thought they needed "self-determination". More generally, the world does not care about Arabs being killed unless it is Israel doing the killing in self-defense. When 100,000 Algerian civilians are murdered, no one notices. When far more are murdered in Sudan, no one notices. When Saddam Hussein gasses his own people, when Asad massacres 10,000 in Hama in Syria, no one cares or notices. But when Israel kills 20 people in Jenin while hunting down mass murderers who have murdered hundreds of Jews (many of them children), that is genocide and a war crime. And when Palestinians murder 1200 Israelis after signing the Oslo accords, that is protest against occupation.

Israel-bashing is naked anti-Semitism. The bulk of Israeli "critics" are motivated not by a desire to see this or that specific policy of Israel altered, a camp to which I myself would belong in spades, but rather who seek to see Israel destroyed. They object to Israeli military actions because they do not think Israel should employ its military to defend itself at all. They believe that the only legitimate response to Arab atrocities is Israeli capitulation and self-annihilation.

Now none of this is particularly new. What is new is the following. Why on earth should we consider people in Israel who espouse the same anti-Israel rhetoric as any different from these overseas anti-Semites? Why should we believe that people whose every waking hour is devoted to "defending Palestinian rights" are anti-Semites when they are overseas, but simply caring liberals when they are in Israel? Why should we regard those who insist that Israel must never use its military to defend itself to be anti-Semites when they are in Europe but compassionate peace seekers when they are in Israel? We regard those people who insist that the only permissible response by Israel to terrorist atrocities is capitulation to be in reality those seeking Israel's destruction when they are NOT in Israel. Why should we regard them otherwise when they happen to be Israelis?

via IMRA
At a ceremony in Gaza, under the heading "Palestine and Iraq in the same trench", 25 Palestinian families of Shahids [those who died for Allah] received grants from Saddam Hussein totaling $280,000. Sketches of Arafat and Saddam Hussein appeared together on a poster beside the Iraqi and Palestinian flags.

During the ceremony support was expressed for Iraq in its coming battle with the United States and one of the speakers, the poet Omar Halil Omar, "praised the role of Iraq and the Commander Saddam Hussein, and stressed that Iraq's land will be a graveyard for the American soldiers..." [Al Hayat Al Jadida, Dec. 19, 2002]



December 19, 2002

Bordering on obsession.

It is a cruel and ruthless military occupation, one which has persisted for decades and been declared illegal by international organizations. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been turned into refugees, as settlers sent by the occupying power slowly but steadily alter the tenuous demographic balance. Human-rights abuses are rampant, and although the government signed a peace treaty years ago, intended to grant the residents a voice in determining their own future, it has done everything in its power to prevent the deal from being realized.

Welcome to Western Sahara, a large strip of land subjugated by Morocco along northern Africa's Atlantic coastline. If you have not heard of the area, nor of its myriad problems, that is probably because it receives little if any coverage in the Western press. Apparently the world is too busy berating Israel for defending itself against the Palestinians to take much notice, particularly since it is an Arab state doing the "occupying."

Cases such as Western Sahara provide the most compelling proof of the international community's double standard regarding Israel and various other global conflicts. For all the attention devoted to every IDF roadblock set up, every curfew enforced and every Palestinian terrorist's home demolished, virtually nothing is said or heard when it comes to other land disputes, such as Morocco's brutal occupation of its neighbor.

In 1975, after the Spanish colonial regime in Western Sahara was withdrawn, the region's populace, known as the Sahrawis, looked forward to finally obtaining their long sought-after independence. Their hopes, however, were quickly dashed when the Moroccan army invaded, seizing control and claiming the area as its own.

In October 1975, the International Court of Justice ruled that Morocco's claim to the area was illegitimate, issuing an advisory opinion stating there was insufficient evidence to support "any tie of territorial sovereignty" between Western Sahara and Morocco. The Organization of African Unity, as well as some 75 nations worldwide, rejected Morocco's position and recognized the Sahrawi government-in-exile as the area's legitimate ruler.

But that has not stopped the Moroccans from pursuing their expansionist aims. Since the very beginning of their occupation they have been pouring money, resources and settlers into the area in a brazen attempt to "Moroccanize" Western Sahara and undermine any chance of it achieving freedom.

In 1980 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recognizing "the inalienable right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination and independence" and expressed "deep concern" at the aggravation of the situation in Western Sahara as a result of the continued occupation of that territory by Morocco.

Though a 1991 UN-brokered cease-fire was meant to give the Sahrawis a choice between autonomy under Moroccan rule or outright independence, the Moroccan monarchy has spent the past 11 years hindering, delaying and stalling, and no vote has taken place.

AS FAR back as 1995 Human Rights Watch concluded that Morocco "has regularly engaged in conduct that has obstructed and compromised the fairness of the referendum process." In February this year 23 US Congressmen wrote to President George W. Bush accusing Morocco of having "created various obstacles to the referendum." Meanwhile, some 200,000 Sahrawi refugees languish in camps in neighboring Algeria, living in terrible conditions and afraid of returning home.

But the world, it seems, has little patience for such matters, preferring to court Morocco's King Muhammad VI rather than confront him about his country's policies. As a result, barely a peep is heard about the plight of Western Sahara. Indeed, how often does the international media file reports from "occupied Western Sahara"? How frequently do television and radio talk shows discuss Rabat's attempts to forge "Greater Morocco"? How many stories have appeared about gun-toting Moroccan settlers, backed by a trigger-happy army, moving in and displacing hapless Sahrawis from their homes? The answer speaks for itself.

The fact is that the media and various international groups place undue emphasis often bordering on obsession on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. We are bombarded so often with news and information about Israel and the Palestinians that it often seems to be the only crisis in the world other than Iraq and terrorism.

Take, for example, the European Union, whose Council of Presidents met in Copenhagen last week for a two-day summit. In a statement released after the meeting, just two major international issues, aside from the EU's expansion, received special mention: the Iraq crisis and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the latter being the only conflict over
borders to merit such attention. And yet there are plenty of other border disputes out there, some of which pose a potentially far greater threat to international peace and security.

There was no mention in the EU statement of the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir, of China's insatiable desire to swallow Taiwan, or even of Russia's ongoing war in Chechnya, despite the fact that the protagonists in these conflicts all possess nuclear-weapons arsenals.

Instead the Europeans chose to devote their energies to sharply condemning the expansion of Jewish housing construction in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as if the addition of an extra bathroom or the refurbishing of a Jewish family's kitchen is a threat to global peace and stability.

This singular fixation on Israel is not only outlandish, it is hypocritical as well. Jews may indeed be news, as the old saying goes, but that doesn't mean all the news must be about Jews, and only about Jews. There are many other compelling human dramas out there such as the Sahrawis of Western Sahara which have yet to be scrutinized and dealt with.

By leaving these stories untold and instead focusing so intently on Israel, the international community is betraying not only its mandate, but its fairness and objectivity as well. And ultimately that is to everyone's detriment.

The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the (UK) Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999. (Courtesy of Tomer Schwartz, chairperson of Union of Israeli Students in the UK).

(Crossposted here).


[via JTA] Apparently the Board of Education of Newark doesn't mind that soon to be former NJ Poet Laureate is an overt bigot. They have appointed him Poet Laureate of their school district.

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) Critics of Amiri Baraka — the state's embattled poet laureate — have criticized city school officials for appointing him to the same position in the district.

The appointment, announced Nov. 26 at a Board of Education meeting, has reignited the debate over “Somebody Blew Up America,” a Sept. 11 memorial poem that some have labeled anti-Semitic.

Many critics and Jewish groups, who only learned of the appointment within the past few days, questioned why the move was made.

School officials unanimously approved the appointment, citing Baraka's achievements in poetry and his long-standing commitment to the city.

This item is cross posted on

Belgium, Islam and the Boomerang of “Multiculturalism”

Michael Radu, in an article published in Front Page Mag reports
With some 20 million Moslems, Western Europe is increasingly having to face the issue of their unwillingness to play by the historic rules of immigration – assimilation and respect for national laws. Long avoided by the cultural and political elites, the issue is being brought to the fore by radical, vocal and media savvy, albeit often self appointed spokesmen of the Moslem populations , as well as by an electorate increasingly fed up with high immigrant numbers, criminality and refusal to adapt to local customs. Not surprisingly, the more "tolerant, progressive and open minded" a country, the more likely that such problems become critical. While few European countries are more "progressive and open minded" than little Belgium, its recent problems with the Moslems serve as a likely preview for the others. MORE
This problem is just in its infancy. Its not going away.
The Muslims, both in America and in Europe, are growing in number, power and influence. And they are just getting started. The liberal West is unprepared for their onslaught. Luckily those on the right are girding for battle. But they too, are just getting started.

In essence, the Islamicists are using our own values of freedom, free speech and the rule of law to impose on the West their presence and their values. Saudi Arabia sees it as its duty to "to raise the banner of Islam all over the globe and raise the Islamic call either inside or outside the Kingdom." as was quoted in the Article below "The Saudis are Coming".

Taken individually, there are many demands that we can't quarrel with, but taken collectively, there is a revolution going on. Europe is at the head of the curve and the US is soon to follow. This revolution seeks to Islamicize the West and impose shaari law and values. I call it Islamic imperialism. You think it won't happen. Don't be too sure.

So far our values have worked to make us stronger. Regrettably, I feel these same values make us vulnerable to unintended consequences and will work to our disadvantage. The enemy is motivated and well financed. We must gird our loins for battle.


Man Gets Life for Following False Prophet:
MULTAN, Pakistan (Reuters) - A Pakistani man has been sentenced to life in prison under the country's blasphemy laws for being a follower of a self-proclaimed prophet, court officials said Thursday.

Ahsan Azamtullah, 45, was convicted of being a disciple of Sardar Ahmed, a self-proclaimed prophet who died in prison last year after a prolonged bout of mental illness, officials said.

Azamtullah was also fined $1,700 in the verdict handed down Wednesday by a court in the eastern Pakistani town of Faisalabad.

Another man and woman are being sought to answer similar charges.

In Islam, the prophet Mohammad has been declared the last messenger from God. Under the law in Pakistan, an Islamic nation, those claiming to be latter-day prophets are guilty of blasphemy, which carries the maximum death penalty.

And this story is buried in Yahoo's "Oddly Enough" section. Yes, oddly enough this man is going to rot in jail for blasphemy.

Bravo to Reuters for it's ability to be "neutral" in it's reporting of the rules of this death cult.

I can't help but feel that cold "objectivity" on matters like this, is not possible, and striving to archive it only lends credibility to the barbarism being covered.

This entry is cross posted on

Palestinians support continued suicide bombings, violence against Israel

Most Palestinians believe suicide bombings against Israel are justified and only a handful support ending the violent uprising that has claimed nearly 2,700 lives on both sides, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Some 63 percent of 1,200 Palestinians surveyed said suicide bombings should continue, and only 17 percent said they oppose the intefadeh, 26 months of violence that has claimed the lives of 1,997 Palestinians and 685 Israelis. Eighty percent said the intefadeh should continue.

For more specific results see IMRA

The Saudis are Coming. The Saudis are Coming

Jewish World Review presents an article by Benjamin Shapiro entitled King Fahd's plan to conquer America .

We'd better take cover.
The King Abdulaziz Chair for Islamic Studies. The King Fahd Chair for Islamic Shariah Studies. The Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies. The H.E. Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani Islamic Legal Studies Fund. The King Fahd Chair of Oncology and Pediatrics. The Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund.

That's an awful lot of Arabic and Islam. If all that didn't faze you, maybe this will: All of these institutions are here, in the United States. All of them are branches of American universities. And all are financed by Saudi Arabia. In order, the above institutions exist at: the University of California at Santa Barbara, Harvard University Law School, the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard University Law School, Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University Law School. Rice University has taken Saudi money for implementation of an Islamic Studies Chair. The Saudis have also set up research institutes at Duke University, Syracuse University, American University of Colorado, American University in Washington, D.C., and Howard University.

It is no secret that the Saudi government supports terror. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Saudis most likely funded the attacks, at least in part, and the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States allegedly funneled money to the Sept. 11 terrorists. The Saudis raise money for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Saudis practice a radical form of Islam called Wahabbi-ism, which promotes the imperialistic spread of Islam through jihad.

It is possible that all of this Saudi money is innocent charity. It is also possible that chickens wear yellow moon-boots and run around at night screaming: "The flying monkeys are coming."

The Saudis see "charity" to Americans as a way to promote their political and religious propaganda. Remember, right after Sept. 11, when Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talul bin Abdul Aziz, nephew to King Fahd, offered $10 million to victims of the terrorist attacks? After proposing the donation, he took the opportunity to spout his political views, criticizing U.S. Middle East policy, especially with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict: "Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis as the world (looks the other way)." Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York rejected the donation on the spot.

Similarly, Saudi "charity" to American universities is nothing but a ruse. The Saudi motive is clearly stated by the official Saudi English weekly Ain-Al-Yaqeen, in describing donations to U.S. colleges: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz, has positively shouldered its responsibility, and played a pioneering role in order to raise the banner of Islam all over the globe and raise the Islamic call either inside or outside the Kingdom."

The King Abdulaziz Chair for Islamic Studies at the University of California in Santa Barbara is held by Professor R. Stephen Humphreys. Humphreys is former chair of the Middle Eastern Studies Association (MESA), the overarching organization that governs Middle Eastern Studies programs around the country. MESA is far-left, an organizational apologist for Islamic terror (as detailed by Martin Kramer in his book, "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America").

The King Fahd Chair for Islamic Shariah Studies at Harvard University Law School is run by Professor Frank Edward Vogel, "The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Adjunct Professor of Islamic Legal Studies." Vogel's self-stated goal has been to "dissipate the ignorance of Islamic law, with its complex history of social, political and religious change." Wonder what that Nigerian woman sentenced to death for bearing a child out of wedlock thinks about Sharia's "complex history of social, political and religious change."

The Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies at UC Berkeley was established by a Saudi Arabian foundation led by Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the Saudi ambassador to the United States (yes, the one whose wife allegedly funds terrorists).

The Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund at Harvard Law School is perhaps the most disturbing of all Saudi causes. If you recognize the name of the fund, you should -- the namesake is a brother of Osama Bin Ladin. This fund is used to bring "visiting scholars" to study law at Harvard. One stipulation is that the "scholar" be a citizen of a predominantly Muslim country.

There is something deeply wrong here. The Saudi Arabian government views our culture as its enemy, yet it rushes to stuff American colleges with money. It uses our universities as propaganda machines. It uses them as research facilities. It may even use them as terrorist havens. Will it take another Sept. 11 before we look more closely at the insidious Saudi invasion of our higher education system?
At last!

For too long, opponents of a second Palestinian-Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza have been few and their voices have been muted.

President Bush, creating a Palestinian Arab state means creating a new terrorist state
and is signed by such supporters of Israel as Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, William J. Bennett, and Alan Keyes.

As “ordinary citizens" we should do our bit too, and let our political leaders know where we stand on this issue. Every little push helps.

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland. This piece is cross-posted on IsraPundit and Dawson Speaks.

One man's restraint is another man's poison

Emananuel A. Winston writes in The Legacy of Restrained Engagement the word and the actuality of "restraint" have different meanings and different results. "Restrained engagement" in the face of terrorism seems to be a formula of self-sacrifice for no reason whatsoever.

US President George W. Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell have been insisting that Israel show restraint in punishing the Arab Palestinians after every major homicide bombing or shooting attack.

"Restraint" in the face of terrorism is a formula for more casualties, longer wars and always the probability of terror re-emerging after a "restrained" assault and early withdrawal. This, then, is the formula Bush/Powell has placed on the shoulders of Israel. Having done so has resulted in a rapid growth of terrorist organizations, who have learned from Israel’s "restrained" incursions. Mr. Bush has shot us all in the foot.

The concept of "restrained engagement" is a by-product of the philosophy of pacifists, who believe that if you do not hit the enemy too hard, they will appreciate the "restraint" and show friendliness in the end. That is pure State Department appeasement.

Release the hounds...

Vietnam a blueprint for Arafat?

What follows is an article by the inestimable Joseph Farah

"It's working, again.

An evil, manipulative, propaganda campaign hatched nearly 33 years ago when top officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization traveled to North Vietnam to meet with Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap is turning Israel's problems with Arab terrorism into another Vietnam.

Ever since that meeting in Hanoi in 1970, in which the Vietnamese Communists recounted their success in influencing the U.S. and Western media and undercutting the American will to fight, Yasser Arafat's strategy has been shaped by the Vietnam model.

In a conventional war, the U.S. could not have been defeated in Vietnam. U.S. military forces won every battle it fought. Yet, the nation's commitment was undermined by a war of attrition and a war of propaganda.

The uprising led and inspired by Arafat over the last two years is the culmination of his 33-year quest for a violent eruption that will compel Israel to surrender – surrender its territory, surrender its sovereignty, surrender its will, surrender, ultimately, its very existence.

Terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky foretold the events we have experienced since the eruption of the 2000 Intifada in a paper he wrote in 1997 – "Arafat's 'Peace Process.'" The outbreak of violence was predictable back then. And it has followed the script first drafted in that 1970 meeting between the PLO and the North Vietnamese.

The PLO asked the Vietnamese back then why their "armed struggle" was considered terrorism while the Vietnamese struggle had gained acceptance, approval and even support through much of the West.

"The Vietnamese attributed this phenomenon to the different packaging of the goals of the two liberation movements," wrote Bodansky. "The Vietnamese team then agreed to sit with the PLO delegation and develop a program for the Palestinians. The Vietnamese told the PLO to develop appealing, catchy programs that would appear flexible and moderate. The appearance of political programs should be based on the principle that in dealing with the U.S. one must 'sacrifice the unimportant if only in order to preserve the essential.'"

Yes, the PLO got media training from the Vietnamese. They got advice on appealing to liberal political groups – even on ways to court the Jewish community, which, at that time formed a solid bedrock of support for the Jewish state.

"The Palestinians were taught how to manipulate and exploit these subjects and how the West could not stomach the sight of blood and casualties," Bodansky relates.

From the start, the final objective was always the same – the destruction of the state of Israel. But it was the Vietnamese who helped persuade the PLO to consider as an interim step the acceptance of an Arab mini-state – because that was a goal the U.S. and the West would embrace.

What we are witnessing today, as a result, is a years-long "Tet Offensive" – one that, like the original, was not designed to win a military victory over superior forces but, rather, "to shatter the resolve and determination of the Israeli population."

"Washington will apply tremendous pressure on Jerusalem to offer additional unilateral concessions just to avoid the collapse of the 'peace process' and Arafat is convinced he can win the resultant media battle," Bodansky predicted nearly six years ago.

That was the lesson the Vietnamese taught Arafat. Arafat learned it well. Is there any question that the plan is succeeding? Is there any question the major players have followed the script crafted by Hanoi?

Here's what Bodansky said would come next: "Arafat intends to build pressure on Israel through gradual escalation and expansion of violence. Through a major provocation, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) may 'invade' Zone A – the main Arab cities controlled by the PA (Palestinian Authority). Such an escalation will bleed Israel, incite the 'peace camp' opposition and embarrass the U.S. government with carnage against Arab civilians (to be placed intentionally in harm's way and in front of TV cameras)."

History is repeating itself in the Mideast – not by accident, but by careful, cold, crude political calculation."
The Universe, according to Arafat or N. Vietnam, is far. But I think it will be up staged by the Big Bang Theory.

Head of Palestinian Authority special forces responsible for a terrorist cell

IDF forces, in cooperation with the Israel Security Agency arrested the head of the Palestinian Authority special forces, who was also one of the commanders of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Bethlehem. The brigade is the military wing of the Fatah organization.
Rafat Nafz Rashad Gaobara, 29, was arrested yesterday morning in a safe-house in Bethlehem.

An organization of terrorist cells

Since the beginning of the conflict, Gaobara has been involved in the organization of terrorist cells to carry out numerous shooting attacks emanating from Bethlehem towards the Jerusalem neighborhood, Gilo. In addition, he dispatched suicide bomber, Muhamad Da'ar Yassin, who carried out the suicide attack in a supermarket in Efrat on 22 Feb. 2002, in which one person was wounded. Rafat planned to carry out additional terrorist attacks in the near future.

Additional wanted terrorist responsible for the murder of five Israelis Arrested

In addition, a Tanzim militant, Bahar Halil Sahada Najar, was arrested. Bahar was involved in shooting attacks, mostly in Hebron, including the attack on an Israeli vehicle at the Zif Junction, 8 Oct. 2002, in which Oded Walk was killed and three others were injured. He also participated in the July 26, 2002, attack on two Israeli vehicles at the Halat el-Miah Junction, near Hebron. As a result of the attack, three residents of Psagot were killed including Yossi Hani, Shrial Dikstein and IDF soldier Elizar Libowietz. Three additional people were injured.

Israel and the Free Market

Daniel Doron, who "is president of The Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank" (e-mail:, writes excellent op-eds in the Jerusalem Post regarding the Israeli economy and free-market ideas, and they are all worth reading. His latest is here. His website is here.
A Metaphorical and Very Short History of the Oppression of Israelis

I think many critics of Israel don't know the recent history of the country or don't see the forest for the trees. I found it helpful to write up the forest. There may be important trees missing, even some embarrassing to Israel. But I think it is the genuine forest. I also thought it helped to give most of the players new identities. It might help prejudiced people confront the facts.

We’ll call them Puritans and put them in eastern Massachusetts. Suppose that the Puritans had lived in eastern Massachusetts for millennia. Suppose that in the 7th Century, the Indians (you know, Arabs), occupants of the huge North American landmass, had kicked almost all of the Puritans out of the continent, whereupon they fled to Europe. (A tiny number remained, such that there has always been Puritans in eastern Massachusetts.) A few centuries later, the Vikings (these are the Turks, eh?) come and take over North America. By 1900, the Viking Empire is on its last legs. The British (these are just the British) liberate the Indians from the Vikings, who go home to Vikingland.

Then, the British tell the Puritans of Europe, “Tell you what, we’ll restore you to eastern Massachusetts since everyone hates you and has for no good reason kicked your ass all over the globe for thousands of years.” At this time eastern Massachusetts is a desolate wasteland: a few nomadic Indians, a handful of Puritans (still there), no infrastructure, no architecture. Even hardy plants do not grow on the ground, which is mostly rocks. You could walk around outside naked in eastern Massachusetts with little fear that anyone would see you. If you walked ten miles, you’d see fewer than ten people. So, there is plenty of room for the Puritans’ homecoming. And nobody owned the land; no Indians had mixed their labor with it. So, the British say, “Look, you Indians have an entire continent back, thanks to us. Hardly any of you live in this desolate, tiny, part. We’re going to give it to the Puritans, whom you kicked out 1300 years ago. The Indians there are welcome to stay. But notice that they can also go to any of the vast, open areas of your land, too, so....” The British let thousands of Puritans come from Europe to eastern Massachusetts. From the time they arrive, the Puritans face constant attack from the Indians.

Weirdly, the British decide to double-cross the Puritans and side with the Indians. The British think they need Indians as a geo-strategic ally for the British Empire. They stop bringing the Puritans from Europe, as promised. The European Puritans say, “But the Germans are killing us in ovens. You promised.” The British say, “Shut up.” Furthermore, the British allow the Indians to rape, beat, and murder the Puritans with impunity for two decades. They arrest Puritans who defend themselves. They tell the United Nations, “These Puritans don’t get along well with others.” Finally, the Puritans violently kick the British out and take power, in order to save their lives. The United Nations recognizes Eastern Massachusetts as a Puritan state, out of sympathy for the fact that everyone wants to kill them, and for the fact that the 10% of Puritans in Europe who weren’t exterminated in ovens and who are now homeless refugees, need a place to go. In just a few years, the Puritans build a prosperous country in the desolate wasteland: irrigation, agriculture, infrastructure, industry. Indians have been unable to do this for themselves anywhere in North America; they have always been destitute. Their hatred for the Puritans increases, because of envy and shame. Hundreds of thousands of Indians immigrate to Eastern Mass. Puritans build them four universities, and give them millions in other aid. The Indians get good jobs and have nice lives, unlike the impoverished and bellicose Indians elsewhere in North America, who are constantly at war with each other, as well as with the Puritans.

The entire Indian Nation of North America tries for the entire second half of the 20th Century to kill all the Puritans, and they send invading armies, money, armaments. In the late ’40’s, the Indian Nation of North America tells many of the Eastern Massachusetts Indians to leave their homes and become refugees in order to make room for the invading Indian armies. The Puritans defend themselves successfully against the invasion. The world calls this racist oppression of poor Indians and says, “And look at the refugee camps full of homeless Indians you created! Dirty Puritans!” The Puritans maintain defensive armies on the western part of their country. The world calls this an “occupation”. They build towns there. The world calls this “illegal settlements”. Unfortunately, there are mountains in western Massachussetts. They would enable the Indians to stage a devastating attack on the Puritans and, as the Indians themselves promise, "push the Puritans into the sea". So, the Puritans must keep that land or suffer a holocaust of six million again.

In 1964 the Indians invent an ethnicity called “the Eastern Massachusettans”, an ancient Indian tribe with a distinctive culture and a right to self-determination, although they have no genetic or cultural differences from any Indians and have never heard of the concept of “Eastern Massachusettans”. (And had this concept been explained to them, say, in 1880, they would have said, “That’s a weird concept without any resemblance to reality. We’re Indian nomads living at the desolate edge of our country.”)

The leader of the Eastern Mass Indians, Fat Ass, who has been killing Puritans for decades, gets the Nobel Peace Prize for defending the rights of his poor, “oppressed” people. He pow-wows with the Puritans many times, while sending his people to kill as many Puritans as he can in between pow-wows and praising the killers. Any Puritan soldier who responds too violently is court marshaled by the Puritans (500+ court marshaled so far). The Puritans offer Fat Ass a part of Eastern Mass, as his own state, for his people. He responds by killing more Puritans than ever. The Puritans send tanks into the western part of their own country to round up the terrorists. Every country in the world denounces this hostile “invasion” and demands that the Puritans not defend themselves and “give peace a chance”. Even the Puritans’ faithful friend, Greenland (that’s the U.S.), says, “Come on, violence never solves anything.” Meanwhile Greenland has, in just the months before, violently and successfully eliminated the Indians who were invading it and thousands of Greenlanders. The six million Puritans living in Eastern Mass say, “I think we’re all going to be killed.” The rest of the world laughs and says, “That’s the craziest thing we ever heard. Six million Puritans get massacred? Who ever heard of such a thing! Dirty, lying Puritans! Now, stop oppressing Indians!!”

By Jim Ryan. Cross-posted at Philosoblog.

December 18, 2002

Jimmy Carter: Morally Deformed Human Being

Lott's gaffe? Where is the media howling on this: He bangs nails on houses for poor people? He acts like Ghandi and MLK? Ha. This is what Carter says:

"One of the key factors that arouses intense feelings of animosity in the world is the festering problem in the Holy Land, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the inability of Israel to live in peace with its neighbours.

"I think this is the single most disturbing element in animosities and misunderstandings and hatred and even violence in the world.

"I think that is an exacerbating factor in dividing people, not only in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, but also throughout the world."

Yeah, those Jews can't seem to get along with people. What's the matter with them? They are the cause of the world's problems today. The poor Arabs have been oppressed by Jews now for over fifty years. Maybe a final solution is in order. Arabs wouldn't have bombed the WTC if Jews weren't so greedy.

I'm such a naive person. I trust people who act like Jesus or Ghandi. Now it turns out that Carter has a moral deficit. He is subhuman. Am I supposed to believe that he does not think of Arafat as fighting the good fight? Am I supposed to believe that he would not support a Final Solution? Why should I? Today I am ashamed to be an American because he was my president. Ship him off to Europe where they agree with him.

By Jim Ryan. Cross-posted at Philosoblog.
Link via David Foster.

Why does America ask Israel to let its people get blown up?

That is what many of us would like to know, including Claudia Rossett at
Much talk these days centers on the process we've come to call nation-building and the recognition that for peace, one needs democracy. So far, so good. The pity is that there is not more wisdom brought to bear on defending the democracies that already exist, especially that most beleaguered of all free states: Israel.

That might sound strange, given the billions the U.S. spends on Israel's military defense. But undercutting this effort for decades has been the strange history of Washington-backed peace-processing, in which Israel at every turn has been urged to do something that the U.S. itself immediately foreswore after Sept. 11--negotiate, compromise and above all show "restraint" with terrorists and their sponsors.

The folly and the danger of discussing a "peace process" while Israelis daily live with the threat of terrorism.
Time Magazine Person of the Year

Ariel Sharon is at 13.4 %

Patriarch chides Mid-East leaders

...and then goes on to tell Israel to stop this and stop that, as though the contested territories don't require a peace accord in order for Israel to pull out. Odd no mention made of the terror groups who vow to continue killing. Should elected officials step down because Sabbah thinks they should?
Kissenger reappears

Ira Stoll reports Course Set for War, Kissinger Says
“We no longer have any choice except to go forward on Iraq,” Henry Kissinger told a high-powered group at a private lunch in New York yesterday.

He said he considered the question of whether the weapons inspectors find any forbidden weapons in their current round of inspections in Iraq to be “almost irrelevant.”

“The war against Iraq is an integral part of the war on terrorism. How else can we convince the Saudi Arabias of the world that it is too dangerous to collude in challenging the United States?” Mr. Kissinger said in remarks to about 150 of New York’s top businessmen and philanthropists gathered yesterday at the “21” Club for a lunch sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. “The point of no return with respect to Iraq has been passed.”
Wasn't Kissenger supposed to be anti-war according to the N.Y. Times.

Palestinians stormed an office of the UN Relief Work Agency (UNRWA)

Palestinian refugees stormed on Tuesday an office of the UN Relief Work Agency (UNRWA) in southern Lebanon to protest cuts in medical aid which they said led to the death of a heart patient.

Dozens of protesters gathered in front of the main UNRWA office in the southern port city of Tyre to protest Monday's death of Ahmad Salem, a refugee from the nearby Bass camp, an AFP correspondent said.
The UN can't seem to please any of the people, any of the time.

What Matters

The other day I had a discussion with a friend on the Middle East and he said it depends on what matters. And I said, “What does matter?”.

For some, the occupation is what matters and must be ended unilaterally if necessary. History, terror, law and consequences of withdrawal are all irrelevant. Occupation is wrong, evil and immoral. It must end. Israel should get out and let the cards or bodies fall where they may. But is it that simple? Do these “moralists” really care about the occupation as they suggest or is there more afoot.

The Arabs have demonstrated time and again that they care not for the welfare of their occupied brethren having done nothing to alleviate their condition for over fifty years. What they want is to reverse the defeat of 1948 and annihilate Israel.

The EU is wedded to the “peace process” and the creation of a Palestinian State. Nothing will deflect them. Not the terror, not the avowed aim of the Palestinians to destroy Israel, not the impracticality of such a State, nor the fact that such a State will lead to further attacks on Israel, not the terms of Res. 242 of the Security Council, nor the commitments undertaken by Arafat in the letters delivered by him as part of the Oslo Accords, nor Arafat’s duplicity, not the fact that their money and political support makes the terror possible and certainly not the fact that Israel is a democracy fighting for its life. Why so? In short, Israel’s existence is of no value to them and is an irritant to its relations with the Arabs. If only Israel would disappear, life would be simpler. Europe has always embraced the Arabs and rejected the Jews. It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with immorality. The EU wants to placate the Arabs either because they fear them within and without the EU or because they want to curry favour with them to do business with them while America boycotts them or because their opposition to Israel is a manifestation of their anti-Americanism.

The Left in Israel believes that only withdrawal will gain for Israel, perhaps greater security and a better economy, but more important, the moral high ground. The Left, in general, roots for the under dog which they for various reasons perceive to be the Palestinians. The Left is also anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-American, anti-globalization and anti-capitalist and therefore, for all these reasons, anti-Israel. To them it little matters that the Arabs stand for everything else they hate. As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

And then there are the anti-Semites, which can be found on the left or the right.

All these currents are present in the US. But there is one more factor that the US has to contend with and that is the war Islam or at least a radical part of Islam has declared on it. Since the over throw of the Shah in Iran over 20 years ago, America has been subject to ever increasing violence, terrorism and anti-American incitement emanating from the Arab world with the connivance and support of most Arab countries. After 9/11, America said it was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.

Just as Israel has learned that withdrawal is a sign of weakness that will only encourage more aggression, America, which has yet to really engage the Arabs in a war and has preferred restraint, appeasement or denial, has come to the realization that a change in policy is needed. No more withdrawal. No more negotiation with those that would do them harm. No more prevarication. Only overwhelming force, resolve and determination will succeed.

The US now perceives Israel as being in the front lines of their war against terror. Accordingly it is not in America’s best interest to force Israel to withdraw or in any way reward terror. To do otherwise would totally undermine their credibility. There is only one war on terror and Israel and the US are in it together. They are joined by many other countries that have been the victims of terror.

So, to my mind that is what matters.

Ted Belman

Oil smuggling by Iraq had used coastal waters of Iran. Now Iran tightens the screw Iran closes its waters to oil smuggling by Iraq
More intense anti-Semitism predicted in France

Sadly, this could qualify for a "you don't say" in Best of the Web:

More intense anti-Semitism predicted in France

A permanent social and population base of hostility to Jews exists now in France, which creates a virtual foundation for a new, and more intense, wave of anti-Semitism in the future even as the current wave is abating...

Canada's confusion

Ed Morgan who is a law professor at the University of Toronto and Chairman of Canadian Jewish Congress (Ontario) presents a thoughful analysis of Canada's confusion in matters political and ethical. Some extracts to follow;
Testifying at the deportation hearing of an immigrant found to be a member of the Egyptian al-Jihad movement, an officer in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service disclosed last year that "there are more international terrorist groups here [in Canada] than in any other country in the world."

The government's instinctive tendency to follow France rather than the United States on issues of security and terrorism highlights the distance between it and the country's 300,000 Jews on this issue.

The country's solicitor-general has defended the weak anti-terrorism policy in a way that romanticizes multiculturalism and political pluralism. Some violent groups, he has explained, offer an independent political and social-welfare network for their people, and are therefore different than strictly religious zealots like al-Qaida. It is as if the government perceived Hizbullah, the Tamil Tigers, the Basque ETA and other similar organizations as alternative voices that need to be heard in the multicultural symphony that Canadians have composed.

During the past 20 years, Canadian governments have fostered a policy of official multiculturalism as an effort to counter the insularity of prior eras. The policy has largely succeeded in transforming Anglo parochialism and French xenophobia into an outward-looking society that embraces refugee absorption, free trade, globalization, and the preservation of immigrant cultures as an inherent right.

For a country that has always been dispassionate about patriotism and cultural identity, the ethic of multiculturalism has caught on and grown into a surprising national passion.

The cultural core, in other words, has been hollowed out in favor of the ethnic periphery.

Anti-terrorism policy is where the problem has become the most obvious. Canadian immigration law bars entry to any person who is a "terrorist" or a member of a "terrorist organization," but the government has been loath to define those crucial terms in a coherent way. While most would agree that terrorism entails some form of politicized violence generally aimed at civilians, the prevailing ethic of multiculturalism has prevented some obvious candidates from being included in the list.

Terrorist violence has come to be seen as essentially a matter of political and cultural relativity, with alternative perspectives given room for expression. In the words of the Canadian Supreme Court, the idea is to define terrorism in a way that is not been "open to politicized manipulation, conjecture, and polemical interpretation." The result, however, has been that Canadian authorities have stumbled and bumbled their way through the question of whether some violent people can be let in while others must be kept out.

The problem is that terrorism is seen not so much as a question of defense and security, but of weighing the concerns of multicultural politics. Thus, the government and judiciary allow themselves to imagine that international political violence can under some circumstances be an expression of tolerance rather than its opposite.
All I know is, I don't like it and still don't understand it. The key here is that Canada is identifying with France rather than the US. Since France wants to advance the Palestinian cause at the expense of Israel and has little regard for the victims of terrorism, we must conclude that Canada does likewise. Morgan is too soft on Canada. Canada should be condemned just as France is.