THE MACCABEAN ONLINE
Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 16             B"H   July 2008             NUMBER 7


POLITICAL ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ON ISRAELI & JEWISH AFFAIRS
"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"


TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 2008

 

EDITORIALS
  • TIME FOR ISRAEL AND AMERICA TO END THEIR POLICY OF RESTRAINT ..............Bernard J. Shapiro

    ISRAELI POLITICS
  • COLUMN ONE: ANATOMY OF A MASSACRE ..............Caroline Glick
  • PRO-ISRAEL LEADERSHIP NEEDED ..............David Basch

    TERRORISM
  • PALESTINIAN TRACTOR-TERRORISM: MAINSTREAM NOT RENEGADE ..............Yoram Ettinger

    MILITARY TACTICS
  • THE ART OF WAR: PART I & II + EPILOGUE ..............Prof. Paul Eidelberg

    MEDIA ANTI-SEMITISM
  • OUR WORLD: THE MEDIA AND ENDURING NARRATIVE ..............Caroline Glick

    ISRAELI FOREIGN & STRATEGIC POLICY
  • Hizbullah's Triumph: The Long-Term Implications of Prisoner Exchanges ..............Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison

    JEWISH HISTORY & ISRAELI DHIMMITUDE
  • CAPTIVE EXCHANGES, MU AND HUMILIATING THE JEW ..............Prof. Eugene Narrett
  • HUMILIATING THE JEW ..............Prof. Eugene Narret

    U.S. JEWISH LEADERSHIP
  • AMERICAN JEWISH LEADERS SILENT ON ISRAEL’S CRISIS ..............Prof. Eugene Narrett

    RELIGION / POLITICS
  • JOHN HAGEE AND CUFI...FRIEND OR FOE? ..............Gerald A. Honigman

    WORLD POLITICS & ISRAELI POLITICS
  • 666--THE MARK OF THE BEAST...ONE JEW'S INTERPRETATION ..............Gerald A. Honigman
  • OBAMA’S EXAMPLE FOR ISRAEL…CHANGE ..............Gerald A. Honigman

    ANTI-SEMITISM
  • OLD WORLD GAME: ROBBING AND KILLING JEWS! ..............Steven Shamrak

    POLITICS & FOREIGN POLICY
  • THE OBAMA-BUSH PRESIDENCY ..............Caroline Glick

    POLITICAL SATIRE
  • KING JAMES PRESS RELEASE: THE NEWLY ARISEN OBAMA. ..............TIMES ONLINE

    MILITARY /STRATEGIC
  • OUR WORLD: ENDING LEBANON'S FREE RIDE ..............Caroline Glick
  • NO MARGIN FOR ERROR? ..............Moshe Arens

    AMERICAN POLITICS
  • COGITO ERGO SUM ..............Paul Eidelberg

     

    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
    Published Monthly by the FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES
    P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE: URL:
    http://www.freeman.org/online.htm
    E-Mail: bernards@sbcglobal.net ** URL: http://www.freeman.org
    Copyright © 2005 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)

    TO MAKE A TAX EXEMPT DONATION VISIT: http://www.freeman.org/paypal.htm
    OR SEND A CHECK TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE.

     


     

    Column One: Anatomy of a massacre
    Jul. 3, 2008
    Caroline  Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    CAROLINE GLICKGovernment and police spokesmen would have us believe that the carnage in Jerusalem on Wednesday was unavoidable. Husam Taysir Dwayat, the convicted rapist, burglar and drug dealer turned jihadist who mowed down innocent people with his bulldozer on Jaffa Road was not suspected of links to terrorist organizations. The sociopathic, violent criminal who had "returned" to Islam over the past month raised no red flags. There was nothing to be done. No one is to blame.
    If the protestations of the government and the police that nothing could have prevented Dwayat from using his bulldozer to murder three people sound familiar, it is because they are. Immediately after Ala Abu Dhaim entered into Mercaz Harav yeshiva on March 6 and massacred eight students, government and police spokesmen said the same thing. There was no way to prevent the attack. No one is to blame.
    These statements are no more than easy excuses for incompetence. While it may be true that neither Dwayat nor Dhaim were members of a terror group, it is certainly true that both of these Jerusalemite terrorists operated in an atmosphere that engenders both radicalism and lawlessness. Their decisions to murder innocent people were products not only of their own evil natures, but of an atmosphere of permissiveness that naturally intensifies any latent desire to cause death and mayhem. If they had been operating in a different environment, it is possible they would have behaved differently.
    Four months ago, Dhaim was able to enter Mercaz Harav by dint of his job as a driver for the Jerusalem Arab-owned transport company HaPnina.
    HaPnina had a city contract to transport school children. Dhaim, who arrived at the yeshiva in a company van, aroused no suspicion when he entered the yeshiva with a large box where he hid his rifle.
    After Dhaim committed his massacre, the municipality immediately tried to abrogate its contract with HaPnina. HaPnina sued and the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court issued a temporary injunction requiring the city to continue using HaPnina until the judge ruled on the case. When Judge Hagit Mack-Kalmanovich finally decided in the municipality's favor on June 13, she noted that that the company had ignored a court order to provide documentation showing that its drivers had no criminal records and were qualified to transport children.
    If the municipality were more vigilant in overseeing its contractors, it could have discovered that HaPnina was employing criminals well before the massacre. Perhaps then Dhaim wouldn't have been able to enter the yeshiva.
    It is a criminal offense to praise acts of murder. When hundreds came to pay their respects for Dhaim and proclaim him a hero, the police could have arrested and interrogated all of them. Among those who arrived at the Dhaim's mourning tent was Wednesday's terrorist, Dwayat. If he had been arrested then, it is possible that police would have discovered that this convicted rapist had recently become a jihadist. It is also possible that Dwayat himself would have been intimidated.
    But rather than enforce the law, the police did nothing. Rather than arrest the hundreds who came to praise Dhaim, the police excused their inaction by bemoaning the fact that the due process rights of Jerusalem Arabs made it impossible to destroy the homes of Arab terrorists in the capital without proper legal authorization. That is, they justified their decision to do nothing by complaining that they can't do everything.
    The police's permissive behavior is nothing new. In Dhaim's and Dwayat's Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, as in the Beduin settlements in the Negev and the Arab cities and villages in the Galilee, the police simply refuse to enforce the law. They do not patrol the streets. They do not arrest religious, educational and political leaders who solicit terrorism or incite hatred. They do not enforce building laws. They do not protect state and privately owned land from squatters. Today some 90 percent of Arab construction in Israel is carried out without permits. Whole towns in the Negev have been built on stolen state land. And the police do nothing.
    As a consequence of police inaction, thieves, smugglers, terror solicitors and other dangerous criminals are allowed to operate in the open. Fearing the wrath of human rights groups on the one hand and Arab rioters on the other, the police simply do not enforce Israeli law in the Arab sector.
    This police passivity manifests itself not only in times of relative calm but also in emergency situations. For instance, at both Mercaz Harav and on Jaffa Road, the police were inexcusably passive. In both attacks the terrorists were only stopped by citizens who took the initiative when the police failed to act.
    On Wednesday Dwayat killed two motorists and overturned a truck before a policeman and a security guard climbed into the cab of his bulldozer. And then, instead of shooting him, the policeman simply tried to restrain him. Due to the police's refusal to shoot, Dwayat killed 33-year-old Batsheva Unterman while the policeman was standing next to him in the bulldozer's cab. It was only the intervention of "M.," an unarmed IDF commando soldier on furlough, that ended the carnage.
    M. climbed onto the bulldozer, took the security guard's gun and shot Dwayat in the head three times. Another policeman only shot Dwayat after M. had already killed him.
    At Mercaz Harav, it took the police some 20 minutes to show up in force. Until then, only one police officer was at the scene. And as he heard the anguished cries of teenagers being murdered, he opted not to go in and protect them. He stood outside and did nothing. Dhaim was only stopped when yeshiva student Moshe Dadon and furloughed paratrooper Capt. David Shapira killed him. As luck or providence would have it, Shapira is M.'s brother-in-law.
    In failing to act against Arab Israeli lawlessness and the terror it engenders, the police are little different from the government. Like the police, the government turns a blind eye to the radicalization and lawlessness of Arab Israeli society. And when the unchallenged lawless and jihadist atmosphere leads inevitably to massacre, the government talks of how its hands are tied and makes angry, tough declarations not backed by policy. Then it quickly moves to change the subject.
    The government's refusal to form a coherent policy regarding the deteriorating situation in Israeli-Arab society was exposed at the Knesset on Wednesday. There, just as Dwayat was on his killing spree, the Knesset was scheduled to vote on two bills written by opposition lawmakers after the Mercaz Harav massacre. If passed, the bills will allow the government to revoke the citizenship of terrorists and their family members and prohibit the families of dead terrorists from publicly celebrating their actions.
    The government's Ministerial Committee on Legislation voted to oppose the bills some weeks ago. It only changed its mind in light of the massacre on Jaffa Road. As opposition leader and Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu noted on Thursday morning in an interview with Israel Radio, the government's support of the bills was pure political opportunism. The sudden change in its position made clear that the government has no policies, only postures.
    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak reacted to Wednesday's attack by loudly proclaiming their support for destroying Dwayat's home. But as Netanyahu noted, they are policy-makers, not spokesmen. Their job is to act, not to declaim about their preferences.
    And yet, making loud, crowd pleasing declarations is the only policy the government has for dealing with anything. Both Barak and Olmert know that in sovereign Israel it is legally impossible to simply destroy a house without due process. Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz is still trying to work out how to legally destroy Dhaim's home four months after he attacked. If Barak and Olmert really were interested in destroying terrorists' homes, they could pass a law explicitly empowering the government to do so.
    While the police could end the atmosphere of lawlessness by enforcing the laws already on the books, the government can take positive steps to reverse the trends toward radicalization of Israeli Arab society. It can pass regulations barring anti-Zionist propaganda in public school curricula and sanctioning the immediate firing of public school teachers who teach students to hate Israel. It can suspend government funding of municipalities and local councils that do not enforce building codes. It can set up well-paid community police comprised of loyal citizens. The government can prosecute Arab politicians and leaders who treat with the enemy for treason.
    But not only is the government doing none of these things, it is taking active steps to legitimize Israeli-Arab rejection of the State of Israel. So it is that far from barring the study of the myth of the so-called Nakba, or catastrophe of Israel's birth, in Arab schools, Education Minister Yuli Tamir is encouraging Israeli Jewish schools to teach the lie to their Jewish students. Rather than take action against Arab leaders who actively work to radicalize Israeli-Arab society and solicit terrorism, the government bends over backwards to appease these leaders in the name of multicultural pluralism.
    The government has not sufficed with seeking to appease Arab radicals by embracing their anti-Israeli propaganda as legitimate. It is also actively working to marginalize the sectors of Israeli society that support policies aimed at reversing the trend of Arab radicalization.
    M., the hero of Wednesday's attack, is case in point. M., a clearly motivated, resourceful and brave soldier, is 20 years old. At his age, he should have already been in the army for nearly two years. But he was only drafted four months ago. It turns out that the IDF didn't want him. Even as IDF commanders bemoan the dwindling draft rolls as more and more young men and women evade military service, the IDF fought for two years to keep M. out of its ranks.
    The IDF opposed M.'s service because in 2005 he was arrested for protesting against the withdrawal from Gaza. Charges were never filed against him. But the mere fact that he was arrested for opposing one of the stupidest and most disastrous government policies the IDF has ever implemented was sufficient to make him politically suspect.
    Then, too, by Thursday morning, unnamed government sources were warning that "right-wing extremists" were planning to start attacking Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods.
    It is far easier to attack imaginary enemies than to face real ones.
    It is possible that both Dhaim and Dwayat couldn't have been stopped. But it is certainly true that given the environment of lawlessness and governmental flaccidity in which they operated, there were no countervailing forces in their lives that might have led these evil men to have second thoughts about murdering innocent Israelis in the name of Allah.
    Political bluster will not prevent the next attack. There are policies that Israel can enact today that will make the option of mass murder less attractive to its Arab citizenry. But as Barak, Olmert and their colleagues have made clear, nothing will happen under the current government.

     


     

    Palestinian Tractor-Terrorism: Mainstream Not Renegade
    Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom #215, July 4, 2008
    by Yoram Ettinger


     1.  Hate-Education-Driven-Terrorism. The July 2, 2008 Palestinian Tractor-Terrorism constituted a precise Palestinian human-missile, guided by Palestinian hate-education, instituted in 1994 by Abu-Mazen, then Arafat’s first deputy, and proliferated via Abu Mazen’s current educational-religious-media infrastructures. K-12, and older, Palestinians are exposed systematically to school textbooks, sermons, editorials and news editions – controlled by Abu Mazen – which idolize homicide bombers, calling for the destruction of the “illegitimate, infidel” Jewish State. Hate-education (and not statements made to Western leaders and media) is the most authentic reflection of one’s ideology, vision and strategy. Hate-education constitutes the manufacturing line of terrorists.  Hate-education distinguishes between peaceful and violent societies. Hate-education is facilitated by foreign aid provided to Abu Mazen by the US, W. Europe and the UN.
     
    2.  Mainstream–Not Renegade-Terrorism.  The July 2, 2008 Palestinian Tractor-Terrorism is an expected derivative of a cultural-political-intellectual-educational-military environment – in the Arab world generally and in the PA particularly – which breeds lethal hatred toward Salman Rushdie the “apostate”, a European “infidel” cartoonist, the “infidel” Christian regime in Lebanon and the “infidel” Jewish State.  Mainstream Palestinian terrorists accord their families with Abu-Mazen’s “Martyr Allowances.” They are commemorated by PA monuments and soccer tournaments, and idolized by poems featured on Abu-Mazen-controlled TV and radio.
     
    3.  Hope-Not Despair-Driven-Palestinian Terrorism. The Palestinian Tractor-Terrorism, along with hundreds of foiled terrorist attempts and the barrage of Palestinian missiles, have taken place during the administration of the most Dovish Israeli Prime Minister. Since (Oslo) 1993, Israel provided Palestinians with an unprecedented hope, denied them by the Ottomans, British, Jordanians, Egyptians and Arab League. Israel imported PLO terrorists from oblivion in Yemen, Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon and Tunisia to the door steps of their intended Israeli victims, arming terrorists with missiles, ushering them to the White House and according them the Nobel Prize. The Palestinian response was strikingly lucid – instituting hate education! Palestinian terrorism has been adrenalized by the hope of Israeli vacillation, retreat and fatalism.  Palestinian terrorism has been energized, since the 1920s, by the existence – and not by the size – of the Jewish State.
     
    4.  Terrorism Rewarded. The 1993 Oslo Accord has been perceived, by Palestinian and other terrorists, as a reward to the role model of hijacking, global terrorism and inter-Arab back-stabbing (Egypt – 1950s, Syria – 1966, Jordan – 1970, Lebanon – 1975 until 1982 and Kuwait – 1990). Since 1993, Palestinian hate-education, non-compliance, terrorism and homicide bombing has been answered by further Israeli territorial concessions, bolstered US support for a Palestinian state and more generous US, W. European and international foreign aid. Palestinians have realized that not only can they get away with murder; but, they can be rewarded for murder!
     
    5.  Eroded Deterrence Fuels Terrorism. The Palestinian Tractor-Terrorism has been triggered, also, by the slackening of Israel’s posture of deterrence since 1993.  Subordinating counter-terrorism to the “Peace Process,” has hand-cuffed the IDF, played into the hands of terrorists, undermining the cause of durable peace. Israel’s policy of retreat, co-existence with terrorism, ceasefires, subcontracting counter-terrorism to the PA (and international forces), striving for agreements with those who systematically and violently violate all agreements, and reliance on retaliation and defense has produced a protracted war of attrition, which constitutes a wet dream for terrorists and a lethal threat to Israel and to peace. The resurrection of Israel’s posture of deterrence – which constitutes a prerequisite for a successful war on terrorism – mandates pre-emptive, preventive, comprehensive offensive at the breeding ground of terrorism, focusing on the destruction of the ideological, financial and political infrastructures, which direct, feed and brainwash homicide-bombers. It requires a realization that every square inch conceded to the Palestinians has become a platform for hate-education and terrorism, serving as fuel – and not water – to the fire of terrorism.
     
    6.  Anti-US Terrorism Exacerbated. The unprecedented Palestinian terrorism since Oslo 1993 - culminating with the July 2, 2008 Tractor Terrorism - has corresponded to the unprecedented anti-US Islamic terrorism since the 1993 first attempt on the Twin Towers. The more substantial Palestinian independence, the more intensified is Palestinian and global terrorism. Palestinian terrorism was at low ebb on the eve of Oslo, catapulting to its peak since Oslo. US support of an independent state to the role-model of terrorism and hate-education has been construed, by anti-US Islamic terrorists, as weakness and reward to terrorism. As evidenced by Abu-Mazen’s education, religious and media systems, such a state would doom Jordan – a US ally – to oblivion, it would energize anti-US terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan (which was intensified following Israel’s “Disengagement”), it would provide Iran, Russia, China and North Korea with a strategic foothold in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, it would add another anti-US vote at the UN, it would bolster terrorism against weak Gulf regimes, further destabilizing the Mideast, and it would reward those who oppress Christians in the Bethlehem area.
     
     

     


     

    The Art of War: Part I
     
    Prof. Paul Eidelberg
     
    Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written about 500 B . C . E . , is the oldest military treatise in the world .   Even now, after twenty-five centuries, the basic principles of that treatise remain a valuable guide for the conduct of war .  
     
    Perhaps Sun Tzu may be of intere st to the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, in view of the Arab Terrori st War which erupted in September 2000 .   Since then more than 1,600 Jews have been murdered and many thousands more have been wounded and maimed by Arab terrori st s .
     
    Referring to the IDF’s limited response to this Arab terrorism, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, “self-re st raint is st rength”!  At fir st glance one might suspect that Mr . Sharon had been inspired by the Sermon on the Mount .   It may well be, however, that he derived that dictum from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—or rather, from a misreading of that treatise .   Sun Tzu would have a general exhibit, at fir st , “the coyness of a maiden”—to draw out the enemy—but thereafter he would have him emulate the fierceness of a lion .  
     
    Instead, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is emulating a pussy cat.  Instead of destroying the enemy—especially Arab arrogance—he is following the policy of self-restraint, allowing the haters of Israel more time to denounce the Jewish state and halt its offensive.  If Olmert had a stitch of courage, he would order the IDF to demolish the enemy to an extent that seared into Arab consciousness the lesson: Don’t mess with Israel .
     
    Of course, when the forces of the enemy exceed your own or occupy superior ground, then self-re st raint is prudence.  But when this situation is reversed, self-re st raint is weakness .   In fact, Sun Tzu goes so far as to say, “If fighting is reasonably sure to result in victory, then you mu st fight, even though the ruler forbids it . ”  This means that the IDF, more precisely, Chief of General Staff should disregard the timidity of the Olmert government and de st roy the enemy!
     
    Sun Tzu insists on this principle .   In referring to various ways in which “a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army,” hence on his people, Sun Tzu cautions a ruler again st “attempting to govern an army in the same way as he admini st ers a kingdom . ”  Although “In war, the general receives his commands from the sovereign,” “he will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign . ”  Sun Tzu emphasizes that there are even occasions when the “commands of the sovereign mu st not be obeyed . ”
     
    Of course, this would violate the principle of military subordination to civilian authority—a principle Israel ’s political elites would proclaim to preserve their democratioc reputation, especially in the United States .   Never mind Jewish casualties or sacrificing Jewish soldiers on the alter of PR .
     
    Sun Tzu did not have to worry about journalists and humani st s who make the rational conduct of war impossible, and who therefore prolong the killing .    When U . S . Admiral Bull Halsey said,  “Hit hard, hit fa st , hit often,” he was merely echoing Sun Tzu’s advice.  
     
    We read in the Torah, “When you go forth to battle against your enemies” (Deut . 20:1) .   The sages ask:  “What is meant by ‘again st your enemies’”?  They answer:  “God said, ‘Confront them as enemies .   Just as they show you no mercy, so should you not show them any mercy’”
     
    Sun Tzu would therefore be appalled by the alacrity with with Israeli governments engage in cease fires or “hudnas,” which allow Arab terrori st s to regroup and accumulate more and deadlier weapons,   Sun Tzu calls for the uninterrupted attack .   He unequivocally opposes a protracted war: “There is no in st ance,” he says, “of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare . ”  But protracted war is the inevitable result of the supposedly humanitarian policy of self-re st raint pursued by Israeli governments .   And notice how Washington is always preaching self-retraint— Hiroshima and Dresden notwithstanding.
     
     
    The Art of War: Part II
     
    Prof. Paul Eidelberg
     
     
    Israel some years ago, while teaching officers at Bar-Ilan University , I learned that Israel ’s Command and Staff College did not teach Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), one of the greate st military scientists.  It shows, as it showed so glaringly in the Second War in Lebanon .  
     
    Clausewitz’s classic On War is as valid for insurrgent warfare at is is for nuclear war. For example, contrary to democratic humanists (including not a few general officers of the Israel Defense Forces), Clausewitz warns,  “… in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the wor st . ”  
     
    The IDF has nonegtheless been imbued with the absurd principle that “self-restraint is strength”!   Imagine winning a war against Jihadists by adhering to this principle.  Yet this has been the guiding principle of one Israeli government after another, at least since Arafat’s Terror War broke out in September 2000, a war still going on eight years later.
     
    It’s quite obvious that Israeli governments lack the will to win this war: to utterly vanquish the enemy in the shorte st possible time .  It’s obvious that Israeli governments do not under st and the basic principles of war and therefore multiply the number of Jewish casualties .   Let’s elaborate on the teachings of Clausewitz .
     
    Clausewitz defines war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will .   Violence is the means; submission of the enemy to our will the ultimate object . ”  For as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action .
     
    The ultimate object of war is political .   To attain this object fully, the enemy mu st be disarmed .   Disarming the enemy “becomes therefore the immediate object of ho st ilities .   It takes the place of the final object and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations . ”  In other words, fir st disarm the enemy, subject him to your will .   The political comes later.
     
     
    Clausewitz warns: “Philanthropi st s may readily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War .   However plausible this may appear, st ill it is an error which mu st be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the wor st .” 
     
    Not that Clausewitz advocates indiscriminate slaughter .   He warns, however, that “he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, mu st obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application . ”  “Let us not hear of Generals who conquer without bloodshed .   If a bloody slaughter is a horrible sight, then that is a ground for paying more respect to War, but not for making the sword we wear blunter and blunter by degrees from feelings of humanity, until someone st eps in with one that is sharp and lops off the arm from our body . ” 
     
    It follows that a Governmment that regards moderation or self-re st raint as a principle of war is suffering from mental degeneracy, and that any general who passively obeys such a government is a coward who cares not for the welfare of his soldiers or his people.  ASny general worthy of his country’s uniform knows that to defeat the enemy his power of resi st ence mu st be utterly crushed .   Period.
     
    Meanwhile, the prime minister—if he is a statesman and not a hack politcian—must solidify the confidence and determination of his people .   The pelople must believe in the ju st ice of their country's cause and under st and the importance of victory as well as the consequences of defeat .   The st atesman mu st display wisdom, decisiveness, and clarity .
     
    Above all the st atesman mu st have, in his own mind, a clear view of his po st -war goal or political object .   The political object will determine the aim of military force as well as the amount of force or effort to be used .
     
    Here is where Olmert, forllowing Sharon , spells disa st er .   His political object is a Pale st inian st ate . For which he needs a “negotiating partner”—Mahmoud Abbas being his current choice .   It was because he advocated Pale st inia  st ate for which he needed a “negotiating partner” that Sharon did not de st roy the entire Arab terrori st nework in Judea, Samaria , and Gaza .   This is why he employed limited means: targeted killings and de st ruction of a few Arab houses and bomb factories—but never a full-scale attack to win the war and so deva st ate the enemy as to eradicate the enemy’s desire to wage war for a hundred years—as the Allied powers did in Germany and the United States in Japan .
     
    Had Sharon de st royed the enemy, as could have been done in two weeks after 9/11, any international howl that might erupt would have subsided in two weeks, and the people of Israel would once again walk upright, proud and confident in Israel ’s future .  
     
    Epilogue:
     
    Sophisticates speak of “post-heroic warfare” and the need to win hearts and minds.  Whose hearts and minds?   We need statesmen and generals who care infintely more about the hearts and minds of our own people than the hearts and minds of our enemies, incliuding those misleading called “civilians.” 
     
    Again I am reminded of General George S . Patton, the most feared, most successful, and most erudite American gene ral in the Second World War, who wrote:   “When the enemy wavers throw caution to the winds… A violent pursuit will finish the show .   Caution leads to a new battle . ”   “War means fighting .   Fighting means killing … Find the enemy, attack him, invade his territory and raise hell while you are at it . ” 
     
    Audacity! Audacity! Audacity! was the motto of Frederick the Great which Patton made his own .    The motto among Israel ’s ruling elites is Caution! Caution! Caution! — or should I say Timidity! Timidity! Timidity!

     


     

    PRO-ISRAEL LEADERSHIP NEEDED
    by David Basch
    July 6, 2008


           "Where there is no vision, the people perish"
                                            -- Proverbs 29:18

    I guess we can thank the Israeli leadership for demonstrating how true
    the Bible's insight is, as this clearly obsessed universalist
    leadership leads Israel's Jews into the furnaces of today's Nazis, the
    Arabs.

    When I use the term "obsessed" I kid not. For the Israeli leadership
    is indeed pathologically obsessed with an ideology that comes with its
    own false conceptions of actual human personality that thinks that its
    own universalist ideals must necessarily be shared by the Islamists,
    who speak in the lingo of such universalism to make Israeli leaders
    salivate but whose actual goal is destruction of Israel and its
    universalism and the establishment of Muslim Arab particularism.

    Hence, for all the virtues of Israel -- its technological excellence,
    moral striving for justice and mercy -- its flaws pull it down,
    changing these to vices. For example, the technology is used to
    support the Arab enemy in its battle to destroy Israel and the
    morality becomes a meaningless hollow shell that reveals itself by its
    injustice, callousness, and virulent hatred directed toward their own
    clear visioned Jewish brothers that wish to preserve the Israeli
    nation. This moralistic leftist obsession is the result of deep
    personality flaws, perhaps one part Stockholm Syndrome -- a reflection
    of the real fear in leftist Jewish hearts that make them side with the
    views of the enemy -- and the rest being a warped "over righteousness
    and an overly wise" attitude that blinds them to reality and makes
    them a laughing stock in the eyes of the Arab enemy and gives that
    enemy great hope that it is they who will eventually win the war
    against the Jews as the rollback of Israel over the past decades
    clearly show.

    Those with a smattering of touch with biblical wisdom will recognize
    that that Ecclesiastes warned that a sure recipe for self destruction
    is "over righteousness" and being "overly wise." The anti-Bible crowd
    apply the "over righteousness" to strict religious observance but it
    is really directed against the kind of character that is not content
    to be, for example, "kind to strangers" but must make the "stranger"
    so much at home while he is still a "stranger" that the "stranger"
    takes over and stamps the stranger's values on the society and
    squeezes out that of the host.

    Or another and better illustration is that when you defeat your enemy
    and his designs, you are not content to have defeated him but must
    also try to win his love -- mission impossible -- by picking the enemy
    up at your own expense and giving him the chance to recoup and try to
    destroy you all over again.

    It is here that Ecclesiastes' warning about being "overly wise" comes
    in since this is not directed at "being wise," a virtue, but overdoing
    it by thinking you are able to understand and predict everything --
    which you can't -- and so venture far out on a limb that brings you
    crashing down.  Here is the half baked wisdom of the leftists that
    imagine that their own materialism encompasses the thinking of the
    Arabs, who are really involved in a spiritual passion of destroying
    the hated Jewish nation in its midst, and so the Arabs are unaffected
    by the material largesse that Israel conveys on them, which does not
    change their hearts to friendship, but, quite the contrary, to more
    intense hatred and murder of the Jewish enemy.

    But telling about all this does nothing to affect the warped
    Leftist Israeli leadership that has been warned by many, many voices
    for many decades about the disasters that the Israel leadership is
    inflicting on their people -- all of which have come true in
    spades. You see, the personal character of this leadership is
    unaffected by warnings and reality in the same way that the
    Nazis could not see another reality and needed to be defeated and
    destroyed before something new could evolve. Note, even when the Nazis
    were going down into defeat they still made killing Jews a priority.

    The same is true of today's Muslim-Arab Nazis directed against Israel
    and the Jewish people. These Muslim-Arab Nazis must also be
    resoundingly defeated if they are to ever change their ways, not
    reeducated in the way the Israeli leftists are obsessed in
    trying to do and failing at at every step. But this type of obsession
    is the mark of the Israeli leadership that embraces a killing form of
    idealistic madness that ends up destroying the Israeli nation that it
    is supposed to protect.

    So where does Israel go from here? Clearly, unless the existing elites
    of Israel are brought down, despite its defenses given to them by
    warped institutions of the Supreme Court that is part and parcel of
    the madness and that of the Israeli press that has long ago been
    infested with agents of the enemy, bought and paid for. The only way
    this can be done, it seems to me, is for a popular pro-Israel leader
    to emerge with a captivating vision for the country that can rally the
    masses of Israelis to his side that can effectively tie up the forces
    of Israel's government in a series of paralyzing general strikes and
    sweep these elites from power.

    Can it be Netanyahu? I once thought so, but he -- sharing the madness
    of Israeli leftists -- with zealous alacrity betrayed the people that
    elected him. I am not sure that he has changed his character. But can
    it be that in Israel's 6 or 7 millions there are none who can fill
    this bill?

    Israel is coming to the crossroads. Those who witnessed the first
    Holocaust and the early soothers that lulled many to sleep in Europe
    and America, trusting that God will do their work for them, know how
    bad things can get if responsible human action is not taken.
    Let us hope that responsible human action in Israel will not fail
    at this time, the way it did 60 years before.

     


     

    Our World: The media and enduring narrative
    Jul. 8, 2008
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    Last Wednesday's terror attack in Jerusalem was unique. Due to the fact that Husam Taysir Dwayat bulldozed his victims outside of Jerusalem Capitol Studios where many of the foreign television networks have their offices, his was one of only two attacks to have been caught live on camera.
     
    The only other attack which was filmed was the lynching of IDF reservists Yosef Avrahami and Vadim Novesche at a Palestinian police station in Ramallah on October 12, 2000. That attack, which showed the mob basking in the blood of the two men, was filmed by an Italian camerawoman from the privately owned Mediaset television station. The attack last Wednesday was filmed by the BBC whose correspondent Tim Franks witnessed the carnage from the outset through his office window.
     
    Their film documentation is not the only things those two attacks share. The lynch in Ramallah and the attack last Wednesday are also the only attacks that elicited abject apologies by otherwise arrogant media giants. In the aftermath of the lynch, Riccardo Cristiano, Italy's state-owned RAI network's correspondent in Israel, wrote a groveling apology to the Palestinian Authority in which he went to painstaking lengths to explain that it was not his network, but his competitor that published the footage.
     
    In the letter which the PA published in its Al Hayat al Jadida daily, Cristiano fawned, "We always respect the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for [journalistic] work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work. We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We will not do such a thing."
     
    ON FRIDAY, the BBC published an apology for broadcasting the footage of Wednesday's carnage. The film showed an unarmed, furloughed IDF commando climb onto Dwayat's bulldozer just after Dwayat murdered Batsheva Ungerman by crushing her car. It showed the soldier grabbing a gun belonging to a security guard who was unsuccessfully trying to restrain Dwayat and shooting Dwayat three times in the head. The film did not show Dwayat or any of his victims dying. What it showed was the terror of the wounded, Dwayat's murderousness and the soldier's heroism.
    Yet, the network declared, "It's not normally the BBC's policy to show the moment of death on screen. These are always extremely difficult decisions to make. However, on reflection, we felt that the pictures featured on Wednesday's News at Ten did not strike the right editorial balance between the demands of accuracy and the potential impact on the program's audience."
     
    At first glance, it is not at all clear what the BBC was talking about. Its film was a journalistic achievement. Through it, tens of millions of people worldwide were able to see for themselves what a terror attack against innocents looks like from a fairly sterile angle. What did the BBC have to apologize for?
     
    In this case, as in the case of the lynching eight years ago, the reason the BBC apologized is not because the film's images were too gruesome, but because it strayed from the accepted narratives of the Palestinian war against Israel. To maintain the narratives, "the right editorial balance between the demands of accuracy and the potential impact on the program's audience," is one that engenders the belief that Israel is either morally indistinguishable from the Palestinians, or that Israel is morally inferior to the Palestinians.
     
    The metaphor for the first narrative is the so-called "cycle of violence." The BBC itself spelled out this narrative in the aftermath of the lynching in Ramallah. In a program called, When Peace Died, broadcast in November 2000, the BBC explained, "Two images captured the hatred that has destroyed the peace process in the Middle East. Mohammed al-Dura, the boy from Gaza, shielded by his father but still dying under a hail of bullets fired by Israeli soldiers and the lynching and brutal murder of two Israeli reservists by a Palestinian mob."
     
    The metaphor for the second narrative is the Holocaust. It was perhaps made most explicitly early on by Catherine Nay, a well-known news anchor from Europe1 network. In late 2000 Nay declared, "The death of Muhammad [al-Dura] cancels out, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air from the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto."
     
    THE STORY of Muhammad al-Dura plays a central role for both narratives. On September 30, 2000, France 2 public television network's bureau chief in Israel Charles Enderlin aired a 57-second, heavily edited film which he proclaimed portrayed then 12year-old al-Dura being killed by IDF forces at Netzarim Junction in Gaza. France 2 distributed the film for free to the global media and al Dura's image became the emblem of the Palestinian war against Israel. It directly incited anti-Jewish violence in Israel and throughout the world.
    Questions about the veracity of the France 2 account arose immediately. An IDF investigation launched by then OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia proved through ballistic evidence that it was physically impossible for IDF forces to have even shot - much less killed - al-Dura. Over the ensuing years, a handful of journalists and researchers produced a wealth of evidence demonstrating that Enderlin's story was false.
     
    One of the researchers was a media critic named Philippe Karsenty. He asserted that the film was a hoax on his Web site Media Ratings and dared Enderlin and France 2 to sue him for libel while demanding that they release the 27 minutes of film they claimed they had of the September 30, 2000 incident at Netzarim Junction.
     
    While refusing to release the footage, Enderlin and France 2 did sue Karsenty for libel. In late 2006, after receiving a letter of recommendation for Enderlin from then French president Jacques Chirac, and in spite of the reams of evidence supporting his claim that Karsenty presented at the trial, the court convicted Karsenty. Karsenty appealed the ruling.
     
    The appellate court ordered Enderlin and France 2 to produce the unedited footage. Although he refused to show the footage in its entirety, from the 19 minutes of rushes that Enderlin did present, three things became obvious. First, the IDF could not have killed al-Dura. Second, the footage showed Palestinians staging scenes of fighting with imaginary IDF forces. And third, the footage showed no evidence that al-Dura had been shot or that he died that day at Netzarim Junction. The judge overturned Karsenty's conviction.
    IT MIGHT have been thought that the French, Israeli and international media which had for seven years supported Enderlin against the small band of independent investigators would finally abandon him. So too, it might have been thought that after seven years of defending an indefensible piece of journalistic malpractice Enderlin would finally own up to his misdeed. But the opposite occurred.
     
    In Israel, leading left-wing commentators like Gideon Levy, and Tom Segev in Ha'aretz, Arad Nir from Channel 2 and Larry Derfner from The Jerusalem Post accused Karsenty and his allies of waging a witch hunt against Enderlain to advance their political agendas. In France, the media initially ignored the story.
     
    Then, less than a week after the verdict, the Who's Who of the rather large anti-Israeli branch of the French media published a petition in the left-wing Le Nouvel Observateur decrying Karsenty's exhaustively documented dossier against the al-Dura story as a "seven-year hate-filled smear campaign." In all, some 300 reporters and hundreds more notables signed the petition. For their part, France 2 and Enderlin announced their intention to appeal the ruling to the French Supreme Court.
     
    In her account of the court case and its aftermath in the Weekly Standard, French journalist Anne-Elisabeth Moutet attributes the French media's reaction to what she sees as a uniquely French practice of never apologizing for misdeeds.
     
    There is doubtlessly some truth to this. But arrogance is not the unique trait of the French media and elite. And given the near universality of media arrogance, how can one explain the BBC's quick apology for its broadcast of its footage from the attack in Jerusalem last week? And how can one explain Cristiano's obsequious letter to the PA in 2000?
     
    THE ANSWER of course is that arrogance alone cannot account for the media's defense of Enderlin. If Enderlin had been caught broadcasting a libelous report about the Palestinians, the media and France 2 would have cast him off immediately. But here there is more at stake than one man's reputation. Enderlin didn't create the narrative of Palestinian innocence or at least moral equivalence. In filing the clearly false story of al-Dura, Enderlin was advancing a cause that all his anti-Israel colleagues in France, Israel and worldwide have embraced. If he goes down, their indispensable narrative is liable to go down with him.
     
    Over the past eight years of the jihad against Israel, among countless examples, three instances of open media collusion with Israel's enemies stand out for their strategic impact on the course of events. First there is the al-Dura affair. It was followed by the mythical "Jenin massacre" in April 2002. That in turn was followed by the fabricated "massacre" at Kafar Kana in Lebanon in July 2006.
     
    The al-Dura story solidified the Palestinian narrative of victimization by Israel just months after they rejected statehood and peace at Camp David. When the so-called Jenin massacre was reported in April 2002, the IDF was in the midst of Operation Defensive Shield. Just before the Palestinians began making allegations of an Israeli massacre, IDF forces uncovered documentary evidence proving that the Palestinian war against Israel was run by the PA and Yassir Arafat. By fabricating the massacre, the PA was saved from being delegitimized as an actor in Washington. The Israeli peace camp was also resuscitated from its death throes.
     
    As the Winograd Commission documented in its final report on the Second Lebanon War, the media reports of the fabricated massacre of Lebanese civilians by an IAF bomber in Kafr Kana in South Lebanon caused US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to end US support for an Israeli military victory over Iran's Lebanese proxy and to pressure Israel to accept a cease-fire leaving Hizbullah intact.
     
    Even as analyses of the reports from Jenin and Kafar Kana like the reports on the al-Dura affair clearly demonstrated that the IDF had committed no atrocities, the distorted footage put out by the media made it impossible for Israel to defend itself in the court of public opinion. Like the al-Dura affair, the media's open collusion with the Palestinians in Jenin and Hizbullah in Kafr Kana prolonged false narratives predicated on Israeli aggression which were about to be finally laid to rest.
     
    So it is not merely arrogance that makes Enderlin and his colleagues unwilling to come clean anymore than it was humility that made the BBC and Cristiani apologize. Depressingly, what all of this illustrates is that the media will only give us the information they wish us to have. And that information's relationship to the truth is arbitrary at best.

     


     

    Hizbullah's Triumph:
    The Long-Term Implications of Prisoner Exchanges
     
    Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison
     
     
    ·         On June 29, 2008, the Israeli Cabinet approved a prisoner exchange with the Lebanese Shi'a terrorist organization Hizbullah. The deal includes the return of the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, two Israeli soldiers unlawfully kidnapped on the eve of the Second Lebanon War (2006).
     
    ·         Prisoner exchange is governed by international humanitarian law as detailed in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions (1949). At the end of a conflict the states implement an exchange of captured soldiers. In the interim, the captured soldiers are entitled to the status of Prisoners of War, who must be provided with adequate facilities and care as well as communication with the outside world.
     
    ·         Israel's enemies, using proxy guerilla organizations such as the Iranian-proxy group Hizbullah, operate outside the legal framework of the laws of war - routinely committing war crimes such as indiscriminate attacks (the deliberate targeting of civilians as such) and perfidy (disguising combatants as protected individuals such as civilians). The organizations' fighters are unlawful combatants who are not entitled to the protected status of POWs, and are subject to prosecution as war criminals.
     
    ·         By exchanging prisoners with the proxy organizations as if they were law-abiding states, Israel can be seen as upgrading the status of the organizations' unlawful combatants from terrorists and war criminals. Such exchanges afford them the same rights as lawful soldiers, without demanding from their leaders the reciprocal obligations. At the same time, Israel downgrades the rights of its own captured soldiers by overlooking the organizations' systematic depravation of POW rights for Israeli soldiers under the Geneva Conventions.
     
    ·         When Israel makes exchanges that are unequal, it is only natural for Israel's enemies to view the illegal kidnapping of Israeli civilians and soldiers, and the violation of their legal rights in captivity, as an extremely profitable activity. Furthermore, because Israel eschews the death penalty, Israel keeps terrorists alive in Israeli custody and thereby inadvertently creates a "bait" situation where terrorist groups attempt to free their men by ransoming newly-kidnapped Israelis.
     
    ·         The status quo for prisoner exchanges harms Israeli deterrence, creates an appalling precedent that encourages further kidnappings, increases the possibility that our captured soldiers will be mistreated or even murdered in custody, and rewards imprisoned terrorists by releasing them early to claim new victims. While the return of the soldiers, regardless of their condition, fulfills an important central value of Israeli society - that the State of Israel will do its utmost to recover soldiers behind enemy lines - nonetheless, it poses serious questions that must be addressed before such exchanges are considered in the future.
     
     
    On June 29, 2008, the Israeli Cabinet approved a prisoner exchange with the Lebanese Shi'a terrorist organization Hizbullah. The deal includes the return of the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, two Israeli soldiers unlawfully kidnapped on the eve of the Second Lebanon War (2006).1 Goldwasser and Regev were held thereafter in violation of the unanimously-approved UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for their unconditional release.2
     
    The exchange will provide the Goldwasser and Regev families with much needed closure after an agonizing two-year wait during which Hizbullah, contrary to international law, refused to provide information on the health of the soldiers to either their families or to the International Committee of the Red Cross. While the return of the soldiers, regardless of their condition, fulfills an important central value of Israeli society - that the State of Israel will do its utmost to recover soldiers behind enemy lines - nonetheless it poses serious questions that must be addressed before such exchanges are considered in the future.
     
     
    Terms of the Deal
     
    Under the terms of the exchange, Israel will receive:
     
    • The bodies of IDF soldiers Goldwasser and Regev, who were killed by the same terrorist organization that is now marketing their cadavers. 
    • A Hizbullah "report" on the disappearance of Israel Air Force navigator Ron Arad, whose plane was shot down over Lebanon in 1986. Israel is said to be dissatisfied with the contents of the report because it does not provide any new information on Arad's fate.3 
    • The remaining body parts of IDF soldiers killed in the Second Lebanon War. This is a speculative endeavor at best, given Hizbullah's ghoulish practice of gathering Israeli body parts to use as bargaining chips.4
     
    In return, Israel has undertaken to:
     
    • Release four captured Hizbullah terrorists and the bodies of dozens of infiltrators and terrorists including eight members of Hizbullah. 
    • Release Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar who was serving four life sentences for the cold-blooded murder of four Israelis in the coastal town of Nahariya in 1979. As a reflection of the specific horror of Kuntar's crimes, Israel refused to release him for decades, despite repeated demands to do so. 
    • Deliver information, if it has any, on four Iranian diplomats who went missing at the hands of a Lebanese Christian militia in Beirut during the 1982 Lebanon War. 
    • Release an unspecified number of Palestinian terrorists after the implementation of the deal.5
     
     
    Prisoner Exchange in International Law
     
    Prisoner exchange is not a new phenomenon. It has been practiced by warring states for centuries. In the modern age these arrangements are governed by international humanitarian law as detailed in the III Geneva Convention (1949)6 and Article 133 of the IV Geneva Convention (1949).7 Within this framework the approach to prisoner exchanges is clear. At the end of a conflict the states implement an exchange of captured soldiers - each state returning the soldiers it captured. In the interim, the captured soldiers are entitled to the status of Prisoners of War (POWs), and each state must provide the POWs with adequate facilities and care as well as communication with the outside world.8
     
    For the first few decades of its existence, Israel made exchanges with its Arab enemies of the sort contemplated by the Geneva Conventions following the cessation of each war. For example, during the 1948 War of Independence a total of 882 Israelis were captured by the various Arab forces and Israel captured a total of 6,344 Arab fighters.9 Through the process of negotiation, nearly all captured POWs on both sides were repatriated.
     
    However, the rules of the game have since changed. In particular, Israel's enemies have mutated from using national armies as their principal modus operandi to using proxy guerilla organizations such as the Iranian-proxy group Hizbullah. These surrogate organizations operate outside the legal framework of the laws of war - routinely committing war crimes such as indiscriminate attacks (the deliberate targeting of civilians as such) and perfidy (disguising combatants as protected individuals such as civilians). The extra-legal behavior of the proxy organizations has two implications for the law applying to prisoners taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts. On the one hand, the organizations themselves illegally defy the laws of war by depriving Israeli POWs of their protected rights such as the right to contact Red Cross representatives and communicate with their families. On the other hand, the organizations' fighters are unlawful combatants who are not entitled to the protected status of POWs, and are subject to prosecution as war criminals. Indeed, these organizations fall under the definition of terrorist groups under such instruments as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and Israel - like other states - is legally obliged to take a variety of steps to foil the terrorists' activities and bring them to justice.
     
    By exchanging prisoners with the proxy organizations as if they were law-abiding states, Israel can be seen as upgrading the status of the organizations' unlawful combatants from terrorists and war criminals, giving them the same rights as lawful soldiers, without demanding from them the reciprocal obligations. At the same time, Israel downgrades the rights of its own captured soldiers by overlooking the organizations' systematic depravation of POW rights for Israeli soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. The damage this does to both international law and the international criminal justice system is considerable.
     
    Contemporaneously, out of a sense of moral obligation to its kidnapped soldiers and their grief-stricken families, successive Israeli governments have negotiated deals in which Israel released large numbers of unlawful combatants (terrorists) in return for a few living soldiers, several cadavers, or even body parts. An early example was the Jabril deal of 1985 in which 1,150 convicted terrorists were exchanged for three Israeli soldiers. This disproportionate ratio is not just a matter of numbers but also a discrepancy of kind - the released Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists are war criminals, while the Israelis are lawful combatants who are entitled to POW status if captured, or civilians immune from kidnapping altogether. International law entitles, and perhaps even requires, Israel to put on trial and punish captured terrorists once they are convicted. Because Israel eschews the death penalty, Israel keeps terrorists alive in Israeli custody and thereby inadvertently creates a "bait" situation where terrorist groups attempt to free their men by ransoming newly-kidnapped Israelis.
     
     
    What Does Jewish Law Say About Ransoming Captives?
     
    An interesting parallel to Israel's dilemma under international law can be found in Jewish law. Regrettably, the ransoming of captives is not a new problem for the Jewish people. Over the ages, there are countless examples of Jewish prisoners held for ransom. Perhaps the best known example is that of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293 CE) who, having been imprisoned by Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph I, instructed the Jewish community not to pay the high ransom demanded for his release in the belief that acquiescence to the ransom would encourage the kidnap of additional prominent Jews.10 Rabbi Meir ultimately died in prison. His remains were retrieved some years later by a wealthy Jewish individual prepared to meet the ransom payment. Had he been alive, Rabbi Meir may well have rejected the kindness of this individual, viewing the issue as a matter of principle.
     
    Rabbi Meir's approach has its source in the Mishnah which rules that one does not ransom captives for more than their value because of Tikkun Olam.11 The Talmud disputes the rationale for the Mishnah's stipulation.12 One view is that it is intended to prevent the impoverishment of the Jewish community which would otherwise make extortionate ransom payments; the other is to avoid providing an incentive to the kidnappers to continue in their ways. Both Maimonides13 and the Shulchan Aruch14 adopt the second rationale. While both maintain that there is no greater mitzvah than the redemption of captives, ultimately, public security considerations take precedence when evaluating whether to pay a ransom.15 Interestingly, Tosafot maintain that where there is a danger to life, captives may be redeemed for more than their value, but this position has not been codified.16
     
    Application of Jewish law to contemporary prisoner exchanges is not straightforward. Two questions are particularly difficult to resolve. The first is how to establish the value of a captured soldier. The second, related question is how to apply Jewish law where the ransom payment consists of convicted terrorists instead of financial capital. In classical times, the question of value could readily be resolved by resort to the slave market or the market rate for the ransom of non-Jewish captives,17 but the question today is obviously far more complex. Moreover, as the payment consists of convicted terrorists, the state must engage in an unenviable balancing act, weighing the rights of the individual against the security needs of the country. What is clear, however, is that as a general rule, captives should not be redeemed for more than their value if it is reasonably believed that paying the ransom will increase kidnappings and thereby pose a threat to the public. In fact, former Israel Defense Forces Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren was opposed to lopsided prisoner exchanges, noting that the safety of one or a few Jews in captivity does not take precedence over the safety of the entire public.18
     
    A growing number of senior defense and security experts, including the heads of the Mossad and the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), believe that the "more than fair value" test has once again proven relevant.19 As Israelis lacking any family or other connection to the Goldwasser/Regev families, we are convinced that the current skewed deal threatens the public interest, undermines Israel's ability to defend its legal rights and carry out its legal duties, and could threaten Israel's strategic objectives. The optimal position, of course, is to rely on military action to free captured soldiers and/or civilians as in the famous Entebbe rescue.20 If such a rescue is not a viable option, any negotiations should be conducted within the context of national security objectives.
     
     
    The Effect of Unequal Exchanges
     
    When Israel makes exchanges that are unequal, it is only natural for Israel's enemies to view the illegal kidnapping of Israeli civilians and soldiers, and the violation of their legal rights in captivity, as an extremely profitable activity. These exchanges present Israel as willing to concede all its legal rights and to accommodate any and all demands of terrorist organizations. Additionally, by bestowing undeserved largesse upon terrorist groups like Hizbullah, these exchanges strengthen that group's leverage as a political actor in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and enhance its support on the Arab street.21 Hizbullah has been able to successfully negotiate the release of a celebrated Lebanese terrorist, extract information on four missing Iranian diplomats, and secure the release of an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners.
     
    The Goldwasser/Regev deal - as a deviation from the Geneva Conventions model - discourages compliance with international humanitarian law, harms Israeli deterrence, encourages future kidnappings, and endangers the lives of those who may be taken hostage by Hizbullah or another terrorist group. The value Israel places on a single life is laudable, but its translation into a policy of capitulation to terrorist kidnappers' demands magnifies the already grossly inflated price of prisoner exchanges. For terrorist organizations, kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians are valuable and relatively cheaply-acquired bargaining chips to bring home their terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails. As Yoram Shachar, the brother of policeman Eliahu Shachar who was murdered in a terrorist attack involving Kuntar, said: "The release today is the kidnapping of tomorrow."22
     
    Moreover, given that Israel has traded hundreds of terrorists for Israeli bodies and even body parts, there is very little incentive for the terrorists to uphold any sort of humanitarian standards in their treatment of kidnapped Israeli soldiers or civilians or, for that matter, to keep them alive at all. Indeed, Dr. Boaz Ganor, the Executive Director of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, has noted that Israel should never have agreed to trade captured terrorists for dead IDF soldiers because it undermines any motivation to feed, guard, medically treat, or otherwise do whatever is necessary to keep future Israeli captives alive and well.23
     
    In this context, it should be recalled that the Goldwasser/Regev deal does nothing for other Israeli soldiers missing in action including Rahamim Alsheikh, Yosef Fink, and Zachary Baumel who disappeared in the 1982 Lebanon War.24 Perhaps knowledge of their whereabouts is part of Hizbullah's strategic reserve of "reports" and body parts to be utilized at some later date to liberate additional terrorist murderers from well-deserved imprisonment. By using so much of its leverage to close the Goldwasser/Regev deal, Israel's future ability to release other Israeli prisoners is sharply diminished.25
     
    Israel's capitulation in the Goldwasser/Regev deal makes the terrorist organizations appear strong and successful and, thus, encourages additional support, recruitment, and donations to the organizations. This is not something new. Some analysts say the first Intifada was the direct result of the Jabril deal. The return of more than 1,000 terrorists proved and augmented the strength and effectiveness of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command and enabled freed Palestinian terrorists to carry out key roles in the protracted violent uprising against Israel.26
     
    The Tennenbaum deal between Israel and Hizbullah in 2003, where Israel freed more than 400 terrorists and other criminals and nearly 60 Lebanese bodies in exchange for three corpses and an Israeli drug dealer, continued the damaging trend. In its wake, support for Hizbullah skyrocketed. It is widely believed in Israel's security echelon that the Tennenbaum exchange elevated the prestige of Hizbullah in Lebanon.27 Hizbullah then kidnapped two additional IDF soldiers, an event that triggered the Second Lebanon War.28 Taking and ransoming Israeli hostages is becoming a never-ending cycle, and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, and other groups are likely developing plans to take new hostages.
     
    In addition, releasing convicted terrorists undermines the criminal justice system. Simply put, it is unjust to release individuals who have committed serious crimes before they have served their sentences. Surely, Israel would not release a convicted Israeli mafia murderer if his relatives took other civilians hostage. In addition, such releases are likely to provide comfort to terrorists planning future attacks, who can hope that if caught and convicted they will one day be exchanged for kidnapped Israelis.29
     
    Finally, the most troubling, long-term consequence of such exchanges is the fact that many of the terrorists released return to committing terrorism and related offences. According to the Almagor Terror Victims Association, 854 of the 6,912 Palestinian terrorists released in confidence-building measures between 1993 and 1999 were subsequently arrested for acts of murder and terrorism (as of August 2003).30 In fact, 80 percent of the terrorists released committed criminal offences related to terrorism, "whether as commanders, planners, or murderers."31 Since the year 2000, 180 Israelis have been murdered by terrorists who had been released from Israeli jails. These statistics do not account for the hundreds more who were injured by these same recidivists.32
     
    The Almagor investigation provides a number of examples including:
     
    • Abbas ibn Muhammad Alsayd, who after being released in 1996 was involved in the perpetration of three attacks in Netanya including the Park Hotel Passover attack on March 27, 2002, in which 30 people were murdered and 155 wounded. 
    • Iyad Sawalha, who was released pursuant to the Wye Agreement in 1998 and was responsible for the June 5, 2002, bus bombing at the Megiddo junction, murdering 17 people and wounding 42. 
    • Ramez Sali Abu Salmim, who detonated himself in Jerusalem's Café Hillel on September 9, 2003, just seven months after his release, murdering 7 people and wounding over 50.33
     
     
     Recommendations
     
    The long-standing policy of successive Israeli governments, that have succumbed to high ransom payments to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers (or their bodies) with the release of hundreds of terrorists, is contrary to Israel's international law rights and responsibilities. The Israeli government has appointed a committee to develop new guidelines for establishing more favorable terms on which to negotiate any future ransoms. The committee includes such prominent individuals as Professor Asa Kasher, an Israel Prize-winning ethicist and Tel Aviv University law professor who wrote the "IDF Code of Conduct,"34 retired President of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar, and Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yaron.35 These guidelines should send a signal to Israel's enemies that prisoner exchanges will hereafter be balanced in a manner that is more sensitive to international law as well as to Israeli strategic considerations.
     
    In a similar vein, it would be worthwhile to consider implementing a waiver scheme by which Israeli soldiers could voluntarily relinquish their "right" to be brought home via extortionate exchanges. The model for this could be the release that Israeli parents with a single child are required to sign before he/she can serve in a combat unit.
     
    The status quo for prisoner exchanges harms Israeli deterrence, creates an appalling precedent that encourages further kidnappings, increases the possibility that our captured soldiers will be mistreated or even murdered in custody, and rewards imprisoned terrorists by releasing them early to claim new victims. The Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists have a good thing going. This humiliation must stop.
     
    *    *    *
     
    Notes
     
    1. Editorial, "The Cabinet Decides," Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2008, p. 13.
    2. Ashley Perry, "A New Paradigm for Releasing Israeli Captives," Jerusalem Post, July 6, 2008, p. 13. 
    3. Yaakov Katz and Tovah Lazaroff, "Hizbullah Deal to Move Forward Despite Disappointing Arad Report," Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2008, p. 1. 
    4.  Roee Nahmias and AFP, "Nasrallah: We Have Israelis' Body Part," Ynet News, 19 January 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3496155,00.html.
    5. Herb Keinon and Yaakov Lappin, "Egypt Says Shalit Deal Now Its Top Foreign Policy Priority," Jerusalem Post, June 27, 2008, p. 2.
    6. Geneva Convention III Relevant to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135-285.
    7. Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 133, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.
    8. See generally, Geneva Convention III Relevant to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135-285.
    9. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/ 1/Background%20on%20Israeli%20POWs%20and%20MIAs.
    10.  Ian Fisher, "A Hostage Taken, a Ransom Paid (Again)," International Herald Tribune, Mar. 24, 2007, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/25/europe/web-0325fisherWIR.php.
    11. Mishnah Gittin 4:6.
    12. TB Gittin 45a.
    13. Maimonides, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8:10 , Mishneh Torah.
    14. Shulchan Aruch (Y"D 252:3), cited at http://www.torahmitzion.org/eng/resources/showLaw.asp?id=435.
     15. Maimonides, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8:1; see generally Shulchan Aruch as discussed by Simon M. Jackson, in http://www.torahmitzion.org/eng/resources/showLaw.asp?id=435.
    16. Tosafot, TB Gittin 58a.
    17. Simon M. Jackson, "The Redemption of Captives - At Any Cost?, http://www.torahmitzion.org/eng/resources/showLaw.asp?id=435. 
    18. See Prof. David Golinkin, "Redeeming Captives: How Far Should Israel Go in Redeeming Captives from Terrorist Organizations," Oct. 2, 2003, discussed at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/captives.html.
    19. Yaakov Katz, "Government Teams Formed to Forge Future 'Kidnapping Policy," Jerusalem Post, June 22, 2008, p. 1, and "Swap Garners Mixed Reactions from MKs," Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2008, p. 3; Daniel Gordis, "House Debate," Jerusalem Post Magazine, June 27, 2008, p. 4.
    20. See Israel Hasson, "Prisoner Swap Immoral," Ynet News, June 25, 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560148,00.html.
    21. Khaled Abu Toameh, "Palestinians Disappointed PA Prisoners Won't Be Included in Swap for Regev, Goldwasser," Jerusalem Post, June 30 2008, p. 3.
    22. Rebecca Anna Stoil and Dan Izenberg, "Brother of Slain Policeman Petitions Against Kuntar Release, Jerusalem Post, July 8, 2008, p. 2.
    23. Yaakov Lappin, "Analysts: The Exchange Is a Mistake," Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2008, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1214726154383.
    24. Letter, Jerusalem Post, July 1, 2008, p. 14; Batsheva Pomerantz, "An Ongoing Battle," Jerusalem Post, In Jerusalem, June 27, 2008, p. 24.
    25. Yaakov Katz, Khaled Abu Toameh and Ben Sales, "Israel: Hizbullah Deal May Toughen Hamas Demands for Shalit, Jerusalem Post, July 1, 2008, p. 1.
    26. Matthew Wagner, "What Would the Sages Say about the Agreement," Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2008, p. 3.
    27. See generally, Yaakov Lappin, "Analysts: The Exchange Is a Mistake," op. cit.
    28. Dina Kraft, "Report Says Israelis Held by Hezbollah Were Wounded," New York Times, December 7, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/world/middleeast/07soldiers.html.
    29. See comments of Dr. Boaz Ganor as reported at "Sufian Abu Zaida, Palestinian Authority Minister for Security Prisoners, participated in a panel discussion on Liberating Security Prisoners," Aug. 2, 2005, http://www.idc.ac.il/eng/news_events/showNews.asp?messageId=1899.
    30. Almagor Terror Victims Association, "We Must Prevent the Next Terror Attack," http://www.al-magor.com/site/detail/detail/detailDetail.asp?detail_id=495811.
    31. Almagor Terror Victims Association, "Terrorists with No 'Blood on Their Hands' Released and Returned to Terrorism," http://www.al-magor.com/39719/the-full-investigation.
    32. Ibid.
    33. Ibid.
    34. Yaakov Katz, "Anniversary Angst," Jerusalem Post, July 11, 2008, p. 13. 
    35. Abe Selig and Yaakov Katz, "Kasher: New Prisoner Exchange Policy Should Differentiate Between Live and Dead Soldiers," Jerusalem Post, July 7, 2008, p. 1.
     
    *    *    *
     
    Dr. Justus Reid Weiner is an international human rights lawyer and a member of the Israel and New York Bar Associations. He received his J.D. from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley. He is currently a Scholar in Residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and an adjunct lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Weiner was formerly a Visiting Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Boston University.
     
    Diane Morrison, Adv., is an Israeli-qualified lawyer, having served her clerkship at Herzog, Fox and Neeman. She will be pursuing a Masters in International Legal Studies at New York University in the Fall of 2008. The authors appreciate the efforts of Rafi Brass and Benjamin Fisher for their contributions to this article.

     


     

    Captive Exchanges, MU and Humiliating the Jew

    The thoughts and writings of Prof. Eugene Narrett

    In the late fourth century CE, Bishop Ambrosius of Milan and Syria and, about fifty years later, Augustine of Hippo in North Africa formulated the official position of the Roman church on the Jews. They should not all be killed, they argued, but small numbers of them kept around in degraded and weak stature so as simultaneously to prove the origins of the Jokerist redeemer and as evidence of how, as a result, the Almighty had rejected them as the chosen people and taken their Promised Land. This principle informs Rome to this day of the Quartet whose leader Tony Blair recently came out as a Catholic. 
     
    Humiliate the Jew: this is the ugly, murderous and self-destructive essence of “the West” to this day. It is embodied in the person of Tony Blair, newly come-out as a Catholic and leader of the Quartet’s unrelenting assault on Jewish sovereignty in the Promised Land. On July 16 Israeli security services saved his life from his Arab friends, playing their role in Edom’s game of humiliate the Jew.
     
    Humiliate the Jew is the essence of the mis-named “captive exchange” in which the bodies of soldiers Regev and Goldwasser were returned to Israel in exchange for freeing dozens of Jew-murderers (“terrorists”) and two hundred bodies of same. The chief among the freed killers pledges to resume attacking Jews. More...
    It was clear from the first that the soldiers probably had been killed, or were expected to be killed. While there was constant, if hollow talk of Gilad Shalit and getting him back, Regev and Goldwasser rarely were mentioned though their return was part of the highly touted UN resolution 1701 which terminated the one-sided war of Iran-Hezbollah against Israel, a war the perennial regime of Edom’s subcontractors refused to fight. Do you remember? In response to the attack, murder and abduction of border guards and to four thousand rockets showered on Israel, the regime refused to mobilize the reserves (the major part of the IDF), refused to invade the non-state of Lebanon and contented its with ‘surgical bombing’ after batteries already had fired at Israel. When American diplomats announced that Israel had four days left to finish its “work,” Olmert sent small forces a few kilometers across the border on a no-win photo op. The result: casualties for nothing and Hizbollah has rebuilt and increased its strength under the benign eyes of EU and UN observers, as many of us predicted would happen.
     
    And we remember the admission by IDF Deputy Chief of Intelligence, General Ya’akov Amidror that “because of agreements with the international community it was decided to let the enemy strike first.” How nice: who exactly made these “agreements” and what were the carrots and sticks used to forge it? Perhaps someone will tell us what the current “agreement” is to immobilize Israel.
     
    Ishmael is the proximate but not the main problem: Edom is. It is the EU, the Russian and American ruling echelons that push the “peace processing” of Israel and enable and incite what is worst in Kedar. These also are the parties to the new world disorder, the rootless, borderless, impoverished smorgasbord which negates all the discriminations that, as Judaism teaches the world was built and is sustained.
     
    The proper response to the summer 2006 cross border attacks in the Negev and north would have been a demand to ‘stand the captives free and unharmed before us tomorrow or else we will destroy your cities and armies.’ But the perennial regime didn’t want them back; its role, one it plays willingly, relentlessly is that of its controllers: humiliate the Jew; Israel, no matter how secularized and multicultural it is, plays the role of “international Jew” whose sovereignty must be destroyed so the big lies of Rome can gloat over the ruin, maintaining its claim as the new Israel and steward of the holy places.
    Now, with the ‘captive exchange’ a new level of degradation of the Jewish people in Israel has been reached: murdered Jews in exchange for liberating terrorists who will murder more Jews. This is done despite explicit prohibition of such blackmail routines by Maimonides, Rav Meir of Rothenberg, and the clear teachings of the Shulchan Aruch. So Israel is degraded and subservient just as Ambrosius and Constantine urged. Who benefits? The dogmas that demand humiliation of Jews to ‘prove’ their ‘truth’; the Muslims learned the basics of enforcing dhimmitude, as well as the concept of hell and global dominion from Edom. Nothing has changed…
     
    On the two-year anniversary of the Hezbollah assault, Prime Minister Olmert asked the UN to help Israel against the re-arming of Iran’s proxy. The man is a master of black humor and plays his role to the hilt. It is not only the perennial hostility of the UN (and of those who direct its functions) to Israel that makes this appeal farcical; worse, it displays to the world that those who rule Israel, politicians fronting for an oligarchy subcontracted to mighty global baronies have no intention of maintaining the State’s sovereignty. Tehillim (“Psalms”) may say that “God rules in Judah; in Israel His Name is great” but the post-modern world spits on such notions (though they encourage them from Kedar, their instrument of loosely managed attrition). But this cringing by Olmert who seems to love playing the role that shames and endangers his people was stated clearly by him in a speech in NY and column in the New York Times in which he wrote that “Israel was tired of defeating its enemies and tired of winning,” etc. Rome, Washington, London, Brussels, Moscow and Riyadh hardly could have picked a more perfect model of humiliation.
    In Olmert, indeed in nearly every Israeli administration since 1948, Anglo-American and European planners have had reprsentatives of Britain’s “Fertile Crescent” plan or “Arab Federation”; it is in process to this day, with Russia serving as affiliated antithesis.
     
    Meanwhile, the Arab States and American government waits for Israel, alone and against all odds to finish the business the powers have contrived with Iran. This will produce a “two-for”: Iran will cease to be a major threat to all its neighbors, who intensely fear its military and economic power and sectarian competition; and Israel will be blamed, just as it is blamed for all the rockets that shower its southwestern regions from Hamas for whose terror-fiefdom it provides fuel, water, and good, daily. While Egypt and Hamas maintain the blockade of the fiefdom, the regimes of the nations show their center of gravity by blaming Israel for feeding those who murder Jews. That’s the game: humiliate the Jew; no incongruity or injustice is too gross for this ineradicable process of Edom and Ishmael.
     
    Not only has Mr. Olmert, on behalf of his controllers (the man is hardly a free agent; his constituency certainly is not in Israel, not even in his own party, a one-issue fiction that exists to expel Jews from their homes) asked the UN to take-over the security of Israel, his government is overseeing the absorption of Israel into the EU via the Mediterranean Peace and Prosperity Zone, recently re-titled the Mediterranean Union whose chieftains recently convened in Paris. Syria’s Bashir Asad made a big show of not sitting next to Olmert and of stomping out when the servile Jew spoke. This is routine is not new, nor is the degrading presence of Israelis at such confabs. More interesting are the participants, specifically, those nations that do not border on the Mediterranean like “Jordan” and Bosnia, both creations of European imperialism using jihadists as their tool. Bosnia may be regarded as the hinterland of Croatia, the latter linked closely to Germany and Rome. “Jordan” is the eastern 77% of the Jewish National Home that the British took away in 1921-2. The original draft of the Balfour Declaration stated that “Palestine [all of today’s Israel west of the Jordan River, and “Jordan”] should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people” [1].
     
    Under the stewardship of its local Corporate Socialists, i.e. fascists, the Jews of Israel are being dragged into global fascism for which they will provide medical, agricultural, and military technology and cannon fodder. By refusing to fully suppress neighboring and internal jihad they also provide a model of a State built on security and intrusion. The “nation that will dwell apart and not be counted among the nations” whose “borders [should] be sealed like iron and copper” becomes Edom’s showroom and demonstration project for a constantly imperiled state where rights are forfeit to a promised security that forever recedes.
     
    When the Jew, individual or national is humiliated, peace recedes because true peace is built on individual and national integrity and wholeness (shalom is from shaleim) which is achieved by following the commandments of preempting and destroying hostile neighbors and “not giving them a foothold” in the Land.
     
    Globalism negates the principle of distinct sovereign nations enshrined in the Torah. The partition of Israel, the humiliation and murder of Jews destroys the pattern of creation and the Torah, that is, it destroys Judaism. So all these “peace processes” are crusades and jihads, religious hate crimes sanctified in the geopolitics of a terminally corrupt world.
     
    The fusion of natures is the macrocosm of the fusion of genders and scrambling of families and parental, especially paternal authority that characterizes the fissionable, post modern West. Along with its burial of history and injunctions to live in the present and dream of the future, to be solipsists, it is the antithesis of Israel and the Jewish way based on memory, history, on facts and deeds as the basis for individuality and justice, property and charity. “Fusion” and “synthesis” of all peoples in “a vast humanitarian situation” also has been the watchword of cults arising from the Theosophists. They too, all, target Jews for “absorption.” That’s when “humanity has solved the Jewish problem,” she wrote. “The Jew must learn the lesson of absorption” [2].
     
    When Israelis refuse to be humiliated and put in place a governmental structure and government (the Torah sets forth principles and the nature of both) that will preserve the integrity of the people and their national and geographic identity, then the great powers will desist or find a different game. Their own people might even learn some ways to restore modesty and humanity in government and society. In the meantime, they remain addicted to the ancient model of humiliating the Jews and keeping the Middle East, and much of the world in a state of loosely controlled disintegration. For most people, a borderless world will have no place for dignity, free will, joy or peace. It will be a world of sugar-coated dictates like those regularly presented to humiliate the Jew.
     
    1. Shmuel Katz, Lone Wolf: A Biography of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (NY, Barricade Books 1996), Volume I.305-13 and see all of chapter 13, I. 262-362 for context on the opponents and whittlers-down of the plan for Jewish restoration, independence and a Jewish fighting unit. Those who preferred Jewish assimilation, “cultural Zionists,” “practical Zionists” joined British anti-Semites and competing geopolitical plans to betray the Jews, history, England itself, and Divine Providence. 
    2. See my essays on Alice Bailey’s writings in her collection, Externalization of the Hierarchy (1957, Lucis Trust), the essay quoted is “The Causes of the World Difficulty” from September 1938.

     


     

    American Jewish Leaders Silent on Israel’s Crisis

    Since the Israeli government, pressed vigorously by the US State Department, expelled 9000 Jews from their homes, farms, schools and synagogues in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria in August 2005, jihadists have showered rockets and mortars on towns, cities and farmers within the 1949 borders of Israel. To this assault, the response by a corrupt and defeatist Israeli regime has been minimal. 
     
    During this same time, the 9000 deported Jews have been dumped throughout Israel in trailer parks. The jobs, permanent residences, and compensation they were promised have been lacking. That the “world community” does not mention or care about these brutally displaced Jews is not unusual; but there also has been a failure of mainstream American Jewish leaders to speak publicly against the ethnic cleansing and its bitter aftermath. The highly touted “two-state solution” means more destruction of Jewish homes and more expulsions of Jews from the land of Israel.
     
    These dual failures of trust, to the expelled Jews (whose deportation, it is claimed, will bring “peace”) and to totally suppress the rocket war on Israel, dismays lovers of Israel. One such person is Bernard (“Buddy”) Macy of New Jersey who in the past three years has become an impassioned advocate of justice for the deportees and for accountability and meaningful action from American Jewish organizations on behalf of an intact Israel.
     
    Macy had served as a recording secretary, fund raiser and Trustee for the Jewish Federation in northern New Jersey for twenty-five years. In February 2006, he resigned to protest the national UJA/UJC refusal to begin emergency funding for the refugees and for their silence about the brutal ethnic cleansing of Jews from Amona, eighteen miles north of Jerusalem. Since then, Mr. Macy has pressed actively for mainstream Jewish leadership to assist and educate Americans about the embattled position of the Jewish people in the Promised Land.
     
    In response, he has heard that “we don’t need another meeting,” in other words, ‘go away and don’t disturb our cozy ties to policy makers in Washington or our reputation as advocates for Jewry.’  This dismissal now includes the refusal of two prominent American Jewish leaders, Howard Rieger of the UJC (www.ujc.org) and Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (www.conferenceofpresidents.org) to participate in a debate / discussion about the mistreatment of Israel’s internal refugees and the fact that Israel’s government refuses to respond to the war against it with military action that would protect its citizens, suppress Hamas and Hizballah and establish a basis for true peace.
     
    These topics are of great importance to all Americans and, in fact, to all people. Yet as often happens when the official truth will not bear scrutiny, genuine discussion remains unheard. But the matter is still open; like poverty in the attic, hard truths will not go away.
     
    On May 30, 2008, Macy emailed Messrs. Rieger and Hoenlein with an invitation to join with Dr. Arieh Eldad, Member of the Knesset, retired Brigadier General and head physician in the IDF, and with Dr. Eugene Narrett, writer and author on Israel and geopolitics, both of whom had agreed to debate. Macy’s email and follow-up telephone calls to Rieger and Hoenlein went unanswered. The “leadership” still ducks discussion; no surprise: their posture as champions and helpers of the Jewish people in the Promised Land would be discomfited by a full airing of what they have done (helped sell the “peace processing” of Israel) and failed to do (be genuine, vigorous and public defenders of Israel’s Biblical heritage and legal rights to all the land west of the Jordan River).
     
    Education is essential to leadership but in all fields we find that education has been corrupted by those in positions of authority. This betrayal of trust is at the core of many crises in the modern West and its taproot, Israel. So it has been in this matter. In a follow-up email this week, Macy wrote his readers that by refusing an informative discussion, Mr. Rieger and Mr. Hoenlein “have once again demonstrated that they are unfit for their positions of Jewish leadership.” The same could be said for AIPAC which serves our diplomatic echelons by ‘koshering’ all candidates for President, even one with ties to Hamas and Fatah.
     
    Among the points obscured from Americans and from Jewish communities around the world is the fact that the Road Map phase of the peace process, an Orwellian misnomer, demands the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the historic heartland of the Jewish people and their holiest sites, even from the Temple Mount where Jews are forbidden to pray. True Jewish leadership would alert American and world Jewry and their friends to these brutal facts; but those in office do not truly lead. The same is true in Israel which has not had genuine Jewish leadership in the sixty years since the state was re-born. If it had, the military victories of 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982 would have been secured, not thrown away; the PLO would not have been rescued (1982) and sanitized (1993) and we would live in a different and better world.
     
    Just as Americans watch their jobs, borders, education, and health systems disintegrate while Congress fiddles and candidates emit sound bites, the failure of American Jewish leadership, and the erosion of the status of Israel in Washington was clear at the State of the Union address when ALL members of Congress applauded plans to carve a state for a “non-people” called “Palestinians” from the center of Israel. Talk of surrendering the Golan Heights (“the Bashan”), site of much Jewish history and of one of the six “cities of refuge” elicits nothing from the ostensible leaders of American and world Jewry.
     
    Throughout the West as in Israel, failures of leadership signal civilizational collapse. Jewish “leaders” say nothing while Israel, pressed relentlessly by the “Quartet” and an entrenched oligarchy hostile to Jewish sovereignty, delivers fuel, food, and water to those showering her with rockets. Jews are discriminated against fiercely by Israeli courts; as Aaron Klein has detailed, Jewish-owned land is given to Arabs who build while Jews are expelled. But American leaders are silent and people go about their lives ignorant of the catastrophe hovering over Israel, Jews and the West.  
    All Americans need to hear the facts about these matters and to see how official Jewish leadership relates to the land and people of Israel. The burial of history threatens us all and is part of the godless new world emerging from many parts of our culture.
     
    True Jewish leaders would declare unequivocally that a “Palestinian” State carved from the heart of Judea and Samaria would be a terrible blow to regional and world peace and a lethal offense against truth, history and memory. Dr. Eldad, head of the new HaTikva (“the hope”) party and whose father was a distinguished Professor who worked for Jewish independence notes that “a Palestinian State will lead to the destruction of Israel.”
    The range of opinion in the American Jewish community is not being heard in the media. The American people do not favor a two-state solution and if better informed would oppose it even more strongly. Nor do they believe that true peace will result from arming jihadists whom politicians term “moderates.” These matters need a public airing. If the Emperor is naked let us dress him with an honest and honorable policy that sustains our friends and disarms our enemies.
     
    America will have its debates; perhaps matters of substance will be discussed. The present condition and future prospects of Israel also need to be addressed openly and fully by the official leaders of American Jewry.

     


     John Hagee and CUFI...Friend Or Foe?
                                                                                                        
    by Gerald A. Honigman
     
     
         There's a debate going on among Jews these days about organizations like Pastor John Hagee's Christians United For Israel.
     
         Millennia of forced conversions, massacres, expulsions, autos-da-fes, dehumanization, demonization, and so forth--frequently done in the name of the Christian Prince Of Peace--have taken their toll. The road to Auschwitz itself was indeed paved with many 'religious' stones.
     
         A good friend of mine and myself were recently discussing Christian support for Jews and Israel. Neither of us are naïve, and both of us are seasoned observers of the Jewish scene.
     
         I remember, as a small child, having Christians knocking on my door telling me that my family was going to Hell…in Philadelphia, no less--with some 400,000 Jews in its environs. Imagine what it’s like out yonder ways.
     
         As a doctoral student, I remember studying Christian theology as part of my interest in 1st century C.E. Judaism and the revolt against Rome. So I know the theological reasons for some Christians’ support of Israel as well as the fate of Jews after the 2nd Coming in that theology.
     
         While doing those graduate studies, I also worked for years for an organization which monitored Christian proselytizing groups (among other things). So, when it comes to skeptics on this issue, I’m no greenhorn.
     
          Having said this, I’m convinced that groups like Pastor John Hagee’s Christians United For Israel (CUFI) and Christian Action For Israel (CAFI) are among the best friends both Israel and Jews have right now…at a time when any of such friends are indeed a rarity.
     
         CAFI has helped me spread such articles as Thinking Jerusalem around for years now
    http://christianactionforisrael.org/thinking.html. And check out CUFI’s Nights To Honor Israel and tell me you see something other than good here… http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_honor_israel
     
         Few things are ever clear cut or risk free, and many Christians still embrace replacement theology.
     
         But, here in the States, tens of millions of these folks have more clout than a relative handful of Jews--over half of whom don't really care about Israel anyway. I deal with the latter too. They're funding Obama, crying about the poor 'Palestinians' Israel allegedly abuses, asking Israel to make suicidal concessions, etc. and so forth. I worry more about such tribal members more than  Evangelicals right now--especially since there are plenty of similar Hebrew morons in Israel too.

         I've worked with local pastors involved in John Hagee-type activities ('Peace For Israel' celebrations, interfaith pilgrimages to Israel, and so forth) for years now. I've seen tears in their eyes as they and their flocks embraced Jews and asked them for forgiveness for past Christian sins towards the Jewish People. Thousands of folks--mostly Christians--attended these local events. Not a Jewish dime was involved--all Christian sponsored, raising huge amounts of $$$ for Israel at same time.

         But, again, as I stated, I'm not naive. I understand Christian theology quite well.
     
         They believe what they believe, we believe what we believe.
     
         But, as long as they're not forcing it up our derrieres (as was done far too often in the past) and focusing on what they're focusing on instead, I don't know what else one can ask for.
     
         These particular folks are not actively proselytizing us...indeed, I have openly discussed this with them. And they have rejected replacement theology and frequently speak of this rejection.
     
         Do some other Christian groups engage so--including some associated with CUFI?
     
         I'm sure...

         But, again, that's more our problem than theirs.
     
         Would they like us all to be good Christians. Probably...And we’d like them all to see where they strayed as well.
     
         So what?
     
         On this particular issue, the real question is, what are Jews doing wrong if the beauty and messages of our Hebraic Prophets, Psalms, and Torah are being ignored or simply bypassed by our own people?
     
         Sorry, but if you want someone to blame, then start with our own religious leaders.
     
         If our Bible teaches “Love thy neighbor as thyself;” “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy G_d;” “Offer Me not vain sacrifices if ye do not justice for the widow and the orphan;” etc. and so forth, and our kids still think they have to go elsewhere to find a G_d of love, then--again--whose fault is it? Not CUFI’s…that’s for sure. 
     
         If one has never seen thousands of Christians at a rally for Israel, lobbying Congress, the President, etc., then please try to imagine this. I have…Such support is critical here in the States--and thus for Israel too. We have too many Hebrews like James Baker’s “Jew Boy,” Dan Kurtzer (now Obama’s Middle East point man), in the Government instead who, to get ahead, accept the oil-tainted State Department’s view that to be pro-America one has to be hostile to Israel.
     
         I’ll take my chances with John Hagee any day over such fellow tribal members.

         CUFI, CAFI, et al are fighting for a better here and now for Israel--something such above Jew landsmen don’t think twice about undermining. Are they concerned about the Hereafter too.? Sure! But the deal is that they don't get the latter without the former...

         So, along with my Christian friends (and not all Christians are our friends), I'll worry about the World To Come after this one is made safer for Israel and Jews in the
    here and now.

     


     666--The Mark Of The Beast...One Jew's Interpretation

                                                                                        by Gerald A.Honigman
     
     
         Over the decades, I've heard several different interpretations of my Christian friends' New Testament's 'mark of the beast,' usually associated with the number 666.
     
         Listening to various news commentators lately, I couldn't help but think of yet another twist to this.
     
         Fox News is usually the television station most balanced when it comes to dealings with Israel and the Middle East. So, if the Jews can't get a fair hearing on this channel, they're in real trouble.
     
         Regarding the world's current energy crisis (and America's in particular), the subject of continuously increasing oil prices repeatedly is being discussed in the same breath as Iran's non-stop nuclear ambitions.
     
         Whether the particular program is the business news or Bill O'Reilly, the audience hears one variation or another of the following…
     
         Israel better not dare to attack Iran's nuclear facilities because, if it does, Americans will be pointing the finger at it for six dollar a gallon gasoline.
     
         6…6…6
     
         Now, let's see…
     
         It took six million dead Jews--1/3 of all in existence at the time--to serve as a down payment for at least part of the world's fleeting sympathy for the rebirth of the Jewish State.
     
         Of Israel's roughly seven million people today, about six million are Jews.
     
         And, while Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs openly call for Israel's obliteration, Israel's best friends in the media warn that it must be willing to take a nuclear first hit so that gasoline won't hit six dollars.
     
         Now, I don't want to see the price of gasoline go that high either, but understand that an Israel--over thirty of which fit into President Bush's home state of Texas--that takes a nuclear first strike virtually ceases to exist.
     
         What would America--3,000 miles wide, with two huge oceans buffering it, and a population over three hundred million--do with an enemy which promises to end its existence, and one already supporting deadly proxies as a step in that direction? America, or anyone else for that matter…
     
         I seem to remember another story from my Christian friends' New Testament…one about Jesus being sold out for thirty shekels of silver.
     
         But, along with this, I have to also share a Jewish interpretation of a famous quote that Christians like to use from the Jews' own Hebrew Bible, aka the 'Old Testament.'
     
         For us, you see, Israel--the Jewish People itself--is the Suffering Servant of G_d.
     
         Just how high does the price of gasoline have to go before that fleeting support for the Jew of the Nations vanishes completely?
     
         Do we really need a second Holocaust Remembrance Day so folks can momentarily show sympathy for more dead Jews? And have others claim that it never happened afterwards?
     
         How about empathy for live Jews instead?
     
         Alas, it seems that that's too much to ask for.
     
         So, let's see, just how many shekels does it take to equal six dollars these days?

     


     

    Old World Game: Robbing and Killing Jews!

    by Steven Shamrak

    Every four years, the world waits with great anticipation for the start of the next Olympic Games. Meanwhile, another world game has been going on for almost two millennia. It all started with the traditional attitude of the Church toward Jews as the "killers of the Saviour" which provided a pretext for traditional anti-Semitism in Europe and America. However, the true reason for anti-Semitism has always been a financial one. Even the early Christians, in spite of persecution by the Romans, wanted to disassociate themselves from their Jewishness mainly in order to avoid paying the humiliating additional tax that the Romans imposed on Jews after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

    Later, any local king, baron, knight or abbot could kill, rob and displace Jews without fear of any retribution and with feeling of moral superiority promoted by the Church. Many royals borrowed heavily from the Jews in the past in order to maintain their lavish lifestyle or conduct wars. In return, existence under royal protection was offered to Jews, but often the debt was annulled and Jewish communities were forced to leave their homes.

    England expelled Jews long before the Inquisition. In the beginning of the 14th century, the king of France, Philippe Le Bel, cancelled his debt to the Jews. The expulsions of Jews all over Europe were often accompanied by confiscation of their properties as well. The Church found this enterprise quite profitable during the time of the Inquisition.

    At least in the middle ages Jews were allowed to leave and face danger in foreign lands! The Nazis and their willing 'dogs' in many countries were not satisfied by just making themselves rich with confiscated Jewish properties; they needed Jewish blood!

    During the 1930s the United State congress unleashed anti-Communist propaganda, which coincided with the governmental 'tolerance' toward the rise of anti-Semitism and racism. Fascist and racist organizations like the KKK flourished! Jews were branded as war-mongers for their anti-Fascist position and were scared of governmental and mob reprisal. The US denied shelter to Jewish refugees from Europe, even to those who had entry visas. At the same time, the trade with fascist Germany and Italy thrived and goods from American steel to IBM computers were sold to "defenders against Communism". Morality and decency were discarded and replaced by the corporate bottom line!

    Since the birth of the modern Zionist movement, a new game has been invented: "It is all about money (actually oil), stupid!" The British government promised support for the creation of the Jewish state in Palestine during the WW1. In 1922, almost immediately after the League of Nations gave control over the Palestinian mandate to Britain, in order to facilitate the creation of the Jewish state, 77% of Jewish land was ceded to Muslims in exchange for the control of oil in Kirkut. At the same time the Sinai Peninsula was given to Egypt in order to gain lucrative control of Suez Canal.

    Some Jews still have a warm feeling about US support for Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union. I am one who benefited from this policy. Was it an altruistic gesture made by the United States on behalf of Soviet Jewry or a well calculated and planned collusion by enemies? Couldn't it be that the 'outrageous' demands to allow Jews to be able to leave the USSR permitted the continuation of the charade of the Cold war? This war, which divided the world on spheres of economic and political influence and more importantly arm trade! The USSR had been supplying arms to world revolutionaries, to most Arab countries and India, and the US were in charge of Israel and the rest of the 'free world'. Every state of the world was paranoid and paralysed by fear. All of them were buying weapons! During this game, for almost 12 years, the Soviets 'graciously' allowed Jews to leave the Soviet Union with nothing!

    During the last few years, we can see Russia under president Putin has been re-establishing the same 'balance of power' with minimal (or even no) 'resistance' from the USA. As they say: "The game must go on!"

    Over two millennia Jews have become used to enraged religious fanatics; to enrich local rulers by borrowing from or robbing Jews; to divert public opinion and the anger of the mob from the failure of the ruling class or government. What is absolutely amazing is that all religious and political spectrums did it; Christians, Muslims, Capitalists, Fascists and godless Communists have been quite skilfully playing this game of robbing and killing Jews!

    Contrary to the common misconception that "we (Jews) can't do anything about it", it has only happened because throughout history, after the trauma Jews suffered during the destruction of the Temple and expulsion from Judea and Samaria, we have remained paralysed victims and, after hundreds of years of indoctrination, many Jews started to believe to the lies of our enemies that we are at fault. We did not organise our own defence even when we had sufficient numbers to crush our enemies because we always were made feel as strangers in the strangers' land and feared the reprisal of our enemies.

    After 60 years of the independence of the Jewish state, it is time to shake off this subservient mentality and not just ask but demand the due respect from others and proudly obtain full ownership of the land of our ancestors.

     


     

    Column One: The Obama-Bush presidency
    Jul. 24, 2008
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barak Obama's trip to the Middle East has been a boon for his campaign's photo archive. The past week has seen the presumptive Democratic nominee feted by the leaders of Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
     
    Obama's foreign policy pronouncements have been a source of concern in the region, particularly in Iraq and in Israel. As The Washington Post noted Wednesday, Obama's announced timeline calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within 16 months is opposed by the US commander in the country, Gen. David Petreaus, as well as by Sunni tribal leaders. Moreover, although Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed to support Obama's withdrawal timeline when he told Der Spiegel Saturday that he supports a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by 2010, he later backtracked on that statement, telling Obama that the date needs to be flexible and based on conditions on the ground.
     
    While visiting Israel, Obama said that he is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But he undercut his own message by continuing to insist that he favors direct US negotiations with Iran.
    As for the Palestinian conflict with Israel, Obama says that he views the peace plan laid out by former president Bill Clinton as a reasonable "starting point" for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The Clinton plan calls for an Israeli withdrawal from some 95 percent of Judea and Samaria, and the division of Jerusalem, with Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
     
    If that is the "starting point" for negotiations, it is worth considering what the "endpoint" would be.
    Then, too, as Israel's withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon demonstrated, all areas transferred to the control of terror forces become active bases for terror and jihad. Given the jihadist state of Palestinian society, how can Obama think that the reenactment of that same failed policy in Jerusalem and the outskirts of Tel Aviv will bring different results than it has in Gaza and Lebanon?
    Obama presents his foreign policy plans as a way to "fix the damage" that he claims has been caused by the Bush administration's foreign policy mistakes. But the plain truth is that there is little difference between the policies he espouses and those of the Bush administration.
     
    Indeed, any residual disparities between the Bush administration's policies and those Obama recommends were erased over the past month. As Obama works to project the image of a centrist pragmatist in foreign affairs ahead of the US general election, over the past few weeks President George W. Bush has moved sharply to the left, feverishly implementing all of Obama's most radical preferred policies.
     
    On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held a meeting with her North Korean counterpart, Ro Tong Il, in Singapore. The meeting followed North Korea's recent submission of an 18,000 page "declaration" of its nuclear activities.
    North Korea was supposed to submit that document 16 months ago. As if tipping their hat to their own brazen mendacity, the North Korean report was printed on paper contaminated with enriched uranium that the North Koreans claim they do not possess.
     
    Yet in spite of its lateness and its obvious mendacity, the Bush administration wasted no time announcing that Pyongyang's radioactive declaration was the major breakthrough Washington had been waiting for.
    Immediately upon receiving the North Korean declaration, and while refusing to release its contents to the public, Bush announced that he is removing North Korea from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. As far as Bush is concerned, Pyongyang - which has been actively involved in Iran's nuclear program and built a clone of its Yongbyon nuclear reactor in Syria - is no longer a US enemy.
     
    As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "the administration has accepted a North Korean 'declaration' about its nuclear program that is narrowly limited, incomplete, and almost certainly dishonest in material respects."
    For his part, Obama applauded Bush's about-face on North Korea. In his view, the only thing wrong with Bush's policy is that Bush hasn't yet met face-to-face with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il.
     
    BUSH'S DECISION to abandon even the pretense of seriousness in his handling of North Korea's nuclear program and its proliferation activities in exchange for a few photo opportunities is just one capitulation among many. Over the past week, it has been matched by a near-identical capitulation on Iran's nuclear weapons program - a capitulation backed up by a US nod to Teheran's quest for hegemony over Iraq.
     
    Last Saturday, Bush broke his last remaining red line for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program by dispatching his No. 3 diplomat, Undersecretary of State William Burns, to Geneva to meet with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in spite of the fact that Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment.
    From media reports of Burns' encounter with Jalili, it is fairly clear that Iran used the opportunity of American knee buckling to humiliate Uncle Sam for its gesture of good faith. Jalili presented Burns and his colleagues with an Iranian "none-paper."
     
    A "none-paper" is a misspelled "non-paper" or a nonbinding position paper. Apparently, the misspelled title was just a prelude to the syntactically and grammatically incoherent Iranian essay whose content essentially boiled down to a longwinded Iranian call for the US to shove it.
    Rice reacted to Iran's display of contempt with angry words this week. Rice said that Iran's paper was "not serious" and that if Teheran doesn't accept the US-European "carrots," within two weeks, the US will move to impose stronger sanctions on Iran for its nuclear weapons program.
     
    It is far from clear though that stronger sanctions are even a remote possibility. Moscow apparently interpreted Bush's decision to dispatch Burns to kowtow to Jalili as a sign of American weakness. In the wake of Saturday's embarrassing exchange, senior Israeli defense sources told Reuters that Russia is planning to begin shipping its advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems to Iran in September. The S-300 batteries can track 100 targets simultaneously and fire on planes 120 km. away. Once they are operational, it will be far more difficult for Israel or another military force to attack Iran's scattered, hardened nuclear installations from the air. It is hard to imagine Russia would go through with the controversial deal if Moscow believed that the US would do anything to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
     
    The day before Jalili embarrassed Burns, Bush made a move that calls into question the viability of his most hard-won foreign policy accomplishment - the independence of post-Saddam Iraq. Until last Friday, Bush had been clear that US combat forces will remain in Iraq for as long as necessary to prevent Iran from taking control of Iraq and to protect the oil-rich Gulf state from jihadists who share Iran's plan to transform Iraq into the next Lebanon.
    Then last Friday, Bush signaled that perhaps staying the course is no longer his preferred policy. In a joint statement with Maliki, Bush announced that the two leaders have set a "time horizon" for transferring security responsibility over the country to the Iraqi government. While Bush and his surrogates have been quick to make a distinction between his "time horizon" and Obama's "timeline" for withdrawal, it is undeniable that by introducing a "time horizon" for withdrawal he has made it more difficult to argue against Obama's planned withdrawal "timeline."
     
    Obviously US forces shouldn't remain in Iraq longer than necessary. But to ensure Iraq's continued independence and viability as a terror-fighting, pro-Western state, US forces will have to stay there for a considerable period. If the US commits to a "timeline" or "horizon" for leaving Iraq, it will induce Iraqis to begin cutting deals with Iran. This is the lesson of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.
     
    IN THE months leading up to the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, more and more soldiers and officers from the IDF-allied South Lebanese Army began defecting to Hizbullah. They saw the writing on the walls. They knew they would be no match for Iran's foreign legion in Lebanon without IDF support. And so they did what they needed to do to stay alive.
    And if the US goes ahead with its withdrawal, it will find itself presented in the future with the same unenviable options that Israel faces with today's Hizbullah-dominated Lebanon.
     
    It will either have to turn its back on Iraq - and on the memory of the 4,100 US servicemen and women who have given their lives in the Iraqi campaign - and allow Iran to take over, or it will have to reinvade the country - at much higher cost in blood and treasure than maintaining the current force in place. And like Israel's 2006 war with Hizbullah, a renewed US invasion will be carried out with far less leadership commitment and national resolve than is necessary to see that next round of war through to victory.
     
    Then there is Bush's recent mania for the swift establishment of a Palestinian state despite the obvious fact that such a state would be a jihadist-run, Iranian-allied terror state. Here, too, there is no light between Bush's policies and Obama's policies. Like Bush, Obama is perfectly capable of visiting bombed-out Sderot and failing to notice that Sderot's fate is the consequence of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. While loudly proclaiming his commitment to Israel's security, Obama calls for an Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, and due sensitivity to the "plight" of the Palestinians who democratically elected Hamas to govern them.
    This of course, is no different from Rice's repeated calls for Israel to curtail its counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria and to allow Hamas to remain in power in Gaza in the interests of "strengthening" Hamas-allied, terror supporting PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
     
    When Bush entered office in 2001, he was faced with a raging Palestinian terror war against Israel. That war was the direct consequence of his immediate predecessor's decision in his waning days in power to throw caution to the wind in a vain attempt to leave a diplomatic legacy of peace treaties that would perhaps earn him a Nobel peace prize.
    Yet in fairness to Bill Clinton, his intellectual collapse, which occurred on only one front, was nowhere near as radical or as strategically dangerous as Bush's abandonment of prudence on all fronts. Moreover, unlike Bush's behavior, which contravenes any possible political logic, Clinton's actions were more or less aligned with the interests of his party. In contrast, Bush is personally legitimizing all of Obama's radical foreign policies and doing so to the direct detriment of Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's campaign.
     
    Bolton wrote that Bush's policies have brought about "the early start of the Obama administration." Just imagine where we will be in the second, third and fourth year of the Obama era.
     

     


      

    Humiliating the Jew

    Prof. Eugene Narrett


    The Jews are for us the living words of scripture for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are dispersed all over the world so that by expiating their crime they may be everywhere the living witnesses of our [Christian] redemption…If they are utterly wiped out, what will become of our hope for their ultimate conversion?”


    In the late fourth century CE, Bishop Ambrosius of Milan and Syria and, about forty years later, Augustine of Hippo in North Africa formulated the official position of the Roman church on the Jews. To be sure, Ambrosius urged, prefiguring the holocaust, synagogues should be burnt for they are “a haunt of infidels, a home of the impious, a hiding place of madmen under the damnation of God himself.” But unlike John Chrysostum, bishop of Antioch who termed Jews “pigs and goats” (centuries before Islam termed them apes and pigs), “wild animals… marked for the slaughter,” Augustine took a different tack. Not all Jews should be killed, he argued, for their continued existence, in degraded and stateless condition makes them witnesses to the ‘truth’ that the Eternal One and Creator ‘changed His mind’ and rejected His people, “the House of Israel which God has cast off” [sic]. Jews, much reduced in number and even more in status by the Empire’s genocidal wars and its successor’s genocidal envy, calumnies, laws and pogroms would be living ‘proof’ of the new Jokerist redeemer and the ongoing formulation of the replacement theology built around his magical powers and rites so similar to those of Dionysus, Osiris, Dammuzi, Sebazius, etc. As for the Jews, “do not slay them, scatter them” Augustine argued; “utterly uprooted from their kingdom [and] under the dominion of foreigners” they will be “available as witnesses to the prophecies that were given concerning Christ” [1]. Since the Church is the “new Israel” the “Eternal City” laid claim to Jerusalem and committed itself to preempting Jewish restoration. This imperial principle informs Rome to this day, dominates western diplomatic, intelligence and even military agencies and underpins much of the turmoil in the Middle East, -- and the blame the “world community” strategically directs at Israel: Cui bono?


    As for Chrysostum (345-407 CE), whom the Church terms “a saint,” this formulator of what is called “the gospel of John” preached that a synagogue is “a whorehouse and a theatre; a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals…no better than pigs or goats who live by debauchery and gluttony, marked for slaughter. This is why Christ said, ‘as for my enemies who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them” [2].

    This is the West of which one can say, “Adolph Hitler, Christian” adopting the Joker’s “fight against the Jewish poison” [3]. Hitler presented himself as a new age messiah and followed the Christian belief that “the obstacle to his thousand-year reign was the stiff-necked Jews”: “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” [4]. Indeed, his agenda (saving the world by burying the Jews) was expressed by Guibert de Nogent at the time of the First Crusade: “we desire to combat the enemies of God in the East,” he wrote referring to the Muslims in the Promised Land, “but we have [right here] under our eyes the Jews, a race more inimical to God than all the others. We are doing this whole thing [the Crusades] backwards” [5]; the Crusaders heeded him, commencing their holy work by slaughtering the Jews of the Rhineland, central Europe and then, Jerusalem in 1099, setting a road map for Hisster.


    Given this history, there are no braver and more resilient people than Jews; suffused with a divine teaching the greatest miracle is that they have survived this vilification and the consequent assaults from the ‘religion of mercy’ whose idea of privileges for Jews was to remove gallows and pyres from Jewish cemeteries. Even critics of Rome’s engrained hatred and genocidal slander of Jews, often pursued by the Rome of the north, Germany, birthplace of Constantine, strain to distinguish “normal Christian anti-Jewishness, to say that Jews murdered Jesus” [sic] “and to degrade them for it” from “abnormal anti-Semitism to say that Jews slay Christian babies and to slay them for it” even though it is clear that these two forms of mad, a-historical fantasy feed into each other, supra [6].


    Humiliate the Jew: this is the ugly, murderous and self-destructive essence of “the West.” It is embodied in the person of Tony Blair, newly come-out as a Catholic and leader of the Quartet’s unrelenting assault on Jewish sovereignty in the Promised Land. Blair also fronts the newly established (May 30, 2008) “Faith Foundation” that seeks a synthesis of all the “Abrahamic faiths,” that is, that sanctions replacement theologies and absorption of the Jew “in one vast humanitarian situation” as an Aquarian theosophist wrote. The power of “globalization” and its “breaking down boundaries” create the need for a world religion and interdependence, Blair says [7]. While Blair, like a good Communist or other communitarian was preaching “peaceful co-existence” in New York rather than Riyadh or Teheran, his affiliated minions were pressing Israel to dismantle checkpoints, Jewish homes and synagogues in the Promised Land, for example at Hebron. Israel has been besieged since the Jewish people reconstituted it and the Jews of the Promised Land have been besieged continually since the Roman Imperium pushed its sway into Asia.


    As far as the powers are concerned, “Israel will [NOT] dwell apart” as Scripture prescribes; its borders will NOT ‘be sealed like iron and copper” as Moshe said in his closing words. It will, as Augustine wrote, be scattered, degraded and absorbed, folded into the batter of the globalist tutti-frutti cake of impoverishment and eugenics. To think: Israeli security services saved Blair’s depraved life [7-16-08], playing their role in Edom’s game of humiliate the Jew and revealing yet again that the perennial regime that rules them on behalf of Edom will go to almost any lengths to empower the enemies of the Jewish people, to make enemies of friends and brothers, and evil of good...


    Modern Israel is pervaded by Hellenism and kowtows to the ancient animus and goal of the Roman imperium, the lie centered on “the man who never returned” because he never lived at all but, rather, was a pastiche of metaphors from Hebrew Scripture blended with dying and resurrected gods from pagan Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia and India: a virtual reality god; a counter-factual history god whose rationale is outcome-based (e.g. by Anselm). A culture of lies is a culture of death, sterility and virtual reality, of belief in fantasies, of the dogma that ‘it’s all in the mind.’ Judaism is about deeds, settling, planting, building, Hechalutz and the goodness of an earth thus sanctified. Rome cannot abide this alternative model that makes its neo-platonic fantasies crumble into vulgarity and diktats. So its method is to humiliate the Jew. Typically, Bernard of Clarivaux, “the secret emperor of Europe” who “provided theological justification for killing non-believers” preferred “endless degradation” to murdering Jews outright [8].


    Humiliate the Jew is the essence of the mis-named “captive exchange” in which the bodies of soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were returned to Israel in exchange for freeing murderers of Jews (“terrorists”) and two hundred bodies of same. The chief among the freed killers, a beast who murdered a father in front of his four-year old daughter and then cold-bloodedly bashed in her head with his rifle butt, pledges to resume attacking Jews.


    The IDF’s Chief Rabbi and Doctors indicated that the bodies of the soldiers had been abused before and after death. What is the proper response to such violations of Torah, natural and international law?


    If Israel had Jewish leaders, when the President of the artificial state of the Lebanon (which belongs in its entirety to the Jewish people) joined throngs of locals to celebrate this released savage, his vaunting and the glee of Nasrallah, the IAF would have come swooping like eagles to obliterate them and establish a great lesson of deterrence and peace, shalom based on the shlaimut of Yisrael and the Netzach Yisrael.


    It was clear from the first that the soldiers probably had been killed, or were expected to be killed. While there was constant, if hollow talk of Gilad Shalit and getting him back (it continues to this day), Regev and Goldwasser rarely were mentioned; this though their return was part of the highly touted UN resolution 1701 which terminated the one-sided war of Iran-Hezbollah against Israel, a war the perennial client regime, Edom’s subcontractors refused to fight. Do you remember? In response to the attack, murder and abduction of border guards and to four thousand rockets showered on Israel the regime refused to mobilize the reserves (the major part of the IDF) and refused to invade the non-state of Lebanon; it contented itself with ‘surgical bombing’ after batteries already had fired at Israel. In mid-August 2006, when American diplomats, pursuing the West’s “humiliate the Jew” script, announced that Israel had four days left to finish its “work,” Olmert sent small forces a few kilometers across the border on a no-win photo op. The result: casualties for nothing but humiliation, grief and outrage. Hizbollah has rebuilt and increased its strength under the complacent eyes of EU and UN observers, as many of us predicted would happen.


    Olmert’s entire incumbency indeed has been a “finishing the job” of degrading the Jew; he is a great success and Western policy, led by American diplomats, the false friends, also is a success in this basic Western mission. It is they who arranged the dismantling of one hundred thirty Israeli checkpoints used to prevent Western-trained terrorists from murdering Jews. They sanitize and exalt the terrorist Abu Mazen who sent congratulatory words to the murderers above-noted and who will be hosted, again in Washington to get instructions for the latest Israeli ‘compromises’ or, one should say, the “endless degradation” of the Jews.


    As so often and in so many events, the direction of Israel’s government by US diplomatic echelons showed the bond of shame that binds the client to the master on the Potomac that in effect reads from the script of Ambrose, Chrysostum, Augustine, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux and many, many more.


    And we remember the admission by IDF Deputy Chief of Intelligence, General Ya’akov Amidror that “because of agreements with the international community it was decided to let the enemy strike first.” Who made these “agreements” and what were the carrots and sticks used to seal it? Perhaps someone will tell us what the current or next “agreement” is to immobilize and degrade Israel. One needn’t look far or dig deep: it’s called the “Road Map” in all its ramifications of expulsion, oppression and mockery of Jews whether in demolishing homes, turning a blind eye to the ravaging of Jewish farms and orchards or the international sponsorship, touted by local media of various assaults on the family and the status of fathers, men and memory. The West is about forgetting and burial of the past, the Jewish metaphors and history which it stole in constituting itself, the first great “postmodern social construct”: the postmodern shibboleths, the denial of integrity, memory, history and fact are engrained in the West’s essence.


    Ishmael is the proximate but not the main problem: Edom is. It is the EU, the Russian and American ruling echelons that push the “peace processing” of Israel and enable and incite what is worst in Kedar. These also are the parties to the new world disorder; the rootless, borderless, impoverished, squabbling smorgasbord which negates all the discriminations that, as Judaism teaches the world was built, is sustained and from which the only true peace can emerge when Israel is settled in its place and Torah goes forth from Jerusalem. The new world scrambles discrete and fertile eggs (nations) to make a sterile global omelet; it is desolation of the seed, the negation of Ya’akov and his direct line of glory to the foundation of Joseph by Esau he is Edom. The eugenicists, re-definers of family and population controllers that have dominated culture since the late 19th century revive the ancient Greco-Roman habits of destroying newborns and fetuses, “exposing them,” a practice that Tacitus resented the Jews for “paying considerable attention to increasing their numbers,” as he saw their refusal to practice abortion and infanticide: “with them it is a crime to make away with any issue and their souls are immortal. Hence their passion for procreation and battle, their contempt of death... [9]


    Now the entire world is to have the imperial population control of the great clanking, gleaming and sterile machine of Yavan and Edom, the West.


    NATO is organized under the authority of the UN, a prominent venue for orchestrating genocidal slander of Israel and Jews. NATO is run by a coordinating council of ten Western European nations, Canada and America. The chairman often is a Spaniard, like Javier Solana or Jose Barroso although their state has little military power. It is notable that in its last century, the Roman Empire not only divided itself into two administrative units, West and East but that the West was further subdivided with Britain, France, the low countries and Spain being ruled by a “General of the West” such as Constantine or Maximus a favorite of Ambrose. The resurgent Germany also is a member and with a German Pope who formerly spear-headed Vatican acquisition of properties in Jerusalem one recalls the “Great Diet of Mainz” convened by Frederick Barbarossa in that city in 1184 to make of it “a second Rome” and illustrate the swelling, Vatican-sanctioned power of Germany, as writ large in the EU, a second “Holy Roman Empire.” In 1996, at celebrations of German re-unification, a rare showing of “the seamless robe” of Rome’s redeemer, allegedly found by Constantine’s mother, Helena and enshrined at Trier emphasized that an intact Germany was the garment of the divine body, the outward manifestation of the godhead wholesaled from the Vatican. Aryan and Catholic ambition and hegemony are deeply entwined; Wagner’s pagan synthesis was determinative. Not Israel but Germany is the integral nation that will mediate salvation through the teaching of the Roman Church, “the new Israel.”


    The Roman element is no anomaly. Simultaneous to the formation of its enforcing Empire, Pope Innocent III required King John “to accept him as England’s feudal lord.” While the Barons negated this with the Magna Carta, the Pope did not accept its authority. Who has proved top lord in the end? The crusades were “a means of imposing doctrinal and political unity within the Church. Heresy became a capital crime. While this structure developed, the Fourth Lateran Council decreed the Jews to be “servants of sin” who would henceforth be servants of Christian princes, would wear special badge and clothing; would remain indoors during “holy week,” would pay special taxes as in ancient Rome and under Islam: “The more total the Church’s claim on the soul of the world, the more dramatically Jews stand out as ‘the original and quintessential dissenters” [10]. The doctrine of papal infallibility and moral supremacy and the magical, pagan aspects of Mariolatry have grown greater since the mid-19th century. If secular “humanism” and Darwinism rule today, they, with post modernism are only the last of the replacement theologies that began with the Church’s perverting of Holy Scriptures and Covenant. With The Highest Wisdom thus defied what but bewildering terrors could ensue?


    Commenting on Ezekiel, the great sage, Rabbi Don Yitzhak Abarbanel specified that Britain, the Low Countries, France and Spain, “the children of Edom who are in the lands to the West of Rome and Italy will conquer Jerusalem and all the land of Israel.” Seeing the patterns developing as the Church formed the West from what it stole form Israel, the sages wrote that “the son of David [messianic king who will restore Israel, cf. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 11:1-3, 12:1-2] will not come until Persia [Iran] falls to the kingdom of Edom, until the evil Empire of Rome spreads out over the whole world and seizes Jerusalem for nine months” (Yoma 10a). History, prophecy and informed discussion converge in our days whose trend-shapers claim to be beyond history though it is rushing toward them…The obsession with degrading the Jew centers all their games.

    The proper response to the summer 2006 cross border attacks in the Negev and north would have been a demand to ‘stand the captives free and unharmed before us tomorrow or else we will destroy your cities and armies.’ But the perennial regime didn’t want them back; its role, one it plays willingly, relentlessly is that of its controllers: humiliate the Jew; Israel, no matter how secularized and multicultural it is, plays the role of “international Jew” whose sovereignty, dignity and integrity must be destroyed so the big lies of Rome can gloat over the ruin, maintaining its claim as the new Israel and steward of the holy places. As Ambrosius preached, the Jew must feel torments as the mystique of “the True Cross” becomes the emblem of a revived Roman imperium. Looking ahead to Alice Bailey and Adolph Hitler, the last letter of Ambrose “named the Jews as the Church’s last problem.” And since “catholic” means “universal” or “all-inclusive,” “pertaining to the universal Christian church,” the agenda of Edom goes hand-in-glove with globalism in all its aspects, the bankrupting and humiliation prominent among them.


    With the July 2008 ‘captive exchange’ a new level of degradation of the Jewish people in Israel has been reached: murdered Jews in exchange for freeing murderers who will murder more Jews. This is done despite explicit prohibition of such blackmail routines by Maimonides, Rav Meir of Rothenberg, and the clear teachings of the Shulchan Aruch. The game played on the families of Regev and Goldwasser still are played with the Shalit family, and with all Israel, all Jews: your lives are cheap; you “deserve no pity.” So Israel is degraded and subservient just as Ambrosius and Constantine urged. Who benefits? The dogmas that demand humiliation of Jews to ‘prove’ their ‘truth’; the Muslims learned the basics of enforcing dhimmitude, as well as the concept of hell and global dominion from Edom. Nothing has changed…Rome is the feudal lord of America, and nearly of Israel, too. Soon, through channels it will order its servants to destroy Persia and then receive the degrading blame and sanctions: don’t slay, scatter them.


    On the two-year anniversary of the Hezbollah assault, Prime Minister Olmert asked the UN to help Israel against the re-arming of Iran’s proxy. UN forces in Lebanon saluted the coffins of the 199 terrorists Israel returned. Olmert is a master of black humor and plays his role to the hilt. It is not only the perennial hostility of the UN (and of those who direct its functions) to Israel that makes this appeal grotesque; it displays to the world that those who rule Israel, politicians fronting for an oligarchy subcontracted to mighty global baronies have no intention of maintaining the State’s sovereignty. Tehillim (“Psalms”) may say that “God rules in Judah; in Israel His Name is great” but the post-modern world spits on such notions (though they encourage them in regard to Islam, their instrument of managed attrition). The cringing by Olmert who seems to love playing a role that shames and endangers his people was stated clearly by him in a speech in NY and column in the New York Times in which he wrote that “Israel was tired of fighting, tired of defeating its enemies and tired of winning.” In Olmert, Rome, Washington, London, Brussels, and Moscow picked a perfect model of humiliation and he has done his work. His financial corruption is a sideshow distraction to the West’s main work, -- degrading Israel.


    Meanwhile, the Arab States and American government waits for Israel, alone and against all odds to finish the business the powers have contrived with Iran. This will produce a “two-for”: Iran will cease to be a major threat to all its neighbors, who intensely fear its military and economic power and its sectarian competition; and Israel will be blamed, just as it is blamed for all the rockets that shower its southwestern regions from Hamas for whose terror-fiefdom it provides fuel, water, and good, daily in the regime-managed game of humiliation. While Egypt and Hamas maintain the blockade of the fiefdom, the regimes of the nations show their center of gravity by blaming Israel for feeding those who murder Jews. That’s the game: humiliate the Jew; no incongruity or injustice is too gross for this ineradicable process of Edom and Ishmael (see Tehillim 83). It is who they are; it is the malice that will consume them after they, like “appetite, the universal wolf, first consumes the world and last eats up itself.” Rome is the city of the she-wolf and the fratricide born of incest…


    Not only has Mr. Olmert, on behalf of his controllers (the man is hardly a free agent; his constituency certainly is not in Israel, not even in his own party, a one-issue fiction that exists to expel Jews from their homes) asked the UN to take-over the security of Israel, his government is overseeing the absorption of Israel into the EU via the Mediterranean Peace and Prosperity Zone, recently re-titled the Mediterranean Union whose chieftains convened in Paris, concluding their business just as the “captive exchange” was finalized. Syria’s Bashir Asad made a big show of not sitting next to Olmert and of stomping out when the servile Jew spoke. This routine is not new, nor is the degrading presence of Israelis at such confabs, nor is the role of the dictator of Syria, a Vatican-German colony. More interesting are the participants, specifically, those nations that do not border on the Mediterranean like “Jordan” and Bosnia, both creations of European imperialism using jihadists as their tool. Bosnia may be regarded as the hinterland of Croatia, the latter linked closely to Germany and Rome. “Jordan” is the eastern 77% of the Jewish National Home that the British took from the Jews in 1921-2. (It is ruled, interestingly, by the direct descendant of the Sharif of Mecca. Expect him to take a prominent role as the Fertile Crescent plan proceeds). The original British draft of the Balfour Declaration stated that “Palestine [all of today’s Israel west of the Jordan River, and “Jordan”] should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people” [11]. Under the stewardship of its local Corporate Socialists, i.e. fascists serving their Roman masters, the Jews of Israel are being dragged into global fascism for which they will provide medical, agricultural, and military technology and cannon fodder. By refusing to fully suppress neighboring and internal jihad their regime also provides a model of a State built on security and government intrusion. The “nation that will dwell apart and not be counted among the nations” whose “borders [should] be sealed like iron and copper” becomes Edom’s demonstration project for a constantly imperiled state where rights are forfeit to a promised security that forever recedes. Just as Edom desolates the seed it replaces the potential peace of Ya’akov-Joseph with War, indeed, with virtual wars of terror, attrition and film; together they are our Culturetainment, what the West has instead of culture. This is postmodernism, the lie that denies and destroys integrity and memory; on every level it dissolves into masks and shadows. Of the grace of Israel it makes horror, the horror of its neo-feudal dominion, its destruction of boundaries, wealth and life.


    Constantine, the General-King of the West and his mother were Germans, born in Trier. When he built the legends to support his geopolitical and ideological hegemony he sent his mother on a ‘pilgrimage’ to the Promised Land from which she, it is claimed, returned with “the true cross” that some guilt-ridden Jews brought to her from its ‘hiding place.’ Like the “seamless robe” whose geographic and ethnic expression is the unified Germany and the Germans, it is housed in her rebuilt palace and indicates Europe’s pole star. As if to emphasize its points, as this essay was being written, German veterinarians denounced kosher slaughter, sought to ban it and proclaimed the German method of stunning its victims with a blow to the head is most humane (7-21-08). The sensitivity of Germans needs no gloss, nor does their dominance of the EU and role in the long crusade against the Jewish people in Europe and Israel. With a German Pope in Rome, and a Catholic Briton heading the “Road Map” and new universal (“catholic”) religion, they are poised to finish their task as Chrysostum, Augustine and Hisster defined “their duty.”


    The “peace process” since 1967 is simply a clever, Machiavellian cover for the British “Fertile Crescent Plan” or “Arab Federation” from Mesopotamia to Egypt and its interlocking with Europe and, via NATO, with the NAU; beyond that, it coalesces and extends all the replacement theologies of which Western culture is constructed. Identity theft is its beginning and its terror-filled finish as it drives toward the universal rule of Rome. The children of Aphrodite and Ares (“war”) are “Panic and Terror.”


    “The Jew must learn the lesson of absorption,” Aquarian Theosophist Alice Bailey wrote in “Sources of the World Difficulty” (September 1938). “When the world has solved the Jewish problem in one vast humanitarian situation, the problem will be solved and racial fusion will be possible” [12]. The occultism and “bewildering terrors” (psalm 73) that consume the West precisely complement the lies and self-negation on which its identity and geopolitics are based. The “deicide” charge, the relegating of the Jews to degraded, stateless and Dhimmi status, east and west all stems from the primal identity theft and deformation of their Torah and history, and the imperial theft of their land which is a denial of the Almighty and Creator: and still many in the West wonder and complain that their religion is routed by scientifically fraudulent “Darwinism” and secularism. It all began with their revision of Scripture and their giving the lie to the Creator to invent a new creed. As we see, “nothing will come of nothing; the wheel will come full circle.”


    Like the master of lies, Gordon Brown, replacement of Tony Faith Foundation Blair as PM of Britain descended upon Israel proclaiming the continuing friendship of Britain [sic] and Israel while continuing to stress that the Jews must get our of their heartland and of “East” Jerusalem, that part of the “city that is built entirely united” (psalm 122) but which was partitioned by the British whose Mandatory occupation was considered more anti-Jewish than the regime of the Czars. No lie is too big for those whose replacement theologies and founding legends are built on lies, on chimera and fantasies.


    When the Jew, individual or national is humiliated, peace recedes because true peace is built on individual and national integrity and wholeness (shalom is from shaleim) which is achieved by following the commandments of preempting and destroying hostile neighbors and “not giving them a foothold” in the Land. Only integrity is the bridge to peace, but postmodernism is based on the giddy denial of integrity. It is multiple-personality disorder as a cultural first principle. It is the madness of Gog of Magog that brings all the nations against Jerusalem and the Jews…


    Globalism negates the principle of distinct sovereign nations enshrined in the Torah. The partition of Israel, the humiliation and murder of Jews destroys the pattern of creation and the Torah, that is, it destroys Judaism. So all these “peace processes” are crusades and jihads, religious hate crimes sanctified in the geopolitics of a terminally corrupt world.


    The fusion of nations is the macrocosm of the fusion of genders and scrambling of families and parental, especially paternal authority that characterizes the fissionable, post modern West. Along with its burial of history and injunctions to live in the present and dream of the future, to be solipsists, it is the antithesis of Israel and the Jewish way based on memory, history, on facts and deeds as the basis for individuality and justice, property, charity, sanctity and vigorous self-defense; for national remembrance, glory and gratitude to the Creator, the One, the Unborn and the Undying (Deut. 26).


    When Israelis refuse to be humiliated and put in place a governmental structure and government (the Torah sets forth the principles and structure of both) that will preserve the integrity of the people and their national and geographic identity, then the great powers will desist or find a different game. Their own people might even learn how to restore modesty and humanity in government and society. In the meantime, they remain addicted to the ancient model of humiliating the Jews and keeping the Middle East, and much of the world in a state of controlled disintegration. For most people, a borderless world will have no place for dignity, free will, joy or peace. It will be a world of toxic, sugar-coated dictates like those regularly presented to humiliate the Jew. “Those who bless him are blessed, and those who curse him are accursed” (Numbers 24:9).



    1. “The Jew blushes…he is tormented also…pitiful, sick, impoverished, weak. And yet, they deserve no pity!” Funeral oration for Emperor Theodosius (395CE), whom Ambrose preached against for banning the destruction of synagogues in 393; Ambrose saw the Jews “as Satan’s surviving agents” and Jewish prayer as “vile perfidy,” “like a dog returning to his vomit”: James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword (Houghton Mifflin 2001), 200-17, 275 and notes; a book with good information flawed by modern politics, Catholic apologetics and frequent self-contradiction, quoting Augustine’s City of God (425) and Confessions (410) and Rosemary Reuther, Faith and Fratricide. The convener of the council of Nicea, Constantine, the General of the West (Britain, France, and Spain) murdered his wife and son and Carroll refers to his imitation of the new creed’s myth of God-the-Father sacrificing his son as “holy” or “sacred violence.”

    The epigraph is Bernard of Clairvaux preaching on psalm 59, Carroll 271, 657 referencing Marc Saperstein, Moments of Crisis (1989).

    Theodosius I, along with his co-Augusti {emperors} Arcadius and Honorius wrote to their prefect in the east ordering that he “repress with appropriate severity the excesses of those who, in the name of the Christian religion, presume to commit illegal acts and to destroy and plunder synagogues [Codex Theodosianus 16.8.9, 393 CE]. However, in just thirty years, pushed by Ambrose and Chrysostum, Honorius and Theodosius II wrote to the East ordering that while Jews must be compensated for plundered synagogues, “henceforth, no further synagogues are to be constructed and old ones are to remain in their present state.” February 15, 423; here the West was being born; Margaret Williams, the Jews among the Greeks and Romans, a Diaspora Source Book (John Hopkins U Press, 1988), 139.

    2. Carroll, 213; and massive pogroms followed in Antioch and Alexandria the largest Jewish city of the time (414), its population of half a million Jews nearly extinguished by this Christian ‘love.’ Ironically, the “Revelation” in effect associates the ‘Satanic’ descent of Gog Magog and all the nations with the Crusades, John 20:1-10.

    3. See for example his speech of April 12, 1922 and his “Program for Positive Christianity.” He said (point twenty-four), “the party stands for positive Christianity but does not bind itself to any particular creed or confession.” In speaking of his redeemer, he added, “how terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison…it was for this that he had to shed his blood on the Cross. As a Christian I have a duty to be a fighter…” In his article, “A New Beginning,” 2-26-1925, he wrote, “in a newly awakened NSDAP let both confessions [Catholics and Protestants] take their stand in the common fight…against the brood of vipers and adders…When we have taken this duty upon ourselves…we will become once more true Germans.”

    4. Carroll 256, 656 and quoting Darrell Fasching on Hitler in the Coming of the Millennium (1996), 20

    5. Ibid. 253 quoting Edward H. Flannery, the Anguish of the Jews: 23 Centuries of Anti-Semitism (NY 1985), 92

    6. ibid. 251, 655, Carroll notes that “as a sign of contempt, criminals often were executed in Jewish cemeteries. In a choir stall at the 13th century Cathedral in Trier is a sculpture of ‘a Jew-sow’.” The strained distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” hatred of Jews is Carroll’s though he recognizes and details the “contemptuous teaching of the Church establishment.” The dogma of Rome and its reformed branches is the original postmodern imposture and its point is to erase the Jews.

    7. http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/2008/05/tony-blairs-speech-to-launch-t.html. Bailey, “the Hidden Source of the Outer Turmoil,” January 1939 on solving the “Jewish problem” and on Jewish “separativeness” as the main force of evil and conflict in the world.

    8. Carroll 299, 661, quoting Hans Kung, Christianity 396, and David Berger quoted by Robert Chazan, In the Year 1096, p. 142

    9. Tacitus, Historiae, Annals, 5.4.5 in Williams op. cit., 163, passim; Tacitus, [c.56-120 CE] writes “the Jews conceive of a sole divinity…and so they set up no images in their cities, still less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to kings, nor this honor to emperors…” but more typically mocks the Sabbath and Sabbatical year as evidence of the “indolence” of the Jews. Peter Schafer refers to Tacitus’ “grand synthesis of anti-Jewish traditions” and discusses, among a host of sources the charges of misoxenia, (hatred of foreigners), misoxenos bios (“hatred of life”), hatred of human beings (misanthropia) and impiety that Egyptian and Greek writers deduce from the Jews refusal “to fabricate images of the gods being of the opinion that God is not in human form.” Thus writers from Hecataeus, Manetho, Appolonius Molon and Diodorus Siculus prepared the motifs for pagan Roman and church vilification of Jews. Shafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward Jews in the Ancient World (Harvard Press 1997), 15-23, 31-33 passim.

    10. Carroll 280-3

    11. Lone Wolf: A Biography of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (NY, Barricade Books 1996), Volume I.305-13 and see all of chapter 13, I. 262-362 for context on the opponents and whittlers-down of the plan for Jewish restoration, independence and a Jewish fighting unit. Those who preferred Jewish assimilation, “cultural Zionists” and “practical Zionists” joined British anti-Semites and competing geopolitical plans to betray the Jews, history, England itself, and Divine Providence.

    12. Alice Bailey, Essays collected in The Externalization of the Hierarchy (Lucis Trust 1957); before the holocaust, Bailey regularly wrote that the Jews epitomize “the Forces of Darkness.” After the war she resumed her attacks, focusing on the error of allowing Jews to be sovereign in Jerusalem.

     


     

    King James Press Release: The Newly Arisen Obama.
     
    It has come to pass that BhusseinO, the Appointed Leader, meets the requirements for the Second Coming (or the First, depending on your faith).

    July 25, 2008

    He ventured forth to bring light unto the world.

    The Anointed One's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to his faithful congregants.

    ===============
    Times:  7,25
    ============
    And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
     
    The Child was gracious in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a blessed white person and an African peasant. And yea, as He grew, The Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only an occasional detour into the odd weed or small confusion.
     
    When He was twelve years old, they found Him in the Holy Temple of a Learned Priest in the City of Chicago, studying the heavenly wisdom of community organisation with the Prophet Jerewright and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that He opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
     
    In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary, He smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, The Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring light unto all the world.
     
    He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted mainly of His loyal disciples from the tribe of Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
     
    And The Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of darkness were defeated, for as long as The Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows. And the threat of terror was no more.
     
    From there He went forth to Mesopotamia where He was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto Him and blessed His Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it. And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush ordered was a terrible waste of military strength and was doomed to end in disaster, The Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
     
    And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with The Child and saw that The Child was a bringer of peace. At the mention of His Name they quickly put aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into nuclear ploughshares.
     
    From there The Child went up to the City of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The people of the Network Anchors who accompanied him cheered hosanna and waved great palm fronds and strewed flowers at his feet. In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestan, The Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
     
    As word spread throughout the land about The Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear Him; Hittites and Abbasiads; Oprawins and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairitans.
    And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of The Child's coming. Around the world, global temperatures declined and ocean levels fell and the great warming ceased.
     
    The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who is blessed with much wisdom, smiled and told his followers that The Child was the savior that generations had awaited. And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
     
    Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because The Child had pronounced it. This is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and it is inscribed in the Times of New York.
     
    Then The Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestan and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear His voice, and He preached to them at length.
    Then, when He had finished speaking, His disciples told Him the crowd was hungry, for they had had no sustenance all the hours they had waited for Him.
    And so The Child told His disciples to fetch some food, but all that they found was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So He took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told His disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, there was still enough to fill twelve baskets.
    Thence He travelled west to rest by the springs of Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with The Child, but He was tempted not. At the Tower of Eiffel He lit a burnt offering.
     
    On the Seventh Day He walked across the Channel of the Angles to Londobad in the ancient land of the hooligans. There He was welcomed with open arms by the great ruler Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
     
    And suddenly, unto the congregation appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”  THUS IT WAS.

     


     

    Our World: Ending Lebanon's free ride
    Jul. 29, 2008
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    CAROLINE GLICK
     
    Since Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora bowed to Hizbullah's demands in Doha last month and agreed to grant the Iranian-controlled, Syrian-supported terror group control over his government, Lebanon has become an official agent of a terror group. That is, Lebanon, as a state, has become a sponsor of terror. But no one seems to notice or to care.
    Truth be told, on the surface the situation in Lebanon is quite complicated. There is a power struggle of sorts going on today between Saniora's pro-Lebanese sovereignty March 14th movement and Hizbullah. Even in its diminished status, the March 14th movement is seeking to compel Hizbullah to subordinate its Iranian proxy army to the government. But this is an exercise in futility.
     
    As Hizbullah demonstrated clearly during its armed insurrection in May that led to the Doha agreement, and as it continues to demonstrate in its attacks against Sunni neighborhoods in Tripoli, it is fully willing to use its militia to force its political opponents to accept its complete independence.
    But then, while it is clear that the March 14th movement's leaders and supporters oppose Hizbullah's independence from central authority, it is far from clear that they oppose its terrorist operations. The fact of the matter is that none of Hizbullah's political opponents in Lebanon have anything but praise for its aggression against Israel and its clear intention to continue its war against Israel for its Iranian commanders.
     
    MAKING THIS point this week, Lebanon's Finance Minister Muhammad Shatah, explained, "We are all in agreement that it will be crazy not to benefit from Hizbullah resistance capabilities, but the dispute is whether this will be done within the state or outside." The widespread support that Hizbullah's terror war against Israel enjoys in Lebanon was prominently displayed on July 16 when convicted baby killer Samir Kuntar and his fellow Lebanese terrorists were released to Lebanon by Israel in exchange for the mutilated corpses of IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who were killed in Hizbullah's raid on their military position in Israel on July 12, 2006.
    All of Lebanon's supposedly moderate leaders were at the Hizbullah-controlled Beirut airport to accord Kuntar a hero's welcome. President Michel Suleiman embraced Kuntar - who crushed four-year-old Einat Haran's skull - and his fellow terrorists as "our freed heroes." Sa'ad Hariri, the head of the March 14th movement, referred to Kuntar's release as "an historic day of joy." Saniora hailed the corpses-for-murderers swap explaining, "The success of Hizbullah in the negotiations led by a third party is a national success for the party and for the struggle of the Lebanese because it secured national goals which Israel always refused to respect." And Druse leader Walid Jumblatt hailed Kuntar's release as "a national holiday."
     
    HIZBULLAH'S DOMESTIC intimidation and international terrorism is enabled by the Lebanese military which refuses to confront it. And this is nothing new. During the 2006 war, when Suleiman commanded the Lebanese armed forces, the Lebanese military actively collaborated with Hizbullah units. Then, as now, Hizbullah was a coalition partner in Saniora's government.
     
    During the war, the Lebanese military guided Hizbullah in attacking the INS Hanit along the Lebanese coastline with an advanced, Iranian-supplied Chinese C-802 missile. The Lebanese military pays pensions to the families of Hizbullah fighters killed in battle. Since the war, the Lebanese military enabled Hizbullah to reassert its control over south Lebanon, to expand its control north of the Litani River and to massively rearm.
     
    Moreover, throughout the war, Saniora acted as Hizbullah's mouthpiece. He condemned all Israeli efforts to defend its territory from wanton aggression and championed all of Hizbullah's demands in cease-fire negotiations. By the same token, the Saniora government backed all of Hizbullah's attacks against Israel - attacks which forced a million Israelis to flee their homes or live in bomb shelters for the duration of the war.
     
    IN JULY 2006, understanding the Saniora government's collusion with Hizbullah, Israel's immediate reaction to Hizbullah's abduction of its soldiers and bombardment of northern Israel was to hold Beirut accountable. In his first press conference of the war, just hours after Goldwasser and Regev were abducted and their comrades killed, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made this point explicitly. He declared, "This morning's events were not a terror attack. They were the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel, without reason and without provocation. The government of Lebanon, of which Hizbullah is a part, is attempting to destabilize the region. Lebanon is the responsible party, and Lebanon will pay the consequences for its actions."
    Israel's initial strategy for fighting the war was to disable Hizbullah's war machine by bombing Lebanese infrastructure targets such as highways, the airport, bridges, electricity grids and the telecommunication systems. All of these facilities enabled Hizbullah's war effort. It is possible that if Israel had in fact attacked Lebanon's national infrastructures, the blow to Hizbullah's war machine might have been strategically debilitating. In that event, the task of land forces charged with defeating Hizbullah forces on the ground would have been smoother.
     
    But US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would have none of it. Already in the earliest stages of the war, she began putting pressure on Israel not to attack Lebanese infrastructure. Her demand was formalized in the G-8 declaration three days after Hizbullah initiated hostilities.
     
    Rice's support for Saniora's government was so strong and consistent, that she eventually forced Israel to cave to all of Hizbullah's demands in UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the war. Rice defended her support by noting the democratic character of the March 14th movement and its success - with US and French support - in forcing most Syrian forces to depart Lebanon in April 2005.
    Despite its and the Lebanese military's open and active collusion with Hizbullah throughout the war, in its aftermath, US support for Saniora's government expanded exponentially. In the year following the war, US aid to Lebanon grew from $41 million to $520 million. US military assistance to the Lebanese military since the war has been in excess of $410 million, making Lebanon the second largest recipient per capita of US military aid.
    US military support for Lebanon grows even as the Lebanese armed forces demonstrate at every turn that they collaborate with Hizbullah. It was supplemented after the Lebanese military, under Suleiman's command, refused to prevent Hizbullah's coup in May. Moreover, the day before Suleiman gave Kuntar the red carpet treatment at the Beirut airport, Maj.-Gen. Robert Allardice, the US Central Command's director of strategy, plans and policy, visited Beirut and announced an additional $32 million in military aid.
     
    Since 2006, the US has given Lebanon some 285 Humvees, 200 cargo trucks, helicopter parts, assault rifles, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons and urban warfare bunker weapons. Another 300 Humvees, mobile communications systems, several hundred anti-tank missiles and coastal patrol craft are on order.
     
    Israel has recently begun openly expressing its alarm about these weapon transfers. Given Hizbullah's now inarguable control over Lebanon and its sway over its military forces, it is all but a foregone conclusion that these weapons will likely be used by Hizbullah and its allied forces in the Lebanese army in any future war with Israel. In recent weeks, senior Defense Ministry officials have been dispatched to the Pentagon in an attempt to convince the US to stop the weapons transfers. Yet while the Pentagon was only too happy to give Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Ashkenazi an unrequested medal, it has rebuffed all of Israel's entreaties.
     
    ALL OF this is depressingly familiar. In many ways, the Saniora government is to Hizbullah in Lebanon what the Fatah terror group is to Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. As is the case in Lebanon, the US trains, finances and arms Fatah. It supports Fatah politically against Israel, claiming that Fatah has earned its support through its moderation relative to Hamas. But as events have shown repeatedly, Fatah is a terrorist organization and is only too happy to collude with Hamas in attacking Israel and to form governments with it so long as Hamas doesn't embarrass it too much.
     
    Notably in the case of Fatah, the US cut off its assistance to the PA after it and Hamas formed their unity government last year and only reinstated it after Hamas ended the unity deal by seizing control of Gaza from its Fatah partner. In Lebanon's case, US support for the country has grown as Hizbullah's control it and its military have become more open. Indeed, today Rice is openly pressing Israel to surrender Mt. Dov and Ghajar village to Lebanon even though it has no legal claim to either. And this she does by claiming that an Israeli capitulation to Hizbullah's demands will strengthen Saniora who is controlled by Hizbullah - and believing that this will be a good thing.
     
    With even the Olmert-Livni-Barak government calling openly for a revision of Resolution 1701 to curtail the Lebanese military's ability to facilitate Hizbullah's rearmament and assertion of control over southern Lebanon, and with even Britain finally classifying Hizbullah's militia as a terror group, the time has come to revisit US policy.
     
    US JEWISH leaders and counterterror champions on Capitol Hill should begin a campaign to compel the State Department to place Lebanon on its list of state sponsors of terror. At a minimum, US military and financial assistance to the Hizbullah-controlled government should be abrogated immediately.
     
    The current government of Lebanon is only expected to remain in power for another year. Hizbullah is expected to be the big winner in Lebanon's parliamentary elections scheduled for next year. As Lebanese parliamentarian Samir Franjieh from the March 14th movement explained in a media interview this week, "Weapons eliminate the principle of majority [rule]. In... 2005 the March 14 [movement] won a majority of parliamentary seats in the elections. The result was practically eliminated by the use of force. Having armed factions [running for elections in 2009] would limit the freedom of voters."
     
    It is reasonable for the US to seek to support pro-Western democrats in the Arab world. It is unreasonable for the US to be bankrolling a terror-controlled regime populated by terrorists and democrats who support their aggression. This is particularly the case when the same terrorists are waging war not only against Israel, but against its own forces in Iraq.
    Olmert's July 12, 2006 declaration is still apt. Lebanon, must be forced to suffer the consequences of its support for Hizbullah.
     
    caroline@carolineglick.com

     


     Obama’s Example For Israel…Change

              by Gerald A. Honigman



         Israel has a very important lesson to learn from Barack Obama…and it better do so quickly.

         I checked out Obama’s official website, Obama For Change, and here’s what’s highlighted:

         With the right leadership, and a change of attitude and focus, Barack Obama brings a new viewpoint to discover solutions to the problems at hand.

         It's about time...It's about change.

         Exactly.

         Now, I’m a registered Independent voting for John McCain, but certainly my own country needs a good dose of proper change…in how we get energy, as just one example. McCain knows this as well.

         Certainly, if this idea is important for America, it is even more so for Israel.

         Jews and/or Israel have been undergoing change imposed from the outside for centuries.

         In the 19th century, the Reform movement emerged among Jews who--among other things--were determined that the days of the imposed ghetto, degradation, and such (from which Napoleon had freed them) should never return.

         Assimilation was the name of the game--to the point of recommendations to change the Sabbath to Sunday. The idea was to rid themselves of their identities as Jews. Henceforth, they would just be Frenchmen, Russians, Poles, Germans, etc. of the (much diluted) Jewish faith…not German or French Jews.

         Sounded reasonable--if not a bit pathetically nauseating--no?

         Too bad the Germans, Poles, French, and so forth didn’t see things this way.

         Modern political Zionism, leading to the resurrection of the state of the Jews, arose because--in perhaps the most enlightened of nations in the 19th century--France--the most vile anti-Semitism proved to be alive and well, targeting even the most assimilated of Jews--whom Alfred Dreyfus, of the infamous Dreyfus Affair, symbolized. And it flourished amongst the intelligentsia as well as the rabble.

         Another assimilated Jew, Theodore Herzl, was a reporter from Austria covering Captain Dreyfus’s railroaded trial. Shocked to the core at seeing mobs shouting such things as “death to the Jews,”  he later wrote, Der Judenstaat--The Jewish State.

         So much for that change…

         It was as if G_d was saying, “ Israel will be reborn--whether you Jews like it or not!”

         In the Jews’ quest for normalcy, they bent over backwards in the pursuit of modern political Zionism to create a state like all others…somewhat reminiscent of the Reform movement’s motivations, but on a national scale.

         Now, don’t get me wrong, not all saw things this way. Religious Zionists saw G_d’s hand in all of this…the Hebraic prophecies unfolding as planned. I agree. And they too had many supporters.

         But most of  the Zionist leaders who came to rule both pre-state and post-‘48 Israel also deluded themselves into believing that the rest of the world would forget that Israel was the Jew of the Nations.

        Well, since Auschwitz, it’s not proper--in at least some circles--to be “anti-Semitic.”

         No problem…

         Utilize absurd double and  moral equivalence standards, and replace anti-Zionism for anti-Semitism, and the age-old animus now remains kosher.

         All other peoples can demand national liberation except the one people who needed it the most…the condemned to wandering “G_d-killers” of the Christian West and the “slayers of Prophets and Jew Dogs” of the Arab/Muslim East.

         Being the oldest, still existing victims of imperial conquest, the Jews were expected to simply remain that way.

         Seeking to gain acceptance in an “Arab” world which sees them as sons of apes and pigs, too many Jews then continued to pursue this change even further in pursuit of a “post-Zionist” Israel.

         Again, recall one of the key motivations of the Reform movement…What can we do to change ourselves so we’ll gain acceptance from the Gentiles?

         Unfortunately, ignorance of one’s enemies has characterized too many of those who have called the political shots in Israel. The very idea that dhimmi Jews (or Kurds or Berbers or Copts or black Africans, etc.) should demand political rights in what Arabs consider to be purely Arab patrimony and the Dar ul-Islam is laughable to anyone truly familiar with this subject.

         Add to post-Zionism a continued movement away from the idea of Israel as a Jewish State, and you have the mess Israel now finds itself in.

         So, so much for those changes as well.

         Therefore, guess what?

         It’s time for Israel to try another type of change…a return to its proud roots.

         It’s time for Israel to stop trying to alter itself to be accepted by others.

         The values of Jews became the moral guidelines for much, if not most, of the modern world; and, despite its imperfections, Israel is still that light unto the nations the Bible asked it to be.

         The national liberation of the Jewish people in the land in which they have thousands of years of continuous history--Zionism--ranks as noble as any of such movements can be. If Arabs can have almost two dozen states--conquered and forcibly Arabized from mostly non-Arab peoples--then why not one resurrected state for Jews?

         No, Israel has nothing to cover up for…certainly nothing to revise its very being. If compared with the same set of lenses to the “Arab” world (rarely done), Israel should indeed be canonized. Indeed, as I write this article, black Muslim African refugees fleeing Arabs from Darfur are fleeing to Israel.

         What’s needed now is change--but done the right way…

         There are Jews in Israel who still have the sense of justice, passion, and compassion of Golda, Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, and Begin. Where are they?

         Where are the leaders who will insist that Israel no longer trade live, captured, rabid butchers for the bones of dead Jews--regardless of how nice they make it sound? Where are the leaders who will institute a quick death penalty for such “heroes?” Better yet, why are they taken alive?

         Where are Israeli leaders who will insist on “peace for peace” instead of “land for peace?” It’s obvious that the latter has not worked…it’s only brought closer to fruition the Arabs post-’67 “destruction in stages” plans for “their” kilab yahud--Jew dogs. Think Gaza…the same will happen after a total Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, aka, the “West Bank.” Not to mention the Golan. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion Airport, the Knesset, and so forth will receive what Sderot gets daily now.

         Where is the change which will bring new Israeli leaders who will insist that Israel get a reasonable territorial compromise granting it real borders to replace former, UN-imposed,  suicidal Auschwitz/armistice lines a la UNSC Resolution 242? America’s United Nations’ representative in ‘49, Ralph Bunche, openly stated that those lines were never meant to be Israel’s permanent borders.

         The Arabs will never play ball, you say…

         Of course they won’t. So what?

         They don’t accept a 9-mile wide Israel either. Think about what other nations have done thousands of miles away from home in the name of their own national security and interests. 

         Israel must do what it must do to thrive--not just survive.

         Demanding reasonable territorial compromise merely undoes the injustice created by the Arab invasion of a nascent Israel in 1948 and the mostly armistice lines--not borders--which emerged as a result. Those lines simply marked the points at which a half dozen invading Arab armies were turned back. As would become all-too-common later on, the UN only got involved after the Jews turned the tide and had the Arabs on the run…not before, to stop the Arabs’ initial aggression.

         Where are the new Israeli leaders who will tell the State Department’s next James Baker or Condi Rice, when he or she insists on such things as Israel supplying its enemies with weapons (which were then used to massacre Jews in yeshivas, etc.), to go fly a kite?

         Where’s the change which will bring to the fore proud Zionist Jews who will draw the lines beyond  which no further retreat will be allowed--regardless of who is twisting the arms, turning the screws, and increasing the heat from across the sea?

         If it means losing American aid, then so be it. My prediction is that such games will backfire big time on any White House which lowers itself this way.

         Millions of fair-minded people will not expect the sole, resurrected Jewish State to sacrifice itself on the petroleum greased altar of international hypocrisy so that Arabs can get their 22nd state--and second, not first, in the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine. Jordan sits on almost 80% of that territory.

         So, as a solid McCain supporter (despite some concerns ), I’m now hoping that Israelis will do some real soul searching and take a cue from the Obama camp.

         Replacing Olmert with someone of similar ilk will accomplish nothing but a continuation of the sort of change we’ve explored earlier…the change that gave Israel its first military defeat, handed over a live Samir Kuntar, and so forth. The latter’s head needed to have been parachuted onto Hizbullah’s headquarters.

         That Condi loves Tsipi Livni should send another disturbing signal as well.

         Israel must get itself new leaders, at all levels, who will place the overall Zionist forest ahead of individual, parochial trees which hold fragile coalitions together. Olmert should have been dumped long ago.

         The change that Israelis must insist upon may very well determine if the Jews’ long-awaited, reborn state will continue to even exist.

         Hamas and Fatah’s Abbas refuse to recognize a Jewish Israel. Abbas’s “moderates” just sung praises to a returning butcher--Kuntar--who murdered a father while his 4-year old daughter watched and then beat her skull in with his rifle butt against a rock until she too was dead.

         In short, the type of change that Israel must have will bring forth leaders who will know how to better address such things. And for those who care, it’s time to do all that’s legally and humanly possible to see to it that this happens sooner rather than later.

     


     

    Nothing is Accidental…

    by Steven Shamrak

    …in portrayal of the Jews in Bible and attitude of the Church toward Jews during Christian discourses. From the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman empire Jews have been used to having to hide the fact that the Roman occupiers of Judea and Samaria were responsible for the death of the Christian saviour. Later, Rome could not allow itself to be blamed for his death after adopting the religious ideas of a Jewish sect. Therefore, Judaism had been chosen as a convenient patsy.

    One would think that this attitude is ancient history, but even during the recent celebration of World Youth Day in Sydney, which was portrayed as a positive and joyful occasion with some attempts of religious reconciliation, this anti-Jewish bias attitude of the officialdom of the Catholic Church was still in play. For example, during the re-enactment of the Last Supper, which was apparently a Pesach (Passover) Seder meal, an actor who was playing the character of the Jewish man, Jesus, shared with other 12 Jews, Apostles, not the traditional Jewish Pesach bread Matzos, but a Lebanese pitas. Even after lip service by the current Pope about reconciliation with Jews, the Lebanese pita is more acceptable to the taste of the official Catholic anti-Semites than Jewish Matzos.

    It is the deed not empty, deceitful and convoluted words and apologies that is important and make sense! Anything else is just a smoke screen to cover up and hide the ugly past and present behavior of the Catholic Church toward Jews!

     


     

    Cogito Ergo Sum
     
    Paul Eidelberg
     
    Senator Barak Obama has come a long way since René Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who famously said, “cogito ergo sum”—“I think, therefore I am . ”  With Obama, cogito ergo sum has metamorphosed into videor ergo sum, “I am being seen, therefore I am . ”
     
    To be fair, however, Senator Obama is simply riding the waves of what I call “Photo-Op Democracy . ”—let’s call it “POP Democracy . ”  
     
    POP Democracy makes nonsense of the “rule of the people . ”  Of course, one might say the people no longer think, and that this is what makes Obama the media’s presidential candidate .
     
    But it’s not enough for Obama to be seen; he must also be heard . He must utter such mindless slogans as CHANGE or YES WE CAN!  Such slogans appeal to youth .  They arouse their hormones or overcome their boredom or discontent with humdrum reality .   The immature can plug anything they want into CHANGE and YES WE CAN without a moment’s thought about history, about statecraft, about political reality or about Islamic imperialism  Just wish, just hope, just dream—and presto!  That’s it kids, that’s all that’s necessary in this spinning world of make-believe .
     
    Yes, Obama is becoming a spin artist .   POP Democracy is also “SPIN Democracy . ”  For example, to make himself appear as a realist vis-à-vis a Iran , he dithers about “tough” negotiations, or “carrot-and-stick” diplomacy with Tehran .   Obama is clueless about the revolution that has taken place in that clerical regime, whose mullahs had children walk over and explode mine fields during Iran’s bloody war with Iraq .
     
    SPIN Democracy inevitably producers mindless politicians .    After meeting President Shimon Peres, Senator Obama said: “He’s gorgeous!”  Mrs . Peres must have felt the same way when Shimon courted her by reading passages from Marx’s Das Capital!  Perhaps Obama would say, after meeting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “He’s charming!”
     
    But again, let’s be fair:  Didn’t President George W . Bush refer to Islam as a “religion of peace” after 9/11?  Is it any wonder that 9/11 has become meaningless in America ?  Did the President ever think of educating the American people (and the media) about Islamic imperialism or about the war Iran has been waging against the U . S, since 1979?  
     
    Still, it’s shocking that a Muslim (according to Islamic law) may become America ’s next president .   Who will then be seen, and who will then be heard?  And what will happen to those who say Cogito Ergo Sum?

     


     

    TIME FOR ISRAEL AND AMERICA TO
    END THEIR POLICY OF RESTRAINT
    By Bernard J. Shapiro (2001)
    Re-issued as editorial in July 2008)
     
    "He who is merciful when he should be cruel will in the end be cruel when he should be merciful."...Midrash Samuel (Jewish rabbinic text from early Middle Ages) 
     
    From the very early days of the Haganah and continuing with the emerging Israel Defense Forces (IDF), there was a policy of self-restraint or havlagah. This policy mandated that defenders could only return fire, hold their positions, and never to engage in counter-terror. This policy was based on the false premise that the Arab masses did not support the war against the Yishuv (the Jewish population before independence) and then the State of Israel and would be brought into the conflict if Israeli forces were too aggressive.
     
    There were some good and practical reasons for restraint in the early days. There was legitimate fear that the British would cut off immigration if the Jews were to go on the offensive against the Arabs. Havlagah was essentially a Haganah (Labor/Socialist) policy and many supporters of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement broke off from them to form fighting units (Irgun Zvai Leumi and Stern) unrestrained by that policy.
    The modern IDF was dominated by Labor and quickly adopted the policy of restraint and the concept of "purity of arms" as its official doctrine. The later reinforced the former by adding that a soldier should never have to obey an illegal order to commit some atrocity. The enemy, including prisoners of war, should be treated with dignity and civilian populations should be spared as much harm as possible, even if this causes greater Israeli casualties. There was some flexibility in this strict moral code.
     
    This policy of restraint may have been practical during the pre-state days and even during the early years of Israeli independence. These periods were characterized by weakness and relative dependence on foreign goodwill. Following the Six Day War in 1967, the need for havlagah decreased and the damage it caused began to become more evident. Israel became the preeminent power in the Middle East, yet failed to grasp the strategic opportunities that came with such dominance. Here are some of the historical highlights of the failed policy of restraint:
     
    1. Following the Six Day War (1967) and the capture of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan turned over control of Judaism's most sacred place, the Temple Mount, to Moslem authorities. He did it to appease their sensibilities to the Israeli capture of the city. Jewish rights were ignored to please the defeated Arabs, who had plotted our destruction. Dayan also prevented a mass exodus of Arabs from YESHA, which ultimately led to the problems we face today.
    2. During the War of Attrition with Egypt (1969-70), the Israeli forces adopted primarily a defensive posture. They built a system of bunkers (The Bar Lev Line) along the Suez Canal. Israeli soldiers were heavily pounded daily by Egyptian artillery. Finally they began to use aircraft to strike targets deep into Egypt. The policy of restraint kept them from striking anything but military and minor economic targets. Israeli soldiers died because the government was inhibited from causing Egypt 'real' pain.
    3. The Yom Kippur War of 1973 is a classic example of restraint run amok. Israeli military intelligence did not fail to recognize the approaching danger as has been the common account. In fact, Israel's leaders made the political decision not to utilize the great power of the IDF to crush the Egyptian and Syrian armies that they KNEW were planning to attack. Thousands of Israeli soldiers died needlessly.
    4. The Camp David Accord with Egypt was another example of the failure to exert Israeli power. The oil fields of Sinai would have given Israel economic independence from America. The cost of redeployment from Sinai placed Israel in almost permanent debt to American diplomacy (often pro-Arab). Did Israel achieve anything worthwhile at Camp David? I think not and believe history will bear me out. Egypt has become one of the most ant-Semitic and hostile Arab countries in the world. As a result of Camp David, the Egyptian army now threatens Israel, having been equipped with the most modern American weapons.
    5. During the War in Lebanon (1982), the IDF reached Beirut and then failed to complete the destruction of the PLO. Our enemies were allowed to escape and prepare to fight another day. Why didn't the Israeli Navy sink the ships loaded with PLO troops (including Arafat) as they fled Beirut? RESTRAINT!
    6. In 1987 the intifada began and the Israeli forces showed great restraint and thus were incapable of crushing it. Of course, Israel received no credit in the Western media for such restraint. The failure to defeat this uprising began a process of demoralization among the Israeli population.
    7. The Persian Gulf War (1991) and the SCUD attacks on Israel led to further demoralization. The failure to adequately respond to Iraq's aggression and the humiliating sealed rooms, led to a rapid decline in Israeli morale and desire to defend itself. More and more Israelis began to feel impotent, weak and fatigued with the continuous battle for survival. The Oslo Accords were the logical outcome of this depression and feeling that they could not sustain the struggle.
    8. The Oslo Accords (1993) were the ultimate failure of the policy of restraint. Israel like America actually was very powerful. The IDF was unequaled in the Middle East while the US was the most powerful nation in the world. Yet despite this power, Israel's leaders, were ready to grant equal status to a band of murderers and ultimately create a state of "Palestine" which would challenge its right to the Land and its capital of Jerusalem.
    9. Israeli forces in Lebanon should have been given a free hand to 'punish' all those who facilitate attacks on them including Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. There should be no more agreements that tie Israeli hands.
    The damage caused by havlagah (restraint) has been immense and it far past time to reverse that policy. Americans have been viciously attacked in Africa, Yeman, and Saudi Arabia. The attempt to try to criminalize terrorism has been a dreadful mistake. Terrorism is sponsored by states who allow their territory and funds to help the organization of terrorist. The Oslo agreement allowed Arafat to set up terrorist headquarters near Israel's heartland. From there he sent terrorists to attack Israel.With plausible deniability he claims "he is not responsible."
     
    Dr. Aaron Lerner of the Independent Media Review & Analysis in Israel reports that Palestinians are celebrating attacks against USA across the West Bank Israel Radio reported this afternoon that young Palestinians across the West Bank are celebrating the terrorist attacks against the USA - waving Palestinian flags and handing out candy. There are reports of shooting in some places but it is not clear if it is Palestinian police trying to clear streets of celebrants or Palestinians shooting in the air. The largest crowd, according to Israel Radio, is in the Balata refugee camp.
    The American State Department policy of equating terrorist and defender equally must stop. This kind of moral equivalency allows the terrorist to believe he can do no wrong.
     
    Both America and Israel must massively and disproportionately retaliate for terrorist attacks. The murderers of Americans and Israelis must be stopped. It is not impossible but it will be a long and difficult battle.
     
    ==========
    Bernard J. Shapiro is Chairman of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of THE MACCABEAN ONLINE, its monthly Internet magazine.

    =============