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

January 18, 2003

Ted's Toughts on Diana's thoughts

Setting the stage for transfer

Let me see if I can weigh in on this. I decided to post rather than comment because Diana made some points that need to be addressed.

Diana puts forward the proposition that
Transfer will turn all of the Arab Middle East irredeemably against the United States, Israel's proxy. It isn't now...
First of all, it is hard to imagine how much more they could hate America or how much more they could do to harm America or how much more they could threaten to do. The US is going to knock the crap out of Iraq and the Arabs will learn to live with it instead of vowing vengeance for the rest of their lives. But I do believe Israel is a special case. Even without transfer, the Arabs have a hate on Israel that knows no bounds and has not withered in over fifty years. It is a fantasy to think that they will get over it or that if they got the bomb that they wouldn't find an excuse to use it to create their version of the 'final solution". In that regard, transfer won't make it worse but will reduce the killings and make Israel more defensible.

Unfortunately we will still have to deal with the "bomb" if, as and when they get it. So in that regard nothing will change. But we will be safe from terror and from erosion of our demographics and from the charge of illegal occupation or occupying a whole people or humiliating a people. Well you know the drill. Then we will just have to take the abuse for having transferred them.

But I do not believe we can move them out Kosovo style even if we wanted to. Can you imagine how long it would take to load three million people on buses where we have to drag them on against their will one by one. Equally important is that the Jewish people would never do it because it is just like what the Nazis did to the Jews. This scene will never happen.

I agree with Daniel Pipes who argues, among others, that only a devastating defeat of the Arabs in general will do the trick as it did with Germany and Japan. In '67 Pan Arabism was all the rage and Nasser lead the way. Who knew from Islamicists. The war so utterly devastated the Arabs that Pan Arabism and socialism became a spent force. In its wake Islamicism came of age. So things can change. For better or for worse. Had not the Soviets been there to cushion the blow, the Arabs would have had to face up to their failure as a society.

I believe that America in order to save Diana's ass has to take the Arabs on. I have written many articles to the effect that Islamisation of the World is the goal of the Arabs and they must be stopped. Going into Iraq is the second step in that process after Afghanistan. I forsee a friendly Iraq even if America has to remain there for ten years. Next Hezbollah will be destroyed on the ground by Israel and America will make Syria amend their ways and switch sides. Iran will be next and then Saudi Arabia. So this upcoming war is about much more than Iraq. Then dealing with the Palestinians will be a piece of cake compared to now when they have so many allies. Remember these allies don't care about the Palestinians other than to use them as a proxy to destroy Israel. If they all switch sides there is no point. Then they will get more mileage from cooperating.

Recently I posted an article that explored the option of enlarging Jordan to encompass much of Iraq and some of the oil fields. There would be enough money to provide housing and jobs for the Palestinians in this expanded Jordan. I do not believe that in the absence of coersion that the Palestinians would prefer to live in camps in Palestine rather than to have a normal life in Jordan. The Palestinians will have to be deprogrammed from their hatred and this will take some time. But if you remove their leaderships call to fight and resist and hate, they will go quietly and be better off for it.

This is not a done deal but I see more hope in it to solve the "bomb" question then to try to appease them with further concessions. It is a fact of negotiations that the more anxious you are to get a deal the less you will get assuming that there is a deal available period.

Now back to transfer. Diana imagines transfer in the present climate. I say that we are already being hung for our alleged crimes so what would the difference be. Yes we would lose those that believe in us or our cause. Perhaps, but is this necessarily so? Let us assume that America decided to back the idea of transfer and got the EU to agree (I hear they are for sale) and this became the new Road Map coupled with the defeat of Iraq the climate is totally different. Does she still think the American people wouldn't accept it. Everyone likes a winner and if America is on a roll as I have suggested then it will have much more support to keep going.

Who will they turn to?....Russia and China...

This idea is preposterous. Russia has all the oil it needs and plans to be an exporter of oil. China is not ready to take on America in a challenge in the Middle East and the US would never stand for it. Better to provide the Chinese with what they need rather then to have a challenge in the ME.

Diana suggests that Alisa is suffering from a self-deluding fantasy. I suggest that it is Diana who is suffering from the self deluding fantasy if she believes that the Arabs, in the absence of utter defeat, will ever stop trying to destroy Israel.

So I put it to the reader as to what scenario is most likely to succeed in protecting Israel from the "bomb.

Ted Belman

Diana from Gotham has some thoughts on transfer.
Transfer is a fantasy. Transfer would be bad for me. Here is why it is a fantasy, and here is why it would be bad for me.

It is a fantasy because even if it could be done (which it can't, but let it pass) moving three million Arabs beyond the borders of Israel would only be moving the problem, and not taking care of it. So three million Palestinian Arabs are transferred to a place somewhere beyond Israel's new, improved border. So what? They'll only take up residence there, even more aggrieved, even angrier, to plan and work for the day that they can finally take care of this intrusion into the Arab Middle East. Transfer will turn all of the Arab Middle East irremediably against the United States, Israel's proxy. It isn't now, but just give the Alisa's time, they will be.

It seems to me that the scenario Diana is describing is already taking place. Even more aggrieved? Even angrier? Really?

Who will they turn to? There's no one on the horizon now, but I could think of two possibilities for the future: Russia, and China. (China, with its rapidly growing economy, insatiable thirst for oil, amoral policies and huge population. Not a bad candidate. Not to mention a trade surplus with the US.)

So let me see: we should not upset Arabs, lest they unleash China on us. OK...
Why is transfer bad for me?

For those of you who don’t live in a mental ghetto, for those of you who aren’t isolated in the back of a limousine, Israel has marketed itself as a liberal democracy, the only one in the Middle East. Now, anti-Zionists have published reams of stuff “proving” that that’s not true; and I’ll get to all that at some point; it’s a subject that I really should deal with, but not now. The point is, the image has been created, and if three million Arabs get expelled from their homes in a great big Kosovo redux, that image will be destroyed forever, or, as the anti-Zionists would put it, the truth about Israel would finally be on display, for all the world to see. Even Instapundit and James Lileks would disapprove.
That would be very bad for me, because it would then lead to a furious anti-Semitic backlash in the US. The majority of Americans are neither born-agains nor Jewish. They are reasonably neutral, nice nominal white Christians who have satisfying private lives and a certain amount of equity. Detonate a Middle Eastern Armageddon and watch all of that go up in smoke. Then, well, I don’t really care to speculate what would happen, because it’s not going to happen.

What, you were expecting some invocation of ethics, morality and universal human rights? Go read David Hume, or the Shorter Edmund Burke. Go read Isaiah. Others may call themselves warbloggers, pundits, cranks-without-portfolio (thank you, Jim Henley), I call myself a schmuck without a trust-fund. That's why I am so important to myself.

Fair enough.
Alisa looks at the map and has decided that separation isn’t quite to her liking. Well, too fucking bad, missie, it’s about the best you can do. Your problems with the fact that the place is full of Arabs aren’t my problems. You’ll have to find a way to get along with them.

Not fair. If it's Diana's ass or mine (because I want to move back to Israel), guess who's ass is more important to me?
Oh, but Alisa says that there won't be an Armageddon, she's talking about transfer, not expulsion. To which I say: bullshit, she is either a flat-out liar, or living in a fantasy world.

I prefer to think that her idea of transfer is a self-deluding fantasy. Of course, Alisa doesn’t think, or say out loud, that Arabs would be violently expelled, or spoliated in any way, perish the thought. They’d be, well, transferred, a much nicer, more sanitary word. Apparently their singular lack of enthusiasm for this option up until now is just a clever negotiating tactic; the purpose of which is to raise their price. That’s why I say that Alisa in Wonderland is the right name for her. I guess all these suicide bombings are a form of government-subsidized performance art, too.

This is the only valid point that I hear so far, not only from Diana. Maybe I do live in a fantasy world, but I do think it can be achieved relatively peacefully. However, if it cannot, I see no other option, but a forced transfer. Like I wrote in my original post on the subject, transfer is the only solution except genocide (on either side). And it is the only way to separation.

Why is it?

Why is it that when the EU comes out totally in support of the Palestinians even to the extent of providing them with diplomatic cover and money which finances terror, no one ever demands they they be even handed let alone pro Israel.

On the other hand when America demands Israel withdraw or show restraint or enter negotiations or go down the Road Map, they are accused of being too pro Israel and one sided as opposed to being evenhanded.

Ted Belman

letter to a friend

Left v. Right

"I was thinking about some of our differences and I have some thoughts that I wish to share.

First of all, the more passionate we are about issues, the more we are ruled by our gut and not by our brain. Freud said "Intelligence is the maid servant of the emotions". So we should understand why our guts tell us different things, rather than why our minds do. Why do people "feel" different. I won't get into that now.

One of the reasons you were against the war with Iraq is that innocent people would be killed. For my part I couldn't care less. Sounds brutal doesn't it. I think that other issues are more important. Deaths should be minimized but shouldn't be the deciding factor. I can understand how I come to my position and you to yours. You probably think me callous and I think you naive.

My guess is you worry about the poor Palestinians and I couldn't care less. I know that it is the Jewish way, from the Haggadah on, to "remember we were strangers in the land of Egypt", with all that implies. For my part, I stay in my own shoes and want to get the best deal for Israel that I can. I want to concede nothing as the Arabs concede nothing. This is an adversarial proceeding. It is not a conciliation. They have enough people fighting for them. Israel is beleaguered and needs our support.

You rail against the notion of "might is right". That's natural for the weak and self righteous to do so. But if I have the might I want it to help me get a better deal. In all negotiations even with unions, the stronger you are, the better your chances. In the real world might always weighs in. You want the messianic era to be upon us where the lion can lie with the lamb. Nice thought, but not in the cards. The Palestinians agreed to negotiate all issues. The requirement is for a negotiated solution not a "just" one, what ever that is. They are not entitled to "justice". They are only entitled to get what Israel agrees to give them

They turned to violence because they realized that in negotiations between the strong and the weak, the weak comes up short. In an atmosphere of give and take and compromise both sides should compromise and be generous. In this adversarial relationship where they want us dead, there is nothing to negotiate.

I accept that the Arabs won't stop until they destroy Israel. This governs my thinking.

Do you think that peace is available? If so, why so, and how do we achieve it."

Ted Belman

How the CBC Ran Away from Debating Norman Spector

With Mr Spector's kind permission, I am reproducing below the correspondence in which he engaged with the CBC concerning a debate between himself and Mt Burman. As you read the correspondence, note how dishonourably the CBC backed out of the proposal they initially approved. The correspondence, reproduced here with absolutely no change or editing, speaks for itself and no further introduction is necessary.

From: Perlita Ettedgui [mailto:Perlita_Ettedgui@CBC.CA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:25 AM
Subject: CBC Request...
Hello Mr. Spector,
I am writing to you from CBC News: Sunday, a 2-hour current affairs show that airs on the main CBC channel on Sunday mornings. Our program incorporates a mixture of talk and tape segment around the topics of politics, media and ethics/spirituality. In response to your column that appeared in the National Post today (January 8th), where you invited Tony Burman to a debate with you, I'd like to request that that debate take place on our program, if you are interested. The show is live on Sunday mornings and it is hosted by Evan Solomon and Carole McNeil. The request is for a live segment this coming Sunday morning, January 12th. Please let me know if you are interested as soon as you're able. I'd be more than happy to talk with you further about this proposal. I can be reached by email or at 416-205-7349.
Thank you & Look forward to hearing from you,
Perlita Ettedgui CBC News: Sunday Toronto, ON


>>> "Norman Spector" 01/08/03 10:32AM >>>
Ms. Ettedgui,
Thanks for your e-mail.
Please provide further details on your proposal, including the amount of time you would allocate; the name and role of the moderator(s); the format, including whether Mr. Burman and I would be seated or at podiums; the question that would be debated; whether it would be done live or on tape as well as the location.
Norman Spector

From: Perlita Ettedgui [mailto:Perlita_Ettedgui@CBC.CA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:41 AM
Subject: RE: CBC Request...
Thank you for responding so quickly. I thought you might've been on BC time.
As far as the specifics of our request, they can all be discussed, but as of right now I think it would be live on Sunday morning, likely moderated by Evan Solomon, and with Mr. Burman and yourself seated in our studios in Toronto (at the Broadcast Centre on FRont & John Sts.) debating the issue.
The talk would be open, candid, with both sides given equal time to express their views. If you have any concerns about any of these details, we can definitely discuss them and try to accomodate you.
Perlita 416-205-7349


>>> "Norman Spector" 01/08/03 10:48AM >>>
We have to get up early out here to keep up with you easterners. I'll call you later; in the meantime, give me an idea of the time you would allocate.
It's quite a distance to Toronto for those of us in the hinterland. I don't suppose we could do it in Vancouver?
Norman -----


From: Perlita Ettedgui [mailto:Perlita_Ettedgui@CBC.CA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: CBC Request...
Hi Norman,
Wow, you are up early. Since you are in BC, we'd be more than willing to fly you in to Toronto for the debate, since I really think this is a discussion that should be had by the two of you in the same room. And since we air live at 9am, asking the both of you to get up at 6am Vancouver time would be a bit much, I'd think. As far as time allocated, I think we'd probably be aiming for 12 to 15 minutes live. Look forward to hearing from you,


>>> "Norman Spector" 01/08/03 11:02AM >>>
You are a great e-mailer!
I'm really pleased that Tony Burman has accepted in principle my offer to debate; I'll get back to you in a few hours with my thoughts about format; time; location, etc. Norman


>>> "Norman Spector" 01/08/03 12:24PM >>>
I'd come to Toronto, but it would have to be, at minimum, for a 30 minute segment, which is what Global has offered. If you cannot accommodate it on Sunday, we could look for another CBC program or accept their offer.


From: Perlita Ettedgui [mailto:Perlita_Ettedgui@CBC.CA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: CBC Request...
Wonderful, look forward to talking with you!

From: Perlita Ettedgui [mailto:Perlita_Ettedgui@CBC.CA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: CBC Request...
Hi Norman,
It turns out Tony's schedule will not permit him to take part in the debate this Sunday but he has agreed to do it next week. I hope that you will still be available then, and if so we can discuss the details of the segment early next week. Thank you again for being so prompt in your replies. I look forward to speaking with you,
Perlita 416-205-7349


>>> "Norman Spector" 01/08/03 01:49PM >>>
Assuming it's a half-hour segment, I'd be available to do it on Sunday the 19th


I'm an e-mail freak and hate the phone. But I look forward to meeting you.

From: Perlita Ettedgui [mailto:Perlita_Ettedgui@CBC.CA]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:04 AM
Subject: RE: CBC Request...
OK, great. Talk to you next week then.
Is there a phone number I can call you at?


>>> Norman Spector 01/09/03 04:05PM >>>
Received your fax.
I'm interested in the largest possible audience, and your proposal makes sense to me. Hope you can work it out with Perlita and would join our format negotiations next week.


From: Perlita Ettedgui []
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Burman/Spector debate
What proposal is this Norman? As far as we're concerned we have the debate slotted for next Sunday on our program, CBC News: Sunday. Our show is a nationally broadcast show on the main CBC channel with a large audience.
Please let me know what is going on. Thank you,


Hi. Global sent a fax to me and Tony Burman proposing a joint production.
Received here about an hour ago.


From: Stuart Coxe []
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:10 AM

Dear Mr. Spector,

I am the executive producer of CBC News: Sunday, and I thought it prudent to correspond with you directly concerning this week's broadcast to ensure there is absolute clarity about the format.

I understand your misgivings about appearing on "CBC turf" and want to assure you that my goal is to provide a forum to debate the issues in as fair and full a manner as possible. Any failures or omissions in this matter are directly my responsibility, so please do not hesitate to raise any concerns with me directly.

Here is my proposal, which I have made to Tony's office as well, and which he has accepted in principle:

1. The debate/discussion will be hosted by Evan Solomon. It will begin with a short item explaining the context of the debate/discussion to follow. It will include extracts from the exchange in the National Post.

2. The debate/discussion will be programmed for 3 commercial blocks on our show, moderated by Evan...this is more than 30 minutes of content time. We would like to make travel arrangements for you to join us in studio in Toronto. The show would be broadcast live at 10 am EST on Sunday, January 19.

3. We have requested, and CBC has accepted, that Neil MacDonald take part, in studio, in the debate/discussion, along with yourself and Tony. I have made this request because I think Neil is an essential part of this discussion and he should speak for himself on the specifics of his reportage. To balance the panel I think it's critical that we pick someone who shares your view on CBC's coverage and is able to hold his/her own with the rest of the group. Perhaps we could discuss a suitable candidate on the
telephone? My phone number at home today is 416-538-3146. My work number is 416-205-8905.

Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to speaking with you.


Stuart Coxe
Executive Producer
CBC News: Sunday


Dear Mr. Coxe,

Thanks for your e-mail. I am pleased to hear you share my goal of a forum that will ensure we can "debate the issues in as fair and full a manner as possible."

It was wise of you to write directly, because what you are proposing represents a substantial change to what had been agreed.

In my open letter to Tony Burman published in the National Post and several other newspapers, I made serious allegations about CBC's Mideast coverage. I offered to debate him if he disagreed. Though he initially through a spokesperson turned down the offer, later explaining that no debate was necessary, your producer Perlita Ettedgui subsequently proposed a 12-15 minute debate moderated by Evan Solomon.

While reluctant to venture onto CBC turf, I accepted the offer on condition that 30 minutes be allocated for the debate. A few hours later, I was informed that Mr. Burman, it turned out, would not be available on the 12th, but that he would be available on the 19th.

Now, you are proposing to change what had been agreed. While I accept your offer of 3 commercial blocks on your show, moderated by Evan Solomon and more than 30 minutes of content time, other elements of your proposal are unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Mr. Burman responded personally in various newspapers on behalf of the CBC to my earlier open letter to Peter Mansbridge--entirely appropriate given his position. Now, you are telling me he is not prepared to defend the coverage for which he has overall responsibility.

2. Instead, you are proposing to involve one of your reporters in the debate. My allegations concern several of your reporters, not one. Indeed, one of the more loathsome examples of the CBC fuelling Ahenakew-like viewswproposed three commercial blocks, wh in Canada involves another reporter, and I am not prepared to have that example of bias de-emphasized by your proposed format.

3. Far from alleviating my misgivings about appearing on CBC turf, you have exacerbated them. I originally proposed a debate of my allegations. Normally that would have me summarize the case for the proposition. Instead, you are proposing to use your editorial control and "...begin with a short item explaining the context of the debate/discussion to follow. It will include extracts from the exchange in the National Post."

4. Finally, but not of least importance, the challenge to Mr. Burman was to debate if he disagreed with the serious allegations I had made about CBC's coverage. I wrote two open letters as an individual, not as part of a team. Not being anyone's identical twin, it is bizarre that you would ask me to suggest names of "candidates" who share my views.

I don't know what screening process you would propose to select one of the "candidates," but I can save you the trouble. Only I represent my views of CBC's Mideast coverage. If Mr. Burman disagrees with any of them, I am prepared to debate him publicly in a mutually-agreed forum.

Yours faithfully,

Norman Spector


>>> Norman Spector 01/15/03 11:02AM >>>
Mr. Coxe,

It's been 48 hours since I accepted your offer of a 30 minute debate, and rejected other elements of the proposed format.

You may wish to inform your Mideast correspondent of our correspondence, since he has been misinforming Canadians that the Corporation's proposal is in my court.

Yours faithfully,

Norman Spector


From: Stuart Coxe []
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: burman/spector debate

Dear Mr. Spector:

Thank you for your e-mail of January 13, and my apologies for not replying more promptly. I am pleased that we both share the same goal: to provide a forum that will ensure we can discuss the issues in as fair and full a manner as possible. CBC's Middle East coverage is obviously an important issue among many Canadians, and I believe the discussion on CBC News: SUNDAY will achieve our objectives.

We have considered your views about format very seriously, and we have an outline that I believe should be satisfactory to you. It not only achieves your desire to discuss the key issues directly with Mr. Burman, but also allows the Canadian public to hear directly from the organization that has been most vocal about CBC's Middle East coverage (the Canada-Israel Committee) and the CBC Middle East correspondent who in your columns and in the CIC's view has been central to this controversy (Neil Macdonald).

Expanding the format of the program will provide a more balanced picture and a wider range of perspectives on the issues, and will allow a greater level of journalistic accountability to our viewers.

This is the invitation that CBC News: SUNDAY is extending to you, to Mr. Burman, to the CIC and to Mr. Macdonald: kyou proposed three commercial blocks, wh The discussion would begin with a direct encounter involving you and Mr. Burman, and then - as we dealt with greater detail - we would weave in the representative of the Canada-Israel Committee and Mr. Macdonald. As indicated in my earlier note, the actual discussion would last approximately 30 minutes.

I trust this is satisfactory since it satisfies your original wishes of an open, extended discussion. However, I should correct your last e-mail in at least one important respect: in my last message, when I outlined our wish to broaden the discussion to include Mr. Macdonald and adherents of your position, you wrote that I am "proposing to change what had been agreed." In fact, as you know, nothing had been agreed. Last week, we made a proposal to you for a 15-minute discussion. Although you replied that it was acceptable to you if the discussion lasted 30 minutes, we made no commitment. We made the same overture to Mr. Burman, and he said it was acceptable if all parties agreed on a format. And that is where we are at now.

Thank you for your consideration. To meet production deadlines, please confirm your participation in this program no later than today (Wednesday) at 6 p.m. PST. We will make travel arrangements for you to join us in studio in Toronto. The program will be broadcast at 10 a.m. ET Sunday, January 19.


Stuart Coxe
Executive Producer


Dear. Mr. Coxe,

Thanks for your e-mail.

Last week, Ms. Ettedgui proposed on behalf of the CBC a one-on-one debate between Mr. Burman and myself. I agreed, with great reluctance, to venture onto CBC turf and be interviewed by a CBC employee.

The first principle of good faith negotiation is that when one party's proposal is accepted by the other, it is not subsequently taken off the table. That now includes the time to be allocated: In your e-mail of January 13, you proposed three commercial blocks, which would amount to 30 minutes+. I accepted that proposal too.

Therefore, on condition that we begin with a 30 minute one-on-one debate with Mr. Burman, needless to say I would be delighted to debate Mr. Neil Macdonald, one-on-one, in a subsequent segment of up to 30 minutes, depending on your evaluation of audience interest. If your program cannot accommodate it, we could look for another CBC program or take up Global's offer of a 30 minute debate.

Since unilateral CBC editorial control of the issues summary at the top of your program would be unacceptable, I would want to have a say in the material that would be shown. I would also want to introduce for purposes of discussion in the second segment two or three recent Macdonald reports from the Mideast.

The first segment would give us an opportunity to discuss CBC's overall coverage, including the work of reporters other than Neil Macdonald. Recent comments by the Lebanese ambassador to Canada increase the salience of this discussion.

Your suggestion that a representative of the Canada-Israel Committee would join the second segment is unacceptable. To be frank, I am personally offended that you would even put it forward.

Notwithstanding what you may assume, I have many policy disagreements with that organization. Your proposed segment would have me facing three CBC employees and a CIC representative. If you need proof of the skewed dynamic that inevitably would result, I suggest you have a look at the Mideast columns I have been writing in the Globe and Mail since 1995. 4 against 1 does seem a bit exaggerated, even if you are looking to even the odds.

As I indicated to you in my previous correspondence, I have made serious allegations against the Corporation as an individual, not as a member of any team. I offered to defend these allegations publicly if Mr. Burman disagreed that CBC's Mideast reporting is biased and encourages Ahenakew-like views. I remain prepared to participate in a CBC program, provided you are prepared to agree to these terms which, I believe, would guarantee a thorough debate and a minimum standard of fairness.

Yours faithfully,

Norman Spector


Mr. Coxe,
There's a CBC press release on Canada Newswire, and I understand it has been distributed internally. It is demonstrably false. I ask you to withdraw it.
The ball is in your court.
Norman Spector


From: Stuart Coxe []
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: This Sunday

Dear Mr. Spector:

As outlined in my email to you this morning, we have designed a format for this program that we feel best serves our audience.

In your letter back to me, you made it clear that this format is unacceptable to you.

I regret that you do not agree with the terms of CBC's proposal.

Without your agreement to this proposal, CBC News Sunday will not proceed with the program segment.


Stuart Coxe


Mr. Coxe,

Your proposal was designed to frustrate debate, not to facilitate it. In the absence of debate, you have allowed some very serious charges against your organization and some of its staff to stand unchallenged.

In its Mideast coverage, the CBC is playing with fire. I'm not sure I will ever understand the thinking that led to the decision to hide from scrutiny and accountability, and to cling tenaciously to a status quo that was encouraging hatred.

As a deputy minister, my policy was to defend staff when I believed they were right--even against sustained political pressure--and to demand change when they were not. I had the good fortune to work for a premier who taught me the value of loyalty, and never allowed his troops to lie bleeding on the battlefield. And for a prime minister who understood that human rights were indivisible, and that good men had to do nothing for evil to triumph.

Yours faithfully,

Norman Spector
Shame on you, CBC!

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

Action - Reaction

Under the heading, Swedes call for boycott of Israeli goods , Ha'Aretz reports today [January 18, 2003] as follows:

An archbishop, an ambassador and the leader of an ex-communist party were among 73 Swedes calling for a boycott on Israeli goods from occupied Palestinian territories Saturday.
Our answer: Boycott anything and everything Swedish.

I find it ironic that Sweden, a country that failed to join the Allies against Hitler, a country that has nothing to say about the real occupied territories - Lebanon and Tibet, for example - a country with a consistent record of supporting Aratrash's terrorists, has now chosen to deal our sister-democracy yet another blow.

Shame on you, Sweden!

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

The news release about this Israeli strategy has made many papers and was especially emphasized by Israeli detractors. Here, a fuller account of this plan Targeted Killings in Friendly Countries

Another day, another attempt at terrorism IDF thwarts two terror attacks in the Gaza Strip
A grahic slideshow depicts what a Palestinian state will resemble Preparing for a Palestinian State
It's the Regime, Stupid!

Angelo Codevilla points the finger at the regimes that support terror and anti-American incitement arguing that we must end the regimes to end the terror and the incitement.
Neither “disarming” Saddam, nor “bringing to justice” any number of swarthy young men will rid Americans of the prospect that someone will bomb or shoot, or poison us for the sake of some Middle Eastern cause. To have peace, we must defeat those causes by doing away with the regimes that embody them - the prominent people who make today’s Middle East what it is.

Every terrorist attack teaches anew that no amount of “security” can prevent shooting missiles at airliners, throwing flaming gasoline bottles into school buses, driving bomb laden cars, spreading germs, or countless other outrages.
and concludes
To be rid of terrorism we must rid ourselves of the regimes whose causes they serve.
A long-time friend, having recently moved to Holland for a university teaching post, tells me that there is an amazing contempt for America in the peaceful little democracy where girls and dope are so easy to obtain. Looks like more is blooming than just tulipsAl-Qaida in wooden shoes?
Holland reportedly one of network's strongholds in Europe

Al-Qaida is investing heavily in recruiting Muslims in Europe, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the online intelligence newsletter.

Western intelligence sources say al-Qaida has been targeting Muslim communities in several European Union states. The focus is on pressing the children of Muslim immigrants to provide a range of support services.

One of al-Qaida's largest strongholds is in the Netherlands, which could become the launching pad for al-Qaida attacks throughout Europe.

A report by Dutch AIVD intelligence service found that al-Qaida is already rooted in the country's large Muslim community. Al-Qaida has recruited young Muslims in prisons, mosques and cafes throughout the Netherlands, the report by the domestic intelligence agency stated.

Targets of interest are believed to be Britain, France, Israel and the United States. The report did not rule out al-Qaida attacks in the Netherlands, with a Muslim community that numbers 850,000 out of a general population of 16 million.
No doubt the letter writer lives in a crime-free, safe, gated community. Graphic Photos Are Reviewed By Trib [Florida] Editors

A graphic photo of an injured man being treated by emergency workers that ran on Page 1 of The Tampa Tribune on Jan. 6 drew some complaints from readers.
The man had been wounded in the suicide bombing Jan. 5 in Tel Aviv, Israel, which killed 23 and injured more than 100.

The photo showed too much blood and pain, the readers said.

Night Deputy Managing Editor Craig Gemoules explained how the choice of that picture was made.

``This photograph epitomizes the dilemma we routinely face in weighing the need to accurately portray the news with the need to respect the sensibilities of our readers,'' he said.

As a matter of course, the Tribune forgoes a good many photos showing violence in the Middle East because of their graphic nature. The Tribune rules out publishing photos of corpses, except in highly unusual circumstances where a team of editors deems such visual coverage to be essential in conveying a news story.

This photo showed a wounded man being rushed to an ambulance after the worst bombing attack in Israel in almost a year.

In the foreground, a medic is shown working on the victim, while in the background there's a blur of emergency lights. A technique used by The Associated Press photographer gave the photo a sense of motion and urgency.

Gemoules agreed that the image was alarming. But it was judged by Tribune editors to be one that appropriately imparted the serious nature of the news without overstepping the photo guidelines the paper strives to meet.
The Canadian CBC's Love Affair With Hezbollah

Stephen Brown writing in Front Page Mag comes out firing.
The occasion for the CBC's whitewash of the deadly terrorist organization occurred after the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien finally screwed up its courage and added it to its list of banned terrorist groups.
and concludes
And while Canadian Jewish groups have accused the CBC of anti-Israel bias, don't expect any changes soon. As with PBS, the CBC knows no shame when it comes to such disgraceful journalism by omission.
For a while, the CBC agreed to accept Norman Spector's challenge to debate whether the CBC was biased or not or was violating its own policies in reporting in the M.E., but then emasculated the debate to the point where it was no longer a debate but a controlled discussion. Spector rejected their conditions and the debate is off. Only strong public pressure will change things.

January 17, 2003

I guess timing is everything.

Right now I am in a lousy mood, and then I read this. I have not felt so frustrated by something I read in a long time. In fact, Schiff in his article repeats the same complaints I read over and over again. Here is one from Tommy Friedman. The same thing: if only Sharon would stop the settlements, and put forward a peace plan, everything would be dandy. Yeah, right. If only Sharon was Rabin. Well, guess what, we already had Rabin, and look what happened. Anyway, I digress...

The most maddening thing about Schiff's article is that he has to blame someone for the desperate situation Israel finds itself right now, and guess who is to blame? See, the Palestinians cannot be blamed, because they are victims, and also because Arafat has turned them all from peace loving, Kumbaya-singing flower children, into suicidal maniacs. What can you expect from them? Sharon, on the other hand, is a war criminal, everyone knows that, don't they? Yes, he did wise up as he got older, and all that, but still, he only cares about the settlements and greater Israel, and...I digress again.

In the perception of many people, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a strong leader who is the right person for war-time periods. However, what Israel really needs at the present strategic juncture is a statesman with a vision who will lead the country out of its complex conflict, and not a power-obsessed leader because of whom the national cart is sinking ever deeper into the mire. Israel needs a statesman who will be capable of exploiting new international circumstances to resolve the conflict before the entire Middle East is contaminated with nuclear and biological weapons.

A vision? How about being able to survive? Is Mitzna a man of vision for you? You want a way out? Everyone does, but there isn't one, and you know it, not until after the war in Iraq, and even then it is not going to be a picnic or a walk in the park. "...Because of whom the national cart is sinking..." Mr. Schiff, this is happening because your country is at war, in case you have not noticed, and it is at war not because of Sharon, in case you have forgotten. New international circumstances? What the hell is this guy talking about?

Here we have more of the same, plus the obligatory lip-service: "Arafat is also bad, but not as bad as Sharon", and: "Palestinians are suffering, too, but they are used to it":

During his nearly two years as the country's leader of the country, Sharon has not even neared the status of a statesman who looks beyond war. The result is that under his leadership, Israel is sliding down a steep slope. A similar development has occurred on the Palestinian side, under their leader, PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, but that is no consolation. The downtrodden Palestinians are farther from realizing their national aspirations, but Israel has regressed in almost every sphere, and there is not a glimmer of light on the horizon.

OK, what else is new?

The occupation of the territories and of the Palestinian people - from whom, it is true, the suicide murderers originate - has become more intense and uglier. The same tendency will prevail in the future.

Yep. It's the occupation now, and it was the occupation during Oslo, and in 1964, and in 1936(?), and 1929.

Even when the IDF and the Shin Bet security service achieve a tactical military success, Sharon is incapable of exploiting it for the next step, in the political realm. It is in this context where Sharon's lack of being a statesman-leader is most pronounced. The struggle with the Palestinians has become a war of revenge and prestige, in which the victories on the battlefield slowly dissolve into nothing. On the ground, the settlers are deepening their grip and adding new outposts with a variety of stratagems. Is there anyone who believes that this situation can be dragged out indefinitely?

He lost me here. Is he trying to say that every time we kill or catch a terrorist, we should dismantle a settlement?

The Palestinians are losing more in tactical terms and from the point of view of day-to-day suffering, but in the present state of affairs, Israel is not capable of arriving at a decisive battle against them. The reason is not military, but above all political. Israel is incapable of accumulating more victory points, because it does not have a political initiative beyond the occupation. Hints that Sharon has some sort of political plan to resolve the conflict have turned out to be no more than baubles. His political initiative has not gone beyond the mantra that he is ready for painful concessions (painful for whom?). The Americans, too, are trying in vain to find a political initiative by Sharon.

It looks like Mr. Schiff has missed Bush's June speech. In fact Sharon's tactics, if not strategy, are in full accord with Bush's approach, and that is: the Palestinians get nothing until they straighten out, and stop terrorism. They have not done so yet, as far as I know.

Schiff , like all Israelis, is very frustrated. But most Israelis, unlike Schiff, do not expect their PM to be a magician who is going to pull a rabbit of political "vision" (or, maybe a vision of a rabbit?) out of his sleeve. They vote for Sharon because they know that he is doing the only thing a leader (and any person) is expected to do: the best under the circumstances, the best he can. And they know that he can do, and is doing it better than anyone else. Not perfectly, maybe not even satisfactory, but better.

Protest Rally in Toronto, Canada


Where: CBC BUILDING, outside the building at 250 Front Street West corner of John Street

When: SUNDAY 19TH at 1.00 PM

Who: Sponsored by Tagar Toronto and YZP

Bring flags and will be notified.

Issues: Unbiased reporting...Use the T word...The truth about the Arab-Israeli conflict...our tax dollars used towards biased reporting etc...

E-mail this info to as many people as you possibly can.

How could the Israelis possibly turn down an offer like this?

This from the meeting in Cairo.

-Calls for an independent Palestinian with its capital in Jerusalem.

-Stipulates that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) should work to stop attacks from the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip and the reoccupied West Bank against any Israeli targets, that Israel pledges not to pursue Palestinian activists and that the attacks inside the 1967 Green Line border cease.

-Declares tit-for-tat violence must stop “as a first step toward resuming the stalled negotiations.”

-Calls on Israel to refrain from measures that undermine the PNA ability to guarantee security in the Palestinian areas.

-Calls on Israel to release jailed Palestinian leaders as “a basic step to prove good will and promote trust between the two parties.”

-Calls on Israel to stop military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza.

So without negotiation Israel must give up Jerusalem. That the PA merely promise to try to crack down on the terrorists (a promise that was part of the '93 Accords and was immediately broken). Tit for tat violence must stop. Therefore the terrorists get to attack and never expect any sort of hunt or retaliation. That good will must be proven by releasing convicted terrorists. There is not a single concession the PA must make. Not even the recognition of Israel (something the PA has not done, refuses to do and whose charter still calls for the destruction of the "Zionist Entity"). Hey, at least there was no condition that the Israelis must throw themselves into the sea.

When do you think we will see a Palestinian terrorist leader make a statement like this?

The Israeli army commander in the West Bank has banned soldiers from opening fire on Palestinian vehicles unless military lives are in danger, an army magazine reported.

Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky issued the ban after several unarmed Palestinians were killed or wounded in such shootings, including one near Bethlehem last week that seriously wounded a Palestinian.

The order was read to officers and soldiers at a study day this week, the soldiers' magazine ``Bamahane'' reported in its current edition.

Col. Roni Noma, commander of a division that serves in the West Bank, also repeated a ban on confiscating Palestinian identity cards or car keys or imposing arbitrary punishment, like closing roadblocks. He also said soldiers must not bother reporters.

And of course were Arafat or any of the other terrorists to give such orders it would be on the front page of the NYTimesWashingtonPostGaurdianLATimes and would be the lead story on CNNCBSABCNBCBBC and they would all get nominated for the Nobel. And the subsequent open scoffing at the order from the terrorist groups it was aimed at would be completely ignored by those same media organizations.
Survey gauges anti-Semitism
The Institute for Jewish and Community Research, based in San Francisco, sampled 1,013 randomly selected adults from around the country and found anti-Semitism to be more common among younger adults than among baby boomers.

For instance, when asked if "Jews control the media," 24 percent of people aged 18 to 34 agreed, versus 16 percent aged 35 to 54, 28 percent aged 55 to 64 and 32 percent 65 and older, institute president Gary Tobin said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The same pattern held when people were asked whether Jews "hold too much power on Wall Street" and "care only for themselves," Tobin said.


When respondents were asked if they agreed that "the Jews were primarily responsible for the killing of Jesus Christ," 37 percent agreed, 47 percent disagreed, and 16 percent said they did not know.

The "Christ-killer" charge remains "a pervasive belief," Tobin said. Black respondents were the most likely to believe it, with 49 percent registering agreement, he said.

If this is success...

Well the conference between Jack Straw and various Palestinian politicians was a success. Or at least according to the enthusiastic headline the New York Times, "Britain Calls Its Conference on Palestinian Reform a Success. The Times, to its credit notes the Israeli objection to the conference by getting a pretty good quote from Zalman Shoval:
"Then this same Yasir Arafat sends people who are part of his terrorist organization in order to bask in the diplomatic limelight in London . . . If the Palestinians want to effect reform, reform should be effected right here."
to end the article. A more thorough debunking of the Palestinian reform efforts is a available at the IDF website (an excellent resource; better than MFA sometimes) here:
"In the political sphere, after successfully muting the "change demanding" voices from within, calling for significant reform in the composition of the Palestinian government, Arafat is presently engaged in removing the international pressure to make administrative changes in the Palestinian Authority including appointing a fully empowered Prime Minister (as opposed to the capacity of the Prime-Ministerial office as described in the constitution that will only become valid in the future after the establishment of a Palestinian State).
In addition, Arafat displays a positive attitude regarding the "Road Map" and the reforms it implicates. However he channels these reforms in directions that are of no threat to his personal position and is in fact unwilling to concede to the primary demand that is the very foundation of the "Road Map" which is his withdrawal from the center of Palestinian decision making.
In the constitutional sphere, The Palestinians have recently undertaken intensive high media-profile action in an endeavor to establish a constitution for the future Palestinian State. This was done by the reappearance of the "Constitution Council" headed by Nabil Sha'ath intended to write an inaugural draft of the Palestinian Constitution by January 2003 in order to gain positive points with those who endorsed the advancement of the reforms in facets that do not obligate immediate implementation. The completion of the draft on the night of the "London Conference" was intended to conceal the lack of genuine and sincere action on the Palestinian side in other facets of the reform and to assist in shifting the "spotlight" to the demands stipulated of Israel.
In the security sphere, Arafat executed a number of personnel changes, appointing a new Internal Affairs Minister, dismissing the Chief of Police, Jabali, and the Head of Palestinian Preventive Security, Rajob. These measures were damaging to the performance of these apparatuses.
Regardless, Arafat maintains exclusive control over the Palestinian apparatuses. No genuine change has occurred in the manner in which the security apparatus acts or in its reputed activity against terror. The new Minister of Internal Affaires, Hani Alhasan, has yet to take real action to restore control and peace on the ground. Hani AlHasan recent Moves in the Gaza Strip are a manifestation of the increasing acknowledgment that action must be affected in light of the demands within and from abroad and concern over Israeli action in the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, This does not implicate a change in the policy towards terror factors in the Gaza Strip and does not include clear and encompassing instruction to act against them, but an attempt to reach understandings and agreements.
In the financial sphere, Minister of Finance Fiad led a number of positive meaningful acts that restrain Arafat's control of the Palestinian Authority budget and open the possibility of deeper transparency in the institutional monetary system. Notwithstanding, he has not yet been successful in preventing Arafat's involvement and control over a large portion of the assets that the Arafat himself owns."
Very worthwhile reading.
Cross Posted to David's Israel Blog

Zionism a relic of the Past?

To understand Matt Rees's assessment of Zionism in Time magazine is to understand that Zionism is a reaction to the past reality of Arab hatred of Israel:
"For the past decade, Israelis felt they were leaving behind the pioneering days of Zionism, the movement that campaigned to found the Jewish state and create a strong character in its young people, all of whom had to serve in the army. The phrase post-Zionism came to describe the country's effort to build an individualistic, high-tech economy. Most Israelis hoped their country would become like anyplace else: ordinary, boring and safe. But two years of violent intifadeh — bloody Israeli occupation of West Bank towns and frequent Palestinian suicide bombings, like the twin attacks in Tel Aviv that claimed 22 lives on Jan. 5 — have snapped Israelis back into the mixture of nationalism and fear at the root of Zionism. What used to be a minority view — the conviction that Israel's enemies mean to wipe it off the map and that to make peace is to invite extinction — is now mainstream thinking. It can be measured in the high level of response to call-ups for army reserve duty by ordinary Israelis, and it's erased almost entirely any lingering support for the concessions offered to the Palestinians in the 1993 Oslo peace accord."
The fact is that Zionism exists quite apart from Arab hatred. Zionism is simply the belief that Jews came from the land originally known as Israel and that the Jewish right to the land is rooted in that history. The Arab hatred of Israel, is in no small part a reaction to Zionism; Rees has it backwards. The historical Jewish right to the land of Israel is incompatible with the tenets of Islam. In case anyone doubts that the Arabs still hate Israel and have hated Israel (and would wipe it off the map if given a chance) despite sometimes making "peace" with Israel, he should read this interview with Meir Litvak, which says, in part:
“Even for Egyptian intellectuals today, many years after the Peace Treaty, Israel's existence represents an admission of the defeat of the Arab national vision. It is a confession that Egypt has failed to realize its historical destiny and greatness. For Arab regimes it is convenient to let the anti-Semitic propaganda flourish in order to divert the attention of Arab public opinion away from their own failures. A rulers' covenant of convenience exists with the intellectuals who can vent all their frustration on the status of the Arabs against the Jews and Israel. That is much more agreeable to the Arab governments than focusing on the economic, cultural and social failure of the Arab world."
And if that's how Egypt feels do you think the feelings for Israel are any warmer in Syria?

Cross posted to David's Israel Blog

A Use for Europe?

Not sure if I agree, but an intersting argument In defense of Europe.

Jenin, Jenin

Interesting story about a debate between the film's director and the IDF doctor exposing his lies.

Let's see now. Saddam lobs missles at Israel in last Gulf War. Israel does not hit back. Saddam is likely to be attacked by the U.S., but the Palestinians support him and at the same time call the US names because America is not "even handed" with the Palestinian cause. Have I missed something here?10,000 Palestinians take to streets of Gaza in support of Saddam

Fighting Edward Said

(Tom Friedman isn't the problem)

Tom Friedman is an inconsistent columnist. When he's good, he's very, very good. When he's bad, he's clueless. If AZIN et. al. are serious about taking on real enemies, however, other targets are a much better use of their time.

Take Edward Said, the man who has done more than anyone else to turn Mideast Studies into what it is today. Which is to say: a wasteland of political correctness run amuck, systemic intellectual dishonesty, denial of Israel's right to exist, and stances on terrorism and jihad that range from willful denial all the way to open incitement.

Muslimpundit at Winds of Change.NET is certainly no fan. He notes that Said's writings have received stern rebuttals in the past, of which among the most notable are by Bernard Lewis and Keith Windschuttle. More recently, Ibn Warraq also joined the fray. Having written and edited some excellent books on the origins of Islam, Ibn Warraq has now turned his attention towards the Saidian polemicists and penned a rather exhaustive essay decrying, as Muslimpundit puts it: "the pretensions of Edward Said towards harbouring any conceptions of intellectual scholarship."

Gee, Adil, tell us how you really feel! Read the full story, including links for yourself over at Winds of Change.NET.

With some nice photos. First Israeli blasts into space

"Opinion polls consistently indicate that Mr. Lapid's minor party, dedicated to cutting the government benefits of religious Jews, is poised to become the third-largest faction in the next Parliament, which could make his a pivotal voice in determining the next governing coalition."Israeli Gadfly Hopes to Separate Religion and State
NY Times, free reg req'd.
Note the photo. Do these guys borrow face coverings from their women? There is no surprise in the Hamas position but that the talks in Egypt are aimed more at militancy rather than trying for a peace accord seems clear. Hamas will not stop operations inside Israel
Munich all over again with Britain leading the way

By Caroline B. Glick: Fighting Tom Friedman

Ms Glick points out how Tom Friedman is always the point man for the Arabs. A year ago it was on behalf of the phoney Saudi Peace Plan and now on behalf of a phoney ceasefire and New Road Map. Here are some extracts.
Now Friedman is back in the region. Reporting from Cairo on Sunday, he wrote about the ferocity of anti-American sentiment in Egypt. Yet rather than condemn the hatred and call for a re-evaluation of US support for Hosni Mubarak's America-bashing dictatorship, he wrote that Americans must understand that the root cause of this hatred is US support for Israel.

Put another way, if the US doesn't put pressure on Israel in a way that will convince the irrational, hate filled anti-American and anti-Semitic Egyptian "street" that the Bush administration isn't simply a tool of "the Jewish lobby," then the Arabs will continue to hate the US and blow up more of its skyscrapers.

In the international community's embrace of Arafat's regime through its support for a patently fraudulent reform effort, we see an example of a Munich-like decision where Israel plays the role of Czechoslovakia. In the London conference this week we saw the British again leading the West in ignoring everything that is known about a dictator's aggressive behavior and designs and turning a blind eye to the genuine depravity of the society that he leads through indoctrination and terror. And as in 1938, we see a British bid to force a democratic ally to accept concessions that will prevent it from defending itself against that aggression and depravity.

It takes few powers of discernment to realize that this cease-fire plan is a complete lie. Yet the EU has been sponsoring this charade and the State Department has been highly supportive of Egypt's "positive role" in attempting to end Palestinian terrorism. Suleiman was so comfortable in London that he did not even feel it necessary to present the great accomplishments of his mediation efforts to those assembled. Rather he sufficed with a promise that these efforts would continue. For their part, Arafat's lackeys announced on Thursday that the talks would continue in Cairo starting next week.

What is Israel to do when faced with an enemy that uses lying as its principle tool of diplomacy? What is Israel to do when the pivotal Western powers the US and Britain are only too happy to accept the Arab lies in an attempt to appease their hate filled societies? What is Israel to do when super influential columnists advocate fashioning US foreign policy in a manner that rewards insane and groundless hatred by abandoning loyal and rational democratic allies?
What is Israel to do indeed. My advice is to categorically have nothing to do with the "cease fire" or the New Road Map. It is folly to play the game of pretending to see some value in it if only etc. Better to eschew it all together. No one can change the Oslo Agreement but Israel. The New Road Map can not override Oslo. As much as America has often forced Israel to do things it didn't want to do, I can't believe that this administration doesn't see the reality of Arab intentions and terror. Everything America knows about fighting terror they learnt from the Israelis. Everything they know about Arab duplicity they learnt from every Arab governments and Arafat. I say they are with us. I hope.

Ted Belman

This will brighten your day Bank head’s wife loses support following latest anti-Israel diatribe

[...]Anja Meulenbelt, a well-known Dutch author and pro-Palestinian activist who accompanied Duisenberg, called her behavior “unwise” and said she was harming “the cause.” The delegation split up, but later agreed to finish the trip together.

Not surprisingly, Duisenberg’s actions prompted outrage among Jewish groups.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem attacked Duisenberg’s comments, such as the statement that the Germans “never went so far during the Nazi occupation” as the Israelis did in blowing up Palestinian homes.

She “should have educated herself about those violent chapters in Dutch history before making senseless comparisons,” said the chairman [Averner Shalev] of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial.

For an official response to the complaint of an illegal use of a passport, see:

Mystery and militancy in Islam

[...]Then there was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran, who showed that a radical, violent Islam was not only possible in the modern world but also exportable to the West.

He said in 1984: 'War is a blessing for the world and for every nation. It is Allah himself who commands men to wage war and to kill.'

Killing them, indeed, was doing them a service: 'If one allows the infidels to continue playing their role of corrupters on Earth, their eventual moral punishment will be all the stronger. Thus, if we kill the infidels in order to put a stop to their (corrupting) activities... their eventual punishment will be less.'
Q and A

A news story in today’s [16 Jan 2003] Jerusalem Post, entitled US questions IDF closure of Palestinian universities quotes Richard Boucher as saying:

"We do believe the Palestinians have a right to live their lives in as normal conditions as possible. And I do think we'd have to question how the closure of the universities contributes to any of these goals."
To get the answer, Richard Boucher need not go further than the IDF site (courtesy of LGF), Page 1, Page 2, or Page 3, where he could learn, inter alia that
Last night, in a joint operation carried out by IDF ordnance units and companies from the 'Nahal' infantry brigade in Hebron, the entrances of three Palestinian colleges that openly encouraged terrorism were sealed closed. "The Palestinian Authority Education System incites terror and encourages murder," commented a high ranking Israeli security source, adding, "these three colleges endorsed terror and acts of vengeance as part of their curriculum". Before beginning to seal the doors of the colleges, the forces collected incitement materials found inside.
The Polytechnic University in Hebron

The students exploit the university environment and the tools it provides for planning and carrying out terrorist attacks. In addition, the students acquire their knowledge in the preparation of explosives and sabotage devices, both in classes and thanks to the resources available to them at the university
- On November 15, 2002, 12 Israelis were killed and over 20 others were injured in a terrorist ambush along the "Worshipers' Route" in Hebron, during which grenades were thrown and shots were fired at the security forces. The terrorists were students at the Polytechnic University in Hebron.
The three illustrated pages of the IDF site (links above) are well worth reading in full. That applies to Mr Boucher too.

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

Fighting Tom Friedman

This is an excellent column which exposes the dangerous treachery of the poster boy for Jewish self-hatred and anti-Israel propaganda, Tom Friedman.
By Caroline Glick

If anyone doubts the power of the media to transform the policies of democratic governments, one need only to look to The New York Times' columnist Thomas Friedman for proof. It was Friedman, after all, who a year ago invented the so-called Saudi plan for peace in the Middle East.

Last February, reacting to the precipitous drop in American public support for the kingdom in the wake of mounting evidence of Saudi sponsorship of al-Qaida and hatred for the US generally, the House of Saud invited Friedman to Riyadh as part of a PR campaign.

Over dinner in a gilded palace, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah told Friedman that he was considering a peace initiative whereby in exchange for Israel's retreat to the 1949 armistice lines and acceptance of Palestinian refugees, the Arab world would normalize its relations with Israel.

Friedman and The New York Times jumped on Abdullah's propaganda bandwagon and the "Saudi Plan" was born. It took but a week from press time for the White House to embrace the imaginary and dangerous initiative that is now firmly ensconced in the so-called "Road Map" for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Now Friedman is back in the region. Reporting from Cairo on Sunday, he wrote about the ferocity of anti-American sentiment in Egypt.
Yet rather than condemn the hatred and call for a re-evaluation of US support for Hosni Mubarak's America-bashing dictatorship, he wrote that Americans must understand that the root cause of this hatred is US support for Israel. [Read More]

January 16, 2003

More About Librarians Against Israel

I posted an article from the Jewish Press on the American Library Association (ALA) a while ago, and it prompted a number of comments, inlcuding from one reader who said the article was inaccurate. In particular, the reader said, the activities of an anti-Israel group within the ALA, called the Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT), should not be considered official ALA stances. Apparently in response to such criticism, the author of the Jewish Press article has a new piece defending his accusations, saying that the ALA itself, and not just the SSRT, is anti-Israel. It's available here.

Transfer vs. Separation

Its all in the semantics

Rabin was a Kahanist in reverse!

So says one of our followers, Ariel Natan Pasko, in Arutz Sheva
So is Amram Mitzna. So are both Yossis - Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin - Peace Now and Gush Shalom. They all want to get rid of the ´Palestinians´. The only difference is that, whereas Rabbi Meir Kahane, his followers, and the current ‘transferists’ like the late Rechavam Ze´evi, Rabbi Benny Elon and the Moledet/National Union party want to ‘transfer’ the Arabs out of the Land of Israel, and ‘transfer’ full control of the Land to the Jews, Yitzhak Rabin, his followers, and the current ‘separationists’ like Mitzna, the Labor and Meretz parties and both Yossis, et al. want to ‘transfer’ Jews out of parts of the Land of Israel and ‘transfer’ parts of the Land to Arab control. Read More

Michael Cabbage in the Orlando Sentinel,

Israel quietly is overcoming huge political and financial obstacles to build a world-class space program with a growing military capability.

[Today’s] launch of astronaut Ilan Ramon aboard space shuttle Columbia will add Israel to the ranks of 30 other countries that have had a citizen in orbit. However, the small Jewish state already belongs to a far more exclusive club: Nations capable of building a satellite, launching it into space and operating it from the ground. It's a capability that has major strategic and commercial implications for the Middle East and beyond.

"We are in an area where we are quite alone," said Aby Har-Even, director of the Israel Space Agency. "We cannot buy things so we have to build everything for ourselves."

With little help, Israel already has developed a rocket booster that can double as a medium-range missile, as well as advanced spy and communications satellites. Now, the country is attempting to forge closer aerospace ties worldwide, not only with Western nations, but with others including China and India. Much of the effort, including an Israeli request to perform experiments aboard the international space station, is science-related. Some of the ties, however, involve commercial deals with potential military applications that bring in desperately needed cash for Israeli industry.

"Other countries that sign agreements with us come to us not because they love Jews but because they think we can contribute something," Har-Even said. "I still believe that one day, when the political situation is more positive, we will find ourselves in very deep cooperation with other countries because they know they can win from cooperation with us."

A shrinking budget has made Har-Even's job tougher than ever. The space agency received less than $1 million from Israel's government in 2002, a tiny fraction of NASA's $14.8 billion budget. Funding for civil space projects has been slashed in recent months by economic hard times and government spending to deal with the ongoing Palestinian uprising. Even so, the country's aerospace industry continues to receive a substantial cash infusion from Israel's $9 billion military budget.

That makes income from sales to foreign customers more crucial than ever. In recent years, Israel Aircraft Industries, the country's largest aerospace contractor, and several partners have tried to break into the commercial launch market with versions of the Shavit, or Comet, booster.

Israel used the Shavit to join the Space Age in 1988 by successfully launching the Ofeq (Horizon) 1 test surveillance satellite. The small, three-stage rocket can carry lightweight payloads to low Earth orbit. A military variant of the Shavit called the Jericho-2 is a ballistic missile with a range reportedly up to 2,800 miles. The booster launches from Palmachim Air Force Base, just south of Tel Aviv on Israel's Mediterranean coast. To avoid flying over foreign territory, the Shavit must head westward over the Mediterranean Sea and pass through the Straits of Gibraltar. Traveling against the eastward direction of the Earth's rotation reduces the weight Shavit can carry and limits the orbits it can fly to.

The Shavit largely has been frozen out of the U.S. launch market by a requirement that U.S. government satellites must launch on rockets that are at least 50 percent American-made. Plans to build the booster with U.S. parts or lift off from Wallops Island in Virginia have been scuttled. Two launch failures in six attempts also have caused potential customers to question the Shavit's reliability. However, the rocket performed flawlessly on its most recent flight, hurling the Ofeq 5 military spy satellite into orbit last May…

Some Relief

Ha'aretz Survey: Likud up 3 seats, Labor down 4

Likud is up to 30 (still down from the 41 in the first poll after the election was announced), with total right-wing and religious party support up to 65. Labor is at 20, with total left-wing seats at 38, and Shinui and the small centrist parties at 17. The marijuana party gets 2, in recognition, I guess, of their sincere contribution to the debate over the serious issues facing Israel today.

Details are here

This ignorance is no bliss!

Were it not that the temperature outside registers -15 degrees Celsius (about zero Fahrenheit), I would have thought the following piece from the Jerusalem Post to be joke for April 1. It concerns an interview with the president of Uganda, Musevini, who is currently visiting Israel:
During an interview in his Inbal Hotel suite in Jerusalem, Museveni said the Palestinians are the Philistines mentioned in the Bible.

"The Palestinians are an ancient people here," the president said.

"The Bible talks about them. Yes, you read about them. Goliath was a Palestinian. That is what was written, that he was Philistine.

Philistine means Palestinian."

"The Bible talks of Jews," he continued. "As far as I can see [both] these people are people of this area the Jews and the Palestinians, more or less like the tribes in Africa. If they could live in harmony it would be good for the world and for all of us."
On second thought, Musevini probably makes more sense then Chomsky does.

Seriously, I wonder how much of the anti-Israeli sentiment in the world derives precisely from the combination of ignorance, misinformation and perverted logic that Musevini has displayed.

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

Just in case you wondered, note the final paragraph of this excerpt Muslim Militants Defiant Despite Cairo Truce Talk

GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian Islamic militants on Thursday vowed no let-up in their fight against Israeli occupation despite reported progress in talks by Palestinian factions in Cairo aimed at a temporary cease-fire.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in remarks reported by Egypt's MENA news agency on Wednesday, spoke of momentum toward a deal on halting militant attacks that have killed scores of Israelis in a Palestinian uprising going on since 2000.

But militant leaders on the ground in the Gaza Strip said there could be no cease-fire until Israel "ended the occupation."

"The withdrawal of the occupation is the condition for stopping the attacks. (We pursue) resistance of all forms and everywhere," Abdallah al-Shami, a senior Islamic Jihad figure, told Reuters.

He declined to clarify whether he meant withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, territories Israel took in the 1967 Middle East war and sprinkled with Jewish settlements, or Israel too.


"The following 'Honest Reporting Communique' presents a view on the issue of imbalanced reporting in the context of the current Palestinian-Arab-Israeli war.

For IsReally readers, it will come as no surprise that the media industry has sold itself out to the worst elements in Palestinian society. For anyone not familiar with this kind of unethical journalism, it should be an eye-opener."
[...]Seaman says: "The editorial boards got the message and replaced their people."

The four news organization denied that the reassignments were related to GPO pressure. Ha'aretz reports that Andrew Steele, BBC Jerusalem bureau chief, lashed back by asking BBC London to boycott Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau. Steele has reportedly decided not to ask Sharon's people for comments or reactions, because of what he says is the government's refusal to give press accreditation to Palestinians employed by the BBC.

To put things into perspective, HonestReporting readers should recall the words of Fayad Abu Shamala, BBC's correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years, who spoke at a Hamas rally in Gaza: "Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

Seaman says that Palestinians who work with the media attend a course in media manipulation at Bir Zeit University, and exercise control over information flow. He says: "The Palestinians let the foreign journalists understand: if you don't work with our people we'll sever contact with you, you won't have access to sources of information and you won't get interviews."

Iraq's crimes

A government personnel card of a "fighter in the Iraqi popular army" named
Aziz Salih Ahmed, who listed his official occupation as professional rapist or
"violator of women's honor."

"The basic facts, of course, of life under Saddam's regime are familiar from
countless human rights reports. Between three and four million refugees.
Something like a million war dead. Over 200,000 "disappeared". Political
opponents tortured and executed. Ethnic and religious groups persecuted."

"I was not surprised to hear from the courageous women that I met last week
that they believed that this was not enough. Or, in their own words, that Saddam
is himself a "weapon of mass destruction"." - Resources: his
crimes against his own people, the U.S. and the world

Martin Kramer on Michael Ignatieff article Ignatieff's Empire

Sunday, January 5, 2002. Ignatieff's Empire. Michael Ignatieff has a meandering piece in today's New York Times Magazine on American empire. In it, he tells us that "leaving the Palestinians to face Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships is a virtual guarantee of unending Islamic wrath against the United States." The exit from the present situation is a "United Nations transitional administration [for the Palestinians], with U.N.-mandated peacekeepers to provide security for Israelis and Palestinians." Without this, victory in Iraq won't staunch the hemorrhaging of U.S. prestige in the Middle East. These ideas have been bouncing around for some time. Now they get the endorsement of a noted journalist and Harvard professor, in the most prominent spot in the print media.

I admit I have a hard time taking Ignatieff seriously on the Middle East, in part because of an article he published back in April in the London Guardian entitled "Why Bush Must Send in His Troops." Before you decide that Ignatieff is a sure guide to things Middle Eastern, read it.

You'll find that it includes, in one form or another, every trendy calumny against Israel. There is the infamous South African analogy: Palestinian self-rule was really "a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control." The Palestinian Authority had "failed because Israel never allowed it to become a state." Reading through this piece, you would never know that there were Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David—because they're never mentioned. Perhaps Ignatieff didn't want to get into the debate over what happened or didn't happen in those talks, in which an Israeli leader proposed the creation of a Palestinian state on virtually all the lands occupied in 1967. But that would only have complicated things for Ignatieff's inevitably Solomonic verdict: "Both sides have an equal share of blame."

As for as the Palestinian half of the blame, Ignatieff quickly shifts some of that to Israel's shoulders, too. Israel kept the Palestinian Authority too weak. "Had Israel realized that its own security depended on assisting in the establishment of a viable and, if necessary, ruthless Palestinian Authority it might now be secure." In particular, Israel did not allow the PA "enough military and police capability."

Not enough? Did Ignatieff have a clue about what was going on in the PA? The PA (even according to David Hirst in the Guardian) had forty to fifty thousand persons in its security services—ten to twenty thousand more than the number agreed upon in Oslo II. As one observer put it, "the PA has become the most heavily policed territory in the world, with an officer-to-resident ratio of 1:50; the U.S. ratio for police officers and sheriff's deputies, in contrast, is 1:400." So what, in Ignatieff's view, would have been "enough military and police capability"? (And why military?)

In fact, the problem was never one of capability. It was one of will. The PA decided to wage war with the weapons it had been given to keep peace. Some think that had there been fewer "security services" and guns, there might not have been an intifada at all.

But the absolute low point of this article is Ignatieff's invocation of the "sacrifice of the young people on both sides in a mutually reinforcing death cult." It's an insufferable case of false symmetry, especially coming as it did in the midst of the worst suicide bombings. Even if you believe Israelis and Palestinians are locked in a "cycle of violence," you're showing yourself ignorant if you compare the suicidal "death cult" rampant among Palestinians to the stoic resolve of Israelis.

"The Americans now face a historic choice," pronounced Ignatieff back in April. "For 50 years, they have played the double game of both guaranteeing Israel's security and serving as honest broker in the region. This game can't go on." This is the greatest of all the calumnies—not just against Israel, but against generations of U.S. policymakers. A "double game"? It's been an immensely successful strategy, which won the Cold War in the Middle East and produced the Israeli-Egyptian peace. This "double game" has prevented a general conflagration for thirty years. And it must go on, because the moment America's commitment to Israel seems diminished in Arab eyes, the region is destined to spiral into war, just as it did in 1967 and 1973.

None of the nonsense Ignatieff published in the Guardian would have gotten past an editor at the Times, but all of it is implicit in today's new piece. 9/11 has turned everyone into a Middle East expert for fifteen minutes. That's about as long as it will take you to get through the lead article of today's Magazine. Time's up.
Transfer is the only solution

Guardian published an article a year ago by Benny Morris entitled Peace? No chance with the following headnote.
Benny Morris was the radical Israeli historian who forced his country to confront its role in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Later he was jailed for refusing to do military service in the West Bank. But now he has changed his tune. As the cycle of violence in the Middle East intensifies, he launches a vicious attack on the 'inveterate liar' Yasser Arafat - and explains why he believes a peaceful coexistence is impossible.
But the extract that I like best is
Ultimately, I believe, the balance of military force or the demography of Palestine, meaning the discrepant national birth rates, will determine the country's future, and either Palestine will become a Jewish state, without a substantial Arab minority, or it will become an Arab state, with a gradually diminishing Jewish minority. Or it will become a nuclear wasteland, a home to neither people ten years there will be one Israel including the territories with no Palestinians or one Palestine with no Israelis.
Something to think about. Great article.

History of the transfer option

A new exodus for the Middle East? The headnote in this Guardian article

Rightwing Israelis are talking about 'transfer' - the expulsion of all Arabs. Shocking as it sounds, the idea once had support from British and Arab officials, reveals distinguished Israeli historian Benny Morris. And, continuing our series on the Arab-Israeli conflict, he argues the Middle East might now be at peace if Israel's first leader had driven out all the Palestinians in 1948
Read the article. You'll be surprised and rewarded.

Ted Belman

Belgium Amending Law To Enable Sharon Trial

In a truly disgusting sign of the times in the EU, Belgium is passing a new law specifically targeting the Prime Minister of Israel. I assume this new brand of Nuremberg Law will soon be extended to cover all Jews whose mere existence is a "crime against humanity" as far as the European lynch mob is concerned. If not for the fact that they have already murdered all the Jews within two thousand miles I am quite certain that they would be preparing to fire the ovens again.
(Ha'aretz) Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt says he is not opposed to a proposal to amend the country's laws in a way that would allow Ariel Sharon to be indicted for war crimes.

Verhofstadt made his comment on Tuesday on the efforts of several politicians in Belgium's senate to amend and broaden the country's war crime laws. Under the proposal, originally sponsored mainly by left-wing politicians in the senate, Belgium's 1993 "Universal Law" would be expanded to apply to any person suspected of war crimes, "no matter where the suspect may be located."

The proposal won backing in the senate by all its parties. It then was moved to the state council, a body supposed to review the legal status of proposed bills, and evaluate their compatibility with Belgium's constitution.

The council approved the proposed amendment and the bill returned to the senate, where it passed on first reading. Second and third reading votes will be carried out next week, and the senate will apparently fully approve it. Belgium's government also supports the law, and now the Prime Minister has clarified that he doesn't oppose it.

Last June, a Belgian appeals court ruled that Ariel Sharon cannot face trial in the country on war crimes charges. Only suspects who dwell in Belgium can face trial for war crimes committed beyond the country's borders, the court found.

Israeli officials expressed consternation about Verhofstadt's position. Belgium's Prime Minister visited Israel over a year ago, when he was acting chairman of the European Union.

He met Sharon and the sources say that the meeting created the impression that Verhofstadt had reservations about legal proceedings which were then being carried out in Belgium against Israel's prime minister. The sources claimed that Belgium stands out as one of Europe's countries most hostile toward Israel.

On Sunday, Belgium's ambassador to Israel was called to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, where he was informed of Israel's concerns regarding the proposed new bill in Belgium.

January 15, 2003

Canadians: Let's Take Action!

Shirley Anne Harber suggests:

We need to commend Bill Graham who has taken a firm stand against the hateful words of the Lebanese ambassador to Canada. HOWEVER, we should also state clearly that Canada should not tolerate having the ambassador slander the Jewish community. He should be sent back to Lebanon! He should respect Canada's decision to ban Hezbollah. He should be praising Canada for its decision to fight against terrorism to make Canada a safer place for our citizens!

On a separate note: Everyone must make an effort to visit this most miraculous country [Israel]! In spite of all the stress brought on by the terrorism which the Israelis live with on a daily business, life goes on just as usual. They are a most incredible, resilient people who deserve our support and our praise!

WRITE TO: Letters to the news media plus letters to Bill Graham and your MP!

The Honourable Bill Graham
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Tel: (613) 992 5234
Fax: (613) 996-9607

To find your MP click on this link - go down 6 lines - use your 'zip code'