In Gaza, Israeli Army is digging in

Identification with the aggressor?

"George Orwell made a comment that in the 1930s everybody he knew--including his Jewish friends--were anti-Semites... What is it about the Jewish people that produces such a huge number of self-haters"(?) Permutter wonders in the opening of his letter which reproduces an article dealing with the movie The Pianist.

In fact, two interesting presentations of this film appeared in the very publication he refers to, and both approach their subject from basically the same angle. Must be the moment for this question.The earlier one is by Cheryl Kupfer.The one this mailing borrowed is by Louis Rene beres and it can be read in the March 3 issue of The Jewish Press.

"Certainly", Perlmutter writes, "I talk to a lot of Jewish humanities and social science academics who are well classified by Lenin's term "useful idiots,"that is, for the enemies of America and of Judeo-Christian civilization. (My friend Victor Sharpe infiltrated a Muslim Palestinian group and this was also the term they used for both Christians and Jews who supported their"struggle.")."

"So most Jewish academics are caught in the "liberal humanitarian" trap that does not allow them to see evil for what it is, and thus end up serving or slobbering up to that evil. In contrast, the Jewish medical doctors, lawyers and engineers I correspond with are brilliant observers and realistic analysts of current events!"

"In short, no people in history have worked so hard against their own self-interest. I think this proves the Nazi/Saudi "Jewish conquest conspiracy" theory wrong, but it's a hollow triumph indeed!""

This is how Perlmutter finishes his presentation of Beres' The Pianist. A burning subject, without a doubt.

College peace protest turns violent

O, Canada. World Net Daily posts this story. I am old enough to recall my time in the early days of the Korean War, sent there 5 months after the war started. And I recall being a part of the protests against Viet Nam. But in our college protests (Rutgers) we had teach-ins, gatherings for faculty to lecture us on what they believed in. Outside the building, protests by American Legion folks. But despite yells etc all remained civil and both sides of the issue got to say and hear what they wanted. Alas, not at York University.

[...] It was when the line passed a booth set up by the Young Zionist Partnership and the Canadian Alliance that a confrontation occurred. Students who ran the booth claim protesters shouted insults before charging them.

"Hundreds of people basically swarmed three people," said Paul Cooper, president of the Zionist group. He said only a few people were confrontational, but everyone else "watched and did nothing to stop it."

Duff said his group did not instigate the incident, saying it began with name-calling from the booth. "We attempted to keep moving. Our message was we shouldn't be distracted, but the goal of those people who set up the booth was to disrupt and distract us today."

Another Jewish student claims protesters singled him out because of his faith.

Said Yaakou Rath [sic. Typo: should be Roth], campus president of the Canadian Alliance: "They chose to attack me, and I'm identifiably Jewish, but they didn't attack Paul [Cooper], who's not, and that's scary."

He said the group also stole the booth's U.S. flag and tried to set it on fire. [more]

A different strategy for dealing with the biased press

Since letters to the editor of many commercial news outlets writing biased pro-Muslim terrorist propaganda, such as CNN Europe, does not seem to be working, thinking laterally, the best place to hit them is what we here in Australia call "the hip pocket nerve".

Letters to their ADVERTISERS, informing them that while ever they continue to advertise with the particular entity, their products will be boycotted. Of course, a copy should go to the editor of the news outlet as well.

CNN-AOL Time-Warner is particularly vulnerable at this time. I re-iterate that the CNN coverage in North America comes out of Atlanta and is a very different animal to that which the rest of the world sees and which comes out of London. North American readers may therefore not realise just how bad and damaging this worldwide agency may be. As example, their latest coverage of the action in Jabaliya, where the terrorists blew themselves and a hundred others up, was covered entirely from the Pal side and blamed on a tank shell. There is. of course, no way that a single tank shell would cause that much damage. They simply do not pack sufficient explosive punch. Shades of Jenin all over again!

Muslims AGAIN

I recevied the following piece from DENMARK of all places. Again, action is required by writing to the Danish consular people in your own countries

OPEN MUSLIM CALL TO KILL DANES !!!

An open letter to Danish MP's, European MP's, the Danish and foreign press and defenders of freedom everywhere:

Gangs of muslim immigrants demostrated openly in the streets of Copenhagen yesterday to kill DANISH JEWS!!

Believe it: An open call to violence and terror in the streets of Copenhagen, confronting Danes with a call to terror against Danish citizens!!! This is not a hoax. It is horribly real.

The question remains if political responsibility and will still exists amongst Parliamentarians and the Courts to stop this here and now!!!

Now Denmark is saddled with a problem of radical, fundamentalist activity by a growing group of young muslims. They are being bred, fed, co-ordinated and inspired by foreign terror and hate cells in the Middle East and in other European cities. With birth rates that far exceed that of the Danish population, and an hostile ideology of world conquest and essentially "religious imperialism" this radical population now open calls for killing Danish Jews - a group they outnumber by 40 to 1.

Their overwhelming numbers and a suspended sentence of 3 months in jail for a radical Hizb-ut-Tahrir fundamentalist hate calls to "kill Jews where you find them" on their website, seems to encourage even more activity and calls for violence, terror and death in Denmark!!

Danes have to be able to walk their streets without feeling intimidated. Parents should not have to have their children see this kind of violence, hatred and sociopathy in the streets of Copenhagen. PArents shouldn't have to worry about their children's safety.

Danish politicians have to take upon themselves the responsibility of dealing with this! Without regard to consequences, a foreign population with a hostile ideology is being allowed to create a slow acceptance of violence and change in the Danish society.

The evidence is overwhelming of a growing violence in schools, a lower educational level, hostility and crime on the streets, an explosion of gang rape against Danish girls, economic crime and tax and toll evasion in the kiosk's and vegetable shops muslims have all but taken over, along with open calls of violence toward Jews is the result of a Danish invitation to a new chance, and a new life, in democratic Denmark.

This abuse of freedom must be stopped before lives and liberty are lost. Before Denmark is changed irreparably.

Legislators in Denmark have to do something NOW, before someone is killed and injured.

Oh My!

Reuters gives Hizbollah, you know the 'militia', a big huge wet kiss.

Hizbollah's Greatest Prophet Hospital is one of many charities, schools and rehabilitation centers run by the guerrilla group in poor, mainly Shi'ite areas like Beirut's southern suburbs, Baalbeck and south Lebanon.

The charities, which have found a ready customer base in a country where public services are often inadequate and private treatment fiercely expensive, have become a cornerstone of support for Hizbollah

Greatest Prophet Hospital -- like other Hizbollah charities -- will treat anyone, whatever their political or religious persuasion, alongside Hizbollah members. One of the doctors, Marwan Saleeba, is Christian.

"I don't feel out of place to work here...I find medical satisfaction in this place more than others," said Saleeba, a pathologist.

"It's not my (religious) beliefs that make me work here...I find respect for my education and position," he added.

One Hizbollah charity, Jihad al-Bina, rebuilt more than 6,000 homes destroyed by Israeli strikes in the 1990s, mostly in the South. Today, it also teaches poor farmers how to take care of their land and livestock.

Another, the Islamic Emdad Charitable Committee, gives food, health care and education to the poor, the elderly, the disabled and orphans. It supports 5,000 families.

"We didn't feel any effect at all from the American accusations. We noticed that...after the accusations, people were more zealous in giving donations," said Adnan Qasir, media director for the Martyrs Foundation, which helps the families of people killed in conflict with Israel.

In addition to its charities, which help build support for the group, Hizbollah has 10 deputies in parliament and operates al-Manar television, which attracts Arab viewers in Lebanon and abroad.

"We still see great support and aid for the resistance," said Hashem Safieddin, a member of Hizbollah's consultative council. "Political support and backing still exists...Iran and Syria have a great role in supporting the resistance."

Some Lebanese, including some Shi'ites, may disagree with Hizbollah's politics that include sporadic attacks on Israeli army positions in the disputed Shebaa Farms border area, but it is hard to find people who oppose the charities.

"Hizbollah proved that a political Islamic party could give a lot to its society," said Nizar Hamza, a professor of political science at the American University in Beirut.

Analysts said the charities showed Hizbollah had entered the fabric of Lebanese society and was more than just a militia.

The Great Israeli Snow Storm of Adar Aleph 5763

By Ariel Natan Pasko.

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko

"When cooped up with the kids for 3 days, one begins to think about things that one normally let's slide right by, not giving them a second thought in better times. Such is the 'Snow Storm' or more aptly put, the 'deeper' 'inner' meanings of it. Looking out my living room window, watching the alternating sunny blue skies and clear roads; then pounding flash of white flurries, sometimes actually settling; then blue skies again, I contemplated the meaning of the fog, flurries, and raging storm.

Simple 'outer' meanings are below us to meditate on, 'they' were even broadcast on the radio. Surely it was sent (by G-D) to help PM Ariel Sharon apply pressure in his coalition negotiations. Or, at least that's the angle his Likud colleagues took, accusing him of using the Snow Storm as an excuse not to meet with them on Tuesday. It must have been called in by PM Sharon, like an air strike, just before some important meeting with the Palestinians, to anger and humiliate them, and divert the world's attention from the going nowhere talks. OK, I declare it openly right now, "The Snow Storm is Ariel Sharon's fault." I told you I've been cooped up to long!

But that is only an external view of events, not really worthy of our thought. Deeper contemplation yields deeper layers of meaning. As the storm raged on, and 'finally' some accumulation became noticeable, other insights came upon me like a brilliant flash of wisdom, the way army flares light up the night sky in search of terrorists, infiltrating a Kibbutz or 'settlement'. Now's a good time for Saddam Hussein to attack us, I thought. Let him use his chemical or biological weapons, "It doesn't scare me." The joke would be on him, we're all in our 'sealed rooms' already. His timing hasn't been too good recently, anyway. Besides, after 3 days indoors, one needs a little 'action'.

I debated and debated, and then finally blurted out to my wife, "With all the rain and snow, it would wash the gas right out of the sky." That must be the Snow Storm's inner meaning. It's a hint of what's going to happen. Then I started pondering the imponderable, heavy under the influence of the white flurries swirling around my window. Did you ever notice that suicide bomb attacks; in fact all types of terrorist attack, slack off in bad weather. I 'understood'! It was as clear as a sunny day in June. They simply aren't as committed to killing and maiming us as we think. Or is it in their 'work contract' that they can take off for inclement weather. I guess even suicide bombers don't want to go out in cold, rainy or snowy weather just to blow up, better to wait for a sunny warm day. No one wants to be the 'Palestinian' version of a FRYER - Israeli slang - for a sucker. It wouldn't be too cool, arriving at heaven's gate, soaking wet!

It hit me like a rock on the windshield. With all the concern about the weather, closed roads and schools; no one was concerned about the possible War with Iraq or the 'situation' with the 'Palestinians' or the Economy, for a moment. The Economy. Funny, how in the United States or Russia, life went on all winter long with 20-40 cm of snow on the ground. People went to work, children went to school, and somebody went shopping for groceries; that were delivered to the stores, I might add. Not in Israel, the country with one of the highest levels of strike-days and lowest productivity in the Western World. Israel it seems 'Closes Down' at the fall of a flurry. It makes you think they're just looking for an excuse to take a vacation.

When I mentioned this to some people on Sunday - the day before the Snow Storm - they just shrugged and said, "Well, they're used to snow there." I pointed out that Israel gets a moderate level of snow every 2-3 years and a more serious storm every 5-8 years. That for the average adult in their 30's and up, they've experienced 15 or more snowy winters and quite a few serious storms. Israeli society, can 'get used to' over 700 people killed and thousands injured in 2 1/2 years of terrorist warfare, but a little snow, and hysteria sets in.

Speaking of deaths and injuries, another 400-600 are killed in traffic accidents every year, generally more, than from terror and crime. With 2002's 459 Oslo War victims, terror is catching up quickly. But guess what I realized as I stared out the window, looking down on the white unused road? No traffic equals no traffic accidents, or at least substantially fewer. As this realization overtook me with delight, at the thought of reducing the road carnage in Israel, I told my wife, "What if we called off driving, closed the roads, a couple times a week, say Tuesdays and Thursdays. Imagine how many lives we could save?" She just chuckled, knowing I've been in the house too long.

I told her, "I read about 27 women giving birth during the storm. They had to tell us how many, I commented." She replied, "Yah, think about how many women 'postponed' it...even babies don't want to come out in cold, stormy weather, like this." She, in her almost infinite wisdom, pointed out that the electric company workers are probably complaining about being overworked during the storm. But don't worry, she continued, "They'd probably demand and get extra compensation for the work." It doesn't matter that they're the highest paid public sector employees in the country, averaging 11,500 Shekels a month, plus getting free electricity, i.e. extra heat. This, at a time of pending government budget cuts and public sector lay-offs. As she said, "It doesn't mean they have to work any harder."

Taking one last look out the window, reflecting on the vastness of the Snow Storm and the current problems hitting Israel, I comfort myself with the thought, PURIM IS COMING!

In the Purim story, everything looks gloomy; the 'Snow Storm' of hatred rages against the Jewish people, the Jews are about to get it...and then...HAFOOCH - everything is turned upside down. Haman - the combined Arafat and Saddam Hussein - of his time, ends up on the gallows instead. I remember that the last Gulf War ended just before Purim, without Saddam Hussein's threat to, "Burn half of Israel" carried out. I ponder the 'coincidence' of this threatened war happening about Purim time. PURIM IS COMING!

Then again, by Pesach - Passover - springtime will be upon us. All this 'big tragedy' of the Snow Storm, will just be a distant blurry memory. Clear blue sunny skies will return, and with it, all our 'regular' troubles, like terrorism and traffic accidents. It makes you kind of miss being cooped up with the kids and the Snow Storm. But for now, PURIM IS COMING! "

PUT ARAFAT ON TRIAL

By Alan M. Dershowitz

The rule of law requires that murderers be brought to justice. Yasser Arafat is a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer. It would seem to follow that he should be brought to trial. The incontrovertible evidence of Arafat's complicity in murder goes back to 1973, when Palestinian terrorists invaded a diplomatic reception at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan and kidnapped two American diplomats and a Belgian diplomat.

The U.S. National Security Agency intercepted a communication between Yasser Arafat in Beirut and Khalil al-Wazir in the Khartoum office of Fatah. According to James Welch, an American security agent who overheard the intercept, Arafat was directly involved in the operation, which was code-named Nahr al-Bard, or Cold River.

The U.S. government has hard evidence that when the Americans refused the demands of the Palestinian terrorists - to free Sirhan Sirhan, the murderer of Robert Kennedy - Yasser Arafat personally ordered the murder of the three diplomats, one of whom was then the highest ranking African-American in the foreign service. The diplomats were taken to the basement of the embassy and tortured to death so brutally that "authorities couldn't tell which was black and which was white."

Arafat took credit for these murders during a private dinner with Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu two months later. The dinner was attended by General Ion Mihai Pacepa, a high-ranking Romanian intelligence officer who later defected to the United States. Pacepa wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year in which he stated that "Arafat excitedly bragged about his Khartoum operation." According to General Pacepa, Arafat also claimed credit for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

These are just some of the thousands of victims - American, Israeli, and others - of the godfather of Palestinian terrorism. Arafat, like Osama bin Laden, has also targeted Jews, just because they are Jews. These targets have included people at prayer in synagogues throughout Europe as well as children in nurseries and school buses. His killing continues up to the present time, as do his false denials.

One can only imagine how many innocent civilians would have been killed by the boatload of Iranian arms captured by the Israelis earlier this year. As General Pacepa wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well during my years at the top of Romania's Foreign Intelligence Service." This conclusion has been confirmed by many documents discovered by the Israel Defense Forces during Operation Defensive Shield.

Any experienced prosecutor, given access to the evidence - some of which is currently secreted in American, Israeli, and European intelligence files - could present an open-and-shut first-degree murder case against Yasser Arafat. In considering the various options available to Israel - exile of Arafat, continued negotiation with him, and even targeted assassination - scant consideration has been given to the most obvious legal option: arresting Arafat for murder and placing him on trial in a public courtroom with lawyers and witnesses of his choice.

The reason this option has not been seriously considered is the practical fear that a trial of Arafat would cause more terrorism and more hostage-taking by Palestinians determined to free him. In addition, putting him on trial could make him a martyr among Palestinians, and perhaps even among some Europeans.

In the end, the Israeli government must make the tough decision whether or not to bring Arafat to trial, weighing the claims of public accountability against the practical difficulties of achieving justice. Were I an Israeli, I would recommend a public trial, despite the risks. The world should see the hard evidence that terrorism has become the tactic of choice for the Palestinian Authority and that Yasser Arafat is personally responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians. This is especially important today, when so many Europeans and American academics seem unwilling to see Arafat as a racist murderer.

Whether or not Israel chooses this option, one conclusion remains crystal clear: a fair and open trial of Yasser Arafat on charges of first-degree murder would definitely produce a verdict of guilty.

The 'Horned' Prince of Darkness

The National Review has an interesting interview with Richard Perle - head of the Defense Policy Board and set to be very influential with the administration. Some anti- Americans call him the Prince of Darkness and along with Wolfowitz and Feith he seems to be frequently accuse of having duel loyalties since he is Jewish. He throws out some good barbs.

Taheri: Does this mean the U.S. will ignore a French veto?

Perle: Certainly. If a veto can dictate our policy then France would be regarded as the master of the world. In any case, there will be no French veto. The French know that if they veto we shall ignore them. They would also know that Saddam Hussein couldn't win. So, what would be the sense of antagonizing a victorious U.S. to please a losing Saddam?

Taheri: I don't know. But I can tell you that President Jacques Chirac seems determined to make life as hard as he can for you. He cannot accept that the U.S. should have the power to go around changing regimes it does not like…

Perle: I don't agree with your analysis. Just before the war starts France will jump on our side. It has happened all the time, most recently in Afghanistan. The French behaved in exactly the same way last time when Saddam had invaded Kuwait. Let me tell you something more important: The French attitude makes war more likely. It gives Saddam false hope that things can be dragged on and on until the next American presidential election. Thus Saddam sees no reason why he should really show his weapons to the inspectors. That gives us the clear reason we need for attacking him. Thus, Chirac's policy will, in the final analysis, lead to Saddam's destruction.

LINK

Put Arafat On Trial Like Eichmann

Great idea.

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko . He makes the following argument.

"Recently, Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that Yasser Arafat should be treated like Saddam Hussein. Speaking in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said the guiding principle of both Israel, in its war against Palestinian terror, and the United States in its campaign against Iraq, is "no tolerance for terror and no tolerance for regimes that spawn terror."

Netanyahu stated, "I think what applies in Iraq should apply here as well. What applies in Iraq, that a brutal terrorist should be removed and democratization should be introduced, should be applied in the Palestinian dictatorship as well." Netanyahu said that in order to begin a process of democratization in regimes that foster terrorism, as was done in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; the existing terror-supporting regimes must be totally defeated and tossed out. It does no good he said to replace one dictator with another.

But in response to Netanyahu's earlier call for Arafat's expulsion in November 2002, Arafat retorted, "No one has the right to deport me from my homeland." I take issue with the last two words, 'my homeland'. As I recall, his 'official biography'
(www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.htm) states he was born in Cairo, so he's an Egyptian like his father, not a 'Palestinian'. But, on the first part of his statement I couldn't agree with him more.

I ask you, what's all the debate in Israel about expelling or not expelling Arafat? Have we all gone mad? How will expelling him solve the problem (him)?

As I recall, Arafat was in 'exile' till 1993, where he was able to lead a terrorist organization and plan attacks on Jews, Israelis, and others, around the world and in Israel. Don't forget, he managed to ally himself with Syria and its occupation of Lebanon (which continues), creating a 'PLO state' with-in a state, brutalizing Lebanese along the way. He also allied himself with Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War of 1991. Oh yes, he also managed to hobnob with the rich, famous, and powerful, lobbying for a 'Palestinian State' in his spare time.

Can someone tell me what expelling Arafat will accomplish other than turning him into a 'victim' again? A roll he plays so well.

The debate shouldn't be about expelling or not expelling Arafat, either way we're still stuck with his 'leadership' of the Palestinians. Do you really think they're going to pick a new leader? And who would that be, Arafat's second-in-command Mohammed Abbas? Abbas is the head of the Iraqi-supported Palestine Liberation Front faction of the PLO. In 1968, Abbas was in Vietnam fighting alongside the Viet Cong against US forces and learning guerrilla tactics. In 1985 he was directing the take-over of the Achille Lauro. The real debate that has yet to begin in earnest, in Israel, is over trying Yasser Arafat for crimes against humanity, i.e. the Jewish People, Lebanese, Americans, and others.

The only decent question for decent people to debate, is whether he should receive life in prison, or the death penalty?

I believe an Eichmann-like War Crimes Trial in Israel, would educate a generation of Israelis and others world-wide who might still think of Arafat as a 'peacenik' (he won the Nobel Peace Prize didn't he?), about his murderous criminal activities. It would teach the world how to deal lawfully with terrorism and how not to appease it. Some might say that Arafat, as head of state is immune to prosecution. Well, guess what? He's not the head of any state yet!

Let's say for the sake of argument, that since 1993 as head of the Palestinian Authority Arafat's wanted peace with Israel, and he just hasn't been able to stop those nasty Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Tanzim, and Al-Aksa Brigade terrorists (as head of Fatah, he's officially the leader of the last two groups). Do you really believe that? Well, if so, why should Israel negotiate with him? Either he's in charge, in which case he is culpable for their crimes, or he's not in charge in which case Israel should start discussing who is and talk to them. But if he's not responsible for all those bombings and killings since returning in 1993, on what could Israel try him?

How about for starters, trying him for his involvement in the murder of Americans. For example, Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, the two US diplomats killed in Khartoum, Sudan in 1973. He's already admitted publicly to it years ago. And throwing wheel chair bound Leon Klinghoffer off the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro, at high sea, in 1985. Arafat's henchmen killed them and many more over the years. The world might not care much about Israelis and Jews killed around the world from the 1960's till 1993 (when his 'immunity' began), but Americans care about the murder of their citizens overseas. And, don't forget the PLO's murderous activities in Lebanon. Arafat should be tried for the massacres in Damour, Beit Mullat and elsewhere also (see Mordechai Nissan's "The Palestinian Strategy for Destroying Lebanon and Israel" at FreeLebanon.org). Lebanese also want to see justice done.

Let me tell you, Israel should care about those Jews and Israelis killed even if others don't, and try him for those crimes as well. Bringing their murderer's leader to justice would teach the world a moral lesson for years to come.

In most democracies, there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, or accomplice to murder. Not long ago, a Connecticut court found the nephew of the late Ethel Kennedy (RFK's widow); guilty of a murder he committed in 1975 at the age of 15, and gave him 20 years to life, in prison. Connections to the Kennedy family didn't seem to help him escape justice. Why should Arafat, a serial murderer of the worst kind, be allowed to escape justice, just because he's become a 'respectable politician'?

Many of you may now raise the issue of 'world outcry'. Well, Israel seemed to deal with it during the Eichmann trial in 1961 and the Demaniuk trial during the 1980's (for their Nazi past), and the cries of massacre at Jenin. One lesson to learn is no matter how much the world condemns Israel; in 2 weeks there are new headlines. Israel only needs the political strength to stand up for itself. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and others, showed a glimmer of that during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, by resisting the UN desire to investigate the 'Jenin Massacre'. Which turned out to be nothing but PLO propaganda, again.

Besides, fighting terrorism is in, and a strong Israel leading the way, would return its image that others looked up to in the past. "We don't compromise with terrorists," was a phrase that previously earned Israel respect in many quarters. It also set an example that others followed. Israel in the full light of day, through a legitimate judicial process, could try and when found guilty, execute a mass murderer of innocent men, women, children, and babies.

Although I don't feel the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), and Gaza. There is an interesting point to think about for those who prefer expelling Arafat. While Part 3, Section 3, Article 49 forbids individual or mass transfers from occupied territories (and is likely to raise many cries worldwide that we are violating International Law). Articles 64, 66, 67, and 68 (of Section 3), allow the Occupying Power to bring to trial and impose the death penalty on a person guilty of espionage, serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons. Israel would be on firmer legal ground trying Arafat (and any others), than expelling him.

Which leads to the last issue many might bring up. What's after Arafat? Won't Hamas or who knows what take over? Well friends, with over 700 killed and 1,000's injured since Arafat started the 'Oslo War' in September 2001, tell me how it could get worse. Either Arafat is in charge and encouraging the terror, or he's in charge but not doing anything to stop the murder, or he's not really in charge and can't control the terrorist groups. Either way he's politically irrelevant, as the Israeli government has declared. Israel just needs to follow through with the next logical step. Try and execute him! As I said earlier, educationally, he's a great opportunity waiting for us to take.

What many need to begin to understand is that behind Arafat, the PA and its leaders are Sheikh Yassin, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaida and Hizbollah operatives, and others. Maybe Israel should start thinking of negotiating with Sheikh Yassin already. Or, maybe it has other ways to deal with them also.

You see Netanyahu only got it partially right. When referring to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Netanyahu (and those in America who have called for Saddam Hussein's expulsion) forget that those wartime leaders weren't 'exiled'; they were tried for war crimes. Many were hung!

At a recent Arab League meeting, the United Arab Emirates' President called on Saddam to leave Iraq in exchange for 'immunity' from prosecution. Why should Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein, with personal fortunes estimated by Forbes, at $300 million and $2 billion respectively, be sent into 'exile', immune from prosecution? They should be brought to justice for their crimes. And so should other dictators in the region, such as Bashar Assad of Syria.

Recently, victims of Arafat's terror have filed claims against him and the Palestinian Authority, with courts in Belgium, in Paris, and in Tel Aviv. But why should it be up to individuals to chase after him? Why doesn't the Israeli government itself take the lead?

The real debate over what to do with Yasser Arafat hasn't yet begun in Israel. The only decent question for decent people to debate is, whether he should receive life in prison, or the death penalty? If there's a referendum, you know my vote. "

Canada's Liberal Government and anti-Semitism

Mark Dubowitz writes to Dr. Bennett, his MP

It is with a heavy heart that I write this message. I live in your riding of St. Paul's and I have been a supporter of the Liberal party for a number of years including doing volunteer work for the provincial Liberal Party in the 1980's and 1990's. I am an immigrant from South Africa, a proud Canadian for the past 26 years, with a degree in law and an MBA from the University of Toronto, and a career today in high technology and venture capital. I speak English, French, and Hebrew, I've lived in France and Israel, and traveled extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. I am also Jewish.

I never thought it would come to this. This past weekend, my wife and I had a long and painful discussion about whether there was a future in Canada for the Jewish community and for us and our children and grandchildren.

I don't want to lay out in great detail the foundation for our fears because I'm sure you're familiar with the general areas of concern as we watch the rising anti-Semitism in this country: the vitriol and violence on university campuses and in the public discourse, the threats against Jewish targets necessitating police and security guards at synagogues and other Jewish institutions, and the stridently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions emanating from different and sometimes surprising quarters.

Dr. Bennett, to be clear, I feel that the Liberal Party and this government has let down the Jewish community. Examples abound: the government attempt to legitimize the "political wing" of Hezbollah which, despite its self-admitted record of intentionally murdering Jewish and non-Jewish civilians for years, was being praised by our government recently for the great work it does in Lebanon; the reluctance of senior government officials to speak out forcefully and clearly against suicide bombings and other terrorist acts against Israelis and Jews worldwide; a reticence to condemn in clear and unambiguous language the violence and intolerance towards Jews and pro-Israel supporters on Canadian campuses and in the public domain; the government supported and tax-funded CBC's significantly biased reporting on all issues relating to Israel and the Jewish world; and the government's tolerance of the Lebanese ambassador to Canada's recent anti-Semitic rantings. As if an apology for hatred should ever suffice! Today, Ernst Zundel is trying to get back into our country and, last I heard, David Ahenakew still has his Order of Canada. (What a laundry list.)

I could go on with other examples and I know that, in response, you and your party have answers to all of these concerns and criticisms. Nevertheless, the point remains clear. Amongst many of my Jewish friends and family members, there is a strong feeling that Canada is becoming a more dangerous place for Jews.

Our fear is that Canada is not dangerous today but that it is heading in that direction. Many will say I'm being too paranoid or too sensitive but unfortunately, through painful historical experience, we are conditioned as Jews to try and read the signs and the trend lines before it's too late. And we've been wrong or waited too long or remained silent too many times before. Today, when we look at the experience of our friends and family in countries like France, we wonder whether their experience there does not portend frightening developments for us here.

Let me be clear. I am not someone who sees an anti-Semite behind every tree. I have friends from all backgrounds and love the cultural and religious diversity of this country. I always had hoped that Canada would be a safe haven for the Jews and that my grandchildren and great grandchildren would live here as proud and safe Canadians. I never ever thought that I would actually be thinking of one day leaving my home in Canada because I was a Jew.

I thank you for being the representative for our riding and for the hard work you do. I ask only that you consider this one voice along with the thousands you hear everyday. It is a voice of fear and anguish that someday the Jews may have to leave this great country to seek refuge elsewhere yet again.

Bookmark this one

As we all know by now, President Bush gave a national press conference yesterday (March 6, 2003). It included such gems as:

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

and

[ W]hen it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.

The complete, official transcript is available at the White House site. If President Bush matches acts to words, commentators of the future will surely refer to the statements made in this conference as the epitome of resolve, reminiscent of Pierre Trudeau's stance when the FLQ terrorists tried "their thing" in Canada (1970). If the words are not followed by congruent acts, this press conference will be recorded as the mother of all braggadocio shows. Either way, the text should be bookmarked for future reference.

Another reason to bookmark the statements made by President Bush is to quote them anytime the US administration resumes its pressure on Israel, in her war of self-defence.

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

Reader Jennifer asks in a comment to this post:

What to you constitutes antisemitism?? I'm really not being silly... I guess let me sort of try to explain. To me there are degrees of antisemitism, or any other form of bigotry or prejudice... for instance, to me obvious antisemitism would be painting swastikas on the Israeli flag... or defacing or destroying a Synagogue... Then you have other things that aren't so obvious.... maybe even things that could go either way... For instance, there are some who insist that even criticizing policies of the Israeli government and/or military constitutes antisemitism/antijewish sentiment... Me, I don't agree... but as a Jew do you see it that way?

There are degrees of antisemitism, and there are degrees to which it manifests itself in people’s actions. Jennifer is talking about its manifestations, and that is what counts in real life. In the Western world there is no thought police, (not yet, anyway), so no one can tell a person that they are not allowed to dislike Jews, or Blacks, or anyone else. But they are not allowed to discriminate against them. What counts is the actions, not the thoughts or the feelings. But often it is also important to understand the real motives behind people’s actions, especially when their actions can be interpreted either way.

If we leave out the obvious manifestations of antisemitism, like painting swastikas on Jewish graves, or burning synagogues, we are left with actions that can be interpreted either way. In those cases the logical and fair thing to do is to give a person all the benefit of a doubt. Just as someone might not hire a black person for reasons other than their race, someone may criticize Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians, for example, and it does not automatically mean that they are antisemitic.

However, if an employer chooses a white candidate who is obviously less qualified than a black one, and the white candidate is not his relative or friend, one has to wonder. If a representative of a European country, in fact most representatives of most European countries, (not to mention those of most European media and academia, and the Vatican) are constantly citing Israel for human rights violations, while constantly ignoring far more severe human rights violations by Israel’s neighbors (not to mention those committed by their own countries), one has to wonder as well.

Furthermore, if something like that happens once, or twice, one might still wonder whether it might be a coincidence.
When it happens over and over and over again, even while not taking into account the long history of antisemitism in Europe, isn’t it time to stop wondering?

Today's ME news roundup

Some 20 links provided (hit link) after this summary:

Israeli Strike Kills 11 Palestinians in Gaza Refugee Camp
Israeli tanks and troops stormed a Gaza Strip refugee camp, carrying out raids in which 11 Palestinians were killed a day after a suicide bomber killed 15 people on an Israeli bus. (6) Palestinian witnesses said eight people were killed when an Israeli tank fired a shell at a crowd, but Israel's army denied firing on civilians and said most deaths were caused when Palestinian militants detonated bombs meant for Israeli forces. (6) Israeli soldiers shot and killed three Palestinians on Tuesday as a senior Israeli security official said a raid on the home of a founder of Hamas did not signal that Israel is targeting political leaders of the group for arrest. (17) Witnesses said the explosion occurred just after the bus stopped in the hilltop neighborhood Carmelia at about 2:17 p.m. Officials said because of the hour, the bus would have been packed with students from the nearby University of Haifa. (9) A suicide bomber blew himself up aboard a crowded bus in the northern city of Haifa on Wednesday, killing at least 15 people and injuring dozens in the first terrorist attack in two months, officials said. (10) Backed by attack helicopters and tanks, troops blew up Mohammed Taha's home and three others in the Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. (19) click for links to articles

French Ban Fireworks

France announced today that it plans to permanently ban fireworks at EuroDisney following last night's fireworks display that caused soldiers at a nearby French army garrison to surrender.

Not directly related to Israel but I cannot pass up a gratuitous shot at Our Friends the French (TM). From Thatsrich.com.

CBS is having an unprecedented program this Sun., Mar. 9, at 9:00 am.
The entire half-hour will be devoted to telling stories of Israel Defense Forces soldiers, from their point of view.

Watch it, or tape it, if you can.

Just as important, call the TV station afterwards, to compliment them on their coverage. We know that they will get tons of calls and emails criticizing the program, so it's VERY important to balance the feedback!!

Please forward this to all your friends.

Various

The New York Times sucks as usual, as many other writers have pointed out below. No matter how many times the palistinains lie about things, whatever they say is always reported as true. Israel should get smart and start having statements prepared more quickly. Also, whenever any one is killed they should not reply "we will check" but say they believe the person was under aking actions that were threatening peoples' lives. Since the army only shoots people in that situation, it is a correct belief. Also, Israel should make much more use of video tape. A video of gunman hiding behind school children would be very valuable. Two further notes on the Gaza Massacre. Israel killed eleven people - 8 supposedly innocent people. Many of the reports did mentioned that Israel was fighting hundreds of gunman with tanks and helicopters. Are we to believe that Israel only killed 3 of these hundreds of gunman? This does not make much sense. Two - they papers always quote doctors or hospitals for numbers of people killed and for WHO KILLED THEM AND HOW AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY WERE KILLED. This is obviously poor journalistic practice since the doctors and hospitals may have some knowledge of how many were killed and maybe some information as to how but they only have second hand knowledge of who did it and what the people were doing. The press makes an assumption that doctors are honest that just may be so in the US but it is obvious not so among the arabs. Many of the heads of terrorist groups are medical doctors.

Who said Nazis are no good.
There has been much talk about links between the extreme Left and Right and the anti Americanism of both groups. Well it seems one white supremacist may not have known this since one of these guys attacked Jihad Johnny Walker in jail. I think this calls for an early release - of the nazi.

Human Shields Yield
Well it seems all the human shields are returning from Iraq. What a bunch of bozos. The US ones should not be let back in. When they experienced a bit of Saddam's totalitarianism they turned tail and fled. They wanted to shield orphanages. Saddam said we do not care about orphanages and do not think American's will attack them. We want you to shield duel use facilities like fuel dumps. What a bunch of dumb putzes.

U.S. Reportedly Has OKd Israeli Retaliation if Iraq Attacks

This news items seems to signal a new attitude out of the Bush administration

WASHINGTON -- In a marked departure from the U.S. approach during the Persian Gulf War, the Bush administration has signaled that it would accept an Israeli retaliation against a devastating Iraqi missile attack, U.S. officials say.

In 1991, the United States successfully pressured Israel not to retaliate against Iraqi missile strikes even if the Jewish state faced heavy losses, fearing that such a move would alienate Arab countries and rupture the international coalition against Baghdad. If war comes again, U.S. officials say, they still would prefer that Israel stay on the sidelines if damage is limited. However, they would not stand in the way of a counterstrike if an Iraqi attack inflicted many casualties.

President Bush has said that the U.S. recognizes Israel's right to defend itself. And Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said that although his nation would retaliate against strikes that inflicted mass casualties or involved chemical or biological weapons, there would be no need to retaliate if missiles fell harmlessly.

In private, there has been agreement that if an attack is not catastrophic but still significant, the two sides would consider the specifics and discuss whether Israel or the U.S. should respond, officials say. Such a formulation, they acknowledge, still leaves room for disagreements between the two countries.[more]

'Israelis got what was coming to them'

The "neighbors" in East Jerusalem, according to this report by Danny Rubenstein after the recent bus bombing.

Satisfaction among Palestinians following Wednesday's suicide bus bombing was far greater than after previous attacks, according to a group of Palestinian journalists who interviewed West Bank and Gaza Strip residents.

A youth enrolled in a computer course in East Jerusalem said that when he arrived at class yesterday afternoon, everyone welcomed him saying, "Finally! The Israelis got what was coming to them!"

"We have 40 killed every week, so don't expect us to sit in silence," an Al-Aqsa Brigades member told reporters in Ramallah.

Even senior Palestinian Authority officials who condemned the attack said that it was only to be expected considering Israel's "daily slaughter," as indicated by a PLO spokesman in Ramallah.

Palestinian spokesmen noted the high number of Palestinian deaths during the intifada and particularly the number killed over the last few days.

According to Dr. Moussa Barghouti, a human rights activist from Ramallah, about 85 percent of the Palestinians killed since the start of the intifada have been civilians.

Other Palestinian sources said that since the last suicide bombing - on January 6 at Tel Aviv's old central bus station - 156 Palestinians, including 17 children, have been killed; only 40 of those were armed.

During the past few days, for example, a pregnant woman and a 75-year-old man were killed in the Gaza Strip and a deaf youth was killed in Tul Karm.

Meanwhile, Hamas spokesmen were furious with the PA's condemnation of the attack. "They are speaking as if they had autonomy," Hamas members said. Making reference to the IDF's damaging a Rafah mosque earlier this week, they added that "it was clear that the IDF would have to pay for this." [more]

Israeli forces operating in northern Gaza

Buneul is Right

I was going to write this anyway, so I'm adding my voice to Bunuel's below. The New York Times ran the story, "Israelis Storm Gaza Camp; 11 Palestinians Are Killed" in yesterday's paper. After the headline and three paragraphs either asserting or implying that Israel killed all eleven James Bennet wrote:

The Israeli Army rejected that account. It said a tank had fired a shell from a spot near the crowd, but in another direction, toward a Palestinian who was firing a rocket-propelled grenade at the retreating Israelis. It said the casualties had been caused by a Palestinian explosive.

I give Bennet a little credit for at least acknowledging that the Israeli army disputed the PA view. But no more than a little. The Arab accounts he cites were more specific. But it isn't as if there wasn't a readily available Israeli account:

"The IDF forces were right next to a store. It is obvious that we would not fire at the store point blank with tanks shells. The control over the firing of the shells belongs solely to the commander and we know how to react in every situation, what to fire upon with shells and when. A tank commander will only fire if he receives an order from the battalion commander or if his life is in danger and firing is the only way to combat the danger. I was the battalion commander at that moment," noted Lt. Col. Moshe.

"We fired a shell a moment later, after the explosion, into an adjacent ally where an RPG rocket was threatening the tank. However this was only done after the incident where the bomb detonated inside the store. It was a powerful bomb that created a great blaze in the store and even, in our opinion, caused the walls to collapse and the ceiling to cave in," said Lt. Col. Moshe.

He added: "I imagine that many civilians were injured from that."
"As the ground commander I can say with certainty that the tank shell was fired at a lone terrorist armed with an RPG rocket, from a distance of 150-200 meters within the ally."

I've noted previously that Bennet strikes me as lazy. He doesn't make much of an effort. It's also interesting that in the earlier story that I commented on, Bennet noted that Israeli silence on the deaths of several ranking members of Hamas was an indication that Israel probably did it. I'm not convinced that he was correct there. But wouldn't the converse of that observation be that if Israel denies participation in violence it probably was not involved? So why not attach greater significance to Israel's version?

If over here, Bennet implicitly belittles Israel's version of events; elsewhere, he's not so subtle:

That is the approach Israel has taken in the West Bank, where soldiers have seized back territory ceded under the Oslo peace accords in what the army says is an effort to stop suicide bombers.

"...in what the army says is an effort to stop suicide bombers!" Qualifying it in this way implies that the only the army would draw such a conclusion. Hmm. How about this?

During the months of January-February 2003, 122 terror attacks against Israeli citizens were prevented.

That seems successful by any standard!!! Unfortunately, Wednesday, we saw that the Israeli tactics are not perfect.
Cross Posted to Israpundit and David's Israel Blog.

The Poor Palestinians

Keep your priorities straight.

Dominic Nutt of Christian Aid writes in the Guardian about the "poor Palestinians". He writes of their hunger and fear. To my mind this is obscene coming as it does 48 hours after another Palestinian mass murderer blew up a bus in Israel killing 15 and maiming perhaps for life another 50. One would think that he would at least allow Israel to bury its dead before wringing his hands over the Palestinians.

While acknowledging that Israelis are entitled to security, he avers that "such security will never come without justice for Palestinians.". He assumes of course that Arafat wants justice, as opposed to the destruction of Israel or that, given the conduct of the Palestinians to promote hatred and violence, they are entitled to justice, or finally that there is agreement on what constitutes justice when there are competing claims for it.

He goes on to identify the hunger and poverty of the Palestinians and blames it on the

The Israeli policy of closing down the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of denying Palestinians the ability to travel into Israel to work and to sell their goods means in some areas as many as 80% of the Palestinian population are unemployed.

Not a word about the fact that whenever Israel lifts the closure, there are more terrorist attacks.

He then compares the poverty of a particular Palestinian woman with the abundance of the Israelis and notes that her husband is not around because he is too "depressed and humiliated". Finally,

Lyla is not a terrorist. And neither are all but a few Palestinians. She is just a poor woman trying to survive and feed her family. But poverty can be a fertile ground for violence and gives further cause to the minority.

Let's get a few things straight here. Israel is responsible for its citizens and Arafat and the PA are responsible for the Palestinians. If they are hungry and living in fear it is a result of their leadership and not Israeli self defense. The moment they stop the violence these problems will cease. He cannot minimize the problem by saying "Neither are all but a few Palestinians," [terrorists]. Regardless of whether there are few or many, a majority of Palestinians support the blowing up of buses and honours the killers. Their depravation is a direct result of the policies they support. It is the Israelis that are entitled to the sympathy as they are the victims. It is the Palestinians that must reap the whirlwind. He argues that "poverty can be fertile ground for violence" which, if it were true, would result in a lot more violence in the world. To the contrary, violence can be the cause of poverty.

He ends the article by comparing the hypocrisy of forcing Iraq to follow UN resolutions, while not enforcing

[...] a tranche of UN resolutions, which apply to Israel, requiring Israeli troops to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and for the government to dismantle the illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

His assertions are totally false. The resolutions naming Iraq are Chapter VII resolutions requiring Iraq to do something. The resolutions affecting Israel are Chapter VI resolutions which don't have the same force or effect. Secondly, the settlements are not illegal and Kofi Annan has acknowledged this. Nor has the UN ordered that they be dismantled. Finally Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council authorized Israel to remain in the territories until secure and agreed borders are agreed upon. So even the occupation is legal.

All this is beside the point. Israelis are being deliberately murdered and the Guardian and Dominic Nutt are worried about the "poor Palestinians". They are condoning terror rather than condemning terror.

Updates on the I³ alliance

(News) - Trade between Israel and India reached the $1 billion mark and looks poised for further growth, and India touts its refreshing lack of anti-Semitism..

Israel also has provided India with military assistance during its wars with Pakistan. Additionally, the Indians have always taken pride that their country is one of the only places in the world that has no experience with anti-Semitism. There is no history of persecution or discrimination of the Jewish community, which dates back some 2,000 years. Some Indians like to compare this record to their neighbor, Pakistan, and its support for the Taliban and Al Qaida. In recent years, India has become one of Israel's largest trading partners. At a time when Israel's economy has been devastated by more than two years of Palestinian violence, trade with India has reached $1 billion per year.

( .. )

Last year, more than 60,000 Israelis visited India, constituting five percent of the total number of tourists..

I should clarify one point though.. the similarities between Israel and India that the author extols are mostly due to exigencies of history, and due to remarkable structural similarities between Judaism and Hinduism. Ready examples would be the non-proselytizing nature of both religions, and the ability of Indian Jews to find high positions in the caste system. The relative lack of anti-Semitism amongst Hindus in India is not necessarily reflective of a some sort of superior Hindu moral fiber.

For now the reality is this: These are two countries, two civilizations, both under siege by the same enemy. It makes them natural bedfellows, even close allies. But we should keep in mind that relationships between the two are still fragile even as they grow. Many events could stall this process.. the upcoming war against Saddam's regime, increase in sectarian violence in India, where exactly the 800-lb American gorilla decides to park it's considerable ass, are but a few examples.

Regardless, I view any improvement in relations between India and Israel, whatever the expedient reasons be, as welcome news for two striving and weary nations.

Explain this to me

Israel Foreign Ministry officials are irked at media portrayal of last night's IDF counter-terrorism actions in Gaza as a massacre, a retaliation for yesterday's terrorist attack, or both. IDF sources say that there is a wave of disinformation regarding the killing of 11 Arabs in Gaza last night. It is being said that the 11 were killed when IDF troops fired at a terrorist engaged in firing a missile at them - but the commander at the scene said that he "knows for sure that the only casualty was the man firing the rocket." The army says that eight of the 11 were killed when an Arab-built bomb went off inside a store, causing a fire and an explosion that had been aimed for an IDF vehicle parked outside. The vehicle and its crew were not hurt. Others of the dead Arabs were armed terrorists engaged in battle with the troops.

Does not this remind you of the Jenin Massacre and other great successes in what may be called terrorism by media? The important question here is: how is it that so many in the truth-seeking profession lend themselves so docily to such debasement?

A Deepening Fissure

PATRICK E. TYLER writing in the NY Times

The declaration issued today by Germany, Russia and France against war in Iraq now — with its implicit threat of veto — may go down as the loudest "No!" shouted across the Atlantic in a half century or more.

The nine-paragraph statement may not have slowed the seemingly inexorable drive by the Bush administration to commence military operations as early as next week.

Why liberating Iraq is crucial to beating terrorism.

James Taranto of the WSJ in his speech this week to the Fabian Society of New York made a compelling argument. It is well worth reading.

COMING IRAQ FIGHT TIES HANDS OF SHARON

The New York Post notes that Israel will limit reprisals against terrorists so as not to intefere with American planned attack on Iraq.

JERUSALEM - Israel will not carry out any major military reprisals for yesterday's deadly terrorist attack because of concern that it will interfere with the U.S.-planned war in Iraq.

That's the consensus of high-ranking officials, who believe the imminent military confrontation with Saddam Hussein is vital to Israel's security and the prospects for long-term peace in the Mideast.

One official who went on the record was the new justice minister, Yosef "Tommy" Lapid.

"This attack cannot go without our reaction," he said of the bombing that killed 16 people. "But we have to do it in a way that will not interrupt the Americans."

Lapid is one of the highest-ranking members of the new government formed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week - a coalition that has been described as packed with right-wing hawks no longer restrained by dovish partners from the Labor Party.

But one telling fact of last night's meeting of Sharon's defense Cabinet is that, in hours of discussion, no one suggested expelling Yasser Arafat from the West Bank.

summer camp

Row erupts over Gaza killings

This BBC report strikes me as odd. The Palestinians blame Israel for deliberately targeting civilians as revenge for yesterday's suicide bombing. The Israelis deny this charge. But the Paelstinian slaughter in the bus bombing was deliberate and seems, somehow, not to be noted by the Arabs. Only their losses matter.

Palestinians accused the Israeli army of targeting Jabaliya in revenge for a suicide bombing on a bus hours earlier in Haifa which killed at least 15 people and injured 40 others.

They said an Israeli tank fired a shell into a crowd of civilians, killing at least eight people and injuring scores more.

But Israel said the operation was part of its ongoing campaign against militants and claimed most of the Palestinian deaths were caused by a bomb aimed at its troops.

Mark Sofer, a senior Israeli foreign ministry official, told the BBC that the raid was "absolutely and utterly not" a revenge attack.

He said Israel always took precautions to avoid civilian casualties in army operations, which he added were necessary because Palestinian security officials were not stopping attacks.

Israel believed all 11 Palestinians killed to have been militants, he said. [more]

Call to Action

I received the following e-mail from Shirley Anne Haber, and I join her in a call to act.

Friends:

I only very rarely send out e-petitions like this. However, the Wiesenthal Center (source of the enclosed) is a world-class organization, promoting freedom, tolerance, and justice around the globe. After you have read the enclosed, I hope you will agree that we must respond with a deafening SCREAM to protest the BLASPHEMOUS
attempt by professional hate-monger and Holocaust-revisionist Ernst Zundel to claim refugee status. The US ejected him, Canada must do the same, NOW. But WE MUST MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.

*** PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH OTHERS ***

Please act now by clicking here to sign the petition. http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pet1.cfm?petid=61
________________________________________________________



German Holocaust Denier, Ernst Zundel - A refugee in Canada? Never!

http://www.wiesenthal.com/mailings_swc/swc_mar03.html

For decades, German-born, Toronto resident Ernst Zundel, has been a leading voice for Holocaust deniers and antisemites. From his home in Canada, Zundel distributed Nazi, neo-Nazi, and Holocaust denial materials throughout the world. In 1996, he was declared a national security threat by Canada's intelligence agency.

After inciting hate in Canada for 43 years, he relocated to the United States in 2001. Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies in Canada, together with other groups, were responsible for obtaining a ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Commission prohibiting Zundel from operating any hate sites in Canada. Thus, his
move to the U.S. Recently, he was arrested by U.S. immigration authorities for overstaying his U.S. visitors' visa and was deported back to Canada.

Zundel is now seeking 'refugee' status in Canada because if he is deported to his native Germany, he awaits possible prosecution for illegal distribution of Holocaust denial materials into Germany.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies in Canada are urging authorities in Berlin to suspend pending charges against Zundel. This would remove any foundation for his claim of refugee status and would enable his swift removal from Canada. It would not block prosecution for any future hate activity. At the same time, the Center is also urging Canadian authorities to act swiftly to bar Zundel from re-entering Canada.

Join the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies' campaign to banish Zundel from North America forever by joining us in urging Canadian and German authorities to work together to deny his outrageous attempt to renew his hate activities by gaining refugee status.

Please act now by clicking here to sign the petition.

http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pet1.cfm?petid=61

Crucial decisions could be only days away.


We need your support to continue our work. Please click here to support the work of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

https://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pet1b.cfm?sp=1&petitionid=61

A pop-up

window will show up whenever you click a link in this message. Please use it to forward this important message to your family and friends to add their voices!

http://www.wiesenthal.com

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is an international organization with 400,000 members, promoting tolerance and combating antisemitism worldwide.

Canadians, in particular, should feel a moral obligation to sign this petition.

The Dead Shall Be Raised

Here is a report via Goldwater's Mideast reality that refers back to the "killing" of the young Palestinian boy, a shooting that aroused and encouraged the anti-Israelis to babble on about Israeli murderers etc etc. Well it seems that the picture was staged!

Mohammed al-Dura may remain one of the symbols of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but not for the reasons believed by the Israel-bashers. Mohammed al-Dura is the little boy caught in a firefight begun by PLO stormtroopers in the Gaza Strip a couple of years back, "fortuitously" filmed by a camera crew. His photo then became an icon for the Israel-bashers, the child martyr murdered by the blood-thirsty Jews, a story right out of the Middle Ages. Never mind that assorted people and media brought evidence that - if anything - he was shot by the PLO.

Well, Mohammed al-Dura is back in the news. Risen from the dead in the Palestinian version of the New Testament? It seems that there are reports that Mohammed al-Dura was never killed, but it was all a PLO stage show: [more]

Bush doesn't intend to pressure Israel on concessions

Asia Times comments on the "roadmap" and concludes that it is dead.

[...]In a major address last Wednesday, Bush aligned US policy even more closely with the right-wing Likud Party of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by, for the first time, conditioning an end to Jewish settlement activity in the occupied territories on progress in a new peace process. Since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Washington had insisted - largely ineffectively - that Israel halt all settlement activity unilaterally and unconditionally.

"This is a complete alignment of the president along the lines of Likud principles," according to Rashid Khalidi, an historian and Middle East specialist at the University of Chicago. "It's the most important shift in US policy since the 1967 war. It's really major."

The fact that Bush delivered the address before the American Enterprise Institute, the hub of a very effective network of pro-Likud organizations in Washington, was also significant. Members of the audience included not only prominent neoconservatives who have argued for years that Israel has a right to settle anywhere in the occupied territories, but also several who had prepared a memorandum for then Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu six years ago that called for a regional strategy, including the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a "complete break" with the Oslo peace process and steps to "secure the realm" by building a new strategic axis in the Middle East consisting of Israel, Turkey, Jordan and a pro-Western government in Baghdad

"This administration has about as much interest in the road map seeing the light of day as it does in holding bilateral talks with North Korea," one official said this week. A similar conclusion appears to have been reached in Israel itself, where Sharon has already rejected the road map out of hand. "The Quartet is nothing. Don't take it seriously," he told Newsweek magazine just before the elections. "I don't think the United States takes it seriously." MORE

The Iranian-Election Revolt

Michael Ledeen writing in FrontPageMag reports

The Iranian people rejected the regime in the most unmistakable way, yet the "story" you read in our newspapers is that the hard liners routed the reformers in something resembling a real election. As if the Iranian people, after years of mass demonstrations against the mullahcracy, after thousands of freedom fighters had sacrificed their lives in protest against Islamic oppression, had suddenly seen the darkness and decided they preferred tyranny to freedom. Or perhaps they had heard the shameful nonsense emanating from the mouth of Deputy Secretary of State Armitage ("Iran is a democracy") and decided that since the Supreme Leader was a confirmed democrat, the best path to liberty was to give the regime a huge vote of confidence.

No way. The elections were a protest non-vote, pure and simple. The pathetic Khatami and his apologists at the BBC and elsewhere in the Western media are now crying that "the system" is being undermined and chances for reform have been weakened, but they have totally missed the point. Chances for reform are nil so long as Khamenei and Rafsanjani are in command, and the Iranian people are disgusted with Khatami's failed promises and empty gestures. He's not only ineffectual, but a coward to boot. He's threatened to resign with monotonous regularity, but never does it. He promised reforms but has produced none at all, and there is manifestly less freedom today than when he came to office. MORE

Bastards

Al Qaeda,Hezbollah and Arafat; Connect the dots

DebkaFile reports

Fifteen Israelis – mostly high school pupils and Haifa university students – were murdered in a powerful blast generated by a Palestinian homicidal suicide while riding on a Haifa base on Wednesday, March 5. Only two had lived to see their 45th year. The killer, a Palestinian aged 20 from the West Bank town of Hebron, was identified as Mahmoud Hamdan Selim Kawasme, member of a big Hebron clan and kinsman of a former mayor.

A note found on his body praised to heaven the al Qaeda perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities in New York, in which more than 3000 people died.

The young killer was in fact a disciple of Fawzi Ayoub, the high-ranking Lebanese Hizballah officer who infiltrated Israel as a Canadian tourist at the end of 2001and went to ground in Palestinian-controlled territory.

The note found on the body of Mahmoud Kawasme, protégé of a Hizballah officer, epitomizes the murky operational collaboration that DEBKAfile first exposed two years ago between Arafat’s Palestinian movement, the Lebanese Hizballah and al Qaeda. MORE

India and Israel

From conflict to convergence

Martin Sherman writing in JPost reports on the growing importance of the strategic value of this relationship to the US. India and Israel, with Turkey's help, serve to contain the radical forces located between them. A strong India is also a countervailing force to the growing influence of China in the Far East. Well worth the reading.

Baath Party Retains Power in Syrian Election

Surprise!

Middle East News Roundup--17 links to articles

Summary:

Israel Denies Latest Campaign Targets Hamas Political Leaders
Israeli soldiers shot and killed three Palestinians on Tuesday as a senior Israeli security official said a raid on the home of a founder of Hamas did not signal that Israel is targeting political leaders of the group for arrest. (9) A suicide bomber blew himself up aboard a crowded bus in the northern city of Haifa on Wednesday, killing at least 15 people and injuring dozens in the first terrorist attack in two months, officials said. (4) Witnesses said the explosion occurred just after the bus stopped in the hilltop neighborhood Carmelia at about 2:17 p.m. Officials said because of the hour, the bus would have been packed with students from the nearby University of Haifa. (3) Israeli tanks stormed into a Gaza Strip refugee camp on Thursday and at least two Palestinians were killed amid heavy fighting with militants after a Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel killed 15 people. (7) A World Bank report published Wednesday said almost 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip live on less than $2 a day, triple the number before violence erupted in September 2000. (8) Palestinians said at least two of those killed were civilians a 14-year-old boy shot dead and a woman whose house collapsed from the force of the blast next door. (14) click here for article links

Dissent in Arab ranks

How refreshing to see the Iraqi minster and the Kuwaiti flinging insults at each other! A breath of fresh air. May there be more of it. Perhaps the Mossad and the CIA should be working on precipitating another inter-Muslim war? Certainly while Iran/Iraq was on things in the civilised parts of the world were pretty quiet.

Another war of this type would save numerous American and Israeli lives. They would be sorting the problem out for us.

Petition against Belgium

Folks, I have previously posted to the effect that protest letters and boycotts of Belgium and her one-sided (Anti-Semitic) and arrogant policy of suddenly policing international crimes and particularly that alleged against Ariel Sharon are immediately and urgently called for.

Write directly to the Belgian ambassador in your own country. Belgium is itself guilty of war crimes going back to the second world war, having supplied an SS unit and deported her own Jews and then providing refuge for fleeing NAZI'S. She also has a history in the Congo Katanga region of Africa and in Rwanda which is hardly covered in glory.

The above petition needs lots more signatures and needs to be widely distributed on your lists.

Distracting lies muddy the ground before the missiles start flying

This Tony Horwitzarticle points out what it considers the major myths surrounding the anti-war reasons, reasons the US ought not attack Iraq. I skip many of the myths addressed, which you can read if you want, and cut to the "Israeli connection," another myth exposed.

[...]It's all about Israel (whose crimes compare to those of Iraq's).

This notion appeared on banners at anti-war rallies ("Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing!!! Welcome to Israel"), but it more commonly thrives in the closet.

Typical was the outburst of a NSW state MP who became impatient when I lingered on Saddam's use of poison gas. "I'd never say it publicly because I'd be called anti-Semitic," the MP finally told me, "but Israel has used poison gas on Palestinians many times so what's the difference?"

There is no evidence of Israel having done this - none. Nor is the "Jewish lobby" in America pulling Bush's strings. While many prominent American hawks are Jewish, they were just as hawkish in Bosnia and Afghanistan. Mid-East peace will never come without a just resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Sharon's Government is obstructing this, most notably with its unconscionable settlement policy.

But equating Israel's sins to those of Saddam is grotesque, particularly given the Ba'ath Party's pro-Nazi inception and the Iraqi regime's echo of the Third Reich: the gassing and machine-gunning of Kurds into mass graves, the genocidal assaults on entire religious groups ("No More Shiites After Today" was the sign on tanks suppressing the 1991 uprising), and biological weapons experiments carried out on political prisoners.

By all means, let's have a vigorous debate about the pros and cons of war in Iraq. But let's leave the Big Lies out of it.[more]

DEBKA update
Israel imposes complete closure on West Bank following Haifa bus bomb blast Wednesday by Hebron Palestinian terrorist, in which 15 Israelis died – mostly pupils and students - and more than 50 were injured. Ten are still in critical or serious condition.

Bomber has been identified as Mahmoud Kawasme, 20, member of leading Hebron clan and kinsman of former mayor. Note was found on his body praising al Qaeda perpetrators of 9/11 attacks in United States.

A Palestinian bomb car exploded prematurely Wednesday in Bir Naballah north of Jerusalem while being assembled for terrorist attack

Neighbors - The waning of the `Arab nation'

IMRA posts this interesting piece which suggests the dissolution of Arab unity rather than its solidification. And provides some clever and funny remarks at the same time

But it wasn't only demonstrators that induced President Hosni Mubarak tomove the summit to a distant location. About a month ago, when he was askedabout the need for an emergency meeting of the Arab League,he replied offthe cuff, "I want to ask you what an Arab summit can do against the problem
that exists between Iraq and the United States." When a journalist suggested - at a press conference with Mubarak - that the Arab states could invoke the oil weapon, the president retorted angrily, "Do you want the Gulf
states to stop the flow of oil? Did Saddam Hussein consult with the Arab states when he invaded Iran? Did he consult with them when he invaded Kuwait? The Arab states paid Saddam $60 billion and assisted him in the war against Iran. Then he invaded Kuwait and split the country in two. He attacked the American forces, and his policy brought about the largest American presence in the history of the region."

A fiasco foretold

A month later, though, it was Mubarak who initiated the summit, and from theoutset there were signs of the looming fiasco. At first, it wasn't entirelyclear that the Arab leaders were willing to attend. The Saudi foreign minister said two weeks ago that there was no reason for a summit, Libyastated that it would absent itself, Jordan didn't understand what there was to discuss. Others had their own agenda: Kuwait saw the meeting as an opportunity to play up the Iraqi threat to its integrity, and Syria wanted to use the platform to assert its firm opposition to a war and its demand not to allow American forces to use Arab countries as staging bases. These disagreements were a rebuke to Mubarak, as the possibility loomed that no one would show up or that the meeting would lurch out of Egypt's control.

Finally, the parties agreed to meet on March 1, so as not to create a precedent of failing to accede to the Egyptian president's call.

As usual, the Arab foreign ministers met first, to prepare the resolutions that would be adopted and to reexamine, after only 10 days, whether the disagreements remained. It turned out that nothing had changed. ... Egypt
proposed sending a high-level delegation to Baghdad, Washington and the European capitals, but Iraq rejected this, saying it would be "intervention in Iraq's internal affairs." Kuwait wanted to unite the clauses of the resolutions on Iraq to create a connection between opposition to a war against Iraq and a new policy that Iraq would be called upon to adopt
vis-?-vis Kuwait. That was opposed by the foreign ministers of Syria, Iraq and Egypt, who stated that the "Iraqi question" was more important and merited a separate clause in the resolutions. After this was agreed on, Kuwait asked that the clause on Iraqi policy toward Kuwait precede theclause of opposition to a war . ...

"If the foreign ministers are unable to agree on these minor issues, how will they agree on the big questions ? ... an Egyptian commentator ...after the summit resolutions were made public. "A summit of this kind is an affront to the Arab leaders and to Egypt, the host. It would have been better if it had not taken place. I am sorry that President Mubarak was
belittled at such a meeting."[more]

A Massacre in Haifa

"In the first successful Palestinian suicide-murder attack in two months--or, as Reuters calls it, "a suspected Palestinian bombing"--a terrorist set off a bomb on a bus in Haifa, Israel, murdering at least 14 people. Hamas has not confessed to the attack, but it did put out a statement praising the massacre. "This is a clear message for the government that Israeli crimes, Israeli aggression will be answered by a well-effective resistance from the Palestinian side."

The reference to "Israeli crimes" presumably refers to the accidental killing of Palestinian civilians in antiterror raids. The Jerusalem Post reports that the Israeli Defense Forces "is to clarify its orders to soldiers in an attempt to cut down on the number of innocent Palestinians killed in IDF operations in the Gaza Strip recently." This is the difference between a civilized nation and a barbaric political movement: The former takes care to avoid killing civilians, while the latter aspires to kill as many of them as possible.

Ha'aretz reports that Israel's Foreign Ministry "has completed a rough draft of an international convention against suicide bombers and will soon begin distributing it to foreign governments in an effort to obtain enough signatures to make it a recognized international treaty." It'll be interesting to see how much support this draws from treaty-happy Europeans."
[note: link to WSJ Opinion Journal contains internal links]

The Past Revisited:

Go read - it is absolutely fascinating.

Does Islam teach dissembling? A sequel

Yesterday, I posted a note refering to an article by Steven Baker in Front Page. The title to that post was: Does Islam teach Dissembling?. Baker's article amassed evidence justifying raising such a question. In particular, the question seems justified when observing the public conduct of a number of known islamic organisations in the US. Today's Front Page has an article by John Perazzo, which can be considered a sequel to yesterday's post. While the hub of Baker's discussion was the Al Arian case, that of Perazzo's is the curious case of the nomination by New York's mayor to a high Human Rights position in the city of a gentelman Al Arian himself would be proud of. The question central to the sequel is no longer that of the teaching of Islam but of the help such teaching (of tactical dissembling) gets from people too distracted to heed its meaning.

Crisis meeting in Lebanon over Al Qaida feud with Palestinians

The World Tribune runs this piece today. And of couse what takes place in Lebanon takes place only because Syria allows it

NICOSIA — Al Qaida's presence in Lebanon has been threatened by a widening feud with the Palestinian Fatah movement.

Two people, one of them an Al Qaida leader, have been killed in as many days in Lebanon's Ein Hilwe camp near Sidon. Palestinian sources had first blamed the killings on Israel, but have now acknowledged that the victims were part of a feud between the Al Qaida-aligned Usbat Al Ansar and Fatah.

On Saturday, an Usbat Ansar leader in Ein Hilwe, Abu Mohammed Al Masri, was killed in a car bombing. Al Masri, an Egyptian national also known as Mahmoud Al Bakri, came to Ein Hilwe in 1997 and was said to have been a key member of an Al Qaida cell that sought to attack Israeli and U.S. targets in Jordan in 1999.

On Sunday, another Usbat Ansar leader, Abdullah Shreidi, killed his cousin Nazih in Ein Hilwe. Nazih was identified as a member of the Palestinian Fatah group loyal to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Shreidi was identified as the son of the late founder of Usbat. After his father's death, Shreidi headed the Usbat splinter group, Usbat Al Nur. Palestinian sources said Shreidi suspected that Nazih hurled a stun grenade toward the home of the Usbat leader on Saturday. The following day, Shreidi shot Nazih in broad daylight.

Scores of people fled the area of the attacks over the weekend in fear of widespread clashes between Fatah and Al Qaida. On Sunday, Fatah leaders convened in Ein Hilwe to discuss a response to the latest killing.

Animals that died at the [palestinian] zoo have been stuffed and exhibited because the zoo is unable to bring in new animals.

We are told in this NY Times front-page piece that (claim the Arabs) the giraffe died of fright. Let PETA complain. And ask too about the 15 dead Israeli students, victims of today's suicide bomber. I say to the taxidermist and the Palestinians who allow suicide murders: stuff it.

Open letter to President Bush

There is only one war on terror

VIPAC ( www.vipac.org ) drafted this letter.

Dear Mr. President:

Unfortunately today, March 5, Arab terrorists destroyed bus number 37 in Haifa, killing at least fourteen innocents and seriously wounding dozens more. This was in stark contrast to the entire month of February, during which no Israelis were killed by PLO suicide bombers. That was not because the PLO terrorists had stop trying, as today's events in Haifa demonstrate so tragically. Rather, it was because the Israelis, with the good Lord's help, succeeded throughout February in intercepting dozens Islamic terrorists, due to their more aggressive - - but apparently still too restrained - - offensive in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

These Israeli efforts that had effectively put a stop to Islamic terror for the entire month of February deserved your administration's public support. Instead, unfortunately, your spokesmen refrained from congratulating Israel on its successes in the war against Islamic terror. Even worse, they criticized Israel for fighting PLO terror too vigorously. Their words inhibited the Israeli offensive and encouraged the PLO terrorists. Today's mass murder bus bombing in Haifa is the tragic result.

On Tuesday, March 4, your spokesman Ari Fleisher said: "It's important for Israel to act in a way that is reflective of the needs and the legitimate aspirations of the innocent. We have concerns about actions that go beyond and that bring harm to the innocent, including innocent Palestinians." The day before Fleisher made those foolish statements, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher spouted the same pacifist-defeatist line: "We continue to be seriously concerned about civilian casualties and we've urged the Israeli government to take all appropriate precautions to prevent the death or injury of innocent civilians and damage to civilian and humanitarian infrastructure." After two consecutive days of such statements from your spokesmen, there was today's mass murder of Israelis in Haifa. Your administration may try to console itself with the thought that this is mere coincidence. But I believe you should at least consider the possibility that it was not just coincidence, because then the implications could be serious not only for Israeli security, but for American security as well.

There is a military solution for the danger of Islamic terror. It is called victory. To allow your spokesmen to criticize Israel for its fight for survival against the Islamic terrorists next door - - while you send 300,000 American soldiers halfway around the world to fight Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan - - is worse than hypocritical. It endangers the vital cause of victory against the Islamic terror that threatens us all.

If you truly hope to succeed in defending America from another 9/11 attack, your administration should publicly praise - - rather than publicly criticize - - our ally Israel as it makes that same fight. Victory in the war against Islamic terror is indivisible, and every argument your administration makes against Israel's road to victory can and will be used against America in its own fight for freedom from Islamic terror. Selling out Israel will not purchase the good will of fickle Europeans or of despotic Arab regimes. It will only serve to undermine America's own fight for survival against Islamic terror.

Islamic reprieve for pig tales

Hey! Get homeschooled if you think the world should change for your beliefs

Islamic leaders called on a junior school yesterday to drop a ban on some of the most appealing characters in English literature, from Piglet to Chester the Worldly Pig.
The Muslim Council of Britain appealed for an end to a "well-intentioned but misguided" movement against primary school teachers reading stories about pigs, and for titles like the Three Little Pigs to return to the open shelves.

The intervention was prompted by concern in Batley, West Yorkshire, over a headteacher's instruction that books featuring pigs should not be used in class in case they offended Muslims.

Barbara Harris of Park Road infant and nursery school, where 66 per cent of pupils are Muslim, sent a memo last month to staff asking for the books to be removed from the under-sevens' classes.

Mrs Harris, whose school has adopted a cautious line on pig-centred children's books for some years, said that she had sent out the memo because of concern that young children might be upset.

She said the note had been prompted by "a recent occasion where young Muslim children in a class were read stories about pigs which could have caused offence to religious sensitivities".

But Inayat Bunglawala, of the MCB, said: "It is understandable, but this is a misconception about Islam which is often encountered back in Pakistan and India too.

"The headteacher has acted sensitively, because there are parents and families who believe that portraying the pig in books is wrong. But there is absolutely no scriptural authority for this view. It is a misunderstanding of the Koranic instruction that Muslims may not eat pork." [more]

Again.

There was a suicide bombing on a bus in Haifa. So far 15 dead, 37 injured, 10 seriously. All that is left of the bus is its front part, including some of the front row seats.
Police says that there were no specific warning about this particular attack. But I doubt that there is anyone in Israel who is surprised by this. This is the first terrorist attack after two months of numerous thwarted attempts. The previous one was a month and a half before that. IDF radio cites a "senior security official" as saying that the low frequency of the attacks suggests that Israel's current approach is effective, and thus we should not expect neither any major operation on the scale of "Defensive Wall", nor the expulsion of Arafat.
They interviewed the bus driver who happens to be an Arab, and who spoke from the hospital, where he is being treated for his injuries. He said that most of the passengers wer elderly. There were no security guards on the bus, which he said was unusual.
Haifa is my hometown, BTW. (IDF radio)

Update: It turns out many of the victims were highschool kids.

Hamas and Hizzoner

CAIR and the Mayor of New York Appointment of this guy to serve on the Human Rights Commission is questionable act, at best

It probably wouldn't fly too well if the mayor of our nation's largest city appointed, to a panel responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, a member of a militant, white supremacist group ideologically sympathetic to the notion that our country should return - by any means necessary - to the days of Jim Crow. Surely political leaders and civil rights activists from coast to coast would clamber to find microphones and news cameras before which they could righteously thunder their disapproval of such an appointment; undoubtedly the national media would be all over such a story. It seems, however, that organizations composed of nonwhite, "politically correct" bigots do not ignite a similar passion in the breasts of our society's masters of moral preening. What else could explain the dearth of attention given to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent appointment of Omar Mohammedi, general counsel to the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to his city's Human Rights Commission?

As Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes points out, the Washington-based CAIR, founded in 1994, "presents itself as just another civil-rights group" - cultivating an image of moderation that enables it to garner "sizable donations, invitations to the White House, respectful media citations, and a serious hearing by corporations." The organization's goal, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper says benignly, is to promote "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America."

But the reality is something not nearly so benevolent, and Americans ought to become aware of it. CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). According to Oliver Revell, the FBI's former associate director of Counter-Intelligence Operations, the IAP "is an organization that has directly supported [the Palestinian terror group] Hamas' military goals. It is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate-filled, full of vehement propaganda." Such roots can hardly be considered "moderate," and as we examine CAIR more closely, what we see only gets uglier.

CAIR's founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, was the IAP's public relations director with a long history of extremism. Awad openly praised Iran's notorious Ayatollah Khomeini. He blasted the trial and conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers - against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming - as "a travesty of justice." At a 1994 Barry University forum, he candidly stated, "I am in support of the Hamas movement."[more]

Roundup of ME news

The summary provides numbered links to the articles where summary came from. There are some eleven links also provided for articles

Palestinian Killed, Israeli Soldiers Wounded in West Bank Raid
Israeli troops killed an elderly shepherd near a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip and two other Palestinians in West Bank clashes on Tuesday after Washington voiced concern over Palestinian civilian casualties. (8) The Bush administration on Tuesday urged Israel to protect the lives and welfare of innocent Palestinians as the government cracks down on militants. (7) Backed by attack helicopters and tanks, troops blew up Mohammed Taha's house and three others in the Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. (2) Israeli tanks moved into the Nusseirat and Bureij refugee camps in the central part of the Gaza Strip early today, witnesses said, killing seven people and destroying two houses. (6) Palestinians said at least two of those killed were civilians a 14-year-old boy shot dead and a woman whose house collapsed from the force of the blast next door. (6) Israeli troops raiding a Gaza refugee camp arrested a Hamas founder Monday, targeting the political leadership of the Islamic militant group for the first time in 29 months of fighting. (3) Troops also blew up four homes in the Bureij camp, including that of Taha who was wounded in clashes with soldiers, the army said. (3) [click here for links to articles]

Tempers flare at Islamic summit

A CNN report indicates that there is no Solidarity Forever but instead the bumpercar experience of self-interest. But you had to be there

In his opening address at Wednesday's meeting, Izzat Ibrahim, the deputy chairman of Iraq's ruling Revolutionary Council, accused the United States of trying to overtake his country with its aggressive acts.

Ibrahim also blamed Kuwait for his country's suffering, calling the neighboring Gulf state "traitors" for cooperating with the United States and Israel.

That comment prompted the Kuwaiti representative to stand up and protest, to which Ibrahim countered, "Shut up, sit down you small agent [of the U.S.], you monkey!"

Kuwaiti television promptly cut away from the heated exchange and rejoined the conference later. [more]

The Marx of the Anti-Semites

This writer dismisses the arguement of Kevin MacDonald who, it seems, uses the rather new and fashionable field of Evolutionary Psychology to write his anti-semitic diatribes. Without going into the details (you can read the piece linked to) MacDonald's poition, let me say simply that Evolutionary Psy has been shown by a number of writers to rely too much on evolutionary insights, to piggy back as a "science" that can not be quantified, but hooks into a science ("hard") that is verifiable. Further, the guy in question, if you do a search will be shown to have his background in another field (University of Connecticut), and that he was a witness in the libel suit lost by the Holocaust denier in Great Britain, a witness, needless to say, for the denier who was found guilty.

One evening early on in my career as an opinion journalist in the USA, I found myself in a roomful of mainstream conservative types standing around in groups and gossiping. Because I was new to the scene, many of the names they were tossing about were unknown to me, so I could not take much part in the conversation. Then I caught one name that I recognized. I had just recently read and admired a piece published in Chronicles under that name. I gathered from the conversation that the owner of the name had once been a regular contributor to much more widely read conservative publications, the kind that have salaried congressional correspondents and full-service LexisNexis accounts, but that he was welcome at those august portals no longer. In all innocence, I asked why this was so. “Oh,” explained one of my companions, “he got the Jew thing.” The others in our group all nodded their understanding. Apparently no further explanation was required. The Jew thing. It was said in the kind of tone you might use of an automobile with a cracked engine block, or a house with subsiding foundations. Nothing to be done with him, poor fellow. No use to anybody now. Got the Jew thing. They shoot horses, don’t they?

Plainly, getting the Jew thing was a sort of occupational hazard of conservative journalism in the United States, an exceptionally lethal one, which the career-wise writer should strive to avoid. I resolved that I would do my best, so far as personal integrity allowed, not to get the Jew thing. I had better make it clear to the reader that at the time of writing, I have not yet got the Jew thing—that I am in fact a philoSemite and a well-wisher of Israel, for reasons I have explained in various places, none of them difficult for the nimble web surfer to find

World Bank criticises Israel

ThisBBC report tells us how the Palestinian economy is suffering (how much is Arafat worth?) and how the Israelis have caused is. Quick solution? Let the Palestinian workers return to jobs inside Israel! And Israeli's economy? Not mentioned. And the money EU has given PLO that has been stoledn or misused for terror? Not mentioned.

It says more than half the Palestinian population is now living on less than two dollars a day and that only massive foreign aid is preventing full economic collapse.

This is an attempt by the World Bank to quantify in facts and figures the enormous human suffering the conflict with Israel is causing the Palestinian people.

It says the main cause has been Israel's closure of routes from Palestinian areas into Israel and the imposition of curfews and closures in Palestinian towns and villages.

"In practice, these restrictions are applied more rigorously to manufacturers and traders attempting to move goods out of Palestinian cities than to those bringing goods in from Israel," says the report.

Israel's challenge

The World Bank acknowledges that Israel has regretted the impact of these measures, which it says are aimed at stopping suicide bombers and gunmen from killing its citizens.


However, the Bank stresses that the actions of the Israeli Government have a direct impact on the Palestinian economy.[more]

Another example of the beam and the mote

Over the last few days, the US has been humiliated continually by powers much weaker than herself. Here are selected excerpts from news reports, March 1 to March 4, 2003.

First, the issue of Iraq. The Arab League held it’s summit which concluded as follows, according to an AP dispatch dated March 1, 2003:

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt (AP) - Arab leaders said they reject war on Iraq and U.S. threats to remove Saddam Hussein.

Included among these “Arab leaders” who “reject US threats” are Jordan and Egypt, recipients of billions in US aid.

Not to be outdone, Arafat and his gang have also joined the pro-Iraq chorus, and they too are recipients of millions in US aid. The Palestine Media Watch (PMW) reported on March 3, 2003:

The Palestinians continue their unabated verbal attacks on the United States throughout their media. The Palestinian Authority [PA] - Palestine Media Center - quoted Arafat describing the impending US attack on Iraq as a "war on brotherly Iraq". Today's Al Hayat Al Jadida, the official PA daily had two political cartoons - one defining Bush as "RAMBO" going out on an attack, and the second shows the US as an alligator devouring the unsuspecting Arab world.

Another potential recipient of billions and supposed ally is Turkey. The humiliating news from Ankara, March 1, 2003:

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's parliament dealt a stunning blow to U.S. war planning Saturday [February 28, 2003] by failing to approve a bill allowing in American combat troops to open a northern front against Iraq.

The next day, March 2, 2003, AP added insult to injury:

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - A top member of Turkey's governing party on Sunday rejected a quick new vote on letting U.S. troops use the country to open a northern front against Iraq - a second harsh blow to U.S. war planners in as many days.

Russia, dependent as she is on investment capital from the US, is also flexing her muscle. The Jerusalem Post of March 4, 2003, carried this AP dispatch, under the heading, Russia may use veto to stop US-led attack on Iraq :

Russia will not abstain when the United Nations Security Council votes on authorizing war with Iraq, and might be prepared to use its veto, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Tuesday.

Ivanov, in London for talks with his British counterpart, Jack Straw, said Russia "will not support any decision that would directly or indirectly open the way to war with Iraq.

"Abstaining is not a position Russia can take. We have to have a clear position, and we are for a political solution," Ivanov said, through a translator, on BBC World Service radio.

Seemingly undaunted by this type of news, the US continues to humiliate itself with the attempt to collect a majority of votes in the Security Council, a mess brewed by General “Show Restraint” Powell. Here is the AP report from March 4, 2003:

Despite intensive lobbying at the United Nations and in capitals around the world, the United States hasn't found the nine council votes it needs to get its resolution adopted.

Still, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Monday the United States expects a vote "quite soon" after top weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report Friday on Iraqi compliance.

But the evidence on Iraq’s non-compliance with the UN resolutions mounts. The last piece of news came on March 3, 2003, as the Straits Times reported:

BAGHDAD - Ongoing excavations have uncovered important quantities of anthrax and VX nerve agent, Iraqi presidential adviser Amer al-Saadi said yesterday.

Amazing! Discovery of WMD, which Saddam assured the world no longer existed!

Besides the humiliation on the Iraq issue, the US also has to contend with North Korea, the former recipient of millions in US food and fuel. AP, March 1, 2003, reported:

Pyongyang issued a dispatch threatening that nuclear war could break out on the Korean Peninsula at "any moment," an escalation of the communist North's hostile rhetoric as international pressure grows for it to disarm.
On the eve of Roh's [the new president of South Korea] inauguration Tuesday, North Korea fueled tensions by test-firing a missile into the sea off its east coast.

Over the last few days, the chutzpah of North Korea increased considerably, as this AP report, dated March 4, 2003, states:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - After North Korean fighter jets intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance plane, the communist country said Tuesday the threat of armed confrontation on the Korean Peninsula was growing because of what it called U.S. aggression.

According to a Reuters report in Ha’Aretz, March 4, 2003, the US reaction was to send reinforcements to the area:

WASHINGTON - The United States is sending 24 B-1 and B-52 bombers to the island of Guam in the western Pacific to deter any aggression by North Korea in case of a war in Iraq, American defense officials said Tuesday.

All this is meant in the way of introduction. Here is the point: One would have thought that faced with all these problems and humiliations, and faced with a litter of friends-turned-enemies, the last thing the US would do is criticize Israel for conducting a war of self-defence against the same terrorists who so strongly oppose the US. Not so - the US did, in fact,deem it appropriate to criticize Israel, as the following AP piece by Mark Lavie reports on March 4, 2003:

In Washington, the Bush administration urged Israel to protect the lives and welfare of innocent Palestinians as the government cracks down on militants.
"We have long stated that Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's important for Israel to act in a way that is reflective of the needs and the legitimate aspirations of the innocent," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. "We have concerns about actions that go beyond and that bring harm to the innocent, including innocent Palestinians."

What makes this criticism all the more galling is the fact that it comes on the heels of a report from Iraq, according to which the US/British air strikes killed six civilians (quoted from a Reuter report via Ha’Aretz, March 3, 2003):

BAGHDAD - Iraq said on Monday that U.S. and British warplanes killed six civilians and wounded another 15 in raids on Basra, but Washington said the jets struck military targets after coming under anti-aircraft fire.

Not to mention the carnage caused by the US/UK bombing of Serbia, claiming well over a thousand lives of civilians; not to mention the 600 plus Panamanians killed by US troops in the operation to capture Noriega; not to mention a thousand and one US operations of this kind, “that bring harm to the innocent”, in the poetic words of Ari Fleischer.

Like I said, another example of the beam and the mote.

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

Does Islam teach dissembling?

Steven Baker, discussing in Front Page the behavior of various islamic organisations reacting to the Al Arian case, brings enough evidence to oblige us to seriously pose that question.

Wealth of Bias

Recently, the Boston Globe's media critic, Mark Jurkowitz, critiqued CAMERA in an article "Blaming the Messenger". Aspects of the article were actually very good. He listed some of the group's successes. Still there are a number of troubling observations that he makes. The main problem is, of course, the title of the article. Though it doesn't really reflect the bulk of the article, it clearly shows where Jurkowitz stands. The problem in the perception of media coverage of Israel, is not the media but the perception of it by extreme partisans. Jurkowitz quotes one NPR official:

"Economic blackmail" is the term Klose uses to describe CAMERA's tactics. "CAMERA is essentially an advocacy group that calls itself an umpire but only calls foul balls," he adds.

The problem with repeating this sort of criticism is that Jurkowitz doesn't bring a single example of where CAMERA dealt dishonestly with a media outlet. In fact read this:

In September, a crucial effort to stanch the bleeding took place inside WBUR's Commonwealth Avenue offices. Christo and Klose sat down with a small group of WBUR funders, including some who had withdrawn their support. Klose says the meeting was "very satisfactory" and "made clear the complicated reality of doing what we do." But other reports say it was tense and adversarial and didn't exactly end with a meeting of the minds.

This gives NPR a chance to expain its "complicated reality." But even as the NPR official claims he was successful, Jurkowtiz reports that not everyone found Klose to be convincing. Interesting isn't it?
The article is worth reading. Despite the title, I think that Jurkowitz does a pretty good job of showing that CAMERA is correct in what it does.
It's also worth keeping in mind. Saturday's New York Times featured a report, "Palestinian Assets 'a Mess,' Official Says." The article leads of with:

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.

I'm not sure what the impetus of the article was. Was it to bolster the efforts of PA "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?" Or was it to deflect criticism of Arafat likely to result from his listing as one of the world's richest world's leaders in Forbes magazine?
Reading the article, it really seems that the latter is going on. The bloodless way the Times discusses the PA's corruption is astounding. Read that first paragraph again, "... given rise to Israeli accusation ..." Please. There's plenty of corruption in the PA, it's been going on for a long time, and it's well documented. Using a quote from Fayyad to qualify the problem as an Israeli accusation or

"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..."

using this quote to say that corruption is a matter of appearances goes beyond being non-judgmental. It is abdicating the skepticism that every journalist is supposed to show. In fact the only negative James Bennet lists about Fayyad is that because Israel likes him it may be difficult for him to become Prime Minister of the PA.
Mark Jurkowitz may think that supporters of Israel hold the media to impossible standards. But reading this news report about the PA's finances you'd think that the NY Times is describing a person who has trouble keeping his checkbook straight not someone who, according to an editorial in the Jerusalem Post, "... has done more than his fair share of plundering his own people, treating their public resources as his personal ATM machine to be looted at will." In fact the Jerusalem Post editorial *reports* more relevant information about the misuse of aid money directed toward the PA than the news article in the New York Times. To any fair-minded person, the Times is whitewashing Arafat and the PA. (Yes that's my judgment.) Bennet's failure to provide a history of PA corruption is typical of American reporting from the Middle East.

The sins and crimes of the PA are downplayed. The statements of its officials are treated unskeptically. The opposite is true when dealing with Israel.

There's a joke, "Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you." In the case of reporting on the Middle East there could be a variation: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong." Maybe we supporters of Israel are looking too hard for signs of bias. Unfortunately, it doesn't take that much effort to turn it up.

Cross Posted on IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog.

The Pope and anti-Semitism: Some facts

Poor Glenn (Instapundit) got jumped upon when he noted that the Pope was pro-Palestinian etc . A fellow blogger challenged his position. Coming swifty to his side, and armed with some fact, Meyrl Yourish had this to say

Jesse Walker is all over Glenn on this issue. In his comments section, he keeps asking for facts, saying that Glenn isn't supplying any.

I've got a few facts for you, Jesse.

The Vatican did not establish full diplomatic relations with Israel until 1997, nearly fifty years after Israel's birth.

The Pope said that Israel was "desecrating Christian holy sites" when the IDF surrounded the Church of Nativity during its takeover by Palestinian terrorists, yet didn't mention later how the church was desecrated—by those selfsame terrorists.

When Kurt Waldheim's Nazi past was revealed, the Pope didn't let that stop him from honoring the man that no one else in the world would meet with.

The Vatican signed an accord with the Palestinians condemning any "unilateral action" on Jerusalem by Israel. No such accord was signed with Israel when Jordan ruled Jerusalem, threw out all the Jews, forbade Jews to visit the Western Wall, and descrated Jewish holy sites and graveyards.

Yeah, he issued a document condemning the Holocaust. But it took a long time, said some things that made you wonder if he really meant it, and didn't stop him from allowing crosses to spring up over Jewish remains in Auschwitz, or the beatification of Edith Stein, or other acts that show he doesn't really seem to give a damn about what Jews think.

Here's the thing: After centuries of bigotry, hostility, and murder of Jews by Catholics (among others), we tend to be extremely suspicious of the Church, and adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Some scholars argue that Christianity—particularly Catholicism—is the glue that held anti-Semitism together over the centuries. Even today, in the 21st century, we hear cries of "Christ-killers," and not just from laymen.

I am all for interfaith relationships. I especially would like to see the various Christian denominations get along with Jews. But you don't turn around centuries of institutionalized bigotry in a few years. Glenn Reynolds is right to call those actions anti-Semitic. No, Jesse, not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. You're right about that. And maybe the Pope didn't intend for any of the above to be seen as anti-Jewish or anti-Israel.

And yet... Embracing Kurt Waldheim? Giving him one of Catholicism's highest honors? Issuing statement after statement in support of the Palestinians while also issuing statements against Israeli actions?

And then there's that little thing about refusing diplomatic relations with Israel for the first 49 years of her existence. Huh. Go figure. It almost makes you think the Vatican has something against Jews.

*Update: It occurs to me that I need to add a postscript to my Catholic readers. I honestly don't think that most people, particularly Catholics, are anti-Semitic. Two of my closest friends were Polish Catholics. But actions are actions, and thus, the above post. permalink [note] the post has links to facts cited]

Reporters Sans Frontiers' Predators of Press Freedom


I find it interesting that Ariel Sharon is included yet for the Palestinian Authority they just have a figure with a blacked out face and detail the 'Predator' as 'Palestinian Security Forces'. And who is it that holds those forces in an iron grip? It seems RSF cannot recall his name.

Since the Palestinian Authority does not have an army, a dozen "security forces" maintain law and order. They act with complete impunity, like political police, ready to muffle all dissenting voices. In 2000 they interrogated or detained several journalists reporting criticism of the Palestinian Authority. Several TV stations were closed temporarily for similar reasons.

Since the second Intifada began, both official and privately-owned media have been propaganda vehicles for the Palestinian Authority. TV stations continuously broadcast programmes praising martyrs and stirring up hatred and violence. Several foreign journalists have been threatened, intimidated or attacked by security forces. Foreign reporters known to be critical of the Palestinian Authority run serious risks if they try to enter the Territories. But Palestinian reporters are at risk too. Few Israeli journalists dare enter Palestinian territory.

Cross posted at Voice from the Commonwealth

At least some seem willing to try


A group of Israeli Arabs are going to travel to Auschwitz to try to understand where the Israelis are coming from.

The trip in May by about 100 Arab intellectuals, athletes and business people is unprecedented in scope and is being planned at a time of great polarization and bitterness created by 29 months of Mideast fighting.

One of the organizers of the trip to Auschwitz is Nazir Mgally, a 52-year-old Arab journalist from Nazareth, a city of Jews and Arabs in northern Israel. He remembers feeling little emotion during childhood school lessons about the Holocaust because he was more focused on stories of how Jews had stolen Arab land.

It wasn't until Mgally saw how suspicious Jews had become of Israel's Arabs during the past 2 1/2 years of Mideast fighting that he began to wonder if the Holocaust was part of the problem. ''One of the main things that pushes Jews and Arabs to be enemies is that they don't think of each other as human beings,'' he said.

The Holocaust has played a central role in shaping the identity of Israel, a nation at war since it won statehood in 1948. For many Israelis, the slaughter of 6 million Jews during World War II is a constant reproach to the world for denying sanctuary to Europe's Jews.

''The Holocaust is everywhere,'' said Israeli historian Tom Segev. ''There's not a single day without some reference to the Holocaust in an Israeli newspaper. It influences views on almost every subject.''

During their four-day trip starting May 26, the 100 or so Israeli Arab community leaders plan to visit Auschwitz, the largest of the Nazi death camps, where about 1 million Jews perished in gas chambers or died of disease, starvation and torture.

In preparation, some of the Arabs visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem and listened to a Holocaust survivor describe life in the Warsaw Ghetto.

The group will be led by Emil Shoufani, 47, a Catholic priest, and includes an Islamic sheik and an Arab midfielder for Maccabi Haifa, a mostly Jewish soccer team. It will link up with a group of about 50 Jewish Israelis, including pop singers and actors.

No such large group of Arabs has ever traveled to a Nazi camp, although there have been visits by a few Arab members of Israel's parliament and children from mixed Jewish and Arab schools.

The recent violence has caused what little Arab interest there was in the Holocaust to wither, said Irit Abramski, director of Arab education programs at Yad Vashem. The number of Arabs visiting the museum's seminars annually fell to about 250, half the former level, and journalists, poets and politicians from Arab countries no longer come, Abramski said. Mgally, the journalist who helped plan the trip, said the effort to understand the Holocaust can help mend the trust broken by recent fighting.

''We see that Jews look at Arabs as if we want to push them from the land,'' Mgally said. ''Arabs have to do something to give a feeling to the Jews that we don't want to destroy them.''

Judging from the signs I saw at the protests a few weeks ago, I would say there are plenty of Americans and Europeans who need to make the same journey.

Cross posted at Voice from the Commonwealth

Palestinians Rebuff Mubarak-Sharon Meeting

Too good not to read! This article posted at Arabia.com notes that Hamas--that blood-dripping batch of killers--says that Mubarak ought not meet with Sharon because Sharon is a terrorist!! As for not meeting, this a sure way to bring about a Palestinian state. When will these dunderheads get their heads out of the sand, swallow the olives, and begin to get sensible?

GAZA CITY - A number of prominent Palestinian figures called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak not to meet with hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, following news on an expected meeting between them next week.

Speaking to IslamOnline Thursday, February 27, Abd al-Sattar Qasem, a professor of political sciences at Al-Nagah University in Nablus, said the meeting violates the resolutions taken by previous Arab summits and only suits fine the normalization between both countries at the time Israeli tanks are wreaking havoc on Palestinians.

Although Mubarak has not met Sharon since he assumed power in Israel, he frequently dispatched his envoys to meet with Sharon and hold talks with a number of Palestinian officials, Qasem recalled.

He said most Arab leaders are keen on easing tensions, since they are fully aware that any aggravation of the situation in Iraq and Palestine would definitely destabilize the entire region, particularly Egypt.

The meeting between Mubarak and Sharon will end up with a press conference where they are going to say that there are some differences on a number of issues.

But this, in effect, does not reflect the essence of talks since there is no big difference between their perspectives given that they are on board vis-Ã -vis the general principles and only differ on details, Qasem said.

Nafiz Azzam, a leading figure of the Islamic Jihad, said the meeting will not result in any crucial outcome on the tragedy suffered by the Palestinians.

Arab leaders would better support the Palestinians and sever all political and economic relations with the Israelis, who occupy our land, kill our children and women and do not abide by international legitimacy, he stressed.

Azzam said Israel wants to exploit its good relations with some Arab countries to beautify its already tattered image in the eyes of the world and paper over its incessant aggressions on the Palestinian people, who do not pin much hope on such meetings, which always prove futile.[more]

Lebanon's Wazani River stirs a storm in Israel

Gulf News, an on-line Arab source, reports this latest war over water. Note the "it has been said" as a substitute for evidence that Israel has done what is claimed

Lebanon has proceeded with the implementation of a project to exploit the waters of Al Wazani River that flows through its lands so as to provide Marjeyoun and Amer Mountain districts with this resource that is rare here. However, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has threatened Lebanon with war if it goes ahead with its project.

The Lebanese government has rejected Israel's threats. Meanwhile, the U.S. has decided to send an envoy to mediate between the two parties. The following is the Arab press's discussion of these developments.

In 1964, the Arab League's decision to divert the tributaries of the Jordan River encouraged Lebanon to divert the course of Al Wazani River. At that time, Israel attacked Lebanon so as to halt the work.

In 1978, Israel carried out another military campaign, this time to control the Al Litani River which was called the "Al Litani operation". Next, it invaded South Lebanon in 1982. From then onwards, Israel has started a systematic stealing of Al Litani water, writes Rajeh Al Khouri in Akhbar Al-Arab (UAE).

It has also been said that Israel has dug tunnels under the river that runs along the Shaqif Arnon Castle in order to steal water. In addition, it has stolen waters of the Al Hasbani and Al Wazani rivers which have a total quantity of 450 million cubic metres, of which Israel obtains 440 million cubic metres, adds Al Khouri.

The work being undertaken at Al Wazani River by Lebanon will help it obtain more water for its lands. Hence, Sharon has threatened Lebanon, saying that such an action is sufficient reason for war, says Al Khouri.

But Lebanon has continued with this work and clarified to the international community that it obtains only a small amount of water, adds Al Khouri.[more]

More Unsolved Mysteries in Lebanon

TheMiddle East Intelligence Bulletin lists a number of unsolved mysteries taking place in Lebanon. Of course the Israelis will be blamed.

The director-general of Lebanon's General Security Directorate, Brig. Gen. Jamil al-Sayyid, does not appear to have lost any sleep lately. If Lebanon were any other country in the world, one might conclude that the man in charge of the country's principal domestic security agency had a bad year in 2002. Leaving aside the ostensibly natural deaths (such as the sudden heart failure in January of a Christian MP rumored to have dallied with the anti-Syrian opposition), the list of major "unsolved" murders that took place during the first eleven months of last year would have cost even J. Edgar Hoover his job. On January 24, ex-militia chief and former minister Elie Hobeika was killed by a car bomb. On April 20, the grossly disfigured body of Ramzi Irani, the student coordinator of the opposition Lebanese Forces (LF) party, was found in the trunk of his car. On November 21, an American missionary in the southern port of Sidon, Bonnie Penner, was murdered - the first time a US citizen had died from foul play in Lebanon in over ten years. In addition, the culprits who bombed all but one of the major American fast food chains in Lebanon (and evidently have a soft spot for Burger King) have yet to be identified.

The spate of violence kicked into high gear during the first week of December with the killing of an Iraqi dissident, the assassination of a shadowy Lebanese intelligence operative and drug dealer (along with his nephew), and the bombing of a mausoleum near Syrian intelligence headquarters in Anjar. While it is not possible to identify the culprits with any degree of certainty, the circumstances of these three incidents reveal a great deal about why none of them has been deemed worthy of an exhaustive investigation. [more]

Call to Action

Excerpt from today’s Arutz 7 (sent by e-mail via a no-charge subscription):

BUY ISRAELI!

"Short of traveling to Israel, there really is no better way to help the
desperate Israeli economy than to buy Israeli products on an ongoing basis."

That is the theme of the new "Buy Israeli" campaign organized by the "Israel Now" consortium, which is dedicated to educating the Canadian Jewish public on issues such as this.

"With tourism in Israel down some 80%," writes Judy Hazan of Israel Now, "[and] with more than 87,000 business failures between 2001 and 2002, Israel is suffering an economic catastrophe. Almost a quarter of Israelis have seen their standard of living drop below the poverty line. Foreign boycotts of Israeli goods are gathering steam. Even in Canada, the Quebec Federation of Labour has become the latest group to advocate such action."

The "Buy Israeli" campaign posits that if every Jewish family in Toronto would use 10-20% of its weekly shopping budgets for Israeli goods - such as flowers, prepared foods, wines, cosmetics, plastic goods, clothing, jewelry, and Judaica - sales of Israeli products would double its current level. "Canada imports some $200 million in consumer goods from Israel each year," Hazan writes, "and an increase of 25% is equal to the total revenue from most UJA annual appeals!"

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

Who's the realist (Ted Belman)

PM Chretien proclaims he is shocked that the US now says it wants regime change in Iraq and not just disarmament. Why is Canada's PM the last to know?

Jeffrey Simpson, writing in the Globe and Mail properly describes the aim of the US

Mere disarmament would never have sufficed to kick-start the long-term objective of the "war party." The whole purpose of replacing Mr. Hussein's regime with one tutored by the U.S. was to send a shock throughout the Arab world -- and maybe to Iran, that other country so maladroitly linked by the ideologues to the "axis of evil."

The fall of Mr. Hussein would signal that no country could defy the United States. No country could harbour terrorists. Even a country with such unproven links to al-Qaeda as Iraq would be a target.

Arab countries -- with their corrupt leaders, secret police, fire-breathing mullahs, sclerotic economies and "dream palace" politics that underscored victimization and resentment instead of modernity and progress -- would change, and for the better, once their publics witnessed the U.S.-led transformation of Iraq.

So far, so good. But he doesn't leave it at that.

Mr. Hussein's fall would show Palestinians that they must stop drawing comfort from "rejectionist" states that dream of eliminating Israel. The shock would bring them around to negotiating with Israel, largely on Israel's terms, the precise strategy of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his U.S. supporters, including the Likudniks in the Bush administration.

This seems to me a positive result but he makes it sound like a nefarious scheme. Considering all the Palestinian treachery and terrorism and ultimate goal of destroying Israel, why shouldn't they be brought to heel and forced to make a deal to Israel's liking. Israel is a democracy and our ally. It entered the Oslo Accords in good faith and made a good faith offer. It has suffered over 700 deaths as a result of Palestinian terror. Why shouldn't it have the right to defeat the Palestinians and dictate terms.

But Simpson makes it sound like the US is doing Israel's bidding at the behest of Israel's supporters, "including the Likudniks" in the Bush Administration. How outrageous, how insidious, how anti-Semitic. In barely camouflaged language he is saying that the Jews control the Bush administration and are directing US policy in support of Israel and contrary to American interests. The truth of the matter is that Israel and the US have common interests, namely the defeat of terrorism. Neither can retreat from this battle without bringing irreparable harm to themselves.

These, then, were the administration's underlying objectives, always apparent but now revealed. Many are dubious, some are dangerous, and all will lead to the perception in the Arab world that there is, indeed, a "clash of civilizations" -- one launched by the West's most powerful country against the Arab world in particular and the Islamic world in general.

He is so wrong . He is also disingenuous. There is already , in the Islamic world, a perception that there is a clash of civilizations. That is why it is so anti-American and anti-Semitic. That is why they reject our values, our democracy and our liberty. That is why they blow us up. What is lacking in the West is a recognition that there is such a clash. We pretend that we are in a war against a tactic, "terror" and not a people. We refuse to identify that our war is against militant Islam including the regimes that sponsor it. Simpson's remarks are a case in point.

The "dream palace" will be one in which the Americans are led by their political and military leaders through unfamiliar cultural territory, using largely inappropriate means toward long-term engagements for which Americans are not prepared, financially or psychologically.

The Americans fully support the "war on terror" and intend to win it. They have long been told that this is a ten year project. They are prepared for it . They are up for it. And they will win it.

An administration with revolutionary objectives is running U.S. policy. The realists have been banished or marginalized, considered wimps too inclined to compromise.

The ideologues believe they are the terrorists' nightmare, but, instead, they are the terrorists' dream, because they have overreacted. By pursuing "regime change," starting with a U.S. general running Iraq for two years or more, the U.S. will turn even more people against them and provide the best recruiting ground yet for militant fundamentalism.

Ah therein lies the rub. How Orwellian. The threat is real and therefore those who want to meet the threat head on and defeat it, are the realists. It is the pacifiers and the conciliators and the compromisers who are the idealists just as they were in the thirties. And they are just as wrong.

Syria discreetly pulls 4,000 troops from Lebanon

This article suggests the move to placate the U.S. as that country moves toward war with Iraq. How many soldiers are now left to occupy its client state of Lebanon? I figure from what I have read at least 25,000 more. And Hezbullah? Of course those lads are allowed to operate in Southern Lebanon, protected by Syria, still shooting rockets into Israel. And this is called calming them down?

Beirut -- Syria has quietly pulled about 4,000 of its soldiers out of Lebanon in the past week, substantially reducing its 27-year troop presence in the country and sending a signal of moderation to the United States.

The withdrawal from isolated barracks, bases and checkpoints throughout northern Lebanon cuts Syria's troop level in the country to about 16,000 -- fewer than half the number of soldiers it maintained only a few years ago.

The partial pullout is the most significant step in a recent series of moves by Damascus to reduce tension within Lebanon, a strategic rearguard of the Syrian government that is viewed by many in Washington and Israel as a potential flash point if the United States invades Iraq.

"The Syrians are very intelligent in the timing of their steps," said Gen. Elias Farhat, spokesman for the Lebanese military. "You can consider the troop redeployment a message for the Lebanese people and the U.S. government."

In the past several months, the Syrians also have reined in Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim militia in southern Lebanon that is considered a dangerous international terrorist group by the Bush administration. And Syria has carried out a series of discreet negotiations with U.S. diplomats to iron out problems [more]

There is only one war

With the capture of high ranking KLM, many Democrats are arguing that attacking Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. Not so argues the JPost.

The more fundamental point, however, is that the distinction between the two fights is a false one.

The war against terrorism certainly has an operational component, which most narrowly conceived consists of killing and capturing the terrorists themselves. But to think that this is the heart of the matter is to misunderstand how terror works

Just as the terrorist's theory of victory depends on building a sense of inevitability about increasing casualties and danger, the West's theory of victory begins with puncturing that trend and dealing body blows to the terror network. The quick disposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan was one body blow.

The steady capture of al-Qaida terrorists is another. And the fall of Saddam Hussein will be the most dramatic blow yet.

It will be the greatest blow yet not just because Iraq, as US Secretary of State Colin Powell has argued, has direct ties to al-Qaida and funds terror against Israel. The significance of Saddam's fall will be similar to the way military planners describe the opening objective of an attack: to cause shock and awe in the enemy

The forceful deposition of Saddam will, more than anything done to date, tell the world that each linchpin in the terror network has a choice get out of the terror business or lose power.

Bush on Israel: Heartburn for All

Daniel Pipes has this to say on Bush. I had not thought about this but Pipes seems right on target

Consistency and predictability are core strengths of George W. Bush as a politician. Be the issue domestic (taxes, education) or foreign (terrorism, Iraq), once he settles on a policy he sticks with it. There is no ambiguity, no guessing what his real position might be, no despair at interpreting contradictions. Even his detractors never complain about "Tricky George" or "Slick Bush."

But there is one exception to this pattern. And - couldn't you have predicted it? - the topic is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here, Bush not only seems unable to make up his mind, but he oscillates between two quite contrary views.

For example, at the height of the Palestinian assault against Israel last April, the president delivered a major address that contained within it a flagrant contradiction.

* He began by slamming Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) for its terrorism against Israelis, and he fingered several groups, one of them (Al-Aqsa Brigades) under Arafat's control, attempting to destroy Israel. In this spirit, not surprisingly, Bush approved of Israeli efforts at self-protection, saying that "America recognizes Israel's right to defend itself from terror."

* Then, in concluding the speech, he drew policy conclusions at odds with this analysis. The president asked Palestinian leaders to make some nominal gestures to prove they are "truly on the side of peace," then demanded that Israel's government reciprocate with four giant steps (halt its military efforts, withdraw from areas it had recently occupied, cease civilian construction in the occupied territories and help build a viable Palestinian state).

In sum, Bush theoretically backed Israel and condemned Arafat while practically he backed Arafat and punished Israel. All this left most observers stumped. [more]

Targeting Hamas, Israel invades two Gaza camps

News roundup includes links to 9 articles.

Israeli troops killed eight Palestinians on Monday when it stormed a Gaza Strip refugee camp, arresting a founder of the militant Islamic group Hamas and demolishing homes. (6) Palestinian hospital officials said a pregnant 33-year-old woman was crushed to death under the rubble of her house which collapsed when the army blew up a neighboring house belonging to the family of a Palestinian militant. (6) Witnesses said the focus of the incursion was the Bureij camp, where soldiers blew up two houses after demanding that residents leave. (4) Palestinians said at least two of those killed were civilians a 14-year-old boy who was shot dead and a woman whose house collapsed from the force of the blast next door. (4) Israeli tanks moved into the Nusseirat and Bureij refugee camps in the central part of the Gaza Strip early today, witnesses said, killing seven people and destroying two houses. (5) Backed by attack helicopters and tanks, troops blew up Mohammed Taha's home and three others in the Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. (1) Presenting his rightist government to parliament on Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon set tough conditions for peace talks with the Palestinians, even as President Bush urged him to work quickly toward a viable Palestinian state. (7) [links to articles]

About the Palestinian Constitution

Here is MEMRI on the projected Palestinian constitution. It strikes me that the remarks about the Right of Return are not fully spelled out, but then a constitution is but a piece of paper unless it is a document that is put into practise

In response to increasing international pressure, the Palestinian Authority has stepped up its efforts at constitutional reform. The two main bodies involved in this endeavor are the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and the Committee for Drafting the Constitution, headed by Nabil Sha'ath. The Basic Law – which was ratified by the PLC in 2002 and currently serves as a provisional constitution – did not meet international demands for reform. Therefore, under Sha'ath's leadership, the committee responsible for drafting the constitution is now working on its final draft. PA officials first stated it would be published in January 2003, and then February 2003, but up till now it has not yet been officially issued.

The Basic Law: A Provisional Constitution [more]

Arrest of Hamas leader signals change in IDF tactics

IsraelInsider sees a shift in dealing with Intifada

Israel's arrest of Hamas founder Mohammed Taha during the army's raid into the El-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza on Monday signaled that the political leadership of the organization was now being held directly responsible for the terror attacks it instigated. The United States criticized the raid, saying it was "deeply concerned" that a pregnant woman and a young child were among the casualties.

Taha, 65, is reported to be the most senior Hamas leader arrested by Israel since the start of the Intifada. The arrest came as part of intensive Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip over the past two weeks. The actions, targeting Hamas terror infrastructure, are intended to halt the firing of mortars and rockets at Israeli targets.

Hours after the army withdrew from the Gaza Strip yesterday morning, at least two Kassam rockets landed in the western Negev town of Sderot. Six residents were treated for shock, but no damage was reported.

On Sunday, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared that he wanted "the terror organizations to spend more time (and effort) defending themselves... In the Gaza Strip, we are going to intensify the pressure on Hamas... and we are going to do the same thing in the West Bank," he said. [more]

ANTISEMITISM AMONG THE U.S. CHRISTIAN RIGHT

There is an interesting account here of the prevalence of antisemitic beliefs among members of the US Christian Right. I think it is wise to keep this phenomenon in proportion, however. As the article also points out, the same people are often among the strongest supporters of Israel. In this they differ greatly from the antisemites of the Left who want to destroy Israel.

The Judaic religions (Judaism+Christianity+Islam) all tend to the view that their particular sect is the one and only possessor of the truth. So anybody of the "wrong" sect will tend to be condemned. So while Protestant fundamentalists may condemn Jews for their "wrong" beliefs, they would also condemn (say) Catholics with at least as much fervour -- because Catholic beliefs are "wrong" too.

At least Christian fundamentalists have usually evolved beyond the stage where they physically attack people with the "wrong" beliefs -- unlike Muslim fundamentalists.

And as for the anti-Israel attitudes of the current Pope -- well he IS a Pole. The Poles were generally delighted to help the Nazis round up the Polish Jews during World War II.

(Crossposted from Dissecting Leftism)

Iraq is rushing to come clean

US says its too little, too late

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq crushed missiles, sliced casting chambers, unearthed bombs and sent scientists to talk with U.N. weapons inspectors Monday, all in a desperate effort to prove it is disarming before a crucial U.N. report at the end of the week.

France, Russia and China urged Iraq to meet every U.N. demand in hopes of staving off war, but the United States -- which might wage war even without U.N. authorization -- said the actions were too little, too late

Workers have unearthed buried bombs they say are loaded with anthrax, aflatoxin and botulin toxin, and inspectors are analyzing the contents. Iraq is readying a letter to the United Nations that proposes verifying it has gotten rid of anthrax and deadly VX nerve agent.

Even Iraqi scientists who helped make missiles and chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction have begun to give private interviews to inspectors, something all but three had refused to do since December. Another scientist was interviewed on Monday, the fourth in as many days. The United Nations has asked to speak to more than 30 scientists since December.

After months of stressing disarmament, President Bush now speaks more frequently of "regime change," saying that for Iraq to avoid war, Saddam Hussein will have to go -- something few Iraqis can even imagine.

In a sense, the war has already begun. U.S. warplanes enforcing no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq have become much more aggressive in recent days, and have begun to go beyond their traditional targets of anti-aircraft weapons.

300 SAS troops already in Iraq

Michael Smith in the Telegraph reports

Several thousand allied special forces, including more than 300 SAS personnel, are already operating inside Iraq.

Anti-war protestors demonstrate as US B52 bombers move into RAF Fairford. This suggests that, despite efforts to secure a United Nations resolution backing force, the war has begun. MORE

Prejudice produces counterprejudice.

You are probably aware of this if you have been following the modern American Black culture. I dare to say that it's the same with the Jews. Or at least with this particular Jew: me. Well, not entirely the same. The background, including the reasons for the original prejudice, is different. And the way it is played out in reality is different as well: no one knows I am Jewish by just looking at me, and I have no way - at least not always - of knowing if the other person is Jewish just by looking at them.

I was born and grew up in Russia, where it went without saying that most non-Jews don't like Jews. When I came to Israel, I learned from Jews from other European countries that it is more or less the same there.I know the historical and religious roots of the European antisemitism, and I take it for granted, and most of the time quite dispassionately (no, I did not say "always").

After I came to the US, I discovered that there is antisemitism present here as well. I was not surprised by this. Most Americans are descendant from Europeans, so it is natural for them to inherit at least some of the prejudices their ancestors brought with them. Luckily, antisemitism is much less prevalent here than it is in Europe (both Old and New, BTW), for a number of reasons. But still, it is here, all-right.

So I am prejudiced towards Europeans, wherever they are. Or, more precisely, towards European Christians. I am not at all proud of my prejudice, and the only reason I am discussing it, is that I think it is pointless to discuss antisemitism, without examining the Jewish view of it. Also, since I am mostly dispassionate about it, I am able to control it, which is to say I do not automatically assume that every Christian is an antisemite. But when I discover that one is, I am not shocked. In fact, I have a neighbor with whom I am quite friendly, who is an antisemite (she says I am not typical - how very typical...)

So is the Vatican antisemitic? Not as an institution, at least not in its modern reincarnation. But I am sure it has enough antisemites to make it look that way. Is John Paul II an antisemite? I have no idea, but he is Polish, and his nation has a very bad record on the issue. Combine this with some of his own actions, and it makes one wonder. However, his Catholicism seems to have only some relevance to his supposed antisemitism, in my view. His Christianity has more. His ethnic culture has the most.
Here you go, I give you my prejudice in action.

P.S. A couple of related posts here and here.

Over at Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds, accused of being anti-church, defends himself.

JESSE WALKER IS ACCUSING ME of "smearing" the Catholic church. I think that Jesse's post is somewhat unfair, for reasons I've answered in the comments. But just because Jesse's post seems unfair to me doesn't mean that the issue is. The question is, why do I think that the Church is displaying antisemitism here?

Basically, it's because it seems that the Church sides against Israel, and with Arab terrorists and dictators, at every opportunity. Now there could be other explanations for that, I guess. I posited a couple over in the comments to this post of Tacitus's, but here they are again:

If you want to be charitable, you can argue that they're pandering because they (1) want to distinguish Christians in Arab countries from Jews; and (2) think that, long-term, Jerusalem is likely to be in Arab hands. I'm skeptical, though. I think a lot of them probably *are* antisemites. The Vatican has been too consistently anti-Israel to explain it other ways.

Note that these alternative theories, which Tacitus thinks are more persuasive explanations than antisemitism, don't make the Church look better, really: they merely suggest that it's willing to sacrifice moral principle for the sake of expediency rather than for the sake of prejudice. Is that better? Not much, if at all.

Alisa says that we have to understand the Catholic church as a European institution run by Europeans, though I'm not so sure that gets rid of the anti-semitism charge. Perhaps -- as another comment in the Tacitus thread suggests -- it's enough to say that the Church isn't any more anti-semitic than the rest of Europe, though that's not much of a defense, these days.

But what really set people off was this picture. And, Walker's rather misleading characterization notwithstanding (he puts it this way: "A cardinal has been photographed with Yasser Arafat. Got that? A church leader posed with a political opponent of a state run by Jews, therefore his church is anti-Semitic."), it's not just a picture. It's a picture of Cardinal Etchegaray, representative of the Church in full Church regalia, holding up joined hands with Arafat, terrorist murderer, at a press photo opportunity.

Now here's my question: Is it even imaginable that he would do the same thing with Ariel Sharon, elected leader of a democratic country? [more]

ZOA: Bush Promised To End Terrorist States

Zionist Organization of America speaks up

In response to U.S. President George Bush's latest call on Wednesday night for a Palestinian state - he said it must "abandon forever the use of terror" - the ZOA says that such a concept is unrealizable. The Zionist Organization of America says that the ongoing terrorist war waged by the PA Arabs against Israel, as well as "their culture of anti-Jewish hatred and violence," indicate that a PA state will not be "peaceful and democratic," but rather a terrorist entity. "President Bush promised to end terrorist states, not create new ones," ZOA President Morton Klein said. MORE

More Against A Palestinian State

Israel National News reports

The National Unity Coalition for Israel explains, in an article by Dr. Julian M. White of Los Angeles, why a Palestinian state must be opposed:
"Even if Israel could not draw upon the Biblical, historical, legal and moral arguments - which it [can] - to back up its claim, there still would remain a very strong [point], namely, the security factor. No nation need be required to compromise its security and virtually invite attack by its aggressor neighbors because of its vulnerability. A Palestinian state within Israel's present borders would render it at midpoint to a minuscule 9-mile width, subject its only international airport (Ben Gurion) to the possibility of shoulder-launched missiles (as recently occurred in Mombasa) and place its major cities within range of unfriendly fire. This vulnerability would contribute to regional instability, leading directly to expanded terrorism and war."

Fifty prominent Jewish and Christian leaders, as well as former U.S. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and former Republican presidential candidates Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes recently signed a full-page ZOA newspaper advertisement headlined "President
Bush, creating a Palestinian Arab state means creating a new terrorist state." The ad appeared recently in the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, and Israeli and American Jewish newspapers, and will soon appear in the New York Times and elsewhere.

Sue the bastards

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner is hitting Arab terrorists where it hurts - their pocketbooks.

Since an Israeli army reservist was murdered by a mob in the West Bank town of Ramallah two years ago, she has launched about two dozen lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Muslim states that funnel funds to groups such as Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. She has also sued the European Union, charging that its PA economic assistance program has inadvertently aided and abetted terrorism.

Darshan-Leitner, a petite, dynamic 28-year-old Israeli lawyer who represents more than 100 victims of terrorism through her Israel Law Center, was at Shaarei Shomayim Congregation recently to explain her work. The talk, Taking Terror to Court, was sponsored by Israel's consulate general and the Toronto Zionist Council. Edward Greenspan, the Toronto lawyer who introduced her, described Darshan-Leitner as "a voice for the victims of terrorism." He suggested that her "extraordinary pursuit for justice" has paid dividends.

Several weeks ago, Darshan-Leitner won a historic victory against the PA - a 64 million shekel ($13 million US) lien on its assets. The money, minus her fee, will go to the family of Vadim Nordizh, a Russian-born reservist who was fatally beaten by Palestinians on Oct. 12, 2000 in a PA police station in Ramallah. "There was almost nothing left of his body after he was killed and mutilated," she said angrily. "The PA was responsible for his murder, and had to pay." She believes that the case, filed in a Jerusalem district court, will benefit other Israeli families who have sued, or plan to sue, the PA.

It was a serious defeat for the PA. "Each bullet costs Palestinian terrorists one dollar. The lien we have placed on the PA's assets will deprive terrorists of 13 million bullets." Darshan-Leitner explained that the lien was placed on $500 million (US) worth of PA funds that Israel froze after the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000. Since then, she claimed, the majority of Palestinian terrorist attacks have been mounted by the Tanzim and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, both of which are supported financially by the PA. "If you can cut this funding, you can cut terrorism."

When the Israeli army stormed the West Bank last spring in Operation Defensive Shield, it found documents and bank cheques that Israel said proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the PA had channelled funds to terrorists, including Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti. He was subsequently captured, and now faces terrorist charges. Darshan-Leitner has also hit Syria, Iraq and Iran with lawsuits. All three countries support and/or fund Palestinian organizations ranging from Hamas to Islamic Jihad. Taking her crusade one step further, Darshan-Leitner filed a 100 million shekel ($20 million US) suit in a Tel Aviv district court against the European Union last May. The plaintiffs are members of the Bloomberg family who were attacked in a drive-by shooting in the West Bank in August 2001 that killed a pregnant woman and severely wounded her husband and daughter.

The suit contends the EU - which has transferred more than $1.5 billion (US) to the PA since 1994 and continues to assist the PA to the tune of some $10 million a month - is an unintentional sponsor of terrorism. In its defence, the EU argues that it cannot be sued because of its so-called sovereign immunity. "I have urged the EU not to hide behind its immunity and to face the facts," she said. "I want to make sure that European taxpayers know how their tax money is spent." She added, "Don't take European visitors [in Israel] to Yad Vashem. Take them to cemeteries where terrorist victims are buried."

If her case is rejected by the Tel Aviv district court, she said, she will take it to Israel's Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the EU court in Brussels. Darshan-Leitner has also sued Abu Abbas, whose group, the Palestine Liberation Front, murdered American tourist Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in October 1985. But Abbas, who currently resides in Baghdad, has not bothered to defend himself.

In addition, Darshan-Leitner has sued Mohammed Dahlan, a security advisor to PA President Yasser Arafat. She claims he planned an attack on a bus in the Gaza Strip that killed two Israeli teachers. The United States, she noted with bitterness, is grooming Dahlan as Arafat's successor. "He is nothing but a murderer, and the U.S. should not do business with a terrorist."

In closing, Darshan-Leitner declared that Israelis are "sick and tired" of attending the funerals of fellow citizens who have been gunned down or blown up by terrorists. On their behalf, she is fighting back. "We can win these cases. We're winning them already."

The Arrow deal gets a little warmer

The deal for the Indian purchase of the Israeli Arrow missile-defence shield just got a little warmer. The sticking point has always been US reluctance, and the foot-dragging of Foggy Bottom. US resistance appears to be easing somewhat, which is a good sign for both countries in the deal.

The Arrow is a tricky issue. The Israeli-made missile destroyer is the centerpiece of India's planned missile defence shield. As half its components carry US licenses, Washington's green signal is necessary. The US state department has so far resisted the sale of the Arrow.

Nonproliferation hawks at Foggy Bottom believe such a sale would punch a hole in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), one of the many international agreements designed to stop the spread of weapons technology.

This deal would be the the biggest high-tech weapons sale from Israel to India, and it provide the final incentive for India to break with the cycle of Russian/Soviet-era equipment it's been used to working with, and get weapons platforms that actually work..! For Israel, it would be hard cash, and the furthur cementing of trade ties with the largest emerging free-market in Asia.. As always, first come the swords, then the ploughshares..

interview with an imam
Put aside what you think and find a voice of Goodness and Moraltiy!

While Moslem clerics are preaching hatred of Israel and the glories of “martyrdom” (a euphemism for suicide attacks) across the Arab world, there are those who have a different message. Their voices are rarely heard, but some imams (Moslem spiritual leaders) oppose terrorism and encourage their followers to live in peace with Israel.
israel today editor Aviel Schneider spoke to a senior imam in Israel, whose family has lived in this Land for 500 years. He has frequently preached in his Friday sermons that suicide attacks are a sin according to Islamic Law.
But speaking in an international forum such as israel today is something different. Shortly after the interview, the imam feared for his safety and asked us not to disclose his name. His concern, a real one, is that Islamic militants might target him for speaking of moderation and peace.

israel today: In the mosque, has anyone ever asked you what the Koran [Islamic ‘holy’ book] says about suicide attacks?

Imam: Anyone who would ask me publicly would wind up in prison the same day. But in my sermons, I speak out strongly against suicide attacks because the Koran forbids them.

israel today: But it’s well known that suicide bombers pray from the Koran before carrying out their mission.

Imam: These are fanatics—not believing Moslems. According to the shariya [Islamic Law], what they’re doing is strictly forbidden. I’m personally ashamed when I hear about suicide attacks carried out by Moslems. I myself feel guilty. I don’t want bloodshed. [more]

The unstrung quartet

Paul Greenberg composes a winner,

Still another peace plan has been composed for the Middle East, this time by the Quartet --- a loose consortium of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and maybe anybody else who would like to join in on the oboe or submachine gun.

The Quartet plays con brio . Which figures. It takes a certain gusto -- some would say hubris -- to put forward peace plans for others while the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia can't decide on how to make peace, or even war, with Iraq.

This latest composition ("Peace Plan, K872 for Unstrung Harp, Violin Cases and Dynamite") is really a reworking of the earlier classic, Land for Peace. The overture, Land, was going well until it came to the Peace part, which never materialized. Talk about an unfinished symphony.

The incentive for the Israelis to accept this latest ticking package is (again) the promise of peace and security. In return the Palestinians would get their own state, but that's never been a sufficient incentive. Or there would have been an Arab state next to the Jewish one long ago. Instead, every time the Arabs of Palestine have agreed to cease fire, it's been to reload.

Instead of a state, the leaders of Arab Palestine, at least since the Grand Mufti's time, have been much more interested in a terrorist base. Now they've got one, for that is what their sad little split-up and surrounded proto-state has become.

For their part, the Israelis continue to disappoint the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, the Russians and certainly the terrorists by fighting back. They refuse to slink away and just wait for the next suicide attack, rocket assault or general offensive. Instead they seal off cities, go after terrorists and generally decline to be victims. The sad rule in human affairs is that no peace can be imposed till the war is concluded, and right now this one is raging.

For its own disparate reasons, the Quartet pretends that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Yasser Arafat's Al Aksa Brigades and the whole terrorist nexus called the Palestinian Authority want a state of their own more than anything in the world. And that all the Quartet need do is offer them one, and peace will break out.

Here's what all these diplomats don't want to admit, though surely they must know it: It isn't the prospect of a nice little state living in peace with its neighbor that brings all the Arab factions out in the street, firing their rifles, dancing and shouting and tossing candy. If they'd just wanted a state of their own, they could have had it years ago, decades ago. They could have accepted a Palestinian state at Camp David in 2000, or at Oslo the previous decade, or after the Six Day war in 1967, or at Lake Success in 1947, or when Britain's Peel Commission suggested it in 1937, or . but, as Abba Eban once put it, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Why is that? Because it is not the creation of a state that rouses the greatest enthusiasm in Gaza or Nablus, but the destruction of one, namely Israel. What would Palestine be, the 23rd Arab state? How enthusiastic can even its subjects be about bringing still another sordid little Arab dictatorship into the world?

But the prospect of wiping out Israel, if necessary one agreement at a time, a la Oslo, still rouses the Street. And remains the ultimate aim. Else, the Palestinian Authority would have grabbed the concessions that Israel's then popular leader, Ehud Barak, offered at Camp David: a Palestinian state that would have included almost all the still disputed territories plus a share in Jerusalem.

If the Palestinian Authority's aim was only a nice little state living alongside Israel in peace and good will, why did it insist on a Right of Return for the descendants of the generation that fled at Israel's birth - a return, tellingly, not to a prospective state just on the West Bank and in Gaza, but to Israel's heartland? That way, millions of returnees could do what Arab armies couldn't in war after war: overwhelm the Jewish state.

It's not the borders of the Jewish state that have been the essence of the dispute all these years but its very existence. And so the Quartet plays on, meaninglessly. So does the Middle East, heavy on percussion. MORE

Arafat faces genocide suit

This news item in BBC got me to asking about the Belgium courts that want to try Sharon as a war crimminal. Why are not busy pursuing this case?

The seven - all relatives of Jewish victims killed during the current Palestinian uprising, or intifada - said Mr Arafat was responsible for the crimes.

"[Yasser] Arafat had the power and the means to stop acts of terrorism, murders and violence... [but] he organised and paid for them with the money of the Palestinian Authority," the seven families - all French Jews living in Israel - said in a statement.

The statement said Mr Arafat did not have immunity of a head of state under French laws as there was no internationally recognised Palestinian state.

A specially appointed judge must now determine whether the lawsuit can be accepted and pursued legally.

'Concerted plan'

The statement said the suit included dozens of pages describing circumstances surrounding various "criminal acts, suicide bombings... and car bombs which caused death or injury to the victims of the crimes".

It said video tapes of speeches at Gaza mosques "inciting directly and publicly to kill Jews" and some of Mr Arafat's speeches were also included. [more]

Dulling the Talons

An editorial in the Baltimore Sun last week, "Sharpening the Talons" was pretty typical of the paper's shrill anti-Israel bias. Several aspects of the article call out for rebuttal. The first paragraph begins:

ARIEL SHARON has finished putting together a governing coalition in Israel that includes an extreme right-wing party and a rabidly extreme right-wing party. This won't do the cause of peace in the Middle East any good at all.

Specifically the problem here is that neither of the "extreme right-wing" parties that joined the Likud's coalition has much power. Shinui, the one leftist party got all the major ministries outside of Defense, Foreign Affairs and Treasury. What's more, Sharon could have formed a coalition of just nationalist and religious parties and left out Shinui. Under the circumstances (i.e. the democratic choice of the Israeli people) the government Sharon formed was arguably the most left wing possible! Maybe the Sun wants to criticize the Israeli people; but its criticism of Sharon is sheer propaganda.

More generally, the problem with the Sun's position is that in the year 2000, Israel 1) offered (through President Clinton) Syria over 90% of the land it wanted to make peace 2) pulled completely - as certified by the UN Security Council - out of Southern Lebanon (even as Syria continues to occupy that country with impunity) and 3) offered Yasser Arafat over 90% of the land he wanted to make peace. In return Israel got 1) Assad's even shriller and more belligerent son after Assad died refusing to make a deal 2) a continued threat from Hezbollah and 3) a renewed intifada overseen by Yasser Arafat. The notion that the composition of Israel's government plays any role in whether Israel makes is nonsense. The continued obstacle to peace is Arab rejectionism.

To Arab eyes, there is no daylight between the White House and Mr. Sharon. It has not gone unnoticed that one of the neoconservative arguments for an American-led regime change in Iraq is that it would be good for Israel. But if Israel is going to be so militant, Iraq's Arab neighbors might well ask, what's in it for them?

So if the Arabs had something to gain, they'd support US efforts? Something to gain, as implied by the editorial, means Israel retreating from the lands it obtained in defensive wars. So then explain, why is it that at the time of the Camp David summit in July, 2000 did Saudi Arabia and Egypt encourage Arafat to reject the American backed deal that Barak offered - as reported by the New York Times? (I sent a letter to the editor with similar substance to the Editor of the Sun.)

Again the answer is that support for Israel is not an obstacle to peace. It's Arab rejectionism of any compromise with Israel.

Cross-posted to IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog.

Taking the Liberals to task

Parrish says what Chrétien thinks

Andrew Coyne writes in the National Post

In the wake of Carolyn Parrish's typically subtle foray into the nuances of bilateral relations ("Damn Americans, I hate those bastards"), everyone said her remarks were intolerable and must be repudiated.

Well, not quite everyone. A clear majority Globe and Mail readers, in an online poll, agreed that Americans are bastards. And while the Prime Minister did not explicitly endorse Ms. Parrish's view of our neighbours, friends and allies, neither did he say anything publicly to contradict it.

But then, has he ever? This is not the first time Ms. Parrish has reminded us of her loathing of the United States, nor is she the only Liberal MP to voice such sentiments -- to say nothing of l'affaire Ducros. Has Mr. Chrétien given one speech decrying the anti-Americanism that infects so many members of his caucus? Has he made even one statement to that effect?

Not long after the Sept. 11 attacks, Tony Blair spoke out against the suggestion that the Americans somehow had it coming. Such comments, he said, betray a "hatred of America that shames those who feel it." Can anyone imagine Mr. Chrétien saying such a thing? No. Instead, he used the anniversary of the attacks to blame them on American arrogance and greed.

After so many similar episodes, the conclusion is inescapable: Liberal anti-Americanism is not a problem for Mr. Chrétien to manage, but rather an outgrowth of his own attitudes and beliefs. As with its counterparts elsewhere, the Liberal "street" is less a spontaneous popular phenomenon than the unofficial voice of the regime. She may put it in cruder terms, but by and large, Ms. Parrish says what Mr. Chrétien thinks.

I don't mean he literally hates Americans. But he plainly regards the United States as a hostile, threatening force, whose influence must be resisted as its power must be restrained. It is a deep, almost instinctive mistrust, typical of many nationalists of his era, at best defensive and at worst paranoid.

It is this lack of proportion, this reflexive opposition, so ready to ascribe ill motives and so quick to cast blame, that marks the difference between legitimate criticism of U.S. policy and what is rightly described as anti-Americanism. And it is this that best explains the stance Mr. Chrétien has taken throughout the Iraq crisis.

It is a stance, more than a policy, as I have argued before -- Mr. Chrétien has taken no position that might be mistaken for a policy. But in all of this cautious throat-clearing, a consistent theme emerges: namely, that the greatest threat to the peace at present is not Iraq, but the United States.

Until the Americans forced the question, Mr. Chrétien had not once expressed alarm at Iraq's flouting of international sanctions and inspections, or the danger posed by its possession or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. No, strike that: Even after the issue was joined, Mr. Chrétien has said nothing to that effect, beyond a few pro forma declarations that Saddam Hussein must disarm. Indeed, until very recently he was publicly skeptical that Saddam had anything to disarm.

But as to the threat posed by the United States -- of that Mr. Chrétien has been positively seized. To the extent that Canada has had any policy in this whole affair, it has been to envelop the Americans in thick clads of United Nations procedure -- not to contain Iraq, but to contain the United States. Mr. Chrétien supports taking action under UN authority, not because it makes a U.S.-led military campaign more likely to succeed, but because it makes one less likely to occur.

This view of the world has been increasingly evident in Mr. Chrétien's recent public statements. In his Chicago speech last month, he warned that the future of the United Nations depended on "how the United States acts in the days ahead." If the UN collapses, in other words, it's your fault. Not Iraq's, for its continued defiance of 17 UN resolutions. Not France's, for obstructing every attempt to enforce them. The Americans'.

During last week's official visit to Mexico, he was more explicit. "We live in a very different world today," he explained. Because terrorist states now have nuclear weapons? No, because "we have only one superpower." And that means? That the Soviet threat has receded? That U.S. military power has preserved both democracy and the peace? No, it means "the United Nations is more needed than ever."

Then, on Friday Mr. Chrétien professed himself astonished to discover that the Americans intended to remove Saddam from power. Resolution 1441 of the UN had spoken only of disarmament, he said. "If you start changing regimes," he asked, "where do you stop?" Who was next? "I'm all right, I only have 11 months to go, but ..."

There are many possible responses to this outburst: that Res. 1441 had spoken of immediate, full and unconditional disarmament, not partial, delayed and grudging; that the "where do you stop" objection could as well be made to enforced disarmament as to regime change; or that Mr. Chrétien's position would imply that, having fought a war to disarm Saddam, the UN should then prop him back in place.

But I think Mr. Chrétien's little joke says it all. "But ..." what? Who does Mr. Chrétien suggest is next? What conquest does he suspect the Americans of plotting? How deep does his mistrust run?

Israeli Troops Battle Palestinian Gunmen in Gaza Strip

News roundup with links to 7articles

Israeli forces stormed a Gaza Strip refugee camp on Monday, killing at least one Palestinian in clashes, only hours after vowing to step up attacks on militant strongholds. (4) Palestinian medical officials said a 13-year-old boy was shot dead and around 20 other Palestinians wounded as gunmen traded fire with Israeli troops and tanks which rolled into Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza under cover of dark. (4) Israel's defense minister on Sunday pledged to step up assaults on Hamas militants on a day when three Palestinians were shot and killed in the Gaza Strip and Israeli media reported that Hamas militants had plotted to assassinate Knesset, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. (5) Israeli troops backed by tanks and helicopters raided a Gaza Strip town early Sunday, killing two Palestinians in fierce fighting and demolishing an apartment building and the exterior wall of a hospital. (6) Palestinian doctors said mourners fired in the air, as is customary during funerals, and drew Israeli army fire, apparently because the cemetery is near a Jewish settlement. (6) Presenting his rightist government to parliament on Thursday, Sharon set tough conditions for peace talks with the Palestinians, even as President Bush urged him to work quickly toward a viable Palestinian state. (7)

Kenya IDs suspects in Israeli attacks

Do you recall this terror attack against the Israeli-owned hotel? Here is an update

NAIROBI, Kenya - Police in Mombasa have identified eight suspects they believe were involved in the Nov. 28 terrorist attacks on Israeli targets in Kenya, a senior police official said Monday.

Some of the eight are Kenyans, but others are foreigners, said Joseph Narangwi, the senior Criminal Investigation Department officer in Coast Province.

Police have questioned more than a dozen people in the attacks, which killed 11 Kenyans and three Israeli tourists, but there have been no arrests.

The Kenyans and Israelis died when a vehicle packed with explosives crashed into the Paradise Hotel, 12 miles north of Mombasa. It is not known how many people were in the vehicle.

Minutes before the bombing, unidentified assailants fired two missiles at an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757, narrowly missing the charter aircraft as it took off from Mombasa airport with Israeli tourists returning to Tel Aviv.[more]

Reuters Ruins Rachel's Tomb

A quick and easy study of how the media--in this instance Reuters--chooses words to distort reality. And of course it is anti-Israeli. Or need I add that?

My Israel, Our Security

Here is a new blog called Peaktalk that is off to a running start with this nice piece

My father is someone deeply fascinated with history and it is probably from him that I developed my passion for politics, wars, revolutions and international affairs. I can clearly remember picking up a book with on the cover a group of smiling and celebrating soldiers. I was deeply fascinated by it and flipped through it very often although I must have been only 5 or 6 years old and was never able to grasp what it was all about. That changed very soon as I started to learn the history of a relatively young country named Israel and its brave fight against the countries that were seeking to annihilate the young state. The book it turned out was about the Six-Day war.

Growing up in Holland in the early 70s meant growing up in an environment that was passionately pro-Israel and for some reason I plugged right into this. I collected Israeli stamps, read everything there was to read about Israel, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan became household names for me. I even regretted being born a Dutchman and was disappointed I was not one of those heroic Jews that we’re able to build up a country from scratch and defend it against its enemies. The fact that Israel has a nice warm climate with palm and olive trees all over the place also played its part in my love for the place I have to admit. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973 I even managed to raise some coins and nickels and contributed them to a help Israel collection in a local store. At school we sang Israeli folk songs, accompanied on the guitar by our teachers. Again, we are talking the early 70s and The Netherlands was one of Israel’s closest friends. That has changed, but I will not go into that right now.

The solid relationship between our two countries culminated for me in a memorable visit by an Israeli dance group to our school in, I think, 1975. They toured our country and for some reason our school was part of this cultural feast and I can still vividly see all the children at our school shouting, clapping and singing during the performance of this vibrant bunch of young Israelis bringing a piece of their world into our school. Afterwards we collected signatures and we were so proud to have a collection of Hebrew names, I still must have them somewhere.

My mother was on the school board and as a result she organized a dinner for the dance group’s leader Jonathan and his wife as well as its key singer, Effi Netzer (I did a Google and he’s still around performing all over the place). I clearly remember the dinner at our house with my parents, a few of their friends and the guests of honor. There were also two other guys that had tagged along with Jonathan, wife and Effi, Dov and Gil. As an innocent child I assumed they were responsible for the music or something like that but it was not entirely clear to me. Not long after the visit my father told me that Dov and Gil had very little to do with the creative part of the tour as they were armed Israeli security agents. You can imagine the impact on a Dutch boy of only 11 years old growing up in one of the most boring suburbs in Europe: Israeli security men with guns in our house ! This sealed my passionate love affair with Israel once and for all.

Even though I was very young I must have sensed what it meant to bring your own security wherever you went: you are nowhere safe and, more importantly, you can rely on absolutely no one to provide that security for you. It was so different from the way we lived. At the time I was impressed with and proud of those great Israelis who took care of their own affairs and it must have instilled the importance of being self-reliant and independent in me. This feeling was reinforced a little while later when Israeli commandos liberated a group of Jewish hostages on the airport of Entebbe in Uganda were they were held captive by a group of Palestinian and German left-wing terrorists. And a few years later the Israelis again took matters into their own hand by bombing a nuclear facility under construction in Iraq, knowing very well that the country’s security would be fatally impaired if that facility would ever become operational.

Israel’s security has not improved one inch in the 28 years that separate today from that great evening at my parents house. On the contrary, the threat that was facing them and forced them to bring out their own security detail has now come to visit us. It reinforces the need to be self-reliant, tough and independent for we can not rely on anyone to provide us with that great blanket of security for it does not exist.

Action Alert - Please Devote Five Minutes to Help Israel

The following is an Action Alert e-mail from Shirley Anne Haber, reproduced verbatim.

Please note that Sirley Anne has given all the necessary e-mail addresses for Canadians who wish to write; below, I have assigned bold font to these e-mail addresses.


Dear Friends,

URGENT! Israel needs our help to ensure that she is treated as an equal participant at the coming United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The UN Commission on Human Rights, UNCHR, begins March 17, 2003 and runs until April 25, 2003 in Geneva. There are only two weeks to make the crucial case for Israel's equal participation! It is critical that EVERYONE make an effort to write. Please send this email to your lists! Please post on websites!

This is one issue where OUT OF COUNTRY members can and must get involved! See SAMPLE LETTER, EMAIL ADDRESSES and BACKGROUND INFORMATION below. Please make every effort to write. Please forward to me a copy of your letter!

Thanks for your efforts,
Shirley Anne Haber sahaber@sympatico.ca
The Media Action Group

THE ISSUE:

Israel will be excluded from participating in all daily meetings of "WEOG", the UN regional grouping to which Israel belongs, during the coming session of the Commission on Human Rights. (WEOG = Western, European and Others Group)

This year Israel will attend the Commission in principle as an equal because this is the first time the Commission has met since Israel became eligible to stand for election to this UN body. The change occurred in May 2002, when Israel was admitted into WEOG in connection with all UN bodies elected in New York. In practice, however, Israel has still not been allowed by WEOG members to attend their important meetings relating to the actual business of the Commission. (see BACKGROUND below)

In other words, Israel is the only UN member state which cannot participate in the substantive strategic and information-sharing sessions that take place in the regional group context of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Israel is the only UN state which is in the degrading and debilitating situation of having to rely on other governments to pass it second-hand information about what is going on at the diplomatic level prior to public meetings of the Commission on any subject whatsoever.

The case for the full and equal participation of Israel in WEOG meetings at the Commission must be made immediately to WEOG states namely: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.

SEE LINK BELOW WITH EMAIL ADDRESSES TO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES under 'Write to'!

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

WHO SHOULD WRITE:

Citizens of countries which are members of WEOG - there are 28 states.

MAIN WRITING POINT:

To ensure that Israel is invited by WEOG to attend the daily WEOG meetings during the forthcoming session of the UNCHR.

WRITE TO:

People in different countries must write to their own country's
representatives PLUS Germany (the Coordinator of WEOG for this UNCHR)!

a) Your country's permanent ambassador to the UN mission in Geneva
b) If known, your country's head of delegation to the Commission session.
c) Prime Minister or President
d) Minister of Foreign Affairs

***NOTE: Everyone should write to the German Ambassador to the UN in
Geneva who is the COORDINATOR OF WEOG at this Commission on Human Rights!

WRITING GUIDELINES:

* your main request should be in the first line of your letter
* use similar wording to the sample letter but personalize - make appropriate changes for your country
* use some information from the document below to add to your letter to make it original - don't add too much
* letters must be brief courteous and show respect (no long treatises)
* make sure to add your address and postal code with your name

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

SAMPLE LETTER:

This letter is targeted at Canada - other countries must make appropriate changes. (In the case of Canada, two ambassadors should be sent letters, one being the permanent representative of Canada to the UN in Geneva (Ambassador Sergio Marchi), and one being the Canadian Head of Delegation to the Commission on Human Rights (Ambassador Christopher Westdal.)

DATE

TO: Canadian Ambassador Christopher Westdal
RE: Israel should be invited to attend the daily meetings of WEOG held in Geneva during the UNCHR

Dear Excellency,

As the head of the delegation from Canada to the UNCHR, I urge YOU to make every effort to make sure that an invitation is extended to the Israeli
Ambassador to attend the daily WEOG meetings during the UNCHR session in Geneva.

Canada has a record of showing support for Israel in the context of WEOG and at the Commission of Human Rights. I hope that Canada will continue with this support.

Since Israel is allowed to stand for election to the Commission as a member of WEOG, Israel should NOT be excluded from WEOG meetings in Geneva at the Commission on Human Rights. All other UN member states, whether or not they are members of the Commission, and even UN observers, are permitted to attend regional group meetings connected with the Commission. Israel should not be singled out and subjected to discrimination.

Israel should have equal participatory rights with every other UN state at the Commission given that the UN Charter requires "the equal rights of nations large and small".

I urge you to take the necessary steps with WEOG colleagues to ensure that Israel is included in WEOG meetings for the upcoming Commission session.

Thank you for your ongoing support of Israel.

Sincerely,
Shirley Anne Haber

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

WRITE TO: (State the NAME OF THE AMBASSADOR as part of the subject line)

Christopher Westdal Canadian Head of Delegation to the UNCHR in Geneva Fax:
011-41-22-919-9233 christopher.westdal@dfait-maeci.gc.ca

Ambassador Sergio Marchi Canadian Permanent Representative to the UN in
Geneva Fax: 011-41-22-919-9233
geneve@dfait-maeci.gc.ca
(Add: Attention Ambassador Marchi)

The Right Honourable Jean Chretien Prime Minister of Canada
Email: pm@pm.gc.ca

The Honourable Bill Graham Minister of Foreign Affairs
Graham.B@parl.gc.ca

Germany, Ambassador Walter Lewalter, phone 730-1111, fax 734-3043,
mission.germany@ties.itu.int
(Add: Attention Ambassador Lewalter)

CONCERNING OTHER WEOG COUNTRIES: NOTE Write Only to Your Country's
Representatives - add the ambassador's name in the 'subject line'! AND write the German Ambassador

This LINK contains email addresses of AMBASSADORS to all other UN Missions for WEOG members states!
http://www.cicweb.ca/At_Issue/English/weog.html

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Information has been supplied by Anne Bayefsky, international lawyer who was a representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and UN Watch at Durban.

The United Nations is divided informally into five regional groups. The regional groups are geographic except for one, the Western European and Others Group (known as WEOG) - which includes western European states, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and others. The United States is a member of WEOG for election purposes and attends WEOG meetings including those connected with the Commission on Human Rights. Israel geographically belongs in the Asian regional group, but the large membership of Moslem and Arab states has barred Israel's admission to the Asian group. Israel belongs in WEOG, in terms of its democratic character and common interests and value. In May 2000 Israel was accepted to WEOG (until such time as the Asian regional group admits Israel), but with the caveat that it could not stand for election as a WEOG member until May 2002 and that it could only participate in WEOG in connection with UN bodies elected in New York. The Commission on Human Rights is such a body.

Within this context, there is one serious anomaly. According to the current deal on Israel and WEOG, Israel can in principle stand for election to the Commission on Human Rights because the election takes place in the UN's Economic and Social Council preparatory sessions which are conducted in New York. (At the moment, WEOG is attempting to avoid elections altogether and arrive at an agreed-upon rotation scheme for the Commission on Human Rights - and Israel is on the draft rotation.) Despite this fact, WEOG refuses to admit Israel to its regular meetings which take place throughout the Commission.

Membership in the Commission on Human Rights, election to the Commission's Bureau, and participation in regional group meetings surrounding the work of the Commission, has nothing to do with any substantive criteria whatsoever. It has nothing to do with a country's perceived or actual human rights record. Current membership in the Commission includes: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe. And the Chair of the current Commission is Libya.

Participation in regional group meetings at the Commission are not related to membership on the Commission at any given session. Regional group meetings include both UN observer states and UN member states, as the latter vary from year to year.

Membership in a regional group is a key feature of UN politics today.

CRUCIAL POINTS TO MAKE:

1. The UN Charter requires "the equal rights of nations large and small". The credibility of the UN is dependent on adherence to the Charter and the equal participatory rights of every UN member state. The exclusion of Israel from the WEOG regional group meetings at the Commission is a violation of the UN Charter itself.

2. The Commission on Human Rights is seriously discredited by the Chairmanship of a country such as Libya, while Israel is forced to stand in the halls of all negotiating and strategic planning which occurs at the Commission with the participation of every other UN member state.

3. It is completely anomalous for Israel to be able to be elected to the Commission, and yet be unable to participate in the regular negotiating and
information meetings associated with the Commission session itself.

4. The Commission on Human Rights has spent approximately 11% of its total substantive meeting time over 30 years on Israel alone, and approximately 25% of its critical country-specific resolutions over 30 years on Israel alone. In other words, the Commission spends more time discussing Israel and more time criticizing Israel than any other state. In comparison, for example, there has never been a Commission resolution on states such as Syria or China. It is a gross violation of any semblance of democratic governance or fair procedural practice, that equal participatory rights are denied the very state which is the subject of such targeted attention.

5. The EU (and the UN) are each part of the so-called Quartet (the other two members being Russia and the United States) which claims to have come together in the recent past for the purpose of forwarding Middle East peace. The credibility of the EU, (and of the UN itself), to be a neutral and constructive participant in the Middle East peace process is completely undercut by any EU refusal to allow Israel into the WEOG meetings connected with the Commission.

6. The Holy See is a so-called non-member state with observer status in the UN. The Holy See is permitted to attend WEOG meetings during the Commission - even though it is not a UN member - while Israel, a UN member state, is refused admittance. This is again anomalous, discriminatory and a violation of the UN Charter's fundamental principle of equality.

7. "Palestine" has observer status in the UN. It is permitted to participate in the Asian regional group meetings at the Commission on Human
Rights, while Israel, a UN member state, is excluded from any regional group meeting. Again anomalous, discriminatory and a violation of the UN
Charter's fundamental principle of equality.

CONTRADICTING THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AND MISINFORMATION

Argument:

The counter-argument to Israeli participation in WEOG meetings connected with the Commission (and also to full Israeli participation in WEOG period), is that the time is not ripe. The argument goes: there are serious violations of human rights occurring in the course of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Many of these violations are the fault of Israel.

Response:

The response to this must be that participation in a regional group at the Commission has nothing whatsoever to do with a country's alleged human rights record. No substantive standard or review is done or purported to be applied to any other UN country. It is discriminatory to suggest that a substantive standard of any kind, factual, alleged or perceived, be applied to only one UN member.

Furthermore, exactly the same argument was put forward in the years immediately following the Oslo accord. Even the Nobel peace prize did nothing to change this claim. The time has never been ripe for those WEOG members opposed to Israel's equal participatory rights. The only reason Israel was partially admitted into WEOG at all in 2000 was because of the insistence of the United States.

Argument:

The related counter-argument is made that participation in WEOG should be a kind of carrot and/or stick used against Israel, in the sense that it must be earned - in the eyes of other WEOG members. Some WEOG members object to Israel's current government and WEOG participation should be withheld until it is changed. Some WEOG members object to the lack of progress on the peace process and WEOG participation should be withheld until it is improved.

Response:

The response to this must be that WEOG participation is not a bargaining chip or honor to be bestowed by other WEOG members for the purposes of forcing changes of a government or its policies. This is grossly offensive to the legitimacy of the democratic state of Israel. It is again a discriminatory policy applied to only one state. It is an abusive use of the fundamental principle of equal participatory rights of all UN nations.

It is also bound to fail as a bargaining chip, since it does nothing but confirm the bias of the EU and the UN against Israel and further marginalize their relevance to any future Middle East processes or outcomes.

Pressure Points:

At this coming Commission on Human Rights session, Germany will be the coordinator of WEOG. This country will therefore have an important role to play in planning WEOG meetings. Germany has a moral responsibility to ensure that Israel is not excluded.

The United States has always been a world leader in insisting upon the equal treatment of Jews and the Jewish state by the UN and the equal application of the UN Charter to Israel. US representatives should be called upon once again to press this case.

In times past, various countries have been said to be unsupportive of Israel's participation in WEOG. These names are obviously unofficial, cannot be substantiated and change for all kinds of reasons over time. Countries named at various times include Sweden, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada. One way to determine which WEOG states are the problem is to insist on a clear response from your representatives on the issue of Israel's participation in WEOG meetings at the Commission on Human Rights.

Alternative Strategies of Reform:

WEOG meets physically each morning throughout the Commission session, (at least until now), in the Palais des Nations itself. If diplomacy in capitals is unsuccessful, some may be interested in making the case in a different manner at the entrance to the daily meetings themselves.

CONCLUSION

The exclusion of Israel from equal participation in WEOG in connection with the Commission on Human Rights violates even the limited existing deal allowing Israel to be a full member of WEOG in connection with those UN bodies which are elected in New York (such as the Commission), and should be immediately changed. This exclusion of Israel from WEOG meetings connected with the Commission of Human Rights must be challenged in WEOG without any further delay.

The Looming Crisis of Water in the Middle East

This piece in MEMRI is very important and deals with a subject to often ignored because of the Intifada. Edward O. Wilson, in his book of some years ago called Consilience noted that the number one problem to be faced in large sections of the world will be a scarcity of drinikable water and that this will bring about wars, struggles, and many deaths.

One of the most serious looming crises in the Middle East is the water shortage crisis. Recent articles in the Arab press have underscored the strategic dimension of the crisis and its long-term implications for peace and stability in the Middle East. Thus, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat wrote about "Water: the Hidden Bomb Between Crises?" The Saudi paper Al-Riyadh warns that "the water struggle will lead to wars in the region;" Al-Hayat states that "water, after land, will determine the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict." Another Saudi paper, Okaz, published an interview with a water researcher who maintained that "the Arabs are approaching thirst." In an earlier article, Okaz reported about "water in Yemen... a real crisis treated with tranquilizers." In a symposium on the impact of the decline of water resources on economic growth, the newly-appointed Saudi minister of irrigation, Dr. Ghazi Al-Qusaibi, echoed the strategic analysts, predicting that future wars will be water wars. Similarly, the Egyptian minister of water resources, Dr. Mahmood Abu-Zayd, warned that water conflicts could lead in the next few years to world wars originating from the Middle East.

Water: Supply and Demand Imbalances

Unlike other forms of supply and demand imbalances, in the domain of water such imbalances often transcend market forces and result in regional political and strategic dilemmas. First, in the Middle East, most of the water resources originate upstream from countries outside the control of the users downstream. Second, in the absence of an appropriate political environment, regional cooperation for equitable distribution and use of water resources is lacking.

A recent study conducted by Egyptian researcher Dr. Hamdi Abd Al-Adhim shed some light on the current status of water supply and demand in the Middle East. According to this study, the total needs of the Arab countries for water in 2002 reached 189.7 billion cubic meters (bcm) which rose from 153 bcm in 1990. These needs were estimated to rise to 280.6 bcm in 2025. For example, the Egyptian requirements for water, for various uses – agriculture, industry, as well as potable water – were 70.5 bcm in 2000 but will rise to 103.2 bcm in 2025. Dr. Hamdi has determined that water surplus, the differential between supply and demand, was 103 bcm in 1990 but declined to 84.2 bcm in 2000. By 2025 the water surplus will turn into a water deficit of 2.25 bcm annually due to a growing population and a subsequently growing demand. Currently, water deficits are recorded in Iraq, Libya, Oman, Jordan, and the U.A.E. By 2025, Egypt will suffer a water deficit of 19.2 bcm, followed by Sudan (9.7 bcm), Saudi Arabia (1.6 bcm), and Jordan (1.15 bcm).

One of Dr. Hamdi's major concerns is that most rivers in Arab countries originate from non-Arab countries which, as a group, control 88% of water flowing into Arab lands. In Egypt, dependence on water originating from outside the country is 90%, but it is only 50% in Syria.

According to a study by the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, the population in the Jordan River basin, which includes Israel, Jordan, the West Bank/Gaza and southern Syria, has grown six fold since the late 1940s. This area needs 15 bcm annually for self-sufficiency but it currently has available only 3-5 bcm.(10) To make up for the shortage, groundwater, the main source of water in many countries, is being extracted well beyond the renewal rate of the resource.[more] [note: footnotes supplied with link]

Religion in the American Public Square: An Islamic Perspective; Statement by the Muslim American Society

This document presents arguments about religion and the American constitution. Through the legalistic entanglements of the piece--it simplifies Christianity as though it were one big religion--it can be summed up thusly

[...]"The contribution of religion to law, ethics, and social stability cannot be ignored, and is an asset for any society. Government can allow religion's positive effects to be maximized by ceasing to interfere with its free expression, and joining hands with religious people in appropriate ways to help tackle some of society's worst problems.

"Muslims should join the call for an interpretation of the Constitution that accommodates religion, rather than stifles it,
and support initiatives that would tend to promote religiosity in public life."

I can not speak for others but I grew up as a Jew happy that there was no intrusion of government upon my religious beliefs. The private sector had sufficient anti-semitism and quotas at that time, and I was happy to have the government do all it could to prevent this sort of thing from taking place rather than stepping in to control religious matters. When I look about at those countries that have allowed religion to control the state, I can see where this sort of thing can lead to. And I don't want it in america.

Sharon okays IDF assault on Hizbullah rockets in event of Iraq war

This was of course expected. And even by Syria, its client state Lebanon and Hizbullah. Can't happen soon enough.

Israel Uncovers Hamas Plot To Car-Bomb Sharon

From The New York Post a story that would have had major repercussions had the plot have taken place

March 3, 2003 -- JERUSALEM - Hamas terrorists planned to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last month by planting a car bomb in his motorcade, Israeli officials said yesterday.
Officials said they got wind of the plot after nabbing a Palestinian suspect in Bethlehem in early February.

A month earlier, Israeli agents foiled a plot concocted by the Palestinian terror group The Popular Front. Suspects in that case admitted they planned to kill Sharon, as well as a former mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert.[more]

Neocon Schism Ahead?

See title link for links provided within this brief piece which sums up a growing dispute about the "Jewish mafia," a split in perspectives on settlements, pundits and their use of code words, and anti-semitism

Wolfowitz v. Perle -- Neocon Schism To Come? After an Iraq war, if Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz moves to try to force Israel to curtail its settlements in the occupied territories -- as he's suggested he'll do -- how long do you think it will take his fellow neocon Bush adviser Richard Perle to turn on him? Not very long, I'd guess. ... 2:04 A.M.

The Forward, galvanized by Tim Russert's "startling" questioning of Perle on Meet the Press a week ago, takes a statesmanlike middle ground on the Likudnik issue. ... The Forward's Ami Eden notes Lawrence Kaplan's misleading statement on Crossfire that he "didn't use the word anti-Semitism" in his bullying Washington Post op-ed piece. Kaplan instead used the phrase "socialism of fools," which is the classy way of saying anti-Semitism --it means "anti-Semitism" -- when you want to be able to later say you didn't use the word "anti-Semitism." (Robert Novak was equally disingenuous, of course, in denying he'd ever "talked about dual citizenship." Dual loyalty is the issue he's accused of raising.)

Islamist Connection In Florida University

This article makes it abundantly clear that the Tampa terror tool was known ealrier to be cause for concern and that even Bush seems to have befriended him!

[...]As The Washington Post summarized it, the indictment contends that Al-Arian “managed (the organization's) money, held the wills of would-be suicide bombers, disseminated statements claiming responsibility for attacks, helped formulate policy on behalf of the organization, and was in regular covert contact with its general secretary, spiritual leader, and other operatives.” That was on top of raising funds, recruiting new followers, and using his university position to provide cover for foreign jihadis.

Some of the details were new, but to anyone who had been following the activities of radical Muslim militants in the United States, Al-Arian's name should have been familiar. As far back as 1994, terrorism expert Steven Emerson had publicly identified Al-Arian and his Islamic Committee for Palestine as a fund-raiser for Islamic Jihad. Michael Fechter further exposed Al-Arian's ties to terrorism in the Tampa Tribune a few months later. And then there was the speech Al-Arian made in 1991 to a group of fellow radicals in Chicago:

“Let us damn America,” he exhorted. “Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death!” He reviled Jews as “monkeys and pigs” and proclaimed: “Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution, revolution until victory!”

A resume like that should have made Al-Arian radioactive — the kind of person anyone with political ambitions or decent instincts would shun. So why in the world would he be treated as a friend and ally by — of all people — George W. Bush?[more]

Israel captures Hamas founder

BBC news reports this good news. And in the past few days al Qaeda biggie also picked up.

Israeli troops have arrested a founder member of the Islamic militant group Hamas during an incursion into the Gaza Strip.
Sheikh Mohammed Taha is reported to be the first senior Hamas political leader to be arrested since the Palestinian uprising began in September 2000.

Eight Palestinians were reported to have been killed, including a pregnant woman and a child, when Israeli tanks, backed by helicopters, entered the camp at Bureij, in central Gaza.

Monday's raid followed a pledge by Israel's defence minister that he would intensify pressure on Hamas, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings against Israelis.

Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantisi said Mohammed Taha's arrest was a big loss to the group, the Associated Press reported. [more]

Is it the Vatican or the Catholics in general?


I think this is the wrong question. The right question should be: is it American or European Catholics? Or, better: is it American or European, (or, for that matter, Arab) Christians? In case you don't know, I am talking about the Pope's and some French Cardinal's siding with the Arabs against Israel, and now also against the US. No, I am not talking about their antisemitism, are you nuts? They are not antisemites, and besides, it is all the Jews' fault anyway.

This is just another case where the discussion of religion obstructs the obvious, and that is the fact that it has nothing to do with religion. That Polish-Italian guy (well, yeah, you have a problem with that? You have African-Americans, don't you?) just happens to be a Pope, and that French guy just happens to be a Cardinal. So what. Like I said before: it's the culture, stupid.

Patriots Rally for America

RALLYFORAMERICA.ORG provides students, teachers, and the general public resources to deepen their understanding of terrorism and enhance their appreciation of why America and the West are worthy of defense. Emphasis is on the underlying fundamental principles and substantive issues. Intellectual resources are stressed, including articles, lectures, conferences, web sites, Q&As, and books.

PatriotWatch: Home of the Patriot Defenders Network

Chabad Rabbi's Views on Israel

Jews are about 2% of the American population (5.6 Million) and shrinking. More Jews are dying than being born on a daily basis. Of that 2% hardly 5% is orthodox or practicing Jews.

Chabad-Lubavitch is the largest Jewish organization in the world and is not only orthodox but also hassidic or "ultra-orthodox." The reason being that they are the only Jewish group that performs missionary type work throughout the world to bring Judaism to all points of the globe. In just about every state and city in the United States you can find a "Chabad House."
Lubavitchers are from a town in Russia called Lubavitch. They moved to America at the turn of the century and their last and now deceased spiritual leader was the fourth Lubavitcher "Rebbe." He had no children and thus has not been replaced with a new leader but his work ("living life with joy and God") continues and grows.

The Rebbe has spoken often of how important the Land of Israel
is to the Jewish people. At a gathering in 5750/1990 the Rebbe
spoke about the importance of maintaining possession of every inch
of the land, saying:

"Just as the Jews are G-d's chosen people, Eretz Yisrael [the
Land of Israel] is G-d's chosen land, a holy land given to the
Jewish people, those living on the land at present, and those who
are presently living in the Diaspora.

"No one is entitled to give up any portion of Eretz Yisrael to
gentiles. Maintaining possession of these lands is the only path to
peace. Succumbing to the pressure to surrender them will only
invite additional pressure, weakening the security of the Jewish
people and exposing them to danger. Heaven forbid that the
government in Eretz Yisrael should consider surrendering any
portion of Eretz Yisrael that G-d has granted us."

If this is the view of the "ultra-orthodox" or hasidic that the secular or Leftists Jews in Israel hate is that then the reason they hate them?

Do the Secular / Left really think giving into the fake demands of their murderers time-after-time will bring them peace ever?

GIVE WAR A CHANCE

"War, what is it good for?"

Quite a lot actually.

Defending freedom,
toppling dictators,
spreading democracy.
When nothing else works, war works wonders.

Just ask Japan, well behaved since 1945.

Now it's Saddam's turn.

Historic Syrian election begins

Wonder if any of the indy parties ran on the platform: Stop the Syrian Occupation of Lebanon or No More Support for Terror Groups.

Arafat: Israel inciting Iraqi war

And you know that anything Arafat says has got to be the truth, right?

GAZA, March 1 (UPI) -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of inciting the United States to go to war against Iraq, in a speech Saturday transmitted from his Gaza headquarters to the Arab Summit in the Egyptian report of Sharm El-Sheikh.

The Israeli government "is the first inciter for the war against Iraq," Arafat said.

"This Israeli government is putting now its final touches of the scenarios of its role and the goals it wants to achieve out of the war against Iraq," Arafat said. "Israel considers the war against Iraq as its war against the whole Arab world," as well as a war against the Palestinian people.

The weekend's summit was the second Arafat was unable to attend because of Israel's decision in December 2001 to confine the Palestinian Authority chairman to his Ramallah headquarters, known as Al Muqata'a.

Palestinian Authority Planning Minister Nabil Shaath said Arafat didn't attend the summit because there are no guarantees he will be able to return to the Palestinian territories.

However, while the previous Arab Summit focused on Arafat's plight as his compound remained besieged by Israeli forces, the impending crisis in Iraq has cornered the summit's debate. Arafat has fallen out of favor and the the United States -- along with Israel -- has been calling for serious reform in the Palestinian Authority, including a change in leadership.

In his speech Arafat accused Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government of looking to use the war on Iraq to further its gains against the Palestinians.[more]

DEBKA headline

Bush’s 75th birthday gift to Sharon: Most settlements will be left in place and inside Israel’s borders in a final-status settlement.

Israeli coalition sets tough rules for talks with Palestinians

See This Site!

photos of the desecration of Joseph's tomb, and articles about using children for the Intifada, photos taken by IDF etc. posted by goldwater.mideastreality

Targeting Journalists

This article indicates how Palestinian terror groups closely watch, monitor and even shadow Israeli journalists.

How can you explain the fact that journalists have become a target for terrorists?

"First of all a terrorist organization, by its very nature, must always invest resources in gathering intelligence on-line about interesting figures who are gaining power, about various social developments, etc.
Since the Palestinian Authority has come into power, it understands the importance of intelligence gathering. Jibril Rajoub's Preventive Security Organization used to operate a unit that dealt specifically
with wiretaps and intelligence gathering. Regarding journalists, the truth is I don't understand what good it does them. I don't understand why the organization sought me out specifically, I don't understand what
good it would have done in trying to take me out. Their agenda doesn't mention the word 'reporter' as a preferred target."

Yoram Binur, Channel Two's reporter for Arab affairs sounds much more disturbed from the growing and apparent tendency. "The fact the Israeli journalists, along with academic researchers dealing with the
Palestinian issue, are being threatened, is very frightening," he says. "There is a serious danger here that jeopardizes the freedom of expression in Israel. It is a very serious situation that must not be
tolerated. The offensive intervention of terrorist organizations, with the intention of threatening and influencing the words of Israeli reporters, is crossing a red line. There is clear evidence of the terrorist cells' abilities to threaten and carry out their threats. If Israeli journalists become threatened on a regular basis, that breaks the consensus that existed here for years. We must not belittle their military capabilities. They have shown us more than once just what they are capable of. The activists sent out on these missions carry them out with all the loyalty and professionalism of the elite commando unit."

What broke the consensus? Why have journalists become the enemy in the eyes of the terrorist organizations?

Binur: "We need to focus on one important point: the Israeli media, particularly during the current intifada, is perceived in the eyes of Palestinian opinion as collaborators. Israeli journalists have been considered during recent years as cooperating with the establishment, a kind of messenger of the Zionist regime. In the opinion of everyone in the Territories, the Israeli press has been recruited on behalf of the government. In contrast with the prevailing approach in Israel, which actually believes that the Israeli press is left-wing, they perceive Israeli reporters as ambassadors of the Zionist state. In the previous intifada, the Israeli journalists served as a mouthpiece for the occupied people. Today things are different." [more]

And the sad thing is that fellow journalists, non-Israelis, remain silent!

hollywoodhalfwits.com

The title says it all. If you are anti-Hollywood's anti-war celebs, this is a good place to visit. Found via
NaomiRagen.com

An Interesting Viewpoint

David Dolan’s most recent article deals with IMMINENT PALESTINIAN STATE: A RECIPE FOR JUDGMENT?

What’s unusual about this article is the fact that from the first sentence it is cloaked in a religious, Christian, mantle:

Anyone speaking of looming divine judgment is bound to meet fierce resistance, as the ancient Hebrew prophets discovered. That is actually a very positive thing. Any word of warning that claims to come from the very Creator of the Universe must be severely tested before it is even tentatively accepted. The Bible tells us that the ultimate proof is whether or not the word comes true. False prophets seemed to outnumber real ones in ancient days, and that is undoubtedly still the case today. In fact, many Christians and Jews do not even believe that divine utterances are given to humanity any longer.

Interesting. Definitely unusual.

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

No better friend than Canada's National Post

The National Post is one of the leading papers in the world in its support for Israel and the US. It easily compares with the WSJ or the Washington Times. It is published in Toronto and is owned by Global Can West which is controlled by Izzy Asper. You can compare its journalists and writers with any paper to the south. They include Mark Steyn, David Frum, Robert Fulford, Diane Francis, Christie Banchford and George Jonas to name just a few. It is my pleasure to give them a plug.

On March 1, in its leading editorial Remaking the Arab World, it fully supports Bush's plans for the ME as laid out in his speech to the American Enterprise Institute. Here are two excerpts.

[...] We hope the world pays heed to Mr. Bush's message. While disarming Iraq, ending the country's sponsorship of terrorism and liberating Saddam Hussein's subjects are all war-worthy goals, the greatest dividend to be hoped for in the long run is the transformation of the Arab Middle East.

[...] Through its sustained presence in Iraq, the United States will have a rare opportunity to transform the Arab Middle East.

Exposition of Capitalism - The Corrupted Creed [sic]

Further down this page, my post from The N.Y. Times indicates the difficulties we will face in trying to convince countries in the ME to give democracy a try. Forget for a moment the elities in Arab countries who have enriched themselves with oil money and at the expense of the ordinary person--that is an obvious hypocrisy we have long been aware of. Here is how a spokesmen for Islam casts contempt upon western capitalism, indicating of course that the much more benign Muslim run nation is to be preferred.

From this perspective, Capitalism has failed to bring unity or prosperity to humanity on the basis of benefit. By its very nature benefit and interest create division, conflict and disunity, exploitation of people and their lands. The capitalist economic system creates inequalities in wealth in which a few nations exploit other nations and dictate the policies of the world in order to secure their own benefit. Furthermore, within each nation a few elite control the policies of that nation and exploit the masses in order to maintain the status quo and secure their own interests. The foreign policy of the capitalist nations is established purely upon imperialistic motives, and the sole purpose of capitalist nations in forming a relationship with another nation is not for any ideological aim but to exploit other nations and people in order to secure their own worldly interests. Based on such a policy, the world suffers from conflicts sponsored by a few nations who fuel them in order to secure jobs and consolidate their grip on the world.

Because the capitalist nations revolve around benefit they consider the maximization of the interests of the people and the fulfilment of their desires as the driving force of any action and such a policy has led to the decaying societies that the capitalist nations are ailing from. Alcohol, rape, crime, domestic violence and other social ills are tearing the capitalist nations apart. Yet since drug counselling, rape counselling, and other businesses that thrive on these social problems collectively constitute a multibillion dollar industry, then the capitalist notion of benefit and interest maintains that such problems will remain to keep the industry of “crime prevention” alive. The woman has been reduced from an object of honour and dignity to an exhibit to be displayed on the strip bars, night clubs, cinema screens and magazines of the world in the name of profit or satisfying the sexual needs of the consumer (what the economists refer to as “maximizing the benefits of society”). In the name of benefit, the capitalists maintain the degraded status of women and indoctrinate this culture into the entire population. All of these facts illustrate that Capitalism has failed, and nothing else can be expected from a system whose creed and fundamental doctrine, secularism, is incorrect and invalid. [more]

Art by nine Muslim women featured in poignant, powerful show

A brief art show review looks at art by 9 Muslim women. How these artists lived before coming to America is a sad commentary upon the lives of women in Muslim countries.

In the United States since the Sept. 11 tragedy, images of Muslim women have largely been shaped by news stories by or about outsiders -- photographers, journalists, politicians, aid workers. Their accounts of girls banned from schools and women beaten for not wearing veils have validity, but they pale before the extraordinarily complex stories that Muslim women tell.

"Sheherazade: Risking the Passage" is a remarkable show in which nine contemporary Muslim women reflect on their personal experiences, culture, religion and current events. Their paintings, photos, installations and sculpture offer a deftly nuanced portrait of lives infused with contemporary aspirations but profoundly circumscribed by faith and tradition.

All of the women now live in the United States but were born and raised -- or lived for extended periods -- in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kenya or Lebanon. Islam manifests itself differently in each of these countries, variations that have imprinted the women and their art.

Without being confessional or intrusively intimate, the art in "Sheherazade" exudes an intense, personal vulnerability. These are obviously thoughtful, accomplished women whose feminist longings are universal. The subtle beauty of their art, and their skillful blending of tradition and modernity, reinforce the sincerity of their questioning.[more]

Who is Anne Gwynne?

Zachary Barbera (see his post below)is outraged by what Anne Gwynne has to say. All is not exactly what is written in the Guardian, Zach, as these links will show. Gwynne is a writer and spokesperson for Palestinian causes and appears by name in a few such as these:
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/daily_news/prev_edtions/2003/Jan03/12jan03.htm
http://flashpoints.net/
hthttp://www.ramallahonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1376tp://palestinechronicle.com/index.php?topic=3
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/eyewitness/Westbank/A%20Lifeline%20for%20Qosin.htm

My guess is that we will hear more from her. She seems to have begun a second "career" since retiring from her banking job.

Dreaming of Democracy

This fairly long but important piece appears in today's Magazine section of New York Times (free reg req'd) and notes the great difficulty that will follow any attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East after ridding Iraq of Saddam.

[...] The Arab world is hopelessly sunk in corruption and popular discontent. Misrule and a culture of victimhood have left Arabs economically stagnant and prone to seeing their problems in delusional terms. The United States has contributed to the pathology by cynically shoring up dictatorships; Sept. 11 was one result. Both the Arab world and official American attitudes toward it need to be jolted out of their rut. An invasion of Iraq would provide the necessary shock, and a democratic Iraq would become an example of change for the rest of the region. Political Islam would lose its hold on the imagination of young Arabs as they watched a more successful model rise up in their midst. The Middle East's center of political, economic and cultural gravity would shift from the region's theocracies and autocracies to its new, oil-rich democracy. And finally, the deadlock in which Israel and Palestine are trapped would end as Palestinians, realizing that their Arab backers were now tending their own democratic gardens, would accept compromise. By this way of thinking, the road to Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh and Jerusalem goes through Baghdad.

The idea is sometimes referred to as a new domino theory, with tyrannies collapsing on top of one another. Among the harder heads at the State Department, I was told, it is also mocked as the Everybody Move Over One theory: Israel will take the West Bank, the Palestinians will get Jordan and the members of Jordan's Hashemite ruling family will regain the Iraqi throne once held by their relative King Faisal I.

At times this story is told in the lofty moral language of Woodrow Wilson, the language that President Bush used religiously in his State of the Union address. Others -- both advocates and detractors -- tell the story in more naked terms of power and resources. David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who wrote the first two words in the phrase ''axis of evil,'' argues in his new book, ''The Right Man,'' ''An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- and a replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States -- would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe the Romans.''

It's an audacious idea, and part of its appeal lies in the audacity. It shoves history out of a deep hole. To the idea's strongest backers, status-quo caution toward the sick, dangerous Middle East is contemptible, almost unbearable. ''You have to start somewhere,'' says Danielle Pletka, a vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group. ''There are always a million excuses not to do something like this.'' Who wouldn't choose amputation over gangrene? If we have the will and imagination, the thinking goes, we can strike one great blow at terrorism, tyranny, underdevelopment and the region's hardest, saddest problem.


"It's called magical realism, Middle East-style,'' says Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Exactly how, he wonders, would this chain reaction occur? Arab countries are stuck between autocratic governments and Islamist opposition, he says, and ''our invasion of Iraq isn't going to remove those political forces. They're going to be sitting there the next day.'' The war, which is vastly unpopular in the Arab world, is far more likely to improve the fortunes of the Islamists, he says, and provoke governments to tighten their grip, than to ventilate the region with an Arab spring.

The chances of democracy succeeding even in Iraq under American occupation are highly questionable, Carothers argues. War seldom creates democracy; according to a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor, of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy, and in the case of wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one -- Panama. Democracy takes root from within, over a long period of time, in conditions that have never prevailed in Iraq. For democracy to have a chance there would require a lengthy and careful American commitment to nation-building -- which could easily look to Iraqis and other Arabs like colonialism. Nor can we be sure that democracy, in Iraq or elsewhere, will lead to pro-American regimes; it might lead to the opposite. ''The idea that there's a small democracy inside every society waiting to be released just isn't true,'' Carothers says. ''If we're pinning our hopes on the idea that this will lead to a democratic change throughout the region, then we're invading for the wrong reason.'' Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment, adds, '''We've suffered so much that the only alternative is democracy' -- as soon as you say it, you realize there's a mile between the beginning and end of that sentence.'' [more]

Anatomy of an Illusion: The Israeli-Palestinian Two-State Solution

Eric L. Rozenman, former executive editor of B'nai B'rith's International Jewish Monthly, comes out strongly against a two state solution. See why.

Renewed advocacy of it (the two state solution) late last year by "the quartet" of the United States, Russia, the European Union and United Nations prior to Palestinian reform and without realistic prospects thereof contradicted President Bush's June 24 vision of a post-Arafat, non-violent, democratic West Bank and Gaza Strip. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's acceptance, albeit qualified, of a twenty-third Arab country on soil he himself long considered Israel's strategic and national heartland confirmed a dangerous sense of inevitability for the two-state plan.

But if armies can't resist the power of an idea whose time has come, then diplomats cannot enforce a vision inherently out of focus. A fundamental flaw in the two-state plan is oscillation of Palestinian Arab politics between the thuggish corruption of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority and the murderous bigotry of Sheik Ahmed Yassin's Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). A November public opinion poll showed that while 76 percent of West Bank and Gaza Strip residents supported a mutual cessation of hostilities between Arabs and Israelis, only eight percent supported a Palestinian school curriculum teaching that Israel was legitimate and that peace could be reached without Arab control of all the former British Mandate for Palestine (Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip).

So President Bush's "vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, side-by-side and at peace" remains inapplicable.

Worse, attempting to reach it via "the road map" drawn by the United States with its other quartet partners -- Russia, the United Nations and the European Union -- would prove to be a highway to hell. Like the Oslo "peace process," attempting actually to follow the road map and force such a state into existence during the next three years (Bush's timeline) appears likely to provoke more, not less violence.

Anyone who has stood in Ariel, the Israeli "settlement" (a modern town of 14,000 Jews) just before sunset and watched the Dead Sea fade into shadow below and to the east and the lights flicker on along Tel Aviv's shoreline below and to the west understands: There is no room, geographically, demographically, economically, militarily or otherwise for two sovereign, equal states in the 40- to 45-mile wide, 180-mile long strip west of the Jordan River between Lebanon and the Negev Desert. Definitely not when the people of one state cheer their children's murder/suicides in the other.

What could be more obvious.

The Jewish state in Palestine requires borders more expansive than those of June 4, 1967. This is especially so since a demilitarized West Bank and Gaza Arab Palestine, isolated from Syria, Iraq, and Iran, as stipulated by proponents of the two-state solution, is a fiction, as noted above. Israel's own failures and international utility regarding Hezbollah in the ostensibly U.N.-patrolled south Lebanon "security zone," Arafat's illegally enlarged, illegally armed "police" and Palestinian militia, and the nearly two and a-half year siege of Israeli cities and towns by gunmen, bombers, mortar crews and rocket launchers testify to that.

Meanwhile, the Arab population on the remaining West Bank and Gaza Strip will require territorial and economic depth on which meaningful sovereignty can be exercised. An arid, over-crowded entity the size of four smallish American counties cannot suffice.

Therefore, the remaining unallocated portion of Mandatory Palestine -- the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- must be divided between two states, Jordan and Israel, Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. The shape of this territorial compromise also is relatively clear. Before launching intifada II the Palestinian Authority already controlled or shared control with Israel of 54 percent of the territory (which includes the vast majority of the
Palestinian population). MORE

You may recall that Sharon, in his Herzelia speech, accepted the Bush vision but supported a Palestinian state only on 42% of the land. It may be that such a state is so unworkable that the natural thing would be to add it to Jordan. My guess is that Sharon is counting on this. Thus no second Palestinian state. With the bulk of the Arab population in these areas, there would be very little dislocation of people and little destabilization of Jordan. All refugees outside these areas would have to be absorbed by the host country.

Its not over 'til its over.

THE NAZIS ARE BACK -- AND STILL ON THE LEFT

This article by David Brooks -- already noted on Israpundit -- must be one of the saddest articles I have read for a long time. An old and cruel folly has roared back into life. Although I am an atheist with not a shred of Jewish ancestry, I have been writing on antisemitism for over 30 years (e.g. Ray, 1972). When I started out, antisemitism was vestigial and no Leftist in the Western world would have a bar of it but now it really is a major phenomenon on the Left worldwide -- including the “liberals” of the USA. The battle with irrationality is unceasing, I am afraid.

Just listen to this bit of poison from Yale university:

But does the prevalence of Jews in American media, business and politics help explain America's steadfast support for Israel, whose 35-year occupation of Palestinian lands is an affront to human decency? Of course.

It’s Hitler’s “National Socialism” all over again. That a decent person of any religion might support a people trying to defend itself against persecution, outside military attacks and internal terrorism is obviously beyond the ken of the hate-filled writer (Sahm Adrangi).

Reference:
Ray, J.J. (1972) Is antisemitism a cognitive simplification? Some observations on Australian Neo-Nazis. Jewish Journal of Sociology 15, 207-213.

(Crossposted from Dissecting Leftism)

I have no words for this

I don't even know what to say.

Anne Gwynne is conducting her own war on terrorism. A retired bank manager from Wales, she originally planned to join the thousands of other foreign volunteers who spend a few weeks each year picking olives, monitoring Israeli roadblocks and acting as human shields in solidarity with the Palestinians.
But after nine weeks in the West Bank city of Nablus, with bullet shrapnel in her leg and horrors she never imagined etched on her mind, she says she has come to understand - perhaps support - the more extreme and tragic tactics of a brutal conflict. She has found friends in the men with guns and the proud relatives of suicide bombers, the "martyrs" whose pictures paper the streets.

"I had never seen a tank before. I'd never seen a soldier. I've seen dead people, but I've never seen someone killed by these huge 25mm bullets. The injuries are horrific. The cannon from the tank takes the whole chest off," she said. "This is terrorism gone completely and utterly crazy. There is no other word for this because it's not one incident, it thousands of incidents across the whole city.

"I really, really understand the martyrs [suicide bombers]. I am very good friends with the family of the two who went on the mission to Tel Aviv. One saw the other explode, and then he walked away and blew himself up. They are such lovely families and very proud of their sons."

Twenty-three people died in those bombings in Tel Aviv in January, including many poor foreign workers. Was it wrong?

"I agree that it is a strategic mistake but I understand why they do it," she said. "Let's not blame the victims. It's clear who the real terrorists are here.

"I've been arrested too. One of the Israeli commanders threatened me with rape. He was very graphic," she said. "I've told Israeli soldiers that when you say you're just obeying orders, please remember that it was what every German soldier said.

"The soldiers say we must defend our land; God gave us this land; if I don't kill them, they will kill us.

"I used to think it was all excuses, but they actually believe this shit. We have nothing to kill them with, just a few AK-47s."

We? "I feel I am one of them. I want to live here now. I have a pension. It's not a lot but it's a $1,000 a month and it's more than a doctor here gets," she said.

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 - dt804@yahoo.ca - 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 (dt804@yahoo.ca).

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]

Judge in Islamic terrorism trial was offered bribe

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]

IDF raids East Jerusalem branch of Arab Bank

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]

Bomb kills Islamic extremist in Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon

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

UNIVERSITY ANTISEMITISM

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)