Candidly Speaking: Ill winds from Washington

There are ominous vibes emanating from Washington signaling impending confrontations between the Obama administration and the incoming Netanyahu government.

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

Eugene Narrett, PhD www.israelendtimes.com

 
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” restored.^vi

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 State^x.

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 Hagana^xii

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 Betar^xiv 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 liberticide^xvi 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 City^xviii.

“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 Ramchal^xix; 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.”

HILLARY CLINTON’S LIST OF 205,000 DONORS RELEASED by MARK S. WEAVER f
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.
COMMENTS BY EMANUEL A. WINSTON
### 
  
 
HILLARY CLINTON’S LIST OF 205,000 DONORS RELEASED
by MARK S. WEAVER
 
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 

“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.”

Ted Belman

Islam and the West: Lines of Demarcation

Our World: Are you proud to be a leftist? 

Mar. 9, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

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.

 

(IsraelNN.com) 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

Column One: Intelligence and the anti-Israel lobby

Mar. 12, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

WEAPONS FROM ISRAEL

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

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 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.”
 
â—Ź 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!
 
â—Ź 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? 
 
â—Ź 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 .
 
â—Ź 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!
 
â—Ź 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.
 
â—Ź 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 . ”  
 
â—Ź 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.
 
â—Ź 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 .
 
â—Ź 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.
 
â—Ź 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 .
 
â—Ź 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.
 INTRODUCTION
 
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.
 I. GOVERNMENT REACTIONS
 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 ErdoÄźan 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]
ErdoÄźan, 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] ErdoÄźan 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 ErdoÄźan'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]
ErdoÄźan'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.
ErdoÄźan 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]
ErdoÄźan's behavior was applauded by Iranian authorities. Yahya Rahim Safavi, security adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said that "ErdoÄźan'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]
 II. DEMONSTRATIONS
 
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]
 III. ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENTS
 
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]
 IV. ACCUSATIONS AND CALLS FOR ACTION AGAINST ISRAEL
 Media
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]
 Boycotts
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.
 V. AFTER THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN
 
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]
 NGOs
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]
 Boycotts
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]
 VI. CONCLUSION
 
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.
 
* * *
Notes
 
[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 ErdoÄźan Says Words Not Harsher than Bombs," Hurriyet, 14 January 2009.
[9] "Working Definition of Antisemitism," www.eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf.
[10] Soner Cagaptay, "Is Turkey Still a Western Ally?" Wall Street Journal Europe, 22 January 2009.
[11] Haviv Rettig Gur, "ErdoÄźan'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 الدŮ�لى ŮŠŮ�Ř´Ů� عن تنسيق «Ř§Ů„ŘĄŘ®Ů�ان» Ů…Řą «Ř­Ř±Ů�ات يهŮ�ŘŻŮŠŘ©» Ů�ى «Ů…ظاهرات 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 http://gudmundson.blogspot.com/. [Swedish]
[51] "Israelska flaggan brändes," Dagens Nyheter, 10 January 2009. [Swedish]
[52] Per Gudmundson, "Rödflaggat," Gudmundson, 13 January 2009, http://gudmundson.blogspot.com/. [Swedish]
[53] Per Gudmundson, "Swedish Leading Social Democrats in Rally with Hezbollah Flags," Gudmundson, 10 January 2009, http://gudmundson.blogspot.com/.%5BSwedish]
[54] Erik Svansbo, "Folkbladet uppmärksammar 'bloggkupp,'" Svansbo, 14 January 2009, http://blogg.svansbo.se/. [Swedish]
[55] "'Extrema yttringar - tack vare Svansbo,'" Folkbladet, 14 January 2009. [Swedish]
[56] Per Gudmundson, "Rödflaggat," Gudmundson, 13 January 2009, http://gudmundson.blogspot.com/. [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," www.fiammanirenstein.com/articoli.asp?Categoria=11&Id=2085. [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.

* * *

Israel's image in China
Mar. 16, 2009
VICKY WU , THE JERUSALEM POST 
 

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
Israel21c
 
(IsraelNN.com) 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

THE GREAT REFUGEE SCAM
by Shmuel Katz Graphics & Page Layout by Masada2000.org

www.masada2000.org

 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.

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.

When, 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."

The 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."

Later, 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.

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
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-36497-00.html?tag=20-11-32
 
 
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