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

April 12, 2003

Jews Feeding Anti-Semitism

A Jewish Anti-Semite is not an oxymoron: anti-Semitism, a term invented in the end of the 19th century to replace the German word for Jew-hater with a more civilized version that took into account the emerging racial theories of the day, is the grouping of Jews together into a class and assigning them a negative moral weight.

Jews can be anti-Semites just like anybody else: Jews can group Jews together, and label them "bad," or look to one Jew and blame him for the problems befalling the rest of the world.

No better example can be shown than an open-letter written to Paul Wolfowitz, and published by Al-Ahram by one Josh Ruebner, co-founder of Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) and a former analyst in Middle East Affairs at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). In and of itself, it is an alarming example of members of the Jewish Left perpetuating anti-Semetic bias.

In the letter, Mr. Ruebner basically tells Wolfowitz that he is no more than a "Court-Jew," and that his involvement has sparked anti-Semitism world-wide in otherwise good-natured folk. In the tone and the message--that Wolfowitz resign--Mr. Ruebner justifies the claim that Jews cannot be full-fledged Americans, and that the actions of one Jew will always be percieved as those of the Jewish people.

This grouping of Jews together, this taking of collective responsibility in front of the eyes of all of Israel's detractors, is dangerous and disgusting. We have to be on the lookout for this racism rising.

A quote from the article:
"Do you see brother how you are misrepresenting us? I wish that we in the Jewish peace movement could have as much access as you do to the mainstream media so that we could shatter the monolithic view of the Jewish community which the "court Jew" by definition is set up to propagate. Of course, we are denied that access by the same power structure which has an interest in making sure that yours is the only "Jewish" voice heard.

I'm really afraid that we are heading for a calamity. If the people are this incensed now my brother, how do you think they will feel when American men and women start returning from the sands of Kuwait in body bags? Who is going to be blamed if, God forbid, we are subjected to another terrorist attack? Do these thoughts keep you awake at night? Are you scared like I am that this imperialistic war in Iraq threatens the existence of the Jewish people?

My brother, I don't blame you for accepting the starring role of "court Jew". It must be a pretty amazing feeling to convince yourself that you have as much power as everybody says that you do. I hope that I never get close enough to the power structure of this crumbling, decrepit empire to get a taste of it.

In my humble opinion, there is only one honourable thing that you can do to undo the shameful damage that you have caused already: resign. For the sake of your own dignity, you must refuse to be exploited as the "court Jew". Step down and deprive the power structure of its "court Jew" and you will expose to the world the actors who really motivate the Bush administration. Please, before it is too late, tell the world that it is not the powerless Jews who are pushing for this war, but the greedy, venal barons of corporate America who stand to profit while cowering behind the myth of the all- powerful Jew."
Until we, as Jews, cannot grasp the concept of a Jew also being an individual, we will never be free of anti-Semitism.

Muslims Rescue Baghdad's Jewish Community Center

An inspiring story, reported in ArabNews.

"We get results"

A boycott is one form of activism of which results can be measured. As a supporter of the boycott against France (and indeed, of all EU countries), I was delighted to read the following two pieces concerning the anti-France boycott:

(1) From NewsMax, the outlet that vigorously promoted the anti-France boycott:

It's Working: France Wineries Reeling Under Boycott

French wineries are withering as millions of Americans have begun a boycott of French wine and other French goods, the New York Times reported Thursday. The Times report, "A Most Unsettling Time for French Wineries,” appeared on the cover of the World Business section of the paper...
(2) From CNSNews:

Anti-French Sentiment Hurting Businesses in NYC

New York City ( - France's diplomatic stare-down with the United States over Iraq continues to hurt French businesses on American turf - especially those in New York City.

On Thursday came the announcement that one of New York City's premier French restaurants is closing down. Lespinasse, which is located in the St. Regis Hotel, announced it would close next week because of the economic and political climate.

During a recent talk program airing on New Jersey FM radio station WKXW, host Alan David Stein was inundated with callers supporting a boycott of French products...

Items callers said they would boycott most were French wine, food and perfume. [France is some industrial powerhouse, eh?]
I have little doubt that the French will blame the boycott on "the Jews": looking at oneself critically is not easy.

Some fun for a change: "Go home Human Shields. You US wankers!" - banner held by 2 Iraqis in Liberated Baghdad!

IRAQ: Civil Affairs Troops at Work

Strategy Page notes this reaction among arabs to the quick fall of the Iraqi military.
March 12, 2003: In the Arab world, a widely believed reason for the rapid fall of Saddam Husseins government is that Saddam was bribed to quickly lose. These delusional attitudes are common in the Arab world, as are a number of other bad habits that limit their military effectiveness, and their ability to run effective governments. Too many Arabs will not trust anyone outside their family. This is an ancient curse that many European cultures only overcame in the last few centuries. But it's still a major problem in Arab lands, meaning that Arabs in the same region or nation are reluctant to work together with their neighbors.

Another major problem is the tendency to avoid personal responsibility. Some say this is an Islamic thing. After all, the word "Islam" means "submission" and a popular attitude is that anything happens because "God wills it." Millions of Arabs who agree with neither of these precepts have migrated to Western nations in the last century, where they have done quite well. But too many of the folks who stayed behind are mired in a culture of selfishness and lack of personal responsibility. These attitudes will be run into a lot as the coalition tries to rebuild Iraq.
The PA has a complaint

Tonecluster's blog has this piece(and comments) taken from The Jerusalem Post.
The PA has a complaint. Quick, someone get me a chair, I'm going to fall over..... The Palestinian Authority issued a statement condemning the bombing of the Palestinian embassy in Baghdad on Monday, declaring, "The US aggression on the embassy was premeditated, direct targeting the Palestinian Embassy which is located in the diplomatic neighborhood in the Iraqi capital."

The statement, issued by the Palestinian Media Center, quoted a PA official calling the incident "a flagrant violation of all diplomatic norms and laws which endow foreign embassies with immunity and consider them outside the theater of military operations." According to the statement, the embassy was hit by air-to-surface missiles on Monday afternoon,which severely damaged the roof and destroyed the contents of the building.

Any bets that someone in there was firing at our troops? After all, they're extremely upset over in Gaza and the West Bank that their hero Saddam folded so quickly and didn't deliver the mighty defeat to the "crusaders" he'd promised. Maybe one of them over in Baghdad snapped and took matters into his own hands. Or, more likely, some of the Hamas or al-Aqsa thugs volunteers were using Unca' Arafat's Baghdad Office as a platform for sniping at our tanks.

A nice book review by Yardly in The Washington Post is a good indication of what an oppressive society --in this case Muslim--does to literature, thinking, free expression.
In 1995, Azar Nafisi resigned the position she had held for eight years as professor of literature at Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran. Under the rule of the mullahs, "life in the Islamic Republic was as capricious as the month of April, when short periods of sunshine would suddenly give way to showers and storms," she writes in "Reading Lolita in Tehran." For a time there had been "a period of relative calm and so-called liberalization," but now "universities had once more become the targets of attack by the cultural purists who were busy imposing stricter sets of laws," especially for female students.

Nafisi finally could take it no longer. She resigned, but the desire to teach and read remained strong. She decided to continue to teach, but in secret. She invited seven of her best students to meet in the living room of her own house to talk about the books they were reading, books by the likes of Vladimir Nabokov, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James and Jane Austen:

"I had explained to them the purpose of the class: to read, discuss and respond to works of fiction. Each would have a private diary, in which she should record her responses to the novels, as well as ways in which these works and their discussions related to her personal and social experiences. . . . I mentioned that one of the criteria for the books I had chosen was their authors' faith in the critical and almost magical power of literature, and reminded them of the nineteen-year-old Nabokov, who, during the Russian Revolution, would not allow himself to be diverted by the sound of bullets. He kept on writing his solitary poems while he heard the guns and saw the bloody fights from his window. Let us see, I said, whether seventy years later our disinterested faith will reward us by transforming the gloomy reality created of this other revolution."[more]

I have a trivia game for you to play with Edward Said!

The Academy of Lagado

Edward Said, just back from his travels, published this very recent piece in The London Review of Books Aside from his sarcasm and name calling--a new high even for him--see how many errors of fact or thinking you can spot in his piece. Reminds me of the young woman peace activist against globalization who has said that winning the war in Iraq will bring them McDonald's instead of the healthy and nutritious food they now enjoy( see )Question for Said: just what if you are wrong.
USS Cluless on Palestinian terrorism

One of the critical but non-obvious things which changed a couple of days ago is that one of the biggest supporters of the Palestinian Intifada just went bye-bye. Saddam paid $25,000 to the family of every successful suicide bomber to hit Israel, but there was other less public support for the Palestinians, monetarily and in other ways. There's a good reason that the Palestinians were visibly pro-Saddam during the war; they knew who their friends were.

Unfortunately, that particular friend is either dead or on the run, and in any case isn't going to be funneling any more money or weapons into the West Bank or Gaza. And in coming weeks, the other major sources of funds and weaponry for the Intifada will get messages from the US that we'd be pleased if they would knock it off.

Even terrorist war is expensive. As war goes, it's cheap, but it isn't free. And the major terrorist groups among the Palestinians also spend money on things like schools and food for the areas they control, as well as paying the salaries of a lot of people and greasing a fair number of palms, which is a major reason for their popular support.

The only thing that's kept it going has been substantial subsidies from Iran, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Iraq's funding is history, and with the distinct possibility of a revolution in Iran soon, that source, too, would end. As to the Saudis and Syrians, they will be "encouraged" to "cooperate". Once that funding ceases, the political balance of power among the Palestinians will change.

Which means that the resources available to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, and even Fatah, to permit them to buy loyalty from the Palestinian civilians, will decline. Actually, with the fall of Saddam it's already going to decline, and as we start working on the other nations it will decline even further. And their reputation and power will decline with it. In the long run, this is going to contribute more to the "roadmap to peace" than any silly external agreement sponsored by the Russians and Europeans.

I think there's still going to be an international effort in that direction. But Bush hasn't forgiven Arafat, and the "roadmap to peace" is going to require certain concrete steps from the Palestinians before they get rewarded with any kind of autonomy or homeland.

Bottom line: complete cessation of all attacks on Israel, and total and public abandonment of the "right of return"; real elections; Arafat out of the government; reduction in corruption and graft. There will be a timeline to creation of a Palestinian state but only if the Palestinians do these things first. That's going to be Bush's bottom line to participate in the process. And everyone knows that without American buy-in, no such effort can succeed.

This week's victory in Iraq is the most important event in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle in the last 20 years. The chance for peace between them has never been greater. This is actually the best thing that's happened to the Palestinians in years, even though they don't think so yet. But it's going to begin a process leading them to abandon the struggle to try to destroy Israel, and a process of beginning to fundamentally accept that they will have to coexist with Israel. Only then can peace come.

Islam is the Cause . . .Terrorism the Result

Weekly sermons spewing hatred of Jews and Israsel encourages the terrorism that takes place throughout Israel.
One of the problems receiving too little attention is the part played by Islam in sponsoring and indoctrinating an active climate of Arab terrorism in Israel.

The problem is the Imams and the sermons they preach to congregants who attend Mosques each Friday to learn how to better serve Allah.

What congregants get is a weekly dose of pure venom against Israelis (and Americans) - the infidels, as Islam defines them. The sermons in our part of the world are rabble-rousing hate speeches of hostility against Israel, Jews, Judaism and Zionism. In other world areas Islam also targets Christians and Christianity.

Based on verses embedded in the Koran the sermons require, indeed demand, the people of Islam should exterminate all unbelievers. Koranic references and threats to this effect “outweigh concrete instruction by about 20 to 1”, according to David Klinghoffer’s analysis in Jerusalem Post, March 19. (Titled “Read and believe”)

The main thrust of Islam is to kill unbelievers, pagans and followers of other religions. Klinghoffer refers to Islam’s “fire breathing hostility” . . . “unremitting fury” . . . “pagan thrashing passages”. And provides some specific verses:

“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

“God loves those who fight for His cause . . .”

“If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly.”

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.”

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers . . . Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.”

These ordinances may be hard for Jews and Christians to swallow as their Bibles contain no similar directives. But Muslims attending weekly prayers have come to expect these exhortations to obey Allah’s teaching. Unfortunately for non-Muslims, we must be punished for our unbelief by death at the hands of those “true believers”.

The modus operandi of killing is the choice of the killers. Here are some of the inventive methods used against Israelis:

Homicide bombing. Car and truck bombing. Driving vehicles into people. Machine gunning crowds. Drive by shooting. Roadside bombing. Ambushes. Grenade throwing. Invading homes and killing inhabitants. Booby traps. Sniping Knifing. Axing. Stoning. Smashing heads to pulp with large rocks. Lynching.

And, in the US, the cold blooded massacre by kamikaze hijackers exploding planeloads of people into tall buildings, where thousands can be killed, vaporized, burnt to death, or buried alive. And many thousands injured. (9/11)

While every adherent of Islam is certainly not a terrorist, every Arab terrorist is a Muslim. Islam is the glue that binds the Arab populations of the Middle East. It explains why no Arab country was prepared to join the American led military coalition against another Muslim country. And why, on the contrary, many individual Arabs are making their way to Iraq to help their brothers fight the Big Satan and his Christian coalition.

Muslims are also coming from non-Arab countries such Iran as Indonesia. Such is the unifying power of Islam which, week in, week out, brainwashes true Muslims to kill non-believers.

“We are a believing people, a fighting people,” said Gen. Hazim al-Rawi, the Iraqi Military spokesman earlier this week. “Jihad is a must, a duty ordained by God”.

The most effective terrorists are those who go to terrorist training schools to be taught how to kill and maim their enemies. Training may take weeks or months, sometimes years. Having become knowledgeable and expert in the techniques of their profession they join a cell in an existing terrorist movement. Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Al Asqa Brigade, PLFP, Hamas and others.

But the decision to become a terrorist stems directly from weekly attendance and absorption of the believer’s message at Mosques throughout the Muslim world.

Causes vs. Symptoms

It is essential to recognize that the precepts of Islam precede the transition to terrorism - not the other way round. Thus it is not terrorists who become Muslims, but Muslims who become terrorists.

“Death to the Jews” is what the Imams preach every Friday in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It is what their motivated macho congregants, undoubtedly swayed by the promise of endless sex with 72 black-eyed virgins (and other heavenly benefits) are honestly led to expect.

This problem will still confront Israel if the Arabs are awarded yet another state by America and the anti-Semitic Quartet. Certainly a richly undeserved reward for years of unrelenting terror against Israel’s civilians and military.

For Arab signatures on a so called peace document won’t stop Muslim/Arab hatred and terrorism. The Koran is not concerned for political correctness. Its message is that its teachings cannot be compromised or eliminated, not even if Israel is eliminated. (That will be the day!)

Will the Imams in Iraq support the coalition’s new regime?

This will be the problem of the US coalition after it wins the war against Iraq. It will certainly come to an accord with the new regime. But it will not come to any accommodation with the Imams.

The US needs to understand that the Koran compels them to promote terrorism, whether in Iraq, the US or Europe – wherever Muslims congregate. How will the US deal with this ongoing problem?
Why Most Muslims Support Saddam? [sic]This piece denounces the excesses of Islam and a representative quote gets at the heart of the article
[...]Here is a historical account/incident to support my claim:


Abul Ala Maududi was furious at this unIslamic opinion of those Islamic scholars. Maududi actually wanted to hear that Muslims did say that ‘believing Muslim but unjust king was the superior to the un-believing just king’. Because, in Islam a Muslim is always superior to any non-muslim/infidels. In the above historical quote what we have learned is that, non-Muslim ruler can never be the best ruler than a despotic Muslim ruler. Besides this above historical account, there are many sahi hadiths and Quranic dictum which suggest the Islamic principal of supporting Muslim only if the conflict is with non-Muslim. Remember mother Teresa—an angelic woman? She will not go to heaven and no Muslim should praise her for her extra-ordinary humanity either, because she was not a Muslim. That was what we heard from most erudite Islamists
Thus, after detailing how much a killer of Muslims Saddam is (or was) the author explains why Muslims still supported him against the coalition forces that had gone to war to change Iraq.[more]

A hard look at Islam, indoctrination, and its impact

This changes the map of the Middle East for ever

The Times Online notes the many regional changes as a result of the war against Iraq, boserving that "From the Gulf to Israel, no country is untouched by the fall of Saddam."
Ten news items (links) for current articles about Israel

The Moreover news aggregator assembles links for to pick among, with each link a separate article.

April 11, 2003

Israel and the New Anti-Semitism

If, as some posts below suggest, we have to worry about growing Islamic fantaticism, we have also to concern ourselves with a growing anti-semitism from the Left and from the various people of Europe. Shalom Lappin in Dissent traces the growth of this virulent anti-semitic strain and its connection to a strong anti-Israel bias. A fine piece of writing.
[...]The specter of a Jewish-Zionist lobby/conspiracy that controls state power and the media, particularly in America, has become a significant theme in the writings of left-wing political journalists in Europe. So, for example, Robert Fisk ("I am Being Vilified for Telling the Truth About Palestinians," Independent, December 13, 2000) and John Pilger ("Why My Film is under Fire," Guardian, September 23, 2002) insist that a powerful Zionist lobby operating in Britain but directed from America is working with considerable success to suppress all objective reporting and critical discussion of Israel. The January 14, 2002, issue of the New Statesman ran two articles on the Zionist lobby. The cover of the issue featured a large golden Star of David piercing the center of a British flag over the caption "A kosher conspiracy?" The first piece, by Dennis Sewell, concluded that the lobby, to the extent that it exists, is largely ineffective in stemming the tide of hostile reporting and comment on Israel. But the second article, by Pilger, repeated his claim of Zionist power in the British government and the press. It also included the comment that "Blair's meeting with Arafat served to disguise his support for Sharon and the Zionist project." For Pilger, then, Sharon's appalling policies are only derivative problems. The real target is the country as such, reduced to an ideological slogan as "the Zionist project." Peter Wilby, editor of the New Statesman, apologized for the offensive cover in an editorial that appeared in the February 11, 2002, issue. He explained that it had been innocently intended to attract attention on the newsstand. He did not address the obvious question of why a venerable publication of the Labour left should choose to use an image clearly reminiscent of Nazi iconography to promote its sales. It is too facile to dismiss this incident as a passing mistake of judgment. Sneering chatter of a powerful international Jewish lobby, once the stock and trade of fascist propaganda, has now become a staple of left-wing comment on Israel in the British and European press. By contrast, the activities of Arab, Muslim, and pro-Palestinian advocacy groups in the media and public discussion of the Middle East have gone largely unremarked. It is generally assumed, quite reasonably, that such groups have a natural role to play in debates on conflicts that concern them directly. Oddly, these assumptions do not extend to Jewish and Israeli advocacy groups.

The contrast between Europe and North America in this matter is clear. While by no means free of anti-Jewish prejudice, North America defines itself as an immigrant society in which ownership of the country is not the preserve of a single native group. Jews function like other immigrant communities, most of which have succeeded in developing hyphenated personae, easily combining their ethnic identities with their active presence in the mainstream of American life. It is not surprising, then, that public Jewish visibility and the notion of a Jewish polity seem to pose less difficulty in America than in Europe and the Middle East.

Although much of the criticism directed against Israel in the past two years of the intifada is legitimate if not always accurate, the growing hostility to the country stems, at least in part, from acute resistance to a Jewish polity and general difficulties with Jewish collective life. These attitudes are deeply rooted in the histories of both Europe and the Islamic world. The problem of distinguishing bigotry from reasonable opposition is difficult, given that in Israel the Jews are no longer dispossessed, but citizens of a powerful country with a large army that is now being used to sustain the occupation of another people. When considering the critical response to Israel it is reasonable to insist that it be accorded the same legitimacy and judged by the same principles as other countries. To require less of Israel is to allow it to claim rights that are denied to others. To demand more is to invoke a unique set of standards motivated by traditional prejudices. Both positions are unreasonable and must be resisted.

Australian political scientist, David Martin Jones has a long article on Islamic fundamentalism that points out that it is primarily a PRODUCT of modernization and affluence -- with its most dedicated members being largely Westernized and often living in Western countries. Thus modernization and democratization is not going to cure it -- the reverse if anything. Apparently, modern-day, skeptical Western civilization with its lack of any certainties is profoundly alienating for many not born to it and fundamentalist Islam is something that such people turn to as a more satisfying alternative. Thus the Islamic enemy will always be nearby hating us and endangering us unless we become intolerant enough to exclude or crack down on him in some way



We hear a lot about the contribution of the Arabs to the maintenance of civilization in the Middle Ages when Europe had become relatively backward compared to how it was in the days of the Roman Empire. Most of the story is a pious myth, however. It is true that ancient civilization was better known among Muslims at that time but the Muslims did NOT invent or originate any significant part of the knowledge concerned. They borrowed it from the Greek Christians of the still-thriving Eastern Roman empire centred on Byzantium (in what is now Turkey), and from peoples that they conquered, such as the Persians, the Northern Indians and the Assyrians. There is a good summary here showing that most of the famous "Moslem" scholars of the Middle Ages were in fact from the Assyrian Christian community, though not all were very religious. Note also this summary:

The next great luminary of the Islamic world is Abu Ali Sina, known as Avicenna in the West, his "major contribution to medical science was his famous book al-Qanun, known as the "Canon" in the West. The Qanun fi al-Tibb is an immense encyclopedia of medicine extending over a million words. It surveyed the entire medical knowledge available from ancient and Muslim sources. Due to its systematic approach, formal perfection as well as its intrinsic value, the Qanun superseded Razi's Hawi, Ali Ibn Abbas's Maliki, and even the works of Galen, and remained supreme for six centuries. This book was taught as the textbook to the students of Medicine in the University of Bologna until the 17th Century.

Avicenna's philosophy was based on a combination of Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism. Contrary to orthodox Islamic thought, Avicenna denied personal immortality, God's interest in individuals, and the creation of the world in time. Because of his views, Avicenna became the main target of an attack on such philosophy by the Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali and was even called apostate.

There is also Al-Ma'arri, (973-1057) the greatest Syrian poet. He referred to religion as "noxious weeds" and called it a "fable invented by the ancients", worthless except for those who exploit the credulous masses.

Other examples are Omar Khayyam and Ibn Rushd an important philosopher and scientist, known in the Western world as Averroes.These great men upon whose shoulders rests the glory of the golden age of Islam were not Muslims and even were critical of it.

(Crossposted from Dissecting Leftism)

An Inadvertent Testimonial to the Great Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America
IMRA: The following article about Morton Klein, , is as much a devastating piece about other American Jewish leaders as it is a tribute to Klein, the voice of right-wing American Jewry)
By Shlomo Shamir Ha'aretz 9 April 2003

NEW YORK - At a Jewish event in Detroit last Sunday Morton Klein received an enthusiastic welcome of the kind reserved for an American politician who has wound up a primary with an impressive victory. "It's amazing," Klein told his audience, "that in both the American administration and the Israeli government there are those who relate to Holocaust denier Abu Mazen as a serious negotiation partner."

Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is not exactly the image of a speaker who can enthuse the masses. He has a nasal voice, the result of a congenital defect, and he has difficulty finishing a long sentence without pausing for a deep breath. But the crowd in Detroit loved what he said about the "road map."

"It is a worse initiative than the first Oslo accord," he declared. "In Oslo, the Palestinians were not guaranteed a Palestinian state and Israel was not ordered to stop building settlements."

A local journalist noted this week that the enthusiasm of the audience reached a climax when Klein ridiculed the Jewish leaders who are afraid to openly express their opinions against the road map and publicly denounce Abu Mazen. "The heads of the organizations are afraid to speak out against Abu Mazen because they do not want to annoy President [George W.] Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," said Klein. "I am very disappointed with Sharon, who expressed willingness to negotiate with Abu Mazen. Jewish leaders were also afraid to shake off the first Oslo accord because they were afraid to annoy President [Bill] Clinton and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin."

The warm welcomes that Klein is receiving at his appearances before the Jewish public in the United States stand in direct contrast to the reactions he elicits from the Jewish establishment. A few leaders and heads of Jewish organizations blatantly shy away from Klein and are openly derisive of his statements. When Klein gets up to speak at sessions of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, those present do not hide their contempt for the man and his views.

At a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last week, Klein suggested 10 amendments to the organization's declaration of principles. Nine of the amendments were rejected outright and one was discussed briefly. In a conversation with Klein he said that even the White House is avoiding him thanks to his statements denouncing Bush's policies toward the Middle East. Klein was not invited to a Hanukkah event at the White House, to which other heads of Jewish organizations were invited. He says White House aides explicitly told him, "We won't be nice to you if you are not nice to us."


All the News that is NOT fit to print

A dramatic revelation today by a CNN executive that their news is far from the truth. Something many conservatives and pro-israel organizations have been saying for years.

CNN executive Eason Jordan admits that the network regularly covered up stories of Iraqi torture and atrocities—out of simple fear: The News We Kept to Ourselves.

via ( LGF)

This does not surprise me in the least bit. This does beg the question though. What else are they hiding? What are they not telling the truth about the PLO and other arab internationally legitimized terrorists groups?

Don't watch CNN, or buy the NYTimes, or the LATimes. The NYTimes, LATimes, CNN, BBC, NPR have all aidded and abetted arab terrorism and murder for years. Any other "NEWS" orgs that I left out? "All the NEWS that we are not too afraid to print"

The building case against the New York times



They aided and abetted a murderous tyrant to gain access and thus a lite version of the real story simply for profit and then to spread the dictators version. What else are they lying about to gain access e.g. the PLO

So their errors were threefold:
They didn't tell the truth, their news presented as truth was lies.

They lied for a dictator and presented it as real news thus propping up a tyrant for profit.

The only reason they did it was for profit since they didn't even tell the truth so it wasn't newsworthy to lie for a dictator and pretend to be a newsagency.
That is called "Blood for Money."

Think about what this means in regards to all news organizations within arab areas. Are they all lying simply for access and to spread the propaganda of tyrants?

The NYTimes, the LATimes, NPR, BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters....

Now we know the news, the truth, no thanks to the "NEWS" people. Are all complicit in conspiring with international terrorist groups to commit murder. Knowing beforehand about a criminal act such as international terrorism and not reporting it is the legal definition of conspiracy. Conspiring to aid and abet known international terrorists groups for monetary proift breaks numerous international and national laws that can result in criminal prosecution.
In the face of evil don't keep silent.

Thousands of jubilant Iraqis, ready for a brand-new beat, dance in the street to celebrate the toppling of a brutal dictator whose tyranny has lasted 24 years but not 24 hours more. Preoccupied with the dramatic image of a noose around Saddam's neck as he is dragged to the ground in Baghdad's al-Fardous square (a 20-foot metal statue of Saddam, that is), the world largely overlooks the news of another dictator, Cuba's Fidel Castro, so far besting the Iraqi tyrant's run by 20 years and counting. Keep reading.
Palestinians Vow to Step Up Attacks after Saddam's Fall - Khalid Abu Toameh

Leaders of various Palestinian groups said Thursday they will escalate the fight against Israel following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The threats came as many Palestinians were saying they still don't understand what went wrong in Baghdad. In some places, Palestinians were seen removing posters of Saddam Hussein from public buildings. "There's a big mystery and a big secret surrounding the Iraqi surrender to the U.S., Britain, and Israel," said Fuad Abu Hijleh, a Palestinian political analyst. "We will wait to see what really happened there." A cartoon in the PA's daily Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda depicted an Arab man, with tears streaming from his eyes, hoisting a black flag that carries the label Baghdad. (Jerusalem Post)
Secret Shipments from Baghdad to Damascus - Uri Dan (Jerusalem Post)

Though the inevitable American victory in Baghdad has delivered a fatal blow to international terrorism, this is not the end of the campaign.

At the end of 2002, Israeli military intelligence discovered that major figures in the regimes of Iraq and Damascus were involved in secret shipments of unidentified materials from Baghdad to Damascus, the aim being to hide them in Syria.

Since Hans Blix and his inspection team were then seeking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Israelis and the Americans justifiably suspected that these were shipments of chemical and biological weapons.
Professor Denied Bail in Terrorism Case

Palestinian-born professor Sami al-Arian will remain jailed without bond until his trial on charges that he led a terrorist organization's U.S. operations and helped its members enter the country, a federal judge in Tampa ruled Thursday. The former University of South Florida computer engineering professor, and co-defendant Sameeh Hammoudeh, must remain jailed because each poses a danger and a flight risk, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ruled. "These two, based on the government's strong presentation, repeatedly assisted, promoted, or managed the [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], an organization which indiscriminately murders to achieve its goals," Pizzo wrote. The defendants were indicted on Feb. 20 on racketeering, conspiracy, and other charges. Prosecutors say al-Arian ran the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's U.S. operations. The government says the group is responsible for 100 murders in Israel and its territories. (AP/Washington Post)
Marines Battle Foreign Arabs at Baghdad Mosque

U.S. Marines battled non-Iraqi Arabs at the Imam Mosque in northern Baghdad Thursday in some of the most intense fighting of the war. Officers said about 200 men attacked the Marines and most were killed; they appeared to be Syrian or Jordanian. One Marine was killed and 22 were injured in the fighting. (Washington Post)
Baby Assad is a fool

U.S. Again Warns Syria
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz warned Thursday that the U.S. might adopt a tougher policy toward Syria if it continues to harbor terrorists and provides a haven for Iraqi war criminals. Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, "In recent days the Syrians have been shipping killers into Iraq to try to kill Americans. We don't welcome that." He added: "If they continue, then we need to think about what our policy is with respect to a country that harbors terrorists or harbors war criminals, or was in recent times shipping things to Iraq." For now, Wolfowitz said, "by calling attention to it we hope that in fact that may be enough to get them to stop." (Washington Post)
See also Syria Calls for End of Iraq "Occupation"
Syria "urges the international community to exert every possible effort to put an end to the occupation and manage the catastrophic situation that has resulted from the aggression," the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a statement Thursday. (Reuters)
As Ehud Barak so eloquently put it, the Middle East is not the MidWest. It's a bad neighborhood.

Crowd Kills Two Islamic Clerics in Iraq
A furious crowd hacked to death two clerics during a melee Thursday at one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines, witnesses said, at a meeting meant to serve as a model for reconciliation in post-Saddam Iraq. One of the clerics killed, Haider al-Kadar, was a widely hated loyalist of Saddam Hussein, part of the Iraqi leader's ministry of religion. The other was Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a high-ranking Shiite cleric and son of one of the religion's most prominent ayatollahs, who was persecuted by Saddam. Al-Khoei had urged cooperation with U.S. troops. It appeared that when the two men appeared at the shrine, members of another faction loyal to a different mullah, Mohammed Baqer al-Sadr, were furious at al-Kadar's presence. Both men were rushed by the crowd and hacked to death with swords and knives. (New York Times)
Excellent resource - Daily compilation of articles on the Middle East and global terrorism.

Produced by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
View a briefing here.
To subscribe free, send a blank email to
The Rejection

Benny Morris, the well-known left-wing Israeli historian, who claims to have changed much of his thinking since the outbreak of the Intifada, has a lengthy but fascinating article in the new issue of The New Republic (free registration required). In it, Morris discusses the book The Palestinian People: A History by Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, his own views of the current conflict and the history of Palestinian nationalism and how it has forged current Palestinian rejectionism of Israel's existence. Some of his revelations will startle those who are famillair with his earlier work. An excerpt:
Palestinian behavior during the past three years has provided the unhappy ground for a serious re-examination of my own political assumptions. But, to be completely candid, it is not just the experience of the past three years that has provoked this reconsideration. I have spent the past twenty years studying the hundred years of Zionist-Palestinian conflict. At first I focused on the revolutionary events of 1948. Later I began to study the decades before and after the establishment of Israel—and this research, in conjunction with recent events, has left me profoundly unhopeful.

I have come away from my examination of the history of the conflict with a sense of the instinctive rejectionism that runs like a dark thread through Palestinian history— a rejection, to the point of absurdity, of the history of the Jewish link to the land of Israel; a rejection of the legitimacy of Jewish claims to Palestine; a rejection of the right of the Jewish state to exist. And, worse, this rejectionism has over the decades been leavened by a healthy dose of anti-Semitism, a perception of the Jew as God's and humanity's unchosen.
Read it all.

The next battle

Delegitimizing pro-Israel voices is priority for Arab lobby after Iraq.

Yesterday I posted The Next Fight by John Podhoretz. This piece by Jonathan Tobin can be considered as its worthy complement. Obviously, the next critical moment in history is well upon us already.
[...]But whatever satisfaction we can take in deflating the "blame-America first" crowd, the next battles in the political wars over how America should deal with the Middle East are just beginning.

The conflict will center on two fronts. One will be over the struggle to create a democracy in postwar Iraq. The other will be whether or not the victorious coalition simultaneously attempts to weaken the region's only existing democracy in order to empower one of Saddam Hussein's few remaining allies.

The first to feel the brunt of this effort is retired Army Gen. Jay M. Garner, the head of the Pentagon's Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which will oversee Iraq after the fighting is over. Garner's main credential for this post is that he was the man in charge of supervision of relief work in the Kurdish sectors of Northern Iraq in the aftermath of the first Gulf war.

[...]Two years later, Garner joined more than 40 other retired American officers and government officials in a statement placing the blame for the violence in the Middle East squarely on the Palestinians, as well as praising the Israeli army's "remarkable restraint" in dealing with the bloody assaults of Yasser Arafat's terrorists and their Islamic fundamentalist allies.

[...]If we are asked to accept the notion that Garner will be rejected by the Arab world because they will perceive him as a "Jew-lover," then Israel-bashers have crossed the line to what can only be termed as anti-Semitism by association.

Closer to home, another appointment is creating similar waves of dismay among Islamists and their far-left allies.

Last week, it was announced that JWR's Daniel Pipes, the head of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, was appointed by the president to a seat on the U.S. Institute of Peace, a federal body charged with promoting education and training projects to further the cause of peace worldwide.

But his willingness to tell the truth about the Islamists and their connection to terrorism has earned Pipes the animosity of the extremist organizations that claim to speak for Arabs and Muslims in the United States.

[...]There is no escaping the fact that the campaigns against Garner and Pipes reflect a determination by the anti-Israel lobby to enforce a McCarthy-like ban on friends of Israel in key government positions. .
Congressman Lantos et al are rallying Senators and Congressmen to sign this letter

Dear Mr. President:

On the eve of dramatic changes in the Middle East, we share with you the
hope that new opportunities will develop in the region - opportunities for a
more democratic and peaceful region with fewer direct threats to the United
States and our interests. Recent political changes in the Palestinian
Authority also should provide new opportunities to begin a meaningful
negotiating process with Israel.

We applaud your willingness to request significant new assistance for Israel
in your supplemental request, which will allow Israel to bear more easily
some of the burdens of the current war to disarm and liberate Iraq.

We write to express our support for your efforts to resume peace
negotiations based on the clear principles you outlined in your June 24th
speech. Those principles should underline and guide any "roadmap" towards
* above all, Palestinian terror and violence must cease;
* a new Palestinian leadership - with real authority - needs to be
established, free from the taint of terrorism and willing and able to
dismantle the terrorist network;
* there needs to be true accountability and transparency in Palestinian
governance; and
* the Palestinian security apparatus must be overhauled so that it truly fights terrorism, rather than engages in it.
Only then can the Palestinian people begin to see some of their political
aspirations realized and only then can we expect Israel to respond with
concrete actions.

Many are urging you to short circuit this process and to focus on timelines
in achieving the roadmap's benchmarks. We believe that you will not be
dissuaded and will focus instead on real performance. Without a new,
empowered Palestinian leadership that is firmly engaged in fighting terror,
Israel has no one with whom to negotiate.

The United States has developed a level of credibility and trust with all
parties in the region which no other country shares. We are concerned that
certain nations or groups, if given a meaningful role in monitoring progress
made on the ground, might only lessen the chances of moving forward on a
realistic path towards peace.

In summary, Mr. President, we share your belief that real changes in the
Palestinian leadership provide the possibility to explore once again
opportunities to bring real peace to that troubled region of the world. We
support your consistent effort to bring about such changes. Only by holding
fast to those principles and working closely with the government of Israel
and new leaders in the Palestinian Authority can we hope to end the 30
months of terror that have led to nothing but misery for both Palestinians
and Israelis.
CNN: The News We Kept to Ourselves

[IMRA:What is CNN hiding about the Palestinians?]

EASON JORDAN ( the Chief News Executive of CNN) reporting in the The New York Times 11 April 2003

ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the
government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with
Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw
and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would
have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For
weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of
a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's
ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq
station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the
world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have
gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no
protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international
press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate
reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared
and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and
tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in
the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our
payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son,
Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his
brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King
Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have
responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant
in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior
officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such
official has long been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did
so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few
months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me
that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry
officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been
executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter
of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told
me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and
told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be
paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these
men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that
we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned
me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead,
and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had
thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped
confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents
who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A.
and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on
camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless
still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by
Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which
included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months,
forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led
offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A
plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her
family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam
Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more
gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these
stories can be told freely.

Al-Nidaa, the website of the Al-Qa’ida organization, Reacts to fall of Iraq

MEMRI gives us this piece from the ever-moving about website of Al-Qa'ida. These guys never learn. Russia lost Afghanistan. Taliban lost in Afghanistan. Yet they continue to believe they are on the winning side.
The Al-Nidaa website, which is regularly knocked off the Web and thus its URL changes every few days, (1) is posting a series of articles on "The Crusader War in Iraq." The first article asks 35 questions, and the answers are published in the successive segments, at the rate of one every few days.

The seventh segment, dated April 9, 2003, was written after the American forces entered Baghdad and following the disappearance of the leaders of the Iraqi regime. It claimed that the only way to deal successfully with militarily superior forces is guerilla warfare:

"First of all, what is happening today, Wednesday, in Baghdad – that is, Crusader forces entering the heart [of the capital] without fighting – surprised no one who examined the events according to military parameters, because the entrance into cities was anticipated, sooner or later, and the situation in the field did not allow steadfastness by the Iraqi defense [system as long as it functioned as a] regular [army]."

"Yes, we cannot deny that we were surprised at the ease of their entrance into Baghdad, and [also] that there was no resistance whatsoever by the city. So far we are incapable of understanding where the tens of thousands of the regular troops disappeared to overnight. We expected some resistance, at least of the level that was demonstrated that was at Um Qasr. Although we don’t know the reasons, we are convinced that if the resistance in Baghdad had been waged by regular forces, it would have collapsed, and fairly quickly. It appears that the Iraqi commanders were also convinced that the modus operandi of regular [forces], even if it were capable of putting up resistance for a few weeks, would collapse in the absence of elements for steadfastness. Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashem said on the sixth day of the war that Baghdad would be besieged, but would not fall. The fact that they were convinced that there would be a siege was in itself sufficient to convince them that they could not withstand using the modus operandi of regular [forces]..."

"We expected that the method of defense of regular or semi-regular [forces] would collapse, and it would be impossible to withstand. From the beginning of this series of articles, we have focused on the modus operandi of guerilla warfare. This is the most powerful weapon Muslims have, and it is the best method to continue the conflict with the Crusader enemy who has stripped the nation of all the meanings of [military] might, and there is no chance that in the years to come we will be allowed to possess the elements of strength. Thus, the best method of struggle for the weak against the strong is guerilla warfare."

"With guerilla warfare, the Americans were defeated in Vietnam and the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. This is the method that expelled the direct Crusader colonialism from most of the Muslim lands, with Algeria the most well known. We still see how this method stopped Jewish immigration to Palestine, and caused reverse immigration of Jews from Palestine. The successful attempts of dealing defeat to invaders using guerilla warfare are many, and we will not expound on them. However, these attempts have proven that the most effective method for the materially weak against the strong is guerilla warfare..." (2)
(1) As of the morning of April 11, it was
The Terrorist Notebooks

During the mid-1990s, a group of young Uzbeks went to school to learn how to kill you. Here is what they were taught.Terrorism, we learn, is "taught" beyond the ME. This extract (full piece requries subscription) from Foreign Policy indicates some "lessons." Unfortunately FP does not make clear that previously Muslims in this Central Asian region were moderate till Saudi Arabia began funding their own state-accepted brand of fundamentalism--Wahhabism--preaching hate and terror (see Ahmed Rashid, JIHAD)
The world of a young man recruited for jihad or holy war is a frightening one. His training teaches hatred in the name of religious purification. He learns to divide people into those who embrace the true faith and properly follow its precepts and those who do not. His former colleagues and neighbors become enemies he must destroy with deadly weapons he learns to fashion out of everyday objects.

That reality describes the world of a group of Central Asians, mostly Uzbek by nationality, who went through local terrorist schools in the mid-1990s. Their course of study is laid out in 10 remarkable notebooks we acquired in 2001–2002. Covering topics such as the use of weapons, the making of poison, and the ideology of jihad, the notebooks offer a unique window into a frightening mind-set that predates the expansion of Osama bin Laden’s network in the region and still holds sway in much of Central Asia.

References in the notebooks suggest that much of this training took place in Uzbekistan’s Fergana Valley. Long a center of Islamic revival in the region, the Fergana Valley is a mix of scrub desert, low hills, and lush oases. It is the most densely populated area of Central Asia and one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Throughout Soviet rule, the valley was home to a host of underground mosques and religious “schools” that thrived even as Islamic teachings were banned or restricted. When the Soviet Union began to collapse, graduates of these schools played an important role in the revival of Islam in Central Asia, as thousands of new mosques and religious schools opened. Clerics who preached radical Islam gained new contacts and sources of financing when the mujahideen started fighting the Soviets in the Afghan war and when Saudi groups began what became a global crusade. [more]
Editor of the London Arabic Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Criticizes the Arab Media's War Coverage

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for this article in MEMRI
[...]"I [understand] the feelings of my colleagues, the Arab journalists, who deal with events emotionally rather than reasonably. They collect fragments of news reports that suit their hopes. But professionally, a journalist who stays within the limits of the news he has, and does that impartially, renders the best service to his readers and viewers, who will thus be able to see reality as it really is."

"I know that adopting an impartial stand in the [Arab] media world is akin to suicide, because there are many who push the media into extremes, and take 'nationalistic' positions, and maintain that whoever thinks differently is committing treason against the [national] cause. [They maintain] that lying for the sake of the cause is moral and honorable. The Arab media [of today], in these hard times, is slowly turning into the 1967 media; at that time, radio announcers, analysts, and journalists exaggerated acts of courage and covered up defeats, which - historically - became a mockery."

"The Arab media today, with its clear inclination towards exaggerations and false promises of victory, is feeding the public stories that have nothing to do with the real events in the field. Hence, it is replicating the old media, despite the fact that it is broadcasting in color and using electronic technologies…"

"Before the beginning of the [1991 Gulf War], Arabs who supported the Iraqi regime came up with floods of promises that it would be a great war, a second Vietnam, and that tens of thousands of the invaders would return in body bags, and that the Gulf would become a sea of blood. We were deluged with reports about the support of the international street [for Iraq], but soon the whole thing ended with the signing of the Safwan Agreement, in which Iraq surrendered completely, to the surprise of millions…"

...there are groups of dancers who profit from inflaming and inciting public sentiments. These are groups that have nothing to do with Iraq or the war. They were happy with the American invasion more than the Americans themselves. They are taking advantage of the crisis in order to recruit people ideologically… I asked one of them, 'how can you lead the protests and inflame public opinion, when tomorrow you will have to cooperate with the Americans in the region? How will you sell your oil and co-exist with the [new] political dictates? How are you going to convince those minds that have been stuffed with rejection, to deal with reality?'"

"In such crises, objectivity and the reflection of both sides of the issue are essential for level-headedness and for preventing this craziness that afflicts people and governments. No one is being asked to support the war… but, it is illogical that officials and the media become appendages to a collapsing regime, just because of [media] competition and the fear from the hellish rhetoric of those who are full of hate."[more]
After weeks of relative quiet, Israeli-Palestinian violence surges

This is how to convince President Bush that the Palestinians are ready for statehood!
Israeli-Palestinian violence is surging again as President Bush continues to signal his determination to press ahead with the diplomatic “road map” toward Israeli-Palestinian peace.
At least seven Palestinians and two Israelis were killed in clashes this week.

Following a period of relative quiet during the early weeks of the war in Iraq, two Israeli soldiers were killed and nine others wounded Thursday when two Palestinian gunmen near an army base in the northern West Bank. The gunmen cut through the fence surrounding the base and opened fire.

One of the terrorists was killed in the ensuing exchange of fire with forces. The other was killed following a chase.

The two soldiers killed were Staff Sgt. Yigal Lifshitz, 20, from Rishon le-Zion, and Staff Sgt. Ofer Sharabi, 21, from Givat Shmuel.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinian claimed responsibility for what it said was a joint attack with the Al-Aksa Brigade, an offshoot of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat’s Fatah faction. The two gunmen were identified as Nablus residents.

Also Thursday, Palestinians said an armed gunman was killed and four were wounded by Israeli undercover forces in the West Bank town of Tulkarm.

Several hours after the Tulkarm attack, a senior Islamic Jihad militant was killed in an Israeli helicopter strike in the Gaza Strip. At least 10 other people were injured.

The Islamic Jihad militant was identified as Mahmoud Zatme, wanted by Israel for involvement in several terrorist attacks, including a 1995 double-suicide bombing in Beit Lid that killed 22 Israeli soldiers and civilians.

On Tuesday, a senior Hamas militant wanted by Israel, Saed Arbid, was killed in a similar Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip. Also killed was an Arbid aide and three other people. The strike also injured dozens of bystanders.

The increased violence came as President Bush reiterated his determination this week to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush stressed his plans to publish the road map once the new Palestinian Authority prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, presents his new Cabinet. [more]
Make your opinion count- Write to the media! See and

I have subscribed for a while now to the email alerts.
This organization is trying to combat anti-Israeli and pro-Arab lies, bias and distorted reporting in the media.
It points to specific biased reports and suggests writing to the editors and reporters.
It really organizes and focuses combat of those media biases.

I have already suceeded in getting 2 letters published (out of the manyfold more that i sent) with a great sense of accomplishment.

Go ahead and sign up... Our strength is in numbers...

Again : and

My website:
The road to reconciliation?

The Christian Science Monitor assesses a Palestinian, EU, American, and Israeli perspective on the Roadmap for Peace. For me to give any extracts would be to select a limited view. Read instead the entire piece.
Conflicting story blames bomb on Jews

This piece in The World Net Daily but another instance of arab refusal to take responsibility for their actions but instead to blame Israel and then up the ante with further absurd charges
An Arab news site published a story that blamed an explosion in a Palestinian school yesterday on a Jewish extremist group, suggesting that the attack could be a sign that Israel is implementing a plan to "transfer the Palestinians."

In stark contrast, however, the left-leaning Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that Palestinian sources have rejected the teachers' suspicions of Jewish involvement.

The Palestinian sources are examining the possibility that a Palestinian organization wanted to hide the bomb in the school for future use and that it went off prematurely, Ha'aretz said.

Agence France-Presse reported that a "Palestinian security official said it appeared one of the students had found a hand grenade and had been playing with it when it went off in a classroom."

The website, nevertheless, headlined its story, "Jewish group blows up Palestinian school, wound 29 students."

Ha'aretz said the blast wounded 15 students, two seriously, at a school in the village of Jeva, near the West Bank town of Jenin.

The account began:

The occupied Palestinian territories yesterday witnessed an incident which raised a question on whether Israel has started to implement its plan to transfer the Palestinians. This was when an extremist Jewish group detonated an explosive in a school in a town in Jenin that resulted in wounding 29 students. This operation, to some, recalled the terrorist attacks used to be carried out by the Zionist gangs and results in al-Nakba (setback) of 1948 when the Jews occupied Palestine.[more]
Palestinian writer's speech draws debate at U. Florida

I have no quarrel with Ramzy Baroud giving a pro-Palestinian speech at the University of Florida, but take a moment and do a search on this guy's writings and you will see he is a leading anti-Israeli writer in the arab media.
(U-WIRE) GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- Before a Palestinian-American journalist could address a crowd of about 90 people, a group of University of Florida students gathered outside the building to protest his speech.
Ramzy Baroud addressed the audience in the New Engineering Building auditorium as part of Divestment Awareness Week, sponsored by Nakba '48.

But protestors stood outside passing out a yellow sheet that included material taken from Baroud's work and a blue sheet with headlines and quoted material from various articles disputing his reports.

"I'm concerned because there's a growing amount of anti-Semitism on our campus -- there's a growing amount of lies and hate speech," UF sophomore Samantha Orshan said. "This speaker has been known in the past to advance that hate. He's an advocate of violence, and we don't need that on our campus."

Orshan was one of about 12 students passing out fliers. Political science sophomore Ariel Stein led the protestors. Stein is president of Gators for Israel, but she was not acting in her official capacity, Orshan said.

"Ramzy Baroud has made open comments in open publications that can be found easily blaming Jews around the world and in Washington for the war in Iraq," Stein said. "He supports the use of violence on Israeli citizens and Jews in Israel. He's probably going to sugarcoat a lot of what he says inside." [more]
The Arab Opportunity

This Washington Post article has an optimistic editorial on Iraq war and its meaning for arab world
NOWHERE ARE the scenes of celebrating Iraqis prompting more shock and awe than in the Arab Middle East -- and not just in those countries, such as Syria, that fear being Washington's next target. People across the region were reportedly astonished to see Iraqis gleefully dancing on the statue head of Saddam Hussein and gratefully shaking the hands of U.S. Marines. With good reason: For weeks the Arab media have been telling their audiences that American forces were encountering insuperable resistance, that Baghdad was to be another Stalingrad, that thousands of volunteers would fight to the death for Saddam Hussein. For years, Arab leaders have been claiming that Iraqis were persecuted not by Saddam Hussein's brutal totalitarianism but by the sanctions that the United States insisted on. The corrupt state-sponsored intelligentsia in countries such as Egypt and Saudia Arabia argued that the arriving American soldiers were indistinguishable from the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. So how to explain the undeniable evidence that many Iraqis regard the U.S. troops as liberators? The Arab press and satellite channels yesterday were awash with denials, conspiracy theories and tortured reasoning. "The danger now is that, because the invaders offer something better than Saddam in the short term, [Iraqis] may be left in the dark as to those invaders' real long-term motives," opined the Jiddah-based Arab News.

Buried in all the hostile rhetoric is an epochal opportunity for the United States. It's true that public opinion, among Arab elites as well as average people, has been strongly against the war -- though the oft-predicted "explosion" by the "Arab street" has failed to materialize. But most of the resistance has little to do with the removal of Saddam Hussein, who lost most of his following years ago; it's about those "real long-term motives" of the Bush administration. Many Arabs of the "street" long for change in their own authoritarian political systems and stifled economies but doubt that the United States really intends to promote such liberalization in Iraq, much less in the rest of the Middle East. They assume Washington must want only to install a puppet government and steal Iraq's oil. In contrast, government elites, especially those nominally allied with the United States, are afraid of just the opposite: that the Bush administration might mean what it says about democracy and therefore be on the verge of destroying the entrenched status quo under which American administrations have tolerated and even propped up Arab dictatorships.

This week's scenes from Baghdad have had the effect of cutting through all the Arab illusions and invalidating all the conventional rhetoric, at least for a moment. Whether or not they acknowledge it, Arabs everywhere now watch anxiously, maybe even hopefully, to see what the United States will do. Will it rush to install an administration of exiles and other favorites, which will then be pressed to adopt policies most Iraqis would likely reject -- such as the immediate recognition of Israel? Will the Iraqi oil industry be placed under the control of an American executive? Alternatively, will the administration succumb to pressure from "allies" such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and forgo any political process that genuinely empowers the country's long-oppressed Shiite majority or the Kurds of the north? Such steps would merely confirm what the Arab public expects of the United States and maybe even generate the violent backlash that Mr. Mubarak and his media have been predicting.

Or will President Bush fulfill his promise, by patiently working with allies and the United Nations, to build a truly representative Iraqi leadership that would be widely accepted as legitimate? That, even more than this week's tumult in Baghdad, would be the shock that could transform a region.
Time to tackle Hezbollah

During a conference on terrorism last September, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said that "Hezbollah may be the 'A team' of terrorists," while "Al Qaeda is actually the 'B team.'"

Armitage said that Hezbollah is "on the list, their time will come, there's is no question about it." He continued: "they have a blood debt to us and... we're not going to forget it," referring to several anti-American attacks for which the group has claimed credit.

"All in good time we're going to go after these problems, just like a high school wrestler goes out for a match: we're going to take [them] down one at a time," he told the conference, hosted by the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Read the whole thing.

April 10, 2003

Reuters, the "news" organization, at it again

"Locals recall fondly how Saddam allowed financially strapped Palestinians to study free of charge at Iraqi universities and sent cheques of up to $25,000 to families of Palestinians killed in the current conflict with Israel."

Excuse me? Would that be to families of terrorists who blew themselves up whilst murdering Israeli men, women, and children??

"Defying Israeli curfews, Jenin's militants have marched through the razed "Ground Zero" of the camp to vent their anger at the U.S. juggernaut charging across Iraq. And residents have donated blood for Iraqi wounded."

Ground Zero?? Juggernaut??

Submit your comments to Reuters AlertNet here.
Afghan women go high-tech
Let freedom ring!!!

Fox News reports on a labyrinth of tunnels and labs in Southern Iraq, where buildings are testing positive for radiation.
via Andrew Sullivan
SEAN PENN: Peace activist with a concealed weapon!

via Instapundit.
Al Qaeda's tin cup

"al Qaeda is hurting. It's on the ropes. It's even started to charge Al-Jazeera for the use of taped statements of Osama bin Laden associates." deputy assistant treasury secretary Juan Zarate

Samantha Sheppard, 28, from Plymouth, a soldier with the 2nd Light Tank Regiment,smiles as she receives a flower from an Iraqi man during a patrol on the streets of east Basra, southern Iraq, April 2003. (AP Photo/Jon Mills/Pool)
The Next Fight

John Podhoretz writes in the NYPost of today's that there will be, post Iraq, a clash between two opposing sides:

"On one side: those who believe that the United States has some fence-mending to do in the Arab world and in the world community after engaging in a controversial war.

Call them the fence-menders.

On the other side: those who believe the United States and the Coalition of the Willing have liberated a nation and saved the world from the menace of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and have nothing to apologize or mend fences for.

Call them the liberators.

First, the fence-menders.

The fence-menders want America to turn its focus to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis - by which they mean they want the United States to impose a deal on the supposedly recalcitrant Israelis and thereby buy some Arab goodwill.

You could hear this position being advanced only minutes after the statue came down by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who insisted that while the reputation of the U.S. military has never been greater, the "United States has never been so isolated.""

In the context of our present preoccupation, with what Joseph Norland calls politely the "Roachmap", we can ignore right now the "liberators side". Podhoretz concludes this very interesting analysis by saying:

"Whose view will prevail? There can be no doubt that President Bush is personally far more of a liberator than a fence-mender. And he's just taken himself a stroll into the history books. He'll do what he thinks best. He always does. And the best judge of what he thinks is best is to see what he's said and done in the past.

When it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, the president has put it plainly. If the Palestinian Authority democratizes, the United States will champion Palestinian statehood. If it doesn't, the United States won't compromise Israeli security just to satisfy the fence-menders who are notable for getting it wrong about him and the uses of American power time and again.""

Which, unfortunatly, is far from answering the above question - given that the president has said by now many things on that vital subject, not all of them mutually compatible. And, to believe Kol Israel Reshet Bet of tonight, Paul Wolfowitz himself has just publically joined the camp of the ..."Fence-Menders"!


Bernice Lipkin does a number on Israeli academics who are all too eager to embrace the Palestinian cause at the expense of Israel's rights and claims.

After describing how Prof. Yiftachel got hoisted on his own petard, she extracts a paragraph from JPost
In an article in the Jerusalem Post, 16 December 2002, Amnon Lord labeled those academic Leftists around the world -- and their collaborators in Israeli universities -- who libel Israel spiritually and intellectually as "spiritual marauders". "These people are responsible for the spread of the terrorism war against the Jews to every city in the world ..." He used Yiftachel's story to illustrate how Israeli academics were toadying up to British academic institutions. [Worth reading]

B'nai Brith speaks out at UN Human Rights Commission

Below is an introduction, followed by a speech to be delivered by B'nai Brith Canada at the UN Commission on Human Rights. As many of us know, the UN has become the antithesis of a human rights body through its actions and inactions, with the worst violations by far relative to its treatment of Israel directly, and Jews worldwide indirectly.

In many ways, the UN has become one of Israel's primary enemies, and therefore has become an enemy of the Jewish people worldwide. The UN and its actions are indirectly supportive of anti-Semitism worldwide. The corollary of that is that any support provided to the UN by our own country is support for an enemy of many of its citizens.

In this speech David Matas has the courage to speak out directly to this body and, rather than demanding an end to human rights violations elsewhere, he in fact demands an end to human rights violations within the body he is addressing. Good for him. You will note that only Germany and the US are mentioned in a somewhat positive vein. Canada is not mentioned.

David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, spoke out in defence of Jewish communities worldwide in a strong statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights, currently in session in Geneva. Matas, a well-known human rights expert who is attending the UNCHR as part of the B'nai Brith official delegation, said his participation at Geneva was an organizational priority because "Jewish groups cannot afford to be passive in dealing with the challenges we now face in the world arena".

[Matas will be presenting B'nai Brith's positions as outlined in the Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs prepared by the organization's Institute for International Affairs. This report is available online at]

Matas' statement on the Rights of Minorities reads as follows:
Jewish minorities today around the world are harassed, intimidated, under attack. In recent months, there has been a wave of antisemitism not seen since before World War II. Antisemitism has again permeated global culture.

This rise in antisemitism has a number of causes and sources. But one of the causes, one of the sources, is right here - the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has provided a platform for attacks on the Jewish state. The use of this forum gave these attacks a credibility that they would not otherwise have.

The Commission, year after year, hears speeches and passes resolutions condemning Israel for the worst crimes known to humanity. These accusations have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the political desire to delegitimize the state and undermine its existence. This vitriol has the purpose of criminalizing the State of Israel and the effect of criminalizing the Jewish people world wide for their actual or presumed support of the state. The expression of the right of self determination of peoples, a basic human right for every other people, has become in the chamber of this Commission, for the Jewish people, a crime.

Governments and non-governmental organizations come to Geneva from around the world to advocate improvement in human rights. But, while others tinker with the wording of resolutions to increase respect for human rights, anti-Zionists have turned this Commission into a forum for the disrespect of the human rights of Jews; a place of incitement to discrimination and hatred against Jewish minorities world wide, in violation of the basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Though the main instigators are the states at war with Israel, many states vote in favour of unbalanced resolutions endorsing fabricated charges against the world's only Jewish state. Most states and non-governmental organizations sit silently while this chamber is turned into a hall of incitement against Jews.

When human rights organizations assess the human rights situation in Israel in the context of a global assessment of all countries, using the same standards for all, that is one thing. But here, at the Commission, Israel gets mentioned and other countries with records of real human rights violations are passed over in silence.

As well, there is a problem in what is said about Israel, in contrast to what is said about other countries that are mentioned. Condemnations of Israel are in the most inflammatory language imaginable. Condemnations of real violations by other states, when they are noted, are, in contrast, phrased in language that is mild, kindly, polite, diplomatic.

Even the independent human rights mechanisms within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have been tainted. When the mechanisms mobilize to point out and condemn antisemitism, they are chastised. I remind this Commission that it voted in 1997 to excise from the Report of Mr. Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary

Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, a text stating only the obvious, that antisemitic motifs in Muslim extremist publications are on the rise.

The Commission has granted a mandate to a rapporteur whose very title "Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967" is a phony accusation against Israel. The territory that is under Israeli control starting from 1967 was Egyptian and Jordanian territory before 1967. Both states have renounced all claims to that territory. This Commission never labeled Egypt and Jordan as occupiers of Palestinian territory.

The reports by special rapporteurs whose mandates in principle have nothing to do with Israel are filled with one sided malicious fantastical accusations against Israel. We draw your attention, to take one example, to the report of Miloon Kothari on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living whose addendum on the West Bank and Gaza, gratuitously mislabeled as occupied Palestinian territories, is, in its entirety, little more than a piece of anti-Zionist propaganda.

German theologian Roland Neibuhr reminded us: first they came for the Jews.

We address the Human Rights Commission to protest its perversion into a launching pad for global antisemitism, not just because we are concerned about the respect for human rights of Jews, but because we are concerned with the respect for human rights of all. There is a direct link between the anti-Zionism of the Commission and its silence on real violators. Many human rights non-governmental organizations have been wringing their hands about the transformation of the Human Rights Commission into an abusers caucus. Some of the worst human rights violators are members of this Commission. These violators join together to block any criticism that might be made of them.

The disintegration of the human rights mandate of the Human Rights Commission may now have reached the point of an inability to muster votes against violations in many countries that are scenes of horrific human rights abuses. But it began with votes against Israel. Once it became plain that the Commission could be a political playground disrespectful of even the most basic human rights principles, violators got the message. If Israel could be condemned for violations it did not commit, simply because it could not muster enough votes, then violators could escape condemnation for violations they did commit, if they could muster enough votes.

The obsessive voluminous fixation of the Human Rights Commission on Israel and its silence about egregious violations elsewhere are two sides of the same coin. Any institution has only so much time and energy. Time and energy spent on Israel are not available to deal with the human rights situations in other countries. Focus on Israel is, for many violators, the tactic of choice to avoid attention to their own misdoings.

We commend the point of order made this year by Germany on behalf of the Western European and Others Group objecting to the parallel made by the Palestinian Authority between Zionism and Nazism. We appreciate the reply made by the United States that criticizes the Commission for its unfair, unbalanced, work and its inflammatory and reckless language against Israel.

But these sorts of interventions have to be more systematic, both by states and non-governmental organizations alike.

We come to the Commission like no other non-governmental organization has come to the Commission before. We do not ask the Commission to work to end human rights violations somewhere else. We ask the Commission to stop its own human rights violations here, inflicted within these walls.

We call on all victim minorities to show solidarity with us as we have shown solidarity with you. We call on all representatives and states and non-governmental organizations who come to the Commission out of concern for human rights to turn first and foremost against the human rights violations being committed here, now in front of you - the incitement to hatred against the Jewish people world wide through the attempt to criminalize the Jewish state.

We say: stop providing a platform to anti-Zionism; stop the use of this Commission as a legitimizer of hate propaganda against the Jewish people.

The safety of Jewish minorities world wide depends on it.
news item from arab source. Hat tip to The Agonist.

from HonestReporting:

As Baghdad falls and the U.S. begins efforts to structure an interim Iraqi
government, one key question remains: Where is Saddam Hussein? Did the
U.S. Air Force seal his fate under a residential building earlier this

While the suspense lingers, the action begs comparison with the Israeli
front. HonestReporting has recently exposed double standards in media
coverage of suicide bombings and checkpoint accidents; this time, it's
aerial strikes against terrorist masterminds.

The parallel events:

-- On Monday, acting upon intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein's
whereabouts, a U.S. B1-B aircraft dropped four 2,000 lb. bombs on a West
Baghdad building. While Saddam's status remains unknown, at least 10
civilians died under four collapsed structures.

-- On Tuesday, acting upon intelligence indicating the whereabouts of
Hamas terror leader Sa'id Arabid, the Israeli Air Force struck Arabid's
car with missiles, leaving Arabid, his Hamas partner and four others dead.
Arabid was Hamas' replacement for Salah Shehadeh, who was killed in his
Gaza apartment by an Israeli F-16 last July; 14 others died in that

The media spin:

-- In Iraq, the major media almost uniformly highlighted the remarkable
intelligence gathered by the CIA, the swiftness of the B1-B's call to
duty, and a U.S. spokesman's proud declaration that "a leadership target
was hit very hard." The civilian death toll was typically relegated to the
end of reports, if mentioned at all.

See, for example, this Reuters article.

-- In the Shehadeh incident, however, Israel was censured by the Western
press from London to California for the "atrocity" (BBC and Hartford
Courant), an "indefensible and indiscriminate attack" (Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel) that itself constituted "unspeakable terror" (San Jose
Mercury News).

See the original HonestReporting critique.

At the time, White House spokesman Ari Fleisher condemned the Israeli
strike as a "heavy-handed action that is not consistent with dedication to
peace in the Middle East." When pointedly asked to justify the difference
between Israel's Gaza action and U.S. Afghanistan efforts (seaborne
Tomahawk missiles fired at terror-leader compounds), Fleisher stated: "It
is inaccurate to compare the two. And the crucial difference here being
that in this instance, in Gaza, this was a deliberate attack against a
building in which civilians were known to be located. And that does
separate it from the [American] activities taken."

See Fleisher's widely quoted statements.

* * *

In the wake of 9/11, a Western consensus emerged that the evil of
terrorism threatens entire democratic populations. In response, both the
Israeli and U.S. governments reached the operative conclusion that
terrorism must be fought with military means. Civilians, used
contemptuously by terrorists as human shields, often pay the unfortunate
price of these military efforts.

Given this important common ground, why does the media apply two standards
-- the Israel-standard and the U.S. coalition-standard -- when covering
military strikes against terror leaders? When it comes to reporting armed
defense against terror, does Israel form a black hole, warping the media's
moral compass?

HonestReporting was established on the intuitive belief that Israel does
not receive fair media coverage, but until now we lacked a solid benchmark
to confirm the bias. The Iraq war provides that benchmark, confirming the
contention that it was not specific tactics that the media objected to,
but rather that Israel was using them.

HonestReporting encourages members to monitor your local media to see how
they are reporting targeted strikes against terror leaders, and the
collateral civilian deaths.

HONESTREPORTING INFO SHEET to print out, post on bulletin boards,
photocopy and distribute. Get the word out to schools, places of worship,
community centers.

To subscribe to HonestReporting, send a blank e-mail to: