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

March 01, 2003

A Monumental Mistake

Michael Freund is against the creation of a Palestinian state and says so,
Addressing the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday, Bush spoke of his "personal commitment" to the idea of establishing a Palestinian state, despite Yasser Arafat's 30-month-long campaign of lethal error against Israel.

[...]It would be easy to dismiss the president's remarks as just another attempt to appease Arab public opinion before the start of the impending war with Baghdad. After all, much of the Arab world will be less than thrilled to see U.S. Marines hauling Saddam Hussein off in handcuffs, so Bush likely feels he must offer them some sort of verbal "quid pro quo" to keep them happy.

[...]By resorting to violence and terror on such a grand scale, the Palestinians have singlehandedly undermined any claim they might have had to being worthy of statehood alongside Israel. For Bush to speak out now about granting them independence, at a time when they are engrossed in trying to kill Jews, is remarkably ill-conceived and astonishingly inappropriate. MORE
But Freund fall short in his analysis of the import of the speech. Bush had this to say about the Arab Israeli conflict
For its part, the new government of Israel -- as the terror threat is removed and security improves -- will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end. And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.
This paragraph says a lot. First, Bush put off cessation of settlement activity until "progress is made toward peace" which is defined as when "the terror threat is removed and security is improved". The longer the Arabs take to do this, the more settlement activity will take place. Secondly he stresses that all Arab countries must do three things;oppose terrorism, support a peaceful democratic Palestine (including Syria and Iran) and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel. A tall order. A very tall order, indeed.

For those of you who think this will never happen, you can take comfort that there will never be a Palestinian state. For others, if all this happens, why not a Palestinian state.

Freund's position is that the Palestinians don't deserve a state given their past conduct. Bush's position is if they clean up their act, including all Arab states, there will be a Palestinian state. He is not necessarily rewarding terrorism as some would suggest but offering a state as an inducement to change. But no where does he mention what the boundaries will be or what the restrictions will be. Sharon is on record of only favouring a state on 42% of the land. This is area A and B in the Oslo accords and contains about 90% of the Arab population in the territories and Gaza. The separation wall is being built to confiscate a good part of the lands that aren't included. Where the eventual border will be is anybody's guess, but I am hoping it will be closer to Sharon's then Barak's proposal.

But there is one more thing that requires attention. Powell annunciated it a few months ago and Bush reiterated it in this speech that he is talking about a "viable" state. Just what does this mean. The Palestinians have long complained that what Barak offered was not viable with the emphasis on whether the lands were contiguous or the border fairly straight. Joseph Norland, on this site, has pointed out many of the reasons that such a state would not be viable not the least of which was the limited water resources. It may be that such a state even with borders acceptable to the Arabs would not be viable and will always be dependant on international financial support. How then can it be viable according to Bush. Is Israel going to be forced to allow the Arabs to work in Israel in order to make it viable. This appears to me to be an infringement on Israel's sovereignty.

To my mind it is not possible to create such a state and time is better spent on a solution that can work.

Join Bloggers in Support of Israel (BISI)

This is a revised re-post of our invitation to pro-Israel bloggers to join BISI (and its vehicle, IsraPundit); we post this invitation monthly on the first of every month. The post includes answers to questions raised by bloggers who’ve contacted us recently.

IsraPundit provides a platform for anyone who wishes to post regularly or occasionally (or even rarely), provided only that the articles in question fall within the purview of “pro-Israel advocacy”, broadly defined. We do prefer articles that are short on adjectives and rhetoric, and long on nouns, facts and arguments. Let the facts do the convincing. News, views, analyses and reviews are all welcome.

There is no commitment whatsoever in joining BISI/IsraPundit, except for remaining within the limits of “pro-Israel advocacy”. In response to questions asked, I underscore that there are no charges, fees, etc. No traps, honestly.

Of course, you may also cross-post articles you post elsewhere: if you run your own blog site, then copying articles to IsraPundit takes but 5 extra minutes. Trust me, I cross-post all the time. If you use our standard attribution, “Contributed by [your name]; this article is cross-posted at IsraPundit and [name of your site]”, then you may end up increasing the traffic to your site as a bonus.

Some of us (including myself) have closed our original sites and post on IsraPundit only; the advantage stems from the fact that one need not feel beholden to post continually. With time, many bloggers feel the pressure to post daily as overly burdensome (just check out how many blogs are being discontinued every week!) With IsraPundit, you post when you can spare the time, knowing that others ensure that the site is never without new material.

Above all else, the main advantage in joining BISI is the knowledge that you are supporting our sister-democracy, Israel, at a very tough time.

The technicalities of joining are as easy as sending me an e-mail - - indicating willingness to join. I then send a "formal invitation" and you're on your way to posting. When you write to me, please enclose name, e-mail address, and the URL of your site. If you don't have a site, please send a sample article. If you have questions, send them to me.

I also invite all readers to send critical comments about the site: what do you like (if anything), what do you dislike ("everythging" is not a sufficient answer), what would you like the site to change? As we continue into our fourth month, and as we are confident that IsraPundit is here to stay, we are about to assess these points, and your feedback is most welcome. Don't hesitate to be harsh - our hide competes with that of a rhino. You can post your views as comments or e-mail them to me (

BISI is more than just IsraPundit, though currently the effort is concentrated on IsraPundit alone. We do intend to initiate a discussion about other aspects of support for Israel that we may undertake to help our sister-republic, but we can only move one step at a time. In particular, we'd like to engage in a dialogue with "neutrals" or foes; preaching to the converted is comfortable, but it does not further the cause. We’d also like to see more collaboration and co-ordination among web sites (bloggers and others) who support Israel.

We are still having difficulties with our archives, as you can see by checking out the right-hand column. If you are a member of BISI and you can lend a hand to fix this problem, please contact me.

Thank you for reading this post, and if you join - a double thank you.

A special thanks to Fred for suggesting this posting which has already brought IsraPundit several new article-contributors..

Joseph Alexander Norland

Calling it like it is

Walid Phares, a Professor of Middle East Studies and a Terrorism analyst and contributor to MEF, points out in a speech what has been obvious to the informed observer, but what the admisnistration has not acknowledged, until now.

This article points out that Bush's most recent speech makes it clear that the war to come is not about WMD's or UN Resolutions- it is about regime change, and freeing a people. HE has thus give the marchers something righteous to march about if they can get by their anti-American prejudices. And he has given the American people a valid reason to fight this war. (M. Diamond)
As I was listening to President Bush's speech tonight, I was projecting his words into the ears of the Middle East. At first hearing, it sounded as if he finally reached the destination into the heart of the matter and of the region's civil societies. Indeed, the road map to Iraq unfolded the global mapping of the area. So, in a sum, it is not just about inspections, nor just about disarming, not even about solely removing Saddam from power. It is not simply about Oil nor about a strict link with al-Qaida. It is about the whole thing. Read that as the regional system which oppresses, suppresses and crushes peoples and Peace.

And this is precisely, and I keep repeating it since the State of the Union address of last year, what has created the mass obstruction to Washington's designs. In simple words, M Bush -willingly or unwillingly is the first President since Woodrow Wilson who granted the peoples of the Middle East at least the benefit of the doubt that not only they can Govern themselves democratically, but they also deserve that choice. Shouldn't that alone ignite the concerns of the Hukkam (rulers) of the region? Of at least those who live off the one party, the dominant party or the no party systems? These anzima (regimes) have rushed to shield brother Saddam -even if they hate him from regime change. It was clear since day one. Not only the Syrian-Saudi inspired Arab League voiced its concerns in the Security Council via Damascus' representative, but dragged the oil-driven political establishments in Paris and Berlin to double the shielding of Baghdad.

It was a strange situation where all knew what the stakes were about, except the American public, and hence the international public opinion. The remarkable presentation by Secretary Powell at the United Nations indicted Saddam on two major counts, weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida. The international anti-American camp rejected both accounts on the ground of insufficient evidence. That rejection had no chance of flexibility. It was based on geopolitical interests. To each shred of evidence presented by the US, Chirac, Shroeder, Assad and the Wahabis would have unleashed their consulting firms to invent the next counter motion. It was going no where, or actually it was stretching Saddam's time till the summer and eventually beyond.

Had the US stressed the third count of indictment in New York, the "shield" would have been deactivated. Had Washington spoke of Halabja's chemical massacres in 1988, with its thousands of gassed Kurds. Had the US opened the files of ethnic cleansing of half a million Iraqis from all backgrounds and of the dark ages torture of citizens by the Baathist regime, it would have silenced the Petro-elites across the Mediterranean. Had our argumentation mirrored the drama of the Balkans, we would have moved forward earlier, with the coalition of the comfortable willing.

Put it that way. Had we told the world, and particularly the peoples of Iraq and the Arab world, that the United States was coming to liberate civil societies from dictators, the marchers for Peace would have walked to the Iraqi embassies and burned Saddam's portraits instead of George W's. The Jihadists would have continued to vilify America no matter how legitimate is the presentation. The war of al-Qaida against Dar el-Harb is just that. It has nothing to do with our intellectual sophistication. Bin Laden wants to establish the Caliphate despite if the US would call back its troops from the Peninsula. Watch al-jazeera. You'll get that straight -in Arabic of course. But let's admit it as of tonight. Washington was shy and hesitant for too long. The President's speech ended the uncertainties.

From there on, let it be two camps: The one for change, and the one for the status quo. Let the marchers make their choice, and let each one chose a symbol. If it is about regime change, and a regional revolution to follow, I can guarantee you what the peoples of the Middle East would want to see: Certainly not to fight for Saddam, nor for the other brothers-dictators. Let the bourgeois of Europe demonstrate for fear of losing their comfortable life style, and let the oppressed from Morocco to Iran demonstrate for a life they never had since independence.

The President spoke of liberating Iraq from its own Terror. He assured the masses of Mesopotamia that their rights on their resources are sacred, and told the minorities not to fear the future. He warned the other sister-regimes of Perestroika. Those words may not be understood by a number of politicians at home and overseas. They are not to be blamed for they have not been liberated from the Oil-funded education they have received for decades. They will hear other voices soon, louder then the planes-missiles sent by Bin Laden on 9/11: The voices of post Saddam civil societies in the region. But Bush's speech was obviously well captured by the brotherhood of oppression from Damascus to Tehran. There will be no sleep in those quarters after tonight. That is a fact.

M. Wolfowitz spoke to the Iraqi Americans last Sunday. Mr. Bush spoke to the Arab and Muslim streets tonight. The President aimed at laying the ground for the case of the liberation of Iraq: A case that was long awaited by most Iraqis, many Arabs, and most Middle Eastern peoples for so long. However, it seems that the first to be liberated by this speech was America itself. For going to war without a cause is as marching to battle without a reason. Now, Americans are free to see why they may be marching and for whom. Let the choice be made.
Israeli coalition sets tough rules for talks with Palestinians

Six links dealing with ME issues that appeared today
The Importance of Being Lucid

A review by Yehudah Mirsky of two books dealing withpolitical jihad and though Informative you are not going to like what the second writer, John Esposito, has to say about Israel

Political Islam is all the rage. But is the rage all of political Islam? Since bursting into Western consciousness with the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the cluster of movements and figures of Islamism and political Islam have been variously an inspiration and a terror-and regularly both to many-a political football in sundry regional conflicts, a challenge to their governments, a vexation to Western policymakers, and last and least, a boon to academics. The Islamists' potential for wreaking massive havoc and suffering well beyond their accustomed frontiers was made clear to all, or should have been, by the events of September 11, 2001.

One may discern several streams in the rivers of ink flowing around political Islam: the argument that political Islam, and its terrorism in particular, represent a backlash against globalization, an argument put together most intelligently and presciently in Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs. McWorld and burlesqued today by the pseudo-analyses of Noam Chomsky; the clash of civilizations thesis, famously, or infamously, associated with Samuel Huntington; those who see Islamist organizations as the stirrings of a nascent civil society akin to that which developed in Central and Eastern Europe under the Soviets; those, chief among them Bernard Lewis and his students, who see Islamists as dangerous and unreformable authoritarians; students of comparative religion, among them many contributors to the University of Chicago's outstanding multi-volume Fundamentalisms Project, understandably fascinated by the ironies and complexities of thoroughgoingly modern movements claiming the mantle of tradition; and of course, the now-hegemonic postmodern academic discourse founded by Edward Said's Orientalism, perhaps best understood as an academic Gnostic eschatology, which, like other Gnostic messianisms, easily becomes an apologetics of violence.

The life or death significance of these discussions has never been clearer to the United States and its allies since September 11. And so Gilles Kepel's powerful study of political Islam is all the more welcome. A professor of Middle East Studies at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, Kepel's synthesis of sociological understanding, historical explanation, and journalistic immediacy recalls that of Raymond Aron, along with the latter's lucid distinctions between pseudo-democratic progressive rhetoric, and the real thing. Though not without its flaws, his is likely the single most valuable and helpful volume on political Islam today, made all the more so by his ability to make adroit use of sociological analysis and yet elude the thrall of theory.
His story begins with the various nationalist and postcolonial regimes that emerged in the postwar years and their inability to fashion coherent national identities or viable economies. Scarcely legitimate in the eyes of their people, yet for the most part stubbornly impervious to change, these regimes have confounded conventional notions, which, Kepel writes: "have tended to equate . . . modernization with secularization. But nowhere in the Muslim world of the late 1960s did religion vanish from popular culture, social life or day-to-day politics. Islam was merely handled in different ways by different regimes, and was combined with nationalism in ways that varied according to the social class of those who had seized power at the moment of independence."

Since the end of the nineteenth century, various Muslim intellectuals and organizations, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, had attempted to articulate an alternative to Western-style modernity, through a reassertion of a reinvigorated Islam as the guiding principle of a new social order. These ideas gained renewed attraction as the regimes stagnated.

The reviwer, fortunately, catches John Esposito, author of the second work under review, in a number of mistaken facts and heavy-handed anti-Israel biases. [more]
Bush Selects Zionist U.S. General To Run Iraq

This Arab article --with the usual anti-Jewish and anti-Israel venom--suggests that Bush is to appoint a "tainted" ex-military man to help reconstruct Iraq after a war, and that there is a conflict of ethical interests. " Although a Pentagon official said Jay Garner's new role as head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance does not constitute a conflict of interest, ethics experts say the appointment raises troubling questions"--ethics experts being one man at Berkeley. Of some interest though, is the appended document that indicates an organization of Jewish military officers, here reported as being pro-Israel and perhaps at the expense of their native country, America. You read and make your own judgement
[...]While the S.F. Chronicle lauds this general turned "humantarian" the general's past roles as one of the key leaders of JINSA and longtime advocate of using the U.S. military to support Zionism has been removed from the JINSA site

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a cabal [sic!] of Jewish American military officers who have long advocated putting Israel's security needs before those of the United States, has removed most all links to JINSA positions which may embarass the Bush administrations drive to appoint General Gardner as the U.S. installed dictator of "liberated" Iraq.

Despite the Zionist's attempt to put General Gardner's past down the memory hole, many Arab sources including Al-Quds al-Arabi and Washington Report on Middle East have revealed General Gardner's close ties to the Israeli Likud party. The established media should realize that they may purge and censor their news to constantly rewrite history, but the truth lives forever on the Internet. There are still many sources on what General Gardner actually believes such as this JINSA statement on Palestinian "violence." [more]
Why Left is Wrong on Islam

Talk about backgrounds! Here is a former Moslem, now an agnostic Jew, denouncing his fellow Socialists for their intolerance
[...] The reason these two issues are so overwhelmingly important to me is I am an Ex-Moslem: I was raised in the United States by Middle-Eastern Moslems who were Western-educated in the 1950s and 1960s – and I am well aware of the underlying motives behind what Islam stands for: I was one of the indoctrinated for 27 years.

Before I explain further, I think it’s very important to note here Islam is not just a religion. Islam is a religion, a social structure, a legal system that decides innocence and guilt, a penal system that metes out punishment, and a way of thinking about the world based around the four preceding ideas.

Islam, using the five ideas I mention, plays a key role in oppression, deception, human rights abuses, and maintaining “the status quo.” Islamic countries and movements lead Amnesty International’s and Human Rights Watch’s list of wrongdoers against basic human rights “All Movements Left,” including The Socialist Movement, stand for. I add with great vigor that I, as an Ex-Moslem, also stand for these human rights: I know what it is like to live without them, even in a Western country. Such abuses within the social structure of Islam are not limited to the Middle East, I assure you.

It bothers me, in this time of moral crisis, that The Socialist Movement takes a pro-Islam, pro-Palestine stance. I know the arguments: the underdog, fostering change, supporting the oppressed. But what I have watched “All Movements Left” do over the last year shocks me – because I was once a part of that pro-Islamic, pro-Palestinian community and I know all too well where the greater oppression lies.

Never once have I heard the atrocities done by Moslems to Moslems (in a world-wide sense) condemned. I know such atrocities happen: I have not only heard of them, I have seen them. Yet, The Socialists are silent: why? [more]
Iraq and Israel: A Jew answers back

"Many people in this country [England] and around the world believe that to be anti-war you need to be anti-Israel. But they are wrong. And this is why... " A smart Jew answers a dumb Jew on Iraq, war, Israel, and the Palestinians
[...] As a Jew I wish to say that I am made equally distraught by the inadvertent rhetoric of her [ Alibhai-Brown's] distress. "Some 600 or so Israelis have been murdered by Palestinians," she reminds us, wishing to be even-handed. "That is unequivocally condemned by me. But 2,000 or more Palestinians have been massacred by the overwhelming force of the Israeli army." Note the "but", which if it does not exactly make her "unequivocally" equivocal again, points to qualitative, no less than quantitive, difference in the deaths. Not just 2,000 as against 600, but "massacred" as against "murdered", and massacred by an overwhelming force, as though there is nothing overwhelming about a bomb in a suicide bomber's pocket, and as though it is not a massacre when it goes off on a crowded school bus.

Is that last phrase rhetoric of my own? No doubt it is. We are at war, here, as to who is the victim of whom. We would do well, on both sides, to drop the concept of victim altogether. We are in too deep for it now. But that is asking a lot in the eyes of those who "see connections", because Israel, as every schoolboy knows and is keen to demonstrate on Question Time, is armed to the teeth. "Why not disarm Israel as well then?" comes the question at more or less the same point of every public debate, as though there is exact or indeed any equivalence between Saddam's deployment of arms and Israel's. "Israel also flouts the wishes of the United Nations and has weapons of mass destruction." Followed by applause. A little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

None of us can be absolutely sure what would have happened, had such and such not happened also, but there is no Jew of my acquaintance, let him be the staunchest opponent of Israel's present policies, who doubts that without the appropriate deterrents Israel would long ago have been driven into the sea. Humanity is short on memory. Thirty-five years ago "brave little Israel" was everybody's favourite underdog, putting to flight the armies of however many Arab countries bent on its destruction. The mistake it made, as far as public relations went, was to learn from its own history and beef itself up militarily. A disappointment, that, to sentimentalists the world over. We preferred Israel svelte and fragile. We enjoyed the frisson of its being ever on the brink. Too bad. Every country has to grow up some time. And no one loves you when you're old and grey. But if Yasmin Alibhai-Brown cannot understand why her otherwise open and amenable Jewish friends go quiet when she tells them that Israel should be treated exactly as Bush and Blair propose we treat Iraq, here is the reason: Israel has the weapons it has because without them it would not exist.[more]
Palestinian Assets 'a Mess,' Official Says

The New York Times carries this article that indicates that Israeli charges on misuse of Palestinian funds is true JERUSALEM, Feb. 28 — The Palestinian Authority's top finance official said today that he had identified $600 million in Authority assets in 79 commercial ventures, including money that he said appeared to have given rise to Israeli accusations of slush funds controlled by Mr. Arafat and others.

"Of all the issues in public finance that cause us to have a bad name, this probably is the one that had the biggest neon sign on it," said the finance minister, Salam Fayyad, a former official of the International Monetary Fund who has been praised by American and Israeli officials as an energetic reformer.

In an interview here, Mr. Fayyad described a jumble of individually managed investments of public money in concerns ranging from Canadian biopharmaceuticals to Algerian cellphones.

While declining to discuss in detail the performance of officials who previously controlled the investments, Mr. Fayyad said the money would now be managed by a publicly accountable board of directors of the new Palestine Investment Fund. [more]
USF gets millions for terror fight

And at the same time The University of South Florida has until recently housed a few people accused of terrorism itself

TAMPA - At the same time former professor Sami Al-Arian is accused of directing a terrorist network from his University of South Florida office, professors in offices nearby were attracting millions of federal dollars to fight terrorism.

USF is one of the highest federally funded universities in the nation for anti-terrorism, according to university officials. The U.S. Department of Defense and several branches of the military provided USF with at least $8 million in funding this academic year in just two of its anti-terrorism programs - the USF Center for Biological Defense and technology development by USF's Center for Ocean Technology.

The university opened the Center for Biological Defense in fall 2000. The center has received $3 million to $9 million annually from the Department of Defense. This academic year's contribution was about $7 million, according to the center's director, Jacquelyn Cattani.[more]
see too: UCF visiting professor has ties to terrorism suspect


There is often a temptation among right-wingers to think, "Why can't this problem of anti-Semitism just go away? It's such a distraction from more vital concerns." But the problem is, as much as you would like it to, the problem of anti-Semitism doesn't go away, and if you ignore it, it just gets worse. Furthermore, as cannot be said often enough, the Jews are the canaries in the coal mine. When a society starts veering into moral nihilism, the first target is almost always the Jews. But they're only the first target.

More here

(Crossposted from Dissecting Leftism)

February 28, 2003

Israeli Elections Update

The Israeli Knesset (parliament) approved the 30th Government of the State of Israel by a vote of 68-48 in a plenum session held on Thursday night. The 68-member government coalition is comprised of the Likud, Shinui, the National Religious Party and National Union. Nineteen of the 23 ministers in the Government were sworn in*.

Address to the
Knesset by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon presenting the new

List of Ministers in Israel's 30th Government

Ariel Sharon - Prime Minister (also holds the Communications, Housing and Construction, Labor
and Social Affairs, and Religious Affairs portfolios)

Yosef Lapid - Minister of Justice, and Deputy Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert - Minister of Industry and Trade, and Deputy Prime Minister
Silvan Shalom - Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Deputy Prime Minister

Benyamin Elon - Minister of Tourism
Tzachi Hanegbi - Minister of Public Security
Yisrael Katz - Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development
Avigdor Lieberman - Minister of Transportation
Limor Livnat - Minister of Education, Culture and Sport
Tzipi Livni - Minister of Immigrant Absorption
Shaul Mofaz - Minister of Defense
Yehudit Naot - Minister of the Environment
Dan Naveh - Minister of Health
Benjamin Netanyahu - Minister of Finance
Joseph Paritzky - Minister of National Infrastructures
Avraham Poraz - Minister of the Interior
Eliezer Sandberg - Minister of Science and Technology
Gideon Ezra - Minister without Portfolio
Uzi Landau - Minister without Portfolio
Natan Sharansky - Minister without Portfolio
Meir Sheetrit - Minister without Portfolio

Click here for a list of all Members of Knesset elected during the January 28 election.

(*): NRP MKs Efraim Eitam and Zevulun Orlev are expected to be appointed respectively Minister of Housing and Construction and Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, pending
party approval.
Natan Sharansky will be sworn in on Monday after the merger between the Likud and Yisrael Ba'Aliya goes into effect.
Dan Meridor will also be sworn in on Monday as Minister without Portfolio, after the Knesset approved Sharon's request to expand the number of ministers in the government.

Free Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein

The Mighty Steyn takes on the Losers Brzezinski and Snowcraoft and the BS of Dividing Jerusalem

The argument of the wise old birds and the EU and the Arab League is that a resolution of the Palestinian question is the key to a stable Middle East -- that somehow creating another backward repressive sewer state on a tiny sliver of the West Bank would transform the map from Algeria to Pakistan. Some of us think Brzezinski and Scowcroft are holding the plan upside down: Transforming the Middle East is the key to a resolution of the Palestinian question. Creating a functioning multi-ethnic confederation in Iraq is the first step. Regime change in Iran and Syria and dramatic reform in Saudi Arabia will come next. Removing the state sponsors of Palestinian terrorism, cutting off the suicide bombers from the Jew-killing bounty, isolating Hamas and Islamic Jihad as islands of depravity in a sea of liberty, ending the (at best lethargic, at worst complicit in terrorism) UN administration of the "refugee" "camps," all these are necessary -- not for a Palestinian state, but to wean the Palestinian people from their present dead-end death-cultism, without which weaning any new state is bound to fail. If the Palestinian people deserve liberty, why settle for Arafat?
Anti-Semitism in French schools

What I find the most disturbing in this is that teachers say they are having trouble teaching the Holocaust because of Arab and Muslim students anger. And, of course, for this to work it would involve the same educators, afraid to teach the Holocaust, enforcing rules against the same intimidation.
Anti-Semitism has become a ``true danger'' in French schools, the education minister said Thursday, announcing new measures to stop acts of hostility toward Jewish students.

Education Minister Luc Ferry said the government was setting up committees to monitor and respond to racist activity among students.

Teachers and principals will no longer be allowed to turn their heads when it comes to harassment of Jewish students, Ferry said.

``There is a trivialization of anti-Semitism that worries us, a new wave of anti-Semitism that is being tolerated by certain adults,'' Ferry said at a news conference.

Education leaders will meet later this month to toughen sanctions against students engaging in such behavior, Ferry said.

Some 455 racist and anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in the first trimester of the year in French public schools. Most were non-violent, involving verbal insults and offensive graffiti, school officials say.

Ferry said the anti-Semitic sentiment in schools can be traced to France's large Muslim and Arab population.

Last September, a group of teachers published a book entitled ``The Lost Territories of the Republic,'' in which they claim the teaching of the Holocaust has become impossible in some classrooms because of hostility toward the subject by students of Arab origin.

Cross posted at Voice from the Commonwealth

Iranian Intellectuals Against Khamenei

'Your Regime Is Illegitimate, Your Foreign and Domestic Policies Are Failing and Despotic' By Ayelet Savyon*.

In recent months, Iran has seen an increase in public protests by intellectuals and clerics against the regime of Iran's Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei. To date, the protestors have included: Muhammad Mohsen Sazgara, who wrote an article in April 2002[1] criticizing Khamenei's rule by tyranny; Dr. Hashem Aghajari, who delivered a scathing address calling for "Islamic Protestantism" and was subsequently sentenced to death;[2]and Ayatollah Taheri, who in July 2002 published a letter declaring his resignation from his post as the official Friday preacher in Isfahan.[3]

Recently, Iranian academic and former politician Dr. Qassem Sho'le-Ye Sa'adi also came out against Khamenei's regime. In December 2002, in an open letter to Khamenei, Sa'adi declared him unfit and illegitimate by religious law, the Iranian constitution, and by moral standards to lead Iran.[4] Furthermore, Sa'adi wrote that Khamenei is damaging Islam and ruining the principles of the Islamic regime, and he criticized Khamenei's judgment in directing Iran's foreign affairs. He particularly faulted the Supreme Leader's perpetuation of Iran's hostility towards the U.S. Similarly damaging to Iran, according to Sa'adi, is the "Palestinization" of Iranian national interests. Sa'adi condemned Khamenei's domestic policy and accused him of repressing the Iranian people who seek to change the regime through democratic elections. According to Sa'adi, Khamenei and his supporters – the Guardian Council, the Experts Council, the Expediency Council, the Judiciary, and the conservative security apparatuses – maintain a reign of terror over the people, particularly students, the reform movement, and the reformist parliament, with imprisonment, torture, and murder of opponents of the regime. MORE
This letter is a critical analysis of the Iranian political scene. To understand the potential for regime change in Iran , reading this letter is an indespensible tool. You can rest assured that the US is not napping.

Forbes- Arafat 6th Richest Despot

Saddam is number 4 with 2 billion, Forbes says Arafat has 300 million. Personally I think these numbers are way under done, it is not like these guys fill out financial statements.

"Arafat placed No. 6 on a list of world leaders in the "kings, queens, and despots" category. Saudi Arabia's King Fahd topped the list at $20 billion, and Saddam Hussein was fourth with $2b.

Forbes wrote that Arafat has "feasted on all sorts of funds flowing into the PA, including aid money, Israeli tax transfers, and revenue from a casino and Coca-Cola bottler. Much of the money appears to have gone to pay off others. New Finance Minister Salaam Fayad is cleaning up the PA's finances, cutting off much of Arafat's cash flow." " Link
In Memoriam - Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore

An Interview with Former NSA Analyst, James J Welsh

On January 15, 2003, I posted on IsraPundit and Dawson Speaks an article which examined the hostage-taking and murder of the US diplomats, Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, in Khartoum, Sudan, on March 2, 1973. The articles underscored the alleged personal culpability of Yasser Arafat and the alleged coverup by the US government. The article also noted the contribution of former NSA analyst, James J Welsh, to keeping the issue alive in pursuit of justice and truth.

In memory of Noel and Moore, IsraPundit presents below an interview with James J Welsh. We are most grateful to Mr Welsh for taking out the time for the purpose of this interview.


IsraPundit. Mr Welsh, first of all, thank you for agreeing to this interview and for sharing the information with us. Can you begin by describing how you came to know about the Khartoum murder of Noel and Moore? Were you in Khartoum at the time?

James Welsh. No, I was not in Khartoum during the crisis. I was at NSA and was the Palestinian communications analyst for NSA (from 1969 to 1974). I worked with the Sigint materials that were being intercepted between Beirut and the hostage-takers in Khartoum.

IsraPundit. The events that we are talking about occurred thirty years ago, and yet you still seem to be emotionally engaged in this matter. What is the reason for your ongoing interest?

James Welsh. My interest is due to the fact that tapes were made of Yasser Arafat planning, directing and finally ordering the executions of Noel and Moore. On an emotional level, I have never forgotten the way in which the screw-up in notifying Khartoum was dealt with. To protect those who questioned our analysis, the whole affair became a non-event, ostensibely for security reasons. No one at State or NSA who was involved in the downgrading of the warning message ever suffered any consequences. When I asked to speak with the persons responsible for the decision, I was refused. Conversely, due to my heated criticisms of those responsible, I was subjected to a lowered score on my next military evaluation. The message became very clear at that point: enlisted NCOs do not question civilian GS-16s.

IsraPundit. Much has been said about these tapes but they have never been in the public domain. Are you positive that the tapes were indeed made?

James Welsh. The tapes were made. Some were made in Cyprus and others at the embassies in Beirut and khartoum. NSA (and CIA) possessed them and there never was any doubt when I was there that it was Arafat's voice directing the operation from initial intercept on February 28 (the day before!) to its end on March 2. So now you know. It was a long time ago but this man did order the deaths of two U.S. diplomats. We taped his words. I guess there is nothing that can be done now but I often wonder why Yasser Arafat's image and continued presence on the world scene is more important than simple justice for two dedicated diplomats who were murdered thirty years ago.

IsraPundit. What happened after Arafat's messages were intercepted?

James Welsh. I helped draft a warning message on February 28, 1973, that a Black September operation was imminent in Khartoum. The warning was to have gone Flash precedence to Khartoum via State Department but the NSA liaison office and INR got cold feet and downgraded it to routine.

My statement (dated October 25, 2000) to the US Congress on these events reads:

"[A] NSA field station informed us that it had intercepted a conversation between Yasser Arafat and Salah Khalaf, the leaders of Fatah, in Beirut and Khalil al-Wazir in Khartoum discussing preparations for an imminent operation in Khartoum. This information was immediately passed through the chain of command at NSA and ultimately was brought to the attention of the Director, NSA (DIRNSA). A decision was made to send this message at Flash (highest)
precedence to the US Embassy Khartoum via State Department, as channels required. Within three hours this was done and we all felt relieved that at least our embassy personnel in Khartoum would be safe."

IsraPundit. What happened when you discovered that the two US diplomats were murdered, in spite of your warning?

James Welsh. Myself and my co-worker began inquiries into how this had happened. We were told that DIRNSA was at that moment on the way to State Department with a copy of the warning with the intention of discovering why it had apparently not been heeded. At State Department, he was shocked to find out that, on the evening of its transmittal to State Department a Watch Officer, in what is now called the Investigations and Review Section, had downgraded this urgent warning message to a routine cable. It arrived two days after the murders.

The rest is history. Justice was never done in this matter because of a decision to cover up the matter of the warning message. Hence to this day, neither the tapes nor transcripts of Arafat's participation in these murders has ever been officially disclosed or admitted by the United States government. However, during my research, two persons involved in later official US investigations of the issue admitted to me they had read the transcripts of the recordings. In effect, justice for the families of Noel and Moore has been denied for 30 years not because of reasons of state, but to cover the highest levels of the State Department and the White House in March, 1973.

IsraPundit. And how would you explain the eagerness to cover up?

James Welsh. If you recall, this was not a good time for the Nixon administration. I realize these are strong words but I was involved in this from the moment we intercepted the plans to the end of the crisis. Whatever you will read or be told by official sources (department spokesmen, Congressional committees, Justice department officials) is not true.

Unfortunately, a need to cover a terrible mistake in judgement made 30 years ago has allowed Arafat to evade the responsibility for these murders. If you research these murders you will find an almost impenetrable wall surrounding the subject.

You can ask the question: what is so important about an event that occurred thirty years ago, that it is still classified top secret? If Arafat's voice were not on the tapes then why the reluctance to release the tapes or the transcripts? The absence of an answer is in fact an answer. Quite frankly, Mr. Kissinger has the answers. I have it on very good authority the he was responsible for the removal of all records at State Department and destruction of cables at Beirut and Khartoum between Feb 28 and Mar 3, 1973. These cables spoke very candidly about Arafat's involvement during the crisis. It was only after everything had ended that the enormity of the impact the tapes could have on relations with "moderate" Arab governments was realized.

To this day these records are still missing. Many politicians of both parties have staked much on this man. The truth as I have presented it to you is not what they want the public to know. I have never understood how so many senior officials of our government who know of this truth will shake hands with that man. What an insult to [Noel and Moore's] memory and to those who represent our nation today on the diplomatic front.

IsraPundit. It seems that partisan politics are involved. Were you by any chance a Democrat at the time Nixon was president?

James Welsh. I was a supporter of the Nixon Administration and to this day do believe that Mr. Nixon's foreign policy skills were far superior to any other potential political rival at that time. However, we must all face the fact that he and his advisers were fearful of scandal. And this would have been a major one if it were to see the light of day. One could only imagine the headline in the Washington Post.

I have been a lifelong Republican but Nixon in the middle of Watergate made a terrible mistake to cover up Arafat's total involvement in these murders. And the Reagan Administration made a mistake in allowing the State Department to basically smother the Denton committee investigation in the senate in 1986. The pollyanna-ish belief that Arafat can be shaped into a honorable person is responsible for much of what is taking place today.

IsraPundit. Could it be that the information was and is withheld from the public for security reasons?

James Welsh. There is no reason that this particular truth should still be withheld from the American public. They are entitled to know that even to this day our tax dollars are being given to a man who personally ordered the execution of two U.S. diplomats. There are limits to which even foreign policy issues should not require a man to lower himself. Shaking the hand of a murdered of a U.S. ambassador is such a case. Any peace based upon that hand is a delusion.

IsraPundit. Can you point to a specific example of coverup?

James Welsh. Remember, I was NSA's analyst for Palestinian communications. I saw it all. What has disturbed me most are the repeated comments from State and Justice Departments that the evidence of Arafat's involvement was inconclusive and inadmissible as evidence. Those statements were not true. I know it is not unusual that intelligence agencies fail to tell the truth to other bodies outside the intelligence community. But those types of protectionist policies do not always have the impact that this particular disinformation has now had on the world scene. If in 1986 Arafat's taped voice (three days worth) had been released to the American public I do not think that the current mess that Israel is now in would have happened. Arafat would have been a persona non grata as far as the United States was concerned. Acts do have consequences and unfortunately the decision to withhold from the Committee the truth of these tapes may be one of the reasons that Arafat was able to re-invent himself.

IsraPundit. Can you elaborate on Arafat's role?

James Welsh. We (NSA) had intercepted Arafat on the day before (Feb 28) the operation, finalizing the details of the operation (including the code word "Nahr al-Bard" that was to be the signal to kill the hostages). From that moment on, until the end of the operation, Arafat was on and off the radio in communications with the PLO office in Khartoum that was relaying his and Salah Khalaf's instructions to the kidnappers. During the entire time both Arafat and Khalaf were at the Fatah HQ in Shatilla refugee camp where the Fatah radio headquarters were located.

If you were ever told that there was inconclusive evidence of Arafat's direct complicity in this event you were lied to.

IsraPundit. These are grave and specific charges, Mr Welsh.

James Welsh. The charges in my statement to Congress, 25 October, 2000, were specific:

"I now make the following charges:

1. That the existence of the Warning message was covered up in order to prevent embarrassment to the State Department and the White House.

2. That all evidence that the warning message was based upon was collected at NSA and removed from the normal analytical departments were it would normally have been analysed.

3. That all existing copies of cableS sent belatedly to US Embassy Khartoum were collected and destroyed at US Embassy Khartoum per instructions at high level of Department of State or the White House. There would be no embarrassment due to discovery of the delayed warning. (Note that I made this charge on october 25, 2000. Two independent investigations of the National Archives conducted in 2001 and 2002 confirmed my Charges.)

4. That for thirteen years no prosecution or political penalty could be extracted of Yasser Arafat and his subordinates due to the need to keep this warning hidden from any scrutiny. Any public acknowledgement of the existence of the tapes made before, during and after the murders would have inevitably led back to the delayed warning message. That when, in 1985 and 1986, Congress requested then Attorney General Meese to investigate the matter of Yasser Arafat's direct complicity in these murders, the coverup was continued to protect those who had initiated it thirteen years before.

5. That subsequent administrations have, in fact, been appraised of the authenticity of Arafat's voice on the tapes and have chosen, for political reasons, to turn a blind eye to the direct guilt of Yasser Arafat in the cold blooded murders of Cleo Noel and George [Curtis] Moore.

6. That not only did more than one United States intercept site copy conversations between the terrorists in Khartoum and the Fatah office in Beirut but that at least two foreign intelligence agencies did in fact copy said communications and turn them over to the United States government at the time of the affair."

IsraPundit. What became of your statement to Congress? Surely, the charges could not have gone unheeded?

James Welsh. Congress' reaction has been silence. Senator Kyl's office said that "everbody knows arafat is a bad guy". One of my senators sent me a form letter thanking me for my interest in Yasser Arafat.

IsraPundit. In view of what you have just said, how do you feel about the Roadmap and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state? Even if Arafat is removed from the presidency of such a state, his henchmen will still be at the helm?

James Welsh. I personally don't believe there can be a political solution to this problem for many years to come. A whole generation has been conditioned to hate Israel. The violence must stop before any real progress can be made to a peaceful solution.

IsraPundit. Many articles have been written on the topic, and many of them refer to you and quote you. Have you written any articles yourself?

James Welsh. I personally have not written any articles about the murders. I have been writing (at a rather slow pace) a docudrama description of what happened from the time of the intercept of the planning to the present time.

IsraPundit. Why have you not written information articles ?

James Welsh. I just don't have the time or resources to devote to publicising the issue. Fortunately we have a free press that has done a good job in getting some of the story out.

IsraPundit. Have you maintained contact with individuals or organizations that might have been, or still are, interested in the issue?

James Welsh. I have literally been in contact with everyone who was involved with the exception of Kissinger and Nixon (obviously). But ultimately, our government is the problem here. It holds the key to the truth.

IsraPundit. What is the position of the bereaved families? Have you been in touch with them?

James Welsh. I don't know what their official positions are. They have apparently chosen to keep their feelings private. I did attempt to contact the Noel family through an educational trust they maintain but they did not reply.

IsraPundit. What have been the results of all your contacts and where does this case stand now? Have you any hope that truth and justice will prevail?

James Welsh. I revisited this event in the summer of 2000. I had been observing the repeated visits of Arafat to the united States. I wondered why no one ever brought up the Khartoum incident. When I began to research it on the Internet, I found much information. What struck me as odd was the fact that the official information from government sources (reports and senate hearings) were not as I had recollected and experienced the event. The warning message and the fact of Arafat's voice was on the tapes, were missing in all the official reports. I began to wonder why this information was missing since the event had taken place so long ago. So I just started calling people who were involved in various aspects of the event. I found the story to be bigger than I had thought it to be.

I had left the navy and NSA in April, 1974 and not revisited the subject for nearly thirty years. The more I researched the issue the more I was disturbed at the official record. Evidence of Arafat's personal involvement in the murders had apparently been deliberately removed from official records or had been deleted from records that I obtained from FOIA requests. The question remains today: why has Arafat been protected from the consequences of the Khartoum operation? To this date, no one in any official capacity in the US government will even acknowledge the issue. Think about it. This was a huge event in 1973. It held the attention of the world for several days. Page One stuff. Yet neither Nixon nor Kissinger even mention it in their books. Very strange at the least. The lack of reference to Khartoum is not an accident of omission. They chose not to discuss it for a reason. It certainly was not to protect some anonymous terrorist. Some day, perhaps soon, the official records
will be released and the true culpability of Arafat for the murders of Cleo Noel and George Moore will be established and it will be in his own words.

IsraPundit. How do you explain the silence of the Israeli government? Surely, they, too must have intercepted Arafat's communications?

James Welsh. I understand that the Israeli government has on two occasions given copies of their (identical) tapes of the communications between Beirut and Kharatoum during the crisis to US presidents. I think that the Israeli government has acquiesced to the wishes of our government not to expose Arafat. It is, in a way, a US matter.

IsraPundit. Having contacted the Congress and the press, do you still feel burdened by this affair? It would be more than fair to state that you have done everything humanly possible to inform the public and the elected representatives.

James Welsh. No, I don't feel burdened. I never intended that my innocuous research into something I had experienced thirty years ago would become such a large issue. But what does one do when you find that official records are not correct and the public officials you contact show no interest in the subject?

IsraPundit. In closing, what message would you like to send the world through our readers?

James Welsh. I think the message is that arafat, despite all his posturing and words to the western world, is still a murderous revolutionary whose main goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of a socialist state of Palestine.

IsraPundit. Thank you, Mr Welsh, and good luck with your continuing research.

IsraPundit note: For additional material on this topic, use google (or any other search engine) with such key words as Khartoum, Arafat, "Cleo Noel", and "James Welsh" .

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland.

February 27, 2003

BBC Bias

I was reading what I thought would be an interesting article about a set of ancient batteries uncovered in Iraq back in the 1930's. Having Majored in Archaeology (as well as Near Eastern Studies) I do worry that constant upheaval in the region will destroy much of humanities heritage. But given the choice of saving artifacts or the lives of living Iraqis oppressed today, I choose the living. But of course being the BBC they had to add a particularly nasty little slant
In the early 1900s, many European archaeologists were excavating ancient Mesopotamian sites, looking for evidence of Biblical tales like the Tree of Knowledge and Noah's flood.

Konig did not waste his time finding alternative explanations for his discovery. To him, it had to have been a battery.

Though this was hard to explain, and did not sit comfortably with the religious ideology of the time, he published his conclusions. But soon the world was at war, and his discovery was forgotten.
Don't you love it? He didn't waste any of his time with any of that silly Biblical stuff! Nevermind that Biblical Archaelogy is one of the oldest, most respected and deepest rooted studies in the field. Or do you suppose it bothers BBC that most Biblical Archaeology is centered in ohhhh...Israel...and is a field heavily populated with Jews and Israelis?

Citizens United






Friends and Foes: Poll: Some Traditional Allies Not Seen as 'Friends'

"Slightly more Americans say Egypt is a friend of the United States than say France is, with almost half saying France, a traditional U.S. ally, is not a friend."

The latest FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, finds that an overwhelming majority (90 percent) thinks Great Britain is a friend, followed by Israel (70 percent) and Turkey (52 percent) — the only countries to receive positive majorities.

Less than half of Americans think Germany (46 percent), Egypt (41 percent), France (38 percent) and Saudi Arabia (30 percent) are friends of the U.S. Furthermore, about equal numbers say Saudi Arabia (49 percent), France (47 percent), and Syria (46 percent) are not friends."

Anti-Semitism Has Returned: What To Do About It

Europe not the only place in the world with growing anti-semitism. Winds of Change blogs this for Feb. 23.
David Brooks, a senior editor for the Weekly Standard, has a very depressing article/op-ed on the return of socially acceptable anti-Semitism into national society from the American Left.

From the article:

Not long ago I was chatting with a prominent Washington figure in a green room. "You people have infested everywhere," he said in what I thought was a clumsy but good-hearted manner. He listed a few of "us": "Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Perle." I've never met Doug Feith in my life and Wolfowitz and Perle I've barely met. Yet he assumed we were tight as thieves. After a few minutes of jibing I finally pointed out that there were many non-Jews who support the president's policy against Iraq. I mentioned Bob Kerry. "He's a shabbas goy. He's got a lot of Jewish money supporting that school" he shot back. Shabbas goys are Christians who perform tasks for observant Jews on Saturdays.

I am the last person who used to suspect people of anti-Semitism. I was never really conscious of it affecting my life until the last few weeks. But now I wonder. I watched a town meeting in northern Virginia a few weeks ago. A Vietnam vet got up to rail against U.S. policy on Iraq, which he said was engineered by "Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pearl." He got the wrong Pearl. He accidentally mentioned somebody who was beheaded for being American and Jewish. But the crowd didn't seem to notice. They roared with approval and slapped him on the back as he made his way from microphone. Why didn't he say Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell were organizing the Bush administration policy? They're higher ranking officials than Wolfowitz and actually members of the administration, unlike Perle. Would the crowd have roared as wildly if he'd mentioned Rice and Powell, I wondered, or did the words Wolfowitz and Perle somehow get their juices flowing?

As I look at this op-ed, I cannot help but thinking that the American Left is committing suicide by adopting anti-Semitism as its organizing principle. The American multi-cultural left on campuses, the media, and in most secular non-government organizations view Israel as another South Africa because of its treatment of Palestinians. This left them highly vulnerable to being infected by the anti-Semitic hate campaigns of Arab regimes. And infected they most certainly are.

Any time I see left/liberal Democratic operative/supporter ranting in print against the "neo-conservative influence" on the Bush Administration, I now mark the author as a closet anti-Semite.

The Right and the Republican Party has had its own problems with anti-Semitism, but its public "excommunication" of Patrick Buchanan over the issue is making this polarization/popularization of anti-Semitism a future partisan political issue.

One thing I am certain of is that the "Jacksonians" in the American public are starting to view anti-Semitism as a trait of the enemies of America. And anyone who is pro-Palestinian is an ally of the Islamic death cult. Americans have taken mortal offense to children suicide/homicide bombers and I have seen a number of polls that show a higher percentage of Americans against an independent Palestinian state than in Israel!

The only question I have is whether this "leftist flame out" will stain the Democratic Party as a whole with it as it goes down. I think the Sharpton-Lieberman exchanges in the 2004 Democratic Presidential primaries will do much to shape this outcome.

The Democrats are going to have to visibly cast out anti-Semites in their party caucus at the 2004 national convention to be creditable on the subject. And they won't. I just don't see them ejecting the majority of the Black Caucus and the Campus Left.

This rising tide of "Respectable from the Left" anti-Semitism is making the Republican choice of New York City look for their 2004 convention more and more inspired. Republicans could easily pick up the NY City Jewish vote over a Democratic flinch on anti-Semitism. This will give them NY state and doom Democratic Presidential hopefuls for a generation as there is no Presidential electoral combination possible for them without N.Y. state. [more]
Its not over 'til its over

Women in Green says "No" to a Palestinian state

Ruth Matar, who heads Women in Green in a radio address recently had this to say,
Today we are reaping the bitter harvest of the handiwork of the Israeli Left.

In 1993, Shimon Peres and the rest of the Oslo Architects worked ceaselessly, illegally, and above all, secretly, to engineer an agreement with our enemies, who have long vowed to destroy us.

On August 20, 1993, Shimon Peres and his cohorts met in Oslo with a group of Palestinians and Norwegians in absolute secrecy and signed these cursed "Oslo Accords".

It is most educational to study this enormous betrayal in Shimon Peres' own words in his book "The New Middle East", published in the year 1993.

Page 1: "Here was a small group of Israelis, Palestinians, and Norwegians-partners to one of the best guarded diplomatic secrets ever, a secret whose imminent revelation would mark a watershed in the history of the Middle East."

But wait a minute. This was not a secret from everybody, only from the People of Israel!

Page 22: "President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Foreign Minister Ahmru Mussah, and Advisor Osmah el Baaz were privy to the fact that secret talks were underway."

What was the reason for all this secrecy? Peres later revealed that the Israeli People would not have agreed to his plans. As Peres boasted in the Jerusalem Post International Edition of December 23, 1995: "I may not know what the people want; I do know what is good for the people."

It is also painful to learn from Peres' book with what incredible generosity Peres gave our country away, piece by piece.

Page 22: "I assumed if we proposed 'Gaza first', the Palestinians would suspect we were offering 'Gaza only'. Without a clear sign for continued negotiations regarding the West Bank, the Palestinians could not agree. In other words, the chance of getting 'Gaza first' depended on that it be 'Gaza plus'."

Obviously, Peres felt that he had to sweeten the pie, and promise the Arabs future give-a-ways, in order to make them accept 'Gaza first'.

Shimon Peres, and the rest of the post-Zionist Oslo Architects, have done the Jewish People incredible harm. Over a thousand people have been murdered by Arab terrorists since the inception of the Oslo Accords. Many
thousand have been maimed for life. Our holy sites are attacked and destroyed.

Some examples:

* The Seventh Century Shalom al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho has been burned to the ground, and its magnificent mosaic floor destroyed.

* Our Temple Mount is off limits to both Jews and Christians. It is continually vandalized by the Arabs in order to destroy any evidence whatsoever of Jewish history. The Sharon government cooperates with the Arab Wakf by denying Jews and Christians in order to "prevent violence". Who says terror doesn't pay?

* Mother Rachel's Tomb, located on the road to Bethlehem from Jerusalem, is continually under attack.

* Hostile Arabs attacked Joseph's Tomb in October of the years 2000 and destroyed the dome covering the grave. They burned the Sefer Torahs and the Jewish holy books housed within. During the last two weeks of the standoff between the Arabs and the Israeli Defense Forces, the Arabs completed the job and used hammers to turn the large stone marking Joseph's grave into a pile of rubble.

By the way, the right for the final resting place of our forefather Joseph is clearly spelled out in the Bible (Joshua 24:32):

"Joseph's bones, which the children of Israel had brought up from Egypt, they buried in Shechem, in the portion of the field that Jacob acquired from the children of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred kesitahs; and it became a heritage for the children of Joseph."

Similarly, the Bible relates that Abraham bought his wife Sarah's grave plot, which is the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and King David paid for the area of the Temple Mount. Our sages say that the importance of these purchases is that no one should be able to say that the Jews stole this land.

The Arabs are well aware that our rights to this land are incontrovertible, and that these rights are both religious and historic. That is why they feel compelled to try to destroy any physical evidence of Jewish history in the Holy Land.

Despite al this, Ariel Sharon, who had strongly opposed Oslo from its inception, and had described Peres, its architect, as the man "who has given Israel away" is still anxious to have Peres and the Labor Party in his coalition, even though they were so completely rejected by the electorate. Why?

The common belief is that Sharon is waiting for the current Labor leader Mitzna to be dethroned, so that he can bring Peres and the Labor Party back into his government. That way he won't have to rely on the National Religious Party and the National Union Party for his Knesset majority, since these parties are against a Palestinian state. With Peres he would have a willing partner for the creation of such a state.

Is the Israeli electorate which voted so overwhelmingly for Zionist and religious parties, being betrayed? The intention may be there, but as the saying goes: Man proposes, but G-d disposes! With G-d's help, and hard work on our part, we may be able to avert this evil decree.

We have two guest speakers on our Women in Green Program. Morton Klein is President of the Zionist Organization of America. He has recently released a national United States public opinion poll which is most encouraging: 71% of Americans oppose creating a Palestinian Arab State.

Jodie Anderson is President of the Christian Zionist organization Deborah's Battalion. She is diligently working to unite Christians worldwide to save Jerusalem and its holy sites.

(A recording of this entire program, including the interviews, is available on Click on "On Demand Audio" on the blue bar.)

All of us-and I mean both Christians and Jews-have been silent far too long as our Biblical heritage is sold out in exchange for a phantom peace.

The Holy Land-all of it-must remain under Israel's sovereignty in order that all holy sites be protected from destruction by fanatic Islam.

The Holy Land must also remain under Israel's sovereignty to ensure the physical safety of all visitors.

The Western World (re the Quartet) must no longer dictate to Israel and be the judge of her future. Political bargains with the enemy must not be allowed to endanger Israel.

Finally, the Holy Land must remain under Israeli sovereignty because, in the world of Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, G-d said so!

This is the big one! Right now join the effort of Jews and Christians united in the endeavor to save the Holy Land from Islamic takeover and destruction.

Write President George W. Bush and point out to him that 71% of Americans are against a Palestinian state and that 77% of Americans say that the United States should stop giving the Palestinian Arabs $150 million in aid each year.

Fax: 202-456-2461
Address: just write: President
President George W. Bush, White House, Washington DC, USA

Also write Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and express that his own people and his own party, the Likud, are against a Palestinian state.

Fax: 02-566-4838
Address: Prime Minister Sharon
Jerusalem, Israel

Finally: Anybody who possibly can should join the day of lobbying Congress
on March 26, 2003. Please call the Christian Coalition for more
information. The number is 888-440-2262.

Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
To contribute:

To subscribe to the Women in Green list, please send a blank email message to:
Whatever you can do will help.

Britain's anti-Israel crusaders

Jewsweek has this disturbing (but not unusual!) story
The Arab-Israel conflict has swept through Britain like a desert wind, and the 280,000-member Jewish community is feeling the lash of its heat. Last July, a synagogue in Wales was ransacked while a professor at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology fired two Israeli academics from a university journal as part of a cultural boycott campaign that caught Israeli professors in the cross hairs. Somewhat ironically, one of the sacked academics, American-born Miriam Schlesinger, is a former chairperson of Amnesty International who makes regular "solidarity visits" to the Palestinian Authority.

The mainstream British media has run stories with conspiratorial themes, such as a recent feature in the Independent, a respected broadsheet, purporting to explain the mechanics of how Jewish money and political lobbying controls the American Congress and the media. Antisemitism here, according to the Board of Deputies of British Jews and a report from the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel Aviv University, is rising.

Violence and vandalism are blamed on Muslims and neo-Nazis. But if it's not surprising that incendiary rhetoric pours from the mosques of London, British Jews are alarmed to know that it's also flowing from the pulpits of churches throughout the country, with radical Anglican clerics who call Israel an apartheid state and accuse it of engaging in terrorism against defenseless Palestinians. Months after allegations of a massacre in Jenin were discredited, they continued promoting the charges on web sites and calling for United Nations forces to intervene on the Palestinians' behalf. And, while publicly repudiating anti-Semitism and espousing nonviolence, they insist, somewhat incongruously, that Palestinian suicide bombers are acting in self-defense. [more]
Bias accusations rankle NPR head

As is often the case, a story of interest gets passed about. I found this piece atMartin Kimel. This is a well -deserved poke at the public funded bias of NPR
By the time Kevin Klose arrived yesterday at a Baltimore Inner Harbor hotel to participate in a discussion titled "Israel and the Media: Balance or Bias?" the question had already been settled in the minds of many of those present.

Klose, CEO and president of National Public Radio, had come to the annual national meeting of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs to defend his network's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict against charges of bias against Israel. The organization is a coalition of advocacy groups committed to promoting Israel and issues important to American Jews.

U.S. and Israeli flags stood behind Klose as he sat on a raised platform. Copies of a sharply worded single-spaced, 22-page critique of an NPR series about the history of the conflict had been neatly stacked within easy reach of participants. And waves of skepticism toward the media in general, and especially NPR, buffeted Klose during the 90-minute session.

Through the words they choose and the people they interview, reporters routinely show unfairness - even bias - against Israel, many audience members declared.

"There is a great lack of trust and confidence, I think, of many people in this room toward NPR," said Robert Cohen of Tulsa, Okla. "A beginning journalism student would get an 'F' for balance," Cohen added, if NPR's work were submitted to a professor's review.

One audience member who said he lived in San Francisco called for NPR to submit its coverage to a review by an outside panel. A second audience member from Portland, Ore., pointedly asked about giving credence to Palestinian accusations of atrocities by Israeli forces. A third discussion participant who had come to Baltimore from New Jersey, claimed NPR reporters failed to reflect the anti-Semitic tones of a U.N. conference in South Africa last year. [more]
USF Fires Professor Indicted On Terrorism Charges

You have to love this explanation given by the Tampa school for the firing of a terrorist
- A Palestinian professor charged with leading the U.S. operations of a Middle Eastern terrorist group was fired Wednesday by the University of South Florida.

Sami Al-Arian, who had been suspended since shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, violated university policy, USF president Judy Genshaft said.

"Dr. Al-Arian's statements about his activities have been false and misleading and he's failed to meet our high professional standards," Genshaft said. "No longer will he be able to hide under the shield of academic freedom."

Genshaft declined to answer questions about Al-Arian's criminal case during a midday news conference.

Al-Arian was arrested last Thursday, one of four people arrested here and in Chicago. They are accused in a 121-page indictment of setting up a terrorist cell at USF. [more]
US to give Israel only quarter of requested aid

Article from Jerusalem Report suggests that Israel to get much less in American aid than they have asked for
A source in Washington is quoted today as saying that the US administration is leaning toward granting Israel only a billion dollars in extra aid, or about a quarter of what Jerusalem has sought.

The reasons for the cut are the mounting costs of a
prospective military campaign in Iraq, in addition to Washington's need to supply other key Middle East allies with billions of dollars of extra assistance, such as Turkey and Jordan.

Israel has asked for $4 billion in aid and another $8 billion in loan guarantees. According to the reports, the loan guarantees are likely to be approved in full, but only about a quarter of the grant.

Top Israeli officials were in Washington last week to negotiate for the additional aid, and the meetings ended inconclusively.
Israel to Accept 20,000 More Jews from Ethiopia

An article about this posted earlier but worth re-posting
War can promote Mideast peace, Bush says

I have for some time argued with my anti-war friends--they maintain we have no businessi nteferring with a country that has not attcked us--that the Bush strategy is based on re-shaping the Arab world. In this world, we find the money, people, training, resources for supporting anti-West countries. For Israelis, the fact that Saddam funds the families of suicide bombers is sufficient to want his head (and money) cut off. But, further, by locating troops in the middle of the area, we are to send a message that we are in syour backyard and with bases for our troops andplanes. Thus, forewarned , it is now up to you--Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq (this one taken care of), Saudi Arabia, et al that we can reach out to those who side with terror attacks.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush declared Wednesday night that removing Saddam Hussein of Iraq from power would bring stability to the region and could set the stage for peace between Israel and a "truly democratic" Palestinian state.

In his first significant remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in eight months, the president, under pressure from European and Arab nations to re-energize the lapsed peace negotiations, reaffirmed the United States commitment to a Palestinian state and to a three-year timetable outlining the steps for its creation.

But his nationally televised address focused largely on Iraq. Bush denounced Saddam's "torture chambers and poison labs," laid out his expectations for the reconstruction of Iraq and warned the United Nations that it would be greatly diminished if the Security Council did not stand up to Baghdad.

"If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order," Bush said at a dinner of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based policy research center.

He did not detail specific steps toward a Palestinian state, in a plan known as a "road map," as the Europeans have wanted him to do. He said Israel "will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state," but he did not give Israel any deadlines for ending the settlement activity. Instead, he said it "must end" as "progress is made toward peace."

Administration officials say Bush is reluctant to take any steps to upset Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, whose cooperation he needs in a war with Iraq. Specifically, the administration has asked Sharon not to retaliate in the case of an Iraqi attack on Israel.

Bush also sought to allay fears that war with Iraq could further destabilize the Middle East and inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Overall, his remarks were the latest and most dramatic example of the administration's aggressive public relations strategy to win support in the United States and the rest of the world for a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.[more]
Arabs wash their hands of Saddam

Asia Times has this piece, suggesting Saddam a gonner in Arab world
CAIRO - All over the Arab world, regimes and the Arab street seem to know how Saddam Hussein could actually win this war - with no losses to Iraq's long-suffering people, oil wealth and infrastructure, not to mention Saddam's military forces. He could comply to each and any United Nations formality and offer total, unrestricted cooperation. He could thus convince the UN Security Council - and world public opinion - that war is not necessary. If Saddam really engaged in transparency, he might pull out a victory against the Bush administration.

Will he do it? Arab diplomats who know him say he won't. That's the certainty they are carrying with them to the Arab "ordinary" summit this Saturday in the Egyptian resort of Sharm-al-Sheikh. Arab leaders at the summit won't even call for Saddam Hussein to step down as president of Iraq. Deploring the "extreme weakness" of the Arab world, Arab League general secretary Amr Moussa admitted that war could happen "in the next few days".

At least in theory, the common Arab position is to prevent their territories from becoming a base to attack another Arab country. In practice, Kuwait has been turned into a US boot camp, and Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are also an integral part of the US war machine. These states have already hinted that they would not abide by any decision of the Arab summit on this matter.

The overall feeling is that the Arabs are watching a disaster movie, passive, ecstatic spectators unable to leave their seats. The plot is all about them, but they don't seem to realize it. [more]
Coming up on IsraPundit/Dawson Speaks

Don't miss this one!

March 2 is the 30th anniversary of the Murder of Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in Kartoum, a murder in which Arafat has been implicated.

To commemorate the murder, we will be posting on Friday, February 28, 2003, an exclusive Israpundit/Dawson Speaks interview with a central figure of this tragedy (it will NOT be Arafat, however).

Don't miss it!

Why "Liberals" are Against Liberatng iraq

'Liberals' who don't want to liberate the oppressed iraqi people from the butcher of Baghdad say that it would cause terrorism.

They clearly have no idea of what terrorism is (What is Terrorism? ).

Many people think terrorism will being or be provoked by disarming Iraq. Let me explain to them why the exact opposite is true. First, we have to understand the purpose and goal of terrorists. Terrorists want to kill innocents in order provoke a reaction so as to gain support to kill more of your group. The only way to stop them if to kill them before they kill you. We all know who they are they let you know they want you to know.

Terrorist want us to attack Iraq so if we don't you can guarantee they will attack us.

You see terrorists want to kill us and given the opportunity they will, So if we don't stop them first they will kill us.

They want us to attack them so if we don't they will provoke us by killing us.

The only way you can save yourself and not be a 'soft-target' victim is to end the threat before it can be carried out.

That is one of their condescending ploys.

"Liberals" are not caring or compassionate to those less fortunate. That mantle has now been taken properly by the Conservatives who want to conserve life, while the "Liberals" want to devalue human life.

The other even worse one is as they compassionately say "do you really think iraq can have democracy?"

This callous, derogatory, and old-time insinuation from "liberals" that the arabs in Iraq are incapable of having democracy is the oldest card in the "liberals" condescending tone of "we know what is best for you natives be our scenery you don't want the wealth we have besides you aren't smart enough to know what to do with it once you get it."

The other weak and meaningless argument is the economy and cost of war.

Is it better to have no job and be broke or be dead?

They also like to say "its more complex than that not everything is black and white" of course not providing any options just to point out why your solution is wrong because its more complex than your solution warrants so lets just let it lie.

"Liberals" want to status-quo no resolution that's why they like to keep minorities down, they don't want progress or change, they are not caring or compassionate to the less fortunate. It is quite easy to compare the "Liberals" of today to the KKK or Neo-Nazis belief by belief.

They were against AMWR for their own selfish purposes not for the Alaskan people who want the same quality of life as them. They want the people there to be scenery for their pleasure.

They want humans to become prey to animals, to them that would be "fair."

"Liberals"in my estimation are those who used to locked away in sanitariums for there own protection but nowadays are allowed to violate the Ricoh statutes because we are to whipped by their PC agenda to offend them. This is known as "tolerating intolerance."


FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East) has for over fifteen years brought the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict to the attention of an American public that is mostly uninformed and misinformed about these matters. The media -- both print and broadcast -- are with few exceptions biased against Israel.

Rooting for Democracy

Thomas Friedman has it in for the world. Until now, no one has promoted democracy in the Arab world.
In fairness, though, before now the U.S. has never shown much interest in Arab democracy either. It treated the Arab states like big, dumb gas stations, and all the U.S. cared about was that they kept their pumps open and their prices low. Otherwise they could do whatever they wanted to their own people at home or out back.
Only after 9/11, as we realized that what was going on out back in these countries threatened us, did the U.S. begin to call for democracy in the Arab world — but only to get rid of Yasir Arafat and to punish those Arab regimes it did not like, namely Saddam Hussein's. You still have not seen any serious democratization effort being directed at Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Kuwait. For America, government of the people, by the people and for the people is only for our enemies, not our friends.
But then, other than a few courageous Arab liberals, Arab intellectuals have not made democracy promotion a supreme value either. In part it's because liberating Palestine has always been treated by them as a more important political value. And in part it's because many Arab societies are still so tribalized, and have such a weak sense of citizenship, they fear that democracy could bring forth fundamentalists, a rival tribe or anarchy. Hence the Arab saying: "Better a hundred years of tyranny than one day of anarchy."
and in summary:
What all this means is that when it comes to building democracy in Iraq, the Europeans are uninterested, the Americans are hypocritical and the Arabs are ambivalent.
You'd think from this criticism was coming from a promoter of democracy in the Middle East. Well, yes, he has written about how the Arab world needs to enter the 21st century or face eternal stagnation. But for the most part it seems like empty sloganeering. Take, for example, Friedman's acceptance of Crown Prince Abdullah's "peace plan" last year. Friedman took Abdullah's plan seriously and had his paper promote the plan even as columnist Cragg Hines of the Houston Chronicle noted:
For one thing, in the draft idea's two weeks on the shelf, it has become clear that the proposal, if and when the prince fleshes it out, is not going to be carved on stone tablets. It will require intense negotiations that would not only involve Israel and the Palestinians (and we've been through that about a jillion times) but also ever-problematic Syria and Lebanon (for which you can read "and more Syria").
Even as Abdullah was entertaining Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, at midweek in Jeddah, one of the prince's principal advisers was in Washington conceding how nonspecific the notion was.
"We are not in the real estate or zoning business," said Adel al-Jubeir. "It's really up to Israel, the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria to negotiate, because it's their land." (Well, yes, and we've seen how easy that is, even when President Clinton and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak were ready to give away the store.)
In other words, Abdullah will accept the Nobel Peace Prize just so long as he doesn't have to do any of the heavy lifting.
Abdullah's proposal was nebulous and insincere. It required clarification. But just as long as Friedman could credit the Prince with new thinking he was no longer a bad guy. Did it make a difference that Fateh concluded its observations of the Saudi initiative like this:
Our supreme pan-Arab interests lie in the unified stance Arab states have to adopt, a stance that respects international legality, refuses any form of submission or begging, and views the Palestinian struggle as a battle of civilization between the Arab and Muslim world, on the one hand, and its enemies, on the other hand.
The Saudi peace initiative represents not only the Palestinian rights but also those of the Arab nation, and, therefore, it should not be prejudiced in any manner. It should be able to materialize our hopes into real peace in the land of peace, Palestine.
Revolution Until Victory.
In other words, to Chairman Arafat's political organization the Saudi plan changed nothing. "Peace" was to be based upon:
First, A just and comprehensive peace can be achieved when 1) Israel withdraws its forces to the borders of June 4, 1967 including Jerusalem, and evacuates its settlements. 2) A sovereign Palestinian state is established with Jerusalem as its capital. 3) The Palestinian refugees are allowed to go back to the homes they were driven out from.
Second, Arab states should extend all forms of political and financial support. The financial support in particular should not be subject to bureaucratic complications that prefer to channel money into long-term projects rather than preserve the PNA as an entity that has its own responsibilities.
Third, Arabs should reject the US definition of terrorism that excludes the Zionist terrorism represented by Sharon’s racist policies. Arabs should make the US realize that its interests in the region depend on the nature of its policies towards the Palestinian cause.
Fourth, the US should also realize that peace in the area includes not only Palestine but also the entire Arab world including Iraq. As Crown Prince Abdullah told Thomas Friedman, the US should not target Iraq because this does not serve the US interests or those of the region, and Iraq no longer represents a threat to the world peace.
Fifth, To face the Israeli hegemony and the international failure to contain it, Arab states should sever all kinds of relations with Israel until it changes its policies on all peace tracks.
Did Friedman then suggest that Fateh's belligirent stand threatened the "peace proposal?" Not that I saw. The New York Times did some PR work of its own claiming that Syria supported the plan. In fact an official Syrian statement that day stated:
Viewpoints were identical regarding all discussed issues and ideas where assertion was that the just and comprehensive peace in the region as the strategic option could never be realized but through the Israeli full withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories including from the Syrian Golan Heights to the line of June4 1967, the liberation of the remaining occupied territories in South Lebanon, the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital clinging the the right of the refugees return in accordance with related UN resolutions.
(emphasis mine) In other words Syria didn't even accept the UN sanctioned Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon (additionally the Arab Summit, where CP Abdullah was to formally offer his proposal was held in Syrian occupied Lebanon!) After such an acceptance whose to say that the terms of what constituted Israeli compliance wouldn't change? (In fact the UN Security Council never endorsed the Abdullah proposal because it called for an Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon that the UNSC had already certified!) Friedman, of course, never required that Abdullah give any specifics for his proposal. (Would the Arab League reward Israel by supporting its inclusion in the Middle East group of the UN? Would the Arab League allow Israel to keep French Hill, Gilo or Ramot? Would the Arab League require the destruction or evacuation of Maaleh Adumim or Efrat? Would the Saudis take the initiative to eliminate official antisemitism from the Arab world?) Words of peace were enough for Friedman even if the accompanying actions belied the sincerity of the proposal. He didn't require any real change. The charge of hypocrisy rings true for Friedman. Not only didn't he require any real change for Crown Prince Abdullah, he never required it of the Palestinians. Until July, 2000 he acted as if Arafat was a legitimate head of state. But he had to have known that the nascent Palestine that was created in Gaza, Jericho, Ramallah, Beit Lechem, Kalkilya, Tulkarem, Nablus and Jenin was a mini-Serbia steeped in the worst kind of corruption, hatred and terror. Still he considered its creation a good thing. If Bush insists that his standards for democracy and peacefulness for the Palestinians be attained prior to their achieving statehood he will accomplish more than Friedman's little exercise in pressuring Israel. Of course Bush's changes are not the kind to take two or three years; ten, fifteen years or even a generation may be required to undo the damage of the PA's antisemitic indoctrination of its population. Bush, if the sticks to his gun may effect change; Friedman who is wedded to Arab words devoid of any meaningful action can be nothing more than a hypocrite.
Cross posted to Israpundit and Doubting Thomas.