Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 17             B"H   March 2009             NUMBER 3

"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"

March 2009


  • HAMAS'S FREE LUNCH ..............Caroline Glick

  • JEWISH HOPE & THE WEST: A TALE OF NOBILITY FROM 1948 ..............Eugene Narrett


  • PICK YOUR POISON, ISRAEL ..............Ted Belman

  • ISLAM AND THE WEST: LINES OF DEMARCATION..............Roger Scruton

  • ARE YOU PROUD TO BE A LEFTIST? ..............Caroline Glick

  • ARE YOU YOUR MAJESTY, YOU'RE NOT WELCOME..............Daniel Pinner

  • THE GAZA WAR AND THE NEW OUTBURST OF ANTI-SEMITISM..............Manfred Gerstenfeld and Tamas Berzi


  • INTELLIGENCE AND THE ANTI-ISRAEL LOBBY ..............Caroline Glick



  • TOWARD AN ISRAEL'S IMAGE IN CHINA ..............Vicky Wu

  • THE JEWISH MIND CREATES A (BIONIC) JEWISH NOSE ..............Karin Kloosterman

  • A MODEST PROPOSAL..............Aryeh Zelasko

  • THE GREAT REFUGEE SCAM ..............Shmuel Katz

  • REMEMBERING OLMERT'S TRUE RECORD ..............Caroline Glick

  • The DEBACLE OF DEMOGRAPHIC FATALISM ..............Yoram Ettinger


    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
    P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
    E-Mail: ** URL:
    Copyright 2009 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




    Candidly Speaking: Ill winds from Washington

    Mar. 2, 2009
    Isi Leibler , THE JERUSALEM POST
    There are ominous vibes emanating from Washington signaling impending confrontations between the Obama administration and the incoming Netanyahu government.
    Over recent weeks the administration has appointed to senior government postings, personnel with track records of hostility towards Israel such James Jones and Samantha Power.
    But what utterly shocked friends of Israel was the selection of former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, to head the National Intelligence Council. Freeman, who will determine what intelligence is to be presented to the president and personally attend his intelligence briefings, is a bitter foe of Israel. Until now he actually headed the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council where he justified Palestinian terror against Israel and even tried to rationalize Hamas behavior. Last year he accused the Bush administration of "supporting right wing Israeli governments to undo the Oslo Accords and to pacify the Palestinians rather than make peace with them". He also dismissed the two state solution as too little and too late "because what is on offer looks to Palestinians more like an Indian reservation than a country".
    There were also disconcerting statements from George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East envoy. Some Israelis recollect that in the course of his involvement in the region during the Clinton era, his obsessive even-handedness resulted in an inability to distinguish between terrorists and victims. His failed 2001 plan was a classic manifesto of moral equivalency, repeating mantras about cycles of violence and condemning both sides equally for lacking restraint.
    Hitherto, the US administration and Israel agreed not to negotiate with Hamas unless it unequivocally reneged on its objective to destroy the Jewish state. Mitchell has now planted the seeds for a confrontation with the incoming Netanyahu government by asserting that the divisions between the two Palestinian factions represent a major obstacle towards achieving a settlement and urged Hamas and Fatah to unite. He failed to explain the benefits of submerging the weaker Fatah into the more powerful Iranian proxy whose extremism matches that of the Taliban.
    THERE ARE other troubling signals. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is providing Gaza with close to a billion-dollar bailout to be transferred through tainted bodies like UNWRA which will unquestionably strengthen Hamas. Clinton also angrily insists that Israel open border crossings, dismissing the fact that Gilad Schalit remains incarcerated and that Hamas continues launching missiles and shooting at Israelis.
    Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman John Kerry ominously suggested that while ultimately Israel must decide, the US would try to steer its ally in a direction that was good for Israel and the international community. Congressman Gary Ackerman, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, until now a strong supporter of Israel, made bizarre remarks bracketing "the same destructive dynamic which creates terrorism and the march of settlements and outposts" and "leads to the firing of rockets and perpetration of settler pogroms." Democrat Congressman Robin Baird urged the administration to reassess aid to Israel to pressure the new government.
    Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Kurzer, a long-standing Obama Middle East adviser, warned that "a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu which included Avigdor Lieberman would be a bad combination for American interests" which would be loath to "embrace a government that included a politician who was defined as a racist."
    BUT THE GREATEST shock was the initial decision by the administration to participate "for the time being" in the preparatory committee for the Durban II conference, scheduled in Geneva on April 20. The original Durban "anti racism" conference in 2001 was a vile anti-Semitic hate fest boycotted by the Bush Administration. The Durban II Preparatory Committee is under the auspices of the Orwellian named UN Human Rights Commission, an evil body dominated by a coven of Moslem states and tyrannical regimes creating an obscene parody of human rights.
    The committee is currently chaired by Libya, whose president accused Israel of responsibility for the genocide in Darfur and also recently recommended that Israeli Jews be resettled in Alaska. Iran and Cuba are deputy chairs. The drafts for Durban II reaffirm the call to delegitimize Israel, the only country singled out for human rights violations. The Jewish state is defined as a "foreign occupation founded on settlements, and operated by laws based on racist discrimination… a contemporary form of apartheid and a security threat to international peace".
    The Canadians last year announced that they would boycott Durban. The US may have done likewise had our confused Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni not prevaricated and naively hinted that Israel might yet participate if the organizers changed course.
    It was thus disgraceful that after seven years of the US treating this vile body as a pariah, aware that global anti-Semitism was at an all time high, the Obama administration dispatched a delegation to the preparatory committee. They did so under no illusions that the organizers could be persuaded to alter their disgusting program.
    Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, detailed on her Web site ( the utterly demeaning and groveling manner in which the US delegation did raise concerns about efforts to muzzle freedom of speech (such as the use of allegations of Islamophobia to block all criticism of Islam), about demands to criminalize profiling, and about discrimination based on sexual orientation. But inexplicably, they remained absolutely silent concerning the vile references to Israel in the drafts and even failed to respond when invited to comment about Iranian objections against a European proposal to condemn Holocaust denial.
    The passive participation of the United States at a gathering dominated by anti-Semites whose objective is to "reaffirm the Durban Declaration" was shameful and legitimized the resurrection of the hate fest by this wretched group. Bayefsky was justified in accusing the Obama administration of abandoning and betraying Israel as well as sacrificing basic American values in order to conform to the new policy of reaching out to Iranians and other extremist bodies.
    Confronted by an eruption of public indignation, the administration subsequently withdrew from this despicable forum. But enormous damage has already been incurred, and some European countries who initially intended absenting themselves may still participate.
    Although the jury is still out, we face difficult times. If in order to obtain accolades from the Arab world, the Obama Administration is planning to distance itself from Israel or pressure her into making concessions which undermine her basic security needs, we must maintain a united front and stand firm.
    Our American Jewish allies and friends of Israel must gird themselves for new challenges. In contrast to the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush eras when support of Israel was synonymous with US policy, they may now find themselves conflicting with a powerful administration intent on distancing itself from Israel. They are also being undermined by a minority of noisy renegade Jews who shamelessly lobby the administration to employ what they describe as "tough love," a code message for threatening Israel with sanctions if it does not obey their demands for further unilateral concessions. American Jewish leaders now face the challenge of convincing a hopefully pragmatic President Obama - whom they overwhelmingly supported in the election - that appeasing an Iranian terrorist proxy and prematurely creating a Palestinian state controlled by Jihadists can only undermine prospects for peace and harm US interests.





    Jewish Hope & the West: a Tale of ‘Nobility’ from 1948

    Eugene Narrett, PhD

    Why did Menachem Begin have to be carried from the decks of the Altalena in June 1948? It reflects the distinction between Jewish hope and dramatic Hellenist gestures, between simple dreams of life abundant and nightmare myths of glorious apocalypse.

    The Jewish hope is “our hope to be a free people in our land, the land of Zion; Jerusalem.”

    No people has trudged a more difficult path, from so early a date and arrived in modern times intact to the degree of the Children of Israel. Slandered, oppressed, murdered and betrayed, their practical faith stolen, deformed and used to sentence them to death, they have embodied not only the hope of their great anthem, a song as beautiful as it is short, sweet and poignant but the climactic lines of a famous epic:

    To suffer woes which hope thinks infinite; to defy Power which seems omnipotent; to love, endure and hope till hope creates from its own wreck the thing it contemplates i

    It is a bitter fact that the long-running betrayal of the Jewish promise and its immense generative potential should be enacted, on the ground by nominally Jewish servants of the great powers. Yet, even this betrayal and the many errors it multiplies have not quenched the hope of the Jewish people for freedom in a Hebrew Kingdom.

    And it is no coincidence that another great English poet, beloved and widely read to this day in no small part because he had no faith, not even nature, which he loved, and was a kind, good man, at the end of his short life said of himself, “if ever there was a person born without the faculty of hoping, I am he.”ii How sad that the irrationalities, punitive and imperial aspects of the churches drove to despair and fear so many people who by ingrained cultural habit could not begin to see the simple dream and practice of Israel; after all, only a minority of Jews sees and does it to this day, such is the damage of exile.

    In the way of Judaism, hope in inextricable from faith and faith is something practiced and built; as etymology teaches, it is an art, training in belief put into action that changes character. This intertwining and the self-sacrifice it teaches is Jewish nobility, an internal development given in one’s deeds and to one’s ‘brothers.’ It differs from the noble gestures of the nations that make for dazzling art and tend to intertwine death and glory, a love for, glorification and beautification of death, the great last act. In the poems of Keats, in the epic of Tennyson, the history of Spengler the “wish for death” and the romance of death, of “regression to the mud” increases with “enlightenment” since the West is based on a lie and identity theft; guilt, rage and power lust drive it on, trampling humanity in its wake and leaving a nightmare world of masks and shadowsiii. In derekh Yehudi, the last act is in the broadest sense comedic: about integration and life abundant, about the sanctification of the smallest and most metaphysical of matters.

    Terror and bad faith define “the West” from its inception and now explode from pop culture, politics, geopolitics and finance. “Credit” in Hebrew is cognate with faith; it is its root; it is artisanry, acquired by practice of Torah. The financial panic of which the world is dying is a matter of amun ra’ah, evil credit-faith that does harm, purposely, breaking nations, defying all Torah teachings of just weights and measures.iv

    This is another facet of the confusion filling the minds of the kings in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: “Who am I” they ask when they are not maddened outright by despair. “Do you believe in your king?” No one can believe, except by unsustainable blind faith (which therefore must ultimately be coerced) when the culture that produced them invented its own king to displace and discredit the Creator Who is a King only in metaphor; and this is what “the West” has: replacement metaphors straining to impose themselves as ideological and geopolitical facts, masks and shadows, bubbles and dreams. Even the poet of hope turns his back on the world, declaring of his society and its idea of freedom: “cold hopes swarm like worms, within our living clay.”v Nightmares fill the vacuum in which the simple, realizable dreams of Israel are buried; the world loses its glory and splendor and becomes a charnel house of hope, delusion and strife.

    And Europe is run from a city a great English novelist termed “a whited sepulcher” by a nation with whom it has fought fiercely destructive wars to determine who would rule the West; an enemy the English elites empowered in a vast game of breaking of the vessels of sovereignty. “The abrogation of national sovereignty is a duty” for the ecumenical churches to impose on the nations: internationalists like Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian” have worked their way since 1910 toward “a world community” and “a world state” an “international order” in which “Western Liberalism is the political husk of Christianity” which must have its kernel of “love”

    The West is enchanted, literally, filled with the songs, rhetoric, conceptual framework and spirit of despair, and its power-mad masters inculcate their people in the ‘glory of despair’ the better to break their spirit, possessions, and relationships and reduce them to peonage. “The days have gone down in the West, into the shadow; how did it come to this,” is the refrain of the despairing heroes of Lord of the Rings which absorbs the segula (“precious”) of essence of Israel and bond to the Creator into a magical object of power; the Jew into a golem, withered by his precious Torah which has to be destroyed so Nordic and elfin peoples can live in peace to reproduce, perhaps, by budding. How can they believe in their kings, how can their kings believe in themselves when there is no Creator but only wizards, magic, and a depraved image of the Jew? “Empire is located in catastrophe, in rise and fall” a novelist of liberal but not postmodern stance writes. “By day it pursues its enemies,” real and imagined for it lives in the cloud of its fantasies. “It is cunning and ruthless…it feeds on images of disaster: the sack of cities, the rape of populations; pyramids of bones, acres of desolation. A mad vision [and] a virulent one”: to dissent is to be “terror-stricken,” to rule is to contend as in a dream with phantoms of terror by “a new science of degradation that kills people on their knees, confused and disgraced in their own eyes.” vii This results from its deformation of Jewish materials and its contempt and guilty hatred of Jews whom the Creator commands, “fear not.”

    Thus the West is uprooting itself and since the early 1930s has had its subcontractors firmly installed in the Promised Land to keep the Jewish people from establishing strong roots that show a different way to life, a lasting and simple, non-imperial way to abundant life. We live in a time of global uprooting; of destruction of boundaries, memory and tradition especially the memory of Israel which is rooted truly only in its land. The English have used America and its system of accountability, balanced powers and modest government to sell their idea of “Freedom” to the world while destroying the lives and freedom of Israel for “plants with weak roots do not withstand wind and rain” and they intend the reborn Israel, a semi-Jewish State to wither and be absorbed in one of their federations. So a great fighter for Malkhut Israel, considering the failure within the superficial success of 1948 wrote, “we must dig deeper; we must place our people’s roots deeper in their culture…deepen their roots in a complete world view…from the wellsprings of Uri Zvi Greenberg’s poetry” and the truth of the Holy One of Israel, the Creator.viii

    The God of Israel is the Creator of freedom for with His gifts of language-thought and free will He enables human beings to know Him, to know their potential, gifts and roles. Jacob’s ladder teaches many lessons, among them that human thoughts, speech and deeds especially have a diffuse, multi-faceted, indirect effect on the heavenly forces and that “nothing is forgotten before the throne of God” or, as Shakespeare often shows, the wheel will come full circle”; “there is a divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them as we will.”ix Heaven and earth are intertwined through the Jewish vision of the Eternal One and the orderly laws and distinctions by which heaven and earth are established in kindness and faithfulness, a lesson of the Exodus, the paradigmatic liberation in order to serve the Creator and model the ideal commonwealth and true freedom. Again Jews must go into the wilderness of this breaking world or, rather, world whose coherence is being broken as they must return to their entire world and restore all its waste places.

    This can be done; indeed, it will be done for HaTikva is rooted in the souls of all Jews, even those utterly lost in the dazzle and emoluments of “the West.” The desert and the ruin to which Israel was reduced and in which much of it still suffers, is “conducive to anava [humility, the distinctive trait of Moshe] which frees the mind from distractions and opens it to Torah’s eternal and inexhaustible truths. “When Israel received the Torah, the entire nation became a Yeshiva Academy” and Torah study became the greatest virtue because all arts, sciences, and rules for daily conduct are in it and integrated. Thus the Jews have never had minstrels, ballads, theatres, tournaments, circuses, the idolatry of “the Queen of Beauty,” orgies, gladiators, sport-industry, masquerades, hunting for ‘fun,’ bullfights” and such forms of idle idiocy and communion that conduce to fascism and all but require a cult of Statex.

    With its exile, Israel became permeated with Western notions of “nobility” and self-sacrifice that wind up being cruel to the kind, although this is not the intention. We must know our roots, to avoid this lethal confusion of Edom with Israel which has been the play of “the West.” A salient example of this confusion, one that undermines and endangers all the Jewish people, and the world, to this day, is the subject of this essay. Given the confusion, the Hebrew nation, those from “the other side”xi of the world’s tendency to nature worship and subsequent darkness has become a seesaw toyed with in a contrived dialectic of attrition rather than a lever to release the human capacity for true freedom, to know our contingency and true boundaries.

    This is a story and a lesson from June 1948; the things that did and did not happen and the hopes that almost were fulfilled as told by a great spirit that was there and striving for redemption.

    The tale shows how the modern State of Israel and pre-State Yishuv suffer from a perversion of the second forefather, Isaac. Avraham embodies chessed, “kindness” based in his knowledge of the Creator and of “His” unfathomable, father-like kindness in giving human beings a coherent world. Yitzhak, Isaac embodies Gevurah, strength, self-preservation, independence as well as self-restraint in service of these goals within the knowledge of the Creator. But the Labor establishment, the client regime or undertakers have perverted Gevurah by alienating its essential component of insistence on boundaries self-preservation and independence and emphasizing a degenerate form of “self-restraint” (havlaga) which in their praxis means that Israel will never initiate war but only respond after many violent provocations, many violations of its borders and integrity by its enemies. Because of this perversion of Yitzhak, the link between the forefathers, because of this self-serving limitation of Gevurah by the subcontractors Israel cannot truly be Israel (“he commands the powers” of the Creator), the honorary title of Jacob because Israel is a synthesis of the chessed of Avraham with the rigor, boundaries, independence and strength of Yitzhak. Thus the client regime has deformed Yisrael, which is their job: to prevent it from being itself, from being Emet, truth. Israel suffers from a perversion of Gevurah which in turn suppresses its truth and brings disaster rather than awe and respect to the nation.

    The following review of salient history indicates this perversion and illuminates its current costs.

    As Amalekites descend upon Israel like birds of pray upon the covenant, demanding that it give yet more hundreds of trucks filled with food every day to those whose mission and joy is to murder Jews, it is pertinent to review events from 1948 that cast the lines, already laid out on which the State would seesaw toward attrition and calamity led, by tragic error by the best and malice by those who undertake the bidding of the powers.

    Some people know that the ship filled with arms, equipment and Jews ready to fight for Jerusalem, a ship sunk off the beach at Tel Aviv on June 23, 1948 at the orders of Mr. Ben Gurion was named “the Altalena.” Some know that this was the nom de guerre of Zev Jabotinsky, originally the friend and ally and later the target of Chaim Weizmann (“the Englishman”) and David Ben Gurion the communist leader of all the leftwing elements that coalesced into the British-favored establishment of the Jewish community in pre-State Israel. It is this regime of quislings that rules Israel to this day; that then, even during the shoah and in its immediate aftermath “declared a holy war to protect the British” even when it cost the lives of its own cadres in the Haganaxii

    Eldad recounts how Jabotinsky chose the name in error, one that seemed harmless and mildly amusing. “I did not yet know Italian well enough and thought that [the word’s] translation was ‘lever’; afterward I was told that its correct translation is ‘seesaw.’”xiii

    Perhaps one brilliantly gifted in languages and the nuances of words and languages as was Jabotinsky should have known that names and words have a way of creating facts. The struggle of the Underground, inspired by the teachings and love of Jews by ‘Jabo,’ the Rosh Betarxiv and the teetering the State that emerged from the suppression of the Revolt by the caretakers has been, as Eldad wrote sixty years ago, “a seesaw and not a lever” meant to pry up the oppression of millennia and make place for a new nation and Temple.

    In discussing the terrible events of that day, June 23, 1948 Eldad writes that he cares least “to write of the main criminal: the artillery regiments under their Mapai, Mapam and Palmach flags.” He understood the hatred and projected hostility of those who reduced “themselves to the level of being dogs for the British secret police.” He knew that the Underground’s choice, only a month earlier, to disband and enlist in Labor’s Hagana that informed on, caught, and tortured members of the Underground did not diminish the hatred of the “dogs” but increased it, “because it left their desire for revenge unfulfilled.” Revenge for what? “For all the many humiliations we caused them simply by existing during the Underground years” and showing them that there was a true-blue Jewish alternative to collaboration and begging for crumbs, to “self-restraint” and “purity of arms” that continues to bring contempt and hatred upon Israel to this day.

    The destruction of the Altalena and its armaments to enable the conquest of Jerusalem which BG had no intention of permitting (a trusted subcontractor is emplaced to do a job) was “Ben Gurion’s Struma” Eldad writes, referring to the ship filled with nearly eight hundred British refugees from Europe that was torpedoed off the coast of Turkey in spring 1942. While there had been no intention to conquer Tel Aviv or topple the client regime, initially, he adds “such an order was justified after Ben Gurion ordered the murder of those on the ship” adding plausibly, “when such an order is given, the moral and civil foundation upon which a government rests is undermined.”xv

    The main quarrel and questions posed by Eldad, the great polemicist and force behind the struggle for Jewish independence concern his dear friend and comrade, Menachem Begin. Though they disagreed at times on principles and tactics, by 1946 Begin saw that British imperialism was the main enemy and that the issue of Jewish sovereignty was the center of the dispute.

    Why, Eldad asks, was Menachem on the ship, offering himself like a sitting duck since he had no intention of attacking Tel Aviv or the establishment? There was no logic to this danger and potential loss to the entire struggle. Secondly, why the restraint in the face of the homicidal liberticidexvi by the left? He notes, in lines that resonate to this day, “if one side refuses to stop at the border called, ‘shedding brothers’ blood’ while the other declares night and day, ‘anything but a civil war’ and ‘we do not seek power’ then not only is the latter side not preventing bloodshed, but just the opposite: it is inviting bloodshed.” It is the same with “self-restraint” (havlaga) in response to Arab violence, save it long since has become a cynical method for binding and humiliating Jews and crippling the State of Israel which was supposed to represent their sovereignty, special mission and dignity, all of which include their lives and land.

    Eldad continues the thought, so relevant to the sorrow and the pity of the expulsion from Gush Katif, and not only from that failure of love and determination, “if the artillery commanders knew that Begin was going to respond in kind, they would never have given the order to fire…They bombarded the ship because they had repeatedly been promised from its decks, ‘we will not return fire.’” Thus they knew they could kill with impunity for there would be no consequences to their hegemony or personal health. “The self-restraint of the ‘Seesaw’ gave Ben Gurion more power than any vote…a victorious murderer and a restrained, surrendering murder victim” like Israel to this day that fights only enough to save the regime of unilateral surrender and subservience to the powers.

    He criticizes himself and the entire Underground leadership, too, for “not immediately launching a quick sharp maneuver by sea and land and unloading the arms.” But he spends most of his time on the social and spiritual effect of Begin’s tear-filled speech in response to the atrocity. “Ultimately, pity has an effect opposite that which the one arousing the pity assumes it will have,” again, just as during the decades to this day, at least since June 1967, explaining the injustices, describing the double standards and pleading for fair play only evoke contempt and further demands for surrender. Begin, the Commander of the Irgun Eldad writes “was obligated to weep, privately but that night he was obligated to strengthen hearts, not to soften them, not to break them. ‘We are broken’ one of the Etzel commanders told me the next day when I went to headquarters.

    “The murderers washed their hands with these tears and said, ‘indeed, it was not pleasant, but it was worth it.’” As their political descendants said, the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif would be carried out, “with sensitivity and determination.” Eldad explains the main point: “weeping shocks but accomplishes nothing. Laughter is much more potent…and Menachem never learned the powerful laughter that causes enemies to tremble. He never learned it though his teacher Jabotinsky taught it…Jabotinsky would not have responded by weeping. He was made of true steel…”xvii

    “Altalena should have been a lever as Jabotinsky originally thought. Under the artillery bombardment it became a seesaw with a broken body. Ben Gurion was unable to take its soul; its soul was lost with Begin’s weeping... not courageous enough to break the cease fire even when it comes to the armaments of salvation…[this] incompleteness led to self-abasement even before the state [and now] when its Presidents are yesterday’s collaborators.” This was written sixty years ago; its ripples spread today: the tree unfolds from the seed. The failure of the “Jewish Leadership” within the Likud is one ripple.

    But the weakest of those fighters were tough; that night they met, arranged to gather all their forces and travel to Jerusalem to proclaim and win a free Judea. But it was too late: the client regime and its armed cadres preempted most of the re-deployment as they later were to preempt the capture of the Old Cityxviii.

    “I will stay with my soldiers” Menachem had said about being on the Altalena. “The same noble Menachem,” Eldad writes. “The last romantic among the world’s freedom fighters…what kind of heroism is this? They had to carry him off the ship against his will. The subject is worthy of a glorious epic; greatness of spirit has not passed from the world. But do we need material for epics or leaders to direct the Hebrew Revolution?! ‘Take him out of here,’ I said. ‘Take him out of here by force…’”

    And then the end, the end of the beginning of the last stages of rebirth that began with Yair as rooted in the Aaronsohn group, Herzl, the Ohr Ha Chaim and Ramchalxix; with the sages of Tzfat, Yehudah Ha Levi and those waiting for him…a rebirth that will not stop until its branches blossom fully from the river to the river and the simple dream sings gladly from the ashes of sterile imperial schemes, their dazzling spin and many forms of autocratic magic: “we will be like dreamers, our mouths will be filled with laughter and our tongues with glad song…” It is as it was in the summer of 1948 and beyond, “every child in the city knows: if fighting starts, nothing will stop the army of Israel from passing over the walls; and after the walls, the Temple Mount; and afterward there will be no more border, not in Ramallah, not in Shechem, not on the Jordan River. Jerusalem is the last line of foreign rule in this country.” So it was, and so it is.

    Blair, Mitchell, Clinton, Jones, Freeman, Braddock, Baker, all the Emperor’s horsemen and all of his men and female-males working overtime to defend their death state from the Jubilee of Israel.

    Only those with strong roots will withstand wind and rain. “He whose works exceed his wisdom, his wisdom will endure.”

    i The epigraph is from the national anthem, HaTikva out of which singing and doing the modern nation of Israel was born. The quoted passage in text is from Prometheus Unbound 4.1.570-74 by Percy B. Shelley (1819). Having had so much of its unique history, themes, ways and metaphors appropriated, it is apt to adduce these lines from an epic on a Hellenized hero of Enlightenment pantheism and return them to the Jewish people who exemplify and have pioneered them.

    ii John Keats, Letter of Mrs. S. Brawne, 24 October 1820, Letters of John Keats (Oxford 1970, ed. Robert Gittings), 395-6; Mrs. Brawne was the mother of the young woman Keats loved to distraction but who never promised him her sole affection or engagement; his unrequited worship of this ordinary person shows the crippling residue of the “Queen of Beauty” pattern, the Hellenist goddess worship that cripples the West, generating much of its self-destructive energies and, in many case making a mockery of the British claim to have the unique “idea of freedom” that will unify and save the world.

    iii This is the horrific vision Shelley relates in his last poem, an Inferno titled ironically, “The Triumph of Life” (1822) with the “Triumph” modeled on the imperial trionfi of pagan Rome when conquered peoples and their treasures, like the golden menorah and silver trumpets of the Kohanim as seen on the Arch of Titus, were paraded through the streets of Rome to demonstrate the might of the “imperial city.”

    iv It cannot be coincidence that this “evil faith” and “bad credit that does harm” is a homonym for the name of an Egyptian god-king. “Panic and Terror” are the offspring of Aphrodite whose “birth” and substance is an act of sexual perversion and violence, and Ares, the god of War who now rules with his consort in a “War of Terror,” an endless war of shadows and contrived dialectic attrition; see Hesiod, Theogeny 91-245

    v Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Adonais: an Elegy on John Keats” (1821), 342-356 passim. Wordsworth’s “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Early Childhood,” Coleridge’s “Dejection an Ode” express similar grief and contradiction; life is a progressive loss, not a blessing. The imagination that displaces faith in the Creator and respect for his people generates images of loss, ruin and bewildering shadows; nature once worshipped as glorious becomes a “prison-house” for those whose freedom is parliament, “free speech” and “the rule of law” whose essence in times become preference and power, antitheses of Torah.

    vi William Paton, “World Order,” The Church and World Order (London 1941)l Lionel Curtis, Civitas Dei (1937); Toynbee quoted by Curtis in “World Order,” International Affairs, 1939, Volume 18, #3 (London May-June 1939), journal of the R.I.I.A. quoted in Martin Erdman, Building the Kingdom of God on Earth: the Churches Marshaling Support for World Order and Peace, 1919-45 (Oregon 2005), 60-81 passim

    vii J.M. Coetzee, Waiting for the Barbarians (Penguin 1982), 133, 95, 108, passim; cf. Shelley, “Adonais,” “we decay like corpses in a charnel, cold hopes convulse us and consume us day by day…and in mad trance strike with our spirit’s knife, invulnerable nothings”; in the West grim hope sits on despair.

    viii Israel Eldad, The First Tithe (1950, 1963 2nd edition; Jabotinsky Institute, Tel Aviv, 2008 English translation, Zev Golan), 408-09; Eldad echoes Pirke Avot 3:22 on Jeremiah 17:6 and Tehillim 1; one’s work in sanctifying the everyday matters and in acknowledging the Creator is the greatest wisdom and “he whose work exceeds his wisdom, his wisdom will endure.” Eldad urges the work of memory and honor.

    ix Shakespeare, King Lear 5.3. 176, 304-06; Hamlet 5.2.10-11; Ramchal, Derekh Hashem 2.3-9

    x Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth (NY 1968) quoted in Dr. Paul Eidelberg’s Judaic Man: Toward a Reconstruction of Western Civilization (1996), 70-81 passim, an essential text.

    xi “Hebrew” is English for the word “Ivri” (first applied to Abraham, “a prince of God,” “blessed of God the Most High”); it means “the other side” geographically, northeast of the Euphrates, originally, and in knowledge and practical faith on the other side of all the nations of the world which, in the UN, have again gathered against Jerusalem; it is uncanny or, one would say, providential.

    xii The First Tithe, 318-25 ff; Dr. Golan will tour America April –May 2009, contact him for lectures.

    xiii Op. cit. 387-400, “A Seesaw, not a Lever” in the chapter, “For the Three Crimes of the Altalena…”

    xiv Betar, now a medium-sized city in central Israel west of Jerusalem in ancient times was the site of the last stand of the Jewish people against Rome under Shimon Bar Kokhba in 135. In the 1920s, Jabotinsky founded a national renewal movement for youth under the title Betar which also was understood as an acronym for Brit Yosef Trumpeldor, the former Russian army hero who was killed by Arabs as he, with a small group of fellow Jews, defended the settlement of Tel Chai in the northern Galilee in 1920.

    xv Eldad, 390-1

    xvi The word was coined by Shelley in his sonnet, “England in 1819” written in response to the “Peterloo Massacres” and partly to inspire a revolutionary change of mind and tactics among the people. Unlike Keats, Shelley was at heart a Puritan displaced in the post-Enlightenment age, seeking always for the “Unseen Spirit” throughout his major poetry, “the awful [awesome] and unseen power” that resides in darkness and that in late poems he termed, “the One” or “the One Spirit”, “the Unborn and the Undying” (“Hymn to Intellectual Beauty,” June 1816, “Adonais” May 1821, “Hellas” October 1821). Radical in principle, his allegiance was, as he put it in a letter of fall 1819, “always on the side of liberty and the oppressed” but he had lessening faith in “the people’s” ability to free themselves from their materialism or “mind-forged manacles” (the phrase is that of William Blake one of the most unusual replacement types of all time). Trapped in a decadent Church of England context, Shelley could never get closer to truth than an other-worldly Neo-Platonism and a grim refusal to ‘join the crowd,’ wanting life sanctified but unable to see a way given that his framework was the church model whose irrational theology and cheap ‘faith,’ clubbiness and punitive nature he hated almost as much as he hated the authoritarian Roman church.

    xvii Eldad, 392-3

    xviii Samuel Katz, Days of Fire (NY 1968), 263-72; Eldad 397-409

    xix Rabbi Chaim ben Attar led his congregation from Italy to Jerusalem in 1735; Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato made aliyah two years later from Holland; Rav Yehuda Ha Levi from Spain in about 1140. See Samuel Katz, Battleground (1983, 3rd edition) chapter 4 for a readable summary of the continuous presence of Jews in the Land. For a fascinating and erudite discussion of the qualities and potential that will ensue from restoring Israel my works and those of Dr. Eidelberg, above, are helpful. Only know that “the West,” a fabrication or “text” from the first is undoing itself in its elites cynical lack of faith and contempt for Hope and that the renewal of humanity will come from restoring and fulfilling the lessons of the Torah.




    by David Basch
        "Elliott Abrams in a recent article shows  himself a star
         graduate of the Bernard Madoff Confidence Man School...
         ready to deliver his Jewish paisanos into support for the
         Obama policy of Arab appeasement and Israeli surrender...."

        "The reality is ... the Arabs do not have willing peace to
         give Israel; they must be coerced to do so just as the
         Nazis were coerced...."

        "Is the relocation of Arabs or other populations that are a
         threat to peace extremist solutions unheard of in history?"

    Elliott Abrams in the March 2 issue of The Weakly Standard -- "THE
    PATH OF REALISM OR THE PATH OF FAILURE: Laying a foundation for peace in Palestine" -- pushes for what is actually a policy of Israeli
    surrender. The so-called realistic path he urges on Israel is to
    continue Bush's original 2002 policy to establish a Palestinian state
    on Israel's lands. When Bush surprisingly announced that policy, he
    also slandered Israel as the "occupier" of lands that allegedly belong
    to a mythical "Palestinian people." This was a "people" unknown prior
    to 1967 and unmentioned in UN Resolution 242 in that year and whose
    fraudulent claims on Israel's lands Bush would have Israel honor. In
    fact, these are very lands that were set aside as a homeland for the
    Jewish people by the League of Nations in their Mandate of Palestine.

    While Bush's original policy included many provisos requiring that the
    Arabs show by word and deed their support for peace with Israel, when
    the Arabs dismally failed to deliver on those obligations, showing
    once again that are implacable enemies to Israel, Bush nevertheless
    insisted that Israel follow through on then one-sided Israeli
    surrenders. Here again was revealed US inconstancy in supporting
    Israel and reality that appeasement of the Arabs is the US priority.

    Abrams in his article wants Israel to disregard Bush's (and the US's)
    betrayal and to return to the failed Bush approach on the basis of
    Abram's now astonishing belief that an Obama administration, less
    openly committed to Israel than the Bush pose, will make good on
    demands on the Arabs that Bush failed to uphold.

    Surely, one must discover Abrams to be a star graduate of the Bernard
    Madoff Confidence Man School. Like Madoff, Abrams uses his past
    credentials of ties to the Jewish people -- he is the son-in-law of
    Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary and he too a former arch
    supporter of Israel -- and his ties with US political leaders who were
    strong advocates of Israel to give him credibility in urging Israel to
    adopt elements of the Arab step by step plan to reverse the existence
    of Israel.

    Abrams is a man obviously totally dedicated to his career within the
    US foreign policy establishment. He was recently rewarded by
    appointment as a fellow of the Council of Foreign Relations, no doubt
    receiving that plumb because he has served narrow, short-sighted, US
    foreign policy interests by selling out Israel. Abrams probably
    delivered his father-in-law, Podhoretz (and Commentary) to the support
    of the disastrous Gaza surrender and its Jewish ethnic cleansing that
    had squandered the security of the entire southern tier of Israel.
    This danger of such a policy was amply warned of at the time but such
    clear eyed warnings had been overruled by the likes of Abrams and

    Despite the Gaza blunder that put almost 1 million Israelis under the
    threat of Hamas rockets, Abrams, we see, remains incorrigible. He now
    wants Israel to repeat the Gaza type surrender within the eastern
    territories of Judea and Samaria -- the very names of these
    territories that I personally heard used by the late King Hussein of
    Jordan on a major US Sunday interview show. While the Gaza disaster
    involved less than 10,000 Jews made refugees in their own country by
    being ethnically cleansed from their homes -- tragic enough in itself
    -- in the ethnic cleansing proposed by Abrams for Israel's eastern
    territories, the Jewish numbers refugeed could reach to the hundreds
    of thousands. (Surely such a plan makes legitimate the policy of
    ethnic cleansing since no one seems to find anything wrong with
    allegedly gaining peace at such a price.) Even the credible Bernie
    Madoff would not have had the nerve to advocate such insanity.

    In advocating for this new disaster, Abrams argues that the stakes are
    indeed peace for Israel, as though the Arabs really wish peace and as
    though Israel has gotten an ounce of peace from all her trades of land
    to her Arab enemies. Even amidst the environment of Arab hate against
    Israel, Abrams paints rosy pictures of Arab leaders that no one has
    ever heard of who allegedly are working for peace with Israel and he
    evokes images of Arab forces cultivated and groomed to enforce peace
    with Israel -- a peace that has not existed for over 60 years.

    Political scientists often lecture on how a relatively small militant
    group of only 10% of a population are enough to create bloody
    revolutions. In fact, among the Arabs, such militant factions -- known
    as terrorists -- number many times the magic 10%. These are the groups
    that have dominated Arab life over the years, keeping the pot boiling
    against peace with Israel -- far more numerous than the minuscule
    forces for Arab peace that Abrams describes. Despite this, Abrams has
    the nerve to allege that Israelis and their supporters should assume
    that now the Messianic era of peace is upon us and that Israel,
    trusting in Obama, can safely put her head in the Arab jackal's mouth.

    The Abrams fallacies abound. Among its assumptions is that the Arabs
    in the Israeli territories are some kind of powerless minority like
    the Amish of Pennsylvania and are not the vanguard of a vast majority
    of the Muslim Arab world, numbering about 200 million, that wants
    Israel removed from the Middle East.

    This so-called minority has over the years received vast and
    continuous support from the Muslim world and its supporters -- wealth
    that has been used for war with Israel amidst Arab poverty that is
    used to keep this population motivated with hate against Israel.
    Notice that, no sooner did the Hamas leaders, elected by the Gazan
    residents -- like the Germans who elected Hitler -- have their own
    infrastructure destroyed as a consequence of their having mounted
    attacks on Israel, but that now Hillary Clinton, carrying out Obama's
    Arab apeasement policy, rushes to turn over almost a billion of
    dollars to rebuild the Gaza of the unreconstructed enemy -- this while
    Hamas rockets continue to rain on Israel. Clearly Israel is on her own
    and if she is to survive must take responsibility for making this a

    If Abrams truly wants Israel to embark on the path of reality and not
    failure, then he would urge Israel to face the reality of an
    implacable Muslim-Arab world that wants a new Arab state only for the
    purpose of using it as a lever to deprive Israel of her state. Abrams'
    alleged "path of realism" would bring "Gaza" to Israel's eastern
    territories. Israel's surrendering of territory to smiling Arabs has
    been shown not at all to be the path of peace since every advantage
    thus gained by the Arabs has been used to continue their war against

    Realism requires Israelis to recognize that Israel's condition
    resembles that of a proverbial embattled man that holds a vicious
    jackal powerless by the tail, which, if released, would mortally maul
    him. Abrams would have such an embattled Israel let go of that Arab
    tail without Israel having created with certainty the condition in
    which that jackal cannot exercise its vicious desire. The reality is
    that, like the jackal, the Arabs do not have willing peace to give
    Israel and they must be coerced to do so just as the Nazis were

    Empowering the Arabs through Israeli surrenders, as Abrams proposes,
    will hardly succeed in "laying a foundation for peace" in the mythical
    "Palestine" -- no such nation ever existed in history. As experience
    shows, empowerment of the Arabs will only enable them to quintuple
    their low intensity war against Israel. It will make a reality of the
    Arab dream to infuse millions of new Arabs into Israel -- the Arab
    horde currently living in Lebanon, having been cultivated over six
    decades for no other purpose than replacing the Jewish population of
    Israel and make Israel disappear. WHO NEEDS THAT?

    The logic of realism entails that Israel gird up to resist her
    rollback. The Gaza rollback promoted by Bush resulted in opening a
    dangerous route for Arab weaponry and invasion into Israel from the
    south. Gaza is now an Arab military bastion attacks Israel to this
    very day. Realism dictates Israel's recognition of this strategic
    threat and the necessity to answer it -- not by US, Un, or Arab
    promises -- by severing the southern border of Gaza from Egypt by a
    wide, north-south corridor about ten to 20 miles wide along the
    Egyptian border and ethnically cleansing of Arab residents, using the
    tool that the world has already made legitimate in Gaza for the Jews.
    This action will in one shot neutralize the Gaza tunnels and render
    the remainder of Gaza militarily isolated. This is realism.

    Such a policy of victory will demonstrate that Israel has recognized
    that her security lies in military victory over her Arab enemy -- the
    kind of military victory that the Arabs want to achieve against a
    weakened Israel. Such an Israel victory will have created an effective
    barrier against the Arab enemy that does not depend on its imaginary
    willingness to live in peace for its success, nor on equally
    perfidious US promises. It will also demonstrate that the abomination
    of Israel giving up her strategic territories to deadly enemies is a
    thing of the past. It will tell that, henceforth, the warring Arab
    enemy will be paid back in kind and that, in the event of Arab
    defeats, the Arabs will lose strategic lands they occupy in making war
    -- the very same penalty that awaits Israel were Israel to be

    Realism demands that the Gaza victory model become the pattern for
    responding to Arab attack. If the Arabs attack, there is no reason for
    Israel to suffer living with a nine mile wide neck along the
    Mediterranean that makes her vulnerable. to enemy attack. Thus, Israel
    will no longer respond to Arab attack ineffectively, tit for tat, but
    will respond in a manner to make another attack unlikely since the
    Arabs will have lost their attack platform, permanently forfeiting
    the lands used in such an attack and its Arab residents ethnically

    Where will displaced the Arabs live? (Know that no Arabs worry about
    such things in connection with defeated Jews that they would surely
    remove.) These Arabs will have some options. They could live
    compressed within existing Arab enclaves in Israel's territories where
    they will have less capability to mount further attacks. A better
    option is their relocation to any of the vast land holdings of the
    Arab world. If Jordan cannot accept sizable relocated populations,
    perhaps it can become a way-station elsewhere. This elsewhere could
    possibly be in Iraq living in new homes among the Sunni Arab
    population that some Arab leaders in the past have felt needed to be
    there to augment it and to balance the must larger Shiite population.

    The point here is that the Arab nations -- for the sake of peace --
    would be called on to accept and integrate such Arab populations. This
    is the same solution needed for the massive Arab population, alleged
    to be refugees, cultivated in Lebanon. Were the Arabs truly wishing
    peace with Israel, this must be solution for this Lebanese population.
    What is more, enabling such Arab relocations must be seen as the
    significant sign that the Arabs truly want peace with Israel. For can
    it be believed that the Arabs really want to live in peace when their
    demands of Israel would render Israel incapable of survival? An Israel
    that can defend itself without the need to trust to its security to
    others is the sine quo non for any realistic peace agreement.

    Is the relocation of Arabs or other populations that are a threat to
    peace extremist solutions unheard of in history? In fact, this is the
    very solution that the Western Allies -- England, Germany, the US, and
    others -- imposed after World War II . In this, 12 million ethnic
    Germans from lands outside Germany were relocated to Germany,
    undertaken for "the sake of peace." This is the same goal that Abrams
    wishes to achieve by the ethnic cleansing of Jews and the surrender of
    Israel's territories to the Arabs. But ask yourself, then, which of
    the alternative proposals will in fact lead to peace?

    Is the path of peace the weakening Israel and relocating Jews from her
    territories -- territories that belong to her as set aside by the
    League of Nations for a Jewish homeland -- and establishing a new Arab
    state there that is certain to share the desire to destroy Israel with
    its neighbors? Gaza proved the insanity of this approach, which will
    only lead to continuing war to destroy Israel.

    Isn't peace more likely to result from the removal of dangerous Arab
    populations from strategic areas that threaten Israel? Rather than
    ethnic cleansing Jews as Abrams proposes, ethnic cleansing of Arabs to
    create the secure borders that UN Resolution 242 calls for,
    strengthening Israel, makes unlikely subsequent Arab attack from
    forces that have lost strategic positions to successfully carry them
    out. This is indeed the realistic approach to peace.

    Another point to be emphasized, is that the Abrams approach requires
    Israel to surrender her very own legitimate territories, an unjust
    requirement to give lands to those who they don't belong to and who
    war to destroy the Jewish state. Meanwhile, not only does the second
    approach of removing Arabs as the German ethnics were removed for the
    sake of peace create peace in the region, it also morally fulfills
    what was given to the Jewish people by the nations of the world under
    the League of Nations' Mandate of Palestine.

    The realistic proposal of attaining peace by relocating threatening
    Arab populations from Israel's territories to Arab nations is, of
    course, a solution which the Arabs will not willingly accept. The
    Arabs will not acquiesce in doing so, not because it is not practical
    -- 12 million German ethnics were once relocated -- or because of the
    reason that it will not bring peace, but because the Arabs do not want
    peace with Israel but rather Israel's destruction.
    The only way that such a solution can be attained, insuring Israel's
    long term survival, is through Israeli military victory. No one else
    will make this possible. The realization of this compels Israel to
    adopt the policy that, henceforth, were the Arabs to persist in making
    war, the Israeli response must involve as part of her war aims the
    relocation of dangerous Arab populations in the way that the Western
    Allies once carried out for ethnic Germans in Europe and the way the
    people of the Indian subcontinent carried out for millions in
    separating the populations for peace that resulted in Pakistan and
    This approach involving Israeli victory is far better than
    the Abram's approach that is based on Israeli surrenders for no peace
    that will certainly lead to Israel's ultimate defeat, her people
    massively butchered and, those surviving, in mass removals that the
    Arabs have no compunctions in carrying out. No such consequence of
    butchery would accompany the preferred Israeli victory.

    Where did The Weekly Standard dig up this Abrams?

    David Basch is an architect and city planner in New York as well as the Freeman Center's political philosopher. Basch is also an expert on Shakespeare and the author of the book,
    The Hidden Shakespeare, which proves through talmudic and other Jewish sources that Shakespeare was in fact Jewish.



    Forwarded with comments by Emanuel A. Winston,
    Freeman Center Mid East analyst & commentator

    The Clintons were very well-known as recipients of Arab largess from their days in Arkansas through donor funds. The Clintons (when Bill was President and Hillary was First Lady) were the most honored guests at every Arab Muslim event in Washington.
    The Clintons were committed and keep their promises.
    For years there have been whispers and rumors about then President Bill Clinton pressing a dictator of an African country who had rich diamond mines. The pressure was for said dictator to give the Clintons a share in one mine. It would be worth tracking down to see (if true), if the profits and value were declared - either in their statement of assets or and/or to the IRS.
    Now that Bill Clinton has released the list of his 205,000 donors who have given close to $500 million to his library and foundation, it's clear why he resisted releasing the list while his wife was running for president.
    Compelled to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as Secretary of State, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator, to say nothing of the husband of an incoming Secretary of State.
    Particularly troubling are the massive donations from Arab governments in the Middle East. How can a Secretary of State possibly be impartial in conflicts involving Israel when her husband has gotten tens of millions of dollars from Arabian governments and high-ranking people.
    Specifically, Clinton got:
    Between $10 million and $25 million from:
    -- The government of Saudi Arabia
    Between $1 million and $5 million from:
    -- Friends of Saudi Arabia
    -- The Dubai Foundation
    -- Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid
    -- Saudi tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi
    -- Former Lebanon Dep. Prime Minister Issam Fares
    -- The government of Kuwait
    -- The government of Qatar
    -- The government of Oman
    -- The government of Brunei
    -- The Zayed Family, rulers of Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates
    He also received between $500,000 and $1 million from:
    – Saudi businessman Walid Juffali.
    Pardon us for looking such generous gift horses in the mouth, but it is hard to imagine so many governments, monarchs and businessmen in the Middle East giving money unless it was with some hope of a political return on their investment. Will that return now come with the appointment of Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State? After all, the next Secretary of State will be called upon to mediate and negotiate conflicts in the Middle East as her first assignment.
    How can Hillary Clinton undertake to do so impartially when her husband's library and foundation -- over which he has total control -- have been bankrolled by the very nations with whom she must negotiate?
    The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet Republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who according to The New York Times has all but quashed political dissent."
    Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra.
    Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there.
    Now, lo and behold, Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation $10 million to $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative-Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more. And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Laksmi Mittal, the fourth wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.
    In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of Ukraine.
    Given the complexities of U.S. policy toward the former Soviet republics in Central Asia , it is hard to see how this massive and incestuous relationship cannot but complicate Hillary's independence.
    One of the largest donors to the library and foundation was UNITAID, an international organization largely controlled by France, which donated more than $25 million. And the conflicts of interest are not all just foreign.
    Corporate bailout recipients and wanna-be recipients donated to the Clinton fund. --- They include: AIG, Lehman, Merrill, the Citi Foundation and General Motors. And, almost as an afterthought, the list reveals a donation of at least $450,000 from Denise Rich, presumably in return for her ex-husband's presidential pardon.
    How could a United States Senator possibly serve dispassionately while her husband was collecting money from these donors on this scale? And how could we have elected a president without realizing these conflicts existed?
    And how can a Secretary of State function with these conflicts hanging over her head? Looks like another sell-out!
    P.S. from an old cynic: It could have only been worse if Hillary had made it to the presidency!!
    *Also note that on her first trip as Secretary of State, she stayed an extra day in China. Was that to sack up her 'kick backs' CASH from her Wal-Mart days in Little Rock?



    Pick your poison, Israel 

    By Ted Belman
    Israel must decide whether to attack Iran or not and whether to accept the Saudi Plan or not. In both cases Israel has to pick her poison.
    The Iranian threat
    Israel has already decided to attack Iran with the intention of setting back the nuclear program by a few years. Likud, Kadima and Labour seem to be in agreement.
    Such an attack will be very difficult, giving the distance to Iran and the lack of any agreement to traverse anyone’s airspace. Israel originally hoped to get American approval to fly through Iraq’s air space. But now that the US has signed an Agreement with Iraq giving them control of the airspace, this is not an option. But all is not lost. Should Israel violate Iraq’s airspace, Iraq has no means to prevent such incursion. They have no airforce and no missile system to oppose it. I am not aware of any term of the agreement which would obligate the US to act on their behalf.

    Israel will have to decide whether to include any nuclear bombs to ensure greater destruction and whether to attack the Revolutionary Guards, the parliament and the home of the Mullahs. They way I see it, in for a penny, in for a pound. In either case the Iranian response will be the same. It would be great if Israel could capture an airport to enable Israel to land troops to be used to finish off certain facilities. I do not know if this is militarily possible. but if it is, Israel is no doubt considering it.
    No doubt Israel would also bomb Kharg Island which is Iran’s largest oil loading terminal accounting for most of its oil exports and revenue.
    The response will sure result in many Jewish, Israeli and American targets being attacked all over the world. Edwin Black in his article “The Iran-Israel nuclear endgame is now much closer.” writes
      “THE CONSEQUENCES for this confrontation are apocalyptic because Iran’s full partner in this enterprise is Russia. The Russian company Atomstroiexport has provided most if not all of the nuclear material for the 1,000 megawatt Bushehr reactor, along with thousands of technicians to service and operate it.
      Following its invasion of Georgia, Moscow forged ahead with final delivery plans for the S-300 advanced air defense system which can track scores of IAF airborne intruders simultaneously, whether low-level drones or high-altitude missiles, and shoot them down. But the S-300, the linchpin of Iran’s defense against Israel, will not be fully operational for several months, creating a narrow window for Israel to act. Indeed, Russia has just announced a pause in missile deliveries for the system in fear that it will accelerate an Israeli response.
      Iran, of course, has repeatedly threatened to counter any such attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz, as well as launching missiles against the Ras Tanura Gulf oil terminal and bombarding the indispensable Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq which is responsible for some 65 percent of Saudi production. Any one of these military options, let alone all three, would immediately shut off 40% of all seaborne oil, 18% of global oil, and some 20% of America’s daily consumption.”
    Once the attack begins, Israel will be inundated with rockets from Lebanon, Gaza and probably Syria. It will thus use the planes not active in the Iranian attack to devastate these locations. A substantial mobilization is not out of the question as land forces will probably be ordered into Gaza and Lebanon.
    World opinion and pressure will be ignored.
    Israel will be considered the aggressor and most of the world community will not accept that Israel was acting in self-defense. The hatred of Israel and Jews will know no bounds except that privately many will be pleased.
    Such a war will deplete Israel’s munitions and it will be in need of resupply. Will America stand by and refuse to resupply Israel as she has done in the past, notably in the Yom Kippur War. At that time Kissinger withheld supplies in order to make Israel more compliant in the peace process to follow. The same thinking would apply here. To make matters worse, Egypt, with American connivance, might mass troops on its borders if not actually invade.
    On the other hand, if Israel declines to preempt and waits to be attacked first as she did in the Yom Kipper War, she will be at a decided disadvantage except in the PR war. If the attack on Israel takes the form of a dirty nuclear bomb or the use of chemical or biology weapons, Israel will suffer enormous losses thereby diminishing her ability to respond to the provocation.
    To my mind, Israel must decide how likely such an attack is and act accordingly. It may be that Iran prefers to bleed Israel by a thousand cuts, or should I say rockets, rather than invite massive retaliation. Israel chose to endure eight years of sporadic rocket attacks from Gaza as the lesser evil to invading Gaza. Israel could likewise decide if future rocket attacks are endurable..
    Either way, its poison.
    The “peace process”

    Here too, Israel must decide to accept the Saudi Plan or reject it
    Kadima and Labour favour the former, though the last government tried to get the PA to accept a return of 93% of the land and forgo the right of return but there was no takers. Thus only the Saudi Plan with a return to the armistice lines and a “just solution to the refugee problem” will suffice to get a deal. This would involve the removal of over 100,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria.
    The Saudi Plan also requires Israel to return the Golan to Syria.
    Only after all this transpires will the Arab world discuss what they meant by their offer of “normalization”.
    Also Iran remains an obstacle to such a deal. Its proxy, Hamas will never agree to a permanent peace with Israel or to recognized borders for Israel. The Quartet is now working to bring Hamas into the PA ostensibly as a junior partner. In reality Hamas will dominate.
    The only thing Israel will get from such capitulation is borders which are recognized by the world even if not by Hamas and Iran. Such recognition though isn’t necessarily dependable. The world recognized the borders of Palestine, as it then was, in the Palestine Mandate. Such recognition was soon abandoned. The world also accepted the requirement for “secure” borders in Resolution 242 otherwise known as “defensible borders” but who but Netanyahu talks about that now.
    But we are not done yet. Israel will be demanding that Palestine be demilitarized. Fat chance. She is currently demanding that Hamas not be allowed to rearm. Hamas has made it clear that it will never give up its right to do so. So it is safe to say that Israel will not be able to keep the West Bank demilitarized. Even if the PA would agree to it, the PA has never kept an agreement to date. So much for the value of a signed piece of paper.
    The agreement will provide for a corridor connecting the West Bank with Gaza. Aside from the security risk this represents, it would allow for Gazans to move from Gaza to the West Bank thereby transferring the Gaza radicalism and population density to the West Bank. In addition, perhaps a million refugees from refugee camps in the surrounding countries will return to the new State of Palestine. How can the West Bank with its limited land and water resources sustain such a population? How can such a state be viable. This instability will be used as a tool to further destroy Israel.
    Israel will also want the PA to agree that Palestine will not enter into defense treaties with other Arab countries. This they will not agree to.
    After all is said and done, what is to stop rockets from raining down on Israel from the West Bank. Nothing.
    Who is to say that the Arabs will ever make peace with Israel? The Muslims are taking over Europe through intimidation made easier due to liberalism. The Seeds of Liberalism is one of the many articles attesting to this. In fifty years there will be nothing left of the Europe that we once knew. So why should the Arabs accept any less a fate for Israel.
    It is for these reasons that Netanyahu is putting his hopes on economic development as a means to stabilize the West Bank. He is thinking of giving the Palestinians limited sovereignty, otherwise known as autonomy, rather than full sovereignty. But the Palestinians have rejected economic development time and time again. They prefer to eradicate the “occupation” which includes Israel. They will be aided and abetted in this project by Israel’s Arab fifth column.
    The Obama administration has accepted the idea of economic development but not as a substitute for diplomatic progress. It is careful to always say it wants a secure Israel to result. But few believe that capitulation by Israel will make it more secure.
    Israel could also decide to follow the National Union’s plan to annex Judea and Samaria together with its 1.4 million Arabs. In the expanded Israel, Jews would outnumber Arabs by a ratio of 2:1 Citizenship would be available to these Arabs, over an extended period, say 15 years, giving time for detoxification, subject to certain prerequisites. These include loyalty oaths, knowledge of Hebrew, national service and so on. Of course all terrorists and their huggers would have to be expelled.
    Prior to the annexation, Israel would pass a constitution declaring Israel to be a Jewish state. Such constitution would perhaps provide for two houses of government and would require super majorities to pass any changes to fundamental things.
    The local governments would be given as much responsibility or autonomy as they can responsibly handle. There would be zero tolerance for incitement. Everyone would be equal before the law. In fact this was what was envisioned by the League of Nations in the Palestinian Mandate passed in 1922 which gave the Palestinians civil and religious right but not political rights.
    Very few refugees would be permitted to return to the expanded Israel. Gazans would be left high and dry to fend for themselves.
    It would be best if Israel could get American approval to such a plan but that is unlikely. So Israel would have to go it alone. Just as she annexed Jerusalem without international approval, she could annex Judea and Samaria. This is simply done by extending Israeli law to these territories in replacement of occupation law. The word “annexation” need not come up. The “occupation” would then come to an end.
    Oslo and the peace process have given the Palestinians hope of destroying Israel and this hope has fuelled the resistance. Kill the hope, you kill the resistance. As Palestinian nationalism dies, the fifth column in Israel will also evaporate. Then Israel can focus on creating a just society.
    If Israel chooses this path she will have to contend with an irate world and probably sanctions. But in time things will settle down. As more and more Arabs earn citizenship, the opposition to the annexation will diminish.
    As much as Israelis would love to include Judea and Samaria within their borders, they are very reluctant to include another 1.4 million Arabs within her borders. Given their experience with Arabs consisting of 20% of the current population and the experience of European countries in contending with as little as 10% Muslim minority, they are very reluctant to contend with a 33% Arab minority. There is much opposition to doing so. In fact Yisrael Beiteinu wants to give land away together with its Arab inhabitants in order to reduce the 20% minority of Arabs. Israel must chose between more land and a higher minority percentage or less land and a lower percentage. In the former case there would be no need to negotiate borders or divide Jerusalem. In the latter case Israel would be enabling a hostile Arab state to be created looming over the Israeli coastline.
    Either way, Israel, pick your poison.

    Ted Belman



    Islam and the West: Lines of Demarcation

    By Roger Scruton

    What it is about our civilization that causes such resentment, and why we must defend it.

    The West today is involved in a protracted and violent struggle with the forces of radical Islam. This conflict is intensely difficult, both because of our enemy’s dedication to his cause, and also, perhaps most of all, because of the enormous cultural shift that has occurred in Europe and America since the end of the Vietnam War. Put simply, the citizens of Western states have lost their appetite for foreign wars; they have lost the hope of scoring any but temporary victories; and they have lost confidence in their way of life. Indeed, they are no longer sure what that way of life requires of them.
    At the same time, they have been confronted with a new opponent, one who believes that the Western way of life is profoundly flawed, and perhaps even an offense against God. In a “fit of absence of mind,” Western societies have allowed this opponent to gather in their midst; sometimes, as in France, Britain, and the Netherlands, in ghettos which bear only tenuous and largely antagonistic relations to the surrounding political order. And in both America and Europe there has been a growing desire for appeasement: a habit of public contrition; an acceptance, though with heavy heart, of the censorious edicts of the mullahs; and a further escalation in the official repudiation of our cultural and religious inheritance. Twenty years ago, it would have been inconceivable that the archbishop of Canterbury would give a public lecture advocating the incorporation of Islamic religious law (shari’ah) into the English legal system. Today, however, many people consider this to be an arguable point, and perhaps the next step on the way to peaceful compromise.
    All this suggests that we in the West stand on the edge of a dangerous period of concession, in which the legitimate claims of our own culture and inheritance will be ignored or downplayed in an attempt to prove our peaceful intentions. It will be some time before the truth will be allowed to play its all-important role of rectifying our current mistakes and preparing the way for the next ones. This means that it is more necessary than ever for us to rehearse the truth and come to a clear and objective understanding of what is at stake. I will, therefore, spell out in what follows some of the critical features of the Western inheritance which must be understood and defended in our current confrontation. Each of these features marks a point of contrast, and possibly of conflict, with the traditional Islamic vision of society, and each has played a vital part in creating the modern world. Islamist belligerence stems from having found no secure place in that world, and from turning for refuge to precepts and values that are at odds with the Western way of life. This does not mean that we should renounce or repudiate the distinguishing features of our civilization, as many would have us do. On the contrary, it means that we must be all the more vigilant in their defense.
    The first of the features that I have in mind is citizenship. The consensus among Western nations is that the law is made legitimate by the consent of those who must obey it. This consent is given through a political process in which each citizen participates in the making and enacting of the law. The right and duty of participation is what we mean by “citizenship,” and the distinction between political and religious communities can be summed up by the view that the former are composed of citizens, whereas the latter are composed of subjects who have “submitted” (which is the primary meaning of the word islam). If we seek a simple definition of the West as it is today, it would be wise to take this concept of citizenship as our starting point. Indeed, it is what the millions of migrants roaming the world are in search of: an order that confers security and freedom in exchange for consent.
    Traditional Islamic society, by contrast, sees law as a system of commands and recommendations laid down by God. These edicts cannot be amended, though their application in particular cases may involve jurisprudential argument. Law, as Islam understands it, is a demand for our obedience, and its author is God. This is the opposite of the concept of law that we in the West have inherited. Law for us is a guarantee of our freedoms. It is made not by God, but by man, following the instinct for justice that is inherent in the human condition. It is not a system of divine commands, but rather the residue of human agreements.
    This is particularly evident to British and American citizens, who have enjoyed the inestimable benefit of the common law—a system which has not been laid down by some sovereign power but, on the contrary, built up by the courts in their attempts to do justice in individual conflicts. Western law is therefore a “bottom-up” system that addresses the sovereign in the same tone of voice that it reserves for the citizen. It insists that justice, not power, will prevail. Hence, it has been evident since the Middle Ages that the law, even if it depends on the sovereign to impose it, can also depose the sovereign if he tries to defy it.
    As our law has developed, it has permitted the privatization of religion and of large areas of morality. To us, for instance, a law punishing adultery is not just absurd, but oppressive. We disapprove of adultery, but we also think that it is none of the law’s business to punish sin just because it is sin. In the shari’ah, however, there is no distinction between morality and law. Both stem from God, and are to be imposed by the religious authorities in obedience to his revealed will. To some extent, the harshness of this is mitigated by a tradition which allows for recommendations as well as obligations in rulings of the holy law. Nevertheless, there is still no place in the shari’ah for the privatization of the moral, and still less of the religious, aspects of life.
    Of course, most Muslims do not live under shari’ah law. Only here and there—in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, for example—is the attempt made to impose it. Elsewhere, Western codes of civil and criminal law have been adopted, following a tradition begun in the early nineteenth century by the Ottomans. But this recognition accorded to Western civilization by the Islamic states has its dangers. It inevitably provokes the thought that the law of the secular powers is not really law; that, in truth, it has no real authority, and is even a kind of blasphemy. Sayyid Qutb, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, argued precisely this in his seminal work Milestones. Indeed, rebellion against the secular powers is easy to justify when their law is seen as usurping the sovereign authority of God.
    From its origins, then, Islam has found it difficult to accept that mankind stands in need of any other law, or any other sovereign, than those revealed in the Koran. Hence the great schism following the death of Muhammad, which divided Shi’ia from Sunni. From the point of view of secular government, questions of legitimate succession such as those that drove these two groups apart are settled by the very same constitution that governs the daily operation of the law. That is to say, ultimately they are a matter of human agreement. But a community that believes itself to be governed by God, on terms conveyed by his messenger, has a real problem when the messenger dies: who takes over, and how? The fact that rulers in Islamic communities have a greater-than-average tendency to end up assassinated is not unconnected with this question. The sultans of Istanbul, for instance, surrounded themselves with a household guard of Janissaries chosen from among their Christian subjects precisely because they did not trust any Muslim to miss the opportunity to rectify the insult to God represented in the person of a merely human ruler. The Koran itself speaks to this point, in sura 3, verse 64, commanding Jews and Christians to take no divinity besides the one God and no lords (ârbâbân) from among each other.
    In short, citizenship and secular law go hand in hand. We are all participants in the process of law-making; hence we can view each other as free citizens, whose rights must be respected and whose private lives are our own concern. This has made possible the privatization of religion in Western societies and the development of political orders in which the duties of the citizen take precedence over religious scruples. How this is possible is a deep and difficult question of political theory; that it is possible is a fact to which Western civilization bears incontrovertible witness.
    This brings me to the second feature which I identify as central to European civilization: nationality. No political order can achieve stability if it cannot call upon a shared loyalty, a “first-person plural” that distinguishes those who share the benefits and burdens of citizenship from those who are outside the fold. In times of war, the need for this shared loyalty is self-evident, but it is as necessary in times of peace, if people really are to treat their citizenship as defining their public obligations. National loyalty marginalizes loyalties to family, tribe, and faith, and places before the citizen, as the focus of his patriotic feeling, not a person or a group, but a country. This country is defined by a territory, and by the history, culture, and law that have made that territory ours. Nationality is composed of land, together with the narrative of its possession.
    It is this form of territorial loyalty that has enabled people in Western democracies to exist side by side, respecting each other’s rights as citizens despite radical differences in faith and absent any bonds of family, kinship, or long-term local custom to sustain the solidarity between them. Such national loyalty is not known everywhere in the world, and certainly not in the places where Islamists are rooted. People sometimes refer to Somalia, for example, as a “failed state,” since it has no central government capable of making decisions on behalf of the people as a whole, or of imposing any kind of legal order. The real trouble with Somalia, however, is not that it is a failed state, but that it is a failed nation. It has never developed the kind of secular, territorial, and law-minded loyalty that makes it possible for a country to shape itself into a nation-state, and not simply an assembly of competing tribes and families.
    The same is true of many other places where Islamists are produced. Even if, as in the case of Pakistan, these countries function like states, they are often failures as nations. They have not succeeded in generating the kind of territorial loyalty which enables people of different faiths, different kinship networks, and different tribes to live peacefully side by side, and also to fight side by side on behalf of their common homeland. The recent history of these countries might lead us to wonder whether there is not, in the end, a genuine and profound conflict between the Islamic conception of community and the conceptions which have fed our own idea of national government. Maybe the nation-state really is an anti-Islamic idea.
    This observation is, of course, highly pertinent to the Middle East today, where we find the remnants of a great Islamic empire divided into nation-states. With a few exceptions, this division is the result of boundaries drawn by Western powers, most notably by Britain and France in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. It should hardly be surprising, therefore, that Iraq has had such a checkered history as a nation-state, given that it has only spasmodically been a state, and has never been a nation. It may be that Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ias in Iraq will all come, in time, to see themselves as Iraqis. But this national identity will likely be fragile and fissiparous, and in any conflict the three groups will identify themselves in opposition to each other. Only the Kurds seem to have developed a genuine national identity, and it is one opposed to that of the state in which they are included. As for the Shi’ias, their primary loyalty is religious, and in turbulent times they look to the homeland of Shi’ia Islam in Iran as a model.
    It is true that not all the nation-states carved out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire are as arbitrary as Iraq. Turkey, which saved itself as the rump of the empire, succeeded in recreating itself as a genuine nation-state—though not without the expulsion or massacre of many of its non-Turkish minorities. Lebanon and Egypt have enjoyed a kind of quasi-national identity under Western protection since the mid-nineteenth century. And, of course, Israel has established a thoroughly Western form of national government, over territory which is disputed for that very reason. These examples, however, in no way serve to allay the suspicion that Islam is not friendly to the idea of national loyalties, and certainly not friendly to the idea that, in a crisis, it is national rather than spiritual allegiance which should prevail.
    Consider Turkey. Atatürk created the Turkish nation-state by imposing a secularist constitution; adopting a secular legal system based on French and Belgian models; outlawing Islamic dress; expelling the traditional scholars of Islamic law (‘ulema’) from public office; forbidding polygamy; and rooting out Arabic words from Turkish and adopting the Latin alphabet, thus cutting the language off from its cultural antecedents. As a result of these revolutionary changes, he succeeded in pushing the conflict between Islam and the secular state underground, and for a long time it seemed as though a stable compromise had been achieved. Now, however, the conflict is erupting all over again: Secularists have attempted to outlaw the ruling Islamic party (the AKP), recent electoral victors in a landslide vote, and the government has attempted to arraign leading secularists in a terrorist trial of dubious legality.
    Lebanon, to take another example, owes its exceptional status in the Arab world to its erstwhile Christian majority, and to the longstanding alliance of Maronite and Druze against the Ottoman sultan. Its current fragility is largely due to the Islamists of Hezbollah, who have allied themselves with Iran and Syria and reject Lebanon as a national entity to which any loyalty is owed. Egypt, too, has survived as a nation-state only by taking radical measures against the Muslim Brotherhood, and by leaning upon a legal and political inheritance which would likely be rejected by its Muslim population—though not by the Coptic Christian minority—in any free vote. As for Israel, it has been condemned by its neighbors to live in a permanent state of siege.
    The third central feature of Western civilization is Christianity. I have no doubt that it is the long centuries of Christian dominance in Europe which laid the foundations of national loyalty as a type above those of faith and family, and on which a secular jurisdiction and an order of citizenship could be founded. It may sound paradoxical to identify a religion as the major force behind the development of secular government. But we should remember the peculiar circumstances in which Christianity entered the world. The Jews of first-century Judea were a closed community, bound by a tight web of religious legalisms but nonetheless governed from Rome by a law which made no reference to any God, and which offered an ideal of citizenship to which every free subject of the empire might aspire.
    Jesus found himself in conflict with the legalism of his fellow Jews, and in broad sympathy with the idea of secular government. Hence his famous words in the parable of the tribute money: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” After his death, the Christian faith was shaped by Paul for communities within the Roman Empire that sought only the freedom to pursue their worship, and had no intention of challenging the secular powers. This idea of dual loyalty continued after Constantine, and was endorsed by Pope Gelasius I in the fifth century in his doctrine of the two swords given to mankind for their government: that which guards the body politic, and that which guards the individual soul. This endorsement of secular law by the early Church was responsible for subsequent developments in Europe, from the Reformation and the Enlightenment through to the purely territorial law that prevails in the West today.
    During the early centuries of Islam various philosophers attempted to develop a theory of the perfect state, but religion was always at the heart of it. The tenth-century polymath al-Fârâbî even tried to recast Plato’s Republic in Islamic terms, with the prophet as philosopher-king. When all such discussion stopped, at the time of Ibn Taymiyya in the fourteenth century, it was clear that Islam had decisively turned its back on secular government, and would henceforth be unable to develop anything remotely like a national—as opposed to a religious—form of allegiance. Indeed, the most important advocate of Arab nationalism in recent times, Michel Aflaq, was not a Muslim but rather a Greek Orthodox Christian, who was born in Syria, educated in France, and died in Iraq, disillusioned with the Baath party he had helped to found. If national loyalties have emerged in the Muslim world in recent times, it is in spite of Islam, and not because of it. And it should come as no surprise if these loyalties seem peculiarly fragile and fractious, as we have noticed in the case of Palestinian attempts at national cohesion, and in the troubled history of Pakistan.
    Christianity is sometimes described as a synthesis of Jewish metaphysics and Greek ideas of political freedom. No doubt there is truth in this, given the historical context of its inception. And it is, perhaps, the Greek input into Christianity which is responsible for the fourth of the central features that I believe worthy of emphasis when addressing the Western confrontation with Islam: that of irony. There is already a developing streak of irony in the Hebrew Bible, one that is amplified by the Talmud. But there is a new kind of irony in Jesus’ judgments and parables, one which looks at the spectacle of human folly and wryly shows us how to live with it. A telling example of this is Jesus’ verdict in the case of the woman taken in adultery. “Let he who is without fault,” he says, “cast the first stone.” In other words, “Come off it. Haven’t you wanted to do what she did, and already done it in your hearts?” It has been suggested that this story is a late interpolation—one of many culled by early Christians from the store of inherited wisdom attributed to Jesus after his death. Even if that is true, however, it merely confirms the view that the Christian religion has made irony central to its message. This irony is shared by the great Sufi poets, especially Rumi and Hafiz, but it seems to be largely unknown in the schools of Islam that shape the souls of the Islamists. Theirs is a religion which refuses to see itself from the outside, and which cannot bear to be criticized, still less to be laughed at—something we have abundantly witnessed in recent times.
    Indeed, this is nowhere more apparent than in the matter that called forth Jesus’ ironical judgment. Death by stoning is still officially endorsed in many parts of the Muslim world as a punishment for adultery, and in many Islamic communities women are treated as prostitutes as soon as they step out of the lines drawn for them by men. The subject of sex, which cannot be usefully discussed without a measure of irony, has therefore become a painful topic among Muslims, especially when confronted, as they inevitably are, by the lax morals and libidinous confusion of Western societies. The mullahs find themselves unable to think about women as sexual beings, and unable to think for very long about anything else. As a result, an enormous tension has developed in the Muslim communities of Western cities, with the young men enjoying the surrounding freedoms and the young women hidden away and often terrorized lest they do the same.
    Irony was seen by the late Richard Rorty as a state of mind intimately connected with the postmodern worldview.1 It is a withdrawal from judgment that nevertheless aims at a kind of consensus, a shared agreement not to judge. It seems to me, however, that irony, although it infects our states of mind, is better understood as a virtue, a disposition aimed at a kind of practical fulfillment and moral success. If I were to venture a definition of this virtue, I would describe it as the habit of acknowledging the otherness of everything, including of oneself. However convinced you are of the rightness of your actions and the truth of your views, look on them as the actions and the views of someone else, and rephrase them accordingly. So defined, irony is quite distinct from sarcasm. It is a mode of acceptance, rather than a mode of rejection. And it points both ways: Through irony I learn to accept both the other on whom I turn my gaze, and also myself, the one who is gazing. Pace Rorty, irony is not free from judgment. It simply recognizes that the one who judges is also judged, and judged by himself.
    Irony is intimately related to the fifth notable feature of Western civilization: self-criticism. It is second nature to us, whenever we affirm something, to allow a voice to the opponent. The adversarial method of deliberation is endorsed by our law, by our forms of education, and by the political systems that we have built to broker our interests and resolve our conflicts. Think of those vociferous critics of Western civilization such as the late Edward Said and the ubiquitous Noam Chomsky. Said spoke out in uncompromising and, at times, even venomous terms on behalf of the Islamic world against what he saw as the lingering outlook of Western imperialism. As a consequence, he was rewarded with a prestigious chair at a leading university and countless opportunities for public speaking in America and around the Western world. The consequences for Chomsky have been largely the same. This habit of rewarding our critics is, I think, unique to Western civilization. The only problem with it is that, in our universities, things have gone so far that there are no rewards given to anyone else. Prizes are distributed to the left of the political spectrum because it feeds the ruling illusion of those who award them: namely, that self-criticism will bring us safety, and that all threats come from ourselves, and from our desire to defend what we have.
    This habit of self-criticism has created another critical feature of Western civilization, and that is representation. We in the West, and the English-speaking peoples preeminently, are heirs to a longstanding habit of free association, in which we join together in clubs, businesses, pressure groups, and educational foundations. This associative genius was particularly remarked upon by Tocqueville in his journeys through America, and it is facilitated by the unique branch of the English common law—equity and the law of trusts—which enables people to set up funds in common and to administer them without asking permission from any higher authority.
    This associative habit goes hand in hand with the tradition of representation. When we form a club or a society which has a public profile, we are in the habit of appointing officers to represent it. The decisions of these officers are then assumed to be binding on all members, who cannot reject them without leaving the club. In this way, a single individual is able to speak for an entire group, and in so doing, to bind it to accept the decisions made in its name. We find nothing strange in this, and it has affected the political, educational, economic, and leisure institutions of our society in incalculable ways. It has also affected the government of our religious institutions, both Catholic and Protestant. Indeed, it was among nineteenth-century Protestant theologians that the theory of the corporation as a moral idea was first fully developed. We know that the hierarchy of our church, be it Baptist, Episcopalian, or Catholic, is empowered to take decisions on our behalf, and can enter into dialogue with institutions in other parts of the world, in order to secure the space that we require for worship.
    Association takes a very different form in traditional Islamic societies, however. Clubs and societies of strangers are rare, and the primary social unit is not the free association, but the family. Companies do not enjoy a developed legal framework under Islamic law, and it has been argued by Malise Ruthven and others that the concept of the corporate person has no equivalent in shari’ah.2 The same is true for other forms of association. Charities, for instance, are organized in a completely different way than are those in the West: not as property held in trust for beneficiaries, but as property that has been religiously “stopped” (waqf). As a result, all public entities, including schools and hospitals, are regarded as ancillary to the mosque and governed by religious principles. Meanwhile, the mosque itself is not a corporate person, nor is there an entity which can be called “the Mosque” in the same sense as we refer to the Church—that is, an entity whose decisions are binding on all its members, which can negotiate on their behalf, and which can be held to account for its misdeeds and abuses.
    As a result of this long tradition of associating only under the aegis of the mosque or the family, Islamic communities lack the conception of the spokesman.3 When serious conflicts erupt between Muslim minorities in Western cities and the surrounding society, we have found it difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate with the Muslim community, since there is no one who will speak for it or take responsibility for imposing any decision upon it. If by chance someone does step forward, the individual members of the Muslim community feel free to accept or reject his decisions at will. The same problem has been witnessed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries with radicalized Muslim populations. When someone attempts to speak for a dissident group, it is very often on his own initiative, and without any procedure that validates his office. Like as not, should he agree to a solution to a given problem, he will be assassinated, or at any rate disowned, by the radical members of the group for whom he purports to be speaking.
    This point leads me to reflect once again on the idea of citizenship. An important reason for the stability and peacefulness of societies based on citizenship is that individuals in such societies are fully protected by their rights. They are fenced off from their neighbors in spheres of private sovereignty, where they alone make decisions. As a result, a society of citizens can establish good relations and shared allegiance between strangers. You don’t have to know your fellow citizen in order to ascertain your rights against him or your duties toward him; moreover, his being a stranger in no way alters the fact that you are each prepared to die for the territory that contains you and the laws which you enjoy. This remarkable feature of nation-states is sustained by the habits to which I have referred: self-criticism, representation, and corporate life, the very habits not to be found in traditional Islamic societies. What the Islamist movements promise their adherents is not citizenship, but “brotherhood”—ikhwân—an altogether warmer, closer, and more metaphysically satisfying thing.
    And yet, the warmer and closer an attachment, the less widely can it be spread. Brotherhood is selective and exclusive. It cannot extend very far without exposing itself to sudden and violent refutation. Hence the Arab proverb: “I and my brother against my cousin; I and my cousin against the world.” An association of brothers is not a new entity, a corporation which can negotiate for its members. It remains essentially plural—indeed, ikhwân is simply the plural of akh, “brother”—and denotes an assembly of like-minded people brought together by their common commitment, rather than any institution which can claim sovereignty over them. This has significant political repercussions. For instance, when Nasser’s successor as president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, set aside seats in the Egyptian parliament for the Muslim Brotherhood, they were immediately occupied by those judged suitable by the president, and disowned by the real Brotherhood, which continued its violent activities, culminating in Sadat’s assassination. Simply put, brothers don’t take orders. They act together as a family—until they quarrel and fight.
    This brings me to a final and critical point of difference between Western and Islamic communities. We live in a society of strangers who associate rapidly and tolerate each other’s differences. Yet ours is not a society of vigilant conformity. It makes few public demands that are not contained in secular law; and it allows people to move quickly from one group to the next, one relationship to the next, one business, religion, or way of life to the next, and all with relative ease. It is endlessly creative in forming the institutions and associations that enable people to live with their differences and remain on peaceful terms, without the need for intimacy, brotherhood, or tribal loyalties. I am not arguing that this is a good thing, but it is the way things are, and this is the inevitable byproduct of citizenship as I have described it.
    What makes it possible to live in this way? There is a simple answer, and that is drink. What the Koran promises in paradise but forbids here below is the necessary lubricant of the Western dynamo. You see this clearly in America, where cocktail parties immediately break the ice between strangers and set every large gathering in motion, stimulating a collective desire for rapid agreement among people who a moment before did not know each other from Adam. This habit of quickly coming to the point depends on many aspects of our culture besides drink, of course, but drink is critical, and those who have studied the phenomenon are largely persuaded that, for all the costs that our civilization has paid in terms of alcoholism, accidents, and broken homes, it is largely thanks to drink that we have been, in the long run, so successful. Of course, Islamic societies have their own ways of creating fleeting associations: the hookah, the coffee house, and the traditional bathhouse, praised by Lady Mary Wortley Montague as establishing a solidarity among women that has no equivalent in the Christian world. But these forms of association are also forms of withdrawal, a standing back from the business of government in a posture of peaceful resignation. Drink has the opposite effect: It brings strangers together in a state of controlled aggression, able and willing to engage in any business that should arise from the current conversation.
    The features to which I have referred do not merely explain the uniqueness of Western civilization; they also account for its success in navigating the enormous changes that have come about through the advance of technology and science, just as they explain the political stability and democratic ethos of its component nation-states. These features also distinguish Western civilization from the Islamic communities in which terrorists are cultivated. And they help to explain the great resentment of those terrorists who cannot match, with their own moral and religious resources, the easy competence with which the citizens of Europe and America negotiate the modern world.
    If this is so, then how should we defend the West from Islamist terrorism? I shall suggest a brief answer to that question. First, we should be clear about what it is that we are and are not defending. We are not defending, for example, our wealth or our territory; these things are not at stake. Rather, we are defending our political and cultural inheritance, embodied in the seven features which I have singled out here for attention. Second, we should be clear that you cannot overcome resentment by feeling guilty or by conceding fault. Weakness provokes, since it alerts your enemy to the possibility of destroying you. We should therefore be prepared to affirm what we have, and to express our determination to hold on to it. That said, we must recognize that it is not envy but resentment that animates the terrorist. Envy is the desire to possess what the other has; resentment is the desire to destroy it. How do you deal with resentment? This is the great question that so few leaders of mankind have been able to answer. Christians, however, are fortunate in being heirs to the one great attempt to answer it, which was that of Jesus, who drew on a longstanding Jewish tradition that goes back to the Tora, and which was expressed in similar terms by his contemporary R. Hillel. You overcome resentment, Jesus told us, by forgiving it. To reach out in a spirit of forgiveness is not to accuse yourself; it is to make a gift to the other. And it is here, it seems to me, that we have taken a wrong turn in recent decades. The illusion that we are to blame, that we must confess our faults and join our cause to that of our enemies, only exposes us to a more determined hatred. The truth is that we are not to blame; that our enemies’ hatred of us is entirely unjustified; and that their implacable enmity cannot be defused by our breast-beating.
    There is a drawback to realizing this truth, however. It makes it seem as though we are powerless. But we are not powerless. There are two resources on which we can call in our defense, one public, and the other private. In the public sphere, we can resolve to protect the good things that we have inherited. That means making no concessions to those who wish us to exchange citizenship for subjection, nationality for religious conformity, secular law for shari’ah, the Judeo-Christian inheritance for Islam, irony for solemnity, self-criticism for dogmatism, representation for submission, and cheerful drinking for censorious abstinence. We should treat with scorn all those who demand these changes and invite them to live where their preferred form of political order is already installed. And we must respond to their violence with whatever force is required to contain it.

    In the private sphere, however, Christians should follow the path laid down for them by Jesus: namely, looking soberly and in a spirit of forgiveness on the hurts that we receive, and showing, by our example, that these hurts achieve nothing save to discredit the one who inflicts them. This is the hard part of the task—hard to perform, hard to endorse, and hard to recommend to others. Nonetheless, it is the task at hand, and in a battle the stakes of which are so high, it is a task that we cannot fail to undertake.

    Roger Scruton is a writer, philosopher, and public commentator. He is currently a professor at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, Virginia. This essay is a revised version of a lecture given as part of the Program to Protect America’s Freedom at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
    1. Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989).
    2. Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000).
    3. There is an important exception to this rule in the worldwide Ismâ‘îlî community, which has found its representative and spokesman in the person of the Aga Khan.



    Our World: Are you proud to be a leftist? 

    Mar. 9, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST


    In an interview with Teheran Times two weeks ago, Norman Finklestein, the notorious Hizbullah and Hamas supporter and all-purpose anti-Semite, called Israel a "vandal state," and "insane state," a "terrorist state," and a "satanic state."
    Last week Finklestein was the keynote speaker at both Emory University and Fordham University during their weeklong annual anti-Israel hate festivals. Speaking to a cheering crowd at a packed auditorium on Emory's Atlanta campus, Finklestein claimed that Israel conducted its recent Operation Cast Lead in Gaza for two reasons. These did not include Hamas's deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians, Hamas's alliance with Iran, its charter that calls for the physical eradication of the Jewish people, its illegal imprisonment of Israeli hostage Gilad Schalit, or its decision to renew its attacks against Israel after a six month period of relative restraint.
    In Finklestein's view, the first reason Israel launched Operation Cast Lead was because Hamas had begun expressing interest in peace. In his words, "Hamas were being too moderate, too reasonable. They wanted a diplomatic settlement to the conflict. To Israel, this is a recurring nightmare."
    The second reason that Finklestein alleged that Israel launched its offensive was because, well, Israel is just plain mean. As he put it, the operation was Israel's way of "reminding the Arabs who were [sic.] in charge." It was an attempt to "restore the Arab world's fear of Israel." Finklestein cited an unnamed "chief military analyst" to support his claim that Israel conducted a "massacre" in Gaza and did so with malice of forethought.
    According to Emory's student paper, for his libelous, wholly fallacious remarks, Finklestein received a prolonged standing ovation.
    In 40 university campuses throughout the US and Canada as well as in Europe and South America, last week students marked what Palestinian terror apologists have dubbed "Israel Apartheid Week." This was the seventh such week in the US, and the fifth in Canada.
    In the lead up to this annual Israel vilification week, pro-Israel students were physically assaulted at San Francisco State University and at York University in Canada by their anti-Israel counterparts. In both cases, university officials opened disciplinary proceedings against the pro-Israel students.
    At SFSU, two students were arrested by police for assaulting college Republicans who held an anti-Hamas rally. The two - from the campus's Palestinian student club and its Socialist union - now insist not only that the charges against them be dropped, but that the university re-educate its students to ensure that they understand that criticizing Hamas and other genocidal terror groups is a form of prohibited hate-speech.
    THE LIBELOUS assertion that Israel - the only free, pluralistic, liberal democracy in the Middle East - is analogous to apartheid South Africa first took hold at the 2001 UN-sponsored anti-Jewish diplomatic pogrom at Durban, South Africa. In the action plan approved by the various non-governmental organizations that participated in the conference, activists were called on to bring about the international demonization of Israel as a racist state, and of Zionism - the Jewish national liberation movement - as a form of racism.
    When Israel Apartheid Week was launched the next year, many local Jewish student and community activists in the US and Canada demanded that university authorities ban the clearly bigoted event from their campuses. To their chagrin, university presidents and administrators would do no such thing. Claiming that doing so would restrict academic freedom, the propaganda war against the Jewish state went forward and grew. And, in its wake, the freedom of pro-Israel students on college campuses throughout the West has become increasingly constricted and threatened.
    Both through formal speech codes barring criticism of anti-Israel propaganda and violence, and through academic and physical intimidation of pro-Israel students by an increasingly vocal and aggressive coalition of pro-Palestinian professors, Muslim and leftist students, Israel's supporters on university campuses find themselves under assault. Today, seven years after the Durban Conference, Israel Apartheid Week has become a mainstay on the academic calendar, nearly as taken for granted as Homecoming Week and mid-terms.
    The use of the term "apartheid" to describe Israel was a deliberate move on the part of Israel's enemies. It was aimed at neutralizing the capacity of Israel's supporters to defend the Jewish state and attack its enemies. Case in point is the campus debate which preceded Israel Apartheid Week at the University of Toronto. The student paper published two topical opinion pieces on the upcoming events. One asserted that Israel is an apartheid regime. The other argued that Israel isn't an apartheid regime.
    On the surface, this seems fair enough. But it is nothing of the sort. Israel is the only free country and free society in the region. Pinning its defenders down by confining discussion of the region to the pros and cons of a complete lie serves to only obfuscate the depravity of Israel's enemies, not to enlighten the public about Israel.
    While Israel provides the full rights of citizenship to its Arab minority, Jews are denied the rights of citizenship in every Arab League member state, and the Palestinians' fundamental demand is that no Jew be permitted to live in a future Palestinian state.
    Then too, while Israeli women enjoy full equality under the law, women and girls in the Arab and Muslim world are systematically subjugated and enslaved. Muslim men who wantonly murder their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters can expect to receive little to no punishment for their crimes. The same holds for men who abuse their female relations. For their part, women in the Muslim world have either no legal rights to citizenship and civil rights or those rights are severely limited.
    Gays, blacks, migrant workers, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists are systematically persecuted for their sexual preferences, their skin color and their religious beliefs. Even dogs feel the wrath of these societies where, since they are considered "unclean," children and adults alike routinely engage in their torture and killing.
    But under the full protection of self-described liberal university professors, administrators and presidents, and due to the indifference of groups like the World Council of Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Women, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, anti-Israel propagandists have been allowed to co-opt the language of liberty to advance the political fortunes of terrorists who aim to destroy liberty.
    THE ACTIVE and passive support conferred on anti-Israel leftists and Muslims by these officials and groups has provided them with the ideological cover to take their activism to the next level: anti-Jewish violence aimed at intimidating states, universities, businesses and private organizations into cutting off all ties to Israel. Evidence of the success of this campaign is rife throughout Europe today.
    In just one notable instance, for the past week Israeli tennis players, Amir Haddad and Andy Ram suffered the consequences of the Left's collusion with these anti-Jewish groups in Sweden. Haddad and Ram competed in the Davis Cup tennis championships in Malmo, Sweden.
    In an article in Yediot Ahronot on Sunday, Ram wrote, "In my entire athletic career, I have never before experienced such hatred and such a mixing of sports with politics."
    In spite of repeated entreaties by Israel, Swedish authorities refused to move the games from Malmo to Stockholm. With its enormous Muslim population, in recent years Malmo has been the site of some of the worst Islamic violence against non-Muslims - and particularly Jews, women and girls - in the Western world.
    Due to threats of violence against Ram and Haddad, Swedish authorities barred fans from attending their tennis matches. As they played their opening match in an empty stadium on Saturday, thousands of violent Muslims and leftists rioted against police and attempted to break down the barriers protecting the stadium with the stated aim of killing Ram and Haddad.
    The protesters claim that their desire to murder Israeli tennis players is due to Operation Cast Lead. But this is pure propaganda. Their desire to murder Ram and Haddad stems not from Israel's military actions to defend its citizens from murder, but from the protesters' hatred of the Jewish state. And that hatred stems from the same source as their misogyny, their hatred of the US and their support for the likes of Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
    A 2005 Swedish government report indicated that in 2004, incidents of rape had increased 50 percent throughout the country. A Malmo police report noted that 68 percent of the rapists were minorities. As Islamic scholar Robert Spencer has noted, Islamic teaching views rape as a legitimate act against women and girls who behave in "non-Islamic" ways. In much of Scandinavia as well as in Muslim neighborhoods in France, women have begun wearing veils in order to protect themselves against roving gangs of Muslim young men.
    The defilement of women and girls, like gay bashing, has nothing to do with IDF operations in Gaza. It has to do with the pathological nature of the cultures that condone and encourage the violence, and the Western governments and intellectuals who make excuses for it.
    ALL OF THIS is hidden away from the public thanks to Western liberals' willingness to accept the legitimacy of events like Israel Apartheid Week. Due to the complicity of leftist authorities, the international discourse about the Arab and Islamic world and the cultures they have produced is diverted to false allegations against Israel.
    Any attempt to point out that Hamas is genocidal; that Iran stones women to death, and systematically executes homosexuals; that Saudi Arabia is the most repressive society on the planet; that Egypt permits and indeed encourages female genital mutilation; that Jordan does not prosecute fathers, sons, husbands and uncles who murder their female relatives; is attacked and delegitimized. Those who raise these issues are accused of hating Muslims and of being secret Zionist agents.
    So too, Islamic violence in the West is swept under the rug. For example, to date, no mainstream US media organ has reported that in Buffalo, New York Muzzamil Hassan decapitated his wife Aasiya on February 12 after he stabbed her to death. Just a few years earlier that same mainstream media had embraced this murderer as a paragon of Islamic moderation after he established Bridges TV network, which was supposed to show the American public how moderate Islam is.
    For some reason, the same media don't consider it noteworthy that their moderate Muslim poster boy chopped off his wife's head a week after she filed for divorce. Certainly, no connection can be drawn between her ritual slaughter and Islam.
    Sunday was International Women's Day. Throughout the West, feminists spent the day congratulating themselves for their great sacrifices for women's rights.
    Last Wednesday Saudi authorities arrested a woman for driving. Her arrest drew no protest from her Western sisters. Obviously, they were too busy defending Finklestein's freedom to disseminate lies about Israeli women to ignorant college kids to care.



    Your Majesty, You're Not Welcome

    Adar 12, 5769, 08 March 09 11:03

    by Daniel Pinner

    Daniel Pinner is a veteran immigrant from England, a teacher and an electrician by profession; a Torah scholar who has been active in causes promoting Eretz Israel and Torat Israel.
    ( By edict of a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II
    Item: The British Embassy in Tel Aviv has decided to boycott Israeli companies that invest in Judea and Samaria.
    Your Majesty, one of your Ambassadors, Tom Phillips, who represents you in Israel, has recently decided that he would boycott the Kirya Tower in Tel Aviv, because it is partly owned by Africa-Israel whose owner, Lev Levayev, also owns a subsidiary company that has built homes in Judea and Samaria.
    Now, I must confess that I am not entirely surprised: the same ambassador, His Excellency Tom Phillips, decided back in July of last year that, even though I am still a British citizen, a subject of the Crown, I am no longer fit to be represented by him, when His Excellency decided to ban "settlers" from British Embassy functions. That is to say, I no longer enjoy your royal protection.
    You see, I live in Kfar Tapuach, a "settlement" in the "Israeli-occupied West Bank". To be more precise, I live in the heart of Samaria, just a few miles due south of Shechem. When I go running with my dog to the small hill a few dozen yards from my house, we overlook the city that the Arab occupiers call "Nablus". Because I chose to make my home here, where my ancestors lived millennia ago, I am no longer worthy of the words inscribed in my British passport: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary". Unless - we should now add - the bearer happens to be an Israelite living in the heartland of Biblical Israel.
    Well, with all due respect to Your Majesty and to His Excellency the British Ambassador to Israel, I am not exactly devastated by the blow. I never really expected your diplomatic services or security forces to look after me or my people, whether in the "West Bank," or "Israel proper," or anywhere else in the world.
    I know that Britain was the only country in the entire world to voluntarily declare war against Nazi Germany, and I am aware of Britain's magnificent, impressive war effort during those hideously dark years - a record that will forever stand to Britain's credit - but still, Britain's record concerning Jews during the Holocaust is somewhat dismal. I am too weary to detail, once again, the Royal Air Force's refusal to bomb the railway lines taking Jews to the Nazi death camps even while bombing more distant targets; Martin Gilbert, in Auschwitz and the Allies, has documented this sorry episode far better than I could.
    Are you aware that the entire British Empire accepted fewer Jewish refugees than the port of Shanghai? And do you remember the restrictions that the government of your father, King George VI, placed on Jews from Reich-occupied countries finding refuge in Britain? Again, I know that Britain's record in that regard is far better than that of most other countries, but it's not as if there was very stiff competition.
    And do you remember that your father's government fought bitterly against Jewish independence anywhere in the Land of Israel? Are you even aware that during and after the Holocaust, when more than ever we needed refuge, and at a time when the God of Israel granted your father the infinite privilege of ruling over the Holy Land, the Royal Navy patrolled these shores to ensure that the survivors of Hitler's accursed inferno would not be allowed home? Are you aware that when the British Army left Haifa, Jaffa, Tzfat (Safed), Lod (Lydda), Ramle, and other places in 1948, they turned the police fortresses with their armouries and weapons over to the Arab forces?
    As I said, I am not particularly surprised that His Excellency the British Ambassador is not entirely enamoured of what we Jews are doing today in your former colony.
    I look over Shechem - the city where, three and a half millennia ago, when your ancestors in England were still living in trees and painting their faces with woad, my great-great-great (however many times over) grandfather Jacob saw his sons, Shimon (Simeon) and Levi, declare war against the entire city of Shechem because their prince dared to rape their sister Dinah. I needn't go into the gory details here, because it's clearly written in my people's national history book - Genesis, Chapter 34. (In 1611, your ancestor, King James I, commissioned an English translation of my people's holy book, so Your Majesty should have no difficulty reading the text.)
    Ever since that day, 3,500 years ago, we have known to rely on no one's protection but our own and God's. It is an interesting concept of time and of history: your roots in England go back to 1066 - almost a thousand years; a history of which to be justifiably proud. Yet when your history was just beginning, our roots were already buried more than 2,500 years deep in Shechem. In fact, the village in which I live, Kfar Tapuach, gets its first mention in the Bible; again, look it up in Joshua 12:17, 16:8, 17:7, and plenty of other places. You see, my people's historical and geographical record pinpointed the location of Kfar Tapuach, and delineated the borders of our Holy Land, and defined the borders of the territory of each of the twelve Tribes of Israel well over 2,000 years before the Domesday Book was ever compiled.
    Well, I suppose that I, and hundreds of thousands of other Jews here in our Holy Land, will just have to get used to the idea that you and your kingdom find the idea of Jews settling their own land most distasteful. Very well, so be it. But I have to tell you, unaccustomed as I am to taking so discourteous a tone to Your Majesty, so long as this policy continues you are no longer welcome in my house here in Kfar Tapuach.
    Your government's ideology concerning the appropriate location of Jews in Israel affects me about as much as my proclamation affects you. We will continue to live where we want in Israel, we will continue to build, we will continue to settle our Land as and where we want. Your father's army, navy and air force were unable to prevent us from building our national home even when Britannia ruled the waves and controlled the skies around these parts. Today, the British Empire is but a distant memory and your influence here is even lower than Ehud Olmert's credibility.
    I understand that you and your government are anxious to appease the Muslims. On reflection, that's probably a wise policy. As much as we Jews had a written history in Shechem back when your ancestors in England were still living in trees, we will still be living here, building our Land and bringing sacrifices and singing psalms to God in our Holy Temple, long after your descendants will be living as dhimmis in the Islamic Republic of Englandistan.



    Israeli firm develops unique solar energy system

    Mar. 10, 2009
    Ehud Zion Waldoks , THE JERUSALEM POST
    Israeli ingenuity and invention could potentially produce a global revolution in solar electricity generation. The solar energy market has generally been divided into photovoltaic (PV) solar power and large-scale solar thermal power plants - until now. Aora Solar, part of the E.D.I.G. Group, has developed a small-scale hybrid solar thermal power plant which could open up a whole new market.
    Both PV and regular solar thermal Israeli ingenuity and invention could potentially produce a global revolution in solar electricity generation.
    Both PV and regular solar thermal power need vast tracts of land to accommodate all the mirrors or heliostats they require. Aora's new model requires just half an acre of land to produce 100 KW, enough to power 50 homes. By solar standards, that's not a great deal of electricity. Yet there are several advantages to Aora's system, COO Yuval Susskind told The Jerusalem Post ahead of the Eilat-Eilot International Renewable Energy Conference and Exhibition at the beginning of February.
    "Aora's model has four advantages. It's modular, it's hybrid, it can run on alternative fuels and it offers all of those options in one base package," he explained. What's the secret behind the new technology? Pairing a proprietary solar concentrator with a micro-gas turbine instead of a steam turbine. Conventional solar thermal power, such as that produced by Brightsource/Luz II or Soleil, relies on heated water turning into steam which is then used to power a turbine. However, steam turbines are only efficient when producing many megawatts (MW), which also requires a great deal of land. Aora uses a micro-gas turbine which is effective at less than one MW and requires far fewer heliostats (30) to produce 100 KWs.
    "A small, modular base unit which doesn't take up very much space means that you can plug it straight into the nearest electricity line. You don't need to run new lines or install new components to handle the flow. In addition, you can link several units together around a village, say, to produce enough power," the South African-raised Susskind said. Each base unit is comprised of one 30 meter high tower housing the concentrator, micro-gas turbine and 30 heliostats.
    In addition to modularity, the gas turbine also allows for 24-hour energy production.
    "During the day, the turbine runs on thermal power from the sun. At night, it can run on anything else, including natural gas, bio-fuel, bio-diesel, etc," Susskind told the Post. That means it's a self-contained, reliable power generation system that works around the clock. At around $500,000 per base unit, it's also cheaper than its bigger PV or solar thermal cousins.
    The breakthrough technology was developed in conjunction with the Weizmann Institute and Rotem Industries. National Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) signed the first license for solar thermal electricity production for Aora last week. The company hopes to have its first commercial base unit producing electricity sometime this month at Kibbutz Samar outside Eilat. A prototype unit was tested in China in 2006.
    While Aora's modular units could provide a good solution for southern Israel's energy needs, the feed-in tariff for solar thermal power had been set too low to make it profitable, according to Susskind.
    "Israel must not miss this opportunity to develop its own solar industry, and to become a testing site for cutting edge solar technologies," Susskind vehemently insisted. "All we want is the same tariff PV was given [NIS 2.04 for household units up to 50KW]."
    While Aora will certainly seek out sunny markets beyond Israel's borders, Susskind said he saw it as almost a Zionist obligation to help Israel move toward more renewable energy.




    Column One: Intelligence and the anti-Israel lobby

    Mar. 12, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST


    Ill winds are blowing out of Washington these days. On Thursday, The Washington Post headline blared, "Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' for Withdrawal."
    The article, by Walter Pincus, described how former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles "Chas" Freeman is blaming Israel's Jewish American supporters for his resignation Tuesday from his post as chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
    In a diatribe published on Foreign Policy's Web site on Wednesday, Freeman accused the alleged "Israel Lobby" of torpedoing his appointment. In his words, "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views... and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."
    He continued, "I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the State of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."
    The Washington Post's article quoted liberally from Freeman's diatribe. It also identified the Jewish Americans who wrote against Freeman's appointment, and insinuated that AIPAC - which took no stand on his appointment - actually worked behind the scenes to undermine it.
    While it described in lurid detail how one anti-Freeman Jewish blogger quoted other anti-Freeman Jewish bloggers on his Web site, Pincus's article failed to report what it was about Freeman that caused the Jewish cabal to criticize his appointment. Consequently, by default, Pincus effectively endorsed Freeman's diatribe against the all-powerful "Israel Lobby."
    Pincus's reportorial malpractice wouldn't have been so problematic if his article had just been one of many articles in the Washington Post about Freeman's appointment. But, like The New York Times, the first mention the Washington Post made of the story was on Tuesday, after Freeman announced his resignation.
    The Washington Post's news editor, Douglas Jehl, admitted that a conscious decision had been made to ignore the story. In an e-mail published in the Weekly Standard Jehl wrote, "We did initially elect not to write a story about the campaign against Mr. Freeman."
    As the Standard's Stephen Hayes notes, Jehl's statement is notable because it shows that he and colleagues never considered whether Freeman's record was newsworthy in and of itself. That is, they never asked whether the controversy surrounding it was justified. Had they asked that question, perhaps they would have reconsidered their decision to ignore the story.
    Freeman was a career US diplomat until his retirement in the mid-1990s. He served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Bush administration. In his memoirs, former secretary of state James Baker claimed that in that position, Freeman was afflicted by "clientitis." Instead of advancing US interests with the Saudis, Freeman championed Saudi interests to the US government.
    In 1997, Freeman became president of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council. There Freeman continued his outspoken support for Saudi positions against the US. In January 2009, for instance, he praised Saudi King Abdullah for coercing the second Bush administration into supporting Palestinian statehood.
    Freeman castigated the Bush administration as "the world's first genuinely autistic government." Then he bragged that it was only due to Abdullah's "threat... to downgrade relations with the United States," that the administration finally announced its support for Palestinian statehood.
    According to financial records made public in recent weeks, the Middle East Policy Council has received millions of dollars from the Saudi government and royal family over the past several years.
    Saudi Arabia is not the only country with interests and values that conflict with US interests and values that Freeman has championed and earned a living from. Until accepting his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Freeman was a paid member of the Chinese government-owned China National Offshore Oil Company's international advisory board. CNOOC has been the target of a US Treasury probe due to its multi-billion dollar contract with Iran to develop the South Pars gas field.
    As with the case of Saudi Arabia, Freeman's political sympathies go hand in hand with his financial ties. In a list-serve e-mail in 2006, Freeman criticized the Beijing Politburo for being too lax with the pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. As he put it, "the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."
    As Martin Cramer, Steven Rosen and other Jewish writers have noted in their reporting on Freeman in recent weeks, Freeman's positions on Israel closely mirror the Saudi Foreign Ministry's positions. So it is that in 2006, for instance, Freeman blamed US ties with Israel for the September 11, 2001, attacks. As he put it, "We have paid heavily and often in treasure for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel's approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago, we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home."
    Then, too, like the Saudi government, Freeman argues that Arab terrorism against the US is solely a consequence of US support for Israel. Were the US to abandon its alliance with Israel, all Arab terror against the US would stop.
    DESPITE PINCUS'S attempt to hide it, the main reason Freeman's appointment was controversial was not the opposition it garnered among pro-Israel American Jews. The main controversy surrounding his appointment as the Obama administration's top intelligence analyst revolved around his financial and political ties to potential and actual US adversaries.
    Indeed, according to Newsweek, it was these connections - and specifically Freeman's ties to the Chinese Politburo - that scuppered his appointment. According to Newsweek, the White House withdrew its support for Freeman because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was angered by his support for Beijing's repression of Chinese democracy activists, which she described as "beyond the pale." Freeman's animus towards Israel apparently played no role in the White House's decision to show him the door.
    Whatever the reason for his resignation, it is a good thing that Freeman was forced to resign. It is a very good thing that the man writing the US's National Intelligence Estimates and briefing the president on intelligence matters is not a hired gun for the Saudi and Chinese governments who believes that Jewish Americans have no right to participate in public debate about US foreign policy.
    But while his appointment was foiled, the fact that a man like Freeman was even considered for the post tells us two deeply disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days.
    First and foremost, Freeman's appointment gives us disconcerting information about how the Obama administration intends to relate to intelligence. Freeman was appointed by Adm. Dennis Blair, president Barack Obama's director of national intelligence. Blair stood by Freeman's appointment even after information became known about his financial ties to foreign governments and his extreme views on Israel and American Jews were exposed. Blair repeatedly extolled Freeman for his willingness to stake out unpopular positions.
    On Tuesday, Blair appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. There he answered questions about Freeman and about Iran's nuclear weapons program. Just as he defended Freeman, so Blair defended the Islamic republic. He claimed that there is no way to infer from Iran's satellite program that it is expanding the range of its ballistic missiles. He claimed that just because Iran is enriching uranium, there is no reason to believe that the mullahs are interested in building a bomb. That is, America's top intelligence officer is willing to take Iran's word on everything.
    On the other hand, he isn't willing to take Israel's word on anything. Although he acknowledged that his nonchalant assessment of Iran was based on the same information as Israel's dire assessment of Iran, Blair scoffed at Israel's views, claiming that they are colored by the Jewish state's fears. In his words, "The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view."
    What Blair's staunch championing of Freeman's appointment and his casualness regarding Iran's nuclear program indicates is that like Freeman, he assumes the best of America's adversaries and the worst of its friends. This approach to intelligence analysis will be destructive not just for the US's relations with its allies, but for America's own national security.
    THE SECOND disturbing development exposed by Freeman's appointment is the emergence of a very committed and powerful anti-Israel lobby in Washington. In the past, while anti-Israel politicians, policy-makers and opinion-shapers were accepted in Washington, they would not have felt comfortable brandishing their anti-Israel positions as a qualifying credential for high position. Freeman's appointment shows that this is no longer the case. Today in Washington, there are powerful circles of political players for whom a person's anti-Israel bona fides are his strongest suit.
    In the weeks since Freeman's appointment first came under scrutiny, his defenders have highlighted his hatred of Israel as the reason for their support for him. Just as Pincus's post-mortem write-up of Freeman's appointment and resignation barely mentioned his ties to Saudi Arabia and China, and focused on Jews who opposed his appointment, so in recent weeks, his defenders - both non-Jewish and Jewish - have highlighted his hatred of Israel and its American supporters as the primary reason for defending it. The likes of Steven Walt, M.J. Rosenberg and Matthew Iglesias didn't try to explain why Freeman was right to support the suppression of freedom in China. They didn't support his claim that the Saudi king is among the most profound and thoughtful leaders in the world. They didn't repeat his assertion that the US had the September 11 attacks coming to it.
    They felt that the fact that he raised the hackles of Americans who support Israel was reason enough to support him. Whether his views on other issues are reasonable or not was of no interest to them.
    From September 11, to Russia's invasion of Georgia, from Hamas's victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it is clear that in recent years, the US intelligence community has regularly substituted wishful thinking for true analysis. Freeman's appointment and the emergence of the anti-Israel lobby as a major force in Washington policy circles show that turning the US away from Israel has become a key component of that wishful thinking.
    Forewarned is forearmed.






    Channels: Air Combat | Air & Missile Defense | Armor & Survivability | Defense Electronics & C4ISR | Electro-Optics & Night Vision | Fire Support | Future Combat Systems | Homeland Security | Infantry & Special Operations | Logistics & Support | Missiles & Precision Strike | Naval Warfare | Training & Simulation | Unmanned Systems & Robotics | Defense Exhibitions


    Hunter Killer drone target
    Ballistic Missile Launchers

    A derivative of the operational Harpy radar killer drone, developed and built by IAI/MBT is proposed as a hunter-killer drone, operated from land based truck mounted launchers or from ship based launchers. The unmanned weapon, will be able to strike targets of opportunities such as silent enemy air defense weapons, and ballistic missile launchers.

    The joint program was initially proposed by IAI/MBT and Raytheon as "Cutlass" for Combat Uninhabited Target Locate and Strike System. Initially displayed in the Paris Air Show in 1999, the system combined the airframe of the Harpy UAV, made by Israel Aircraft Industries, with advanced sensors made by Raytheon Systems, which also manufactures the HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation) missile. Cutlass was adapted for ship-based operations to support US Navy operations over land. It is designed for six hours missions, flying at speed of 100 knots and maximum range of 1,000 km.


    In October 2005 a derivative of Harpy presented by MBDA in cooperation with IAI/MBT Division was selected as one of the finalists for the UK Loitering Munition Capability Demonstration (LMCD) program.

    Harpy Air Defense Suppression System

    Dedicated for the Suppression of Air Defense (SEAD)mission, Harpy is an operational loitering attack weapon. The current version of Harpy is deployed as a fire and forget weapon. It patrols the assigned area, and will attack any hostile radar activated in its vicinity. When used in appropriate numbers, Harpy can be launched into a target area to support continuous operations, or time limited strike packages. Unlike anti-radar missiles such as HARM, whose speed, range and direction of approach are predictable, the killer drone deployment is more flexible and unpredictable, and therefore, conventional countermeasures techniques are not useful against it. In fact, Harpy is holding enemy radars at risk throughout its mission. Harpy system is designed to operate multiple munitions simultaneously over a specific area, to effectively cover the target. Each drone is deployed autonomously, without interference and overlapping the other drones. (continue)




    The Harpy mission is planned and programmed in the battery ground control center, as an independent mission, or planned in accordance with other manned or unmanned systems. Prior to launch, individual weapons are programmed and tested, to verify their operational readiness. After the rocket-assisted launch, the drone flies autonomously enroute to its patrol area, predefined by a set of navigational waypoints. Due to its low speed and economical fuel consumption, the drone can sustain a mission of several hours over the target area. Its radar seeker head constantly search for hostile radars, both along and across the flight track. Once suspicious radar is acquired, Harpy compares the signal to the library of hostile emitters, and prioritizes the threat. If the target is verified, the drone enters an attack mode, as it transitions into a near vertical dive, homing on the signal. The drone is set to detonate its warhead just above the target, to generate the highest damage to the antennae, and surrounding facilities. If the radar is turned off before Harpy strikes, the drone can abort the attack and continue loitering. If no radar was spotted during the mission, the drone is programmed to self destruct over a designated area. Follow-on systems which are already proposed to foreign clients, are calling for a combination of seeker and killer drones that will enable visual identification and attack of targets even after they turn off their emitters.

    Israel Unveils Loitering Anti-Missile Drone

    Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) is developing a loitering killer drone that has the capability to hunt illusive ground targets, such as anti-aircraft systems and mobile or concealed ballistic missile launchers. This expendable unmanned aerial vehicles, known as Harop, can be launched over a suspected area without specifically acquiring a specific target. Designed to reach targets at distances over 1,000km away, the UAV loiter over a suspected area for hours, spot target as they are exposed before activation and attack them immediately. IAI is already negotiating potential export sales of the weapon with India and Turkey. The company exposed the system for the first time in India, before the Aero-India 2009 airshow.
    Harop resembles an earlier IAI's 'suicide drone' known as Harpy. The main differences are the outer wing extensions, the longer nose and canard foreplane. Like Harpy, Harrop is launched from a vehicle-mounted container. Harop augments the Harpy's RF seeker with an electro-optical sensor, allowing it to acquire and pursue non emitting targets and moving targets, as well as 'quit' targets such as shut-down radars. As a loitering weapon, Harop can also be used against suspected ballistic missile sites, where target missile silos and shelters as they are opened before firing. (continue)



    India is considering acquiring Harpy 2 (also known as 'Harop') killer drones developed by Israel Aerospace Industries, as part of a procurement program valued over $US1 billion. Harop is an evolution of the Harpy killer drone, optimized to operate against enemy radars and surface/air missiles. Harpy was developed in the 1990s and has been successfully exported to countries around the world.
    Turkey is also interested in this Lethal Unmanned Aerial System capability and by the end of 2008 the Ministry of Defense was considering enhancing the Harpy radar killer drone capability with the loitering killer drone version of the system.
    The Harop has evolved at IAI through a series of international cooperations that have never fully matured. In 1999 IAI discussed a joint prograp Raytheon known as the "Cutlass", pursuing a 'Combat Uninhabited Target Locate and Strike System'. Initially displayed in the Paris Air Show in 1999, the system combined the airframe of the Harpy UAV, made by Israel Aircraft Industries, with advanced sensors made by Raytheon Systems, which also manufactures the HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation) missile. Cutlass was adapted for ship-based operations to support US Navy operations over land. It is designed for six hours missions, flying at speed of 100 knots and maximum range of 1,000 km. Unlike the autonomous Harpy, Cutlass also has a direct line-of-sight datalink capability at range up to 150 km. This range can be extended via relays built into each weapon.
    In October 2005 Harop dubbed 'White Hawk', was presented to the UK Ministry of Defense, by a team lead by MBDA that also included IAI/MBT Division. Although MBDA was eventually selected as one of the finalists for the UK Loitering Munition Capability Demonstration (LMCD) program (which later evolved into the Fire Shadow), White Hawk was not selected for the program, as the MOD insisted on an 'all British' team.


    The drone weighs 135 kg, and is 2.1 meter long with a 2.7 meter span. It is sealed in its sealed launcher/container, to endure harsh battlefield conditions. It can be fueled or defueled in the launcher, therefore retaining its readiness at all time. The system uses periodical built-in test to maintain full readiness. In order to verify the drone¢s operational capability, its seeker head is being tested by a special radar simulator just before launch, to ensure that all systems are working. 

    The radar killer drone is launched from a canister which is also used as a launcher. Current Harpy modules are installed on trucks, and can be carried by C-130 transport aircraft. Each truck carries 18 weapon launchers. Each battery of Harpy is composed of three trucks, capable of deploying up to 54 drones for simultaneous, coordinated attack. The battery also has a ground control station and logistical support element. The system can also be deployed from the decks of assault landing ships, in support of marine or amphibious operations.

    Harpy is currently operational with the Turkish, Korean, Chinese and Indian Armies, in addition to the Israel Air Force. In December 2004 China was reported to be interested in an upgrade of its systems to a more advanced version. Part of this work, conducted at IAI in 2005 caused severe friction between Jerusalem and Washington, as the Pentagon blamed Israel of assisting China in modernizing its weapon in breach of its agreements with the USA. In October 2005 a derivative of Harpy presented by MBDA in cooperation with IAI/MBT Division was selected as one of the finalists for the UK Loitering Munition Capability Demonstration (LMCD) program.


    Unlike the autonomous Harpy, Cutlass also has a direct line-of-sight datalink capability at range up to 150 km. This range can be extended via relays built into each weapon. Like Harpy, Cutlass primarily is a SEAD weapon, relying on a blast-fragmentation warhead, but Cutlass is different from Harpy in its semi-autonomous mode of operation. When a potential target is located, the information is data-linked to an operator in the ground station to confirm target identification and to provide positive man-in-the-loop attack permission. With different seekers, the killer drone can also be used for hunting of ballistic missile launchers, urban warfare, and attacking vehicles. Other potential missions for an unarmed version of the Cutlass could be reconnaissance, target acquisition and battle-damage assessment, he said. It operates at an altitude of 6,000 feet, to avoid ground fire.



    Toward an Independent Foreign Policy for Israel*
    Paul Eidelberg 

    In my report of March 9, I said that with Barack Obama in the White House, the American government has become an overt enemy.  I no ted that 0bama has made appointments of persons who are openly hostile to Israel .  Like him and various Israeli politicians, they advocate an Arab-Islamic state in Judea, Samaria , and Gaza . This would lead to Israel ’s demise.
    Whatever the motives of the Israelis, they are obviously influenced by Washington ’s commitment to Palestinian statehood.  More fundamental is their perception of Israel ’s military and economic dependence on the U.S.   They see an umbilical chord with a one-way flow of nutrients from America to Israel .  This image distorts reality because America receives enormous nutrients from Israel . Trouble is, no one, to my knowledge, has made a strategic assessment of this two-way flow; hence neither government has adequate knowledge of their mutual dependency.
    The citizens of both countries are ignorant of how much each country contributes to the well-being of the other.  Virtually everyone believes Israel could not survive without America .  But is this belief based on a solid assessment of Israel ’s military capabilities?   After all, Israel is a nuclear power, and despite its minute size, its Gross Domestic Product exceeds that of all its neighbors—in fact, is the average of countries in Europe .
    Although American politicians speak of Israel as America ’s “most reliable ally in the Middle East ,” no one takes this vague expression seriously.  To be a reliable ally, Israel must be capable of defending itself.  Why, then, does Washington want to shrink Israel back to indefensible pre-1967 borders? Obviously, Washington has interests that compete with if not outweigh Israel ’s value as a U.S. ally—for example, Saudi oil and purchases of U.S. arms.  
    Washington should be reminded that
    If [Israel] were to simultaneously hit only five of the many sensitive points in Saudi Arabia’s downstream oil system, th[at] could put the Saudis out of the oil-producing business for about two years…. Simply blowing of Abqaiq’s up the East-West pipeline’s Pump Station One to smithereens …. would be enough to bring the world’s oil-addic ted economies to their knees, America ’s along with them. [Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil.]
    Neither the U.S. nor Europe should disregard Israel ’s nuclear capacity, and what Israel , small as it may be, is capable of doing if driven to desperation.  Its air force and navy extend the country’s effective size and range of power.
    Israel ’s timid government plays mum about this power.  It prefers to make Israel appear as a ted dy bear—as if meekness endears Israel to America and Europe and does not arouse Arab states to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.  Syria and Iran have made nonsense of Israel ’s meek image.  Dare Israel develop an image that intimidates Europe where anti-Semitism or hatred of Israel is rampant?  Europe’s hatred is not the result of Israel ’s nuclear power, which endangers no European country—the reason why Europe does not fear and respect Israel .
    As for the Uni ted States , an anti-Israel lobby in Washington wants to terminate the (misleading) image of America ’s pro-Israel foreign policy.  This lobby has the ear of Barack Obama who certainly does not have an adequate understanding of the extent to which America ’s well-being depends on a secure and flourishing Israel .
    Hence, we need to reveal Israel ’s contribution to America , first, by quoting Dr . Joseph Sisco, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs.  Sisco told Israeli author Shmuel Katz, “I want to assure you, Mr . Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us.”
    ● For FY2006, U . S . military grants to Israel was $2 . 28 billion (= $2 . 28B) .   Since Israel ’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2006, this aid to Israel was less than 1 . 5% of its GDP!
    ● Viewed over a longer time period—say between 1991 and 2006—total U . S . military grants and economic assistance to Israel was approximately $47 . 5B .  
    What has the U . S . received from Israel in return? 
    ● Israel must spend about 74% of U . S . military aid in the Uni ted States , where it provides jobs for an estima ted 50,000 American workingmen .
    ● Total exports from America’s 50 states to Israel between 1991and 2006 was $102 . 4B—more than twice the $47 . 5B Israel received in U . S . aid during this period .    The annual average of U . S . exports to Israel was $6 . 4B per year, more than twice the average American aid package .   In fact, total exports to Israel from the 50 states in 2006 was almost $11B—more than four times the U . S . military-economic aid package!
    ● Moreover, U.S. military aid to Israel creates a demand for, and the purchase of, tens of billions of dollars worth of U . S . weaponry by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states .   U . S . grants to Israel —far from burdening the American tax payer—actually enriches the U.S. economy .    Arms manufacturers know this .   So do Senators who represent states in which corporations such as Boeing and Lockheed are loca ted .   They have ves ted interests in opposing any sanctions against Israel if it were to take a more independent stand against Palestinian statehood.
    ● According to Gen . George Keegan, a former chief of U . S . Air Force Intelligence, between 1974 and 1990, Israeli aid to America was worth between $50-80B in intelligence, research and development savings, Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon, and testing Soviet military doctrines up to 1990 when the USSR collapsed .   Senator Daniel Inouye put it this way:  “The contribution made by Israeli intelligence to America is greater than that provided by all NATO countries combined . ”  
    ● Yoram Ettinger reports: Israel relays to the U . S . lessons of battle and counter-terrorism, which reduce American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan , prevent attacks on U . S . soil, upgrade American weapons, and contribute to the U . S . economy . Innovative Israeli technologies boost U . S . industries.
    ● The vice-president of the company that produces the F16 fighter jets told Ettinger that Israel is responsible for 600 improvements in the plane’s systems, modifications estima ted to be worth billions of dollars, which spared dozens of research and development years .
    ● Without Israel, the U . S . would have to deploy tens of thousands of American troops in the eastern Mediterranean Basin , at a cost of billions of dollars a year.
    ● In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor, thus providing the U . S . with the option of engaging in conventional wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003, thereby preventing a possible nuclear war and its horrendous consequences .
    ● In 2005, Israel provided America with the world’s most extensive experience in homeland defense and warfare against suicide bombers and car bombs . American soldiers train in IDF facilities and Israeli-made drones fly above the Sunni Triangle in Iraq , as well as in Afghanistan , providing U . S . Marines with vital intelligence that saved many American lives.
    Finally, since Israel has phased out economic aid, U . S . military aid is only 1.3% of Israel ’s GDP!  This figure would be zero if Israel did not spend billions on security fences and military redeployments resulting from territorial retreats.
    This is only a thumbnail sketch.  We need experts to assess other types of U.S. contributions to Israel ’s economy and vice-versa.  Hence, we need to know and translate into monetary terms:
    The number of engineers and scientists Israel provides the U.S.
    The medical technology Israel provides the U.S. and the number of lives saved thereby.
    The agricultural technology Israel provides the world in general, and the U.S. in particular, and the number lives saved by this technology.
    The U.S.- Israel scientific research projects.
    The U.S.-Israel military projects.
    The monetary significance of U.S-Israel tourism.
    These are just a few items that need to be assessed.  The public in Israel as well as in America should be informed in quantitative and qualitative terms what Israel contributes to the security, health, and economic prosperity of the Uni ted States .  Once this research is complete, Israel —of course depending on wise and courageous leadership—will be able to pursue a foreign policy vis-à-vis the U.S. that does not affect the borders of the country. 



    Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
    Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism

    No. 79, 1 April 2009 /7 Nissan 5769  
    The Gaza War and the New Outburst of Anti-Semitism[1]
    Manfred Gerstenfeld and Tamas Berzi

    Anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli manifestations reached post-Second World War highs during Israel's recent Gaza campaign. Attacks came from many directions. They included strong condemnations of Israeli actions by several governments as well as partly violent demonstrations in a number of countries. Furthermore, there were physical attacks on Jewish individuals as well as institutions. There was also much hate speech.

    A number of new hate thresholds were crossed. There were much-increased public expressions of equating Israel with Nazi Germany. Calls for the murder of Jews abounded for the first time in demonstrations in Germany, as well as in the United States. Prominent politicians, including the Norwegian finance minister, marched in such protests. There are indications that a variety of Muslim bodies, including mosque organizations, had planned these events well in advance.

    A number of actions by various independent Muslim bodies in several Western countries manifested their desire to conquer the public square and, at the same time, remove Jewish and Israeli identities from it. This development is relevant not only to Jews but also to the general public. Those who want to impose themselves in the public domain today at the expense of Jews, are likely to do so tomorrow at the expense of others.

    The Gaza war has shown once again that Israel can cope with the many military challenges it faces. On the other hand, the problems of the asymmetric verbal war conducted against it by circles from the United Nations, several Western political parties, media, academe, NGOs, and many others have never been properly analyzed by the Israeli authorities. Understanding how this anti-Israeli propaganda functions, and internally interacts, is necessary for gradually building adequate defenses in this area as well.
    During Israel's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, which lasted from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli manifestations reached post-Second World War highs. One indicator of the growth in expressed hate is that during this period the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Britain increased eightfold to 220 compared to the same period a year earlier.[2] Estimates of the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism put the worldwide increase of anti-Semitic incidents at 300 percent.[3] Hate emails to the umbrella body of the Jewish community in Germany were up 40 percent. They now stand at 200-300 per week.[4]
    Attacks came from many directions. Several governments strongly condemned the Israeli military actions; some Western media were harshly negative toward Israel despite the fact that it was facing a terrorist movement that promotes genocide in its charter. There were accusations from many sides, several of which later turned out to be false. NGOs charged Israel with a variety of alleged violations of international law such as "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes."[5] There were some decisions as well as attempts at anti-Israeli boycotts.
    Muslims formed the majority of the participants in anti-Israeli demonstrations in numerous countries. Often there were shouts of "Death to the Jews" or similar slogans. Equations of Israel with Nazi Germany were frequent. Several such protests turned violent. There were also pro-Israeli demonstrations, a number of which were violently attacked.
    Among the physical attacks on Jewish individuals, the worst occurred in Denmark where two Israelis were shot. There were arson and vandalism attempts against synagogues in countries such as France, Belgium, Sweden, Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands. There were also attacks on cemeteries, kosher restaurants, and other Jewish businesses.
    The number of actions and incidents is so major that no complete picture can be obtained at this time. The information below, however, provides a strategic overview of the issues at stake. It should be noted, though, that little attention has been given to the Arab and Muslim world where demonization of Israel and Jews is often an ongoing phenomenon.
    Although the scope of events mentioned below is sizable, one should not conclude that a majority of people in all Western countries are against Israel and the Jews. A determined group of anti-Israelis and anti-Semites, however, can create an atmosphere that makes it appear to be so, partly due to readiness for violence. This is even further exacerbated by the distortion of the facts and context of the conflict by many media.
     Anti-Israeli Government Declarations and Actions
    Among the countries that condemned Israel severely were Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba. A major new development was the Turkish leadership's alignment with these countries. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called Israel's actions "crimes against humanity" and said Israel was using "disproportionate force."[6] This was one of the frequent false claims against Israel.
    Dr. Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, explained during the war that "from a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it. (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza.)"[7]
    Erdoğan, however, stated while addressing his parliament: "They say my criticism is harsh, I assume it is not as harsh as phosphorus bombs or fire from tanks.... I am reacting as a human and a Muslim." The Turkish prime minister was extremely vocal against the Israeli operations in Gaza. Regarding the international community he said that "those who will remain silent to this aggression will give its account in front of history." He also claimed that "the dignity of humanity is being killed in Gaza."[8] Erdoğan has never used similar language concerning genocidal intentions and murderous behavior in the Muslim world. According to the working definition of the European Union, the use of such double standards is anti-Semitic.[9]
    Referring to Erdoğan's remarks about Israel, Soner Cagaptay wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "Mr. Erdogan's rhetoric, meanwhile, has reached Islamist fever pitch."[10] Some of the Turkish prime minister's statements contained classic anti-Semitic motifs. For example, when speaking to the Turkish parliament on 13 January 2009 he accused Jews of "controlling the media and intentionally targeting civilians." He also asserted that the "media outlets supported by Jews are disseminating false reports on what happens in Gaza, finding unfounded excuses to justify targeting of schools, mosques and hospitals."[11]
    Erdoğan's outburst against Israel is not unique and has to be seen in the context of his efforts to slowly Islamize Turkey.[12] His rhetoric toward the Israeli democracy casts additional doubt on Turkey's suitability to join the European Union. In implicitly taking the side of Hamas, which the EU defines as a terrorist organization, Turkey's attitude is far more severe than that of even the European countries most critical of Israel.
    Erdoğan also created an incident at the World Economic Forum in Davos, storming off the stage after the moderator, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, cut him short as he was responding to Israeli president Shimon Peres's speech defending the Israeli operation in Gaza.[13]
    Erdoğan's behavior was applauded by Iranian authorities. Yahya Rahim Safavi, security adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said that "Erdoğan's ...courageous actions at the Davos summit against the war crimes of the Zionist regime...are evidence of the Islamic awakening among the Turkish people-a result of the influence of Iran's Islamic Revolution."[14]
     Countries Break Relations
    The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, also strongly criticized Israel. He claimed that "the Holocaust, that is what is happening right now in Gaza."[15] He added that both the president of Israel and the president of the United States should be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Chavez also expelled all Israeli diplomats from Caracas and cut diplomatic ties with Israel.[16]
    Following Chavez's decision, Bolivian president Evo Morales decided to cut ties with Israel as well. He announced that he would seek genocide charges against top Israeli officials at the ICC and even recommended stripping Peres of his Nobel Peace Prize.[17]
    On 5 January, Mauritania, the only Arab country besides Jordan and Egypt that has official relations with Israel, ordered its ambassador in Tel Aviv to return for consultations.[18] On 17 January, Mauritania decided to freeze political and economic ties.[19] In early March it asked Israel to close its embassy in Nouakchott.[20]
    Qatar, the only Gulf Arab state that has some ties with Israel, asked Israel to close its trade office in Doha and remove its staff until the situation improved. Qatar also closed its trade office in Israel.[21]
     European Reactions
    The attitudes of governments of EU countries toward the conflict diverged greatly. Countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Hungary showed great understanding for Israel's actions and described them as self-defense. They put the blame for the war unequivocally on Hamas.[22]
    During the Gaza campaign the presidency of the EU changed. On 1 January 2009, the Czech Republic assumed this position from France. In the week after the ground operations in Gaza began, two EU diplomatic delegations visited Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. At that time, French president Nicolas Sarkozy called for a forty-eight-hour humanitarian ceasefire but Israel rejected this. The European delegation, headed by Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg, came without any specific proposals; he mentioned that there was great diversity of views in the group.[23]
    The most critical voice among EU governments was that of Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin. He condemned the Israeli air strikes as "devastating" and said they were offensive operations. Martin also condemned the firing of rockets into Israeli territory.[24] He described the Israeli ground operation as "indiscriminate attacks" and stated that the continuation of the operation "cannot be justified in any way and must now be brought to an immediate end."[25]
    Martin had told the members of the Dáil, the Irish parliament, that "prior to any conflict, the government and I had consistently condemned the Hamas rocket attacks in southern Israel." However, an article by Bruce Arnold in the Irish newspaper Independent revealed that throughout the whole of 2008, when rocket attacks were taking place, none of the minister's or his predecessor's press statements on the Middle East mentioned Hamas. As Arnold wrote: "There has been no 'consistent condemnation,' indeed no condemnation at all."[26]
    Sweden was the other EU country whose overall position was condemnatory of Israel. Foreign Minister Carl Bildt described the Israeli air strikes as a "serious continuation of the escalation of the tension." He acknowledged, however, that before the war erupted Hamas had refused to renew the ceasefire, stating that "although this ceasefire did not live up to expectations-particularly with regard to alleviating the Israeli blockade of Gaza-it would have been better for everyone if it had continued to be respected." He also described Israel's policy of isolating Hamas-run Gaza as "counterproductive."[27]
    The government of Norway, a non-EU country, was also generally negative toward Israel. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said, among other things, that "The Israeli ground offensive in Gaza constitutes a dramatic escalation of the conflict. Norway strongly condemns any form of warfare that causes severe civilian suffering, and calls on Israel to withdraw its forces immediately." He added that "Gaza is the world's most densely populated area, and the effects of a ground invasion on a long-suffering civilian population that has endured a strict closure regime for many years, and now many days of military attacks, will be extremely grave."[28]
    In his eagerness to condemn Israel, Støre repeated a frequently used fallacy. The Gaza Strip is far from being the world's most densely populated area. Singapore, Hong Kong, or even the Tel Aviv metropolitan area are more crowded.[29]
    Demonstrations against Israel spread rapidly. Extreme Muslim and left-wing bodies had seen the Gaza campaign coming. Several Jewish community leaders believe that the anti-Israelis were well organized and much better prepared than the Jewish community and its allies.
    Prof. Dina Porat, head of Tel Aviv University's Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, asserted that the reactions to Operation Cast Lead proved that Muslims in Europe had "prepared in advance a public campaign against Jews and Israel, which they see as one and the same" and that they "were waiting for a signal or a pretext to launch this campaign and the Nazism comparison." According to Porat, this Nazism association was most effective when left-wing Europeans cooperated with Muslims.
    She commented that "Europeans are burdened by the Holocaust, and accusing the victims of being like the Nazis helps distribute some of the burden and guilt." Porat made these statements at a gathering of the World Jewish Congress on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day.[30]
    There is confirmation of this collaboration from an Arab source. Dr. Kemal Helbawy, former spokesman of the International Organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, stated that there was coordination between the Brotherhood and Jewish organizations, such as the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions and Jews against Zionism, to organize demonstrations in London.[31]
    In London, major anti-Israeli demonstrations took place and some of them turned violent. At one, six hundred demonstrators scuffled with police outside the Israeli embassy.[32] On 3 January, five thousand demonstrators broke off from a larger group of twelve thousand, organized by the Stop the War coalition. They burned Israeli flags and hurled projectiles including fireworks at police officers.[33] A week later, another protest was organized by the same group that once again became violent. According to the Metropolitan Police twenty thousand people attended, but the BBC estimated that there were fifty thousand. Some protesters smashed the windows of a Starbucks cafe and three police officers were injured as people threw projectiles.[34]
    London was the location of one of Europe's largest pro-Israeli demonstrations as well. On 11 January, according to the organizers' estimates, fifteen thousand people showed their support for Israel under the banner "Peace in Israel, Peace in Gaza." Speakers included Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor, and a number of British MPs.[35]
    Paris was another place where major demonstrations took place. An initial anti-Israeli rally with 1,400 participants was peaceful.[36] On 3 January, the largest anti-Israeli protest in France was attended by twenty-one thousand demonstrators, of whom five hundred became violent. They threw objects at the police, burned Israeli flags, torched cars, and vandalized several shops. Ten police officers were injured in the clashes and twenty protesters arrested.[37] A day later, a pro-Israeli rally was attended by twelve thousand people according to the organizers and four thousand according to police estimates.[38]
    There were many anti-Israeli demonstrations in Germany as well, including in Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, and Berlin. In Berlin, Hamas and Hizballah were saluted and an Israeli flag was burned. [39] After many decades, the slogan "Death to the Jews" came back to Berlin, this time shouted mainly by Muslims.[40] During a pro-Palestinian march in Duisburg, the police removed two Israeli flags from the balconies of private apartments.[41] Pro-Israeli demonstrations were held in Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich; altogether two thousand people took part.[42]
    During the Second Lebanon War in summer 2006, anti-Jewish incidents in Norway included shooting at the synagogue in Oslo, which was the most severe incident in Europe.[43] This time Norway pioneered a new manifestation of anti-Israeli hate. It was the only country where a government minister, Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen, leader of the Socialist Left Party, marched against Israel in a demonstration where shouts of "Death to the Jews" were heard-though this was largely ignored by the Norwegian media. An Israeli daily, however, published the story, which also mentioned that the Israeli embassy had protested.[44]
    During a demonstration in Oslo in which an estimated forty thousand people participated, rocks and eggs were thrown at policemen when a smaller group refused to leave after it was announced that the demonstration was over.[45] On 8 January, one thousand pro-Palestinian protestors came to a pro-Israeli rally organized by the opposition Progress Party armed with knives, baseball bats, and Molotov cocktails.[46] The police prevented them from attacking the Israel supporters, but the hooligans then started attacking the police and smashed shop windows on a major Oslo street. Six people were wounded, including five policemen. The twenty-six people arrested were of thirteen nationalities, including Pakistani, Palestinian, Turkish, Moroccan, Iranian, Jordanian, Somali, Iraqi, and Afghan immigrants.[47]
    Johan Fredriksen, chief of staff of the Oslo police, remarked that "you have to go back to the early 1980s to find a similar situation in Norway."[48] After she addressed a pro-Israeli gathering, Siv Jensen, leader of the Progress Party, had to have permanent bodyguards because of the many threats she received.[49]
    There were large anti-Israeli demonstrations in Sweden as well. Thanks mainly to Swedish bloggers, it is known that prominent members of the Social Democrats-the country's largest party-took part in hate demonstrations against Israel. Mona Sahlin, the party's leader, participated in a rally in Stockholm[50] where Hizballah and Hamas flags were flown and an Israeli flag was burned.[51] Jan Eliasson, the former foreign minister,[52] and Wanja Lundby Wedin, chair of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation,[53] also took part in that event.
    In Norrköping, another senior Social Democrat, Lars Stjernkvist, spoke at a demonstration with a Hizballah flag as well as swastikas in the background. A blogger captured this with his camera.[54] When it became news, the local Social Democrat newspaper Folkbladet criticized the blogger for making an item out of it.[55] In Göteborg, white cloths with Israeli symbols were burned. In Malmö, another Social Democrat parliamentarian, Luciano Astudillo, spoke as someone next to him held up a picture of Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah.[56]
    Also in the Netherlands there were a number of anti-Israeli marches. In Amsterdam, two parliamentarians of the extreme-Left Socialist Party, Harry van Bommel and Sadet Karabulut, joined with other demonstrators in shouting "Intifada, intifada, Palestine free."[57]
    Bram Moszkowicz, a well-known Dutch lawyer, filed a complaint with the attorney-general against the two politicians for incitement to hate, discrimination, and violence. He said they were both leaders of this demonstration, where shouts of "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas" could be heard in the background. According to Moszkowicz, since the two parliamentarians did not dissociate themselves from these calls, they should be considered as identifying with them.[58] Among the thirty bodies that had sponsored this demonstration were several Muslim organizations, including the Turkish Milli Görüs and the Council of Moroccan Mosques of the Netherlands, as well as the International Socialists (an extreme left-wing group), the Dutch Palestine Committee, and a small anti-Zionist Jewish group, Ander Joods Geluid.[59]
    One banner at the demonstration proclaimed that "Anne Frank is turning in her grave."[60] The abuse of Anne Frank's memory to support Palestinian society, which is heavily permeated with calls for the genocide of Jews, has occurred on various occasions in the Netherlands.[61] These are typical cases of Holocaust inversion.[62]
    On 11 January, there was a large demonstration in Brussels where Israeli flags were burned and children carried effigies of dead and bloodied babies.[63] On 16 February, the umbrella body of Belgian Jewish organizations, CCOJB, submitted a formal complaint concerning racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia to the Center for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism. The CCOJB made accusations against three of the Wallonian parties-the Socialist PS, the Christian CDH, and the Green Ecolo-as well as trade unions and eighty-six NGOs that had organized the demonstration.[64]
    The CCOJB noted that this supposedly "peaceful" demonstration had turned into a major outburst of anti-Semitism on the streets of Brussels. Banners showed Jews as devils, or equated them with Nazis; others referred to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yet other signs compared Gaza to Auschwitz. The CCOJB stated that these were both morally and legally condemnable.[65]
    In Athens, three thousand demonstrators marched and threw rocks at the Israeli embassy.[66] They also threw firebombs at police officials.[67] The demonstrations came after weeks of major unrelated unrest that erupted after a teenager was killed by police.[68] In Nicosia, demonstrators attacked "riot police with rocks, sticks, shoes, and oranges near the Israeli embassy."[69] In Rome, thousands marched carrying signs that "showed swastikas superimposed on the Star of David."[70] There were demonstrations in Milan, Turin, and Venice as well.[71] One of the most impressive pro-Israeli demonstrations took place on 14 January in Rome. More than a hundred parliamentarians from different parties participated.[72] In Barcelona, thirty thousand people marched against Israel "carrying bloodstained blankets and mock dead bodies of children."[73] In Madrid, according to the estimates of the organizers, 250,000 people took part in a pro-Palestinian demonstration.
     One of the speakers claimed that the Gaza Strip was a concentration camp.[74]
    Probably the largest anti-Israeli demonstrations took place in Turkey, where hundreds of thousands of protesters marched in various locations. An estimated two hundred thousand participated in a demonstration organized by a minor Islamist party in Istanbul. There were also sizable demonstrations in the southeastern province of Diyarbakir and in other places as well.[75]
    In the United States, there were numerous demonstrations against Israel. The participants were mainly Arabs and other Muslims.[76] There were also demonstrations in Australia and New Zealand. In Sydney, a Jewish man was attacked at a pro-Palestinian rally.[77] In Wellington, New Zealand, a Catholic priest, Father Gerard Burn, sprinkled red paint, mixed with a drop of his own blood, on the memorial monument to Yitzhak Rabin.[78] On 14 January, in South Africa, Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig told a pro-Palestinian rally that "the control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money." She later apologized for her remarks.[79]
    In Argentina, after a demonstration a leader of an extreme-Left group called Jews "rats" on a major radio channel.[80] Some participants marched on the building of the Jewish AMIA organization wearing T-shirts of Hizballah, which an Argentinean court accused of bombing that building in 1994, killing eighty-five and wounding hundreds. The head of the National Institute against Discrimination (INADI) remained silent about the many anti-Semitic manifestations in the country.[81]
    There were a large number of anti-Semitic incidents in many places, far more than during the Second Lebanon War. Once again, the most severe case occurred in Scandinavia. In a shopping mall in the Danish town of Odense, two Israelis were shot and wounded. A Danish suspect of Lebanese origin with Palestinian parents was arrested.[82]
    In terms of the quantity of anti-Semitic incidents, France and Britain led the way. In France, there were numerous attacks against synagogues. A burning car was rammed into the gates of a synagogue in Toulouse.[83] In Villeneuve-St-Georges near Paris, a synagogue door was torched, while in another suburb a young man was stabbed four times when two men recognized a Jewish symbol on his necklace.[84]
    In Lingolsheim, Alsace, the front door of the synagogue was sprayed with "Assassins!" and "Long Live Israeli Democracy." In Metz, during a pro-Palestinian march, two hundred youths approached the synagogue but were kept back by police. In Toulon, a car was set on fire in the parking lot of the synagogue. In Villeurbanne, near Lyon, the windows of a synagogue were broken. In Paris, a yellowish liquid was thrown at a synagogue. In another incident, posters with the slogan "Get out of Gaza" were stuck to the walls of a synagogue. In Sedan, the windows of a synagogue were broken and a cross was sprayed on the wall. In St. Denis, near Paris, Molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue and the windows were broken. The same occurred in Schiltigheim in Alsace.[85] On 13 January, in Lille, a swastika and ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) were painted near the door of the synagogue. On 14 January, in Mulhouse, Alsace, slogans such as "Death to Israel," "Long
     live Palestine," and "F--k France" were scrawled on the wall of the synagogue.[86]
    The Community Security Trust, a British Jewish defense organization, reported a selection of the many incidents suffered by the community. These included an arson attack on a synagogue in North London, two assaults on visibly Jewish men by pro-Palestinian supporters, anti-Israeli daubings on synagogues and other Jewish buildings, and anti-Semitic graffiti in areas known for their Jewish communities.[87] The Sun, reported that an Islamic extremist website had posted a list of prominent British Jews to target; it included singer Amy Winehouse, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, and lawyer Anthony Julius.[88]
    There were also many other anti-Semitic incidents elsewhere. In Italy, eggs filled with red paint were thrown at a synagogue in Pisa[89] while an explosive device was found near the entrance of the Chabad House in Florence.[90] In Belgium, a petrol bomb was hurled at a synagogue in Brussels, the windows of the synagogue in Charleroi were broken,[91] a public menorah was set on fire, and swastikas were painted on Jewish-owned shops.[92] In Istanbul, a bomb exploded near the Israeli Bank Pozitif and anti-Semitic billboards, notices, and graffiti were widespread in the city as well. In Izmir, "We will kill you" was written on the door of a synagogue.[93] In Ankara, a basketball game between the Turk Telekom and Israeli Bnei Hasharon teams was canceled after Turkish fans stormed the court shouting "Allahu Akbar" and "Death to the Jews."[94]
    There were several anti-Semitic attacks in Sweden. In Helsingborg, the staircase at a Jewish center was set on fire. In Stockholm, the Israeli embassy was covered with graffiti proclaiming "Crush Israel, you broke the ceasefire!" and other imprecations such as "Die!" and "Murderers" were visible. [95] In Malmö, a Jewish burial chapel was attacked three times.[96]
    The president of the Jewish community in Venezuela, Abraham Levy Ben Shimol, told the participants of a World Jewish Congress conference that swastikas had been sprayed on the walls of a Caracas synagogue and added that "where we live, the anti-Semitism is sanctioned; it comes from the president, through the government, and into the media. Since the government is very involved in the day-to-day lives of its constituents, its influence is much more effective."[97]
    As on previous occasions, various media played a major role in distorting the news. A few examples will illustrate this. France 2 has come under heavy criticism over the past few years regarding its role in the Al-Dura affair. French media analyst Philippe Karsenty claimed that the images shown by France 2 of the killing of the child Muhammad al-Dura at the beginning of the Second Intifada in autumn 2000 were staged. When France 2 sued Karsenty, an appeals court found that he had every right to express his doubts about the authenticity of the report.[98]
    During the recent Gaza campaign, France 2 aired an amateur video that was filmed during a 2005 incident involving Gaza civilians killed in an explosion caused by "militants." The executives called the mistake an "internal malfunction" and formally apologized. France 2's head of news reporting, Etienne Leenhardt, said the footage was "intended to illustrate the war of images on the Internet. The people who put it together worked too fast."[99]
    The Dutch-Israeli media-watch group Israel Facts undertook a detailed analysis of how the Dutch state-subsidized television news service NOS reported on the Gaza campaign. Based on all the NOS primetime news shows' material throughout the campaign, the report claimed there was a pattern of omission, distortion, and manipulation. Images shown were mainly coverage by a local Gaza broadcaster. Ninety percent of all footage released dealt with the suffering of the Gaza population. Israel Facts noted that not a single official Israeli spokesman had found his way into the NOS reporting. The report also pointed out that the first time the Israeli side was mentioned was on New Year's Eve, four days after the campaign began; at that time most of the Dutch were busy with festivities. A further point was that Israel was not given the right of reply to accusations by NGOs and Palestinians.[100]
    The Guardian, for its part, published an obituary for Nizar Rayan, a Hamas terrorist leader who had sent his twenty-two-year-old son on a suicide mission in which two Israelis were killed. The article, which called him a political leader, was subtitled "Senior Hamas Leader and Cleric Considered a Hero on the Streets of Gaza."[101]
    Historian and media analyst Richard Landes has pointed out that international media have largely played into the hands of Hamas, whose strategy was both to maximize and exaggerate Palestinian casualties so as to gain the world's sympathy and, thereby, to marshal international pressure on Israel to halt its military operations before it could achieve its goals. He observed that the phenomenon of intentionally causing the enemy to inflict casualties on one's own civilian population is almost unknown outside the world of jihad.[102]
    An incident at the UNRWA-run Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys in the Jabaliya refugee camp provides an example of the media's irresponsibility as described by Landes. Headlines such as "Israeli Shelling Kills Dozens at UN School in Gaza"[103] or "Massacre of Innocents as UN School Is Shelled"[104] were all over the news after Israel responded to rocket attacks by Hamas with artillery fire. On 7 January, the Situation Report of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) also claimed that the UNRWA school had been shelled.[105] Yet when Patrick Martin, Middle East correspondent for the Canadian Globe and Mail, conducted an investigation, it revealed that no one inside the school building had been killed.[106] On 5 February, OCHA finally published a clarification confirming that the Israeli shells landed outside the school.[107] Martin describes clearly how the media helps put pressure on Israel:

    News of the tragedy traveled fast, with aid workers and medical staff quoted as saying the incident happened at the school, the UNRWA facility where people had sought refuge. Soon it was presented that people in the school compound had been killed. Before long, there was worldwide outrage.
    The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel's attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.[108]
    There are other indications that media frequently distort information. For instance, they may characterize demonstrations as passing peacefully. Eyewitnesses, however, tell that in some cases shouts of "Death to the Jews," the burning of Israeli flags, and banners calling equating Jews with Nazis go unmentioned. For instance, Levi Salomon, a representative of the Berlin Jewish community, has given examples of such deficient reporting.[109]
     Lawfare and Accusations of War Crimes
    Lawfare, the exploitation of international law by various organizations and individuals, is an important element of the attacks on Israel. Israeli officials are harassed with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations. NGOs issue hundreds of statements accusing Israel of "indiscriminate attacks," "disproportionate use of force," "collective punishment," and "war crimes."
    NGO Monitor explains that this tactic was adopted at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference in order to demonize and delegitimize Israel. NGO Monitor writes that "the NGOs calling for lawfare base their allegations on faulty legal premises, factual distortions, and unreliable 'eyewitness' testimony. These NGOs do not possess the military or other factual information necessary to level their charges."[110]
    Two major NGOs, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, accused Israel of war crimes claiming that the IDF indiscriminately used white- phosphorous munitions in densely populated areas of Gaza.[111] Ninety organizations, most of them French pro-Palestinian ones, seek to have the International Criminal Court indict Israel for war crimes in Gaza.[112] Several hundred human rights groups were planning to ask the ICC to investigate Israel's "war crimes" as well.[113]
     The United Nations
    As usual, a number of UN officials came out against Israel in various ways. Richard Falk, the anti-Israeli UN Human Rights Rapporteur in the Occupied Territories, claimed Israel had violated international law, citing "collective punishment," "targeting civilians," and "disproportionate military response."[114]
    UN General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, who had hugged Iranian president Ahmadinejad at the UN plenary a few months earlier, described the situation in Gaza as "genocide."[115]
    The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said Israel may have committed war crimes in Gaza, specifically mentioning an incident in the town of Zeitoun where approximately thirty people were killed in a single house as a result of Israeli shelling.[116] It is well known that the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights, have systematically ignored the crimes of the major human rights violators such as Sudan, Iran, and others.[117]
    John Ging, head of UNRWA, also claimed that the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza could be a war crime.[118]
    Boycott campaigns have been a major tool of Israel's enemies in the new century. The Gaza offensive led to renewed calls of various types. Some concerned Israeli produce,[119] others were for academic, cultural, or sports boycotts, while some were general.
    Individuals and bodies who had come out against Israel in the past were active once again. For instance, left-wing members of the British National Union of Journalists-the NUJ-Left-again discussed the possibility of promoting a boycott of Israel.[120] At its annual meeting in 2007, the NUJ voted for a boycott of Israeli goods as a protest against the Second Lebanon War. After opposition mounted, however, this motion was overturned by a large majority at the 2008 conference.[121]
    Some campaigns went as far as to call for the boycott of Jews. The most publicized case was that of the Italian Flaica-CUB Union, a small, independent leftist union in the retail services and food sector. Its leader, Giancarlo Desiderati, had told reporters that a list of Jewish shops was being drawn up. In reaction the mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, went to shop in a Jewish-owned clothing store and noted that such calls in the 1930s were the precursors of the Fascist anti-Semitic laws in 1938. Other politicians also condemned the boycott.[122]
    In some other countries such as Argentina, there were calls for boycotting Jewish shops in certain cities.[123] An anonymous email made the rounds in South Africa calling for the boycotting of Jewish businesses. However, a group of more than a hundred Muslims condemned this message.[124]
    Ingalill Bjartén, who holds a senior position in the Swedish Social Democrat Women's Association, compared Israel to the Nazis. She also called for the cancellation of the Swedish Davis Cup tennis match against Israel in March Parliamentarian Hans Linde, foreign policy spokesperson of the Left Party, joined this call and also called for a cultural boycott of Israel.[125] An Israeli taekwondo team was advised to cancel its participation in the Swedish championship at Trelleborg because of threats by a Swedish Muslim organization.[126]
    Sometimes boycott calls simply spread by rumor. Messages were sent to many in Dutch Muslim immigrant communities calling to boycott the German supermarket chains Aldi and Lidl. The origin of this campaign, which falsely claimed that the two chains were donating part of their profits to Israel, is not clear. There were similar calls all over Europe and the Middle East to boycott such businesses as McDonald's, Pepsi Cola, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The American coffee shop chain, Starbucks, admitted that the boycott had affected their business.[127]
    The union of Turkish cooperatives, which is associated with the Turkish Agricultural Ministry, announced that it would embargo the financing of purchases from Israel. Since the union offers subsidies to farmers, the embargo means Turkish farmers are likely to prefer to buy their agricultural supplies from other countries.[128]
    The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union boycotted an Israeli ship in Durban. However, the goods were later unloaded by nonunion workers.[129]
    There were some announcements of academic boycotts as well. Early in January, Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), called to boycott Israeli academics unless they condemned Israeli military action, after an appeal had been made by the Palestinian Federation of University Professors and Employees.[130] The call was a reaction to the bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza. The targets there included two laboratories that served as research and development centers for Hamas's military wing, where explosives were developed under the auspices of university professors. The university was used for storage of rockets and explosives as well.[131]
    On 22 February, CUPE Ontario adopted a resolution that "encourages research into military connections between Ontario and Israeli universities, and calls on Ontario universities to refuse to conduct research that benefits the Israeli military."[132] Although this was a step back from the original call, it still singles out Israel. The president of CUPE National came out with a statement that the national organization does not support CUPE Ontario's resolution and that it "does not represent CUPE National policy."[133]
     The Role of Anti-Israeli Jews
    As in many earlier cases, this time as well there was a small number of Jews whose statements were among the most extreme against Israel.[134] Of some, it is known that they are Jewish even if they do not stress it themselves. Others use the fact that they are Jewish and/or exploit the suffering of their families during the Holocaust as a weapon in their attacks on Israel. Some small Jewish groups helped organize or participated in anti-Israeli hate demonstrations.
    Naomi Klein, a Canadian antiglobalization activist, proposed a strategy for boycotting Israel in The Nation.[135] Sir Gerald Kaufman, a British Labour parliamentarian, compared Hamas in Gaza to Jewish resistance fighters during the Second World War. He said the Israeli government "ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians." He added that "My grandmother, who was shot dead by the Nazis, did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza."[136]
    Alexei Sayle, a British comedian, said at a rally in London that "as a Jew, it's very moving to see so many people who are so outraged at Israel's actions," and that "Israel is a democratic country that is behaving like a terroristorganization."[137]
    In a post on his website, titled "Deutschland Uber Alles," Norman Finkelstein juxtaposes images of the Holocaust with claimed Israeli atrocities. The article is subtitled "the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany"[138] Needless to say, if that were the case most Palestinians would have been killed long ago.
     Interrupting Dialogue
    Dialogues take place between Muslim and Jewish organizations in a number of countries. During the war, some Muslim groups interrupted these because the Jewish side was not willing to condemn the Israeli action in Gaza. This was a hypocritical demand because the Muslim parties have rarely if ever condemned Palestinians or specifically Hamas for their multiple acts of terror against Israel. Nor have they come out against the calls for genocide in the Muslim world.
    In France all the Muslim representatives resigned from the dialogue with CRIF, the umbrella body of the French Jewish community. This dialogue took place within the framework of the Amitié judéo-musulmane de France (AJMF).[139] A Tunisian imam named Hassen Chalghoumi, who had been involved in a dialogue project, said it had seemingly come to a standstill. Whereas according to CRIF 95 percent of French Jews support Israel's actions in Gaza, most Muslims feel solidarity with the Palestinians. Chalghoumi affirms that "reconciliation [between French Muslims and Jews] will take time."[140] Another country where the dialogue was affected was the Netherlands.
    These incidents should provide an opportunity for Jewish participants in these dialogues to rethink their approach. Often these dialogues have resulted from Jews "courting" the Muslim side. This has enabled Muslims, on a number of occasions, to criticize Israel while Jewish dialogue partners, at best, defend it. It would have been far more logical to point out in response the large number of murders and major human rights abuses in Muslim countries, among them Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia. In addition, it is worth stressing the multiple calls for genocide by senior religious and political leaders in the Muslim world and the rabid anti-Semitism prevailing there.
    There are other aspects to this as well. For several reasons the image of Muslim communities has deteriorated in Western Europe. The dialogue with the Jewish community gives some dialogue partners an increased respectability. Some authorities may reason that if the Jews, who are seen as being on the other side of the political fence, are willing to talk to these Muslims, why shouldn't they? The combination of helping groups of Muslims and then being attacked by them is not in the Jewish interest.
    Yet another aspect is the instrumentalization of Jewish-Muslim relations by the authorities. There have been numerous attacks, hate speech, and other abuse of Jews by Muslims in various European countries during the Gaza campaign, and to a lesser extent, over the past few years. It is inconvenient for the authorities to say that aggression comes only from the Muslim side. If ever there is an incident where Jews attack Muslims, this helps the authorities distort the nature of the overall aggressions. This was the case after an incident where Jews attacked Muslim high school students at the Lycee Janson-de-Sailly in Paris.[141]
    At some point, Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie spoke about tensions between the communities.[142] This was a clear misnomer in view of the asymmetric character of the conflict in France. On 14 January, in a speech in Orléans, Sarkozy said "I will not tolerate that the conflict of the Middle East will be exploited by some in order to create inter-community tensions in France.... Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia will be condemned with equal severity."[143] From this one could easily and falsely conclude that both Muslims and Jews are importing violence into France; actually, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are generally very different in nature.[144]
     The Battle for the Public Square
    Actions by various independent Muslim bodies amount to an effort to conquer the public square and at the same time remove Jewish and Israeli identities from it. This began, in part, at the beginning of this century when Muslims attacked individual Jews in various European countries. Initially France was a particularly severe case.[145] Later such attacks became a common phenomenon in some other countries as well.
    The problem became so serious that some Jewish communities started to advise their members not to wear kippahs on the street. Former French chief rabbi Joseph Sitruk has made this admonition a number of times.[146] On various occasions people wearing Stars of David were also advised to tuck them into their shirts.
    Pessy Hollander, a Norwegian Jew, said he knows of many people in the Norwegian Jewish community who are afraid, as there have been death threats as well. An Orthodox family he knows no longer dares to go to the synagogue because they stand out in the street.[147] As many visitors to major West European cities have noticed, at the same time many Muslims, through their mode of dress, increasingly emphasize their religion in the public domain.
    During the Gaza war, the attempt to dominate the public square became more overt. Muslims attacked pro-Israeli demonstrations and Jews in the streets. There were arson attempts against Jewish institutions. After some anti-Israeli demonstrations, Muslim prayer services were held in public places-for instance, in Fort Lauderdale in the United States.[148]
    In Milan, a Muslim prayer session was held on the major square in front of the cathedral. This message can be interpreted in several ways. For instance: the Catholics pray inside, but the street, the public square, is for Muslim prayer. Or, the cathedral is empty, the street is full, and ultimately the cathedral will be a mosque. Many Italians understood the message; Interior Minister Roberto Maroni forbade future demonstrations in front of religious buildings. Later the Muslim organizers apologized to the cardinal of Milan.[149]
    Sometimes the authorities assisted this process. The aforementioned removal of the Israeli flags in Duisburg by local police is one example. The dispersion of an authorized pro-Israeli demonstration in Malmö was another.
    This battle for the public square is not only relevant to Jews but to the public at large. Those who currently want to impose themselves on the public square at the expense of the Jews are likely to do so in the future at the expense of others.
    Incidents continued at a lesser pace after the campaign ended. An authorized pro-Israeli demonstration in Malmö was attacked by unauthorized anti-Israeli protesters. Rather than protecting those who were exercising their right, the police dispersed both groups.[150] Ted Ekeroth, a blogger, showed how another pro-Israeli demonstration in the same city was attacked by a group who hurled pipe bombs and projectiles at them.[151] The Israeli ambassador to Sweden, Benny Dagan, had a shoe thrown at him during his speech at the University of Stockholm.[152]
    In Amsterdam, the location of a lecture for Jewish organizations, a hotel, had to be changed after it received emailed threats. Shoes were thrown at the speaker, Ron Edelheit of the IDF Spokesman's Unit.[153] Subsequently, Liberal Party MP Paul de Krom asked the Dutch government what it intended to do about the apparent spread of anti-Semitism in Amsterdam and the calls for violence in pro-Palestinian protests.[154]
    Due to threats and for political reasons, the left-wing-majority Malmö city council decided to hold the Davis Cup tennis match between Sweden and Israel behind closed doors. The decision was made despite the fact that police had announced earlier that fans could be admitted.[155] Six thousand demonstrated outside the stadium against Israel. About two hundred demonstrators pelted the police with stones, fireworks, and paint bombs.[156] The Israeli team won the match. Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center published an op-ed listing a selection of Swedish anti-Semitic acts, noting: "Over-the-top vilification anti-Israel rhetoric is a hallmark of a large swathe of the Swedish political establishment."[157]
    On 23 January, Bert Anciaux, a minister in the Flemish government, compared on his personal blog the Gaza operation to a murder at a Belgian nursery where two infants and a caretaker were killed by a twenty-year-old man.[158] The Belgian Foreign Ministry distanced itself from Anciaux.[159] A few days later the entire Flemish government, including Anciaux, agreed that the two issues had no relation to each other.[160]
    On Friday night, 30 January, a synagogue in Caracas was defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti and its interior room where the Torah is kept was vandalized.[161] President Chavez condemned the attack; he accused his political opponents of committing it.[162] A few days later, eleven people were arrested, among them seven policemen. The attack was then presented as perpetrated by a gang rather than an anti-Semitic one.[163] On 27 February, an explosive device went off outside a Jewish center in Caracas.[164]
    NGO actions against Israel continued. Amnesty International published a report condemning both Hamas and Israel and proposing an arms embargo of Israel. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, strongly criticized this report and stated that "Amnesty denies Israel the right to self-defense-an internationally accepted right of every sovereign nation."[165]
    NGO Monitor analyzed the Amnesty document and concluded that it "exploits the façade of a 'research report' to make baseless accusations, misrepresent international law, and promote an immoral and indefensible equivalence between Hamas and Israel." It added that "Officials of Amnesty International responsible for abusing human rights claims in preparing this publication should resign."[166]
    A Palestinian NGO, Al-Haq, has started legal proceedings against the British government to compel it to impose sanctions on Israel. The British Foreign Office responded that such claims against British ministers "are wholly inapt for resolution in domestic legal proceedings."[167]
    On 22 January, a group of American professors launched the U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel. Two weeks later they claimed to have obtained 205 endorsements, of which 155 were by Americans.[168]
    The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) announced that they would launch a boycott of Israeli goods in response to the Gaza campaign. In Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, they were praised for this by Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. Parliamentarian Robin Newton of the Democratic Unionist Party reacted to the announcement by saying, "I can only wonder about the attitude of the ordinary member of a trade union who witnesses the senior members of their union traipsing around the Middle East delving into complex problems when the employees of local firms are facing redundancy, cutbacks or at least very challenging times."[169]
    There is likely to be an increasing number of renewed attempts at lawfare, boycotts, and embargoes. Draft resolutions for the upcoming Durban II conference, which will take place in Geneva on 20-24 April 2009, indicate that it is likely to be an anti-Semitic hate-fest similar to the first conference.[170]
    At the Durban NGO conference in 2001, the idea emerged of a systematic, extended program of delegitimizing Israel. The South African NGO committee SANGOCO played a key role, and closely collaborated with Palestinians. The eight-point program that was developed included the launching of an educational program to create worldwide solidarity against Israel, the use of all legal mechanisms against Israel, discrediting the Law of Return, reinstituting the Arab boycott, imposing embargoes on Israel, and promoting the rupture of all diplomatic relations with Israel. This was meant to be realized over a period of five years. Thereafter, a second five-year program was supposed to be initiated against the United States.[171] The anti-Israeli program was intended to be implemented through the involvement of churches, universities,[172] Internet service providers, the United Nations, and NGOs.[173]
    While all these efforts are clearly recognizable in the period since the Durban conference, there is no single driving force behind the multiple attacks on Israel and the Jews. Many anti-Israeli advocates, while unaware of the SANGOCO program and its aims, play into this strategy by their actions. A fragmented postmodern society offers many conduits for propagating anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism, operating in the framework of what can be described as a postmodern "total war." All actions combine into a system that functions as if coordinated by invisible hands.[174]
    The anti-Israeli campaign in the West comes from many directions. The major aggressors were already active against Israel long before the Gaza war, but exploited the occasion to increase their efforts. Among these are Muslim governments and many Muslim-immigrant bodies in the West. They frequently collaborate with the extreme Left, which often includes green parties and other politicians, mainly but not only socialists, who systematically discriminate against Israel. Self-hating or anti-Semitic Jews and Israelis also play an important role. While their numbers may not be large, they often act as initiators of anti-Israeli actions and are used by gentile haters of Jews and Israel in their campaigns.
    The frequent ideological justification offered by many socialists who take often highly discriminatory anti-Israeli positions is that they identify with the weak. They do not distinguish between underdogs and defeated criminals. Their positions sometimes make them allies, or de facto accomplices, of a genocide-promoting organization such as Hamas. This was evident when several prominent socialists demonstrated against Israel together with those who shouted "Death to the Jews" or held up signs equating Israel with Nazi Germany.
    A major role is also played by many media that emphasize Palestinian suffering without putting matters in context. Hamas's genocidal charter is often ignored or obfuscated. Nor is it stressed that the Palestinians, in a partly democratic process, elected this mass-murder-promoting movement.
    UN bodies and NGOs also wage lawfare against Israel through one-sided positions. Delegitimization of Israel takes place on various fronts in parallel. Positions emphasized by the media create an overall hostile atmosphere for Israel and Jews. At the same time, much less attention is paid to the prominent genocidal attitudes in the Muslim world and the weak or absent reactions to this from moderates.
    The Gaza war has shown once again that Israel can cope with the many military challenges it faces and its defense establishment is notably flexible. On the other hand, the problems of the asymmetric war conducted against Israel by the abovementioned actors has never been properly analyzed to a significant degree by the Israeli authorities. Such understanding is an absolute necessity for gradually building adequate defense systems in this area as well.
    * * *
    [1] The authors thank Rachel Bresinger for her assistance with the research for this article.
    [2] Community Security Trust, "Antisemitic Incidents and Threats to British Jews Arising from the Gaza Crisis," Update 4, 21 January 2009.
    [3] "Report: Expect Sharp Rise in Anti-Semitism," JTA, 25 January 2009.
    [4] "Holocaust-Gedenken ohne Zentralrat der Juden," Die Welt, 27 January 2009. [German]
    [5] NGO Monitor, "The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law," 21 January 2009.
    [6] Herb Keinon, "Jerusalem: No International Pressure to End Op," Jerusalem Post, 28 December 2008.
    [7] Dore Gold, "Did Israel Use 'Disproportionate Force' in Gaza?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 8, No. 16, JCPA, 28 December 2008.
    [8] "PM Erdoğan Says Words Not Harsher than Bombs," Hurriyet, 14 January 2009.
    [9] "Working Definition of Antisemitism,"
    [10] Soner Cagaptay, "Is Turkey Still a Western Ally?" Wall Street Journal Europe, 22 January 2009.
    [11] Haviv Rettig Gur, "Erdoğan's Remarks Aid Anti-Semitism," Jerusalem Post, 29 January 2009.
    [12] Annette Grossbongardt, "Less Europe, More Islam; Turkey in Transition," Spiegel Online, 11 February 2006.
    [13] "Turkish PM Storms Off in Gaza Row," BBC News, 29 January 2009.
    [14] Fars (Iran), 4 February 2009, as quoted in MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 2248, 17 February 2009.
    [15] "Venezuela's Chavez Calls Gaza Attack 'Holocaust,'" Reuters, 6 January 2009.
    [16] "Chavez Condemns Caracas Synagogue Attack," Ynetnews, 2 February 2009.
    [17] "Bolivia Cuts Ties with Israel, Seeks Genocide Charges against Israeli Officials," Haaretz, 14 January 2009.
    [18] "Mauritania Recalls Ambassador from Israel in Wake of Gaza Offensive," Haaretz, 5 January 2009.
    [19] "Qatar, Mauritania Freeze Israel Ties over Gaza," Ynetnews, 17 January 2009.
    [20] Barak Ravid, "Mauritania Expels Israeli Ambassador," Haaretz , 7 March 2009.
    [21] Ibid.
    [22] Tamas Berzi, "European Reactions to Israel's Gaza Operation," Jerusalem Issue Briefs, Vol. 8, No. 20, JCPA, 29 January 2009.
    [23] Ibid.
    [24] "Minister for Foreign Affairs Condemns Israeli Air Strikes against Gaza," Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland, 28 December 2008.
    [25] "Minister for Foreign Affairs Condemns Latest Atrocity in the Gaza Conflict," Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland, 6 January 2009.
    [26] Bruce Arnold, "Ireland Remains One of the Two Least Stable European Countries in Its Relations with Israel," The Independent, 24 January 2009.
    [27] "Carl Bildt: Break the Isolation of Gaza," Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Swedish Government Offices, 29 December 2008.
    [28] "Israel Must Withdraw Its Troops from Gaza," Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway, 3 January 2009.
    [29] Stephen Pollard, "Gaza Is Not Too Crowded," The Spectator, 24 April 2008.
    [30] Cnaan Liphshiz, "Summit on Holocaust: Gaza War Legitimized Equating Jews with Nazis," Haaretz, 27 January 2009.
    قيادى سابق بالتنظيم الدولى يكشف عن تنسيق «الإخوان» مع «حركات يهودية» فى «مظاهرات غزة» [31]
    (A Former Leader of the International Organization [of the Muslim Brotherhood] Exposes Coordination between the Muslim Brotherhood and Jewish Movements in [organizing] the Gaza Demonstrations )
    Al-Masry al-Youm, Egypt, 1 February 2009. [Arabic]
    [32] "Gaza Attacks: Israeli Strikes Spark Protests across the World," The Telegraph, 30 December 2008.
    [33] Tracy McVeigh and Ben Quinn, "Gaza Protest March Ends in Violence," The Observer, 4 January 2009.
    [34] "UK Protesters Call for Gaza Peace," BBC News, 10 January 2009.
    [35] Will Pavia, "Thousands Gather in Trafalgar Square to Protest over Gaza," Times Online, 12 January 2009.
    [36] "1,400 Protest in Paris over Gaza Fighting," Ynetnews, 28 December 2008.
    [37] "European Protestors Urge End to Attacks on Gaza," International Herald Tribune, 3 January 2009.
    [38] "Pro-Israeli Rally Draws Thousands to Paris," Ynetnews, 4 January 2009.
    [39] "Demonstrators in Berlin Salute Hamas, Hezbollah," JTA, 18 January 2009.
    [40] "Antisemitismus in Berlin und Duisburg," Kontraste, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, video, 15 January 2009. [accessed: 2 March 2009] [German]
    [41] Yassin Musharbash, "Police Remove Israeli Flag during Islamist Protest March," Spiegel Online, 13 January 2009.
    [42] "Major Cities Stage Fresh Protests over Gaza," AFP, 11 January 2009.
    [43] Ilan Moss, "Anti-Semitic Incidents and Discourse in Europe during the Israel-Hezbollah War," European Jewish Congress, 2006.
    [44] Itamar Eichner, "Geluchei rosh wesarat haotsar," Yediot Achronot, 14 January 2009. [Hebrew]
    [45] Rolleiv Solholm, "Anti Israel Demonstrations," Norway Post, 6 January 2009.
    [46] "Norwegian Police Detain 27 in Clashes over Gaza," Reuters, 8 January 2009.
    [47] Jostein Ihlebæk and Arild M. Jonassen, "Kun én palestiner ble tatt under opprøret i Oslo," Aftenposten, 9 January 2009. [Norwegian]
    [48] Ibid.
    [49] Tori Chiefetz, "Norway's Pro-Israel Opposition Leader under 24-Hour Guard," Jerusalem Post, 28 January 2009.
    [50] Per Gudmundson, "Mona Sahlin, hakkorsen och Hamasflaggorna," Gudmundson, 15 January 2009 [Swedish]
    [51] "Israelska flaggan brändes," Dagens Nyheter, 10 January 2009. [Swedish]
    [52] Per Gudmundson, "Rödflaggat," Gudmundson, 13 January 2009, [Swedish]
    [53] Per Gudmundson, "Swedish Leading Social Democrats in Rally with Hezbollah Flags," Gudmundson, 10 January 2009,]
    [54] Erik Svansbo, "Folkbladet uppmärksammar 'bloggkupp,'" Svansbo, 14 January 2009, [Swedish]
    [55] "'Extrema yttringar - tack vare Svansbo,'" Folkbladet, 14 January 2009. [Swedish]
    [56] Per Gudmundson, "Rödflaggat," Gudmundson, 13 January 2009, [Swedish]
    [57] Theo Koelé, "Van Bommel ergert Kant met oproep tot intifada," 5 January 2009. [Dutch]
    [58] "Moszkowicz doet aangifte tegen SP-Kamerleden," de Volkskrant, 14 January 2009. [Dutch]
    [59] "Demonstratie tegen Israël," AD, 3 January 2009. [Dutch]
    [60] "Europeanen demonstreren tegen aanval op Gaza," Trouw, 3 January 2009. [Dutch]
    [61] Alvin H. Rosenfeld, "Exploiting Anne Frank," Weekly Standard, 23 June 2008.
    [62] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Holocaust Inversion: The Portraying of Israel and Jews as Nazis," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 55, 1 April 2007.
    [63] "Cities across the World Become Platform for Hundreds of Thousands of Protesters against Gaza Fighting," Daily Mail, 11 January 2009.
    [64] Comité de Coordination des Organisations Juives de Belgique (CCOJB), "Dépôt de plainte pour la manifestation du 11 janvier 2009," press release, 17 February 2009. [French]
    [65] Ibid.
    [66] "Gaza Attacks: Israeli Strikes Spark Protests across the World," The Telegraph, 30 December 2008.
    [67] Tracy McVeigh and Ben Quinn, "Gaza Protest March Ends in Violence," The Observer, 4 January 2009.
    [68] Mark Tran, "Greece Riots: Timeline," The Guardian, 8 December 2008.
    [69] "European Protestors Urge End to Attacks on Gaza," International Herald Tribune, 4 January 2009.
    [70] "Explosive Device Found at Florence Chabad," JTA, 18 January 2009.
    [71] "Gaza: Manifestations anti-israéliennes à Milan et Turin," Le Monde, 10 January 2009. [French]
    [72] "Una piazza che no ci saremmo aspetati," [Italian]
    [73] "Thousands in Europe Protest Gaza Violence," International Herald Tribune, 10 January 2009.
    [74] "Cities across the World Become Platform for Hundreds of Thousands of Protesters against Gaza Fighting," Daily Mail, 11 January 2009.

    [75] "Hundreds of Thousands Protest in Turkey against Israeli Offensive," Hurriyet, 4 January 2009. [76] "Widespread Protests in US against Gaza. Attack Israel Still at It in Gaza," Pakistan Tribune, 1 January 2008. [77] "Anti-Semitic Incidents Cross Australia," JTA, 8 January 2009. [78] "NZ Priest Smears Blood on Rabin Memorial," Jerusalem Post, 6 January 2009. [79] Amir Mizroch, "S. African Deputy FM Apologizes Again for 'Jewish Money' Comment," Jerusalem Post, 7 February 2009. [80] Uki Goni, "Argentina Deports a Holocaust-Denying Bishop," Time, 23 February 2009. [81] Sergio Dattilo, "Israel violó reglas y eso se le vino contra," Ambito Financiero, February 2009. [Spanish] [82] Jonny Paul, "Gaza-linked Attacks on Jews Sweep Europe," Jerusalem Post, 6 January 2009. [83] "Car Rams Gates of Toulouse Synagogue," Jerusalem Post, 6 January 2009. [84] "Arson, Stabbing in Paris," JTA, 18 January 2009. [85] "Une nouvelle attaque contre un lieu de culte juif," L'Express, 12 January 2009. [French] [86] "Sarkozy: 'Zero Tolerance' for Anti-Semitic Attacks," National Post, 16 January 2009. [87] Community Security Trust, "Antisemitic Incidents and Threats to British Jews Arising from the Gaza Crisis," Update 4, 21 January 2009. [88] "Report: Islamist Site Compiling List of U.K. Jews to Target over Gaza Op," Haaretz, 7 January 2009. [89] "European Synagogues Targeted," JTA, 14 January 2009. [90] "Explosive Device Found at Florence Chabad," JTA, 18 January 2009.

    [91] "Wave of anti-Semitic acts hit Belgium," JTA 7 January 2009.
    [92] Community Security Trust, "Antisemitic Incidents and Threats to British Jews Arising from the Gaza Crisis," Update 2, 6 January 2009.
    [93] Barry Rubin, "Turkey: Antisemitism Gets Out of Control," Global Politician, 12 January 2009.
    [94] Ehud Kohanim, "Turkish Fans Blow Israeli Team's Game in Ankara," Ynetnews, 7 January 2009.
    [95] David Landes, "Jews in Sweden under Increasing Threat," The Local, 7 January 2009.
    [96] Peter Vinthagen Simpson, "Jewish Burial Chapel Attacked in Malmö," The Local, 13 January 2009.
    [97] Nir Hasson, "'In Venezuela, Anti-Semitism Is Endorsed by the Government,'" Haaretz, 26 January 2009.
    [98] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "The Muhammad Al-Dura Blood Libel: A Case Analysis," interview with Richard Landes, Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 74, 2 November 2008.
    [99] Stephanie L. Freid, "Critics Say French TV Network Broadcast Fabricated Footage in Gaza, Again," Fox News, 12 January 2009.
    [100] Elan Lubliner, "Dutch News Show Slammed for Anti-Israel Bias," Jerusalem Post, 23 February 2009.
    [101] Trevor Mostyn, "Nizar Rayan: Senior Hamas Leader and Cleric Considered a Hero on the Streets of Gaza," The Guardian, 3 January 2009.
    [102] Richard Landes, presentation at JCPA, 19 February 2009.
    [103] Chris McGreal, Rory McCarthy, and Mark Tran, "Israeli Shelling Kills Dozens at UN School in Gaza," The Guardian, 7 January 2009.
    [104] Donald Macintyre and Kim Sengupta, "Massacre of Innocents as UN School Is Shelled," The Independent, 7 January 2009.
    [105] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "Situation Report on the Humanitarian Situation in the Gaza Strip-No. 5," 7 January 2009.
    [106] Patrick Martin, "Account of Israeli Attack Doesn't Hold Up to Scrutiny," The Globe and Mail, 29 January 2009.
    [107] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "Situation Report on the Humanitarian Situation in the Gaza Strip-No. 20," 5 February 2009.
    [108] Ibid.
    [109] "Berlin Arrests 8 in Israel Protest," JTA, 4 January 2009.
    [110] NGO Monitor, "The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Lawfare against Israel," 2 February 2009.
    [111] "Amnesty Accuses Israel of Crimes over White Phosphorus," Reuters, 19 January 2009.
    [112] Elise Barthet, "Gaza: des organisations portent plainte pour 'crimes de guerre' devant la CPI," Le Monde, 13 January 2009. [French]
    [113] "Rights Groups to Ask World Court to Probe Israel 'War Crimes,'" AFP, 18 January 2009.
    [114] Richard Falk, "Israel's War Crimes," The Nation, 29 December 2008.
    [115] "Israel Accused of Gaza 'Genocide,'" Al Jazeera English, 14 January 2009.
    [116] Rory McCarthy, "UN Human Rights Chief Accuses Israel of War Crimes," The Guardian, 10 January 2009.
    [117] Jackson Diehl, "A Shadow on the Human Rights Movement," Washington Post, 25 June 2007.
    [118] "Israel Rejects Suggestions of Gaza 'War Crimes,'" Reuters, 17 January 2009.
    [119] "Boycotts Hurt Israeli Produce Industry," JTA, 18 January 2009.
    [120] "NUJ Left Plans to Revive Israel Boycott," Harry's Place, 14 January 2009,
    [121] Ronnie Fraser, "Trade Union and Other Boycotts of Israel in Great Britain and Ireland," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 76, 1 January 2009.
    [122] Ruth Ellen Gruber, "Italian Officials Condemn Jewish Boycott," JTA, 9 January 2009.
    [123] Uki Goni, "Argentina Deports a Holocaust-Denying Bishop," Time, 23 February 2009.
    [124] "South African Muslims Condemn Calls to Boycott Israel," JTA, 2 February 2009.
    [125] "'Boycott Israel in Davis Cup': Social Democrat," The Local, 13 January 2009.
    [126] "Sweden: Israeli Taekwondo Team Cancels Trip Due to Terror Threats," European Jewish Congress, 20 February 2009.
    [127] Robert Chesal, "Gaza Assault Spurs Calls for Boycott," NRC Handelsblad, 14 January 2009.
    [128] Ora Coren, "War Casts Pall on Israeli Business Overseas, Tourism," Haaretz, 16 January 2009.
    [129] Haviv Rettig Gur and Tori Cheifetz, "Israeli Ship Cargo Unloaded in Durban despite Union Boycott," Jerusalem Post, 5 February 2009.
    [130] Vanessa Kortekaas, "Ontario Union Calls for Ban on Israeli Professors," National Post, 5 January 2009.
    [131] Yaakov Katz, "IAF Hits Islamic University Targets," Jerusalem Post, 28 December 2008.
    [132] "Canadian Union Adopts Israel Boycott Resolution," JTA, 23 February 2009.
    [133] "Statement from Paul Moist, CUPE National President," MSNBC, 24 February 2009.
    [134] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Jews against Israel," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 30, 1 March 2005.
    [135] Naomi Klein, "Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction," The Nation, 26 January 2009.
    [136] Gerald Kaufman, House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 January 2009. Transcript available on the website of the United Kingdom Parliament:
    [137] "European Protestors Urge End to Attacks on Gaza," International Herald Tribune, 4 January 2009.
    [138] Norman G. Finkelstein, "Deutschland Uber Alles," 16 January 2009,
    [139] "Démission des musulmans de l'Amitié judéo-musulmane," Le Monde, 16 January 2009. [French]
    [140] Robert Marquand, "Gaza Drives a Wedge in Paris Imam's Dialogue with Jews," Christian Science Monitor, 28 January 2009.
    [141] "Agression de trois lycéens à Paris: enquête en cours," L'Express, 13 January 2009. [French]
    [142] Stéphanie Le Bars, "Les autorités françaises redoutent des tensions entre les communautés juive et musulmane," Le Monde, 7 January 2009. [French]
    [143] Discours De M. Le Président De La République, Voeux aux acteurs de la sécurité, Orléans, 14 January 2009. [French]
    [144] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Persecutors and Persecuted," Jerusalem Post, 17 December 2007.
    [145] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "The Autumn 2005 Riots in France: Their Possible Impact on Israel and the Jews," JCPA, 2006.
    [146] Jewish Agency for Israel, "Jewish Agency Chairman Sallai Meridor Wears Kippa during Visit to Paris Today,'' press release, 17 March 2005.
    [147] Thomas Hornburg and Jenny Sandvig, "'Det er ingen tvil om at noe av raseriet mot Israelbaerer preg av joedehat,'" Aftenposten, 16 January 2009. [Norwegian]
    [148] "Pro-Hamas Demonstration-Fort Lauderdale FL," YouTube, video, 30 December 2008. [accessed: 2 March 2009]
    [149] "Manifestazioni vietate davanti le chiese Maroni annuncia direttiva ai prefetti," La Repubblica, 21 January 2009. [Italian]
    [150] "Ägg och flaskor mot Israel- manifestation," 25 January 2009, [Swedish]
    [151] Ted Ekeroth, "Swedish Police Chief Allows Antisemitic Stonethrowing Mob to Attack Demonstrators," 25 January 2009,
    [152] Daniel Edelson, "Shoe Thrown at Israeli Ambassador in Sweden," Ynetnews, 5 February 2009.
    [153] Max Socol, "Amsterdam: Reservist Pelted with Shoes," Jerusalem Post, 23 February 2009.
    [155] "No Fans Allowed for Israel Tennis Match," The Local, 18 February 2009.
    [156] "Anti-Israel Protest Staged at Sweden Tennis Match," Reuters, 7 March 2008, 27 January 2008.
    [157] Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman, "Sweden's Anti-Israel Apartheid Policy Is about More than Sport," Jerusalem Post, 9 May 2008.
    [158] Bert Anciaux, "doodstil," 23 January 2009, [Dutch]
    [159] Cnaan Lipshiz, "Belgium Slams Minister Statement Likening Gaza Op to Nursery Massacre," Haaretz, 27 January 2008.
    [160] "Dendermonde en Gaza hebben niets met elkaar te maken," Gazet van Antwerpen, 30 January 2009. [Dutch]
    [161] "Venezuela Synagogue Vandalized," CNN, 31 January 2009; Haaretz, 27 January 2009.
    [162] "Chavez Condemns Attack on Synagogue," Associated Press, 1 February 2009.
    [163] "Venezuela Holds Police, Guard in Synagogue Attack," Reuters, 8 February 2009.
    [164] "Venezuela Rebuffs UC Criticism of 'Corruption' and 'Anti-Semitism'-As Bomb Rocks Jewish Center," Latin American Herald Tribune, 27 February 2008.
    [165] Natasha Mozgovaya, "ADL: Amnesty Denying Israel the Right to Defend Itself," Haaretz, 24 February 2009.
    [166] NGO Monitor, "Amnesty's Gaza 'Report' and Call for the Arms Embargo: Abolishing Israel's Right to Self Defense," 25 February 2009.
    [167] Jonny Paul, "Palestinian NGO Sues British Government in Wake of Cast Lead," Jerusalem Post, 25 February 2009.
    [168] Sharon Udasin, "Battle of the Professors," Jewish Week, 4 February 2009.
    [169] "Trade Unionists Launch Boycott of Israeli Goods," Belfast Telegraph, 10 February 2009.
    [170] Alfred H. Moses, "From Durban I to Durban II: Preventing Poisonous Anti-Semitism," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 71, 1 August 2008.
    [171] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Anti-Semitism and Jewish Defense at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002 Johannesburg, South Africa," interview with Shimon Samuels, Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 6, 2 March 2003.
    [172] For an overview of anti-Israeli actions in the university world, see Manfred Gerstenfeld, Academics against Israel and the Jews (Jerusalem: JCPA, 2007).
    [173] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Shimon Samuels.
    [174] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "The Twenty-First-Century Total War against Israel and the Jews; Part One," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 38, 1 November 2005.

    * * *

    Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is an international business strategist who has been a consultant to governments, international agencies, and boards of some of the world's largest corporations. Among the fourteen books he has published are Europe's Crumbling Myths: The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today's Anti-Semitism (JCPA, Yad Vashem, WJC, 2003) and Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel and the Jews (JCPA and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, 2008).
    Tamas Berzi is project coordinator of the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He holds an MA in international relations from Corvinus University of Budapest and an MA in political science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    Other related articles:



    Israel's image in China
    Mar. 16, 2009

    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao take part an official signing ceremony and toast at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China Wedensday Jan. 10, 2007.

    While Israel's image took a beating in the Western media during and since Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza operation elicited a very different, more positive reaction in China.
    For starters, the state-sponsored China Central TV news provided context, describing the latest conflagration as a response to years of missile attacks from Gaza and the intolerable cost to the citizens of the South. This supportive attitude - in stark contrast to China's resistance to sanctions on Iran - better reflects its identification with Israel.
    I was on business in Beijing when Operation Cast Lead was launched. Each day, I logged on to China's leading news Web sites, like Xinhua, China, People, Sohu and QQ, and monitored the talkbacks generated by the war coverage. The blogosphere, too, teemed with commentary. Some discussed Israel's war strategy. Others blamed the United States for making Israel its proxy to control the Middle East. Yet others speculated how China could enhance its global role via the Gaza operation. Many identified with Israel's predicament, saying they would respond in the same way if their towns, homes and schools were under persistent missile attack.
    During the war, both the Israeli Embassy in Beijing and the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem received e-mails from average Chinese voicing support.
    All told, roughly 65 percent of all talkbacks and blog comments were favorable. The occasional anti-Semitic comments which cropped up in the blogosphere were strongly rejected by the hundreds.
    Much credit for burnishing the country's image in China goes to the embassy in Beijing, which initiated numerous press conferences and whose diplomats gave many interviews highlighting Israel's perspective.
    ANTICIPATING HOW Israel would be demonized for human rights violations, I turned to the embassy Web site for background on Israel's "Save a Child's Heart" program. In November 2008, Save a Child's Heart brought Israeli physicians to Hebei, one of China's largest provinces, to operate on eight children and examine 200. Since 1988, it has saved 80 Chinese children. When I forwarded this information, along with local reports, to my Chinese business partners, I was overwhelmed by their warm response.
    What really touched the hearts of the Chinese was Israel's gratitude for the rescue of two Israeli students near the epicenter of the May 2008, Sichuan earthquake. The ambassador visited Sichuan a number of times to present government donations as well as private contributions. This generated tremendous support for Israel.
    China's fascination with Israel owes much to the stereotypical perception of Jews as successful businesspeople and as academically adept. Indeed, over the last 10 years, Chinese books on Israel, Jews and Judaism have become best-sellers. The rush to learn more has spawned books that present the Hebrew Bible as fairy tales and that condense the Talmud into a hundred-page tome of Jewish wisdom and guidance for life.
    Today, Beijing University, Nanjing University and Shandong University, among others, have established Jewish studies departments. Nanjing University's Institute of Jewish Studies, established in 1989, focuses on Jewish tradition, the secret to Jewish survival and the creation of a strong and resilient modern Jewish state. Toward this end, China also sends dozens of postgraduate students to Israel's universities. China's positive attitude is fertile ground to bolster relations that will likely generate significant bilateral diplomatic and economic payoffs.
    HOW CAN Israel build on these positive trends?
    First, it must provide the Chinese an easily accessible, authentic picture of the country, the Jewish people and their history by creating quality multimedia materials in Chinese. At the academic level, it must produce Jewish and Israel studies materials in Chinese.
    Secondly, it should pursue joint Israeli-Chinese forums and exchange programs in the arts, sciences and government. The recently launched Israel-China Chamber of Commerce can play a very important role in strengthening business ties. Such initiatives can dramatically expand people-to-people interactions and supplement the maturing diplomatic relations between the two countries.
    Thirdly, despite China's rapid modernization, the Chinese still proudly connect with their 5,000-year old tradition. They identify with and admire Israel and the Jewish people's ancient yet vibrant tradition. Israelis can foster this respect and enhance the connection by being familiar with their own ancient roots.
    As China focuses beyond its borders, Israel beckons not only as a technology powerhouse, but also as a model old-new society that has successfully adapted to the challenges of rapid modernization while maintaining its unique identity. The time is ripe to capitalize on Israel's positive image and strengthen ties with China, to the benefit of both nations. If not now, when?
    The writer, founder of Israel-China Resources, Communications and Exchange, is a liaison between Israeli and Chinese business ventures.



    Column One: Hamas's free lunch
    Mar. 19, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

    Today Hamas stands on the cusp of international acceptance. It may take a week or a month or a year, but today Hamas stands where Fatah and the PLO stood in the late 1980s. The genocidal jihadist terror group is but a step away from an invitation to the Oval Office. Two events in the past week show this to be the case.
    First, last Saturday, The Boston Globe reported that Paul Volcker, who serves as President Barack Obama's economic recovery adviser, and several former senior US officials have written a letter to Obama calling for the US to recognize Hamas. As one of the signatories, Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser under president George H.W. Bush, explained, "I see no reason not to talk to Hamas."
    Scowcroft further argued, "The main gist is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process. Don't move it to end of your agenda and say you have too much to do. And the US needs to have a position, not just hold their coats while they sit down."
    Congressional sources claim that Obama has selected Scowcroft to replace Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
    The second reason that it is becoming apparent that the Obama administration is poised to recognize Hamas is that on Thursday, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman held talks at the State Department with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and enjoined the administration to support the reestablishment of a Hamas-Fatah unity government to control and reunify the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and Judea and Samaria.
    This is significant because it is becoming apparent that top administration officials only meet with people who tell them what they want to hear.
    Case in point is IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi's trip this week to Washington. Ashkenazi went to the US to brief top administration officials on Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Ashkenazi's counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, both managed to be out of town. Defense Ministry sources say that Ashkenazi only met with National Security Adviser James Jones, who reportedly wished to speak exclusively about the Palestinians, and with Clinton's Iran adviser Dennis Ross, whose role in shaping US policy toward Iran remains unclear.
    Hamas, for its part, prefers the unconditional recognition recommended by Scowcroft and Volcker and their colleagues, (who include unofficial Obama advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton), over the option of forming a government with Fatah. After all, why should Hamas agree to share power with Fatah to gain international acceptance if Washington power brokers close to the administration endorse unconditional recognition of the terror group?
    Scowcroft's statement that recognition of Hamas is necessary because "you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process" is indicative of how Obama's milieu views the peace process. For them, pushing hard on the peace process is more important than determining or even caring if the Palestinians involved in the said process are genocidal terror groups or not, or determining or even caring whether the said peace process has any chance whatsoever of leading to peace.
    AND THE Obama view is not particularly new. After Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections, in the interest of the peace process, the US and the EU placed certain conditions on Hamas which they claimed it would have to meet before the West would recognize it.
    The US and Europe said they would recognize Hamas if it announced that it forswore terror, accepted Israel's right to exist, and committed itself to carrying out previous agreements signed between the PLO and Israel. The Americans and the Europeans undoubtedly viewed these conditions as a low bar to cross. After all, the PLO crossed it.
    The West's conditions were given with a wink and a nod. Everyone understood that the only thing it wanted was for Hamas to say the magic words. They didn't have to be true. If Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh would just tell the US and Europe what they wanted to hear, all would be forgiven. Hamas - like the PLO before it - would be removed from the US and European terror lists. Billions would pour into the bank accounts of Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus. The CIA might even agree to train its terror forces.
    It is obvious that all that the West wanted was for Hamas to lie to it, because that is all it ever required from the PLO. After Yasser Arafat said the magic words, the Americans and the Europeans were only too happy to ignore the fact that he was lying.
    When immediately after signing the initial peace accord with Israel on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, Arafat flew to South Africa and gave a speech calling for jihad against Israel, no one cared.
    When Arafat destroyed the free press in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and transformed the Palestinian media into propaganda organs calling for the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people, the world yawned.
    When he launched his terror war against Israel and his US-trained forces began plotting and carrying out bombings of Israeli civilians, the US announced its chief goal in the Middle East was to establish a Palestinian state.
    And when Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, announced that Fatah didn't accept Israel's right to exist and considered terrorism against Israel legitimate, he was declared the indispensable and sole legitimate Palestinian leader. Indeed, when his US-trained forces surrendered to Hamas in Gaza without a fight, the US showered an additional $80 million on Fatah forces.
    ON TUESDAY, Fatah strongman and the West's favorite son of Palestine Muhammad Dahlan tried to explain the facts of life to Hamas.
    In an interview on PA television, Dahlan became the first senior Fatah official to openly admit that Fatah has never accepted Israel's right to exist. Dahlan denied reports that in the negotiations toward a Hamas-Fatah government, Fatah representatives are pressuring Hamas to recognize Israel. In his words, "I want to say in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement, we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist."
    Dahlan went on to explain how the fiction worked. Arafat was the head of the PLO but also the head of Fatah. While as chairman of the PLO he recognized Israel and pledged to end terrorism and live at peace with the Jewish state, as head of Fatah he continued his war against Israel. Dahlan even bragged that to date, Fatah has killed 10 times more Palestinians suspected of cooperating with Israel's counterterror operations (the same operations the PLO committed to assisting) than Hamas has.
    Dahlan explained that all Hamas needs to do is to follow in Fatah's footsteps. It should say that the PA government accepts the West's terms, but in the meantime, those terms will remain inapplicable to Hamas as a "resistance group." In that way, Dahlan explained, Hamas will be able to receive all the West's billions in financial assistance.
    As he put it, "Do you imagine that Gaza's reconstruction is possible under the shadow of this bickering between us and the international community? [Gaza reconstruction] can only be dealt with by a government... that is acceptable to the international community so that we can... benefit from the international community."
    Not surprisingly, Dahlan's statement went almost completely unnoted. Only The Jerusalem Post and one or two other Jewish publications and a few anti-jihadist blogs made note of it. The US, European and pro-peace process Hebrew media all ignored it. No government spokesman anywhere in the world commented on it.
    Unfortunately, though, for the likes of Dahlan and his admirers in the West, Hamas isn't interested in joining Fatah's fiction. It refuses to say those magic words. So now the West looks for ways to lower its bar still further.
    THE WEST'S nonresponse to Dahlan's statements, like its growing eagerness to treat with Hamas despite Hamas's unabashed refusal to even lie about its intentions, tells us something important about what the West is actually doing when it says that its paramount interest is to advance the so-called peace process. It tells us the same thing that the West's courtship of Damascus and Teheran tells us about what the West means when it speaks of peace processes.
    Syrian President Bashar Assad this week told Italy's La Repubblica newspaper that he and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were just a stone's throw away from a peace deal last year. Last week Assad participated in what was supposed to be an anti-Iranian conference in Saudi Arabia.
    Both of Assad's gestures were meant to make the Americans feel comfortable as they renew their diplomatic relations with Syria, cast aside their backing for the UN tribunal set up to investigate Syria's assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, begin pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights, and recognize Hamas.
    And just as Arafat understood that after he said the magic words the West would ignore his bad behavior, so Assad knew that Washington and Paris would pay no attention when upon returning from Riyadh he announced that Syria's relations with Iran will never be weakened. He knew they will never question his false account of his indirect negotiations with Israel. He and Olmert couldn't have been a stone's throw away from a peace accord, because Assad refused to have any direct contact with Israel.
    If Damascus is the state equivalent of the PLO, then Teheran is the state equivalent of Hamas. Today, as the mullahs sprint toward the nuclear finish line, the Obama administration is pretending that the jury is still out on whether or not the Islamic republic wants a nuclear arsenal. As with Hamas, so with Teheran, the Americans have dropped even the pretense of requiring a change in Iran's rhetorical positions as a precondition for diplomatic recognition. The US now pursues its diplomatic reconciliation with Teheran with the sure knowledge that this peace process will lead to Iran's emergence as a nuclear power.
    So the question is, if the American and European pursuits of peace with Fatah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have not caused them to change their behavior one iota, what are the Western powers talking about when they say that it is imperative to push the peace process or engage the Syrians and the Iranians? After all, Western leaders must know that these processes are complete farces.
    Sadly, the answer is clear. Western leaders are not pursuing peace in these processes. They are pursuing appeasement. They call this appeasement process a peace process for two reasons. First, they know their countrymen don't like the sound of appeasement. And second, by claiming to be championing the noble goal of peace in our time, they feel free to attack anyone who points out the folly of their actions as a warmongering member of the Israel Lobby. 



    The Jewish Mind Creates a (Bionic) Jewish Nose

    Adar 24, 5769, 20 March 09 11:33 by Karin Kloosterman

    Nanotech-based coatings for solar panels
    ( Bionic noses used as bomb sniffers. Mini-medical submarines that deliver drugs to individual cancer cells in your body. Tiny chemical laboratories on a chip to monitor water pollution. Self-cleaning materials that mimic a bird's feathers. Sunscreen that doesn't soak into your skin: If you can dream it, don't be surprised if Israeli nanotech scientists and engineers already have too, and are now building it.
    Today there are about 75 Israeli nanotech companies - up from 45 three years ago, and some 325 nanotech research teams (up from 210) working in the field, with new ideas spouting up all the time. Nanotech is becoming so hot in Israel in recent years, that this year, Israel will host its very own nanotech conference in Jerusalem.
    The Israeli government has made nanotech a national priority, academics are putting their teams together, and experts at the Israel National Nanotech Initiative (INNI) report a whopping 150 percent growth of Israeli nanotech compared to recent years.
    With achievements already in electronics, defense, software, communications, security and life sciences, Israel is seeing a surge in nanotechnology research and applications in many of its science labs, making it a top 10 in some fields. So says Dan Vilenski, board member of the INNI, a joint venture between the Israeli government, academia, and industry to bring Israeli nanotechnology achievements to life.
    "Nano is the next wave after the semiconductor," says Vilenski. "Nano is anything reduced to a size below 100 nanometers." But scientists aren't just scaling science down, they "are also changing properties, processes or the behavior of materials," he adds.
    "In 1947 the first transistor was invented and some people said this is going to be the future and that it will replace tubes," says Vilenski, of the invention that is now the basis of modern electronics. "People thought [the transistor developers] were drunk and look what happened."
    Achieving so much with so little
    Although Israel has big achievements to boast about, its innovation has been achieved with so little compared to funding dollars being put into nanotech in other countries. The US is putting over a billion dollars in research per annum into nanotech, and the European Union about the same. Israel, on the other hand is investing about $60 or 70 million per year.
    To counter this, its researchers have banded together to create an impact by excelling in specialized fields, Vilenski tells ISRAEL21c. These nanotech areas include biology, materials or electronic materials, and water desalination/purification technologies.
    Some of Israel's most successful nanotech companies and their innovations will be on expo at the country's first ever nanotechnology conference, NanoIsrael 2009, to be held at Jerusalem's Inbal Hotel March 30-31. The event will be attended by members of Israel's nanotech industry, academia, the investment community and the government, as well.
    Held in cooperation with the INNI and the newly established nanotech centers at Israeli universities, the conference will be supported by the Jerusalem Development Authority and BioJerusalem. Talks and networking opportunities will hinge on the areas of nanomaterials, nanoelectronics, nanophotonics, nanobio, nanomedicine, and energy and the environment.
    "We need to get out of the work crisis," says Vilensky whose goal is "to identify golden eggs at the academy level, or in young entrepreneurs," and then convert them into "golden nuggets."
    A patented workforce
    Apparently the egg to nuggets conversion works well in Israel. Why? Experts suggest a number of reasons. For a start, the country has a highly educated workforce - 20 percent of the population hold academic degrees, and out of every 10,000 employees, there are some 135 engineers.
    Citing an EU-commissioned study, the INNI reports that the number of Israeli nanotech patents and publications ranks in the top three along with Switzerland and Germany. Measuring success by number of research groups in the country, numbers of engineers, research papers published and patents issued, Israel is clearly setting the stage for big things to come in the small world of nanotech.
    "Nanotechnology is a natural enabler for Israel," says the INNI. "In fact, our small size is also our advantage -- it means sharper focus, more efficient use of funds, fewer commercial obstacles, rapid prototyping and testing, and higher quality standards."
    To keep the nanotech momentum going, the INNI has developed a three-way donation matching scheme, now a primary funding source for Israel's nanotech university research centers. Today the six main centers driving new advances in nanotech research are Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Hebrew University, the Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology, Tel Aviv University and the Weizmann Institute.
    "Each has its own nanocenters and the results are very nice," says Vilenski who has worked in top positions for two major tech accelerator groups in Israel: the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the Israel-US Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation.
    So far, the Tel Aviv based INNI has raised $250 million from investors, with the money earmarked for priority sectors. The money will go towards assisting young companies and setting up a national infrastructure to support nanotech.
    Rev your engines
    So what nano technologies are emerging from Israel? The list is long. Scientists at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot have developed "nanospheres" and have turned this invention into a novel company APNano Materials, which now markets an oil additive to keep your car's motor humming.
    The company claims NanoLub -- its particle-based lubricant - can keep your engine free from an oil change and lube job for years. A special nanotech mechanism that works like the rolling of millions of miniature ball bearings, NanoLub reduces engine wear and tear and will keep your engine purring, some sources claim, for a decade.
    The Rehovot-based company says its NanoLub dramatically outperforms every commercial solid lubricant found on the market today. It doesn't stop there: the company is now working in the area of clean technology and is developing a special coating for use on solar panels to improve energy efficiency.
    "ApNano Materials' nanoparticles are excellent optical absorbing materials and among the best substances absorbing light in the visible and near infrared wavelengths," says Dr. Menachem Genut, president and CEO of the company. "Laboratory experiments have shown that our nanoparticles absorb at least 98% of the light in visible wavelengths."
    If NanoLub doesn't get your engines roaring, consider Hebrew University's Prof. Aaron Lewis, working on ATF, or atomic force microscopy. According to Vilenski, Lewis' lab has developed a technology that makes imaging possible at the nano-scale. A first ever, "it's being used for imaging material surfaces, to study and analyze the properties of new materials," says Vilenski.
    The nano-canary in the coalmine
    If you are looking at tiny things, what about sunglasses coated with a nanotech-based material? In the beginning, the Israeli nanotech company KiloLambda developed a special optical power control for use in the fiber optics industry. Its optical fuse, one which blocks light in optical transmission lines, is today incorporated in the products of the US company Molex.
    Beyond its work with Molex, KiloLambda has big plans to further extend its technology to new markets in cameras, windows, mirrors and the eyeglasses markets with "unsatisfied needs for better sunlight screening and filtering."
    Israeli scientists are not only working in communications, imaging and new materials applications. At Tel Aviv University, Prof. Yosi Shacham-Diamand recently reported advances on his new lab-on-chip that can monitor and alert water authorities almost in real time about water contamination. It's an environmentally sound solution.
    The chip is a breakthrough in the effort to keep water safe from pollution and bioterrorist threats. Through it, the scientists pair biology with the cutting-edge capabilities of nanotechnology.
    "We've developed a platform -- essentially a micro-sized, quarter-inch square 'lab' -- employing genetically engineered bacteria that light up when presented with a stressor in water," says Shacham-Diamand. Equipment on the little chip can work to help detect very tiny light levels produced by the bacteria.
    Instead of using animals to help detect threats to a water supply: "Our system is based on a plastic chip that is more humane, much faster, more sensitive and much cheaper," Shacham-Diamand says.
    Safer sunscreen, lipsticks and lotions
    Israeli nanotech scientists think about beauty and health too: Imagine cosmetics, lipsticks, sunscreens and lotions that do the work, but which don't get absorbed through the skin? Known to cause allergies or even cancer in some cases, there are certain ingredients we put on our skin that are better left on the outside.
    This is the work and patented technology of Sol-Gel Technologies, an Israeli company that has found a way to microencapsulate active ingredients of materials in sunscreen, inside inert glass beads, so that the active ingredient is not absorbed into the body.
    Developed at the Hebrew University, Sol-Gel is able to improve the safety, efficacy and tolerability, it says, of topical drugs. The company currently offers anti-acne treatments and drug delivery solutions.
    With new research hatching on a constant basis, Israeli nanotech research and solutions are not only fascinating, but are also helping make the world a safer and better place. The only question left, is what will they think of next?
    Reprinted with the permission of ISRAEL21c. 



    A Modest Proposal

    Shevat 9, 5768, 16 January 08 07:24
    by Aryeh Zelasko
    ( It seems that the consensus of all the experts is that we are in for another major betrayal by the Powers That Be. There is to be a new Sharon-style pogrom expelling 300,000 Jews from what is left of Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem is to be divided or internationalized, and the Arabs are to be given yet another large chunk of Israel to control and use to destroy what little is left over of the State of Israel.

    So, what to do?

    We have tried demonstrations. We have tried elections. We have tried behind the scenes pressure and deals. None of it has had the slightest effect, nor did any of it prevent the expulsion of a single Jew from his home or increase the safety of those Jews still allowed to live in theirs. So why should any of that work now?

    The time has come to use a serious weapon. One that will force the situation. The time has come to use money.

    My modest proposal is that we withdraw as much cash as possible from Israeli banks. Also, if you have Israeli bonds, cash them in. It would also be helpful to stop using credit cards and pay for everything in cash. I was recently told that if as little as 1% of bank assets were withdrawn, this would send the system into chaos. I further suggest that, at the time of withdrawal, the bank manager be given a letter explaining that you are removing your money in protest of the Oslo Treason, and will not return your cash until such time as it is officially ended, the Palestinian Authority is null and void, and Judea, Samaria and Gaza are officially annexed to the State of Israel. As I said, a modest proposal.

    This approach has four major virtues:

    I have attempted to anticipate and answer some questions about this idea. I am sure there are many others, but I do not promise that I will have the answers or answers that will satisfy.

    Question: I have outstanding checks and bills to pay. How can I possibly do this?

    It is your money that should be withdrawn, not your common sense. Of course you must pay your bills, and keep your business and other activities functional. No one is asking you to commit financial suicide. However, every agurah above that - take it out of the system and put it in a shoe box under your bed.

    Question: But won't this seriously hurt the economy? Is it really the right thing to do? Isn't this anti-democratic?

    Yes it will. When the Histadrut calls a general strike, the economy is hurt. When the dock workers staged a strike a number of years ago, it wrecked the economy for nearly a year. For over fifty years, the government subsidized the kibbutz movement with billions of dollars in free hand-outs and communist protection laws, and the economy was crippled. In short, there have been no lack of self-serving, greedy people willing to use all sorts of "anti-democratic" means, and to cause all sorts of serious damage to our economy, so long as they personally benefited. So, what is wrong in doing this with the intention of saving the country?

    Will placing all of Israel's industrial, transportation, energy and population within easy range of Arab mortars and cheap, home-made missiles be good for the economy? Will the Arab murderers ask the Jews to vote and approve before they open up on us with their guns and artillery?

    Question: I will lose a lot of money if I do this. Most of this money is either for my retirement or for my children's future. Is it really fair to jeopardize the future to make a political point?

    I suppose that if you really believe we and our children will have much of a future here after the government expels nearly 300,000 Jews from their homes and gives the property over to Arab murderers, then, by all means, hang on to your interest payments and coupons. However, if you suspect living in a beat up caravan and not having any means to support your family (as happened to the victims of the Sharon pogrom), or that having a Kassam crashing through your roof (as is happening in Sderot and the Negev today), might ruin the tranquility of your retirement or annoy your children, then consider my proposal. This is not about making a political point, it is using a powerful weapon to archive victory.

    Question: Isn't it pointless to try? As soon as this would start to be effective, the government would outlaw it.

    No it is not pointless. In fact, this has a very sharp and deadly point. One that will accomplish what all the demonstrations and elections have not: force the end of Oslo and the annexation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Furthermore, they can not outlaw people removing their own money from a bank without causing a serious crisis and jeopardizing Israel's international financial status.

    Question: If I do this, I will have a very large amount of cash around. Won't that make me the target of thieves? It will turn me into a nervous wreck, I just can't take the risk.

    It is perfectly legal, and not too difficult, to transfer your money to a foreign bank. Any lawyer or CPA involved with corporate law should be able to advise you how to do this and where it is the safest. You don't really have to put it all in a shoe box.



    by Shmuel Katz Graphics & Page Layout by

    The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight.

    The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel.

    The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

    Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did, in fact, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary.

    In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.


    Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

    Archbishop Maximos V George) Hakim
    Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

    The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950:  "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

    There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

    Emil GhouryWhen, four months after the invasion, the prospect of the flightlings' retuning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state.

    "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."

    Nuri SaidThe policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

    One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

    Sir John GlubbLater, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramle and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers.

    The total number of Arabs who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN.

    The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

    It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and received the free aid.

    Arab "Palestinian" Refugees

    Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million.

    The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list.

    To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees."

    So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees.

    Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return."

    While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel.

    There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees. Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas.


    Just Say "No!"

    Once and for all, Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime.

    Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose.

    It is a hutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever.

    Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories."

    *     *     *
    The writer, a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist.






    The Debacle of Demographic Fatalism
    YORAM ETTINGER, News First Class, March 23, 2009
    Demographic scare campaigns have always been conducted against Zionist leaders. Demographobia – the illogical fear of Arab demography – has become a central element shaping Israel's national security policy, even though it is groundless. Thus, all projections claiming that Jews are doomed to become a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean have been crashed at the rocks of reality.  From a minority of 8% and 33% in 1900 and 1947 respectively, Jews have become a solid majority of 67% (without Gaza), benefiting from a demographic tailwind, which could expand the Jewish majority.
    In March 1898, the world renowned Jewish historian and demographer, Shimon Dubnov, submitted to Theodore Herzl a projection, which was aimed to defeat the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel.  According to Dubnov, "The establishment of a substantial Jewish community in the Land of Israel is a messianic dream…. In 2000, there will be only 500,000 Jews in Palestine."  But, in 2000 there were five million Jews west of the Jordan River!
    During the 1940s, Professor Roberto Bacchi, the founder of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, flooded David Ben Gurion with projections that Jews would become a minority by 1966.  He contended that in 2001 there would be – under the most optimistic scenario – only 2.3 million Jews, constituting a 34% minority between the River and the Mediterranean.  But, in 2001 there were five million Jews – a 60% majority!
    In 1967, Prime Minister Levy Eshkol was advised by Israel's demographic establishment to roll back to the 1949 lines, lest there be an Arab majority by 1987.  But, in 1987 Jews maintained a 60% majority, in spite of an unprecedented rise in the Arab population growth rate, triggered by a remarkable decline in infant mortality, an impressive increase in life expectancy and a substantial reduction in emigration, enabled by the access to the Jewish infrastructures of health and employment.
    Prof. Bacchi did not believe that a massive Jewish Aliya (immigration) would take place in the aftermath of the 1948/9 War.  One million Jews arrived following the war.  During the early 1970s, he projected no substantial Aliya from Eastern Europe and from the USSR, because Western Jews could but would not migrate; while Eastern Jews wanted to - but could not - migrate. Almost 300,000 Jews arrived!  During the 1980s, Bacchi's followers in Israel's academia dismissed the possibility for a wave of Aliya from the USSR, even if gates might be opened.  One million Jews relocated from the Soviet Union to the Jewish Homeland!
    In defiance of fatalistic projections and irrespective of the absence of demographic policy, in 2009 there is a robust 67% Jewish majority west of the Jordan River, excluding Gaza.  According to the UN Population Division, the average Muslim fertility rate – in the world, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza - has taken a dive to 2-4 births per woman, as a result of modernization, urbanization and family planning.  Arab emigration from Judea and Samaria has escalated, while Jewish fertility has grown steadily.  The number of annual Jewish births has increased by 45% from 1995 (80,400) to 2008 (117,000), while the number of annual Arab births during the same period – in pre 1967 Israel – has stabilized at 39,000. 
    An 80% Jewish majority in Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel is attainable in light of the current demographic trend, bolstered with the implementation of a long overdue demographic policy.  Such a policy would highlight Aliya, returning of expatriates, migration from the Greater Tel Aviv area to the periphery (by upgrading Galilee and Negev infrastructures)[Freeman Note: Also openning up the Lands of Judea,Samaria and Gaza for massive Jewish settlement.], equalization of working and studying hours, etc.
    The upward trending Jewish demography has critical national security implications. It defies demographic fatalism and its policy derivatives. Well-documented Demographic optimism should be accorded due consideration by Israel's leadership and by Israel's friends.



    Our World: Remembering Olmert's true record

    Mar. 30, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST


    Last week's reports that during Operation Cast Lead Israel bombed truck convoys in Sudan transporting medium-ranged Fajr-3 missiles to Gaza from Iran couldn't have come at a better time for outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Even as defense officials were following standard practice of neither confirming nor denying the reports, Olmert was bragging like a teenage boy.
    In an address at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya last Thursday Olmert crowed, "We are operating in every area in which terrorist infrastructures can be struck. We are operating in locations near and far and attack in a way that strengthens and increases deterrence. It is true in the north and in the south. There is no point in elaborating. Everyone can use their imagination. Whoever needs to know, knows."

    Unfortunately, Olmert's bravado doesn't stand up to even the flimsiest scrutiny. What about the weapons smugglers along the Philadelphi corridor? More than Sudan, Philadelphi - Gaza's international border with Egypt - is the choke point of weapons transfers from Iran to Gaza. And along that border, during his three years and two months in office, Olmert has failed to even temporarily cut off the flow of Iranian arms entering Gaza. Throughout his tenure as prime minister, Israel never once launched a sustained operation aimed at blocking Hamas, Fatah and their sister organizations in Gaza from transporting ever more lethal weapons systems into the area through its border with Egypt.

    This week Ehud Olmert will finally leave office. Ironically, the cause for his early departure from power - the multiple criminal probes being conducted against him - has nothing to do with his actual performance as prime minister. That is, the failures that brought him down were not his failures in office, but his private failings which predated his rise to power.
    ISRAEL'S POLITICAL MEMORY is notoriously short. In the space of a few short years, politicians' past failures in office are frequently forgotten by their parties and the public. Consequently, Olmert can easily assume that if he is able to fend off the multiple felony indictments awaiting him on his return to private life, he many one day soon return to lead us.


    It is due first and foremost to the prospect of Olmert one day returning to politics that it is critical to consider his actual record of service as prime minister. Only by understanding what he has done over the past three years and two months can we ensure that he will be properly remembered for what he is: the worst prime minister Israel has experienced to date. Only by recognizing his tenure in office as an unmitigated disaster for the country will we be able to avert the danger that he may one day return to office.
    Olmert's failure to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza at the Philadelphi corridor and his attempt to obfuscate this failure by exaggerating the strategic significance of the reported IAF strikes in Sudan are his stock in trade. Olmert, as the only prime minister to have led the country in two wars in one term of office, does not hesitate to use force to project an image of fearless manliness to the public. And as the only prime minister to have led Israel to defeat in war - and indeed, in his case, in two wars - Olmert is the only prime minister to have wielded the sword with utter strategic incompetence.
    OLMERT ENTERED office in January 2006 pledged to unilaterally surrender Judea, Samaria and large areas of Jerusalem to the Fatah terrorist organization. Olmert was both politically and ideologically committed to the Left's belief that wars are unwinnable and consequently enemies need to be appeased rather than defeated.


    In light of his political predisposition, both Lebanese and Palestinian aggression presented Olmert with a difficult political challenge. In both Lebanon and Gaza, Israel had previously adopted his strategy of preemptive appeasement by unilaterally surrendering territory to its enemies. Hizbullah's and Fatah/Hamas's post-surrender aggression exposed Olmert's political platform as both wrongheaded and dangerous.
    Beyond the political embarrassment Olmert suffered in the wake of both Hizbullah's 2006 aggression and Gaza's post-withdrawal transformation into an Iranian-controlled jihadist hub, he had to contend with the public outcry against their unprovoked and unrelenting attacks. In both July 2006 and in December 2008, the public demanded that Olmert defend the country by using forced to defeat our enemies. Yet even in the face of the public outcry, Olmert remained ideologically committed to the belief that war is inherently futile.

    Olmert's ideologically driven political and strategic mind-sets caused him to prosecute both wars as little more than mindless, violent engagements with enemy forces. In Lebanon, IDF units were sent into tactical battles that lacked any operational objectives.

    The strategic aims that Olmert announced at various stages of the war in Lebanon - first to defeat Hizbullah and, later on, to "send Hizbullah a message" - were strategically illogical since they lacked any connection to the manner in which IDF forces were deployed. Absent an order to conquer southern Lebanon and defeat Hizbullah as a fighting force, the IDF could not hope to defeat Hizbullah. Given Hizbullah's commitment to Israel's destruction and its complete subservience to Iran, there is no way for Israel to deter the group. As a result, the only "message" Israel conveyed was one of military incompetence and ideological weakness.

    Although the public responded to Olmert's performance in outrage, for Olmert the outcome of the war in Lebanon was the best of all possible worlds. By failing to accomplish any strategic objectives through fighting, Olmert was able to continue to argue for preemptive appeasement in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem as well as on the Golan Heights.

    Olmert brushed aside the public's demand for his resignation by emptily, arrogantly and repeatedly pledging to correct his own mistakes. But of course, given his political and ideological blinders, he was incapable and unwilling to do so.

    The IDF's improved tactical performance in Gaza two years later showed that to the extent it was able, it did learn from its mistakes in Lebanon. In contrast, Olmert's strategic leadership of Operation Cast Lead demonstrated that he remained committed to the same wrongheaded and dangerous strategic outlook with which he had led the country to ignominious defeat in Lebanon.

    Diplomatic activities under Olmert were motivated by the same ideological dictates as its military engagements. Consequently, their results were equally disastrous.
    BY ANY OBJECTIVE measure, the greatest diplomatic challenge for the past three years and two months has been to build an international consensus around the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And yet, contending with Iran was nowhere near the top of our diplomatic agenda under Olmert. Indeed, Olmert and his deputy and successor as leader of the Kadima party outgoing Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni never developed any coherent position on Iran at all.
    Instead of concentrating diplomatic efforts on convincing the nations of the world to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to destroy the Jewish state and to dominate the region and the oil economy, Olmert concentrated his diplomatic efforts on strengthening the Fatah terrorist organization against the Hamas terrorist organization.
    This goal - which is the central component of Olmert's appeasement-based mind-set - required him to lead his colleagues and subordinates in ignoring certain basic facts about Fatah. Israel needed to ignore the fact that Fatah rejects its right to exist and openly calls for its destruction. Israel needed to ignore Fatah's continued direct involvement in terror attacks against it and its complicity with and support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks. Israel had to ignore Fatah's cozy ties with Hizbullah, Syria and Iran and the leadership role Fatah occupies in the international diplomatic offensive and political war against the Jewish state.
    Due to Olmert's willingness to turn a blind eye to Fatah's belligerence, the effects of his diplomatic efforts have been the legitimization not only of Fatah but of all of Fatah's allies and supporters. That is, the effect has been to legitimize all of our enemies and encourage them to maintain and expand their campaigns on every front.
    In the case of Fatah for instance, by refusing for three years and two months to confront it on its involvement in terror, Olmert paved the way for its current campaign to prosecute IDF soldiers as war criminals in international tribunals. Moreover, due to Olmert's refusal to acknowledge Fatah's lead role in terrorism, he paved the way for the current state of affairs where Fatah forces are now being trained and armed by the US military.
    BY DESTROYING the IDF's international reputation as a world-class fighting force though twice committing it to war and twice refusing to allow it to fight to victory, and by transforming the Foreign Ministry into a mouthpiece for Fatah and the PLO while ordering it to ignore Iran, Olmert wrecked Israel's reputation as a steady and reliable strategic ally in Washington. Moreover, he weakened its supporters both in the US capital and throughout the world by effectively accepting the lie that Israel itself is responsible for the radicalization of the Arab and Islamic worlds and that only by cutting it down to size will the West be able to moderate the behavior of jihadists from Teheran to Karachi to Baghdad to London.
    Olmert's massive incompetence has had another victim: the country's social fabric. Not only has his studied inability to defend the country attenuated many Israelis' faith in the state's ability to defend them, Olmert's refusal to countenance the public's demand that he resign after the war in Lebanon and his insistent postwar attempts to give away Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to Fatah while wrecking the strategic alliance with the US have sown confusion and discord. This discord has led to a deepening of social and political fissures at a time when - due to the rising Iranian threat which he studiously ignored, and the steady delegitimization of Israel's right to exist that he engendered - we need to be united as never before.
    To sum up then, Olmert's ideological and political commitment to appeasement, his personal arrogance and his contempt for his countrymen have made his tenure an unrelenting and unmitigated disaster for the country. Today, rather than acknowledge his failure, Olmert is using the disclosure of IAF attacks in Sudan as yet a new way to obfuscate the fact that for three years and two months he has failed to adequately protect the state.
    It is in light of this that it is imperative that the public understand his record. For in the final analysis, it is not simply our ability to ensure that Olmert never returns to lead us that stands in the balance. Our wherewithal to survive with the strategic wreckage he has laid before us depends on our capacity to understand and remember the dimensions of Olmert's incompetence.