Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 16             B"H   November 2008             NUMBER 11

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

November 2008


  • OLMERT'S EVICTION PLANS..............Emanuel A. Winston

  • THE LEFT'S ASSAULT ON LANGUAGE..............Caroline Glick

  • ANTI-SEMITISM IN ISRAEL..............Michael Freund

  • SUCCESSFULLY ATTACKING AMERICA..............Emanuel A. Winston
  • WHAT IS THE SITUATION LIKE?..............David Basch

  • LIVNI'S OBAMA STRATEGY..............Caroline Glick

  • FROM TEL AVIV TO TEHERAN, WITH LOVE..............Caroline Glick

  • JEWISH SCHOLAR DIVULGES ON UN..............Michael Brasky

  • AMERICAN JEWISH INDIFFERENCE..............Caroline Glick

  • JAMES BOND, JABOTINSKY AND THE HOLOCAUST..............Moshe Phillips

  • IRAN RETURNS TO THE GLOBAL STAGE..............George Friedman
  • TIME FOR THE REAL BUSH TO STAND UP..............Caroline Glick


  • CIVILIZATION WALKS THE PLANK..............Caroline Glick

  • COUNTLESS JEWS ARE APPALLED OR DUMBFOUNDED..............Prof. Paul Eidelberg

  • ISRAELI-SYRIAN AIR AND SAM STRENGTH ANALYSIS..............Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan


    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
    P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
    E-Mail: ** URL:
    Copyright © 2005 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




    by Emanuel A. Winston,
    Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator
    Have you ever seen how clever rats can be when put into a maze and how quickly they maneuver to get the prize?

    Some men are like that. Put them in a difficult situation and they quickly find a way to escape whatever problem they put themselves into.

    Let us begin with Israel s currently retired but still operating Prime MInister Ehud Olmert, his Kadima Cabinet and the law enforcement mechanism.

    Olmert provided orders to high ranking police officers who assemble an attack company called Yassam, special ops wearing special black uniforms, specially picked for their psychopathic ability to be brutal, specially trained to be brutal.
    Under government orders, the Yassam prepared to attack 2 homes of civilians in the middle of the night. They also assembled soldiers of the IDF to close off the roads telling them this was a terrorist operation. As it turned out, Olmert and the officers lied to the soldiers lest they simply refuse to attack Jews as was done previously. (You can get that story from the following articles and You-Tube.)

    I understand the parents of the soldiers who were lied to have demanded that the lying officers be immediately fired as untrustworthy and dangerous to their command. The circumstance of the lie has swept through the Army, causing soldiers to question their officers as to whether their future commands are simply political lies.

    I will explore this damage further later, possibly in another article.

    Let us continue further into the Rat Maze to see how this Rat navigates along with his fellows.

    First, Defense Minister Ehud Barak squeaked very loudly after the Yassam smashed up the homes of the Federmans and Tors. Someone there yelled, supposedly to the Yassam "I hope you get captured." Barak threatened all the YESHA (Yehuda and Shomron) settlers with reprisals, jail without trial as under old British Mandate Laws to be used AGAINST the Jews. Barak also threatened to get the Israeli Judiciary on board in his circumlocution of the Law.

    But, let me set the scene so you may appreciate the provoked hysteria of the victims. It s dark. It s one in the morning. The Yassam creep up in their black uniforms. Someone says they look like a "sea of black". With no notice to the family, they simultaneously break all the windows - over the heads of the 7 sleeping children. They drag out the sleeping children and parents. They broke the fingers of one young girl. A year old baby was torn from the arms of his nursing mother. Hysteria, pandemonium - not unlike what would have happened in an Arab Muslim Terror attack. The children were sure that's what they were involved in. Many assumed they were being invaded by Arab Muslims - which has happened numerous times and those Terrorists simply shot whoever they encountered.
    After the families were brutally torn from their homes and beaten violently, their homes were knocked down with bulldozers over all their belongings, beds, refrigerator, computers, washing machines, baby clothes, cameras, valuables and money hasn't been found.

    After this demolition of the 2 families homes, the thuggish Yassam came back the next day to further plow the remains deeper into the ground. Friends who had come to dig through the debris for clothes, wallets, diapers were chased away by the demolishers.

    But now, the marauders had to cover their tracks by telling the always-compliant Media that they were assaulted and someone had shouted death threats.
    The Leftist Media and politicians had a field day, accusing the victims and the entire settlers movement with the calumny that they were extremists. By now, you will have likely concluded that the only extremists were the black uniformed Yassam with their jack boots, assault rifles, helmets (for head butting ). The camera crews were kept away by a cordon of regular soldiers who were lied to about the mission to keep any supporters away from the carnage.

    The first lies of consequence came from Ehud Barak, who was covering up the assault as fast as he could think up accusations.
    (Read my first response to the pogrom in an article entitled:
    SEE DESTRUCTION OF FAMILY HOME IN HEBRON ON YOU-TUBE sent out on October 30th. My second response of October 31st included 4 other articles
    1. Barak: 'Iron Fist' in Yesha
    2. Soldiers Were Tricked Into Guarding Kiryat Arba Destruction
    3. Barak Takes Aim at Yesha Jews, Rights Group Charges Incitement
    4. Police Return to Destroy Federman's Home)

    In this next stage, Israel s corrupt, fraudulent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert goes into his act as he sees the error of his planning. He starts to make his way through the Rat Maze.
    The following comes from the Israeli Government Press Office which I am sure was embarrassed to be forced to issue a C.Y.A. propaganda piece. The entire piece is attached - although I will add some observations to each paragraph. (A)
    A. At the weekly Cabinet meeting Sunday November 11, 2008
    (Communicated by the Cabinet Secretariat) At the weekly Cabinet meeting today (Sunday), 2.11.08:

    1. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert noted that today marks the beginning of the university academic year commended the efforts of both Education Minister Dr. Yuli Tamir and the Government. See> and
    <> for further details.
    EW: Yuli Tamir, an arch Leftist has almost single-handedly destroyed the academic quality of the Israeli children by inserting such things as what the Arabs call the "Nakba" or Catastrophe (the Existence of Israel).

    2. Prime Minister Olmert said: "Of late, we have witnessed several very serious phenomena. [EW: This mostly refers to his orders to level the Federman and Tor homes and the hysteria he provoked.] [EW: Olmert now moves to cover over the threats.] I would like to say at the outset that the overwhelming majority of residents [not citizens] in Judea and Samaria live there legally. They are law-abiding citizens. They love both the people and the land. We have only high regard for them. [EW: Is that why you assisted Ariel Sharon to drive the Jews out of Gaza - as a preliminary move to also drive the Jews out of Judea and Samaria? Of course, this has been in well-known negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestine Authority to turn the territories over to the Arab Muslim Palestinians, led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. This continues even as Olmert has resigned but, stays on until elections February 10, 2009. I will explain this pre-planned trick later.]
    [EW: Olmert plunges on to say:] But there is also a not small group of wild people who behave in a way that threatens proper law and governance, not only in the areas in which they live but also in the overall atmosphere of the State of Israel. This is unacceptable and we cannot countenance it. These violations of the law have been accompanied, more than once, by violent behavior toward security and law-enforcement personnel. Attacking soldiers and their commanders, attacking policemen and other security personnel, and injuring them are unacceptable. We are not prepared to countenance it and we will not."

    [EW: Olmert now wants to divide the "good" Jews from those (so-called) bad Jews who do not wish to give up their Land and their homes which they built with their own hands. The simple fact is that all the Jews of YESHA do NOT wish to be forced from their homes. This, in anticipation of the Muslim Arabs setting up another firing base for Global Terrorists as Olmert did in Gaza.]
    [Now the first phase of softening public opinion has passed, Olmert can now move into the same threats issued by Barak but, with more slickness. After all, he just said the "residents" of Judea and Samaria are law-abiding citizens of Israel. They (Olmert) loves both the people and the Land. We have only high regard for them. (Not a bad move, considering that he, Barak and Livni have been angling with the Bush-Rice regime to find a way of throwing Jews out of their ancient ancestral homeland. Come to think of it, that goes back to Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres since the early 1980s when they met and plotted with Yassir Arafat (when it was illegal to meet with the PLO) to transfer the Land, homes, infrastructure. That, of course, morphed into Oslo in 1993.]
    [Now that Olmert has paved the way with all those compliments, he gets down to the meat of the matter. He starts to speak of violation of law and violent behavior toward security and law enforcement.
    [Now the Rat begins to run the Maze faster.
    [It s not his Yassam thugs who are violent but, the victims of his evacuating plans. He says that by attacking soldiers and their commanders, attacking policemen and other security personnel (Shabak) and injuring them is unacceptable . We are not prepared to countenance and we will not. Now he moves in for the kill, given that he has established that it s HE and the Government who are the victims. That, somehow, the settlers at large are declared the culprits although the only crime perpetrated was thuggish Yassam - on orders of Olmert - who did attack the Federmans and Tors at 1 AM. Pretty slick, I d say.
    [The famous psychiatrist Carl Jung, defined an aggressor as one who makes an excuse to attack by generally blaming his intended victim for wanting to attack him. Now he has cover and justification for anything he wants to do. Adolph Hitler used the Sudetenland, Saddam used slant drilling from Kuwait into Iraq , Josef Stalin generally didn t bother making excuses.
    [Olmert goes on to tell us that measures would be taken so the West Bank would not be Israel s Wild West. (The Jungian doctrine was now in full motion under Olmert. The Wild West comment was part of the program to justify unwarranted arrests, deprivation of rights and a flood of Yassam in YESHA pretending there s an enemy where none exists.
    Prime Minister Olmert emphasized that measures would be taken so that the West Bank would not be Israel s wild west .

    Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel Security Agency Director Yuval Diskin, Justice Minister Prof. Daniel Friedmann, Attorney-General Meni Mazuz, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, Israel Police Deputy Inspector-General Shahar Ayalon and other senior officials briefed ministers on the issue of law enforcement in the territories including relations between extremist settler groups and the security establishment, the prevailing violence, and the responses of the law enforcement system against the surging violence that threatens the rule of law in Judea and Samaria, and in Israel.

    [The following is something like the Declaration of Nuremberg Laws - without basis. Olmert desperately needs a cover-up and a reason to start the process of driving the Jews out of Judea and Samaria before he leaves office to face criminal indictments, he must secure the collusion of the Leftist Courts to protect his a...
    Following the subsequent discussion, Prime Minister Olmert concluded as follows:
    A. The recent disturbances constitute a threat to the rule of law in the entire State of Israel.
    B. Dealing with the issues requires special preparations and cooperation between the IDF and the judicial and enforcement authorities operating in Judea and Samaria.
    C. Measures necessary today will be increased as much as possible, including increasing enforcement personnel, documenting disturbances, arresting those who break the law and bringing them quickly to trial, the use of
    administrative detention and distance orders, and such additional measures as may be necessary.
    D. All possible measures will continue to be used in dealing with illegal construction. Residents of Judea and Samaria will receive appropriate and effective responses  vis-a-vis  legal construction permits in accordance with the Government s international commitments.
    E. The judicial will formulate legal measures so as to increase punishment of those who break the law along the lines that have been witnessed in recent weeks.
    F. Justice Minister Friedmann, in cooperation with the legal establishment, will continue to initiate legislative amendments wherever existing measures are found to be ineffective, and will act to complete legislative processes
    already underway.
    G. Defense minister Barak will be responsible for coordinating efforts on the issue, in cooperation with the ministries of Justice and Public Security, Vice Premier Haim Ramon (as Prime Minister Olmert s representative), the IDF, the Israel Police, the ISA and Attorney-General Mazuz.
    H. Defense Minister Barak will brief the Government on the issue and submit general recommendations for dealing with it, within two weeks.
    I(I). The involvement of public employees in incitement will be examined and appropriate measures will be taken against them.
    (ii). All direct or indirect financial support of illegal outposts, and their infrastructures, will be halted.
    3. Prime Minister Olmert paid tribute to Meretz MKs Yossi Beilin and Ran Cohen, both of whom have announced their retirement from the Knesset. See <> for further details.
    4. The Cabinet discussed the issue of employing foreign workers in order to encourage agricultural exports. See <> for further details.

     There is one more piece of the planned forced evacuation of the Jewish citizens of Judea and Samaria. There is an unconfirmed report, however, it ties in with the Olmert-Barak attempt to demonize the settlers prior to using troops. These forces would consist of Israeli troops (IF they will cooperate) and other foreign forces, that is, the U.N., E.U. and possibly U.S. forces.

    President Shimon Peres has been reported on Hebrew radio to have said to Egypt s President Hosni Mubarak that there would be a global settlement through negotiations with the Arab League.
    Supposedly all the issues would be solved at once.

    Let us keep in mind that Peres is well known for his flights of fancy and his belief in the ephemeral "Peace" when there is none to be had.

    Also, keep in mind that the Arab League members still have their operative charters to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel. Its promises are worthless, with no more value than agreements with Iran or Syria. The Arab League is no more than a loosely knit assembly of Middle East nations who cannot make agreements in the name of its members. Any agreement under the Arab League would be an unenforceable sham which seems to be the plan.

    The question to be asked and investigated is how deep is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in this project to give President Bush an exit legacy, knowing full well that the Arab Muslims cannot keep such an agreement which is against Koranic Law. The idea of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Bin Laden giving up their fanatical religious goals is absurd on the face of it. Moreover, Hezb Allah and Hamas will also promise anything and break all agreements once achieving their objectives.
    What would have to happen is that Israel must virtually surrender their Capitol Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights for a Palestinian State with open corridors to Gaza.
    Bush-Rice has already given Syria the right to first surround Lebanon which is already in place and take it over with the assistance of Hezb Allah. It will mean nothing to Bush-Rice once out of office if all agreements were scrapped.
    This is a direct extension of the present action of Olmert, Livni, Barak and Peres against the settlers of Judea and Samaria. The Army will have to agree (General Ashkenazi) or be replaced by Barak who will carry through the Putsch.
    One last thought: Whatever the whole story may be, this great but amorphous plan needs a compliant President of America in control as the plan goes down.


     Our World: The Left's assault on language
    Nov. 3, 2008
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

    On Sunday Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz drove yet another stake into the country's political discourse. Last week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that despite his resignation and the fact that elections have been called for February 10, he intends to renew negotiations with Syria. He hopes to commit Israel to surrendering the Golan Heights to Bashar Assad, Iran's Arab proxy, before he is replaced by a new prime minister.
    Olmert's plan to compel a future government to accept such a commitment - which is opposed by a large majority of Israelis - caused an uproar. Opposition leaders and even members of Olmert's own Kadima party claimed that as the head of a transition government, Olmert has no legal right to make such a commitment.
    After all they noted, just a few weeks ago Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch announced that the transition government has no legal right to appoint new judges. Beinisch claimed that as a transition government, Olmert and his colleagues had no legal right to make decisions that will have a long-term impact on Israeli democracy and since appointing judges would have such a long term impact, they are legally barred from appointing them. If the government is barred from appointing judges, certainly it must be barred from surrendering the strategically vital Golan Heights.
    But Mazuz thinks differently. Appointing judges, he asserted, is a legal action. Surrendering the Golan Heights, in contrast, is a political action, he claimed. So while the transition government may not be allowed to appoint judges, it is allowed to give Syria control over the country's water supply.

    By claiming that appointing judges is a legal act and surrendering vital lands is a political act, Mazuz made a mockery of both the law and of politics. And he did so without blushing because from his perspective, both the rule of law and the powers of politicians can only be determined in light of their impact on the rule of the Left. Actions are permissible, democratic and legal when they advance the rule of the Left. They are impermissible, anti-democratic and illegal when they detract from the rule of the Left.
    MAZUZ OF course is far from alone in his assault democratic norms in the service of leftist ideology and power. Beinisch herself has never shied away from hypocrisy when it serves the interest of her ideological camp of radical leftists. As Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann noted wryly, given that Beinisch herself was appointed to the Supreme Court by a transition government, her concern about enforcing the limited powers of a transition government is remarkable.
    Mazuz's decision to permit Olmert to cede the Golan Heights to Syria is also extraordinary when viewed in the context of recent history. In 1999, the Supreme Court placed a temporary injunction against then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's order to close the PLO's diplomatic mission in Jerusalem at the Orient House. The court's move was a legal scandal since Netanyahu's decision was clearly legal. Israeli law bars the PLO from conducting official business of any sort in Jerusalem. The PLO carried out official diplomacy at the Orient House. The law required the government to close the Orient House.
    The Supreme Court's decision on the Orient House was revealing. It showed that the court was more interested in advancing the political interests of the Left than in upholding the rule of law.

    Indeed, it showed that the court had willfully co-opted the language of law and democratic norms to advance its ideological interests.
    When a transition government advances the Left's political interests by offering the Golan Heights to Syria, its actions are legal and democratic. When a transition government advances the Right's political interests by curtailing PLO activities in Jerusalem, its actions are illegal and anti-democratic. When a transition government advances the Left's interests by appointing radical justices to the courts before elections, its actions are legal and democratic. When a transition government harms the Left's interest by appointing leftists who aren't radical to the courts, its actions are illegal and anti-democratic.
    All of this demonstrates a disturbing state of affairs. Whether they are politicians like Olmert or jurists like Mazuz and Beinisch, the Left uses the rhetoric of democracy not to advance liberal norms and the rule of law in society but to destroy them both in the interest of advancing the Left's political interests.
    THE LEFT's co-optation of the language of law and democracy is not limited to geopolitics. It extends to issues of cultural politics as well. Take feminism for example. Education Minister Yuli Tamir fancies herself a great champion of women's rights. She has written about feminism and the need for women to have mandated equal representation in both public and private forums. In all of her work on behalf of women's issues, Tamir has been clear that a society's refusal to mandate full equality for women goes hand in hand with militarism and other violent and anti-liberal tendencies.

    And yet, in 1996, while a visiting professor at Harvard, Tamir authored an article defending female genital mutilation in the Arab world. In the Islamic world, girls are forced to undergo clitoridectomies to deprive them of sexual pleasure and so "preserve" their "modesty." Yet Tamir argued in her article, "Hands off Clitoridectomy," published in The Boston Review, it is wrong to oppose the practice because doing so requires a rejection of multiculturalism. As she put it, opponents of the barbaric practice, "intentionally widen the gap between our culture and those in which clitoridectomy is practiced, thus presenting those other cultures as incommensurable with ours. The effect of this distancing is to disconnect criticism of their practices from criticism of our own, and turn reflection on other cultures into yet another occasion for celebrating our special virtues."

    Celebrating Western virtues is a no-no for Tamir, because doing so makes us likely to defend those values at the expense of her leftist appeasement agenda. If the West judges Arab societies that mutilate women and girls objectionable, it is likely to judge appeasing them as objectionable and so reject the political message of Tamir and her comrades. And so, as she sees it, it behooves "feminists" like her to defend clitoridectomies, which she did in that article.
    As far as Tamir is concerned, cutting out a girl's genitalia is no different from pulling her teeth. As she put it, "Removing a tooth is also a painful procedure, often imposed on children, and if performed in non-hygienic conditions, it can produce permanent damage." Tamir then went on to say that criticizing female genital mutilation is itself an act of misogyny because by expressing concern for the practice, critics objectify women. They reduce them to mere sexual objects.
    So for Tamir the feminist, rejecting the superiority of Western culture - which allows her to freely express her views, vote, run for office, own property and control the fate of her genitals - over Islamic culture - which allows her to do none of these things - is more important than defending women. Indeed, she is willing to empty the rhetoric of women's rights of all intrinsic meaning to advance the interests of her radical leftist ideological platform against its rightist rivals who trenchantly criticize the mutilation of women and girls.
    AND, OF course, Tamir is not alone. In the US presidential race, American feminists have lost all credibility as champions of women's rights in their support for the often pornographic, openly misogynist and unabashedly chauvinist assaults against Governor Sarah Palin. Kim Gandy, the leader of the National Organization for Women, has argued that due to Palin's opposition to abortion, she is not a woman.
    Ignoring her record of service and achievement in Alaskan politics, leftist commentators and politicians have attacked her clothes, her shoes, her hair, her glasses, her children, her figure. They have insinuated perverted sexual proclivities and they accused her of everything from harlotry to illiteracy.
    In an interview with Yediot Aharonot on Friday, the leftist American novelist Paul Auster said of Palin, "There is something erotic about Palin that attracts people to her. Someone said that she reminds him of a strict schoolmarm, who wears a stripper's costume under her modest clothing. I know this might sound funny, but I think that a lot of men are attracted to her and fantasize about being with her in bed. Particularly because she is conservative and far from all these erotic descriptions, the fantasy becomes even more powerful."
    Auster then warned that if Palin is elected vice president, "a lot of good values will disappear from this country and we will become an evil, ugly country."
    It apparently never occurred to him that his "funny" statements about Palin are the very epitome of ugliness and the absence of values like decency, tolerance and respect for women. And that's the thing of it.
    THE ESSENCE of liberal democracy - the edifice on which liberalism and the democratic form of government were built - is reasoned discourse. Reasoned discourse can only take place when words like "values," "democracy," "law," "rights" and "equality" have intrinsic meanings that all members of society accept. When the Left empties these terms of their fundamental meaning and uses them only to enhance its political power at the expense of the Right, reasoned discourse is abandoned in favor of propaganda.
    When equal rights are the exclusive privilege of leftist women rather than the natural right of all women, no woman can ever trust that her rights will be preserved. When the rhetoric of law is abused to advance the political power of the Left instead of defending the cause of blind justice, the rule of law is sacrificed in the name of leftist tyranny. When the cause of a nation is ignored in the interest of the fortunes of a faction, the fortunes of that faction will be advanced at the expense of the nation.
    Auster told Yediot that the political discourse in the US has become so charged that dialogue is no longer possible between leftists and rightists. In his words, "We have reached a point where the two sides are no longer capable of speaking to one another, and I view this situation as a sort of civil war. There are no weapons or shooting. This is a civil war of ideas and separate ways of thinking, and often a war of ideas is the worst sort of war."

    Auster's statement is true, and it applies to the entire Western world. But it is also true that one side bears the brunt of responsibility for the absence of discourse. The side that has destroyed the meaning of democracy, liberalism, feminism and racism to castigate and criminalize its political opponents is responsible for the absence of dialogue. And until the Left is compelled to acknowledge the intrinsic meaning of words rather than use vocabulary as a tool of political warfare, it is hard to see how this situation will improve.

    This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1225715329860&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



      The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
    Fundamentally Freund: Anti-Semitism in Israel
    Nov. 4, 2008
    By Michael Freund

    There is a new menace facing the Jews of Israel. And though you will never hear it said openly, let alone discussed at length, the fact is that anti-Semitism is alive and well in the Jewish state.

    Indeed, in just the past week alone, there were two incidents involving the wanton desecration of Jewish religious sites, both of which were more reminiscent of medieval Europe than of a proud and sovereign Jewish realm. Last Wednesday, two Arab youths tossed a flaming Molotov cocktail into the Adat Moshe Ve'Yisrael synagogue in Lod, which caught fire and suffered interior damage. Fortunately, nobody was inside at the time. Just a few days previously, three Arabs had firebombed the Ruah Tzfonit yeshiva in Acre in an attempt to burn it down. No one was injured, but the school's office went up in flames. It is easy enough to dismiss these events merely as passing blips on the radar, or as the type of senseless vandalism that strikes societies everywhere. Others will content themselves with the thought that political tensions lie at the root of the attacks. After all, even the police have termed the episodes "nationalistically motivated." But don't be fooled by such pseudo-sophistry. When villains attack a house of prayer in Lod or a talmudic academy in Acre, they are attacking Jews and Judaism itself. Their choice of target is indicative of whom they are aiming to hurt. Had the perpetrators been seeking to make a political statement, they could easily have chosen a political target. It is only when you really hate someone in a profound and nefarious manner that you go for the jugular, as the assailants did in these cases.

    SURE, POLITICS may have fanned the flames, and last month's riots in Acre further exacerbated the situation. But the fire underneath was already there, and at its root lies a blazing and ancient hatred called anti-Semitism. So where is the outrage? Where is the outcry over this willful assault on Jews and Jewish tradition? When these kinds of incidents take place in any other country in the world, they are rightly and roundly denounced as anti-Semitism, and Jewish organizations clamor for the microphones to make statements and demand justice. Yet for some reason, when they happen here, everyone seems to fall silent. But Jew-hatred is Jew-hatred wherever it takes place. And however uncomfortable it might make us feel, we need to acknowledge that there is anti-Semitism in the Jewish state, and that steps need to be taken to counter it. These range from fostering more tolerance and greater education among Arab citizens to stricter enforcement of the law. In both Acre and Lod, the police caught the perpetrators of the attacks, and nothing less than the maximum sentence should be imposed on them. It needs to be made clear to other would-be arsonists of all stripes that when they attack public institutions or religious sites, they will be made to pay for their crimes. Public pressure to denounce such acts should also be brought to bear on various Arab religious and political leaders, and those who fail to do so should be called to account. There is simply no excuse for their silence in the face of such hatred. Apologists will suggest that such attacks are motivated by fear, but I believe precisely the opposite to be true. It is because of a lack of fear, a sense of impunity, that the assailants felt uninhibited about carrying out their plans. That, combined with a base hatred of Jews, makes for a combustible mix. Many of us are still uneasy with such a notion, if only because such things are not supposed to happen here. Israel was established to serve as a homeland and a refuge, a place where the ills of the Diaspora would be left behind, chief among them anti-Semitism. But like it or not, that hatred has followed us home, and it is alive and well here in our midst. And sweeping the issue under the rug, or chalking it up to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, will not make it go away.

    This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1225715340274&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


      Security Analysts: Rough Ride on Obama's Roadmap
    Cheshvan 7, 5769; 05 November 08 11:56
    By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

    Obama plans full-speed ahead for PA state

    ( United States President-elect Barack Obama will pressure Israel into more concessions to the Palestinian Authority and will reduce the probability of an attack on Iran, according to expert security analysts.

    The next president stated during his campaign that he favors direct negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a move that would pull the rug from under any plans to use force to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through its uranium enrichment program.

    His pledge to pull American troops out of Iraq is welcomed by Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority, which is anxiously awaiting the appointment of a special Middle East envoy who President-elect Obama has said he will appoint.

    Candidates include former Democratic President Bill Clinton, who arranged the famous handshake between Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin during the Oslo Accord negotiations. Other possibilities are his wife Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oslo Accords architect Dennis Ross, former American envoy to Israel Dan Kurtzer and Governor Bill Richardson.

    Regardless of who takes the job, the new administration will try to push full-speed ahead to reach the agreement that President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were not able to forge.

    Eitan Haber, who was a negotiator for Rabin during the Oslo talks, wrote last month in Yediot Acharonot, "To be honest, Obama doesn't make us sleep well at night. We are about to see a president who has nothing to do with Judaism, Jews, and the State of Israel."

    The new government in Washington also would prefer Tzipi Livni instead of Binyamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister, according to Roni Bart, a research fellow at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies.

    "There is a good chance that relations between Obama and Bibi will not be healthy,'' he told Bloomberg News.

    Israel already has conceded basic changes in the Bush Roadmap, which called for temporary borders of a new Arab state after a halt to PA incitement and terror. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to abandon that conditional step and strive for a final agreement on borders of an Arab state while incitement and terror continues.

    The only red lines remaining are the unity of the capital of Jerusalem and the PA demand that Israel allow the immigration of millions of Arabs living in foreign countries and claiming to be descendants of former Israeli Arab residents.

    "The problem is going to be everything is going to come at them from day one," said Stephen Stedman, a Stanford University professor and a director of a national strategic project known as Managing Global Insecurity. "The temptation will be to put off decisions on international institutions and deal with the crises," he told the London Guardian.

    Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, told Bloomberg News, "There could be more pressure on Israel to take more risks, like removing security checkpoints" in Judea and Samaria.

    © Copyright


      The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
    Column One: Livni's Obama strategy
    Nov. 6, 2008
    By Caroline Glick

    With Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential race, the stakes have been raised for Israel's February 10 general elections. Whatever the Obama administration's position on Israel may be, it will not be more supportive of the country than the Bush administration has been. And over the past year, the supportive Bush administration has decided not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and not to support an Israeli effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Israel's next prime minister intends to prevent Teheran from acquiring the means to implement its stated aim of destroying Israel, he or she must be prepared to stand up to America. Indeed, the greatest diplomatic challenge he or she will likely face will be standing up to a popular new President Obama, supported by large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and the overwhelming majority of American Jewish voters. Over the past few days, the two contenders for the premiership - Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu - have demonstrated their starkly contrasting views of how to deal with a potentially hostile administration in Washington. Reacting to Obama's electoral victory on Wednesday, Livni made clear that from her perspective, the best way to deal with an unfriendly White House is to preemptively surrender Israel's national interests. In her words, Israel's election results "must reflect the country's interest in advancing the peace process, otherwise the international community, headed by the US, will try and push us in this direction." For their part, Netanyahu and Likud have shown that if defending Israel's national interests requires a confrontation with Washington, they will not shy away from it. Last week, Netanyahu surrogate MK Yuval Steinitz informed both US presidential campaigns that in the event that outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledges to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria, a Likud-led government will not respect his commitment. Livni understands that she cannot win the election by preaching preemptive surrender, and so she and her colleagues are ardently seeking to change the subject. They recognize that for Livni to win, she must persuade the public that she is not the hard-core leftist she has governed as for the past five years, but a centrist. To accomplish this goal, she is seeking to distinguish herself from Labor and Meretz while still maintaining her leftist support base. And she is trying to convince voters that Likud is not a credible alternative. Distinguishing herself from Labor and Meretz while keeping faith with the Left has been tricky for Livni, because it requires her to constantly contradict herself. She must make clear that she supports an Israeli retreat to the 1949 armistice lines and abdicates responsibility for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to the US and Europe, while appearing to reject the 1949 armistice lines and accepting that given the stakes, Israel is ultimately responsible for preventing Iran from going nuclear. Unable to renounce policies she herself has advanced and indeed invented, Livni has opted simply to refuse to disclose her positions to the public. She refuses to tell us what she has offered the Palestinians in her negotiations with Ahmed Qurei, or how she intends to deal with Syria and Iran, claiming unconvincingly that telling us what she stands for would damage Israel's national interests. Much to Livni's dismay, the public is already certain that she is a leftist. Consequently, her greatest challenge is convincing centrists who lean right that they cannot support Likud. To persuade them that Likud is unworthy, she seeks to define Likud as a party of extremists, hell-bent on destroying Israel's reputation in Europe and the US and on killing all hope of peace.

    TO DEMONIZE Likud, Livni and her colleagues operate on two tracks simultaneously. First and most importantly, they have instigated violent confrontations with the hardcore fringe of the ideological Right. These confrontations serve to convince the public that the far-right fringe constitutes a threat to the state. Second, they seek to create a public perception of Likud as the sponsor of the hardcore fringe. By accomplishing this they hope to persuade the public that Likud itself is a threat to the country. On October 25 the government ordered the police and the IDF to carry out a surprise, middle-of-the-night expulsion of well-known right-wing hard-liner Noam Federman and his family from their home in Kiryat Arba, and to demolish their home. According to eyewitness accounts, the police used excessive violence against the surprised couple and their nine children. As could have been anticipated, the Federmans and their hot-headed, radical friends were enraged by the unprovoked onslaught. And as expected, Federman's supporters reacted by making offensive statements about the police and the IDF. The government pounced on these statements in a bid to castigate the far right, (of which Federman and his supporters comprise a small faction), as the greatest threat facing the country. Cabinet ministers were warned that these hard-line activists may try to assassinate them, attack IDF soldiers, or commit terror attacks against Arabs. Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced he will enact draconian measures against the far right in a bid to strip its activists of their civil rights and demoralize their followers. (In the meantime, the torching of a yeshiva in Acre and a synagogue in Ramle by Israeli Arabs went unnoted by the cabinet.) Presenting Federman and his colleagues as a strategic threat to the country will not suffice to bring victory to Livni. She must also link Likud and its leader to these far-right "enemies of the people." To this end, Livni and her colleagues accuse Likud of rejecting "peace." Likud's extremism, Livni argues, is demonstrated by the fact that "extremists" such as former science minister Bennie Begin and former construction and housing minister Effi Eitam are joining its ranks. Livni's strategy of projecting herself as a moderate by criminalizing the Right and claiming that there is no distinction between Likud and far-right activists is a reenactment of Olmert's strategy for winning the 2006 general elections. In February 2006 Olmert sought to define the Right in general and Likud specifically as a coalition of extremists by provoking violence between security forces and the far-right when he ordered the destruction of a number of homes in Amona. Hundreds of policemen and border guards were deployed to Amona where they essentially carried out a pogrom against hundreds of children and teenagers who were there to defend the homes from destruction. Initially, the events at Amona were misrepresented to the public as an example of right-wing fanaticism and violence against security personnel. Due to the media's open collusion with Olmert, it was only after the elections that the public learned the full extent of the police's premeditated brutality. In the meantime, Olmert invented a convenient right-wing bogeyman with which to scare the public and demonize Likud. Olmert's Amona strategy, which Livni seeks to implement today, advances the political fortunes of the Left in two ways. First, it directly promotes the fiction that Israel's chief enemy is the Right and so induces the public to feel uncomfortable supporting Likud. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Amona strategy deflects public attention from Israel's real enemies - Iran and its Palestinian, Lebanese and Syria proxies - against which Kadima has taken no effective action. In 2006, the government's pogrom at Amona removed Hamas's electoral victory in the January 2006 Palestinian Authority elections from the top of the news. Hamas's electoral triumph had laid bare the folly of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza the previous summer and demonstrated that Kadima's entire electoral platform, based on repeating that withdrawal in Judea and Samaria, was a recipe for disaster and war. Today, with banner headlines decrying the right-wing menace filling the front pages of the papers, news of Hamas's transformation of Gaza into a new Hizbullah-stan, replete with bunkers built with concrete supplied by Israel, is relegated to the back pages. IN 2006, Likud was in no position to counter the Amona strategy. It had just sustained a near-mortal blow when Ariel Sharon bolted the party to form Kadima. But now the tables have turned. Today it is Kadima that is in shambles. Sharon has been forgotten. Olmert resigned in disgrace. Livni failed to form a government. Today, Likud can discredit Livni's self-characterizations as a moderate by pointing to her far-left record as foreign minister. Netanyahu can reject her characterization of Likud as a far-right party by showcasing leftists like Uzi Dayan, Dan Meridor and Assaf Hefetz who are flocking to the party together with rightists like Bennie Begin and Effi Eitam. Likud, he can say credibly, is not a fringe party - but a big-tent center-right governing party that welcomes all patriotic Israelis. If Livni's Amona strategy fails her, she will be forced to discuss her plans to preemptively surrender to the US, the Palestinians, Syria and Iran. And for Livni, a debate about her actual plans and current policies is a recipe for defeat. In certain respects, Livni's embrace of Olmert's Amona strategy toward the Right and her attempt to hide her far-left policies while presenting herself as a new sort of clean politician and engine of political renewal, echoes the strategy that Obama employed with such success in his bid for the White House. Like Obama, Livni wishes to convince the public to support her by not telling us who she is and what she intends to do, sufficing instead with her claim to be different from the other guys. It is far from clear that Livni will be able to pull off an Obama-like victory. She lacks his charisma. Unlike Obama, she has a public record of far-left governance and policy failure going into the election. And unlike Sen. John McCain, Israelis trust Netanyahu more than they trust Livni to protect the country's economy. Moreover, Obama benefited from the public support that the Democratic Party enjoyed after eight years of Republican control of the White House. In contrast, between its failed leadership in the war with Hizbullah and the corruption probes and criminal convictions of its leaders, Livni's Kadima is the discredited incumbent party. But still, all is not lost for Livni. Like Obama, she enjoys the full support of the media in her bid for power. In the past, media collusion has repeatedly sufficed to bring leftists posing as centrists to power. With all that is at stake in February's elections, it must be hoped that Livni's Obama strategy will fail her. Facing Iran on the one hand and a potentially hostile Obama administration on the other, Israel requires a leader like Netanyahu who understands that if preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons means butting heads with Obama, so be it.

    This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910057324&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


     Haaretz gives a daily dose of anti-Zionist apologia for
    Arab fascism and Post-Zionism

    by Steven Plaut
    While I doubt that anyone even considers Haaretz to be a newspaper
    any more, serving as little more than a daily dose of anti-Zionist
    apologia for Arab fascism and "Post-Zionism," nevertheless today's issue
    of the Palestinian daily printed in Hebrew is astounding even by the low
    standards this "newspaper" has set for itself.

    First, the banner headline is that the head of Hamas is willing to
    recognize Israel inside its 1967 borders.   The only problems?  It is
    written by Amira Hass, who is not a journalist at all but rather a full
    time anti-Israel propagandist, who has already been convicted in court of
    lying.  So Haaretz would have Israel risk a Second Holocaust on the basis
    of a news story that Hamas recognizes Israel and all we have is Amira's
    word for it.  Second, a closer reading shows that even Hass is not really
    saying Hamas recognizes Israel.  She cites the head terrorhoid of the
    Hamas as saying that Hamas will agree to a temporary ceasefire if Israel
    agrees to go back to its 1967 borders, but not to a peace.  (Hamas already
    agreed to a ceasefire of sorts where Israel did not go back to anything -
    to avoid having its own leaders assassinated.)   The "recognition" Hass is
    talking about would be Hamas acknowledging the fact that for the moment
    Israel is still in existence behind its 1967 borders.

        Then we have the celebration and endorsement of Dov Chanin, who is
    running for the mayor of Tel Aviv.  Chanin is an unreformed Stalinist and
    leader in the Israeli communist party, dreaming of setting up Gulags from
    the Jordan river to the Mediterranean.  That Haaretz likes communists is
    not exactly news.  But the job of writing a sycophant piece endorsing
    Chanin for mayor was assigned to Ari Shavit, usually considered to be the
    most pro-Zionist and patriotic columnist in Haaretz!  Chanin, by the way,
    said that if he does not get elected mayor, he will not even take up his
    seat as alderman in the Tel Aviv City Council - I guess because he can do
    so much more for the jihad serving as a communist party member of the

         Then we have an infantile column, appearing as a front page news item,
    by Haaretz' Neri Livni practically swooning with joy at Obama's victory
    and wondering whether Israelis, like Americans, can abandon their
    narrow-minded racism and selfishness.  Haaretz cannot get enough of the
    slogan "Yes We Can" and uses it whenever it cannot decide which
    punctuation mark to use.   Ultra-anti-Semite Gideon Levy has a column in
    Haaretz today proclaiming his deepest desire that Obama not turn out to be
    a friend of Israel (HIS title!).  See it here: .  That is because,
    according to Levy, a true friend of Israel would be one who helps the
    Palestinians throw the Jews into the sea.

          Then there is the report on how the terrorists and some members of
    the Eurotrash Left ran yet another pro-terror boat to Gaza to assist the
    Hamas, where Haaretz' headline, crayoned by Amira Hass,  is "This is How
    WE Broke the Siege of Gaza (
    )."   Note the use of the first person plural pronoun.  The firing of 13
    Qassam rockets at the Negev is mentioned in passing by Haaretz, but on an
    internal page.  It has about the same space as an item, probably fictional
    and carried only by Haaretz, claiming some Jewish kids in Hebron beat up a
    6 year old Palestinian boy for no reason at all and hit him in the head
    with a stone.  My suspicion is that every single story in Haaretz about
    settlers beating Palestinians is pure fiction.

         There is great coverage about the annual rally of deification for
    Yitzhak Rabin, held last night, in which speaker after speaker denounces
    "those who taught and inspired the murderer Yigal Amir."  I wonder if they
    mean his law school professors.  Ehud Barak, the fellow who fired 4000
    katyusha rockets at my nose, was there screaming about the "cancerous"
    Israeli Right, meaning I guess that he would like those who disagree with
    his lunatic leftist ideas to be eliminated using chemotherapy and
    radiation?  Then there is a story about how Israel "like a thief in the
    night stole the lands of Holocaust victims."  Haaretz has long tried to
    represent Israel as the moral equivalent of Swiss bankers and others who
    stole assets of Holocaust victim.  Of course, in this case the real story
    is about a memo in 1946 in which lands bought by Jews whose entire
    families were presumed murdered in the Holocaust were simply taken over by
    the Jewish authorities in the pre-state land of Israel and used ever
    since.  Big big scandal.  Labor Party airhead Collette Avital postured her
    indignation about this immoral outrage.


    Jewish Scholar Divulges On UN
    By Michael Brasky, U.N. Correspondent

    Dr. Alex Grobman is the author of Nations United: How the United Nations Undermines Israel and the West.

    Dr. Grobman studied at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem where he earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in contemporary Jewish History. His areas of expertise are the Holocaust and Zionism. He was director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles after which he founded the Institute for Jewish Life. He is president of the Brenn Institute, a think-tank dealing with historical and contemporary issues affecting the Jewish community. Dr. Grobman is also the author of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, which offers a rational approach to refuting Holocaust deniers.

    On Friday, Dr. Grobman discussed his book and views of the UN with The Bulletin.
    The Bulletin: You argue that the U.N.'s condemnation of Zionism as racist (GA Resolution 3379), is unfair given that other nation's restrictive policies are not condemned. Is that to suggest then, that if other nation's policies were condemned as racist it would be acceptable for that same to be said of Israel?

    Dr. Alex Grobman: Obviously not. The point is that countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, most of the Arab countries, have restrictive policies for permitting who can live there. For example when American troops went to save Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, they could not wear crucifixes. There was even a problem with praying openly. Women had to cover themselves from head to foot. The only religion these countries tolerate is Islam. And no one complains about the fact that a Jew cannot live there.

    Israel is not a racist state by any stretch of the imagination. All you have to do is look at the population. You have Jews that are as black as coal, to white Ashkenazi Jews. There's no discrimination in any area. Israel went out of its way at tremendous cost and great risk to rescue the Jews of Ethiopia, who are black. Every group is able to participate in the government. There's nothing that's restrictive about Israel. That cannot be said about other countries.

    TB: Do you feel Israel makes ethnic distinctions in its society?

    AG: Israel was set up as a haven for the Jews in 1948. The world recognized, including the U.N. and the League of Nations before hand, that the Jews needed a separate country for themselves. They have more legal right to be in existence than most countries in the world. They were established by the U.N. as a refuge for the Jewish people. We are at war with the Arab nations, so there are some restrictions on the things Arabs can do. When there was a talk about dividing Jerusalem and having the Arabs who lived there be part of the Palestinian authority, there was a revolt. They do not want to be part of the other Palestinian groups. As in all societies, there are certain examples of one group having an opportunity to advance above the rest. We saw that in the beginning with the Ashkenazim, but now the Sephardim are in as important positions as everybody else. This is a small country, it takes time, but you have more democracy here than most countries in the world.

    TB: Is it fair to say that the U.N. has failed in fulfilling its charter based solely on its relationship with Israel and how so?

    AG: It's failed miserably not only with Israel, but throughout the world. If I were a Martian sitting in on U.N. discussions and looking at the resolutions they passed over the years, I would come away with the view that Israel is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, that it exploits its people and causes trouble throughout the world. That if Israel didn't exist there'd be a good possibility that there'd be world peace.

    We know that's not the case. We know that if Israel didn't exist that the situation in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, all these problems that Arabs have within the Middle East would exist anyway. And as Bernard Lewis said, it's a safety valve. If you live in a repressive country the only thing you can complain about legitimately is Israel. So the U.N. becomes an opportunity for people to vent their frustration and at the same time divert attention from the real issues of poverty, illiteracy, and the horrible health conditions in their own countries.

    TB: In your book, you use the U.S.S.R. as a paradigm to illustrate how former supporters of Israel shifted towards a policy of condemning Israel and Zionism as racist. You suggest it was political expediency - the lure of oil and the necessity of friendly relations with Arab states - that brought about this change. If an alternative energy source were found, do you believe this could ultimately restore support for Israel amongst these nations, given the original impetus for their hostility was oil?

    AG: Only part of the impetus was oil. In 1948 for example, the Foreign Minister of Russia said attacked the west for not doing enough to save the Jews. The reason why he favored the establishment of the state of Israel was to "give it" to the West. He wanted to show up the West. Once the Soviets realized that Israel would not move into their sphere of influence, they had to look elsewhere for allies.

    This is an ongoing conflict with the United States. The U.S. thought that the end of the Cold War had occurred. If anything it was in hiatus. Maybe the Cold War is not there, but surely the tensions that existed as part of the Cold War have come back. So I don't think it has to do with oil so much. It plays a role, but the U.S. and Russia is where the fight is. And Russia will do anything to tweak the United States.

    TB: Do you believe the perceived anti-Semitism of the U.N. is the result of maneuvering by Arab states, or rather symptomatic of something inherent within the U.N. and the international community? If so, do you feel that institutional reform of the U.N. could change this?

    AG: If you take a look at what the Arabs are saying in their press, if you see what they are teaching their students, and if you look at what their political and religious leaders are saying about the Jews, what Hamas and Fatah say in their charters, you realize that there is a virulent hatred of the Jews. They do not want the Jewish people to be in Israel. They have never accepted their presence and anyone who says so is misreading history.

    There is a quote by from 1839 by William Tanner Young, the first Vice Council of the British Consulate in Jerusalem. "What the Jew has to endure at all hands is not to be told. Like the miserable dog without an owner he is kicked by one because he his path and cuffed by another because he cries out. To seek redress he is afraid lest it bring worse upon. He thinks it better to endure than to live in the expectation of his complaint being revenged upon him... everywhere is a mark of degradation." This is 1839 and the point of this is that the Arabs have never accepted a Jewish presence. That's an important period because the Arabs are always claiming anti-Semitism arose because Jews were coming in large numbers after 1881. That's a misreading of history.

    To suggest the Arabs ever accepted the Jews is simply wrong. There's nothing to suggest that they really want peace.

    TB: So in summation you believe that this is beyond institution reform?

    AG: It has nothing to do with reform. This is a religious war. 

    TB: In 2007, the countries actively involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict and hosts of Palestinian refugees (Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria), which represent 2 percent of the 192 member states and 0.5 percent of the world's population, were the subject of 76 percent of country-specific GA resolutions, 36 percent of resolutions from the Human Rights Council and 7 percent of the Security Council resolutions. Do you feel the U.N. devotes too many resources and too much time to the situation in Palestine, regardless of whose side the organization supports?

    AG: First of all, there is no country called Palestine ...yet. And I don't think there will be for the foreseeable future, because they simply don't believe in a two-state solution, they believe in a one-state solution - no Jews. The focus of the U.N. and too much of their resources has been on Israel while other issues have languished. There's poverty all over the world. There are problems in Africa, there's genocide going on. Among the last problems that should be addressed is this issue.

    TB: There have been examples of U.N. support for Israeli policy in recent history. According to the Anti-Defamation League, after the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the PLO in 1993, Israel's image in the U.N. improved significantly. During this period, the Security Council denounced terrorism against Israel for the first time. In 1993, Israel was nominated to its first U.N. Committee. When Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres addressed the GA in 1994, all member states were present except for Iran, whereas before Arab states would have vacated the chambers. Israelis were also elected to several highly notable positions in the wake of Oslo. Between 1993 and 1995, the Security Council never directly condemned Israel. And for the first time in a decade, the Arab members of the U.N. did not challenge Israel's seat at the GA.

    Would this indicate that the U.N.'s hostility to Israel is in fact attributable to grievances with Israeli policy, and not anti-Semitism?

    AG: The Arabs thought during Oslo that they could extract all types of concessions from Israel. And under those circumstances they were willing to play the game. It was a charade.

    They hadn't changed their view. They were waging war through diplomacy instead of on the battlefield. They had to make concessions to at least appear that they were reasonable. They did not adhere to their agreements. They didn't change their media which continued to attack Israel and encourage suicide bombing. The war against the Jews had not ended. This was a game for public consumption, a Trojan horse.

    TB: Is the U.N. capable of brokering a just solution to the Palestinian conflict that both parties would agree to?

    AG: No. Incapable for so many reasons. They have an axe to grind. They are not objective. They do not represent objective truth. They're interested in their own specific concerns and they don't care who suffers. If they didn't, they would devote much of their time and energy to the people who really need help in this world.

    TB: Do you believe there is any hope for the U.N. to shed its anti-Semitic image?

    AG: No. As long as the nations who are there will not change, and there is no reason for them to do so, the U.N. simply provides an opportunity for people to vent their frustrations and divert attention from the real issue that they should be addressing.

    It's not like they haven't done anything positive. But bringing world peace, helping people constructively, it's been very limited.

    Michael Brasky can be reached at

    ©The Bulletin 2008




     President Obama Not Entering a Rose Garden
    Yoram Ettinger, Ynet, Nov. 5, 2008
    President Roosevelt faced the Great Depression during his first term and Second World War during his third term.  President Obama will face simultaneously - upon entering the White House – the most severe economic recession since Roosevelt and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as World War Three against Islamic terrorism and a series of additional severe challenges/threats domestically and internationally.
    Just like previous presidents, Obama would prefer to be preoccupied with the home front, which is burdened by high-level pessimism and uncertainty, exacerbated political polarization and fear of further economic deterioration. However, the international arena will not grant Obama even a single day of grace.  The Clinton presidency documents that a dovish world view does not immunize US presidents against global rivals and enemies.  On February 29, 1993, during Clinton's first month in office, Bin-Laden terrorized the Twin Towers: Six civilians were murdered, 1,000 were injured and 50,000 evacuated.  On October 3, 1993, the bodies of 18 US servicemen were dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, in spite of Clinton's commitment to reverse Bush 41st's policy and pull out of Somalia, as reiterated during clandestine talks held with terror lord, Aideed.
    Antagonists and opponents of the US will be quick to test the resolve and decision-making capabilities of the president-elect, who lacks national security and international relations experience. They wish to find out whether his presidency will be an opportunity to advance their strategic goals and whether he is a real – or a paper – tiger. Islamic terrorists will attempt to humiliate the US into a swift Somalia-style evacuation of Iraq, despite Obama's own evacuation plans, and a similar retreat from Afghanistan. Iran might escalate its subversive activities in the Persian Gulf in general and in Iraq in particular, intensify the arming and incitement of Hizballah and Hamas in Lebanon and in Gaza and hasten the acquisition of nuclear capabilities.  Syria may exploit the inherent instability of Lebanon, in order to reassert itself militarily in its "Western Province," and test US commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty. Palestinian terrorism could expand its operations, with the aim of clarifying Obama's willingness to pressure Israel against "disproportionate response."  Will North Korea employ the US transition of power, in order to violate – once again – its commitments? Will Putin leverage the Georgia Precedent, in order to reassert Soviet-style Imperialism?  Will China join the "welcoming party," testing Obama's adherence to agreements with Taiwan? Will Qadaffi – who was deterred by the fate of Saddam Hussein – revert to terrorism?  Will President Obama demonstrate that he does not blink first?
    The aggravation of global violence, along with the US geography, natural resources, human resources, national security and economic interests and core American vision/values, clarify why the US constitutes an indispensable super power, why presidential decisions possess domestic and global implications, and why Obama will have to raise simultaneously the flags of national security and socio-economy.
    Obama will not be received at the White House by a Rose Garden, but rather by a thorny field of economic problems.  He will be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, in the midst of the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s: Manufacturing activity is at a 26 year low, private consumption has taken a serious dive, banking credit is heavily constrained, a collapse of credit companies may be around the corner, the state of Social Security and health insurance is bleak and the wave of bankruptcy is gaining momentum. Obama will have to decide how to spend the $700MN bailout package, and whether such a package – and additional ones constitute water or fuel for the economic fire. How will such packages – which inflate national debt and nationalize a substantial element of the US economy - be financed? Will Obama raise or lower taxes?  Should banking regulation be expanded to other investment institutions? How will the US be freed of oil dependency? How will Obama achieve his socio-economic plans without overly-stretching the already thin economy?
    Obama will, supposedly, benefit from automatic support by the Democrat-controlled Congress.  However, the Clinton Precedent proves that Separation of Powers is stronger than party loyalty.  In 1992, Clinton was elected alongside a substantial Democratic majority in both Chambers.  However, his determination to ram his (Hilary's) health reform plan down the throat of Congress backfired, and led to the 1994 Republican Revolution.
    President Obama's victory may be the most impressive since 1964, but he is facing challenges and threats, which are the most awesome since the 1930s.


     THE JERUSALEM POST, Nov. 10, 2008
    Our World: From Tel Aviv to Teheran, with Love
    By Caroline Glick

    Two weeks ago, the Palestinians and their anti-Zionist Israeli and international partners finally produced a smoking gun. They had a videotape of evil settlers brutally attacking poor, defenseless Palestinians as they innocently picked olives with their enlightened supporters in a grove by the Tel Rumeida neighborhood in Hebron.   The local media went into a feeding frenzy. The footage led the television news broadcasts. Photos taken from the video were plastered across the front pages of the newspapers. Radio talk show hosts denounced the criminal settlers and celebrated the guileless Palestinians and their heroic Israeli supporters. The Olmert-Livni-Barak government was quick to weigh in, promising stiff punishment for the Jewish fascists involved and a curtailment of their supporters' civil rights.   In the weeks that have followed, and with elections looming, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have stepped up their attacks on the evil right-wing extremists. At Saturday night's memorial ceremony/political rally for slain prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv, Barak called right-wing activists "cancers." He claimed that they are a "threat to democracy." And he pledged, "We will uproot this evil from within us."
    The crowd loved Barak's statement. The few audience members who might have booed him had already been beaten and arrested by police for disturbing the peace. A handful of anti-leftist activists from the student group Im Tirtzu came to Kikar Rabin carrying signs decrying leftist demonization of the Right. The police beat them and carted them off before the rally began. If it were true that settlers are marauding around Judea and Samaria beating innocent Palestinians, perhaps it would be possible to understand this assault against the Right. But as it works out, the videotape that was supposed to be the definitive proof that settlers are violent criminals was a fabrication. It was simply the latest anti-Israel snuff film brought to us by our friends at Pallywood Productions. These are the same creative filmmakers whose previous credits include the fabricated IDF shooting of Muhammad al-Dura, the Jenin massacre that wasn't, the Kafr Kana massacre that wasn't and a host of other notable blood libels.
    The inconvenient truth that these activists remain liars was exposed at the remand hearings of the settlers accused of beating the Palestinian olive harvesters. As the NFC news Web site reported exclusively on Sunday, the Palestinians showed their film as evidence against the arrested offenders in two separate hearings before two different judges at the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court. And at each hearing, after viewing the film the judges concluded that through heavy editing, the video had inverted reality. Both stated that it was impossible to know who began the fight - the Palestinians and their Israeli and foreign supporters who beat the settlers, or the settlers who walked to the grove on Shabbat carrying nothing but their prayer shawls and hit them back.
    The judges also noted that one of the Palestinians threw a large rock at the back of one of the settlers after he and his friends had disengaged from the fight. The judges expressed anger and amazement at the police for failing to arrest the Palestinian who had clearly attacked the Jewish defendant without provocation.
    IT GOES without saying that the local media have chosen to ignore the court's exposure of the latest hoax. The truth doesn't fit their anti-right-wing narrative and so it isn't being covered.
    What the local media and politicians such as Barak and Livni who seek to criminalize the Right for political gain refuse to acknowledge is that their embrace of these lies not only harms the settlers, it harms the country as a whole.
    Although from the rap they've gotten from the political Left and its supporters in the media, it seems like right-wing extremists are both numerous and powerful, the fact of the matter is that the number of right-wingers who reject the authority of the state or would take the law into their own hands is tiny. And they are politically isolated both at home and abroad and have no money.
    In stark contrast, the anti-Zionist, Israeli Left is an integral part of a well-funded international movement actively engaged in waging political warfare not against the settlers, but against Israel as a whole. The end of this political war is Israel's destruction. The anti-Zionist Israeli Left advances this destruction both by directly assisting terror groups and by indirectly assisting terror groups through activities aimed at delegitimizing Israel's right to defend itself.
    The clear collusion between both Israeli and international anti-Israel leftist activists with terrorist groups like Hamas is nowhere more evident than in the terror-supporting International Solidarity Movement's newest spin-off, the Free Gaza campaign. On Saturday, this group broke the IDF's sea blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gazan coast for the third time in recent months by sailing a ship filled with rabidly pro-jihadist and anti-Israel European politicians from Cyprus to Gaza.
    According to a credible source with close ties to the operation, the Free Gaza campaign works closely with Israeli far-left groups including Anarchists against the Wall, Gush Shalom, Gisha, Machsom Watch, New Profile and Women in Black. These organizations are generously funded by the US-based New Israel Fund, by European governments and by anti-Israel church groups like the Quakers. The Free Gaza campaign's first ship, which arrived in Gaza in late August, was led by Israeli anti-Zionist activist and former lecturer at Ben-Gurion University Jeff Halper.
    The Free Gaza campaign is a clear assault on Israel's national security. Under the banner of "human rights," this new ferry service between Cyprus and Gaza is meant to compromise the country's ability to combat terror operations and to provide political support for Hamas. Crew members and passengers on board these boats meet with Hamas terror commanders in Gaza and coordinate future missions.
    Their newest campaign is to prevent the navy from interdicting fishing boats. Hamas and other terror groups make wide use of fishing boats to import weapons and transport terror personnel from abroad into Gaza. By demonizing the navy for interdicting fishing boats, and in open collusion with Hamas, the activists provide political cover for weapons transfers and jihadist maritime traffic into and out of Gaza.
    To date, Israel has chosen not to intercept the Free Gaza campaign's boats out of concern that taking such necessary action will prove a public relations disaster both at home and abroad. And this concern is reasonable. But by taking no diplomatic or military steps to prevent this terror-supporting traffic from continuing and expanding, the government allows these Israeli and European terror supporters to strengthen Hamas's war machine and legitimize Hamas's objective of destroying Israel.
    Official Israel's failure to act against this breach of its security is directly related to its support of Israeli anti-Zionist groups when they direct their guns at the Israeli Right - rather than Israel as a whole. As a practical matter, it is difficult for the government to show that the Free Gaza campaign actively supports the war against Israel when it willingly embraces the bona fides of the Free Gaza campaign's supporters when they attack settlers, or when the government adopts these organizations' false assertion that the Right is the greatest threat to the country.
    By the same token, it is difficult for the government to discredit films purporting to demonstrate the human rights plight of Gazans as Pallywood propaganda flicks when the government accepts these films as accurate when their culprits are right-wing activists.
    BUT WHILE the domestic Left sees a distinction between its right-wing opponents and the country as a whole, the international community sees no distinction between the two. Indeed, the international community has used the cover that official Israel provides anti-Zionist activists for their settler vilifying activities in order to advance the cause of criminalizing Israel as a whole.
    Case in point is what has become known as the Durban II conference in Geneva. Durban I, it will be recalled, was the UN's 2001 "anti-racism" conference in Durban, South Africa. The conference, which took place the week before the jihadist attacks on the US, was an anti-Semitic hate-fest. The American and Israeli delegations walked out as Israel and the Jewish people were castigated as the greatest human rights abusers, genocide committers, apartheid propagators and general all purpose bad guys in the entire world.
    The Nazi-like propaganda emanating from the conference led to violent attacks against Jews all over the world. Durban I's resolutions also provided the policy blueprint for much of political warfare that has been waged against Israel by so-called human rights groups ever since. These include the violent demonstrations against the security fence organized by anti-Zionist Israeli groups, the Free Gaza campaign they support and the international boycotts against Israeli exports and academics they advocate. Today, the UN is busily organizing its follow-up conference that will be held next year in Geneva. As the watchdog group Eye on the UN reported over the weekend, the conference's organizing committee just met and approved most of the resolutions it is set to adopt at Geneva. These resolutions again castigate Israel as the chief violator of human rights in the world. Israel is accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity and being an apartheid state. It is also condemned as the most serious threat to international peace and security.
    But of course, what starts with Israel doesn't end with Israel. The conference organizers have used the basic unanimity about Israel's criminal nature to launch an assault against the foundations of Western civilization. In addition to the numerous and repetitious attacks against Israel and Jews, the conference organizers passed multiple resolutions calling for the abrogation of freedom of expression and the criminalization of political speech in order to outlaw discussion of Islamic terrorism and block counterterror efforts in the West.
    Among the conference's chief organizers are Iran, Libya, Egypt and Cuba. Iran is the vice-chairman of the executive committee responsible for planning Durban II. Much of the language in the proposed resolutions is taken directly from resolutions passed at a planning session last year in Teheran.
    Israel had no hand in organizing this conference, which, following Canada, it announced it will boycott. But over the years, it could have taken actions that might have tempered or weakened the international coalition arrayed against it.
    If the government had outlawed anti-Israel groups like Machsom Watch, New Profile, Gisha, Gush Shalom, Women in Black and Anarchists against the Wall, rather than tolerate them on account of their activities against settlers, it could at least have weakened their efforts. Had they been disbanded, they would have had less capacity to legitimize and assist Palestinians and Europeans who engage in political warfare against Israel on the ground. By refusing to recognize the international consequences of their domestic battle against their political opponents on the Right, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government and the local media have strengthened Israel's enemies in their battle to destroy the country.

    This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910085840&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


     Jewish Political Studies Review
    "Jerusalem:  Capital of the Jews"[1]
    The Jewish Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources
    By Rivkah Fishman-Duker
    For ancient Greek and Roman pagan authors, Jerusalem definitely was a Jewish city. This article draws on references to Jerusalem from nearly twenty different sources, dating from the third century BCE to the third century CE, which are included in the late Professor Menahem Stern's comprehensive anthology, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. An examination of these texts indicates the unanimous agreement that Jerusalem was Jewish by virtue of the fact that its inhabitants were Jews, it was founded by Jews and the Temple, located in Jerusalem, was the center of the Jewish religion. In these sources, Jerusalem appears in several contexts: foundation narratives, descriptions of and links to the Temple, historical events, usually relating to invasions and captures of the city, physical descriptions, and the derogatory use of the term "Solyma" by Roman writers after its destruction by Titus in 70 CE.  It is noteworthy that despite the negative views of Jews and Judaism expressed by authors such as Manetho, Apion, Tacitus and Juvenal, the Jewish identity of Jerusalem is always clear and never a subject of dispute. These ancient texts, therefore, disprove recent attempts by Muslims and others to deny the historic connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and the location of the Temple in Jerusalem through fabrications and lies.  
    The Jewish identity of Jerusalem as recorded in the writings of Greek and Roman authors of classical antiquity is a subject worthy of study in its own right. This article draws on references to Jerusalem in nearly twenty different sources dating from the third century BCE to the third century CE, roughly six centuries.
    An examination of the sources indicates their authors' complete and unanimous agreement that Jerusalem was Jewish by virtue of the fact that it was founded by Jews, its inhabitants were Jews and that the Temple, located in Jerusalem, was the center of the Jewish religion. Despite the fact that some of these authors had distinctly negative views about Jews and Judaism, they were all in agreement about the Jewish identity of the city. These texts possess an importance which transcends their purely academic and cultural content. Newcomers to the historical stage and their apologists have based their political claims upon historical accounts which they have fabricated. For example, in his lengthy account of the Camp David Summit of July 2000, chief American negotiator Dennis Ross attributes much of its failure to the late Chairman Yasir Arafat of the Palestinian Authority who not only repeated "old mythologies" but invented "a new one ... [that] the Temple did not exist in Jerusalem but in Nablus."[2]
    While one may dismiss Arafat's outrageous statement as a fabrication invented to promote his political agenda, this lie and similar assertions make up part of ongoing Muslim efforts to negate Israel's claim to Jerusalem, challenge an essential element of the Jewish faith, and attack historical truth.[3] Scholarly refutations of such false historical claims have usually drawn upon ancient and medieval Jewish and Christian sources, modern scholarship and archeological excavations.[4] Despite the fact that the ancient pagan Greek and Roman sources have been known for centuries, they have not received a level of attention commensurate with their importance. The references to Jerusalem in these classical texts not only demonstrate the historical attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, but also contribute to our knowledge of Jews and Judaism in the ancient world. It should be noted that such information, particularly of the negative variety regarding Jewish history, society and religion influenced later Christian and Western views of the Jews.[5]         
    The Sources  
    The major source for most of the Greek views of the Jews is the treatise Against Apion written by the Jewish historian Josephus some time after 93CE in Rome.[6] Apion, a Greek grammarian and intellectual in Alexandria, was active in the mid-first century CE in the struggle against the civic rights of Jews in his city, and a notorious defamer of Jews and Judaism. In Against Apion, Josephus presents lengthy citations from the works of numerous Greek writers and intellectuals from the third century BCE through the first century CE. In several instances, such writings are extant only in Josephus' work.
    While several sources are neutral or even positive toward Jews, many accounts portray the Jews and the Jewish religion negatively and are replete with outrageous lies and calumnies. Josephus meticulously and successfully debunks these anti-Jewish tracts and provides a vigorous defense of Judaism, pointing out its strength and greatness in contrast to Greek and Roman pagan beliefs and life style.[7]
    Selections from other Greek and Latin works which are no longer extant may be found in other pagan anthologies, in the writings of Church Fathers, such as Origen or Eusebius of Caesarea, and in later Byzantine texts. In addition, the writings of major authors, such as the Roman orator Cicero and the historian Tacitus exist independently and provide information on the Jews.[8]
    The entire corpus of texts in their original languages and English translation, with learned introductions, commentaries and explanations is available to the public in the form of the excellent comprehensive three volume collection of Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism.[9] The texts used in this article, quoted in English translation, come from Professor Stern's magnum opus, which includes 554 selections of varying length and content, dating from the fifth century BCE to the sixth century CE.   
    General Background
    The Greeks probably were the first to record information about the customs, life styles and societies of the different peoples whom they encountered or heard about during their travels in various parts of the world. Jews were one of the many peoples whom they met and observed.[10] The "father of history", Herodotus, who visited Egypt under Persian rule in the 450s BCE, wrote extensively about the Egyptians and referred to the "Syrians of Palestine" who were circumcised and were assumed to be the Jews.[11] In fact, it is likely that it was Herodotus who coined the name "Palestine," namely, the area of the Land of Israel, as his encounter was with the descendants of the Philistines who inhabited the coastal towns of Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. The Jews inhabited the landlocked region of Jerusalem and its surrounding hills, known as Judea.[12]  
    During the decades and centuries following the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great in the 330s and 320s BCE, Greek soldiers and civilians populated and colonized the entire area, established major cities, such as Alexandria in Egypt, and spread their system of local government, language, culture, art, religion, and way of life throughout the region. The Greeks promoted and advocated the adoption of their life style and mores; namely, Hellenization, which in contemporary parlance may be termed the first manifestation of "globalization." All the peoples whom they ruled and amongst whom they lived, including the Jews in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora (a Greek term), had to contend with the challenge of Hellenization through assimilation, adaptation or resistance.[13]  
    In the late fourth century BCE, several texts portray Jews in a complimentary fashion, as philosophers.[14] Throughout the third century BCE, however, less favorable comments about the Jews circulated throughout Ptolemaic Egypt, which had undergone rapid Hellenization.  Outstanding among the anti-Jewish accusations was an alternative to the Biblical narrative of the Exodus.[15] One of the anti-Exodus tales, presented by the Egyptian priest Manetho (mid-third century BCE) portrayed the Jews as foreigners, descendants of shepherd-kings who had taken over Egypt and had joined with others who were ridden with disease and killed the animals which the Egyptians venerated as gods.[16] Subsequently, they were expelled from Egypt and established their own polity under their leader Moses who gave them a way of life which differed from that of the rest of mankind. Hence, the Jews were accused of xenophobia and disrespect for the gods of other nations and were viewed as practitioners of a strange way of life.[17]  
    Some writers recall distinctive Jewish customs, such as the absence of representations of the deity, male circumcision, dietary laws and the observance of the weekly day of rest, the Sabbath. Indeed, in 167 BCE, the Greek Seleucid King Antiochus IV ordered Jews to place an idol of Zeus in the Temple, outlawed circumcision, demanded the sacrifice of  swine and forbade Sabbath observance (I Maccabees 1:41-50). He thus desired to eliminate those unique features of the Jewish religion which had been noted by pagan writers.
    Anti-Exodus narratives and accusations of Jewish sacrilege against other nations' gods emerged in times of political and cultural crises and may have been a reaction to the fact that Judaism was attractive to many Greeks and Romans.[18] By the middle to late first century BCE, the Romans dominated much of the known world west of the Euphrates, with its large Greek and Jewish populations. The Romans adopted many of the Greek charges against the Jews, to which they added accusations of insubordination to Roman rule.
    So embedded were the Greek libels, that even several decades after the brutal suppression of the Jewish revolt against Rome (66-70 CE) and the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem (70 CE), the Roman historian Tacitus repeated the standard anti-Exodus canard and expressed himself as though the Jews were still a major threat to Imperial world domination, as follows:  "... Moses introduced new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor."[19] 
    Jerusalem in Context     
    Most Greek and Roman items on Jerusalem, therefore, must be viewed within the context of the general background described above. This applies to the texts quoted in Josephus' Against Apion and in later works and to the books which survived as independent works, such as the Histories of Tacitus.
    Mention of Jerusalem occurs in several contexts. First, it is the climax of the largely pejorative foundation narratives of Judea and of the Jewish people, which begin with the expulsion from Egypt. Second, Jerusalem is associated with the construction and the existence of the Jewish Temple and the Temple cult and practices, which Greeks and Romans viewed with fascination, despite the fact that they may have found them highly distasteful and offensive. Josephus devotes much attention to presenting and refuting the foundation narratives and the calumnies against Judaism and Temple practices.
    Third, depending on the date of their works, several authors record historical events, namely invasions of Jerusalem by Greeks or Romans. The major captures of the city were the seizure of the Temple by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV in 167 BCE; the invasion of Jerusalem and entry into the Temple by the Roman general Pompey the Great in 63 BCE, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus during the Great Revolt against Rome in 70 CE.  
    Fourth, physical descriptions of Jerusalem appear in geographical and ethnographical works, with or without the occasional historical fact. Finally, in several Roman sources the term "Solyma" (Jerusalem) appears as part of an insult. Some authors combine several of the features listed above: foundation narratives, focus on the Temple, historical events, physical descriptions and use of name of the city in an demeaning manner.
    Jerusalem in Foundation Narratives
    Greeks and Romans explored their own origins and the beginnings of the peoples, countries and cities which they conquered and ruled. Furthermore, they attempted to explain to their readers how existing locations, shrines and customs came into being and to answer possible queries as to when and under what circumstances contemporary events and customs began. Therefore, they presented and repeated foundation narratives. The earliest Greek material on the construction of Jerusalem appears as part of the conclusion of the anti-Exodus narratives mentioned above.
    According to Manetho, for example, after Pharaoh expelled the sacrilegious Jews, a tribe of the usurper shepherd-kings called "Hyksos" dominated the land. They were joined by others who were afflicted with leprosy and diseases. "They journeyed over the desert  ...  they built in the land now called Judaea a city large enough to hold all those thousands of people and gave it the name of Jerusalem." In a subsequent section, Josephus again quotes Manetho as stating that after the Jews "were driven out of the country, [they] occupied what is now Judea, founded Jerusalem, and built the temple." While Josephus wrongly cites Manetho's history as attributing to Moses the building of the Temple, he mentions that Manetho notes that Moses "who framed their [the Jews'] constitution and their laws" was a native Egyptian.[20]
    In an account by Hecataeus of Abdera  (c. 300 BCE), Jerusalem appears toward the conclusion of his counter-Exodus account and before his description of Jewish society and practices. He attributes the expulsion of the Jews to the pestilence which the Egyptians blamed upon the presence of foreigners, not only Jews, who caused the natives to falter in religious observance. "Therefore, the aliens were driven from the country."  While some went to Greece, most "were driven into what is now called Judaea ... at that time utterly uninhabited ... on taking possession of the land, he [Moses] founded, besides other cities, one that is the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem. In addition, he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration, instituted their forms of worship and ritual, drew up their laws and ordered their political institutions."[21]
    Hecataeus and other writers designate Moses as founder of Jerusalem, builder of the Temple, and architect of the Jewish religion.  This point differs substantially from the Hebrew Bible which names King David as the conqueror and builder of the city and his son King Solomon as the builder of the Temple (II Samuel 5:6-12; I Chronicles 11:4-9; I Kings 6:1-38; 7:15-51; II Chronicles 2:1-5:2). For a Greek, however, it would make sense that Moses built the Temple. Logically speaking, the first major leader of people, conqueror of its land and creator of its laws and social norms had to be regarded as the founder of its most important city and shrine. It is noteworthy that Moses "the Lawgiver" figures prominently as the founder of Judaism both in Greek and Roman writings and in Josephus' defense of Judaism in the second half of his Against Apion.[22]  
    The link between the expulsion from Egypt and the building of Jerusalem appears in later sources which have a more negative view of the Jews and Judaism. This change took place after the invasion of Jerusalem and desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV and his subsequent defeat by the Jews. For example, in his Bibliotheca Historica, the compiler Diodorus Siculus (first century BCE) recycles the essential anti-Exodus plot of Manetho. Here, the Jews were driven out of Egypt because they "were impious and detested by the gods." They were joined by others "with leprous marks on their bodies...  The refugees occupied the territory round about Jerusalem, and having organized the nation of the Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition, and on this account, had introduced utterly outlandish laws..." Later on, Diodorus refers to "Moses, the founder of Jerusalem."[23]  
    In a similar vein, Josephus includes an excerpt from Lysimachus (possibly first century BCE), whose work exhibits an anti-Jewish bias close to that of Apion. Lysimachus relates that the after the leprous Jews were expelled from the Egyptian temples, where they took refuge, "a certain Moses" taught them "to show goodwill to no man" and "to overthrow any temples and altars of the gods..." They eventually "came to the country now called Judaea where they built a city in which they settled. This town was called Hierosyla because of their sacrilegious propensities. At a later date ... they altered the name to avoid the disgraceful imputation and called the city Hierosolyma and themselves Hierosolymites."[24]
    In circa 110 CE, several decades after the defeat of the Jews by the Romans in 70 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus included a brief excursus on the Jews in his Histories. The Great Revolt against Rome and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, which make up the major part of this section of Tacitus' work, appear in the context of his extensive treatment of the Flavian dynasty, the theme of his work. Tacitus openly declares that Jerusalem is "the capital of the Jews." Before his description of its devastation, he gives a terse account of its origins and some of its history. Tacitus refers to the origin of the Jews as either from "Ida" in Crete or from Ethiopia, or Assyria and their leaders as "Hierosolymus and Iuda." He adds that "others say that the Jews are of illustrious origin, being the Solymi, a people celebrated in Homer's poems, who founded a city and gave it the name Hierosolyma."[25]
    A version of the Greek anti-Exodus story follows in which Tacitus notes that Moses, with his fellow exiles, seized a country, expelled the former inhabitants, founded a city and dedicated a temple. Afterwards, he launches a vicious attack against Moses' xenophobic laws and way of life which persist even to his own times.[26] A brief geographical description of the country and of Jerusalem precedes a terse summary of the history of Judea, its domination by Rome and the events leading up to the Great Revolt, the defeat of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem.[27]
    In conclusion, Jerusalem clearly is the major city of the Jews, founded by a people expelled from Egypt under inauspicious circumstances. The Jews were either oppressive foreigners or carriers of a plague or leprosy or both. Their leader Moses turned them against humanity with strange customs and laws, founded a city, Jerusalem, and built a Temple. Its interior and cultic practices will be discussed below. By the early second century CE, when Tacitus wrote his history, it is clear that this narrative of the circumstances of Jerusalem's foundation had become a standard depiction among Greeks and Roman writers.
    The Centrality of the Temple      
    The Temple of the Jews was a famous building, although it was not one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. According to Greek and Roman sources, it definitely was located in Jerusalem, a city founded and inhabited by Jews. While the narratives noted above feature Moses as the founder of the Temple, three relatively obscure sources of the second century BCE link the Temple to King Solomon and point out his association with King Hiram of Tyre, who assisted in its construction. These sources are brief and contain no historical background or material on the Jews.[28]
    Several of the selections in Against Apion which include the anti-Exodus narrative also provide descriptions of the interior and exterior of the Temple and some of its rituals. For example, Hecataeus states that in the center of the city is an enclosure where there is "a square altar built of heaped up stones, unhewn and unwrought." The Temple itself is "a great edifice containing and altar and a lamp stand, both made of gold ... upon these is a light which is never extinguished ... there is not a single statue or votive offering, no trace of a plant in the form of a sacred grove, or the like."[29] And in his account of Titus' siege of Jerusalem, Tacitus describes the Temple as "... built like a citadel, with walls of its own ... the very colonnades made a splendid defense. Within the enclosure is an ever-flowing spring."[30]
    In addition to physical descriptions, the authors mention the religious aspect of the Temple which differed radically from Greek and Roman paganism. In the text preserved by Diodorus, Hecataeus mentions the priests and their duties in the Temple and even describes a worship service and sacrifice.[31] Similarly, the first century Roman historian Livy remarks that the Jews do not state "to which deity pertains the temple at Jerusalem, nor is any image found there, since they do not think the God partakes of any figure."
    In the same vein, Tacitus reports that "there were no representations of the gods within, but ... the place was empty and the secret shrine contained nothing" and "only a Jew may approach its doors, and that all save the priests were forbidden to cross its threshold."[32] Cassius Dio (c.200 CE) recalls that the Jews "never had any statue of him [the deity] even in Jerusalem itself." The latter states that their temple "was extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless."[33]    
    Hecataeus, Livy, and Cassius Dio explain the absence of representation as part of Jewish "otherness" in a factual manner. Several Greek writers, however, interpret the fact that there were no statues of the gods in the Temple not only as unusual, but also as barbaric and indicative of Jewish misanthropy. In their view, it would be inconceivable that a sacred shrine would be empty. Therefore, several authors offered their versions of what exactly stood in the Temple. Diodorus (first century BCE) writes that when "Antiochus, called Epiphanes, on defeating the Jews had entered the innermost sanctuary of the god's temple, where it was lawful for the priest alone to enter. Finding there a marble statue of a heavily bearded man seated on an ass, with a book in his hands, he supposed it to be an image of Moses, founder of Jerusalem ... who had ordained for the Jews their misanthropic and lawless customs. ... Antiochus ... sacrificed before the image of the founder and the open-air altar of the god a great sow."[34] Diodorus asserts that what stood in Judaism's holiest place was ridiculous and revolting; namely, the presence of a statue of an ass, a lowly beast of burden, whose rider had established Jewish xenophobia, and that Antiochus sacrificed an animal known by all to be forbidden to the Jews in their holiest shrine.[35]
    Apion (mid-first century CE) conveys a malicious and defamatory description of the contents of the sanctuary in Jerusalem. In order to give his anti-Jewish arguments greater authority, Apion attributes this account to the well known Greek philosopher and ethnographer Posidonius (c.135-51 BCE) and the rhetorician Apollonius Molon (first century BCE).[36] As in the case of Diodorus, the invasion of Antiochus Epiphanes serves as the point of departure for the description, as follows: "Within the sanctuary ... the Jews kept an ass's head [made of gold], worshipping that animal and deeming it of deepest reverence."[37] 
    The narrative continues with an astonishing calumny. Apion relates that when Antiochus entered the sanctuary, he discovered a Greek imprisoned inside, on a couch next to a table laden with excellent food. The Greek hailed Antiochus as his savior. For, according to Apion, the Jews kidnapped a Greek annually, brought him to the sanctuary, fattened him up with sumptuous meals, sacrificed him, ate his flesh and then swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks.[38] While Josephus dismisses this canard as malicious rubbish and baseless lies, it is clear that the fact that Jews had no statues in their Temple in Jerusalem served as the background for the fabrication of accusations of kidnapping, human sacrifice, cannibalism and misanthropy on the part of the Jews.[39] This libel provided a basis for the attempts to deprive them of their civic rights which were contested in Alexandria in the first century CE by figures such as Apion. Hence, the Temple appears as a salient feature of pagan anti-Judaism.
    In addition, the fact that Jews contributed annually to the Temple thereby filling it with silver and gold objects and monies was considered as a point of contention. In 59 BCE, the great Roman orator Cicero defended Flaccus, when the latter sought to prevent the Jews of the Empire from sending large sums of money to Jerusalem. Cicero describes the collection of vast amounts of gold and calls Judaism a "barbaric superstition."[40]  
    Tacitus also adds a financial dimension to his critique of Judaism and the Temple, complaining that other peoples join the Jews, "renouncing their ancestral religions ... sending tribute and contributing to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews."[41] While both Cicero and Tacitus mention Jerusalem as the destination for the contributions of the Jews, it is clear from the context that their intention is the Temple, which the latter describes as "possessing enormous riches."[42]
    In conclusion, descriptions of the Temple form part of the accounts on Jerusalem and on Judaism. They range from the factual to the libelous and bizarre. For the Greeks and Romans, Jerusalem was famous for its Temple which served as the focal point of the xenophobic, strange and possibly menacing rites of the Jews whose contributions brought much gold into the city. The latter may have encouraged a certain amount of envy among Gentiles. After its destruction in 70 CE, the memory of the Temple persisted in the retrospective histories by Tacitus and by Cassius Dio.
    Historical Events 
    Jerusalem and the Temple also appear as the site of several major historical events, mainly invasions of Greek monarchs and Roman generals. We have seen the significance of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes' entry into Jerusalem and his despoliation of the Temple which served as the pretext for anti-Jewish descriptions of the interior of the sanctuary, distortions of Judaism and slander of the Jews. Antiochus appears favorably in the works of Diodorus and Apion, cited above. Similarly, Tacitus presents Antiochus positively as the prototype of a leader who attempted to "abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization."[43]
    It is noteworthy that an earlier capture of Jerusalem by the Greek-Egyptian King Ptolemy, son of Lagus, provided an opportunity for the obscure Agatharchides of Cnidus (second century BCE) to remark about the fact that "the people known as Jews, who inhabited the most strongly fortified of cities, called by the natives Jerusalem" lost their city because they would not defend it on the Sabbath. Josephus includes this selection in Against Apion as one of the early pagan critiques of the Jewish Sabbath which Agatharchides deemed as "folly," "dreams," and "traditional fancies about the law."[44]
    In this instance, the capture of Jerusalem serves as background for the author's unfavorable comments on the Sabbath. Similarly, Cassius Dio attributes the capture of the Temple by the Roman general Pompey the Great in 63 BCE to the fact that the Jews, given their "superstitious awe" did not defend the city on "the day of Saturn" (the Sabbath).[45] Cassius Dio, however, concentrates on Roman victories and accomplishments and mentions the issue of the Sabbath in passing.   
    The biographer Plutarch (mid-first-early second century CE) notes the siege of Jerusalem by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus VII Sidetes in 133-132 BCE at the time of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles. The author describes this festival at length in another work.[46] According to Plutarch, Antiochus VII provided the sacrificial animals for the Temple and allowed a seven day truce, after which the Jews submitted to him.[47] From this passage, it is clear that the inhabitants of Jerusalem are the Jews; that their Temple is located there; and their religious practices affect the outcome of the invasions of Greek rulers.  
    Jerusalem also serves as the venue for eliciting praise of Roman figures or glorifying the victories and history of Rome. The invasion of Jerusalem and the Temple by Pompey the Great in 63 BCE appears in several Roman sources. Livy erroneously states that Pompey was the first to capture Jerusalem and the Temple.[48] Other authors focus on the fact that Pompey neither damaged the Temple nor removed any of the gold or he vessels of the Temple.[49]
    While Jerusalem and the Temple are important in these sections, they serve as the background for praise of the Roman invader. Similarly, in the works of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, the city of Jerusalem and its destruction form part of the history of the Roman Empire, and in the case of Tacitus, the accomplishments of the Flavian dynasty.[50] These historians assume Roman cultural superiority and political hegemony throughout the world and the conquest and subjugation of Jerusalem supported this world-view.
    An outstanding example of the role of Jerusalem as the location for a minor event in the life of an emperor may be found in Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, a work replete with intimate details of the public and private lives of the first twelve Roman emperors. In his biography of Titus, then commander of his father Vespasian's Imperial forces and later emperor, Suetonius writes that "in the final attack on Jerusalem he slew twelve of the defenders with as many arrows; and he took the city on his daughter's birthday, so delighting the soldiers and winning their devotion ..."[51] In this case, "the personal is political" and Jerusalem serves as the location for commemorating an event in the private life of Titus.
    Finally, Cassius Dio's indispensable account of the Jewish revolt against the Emperor Hadrian (132-135 CE) designates the following as a cause of the revolt: "At Jerusalem he [Hadrian] founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god, he raised a new Temple to Zeus [Jupiter]."[52] Dio then proceeds with his report of the revolt of the Jews and its methodical suppression by the Romans.
    Although the source concentrates on the course of the revolt against Hadrian, the founding of a pagan city on the ruins of Jerusalem and a pagan temple on the Temple Mount is presented as a historical fact and not simply as background for the author's views on the Jewish religion or his praise of a particular emperor. Once again, Jerusalem, the Temple and the Jews are linked together in the major Roman historical work, written over more than a century after the destruction of the city and its holiest place.
    Physical Descriptions
    Greeks and Romans displayed a keen interest in their own surroundings, distant lands, natural phenomena, and landmarks, among them Jerusalem. Some of the descriptions of Jerusalem precede details about the Temple and Judaism and others occur within the context of historical events, such as the siege of Titus in 70 CE. Generally speaking, Jerusalem appears as a strongly fortified city with a temple which is difficult to capture. A few writers note that it has sources of water and several authors provide measurements of its area. Despite the tendency in the ancient world to exaggerate figures, it is clear that Jerusalem was relatively large and populous.
    The selection by Hecataeus, cited in Against Apion, describes the city as follows: "The Jews have ... only one fortified city, which has a circumference of about fifty stades and some hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants; they call it Jerusalem. Nearly in the centre of the city stands a stone wall, enclosing an area about five plethra long and a hundred cubits broad, approached by a pair of gates."[53] He then proceeds to describe the Temple.  
    Agatharcides notes that Jerusalem is "the most strongly fortified of cities."[54] The obscure Greek writer Timochares (late second century BCE) states that: "Jerusalem has a circumference of 40 stades. It is hard to capture her, as she is enclosed on all sides by abrupt ravines. The whole city has a plenitude of running waters, so that the gardens are also irrigated by the waters streaming from the city."[55]  
    In the anonymous Schoinometresis Syriae, possibly written by Xenophon of Lampsacus (c. 100 BCE), the writer notes that: "Jerusalem is situated on high and rough terrain; some parts of the wall are built of hewn stone, but most of it consists of gravel. The city has a circumference of 27 stades and in that place there is a fount from which water spouts in abundance."[56]
    Similarly, in his famous Natural History, the Roman polymath Pliny the Elder (d.79 CE) recorded that the Dead Sea "is faced ... on the south by Machaerus, at one time, next to Jerusalem the most important fortress in Judaea..." and that "Engeda [the oasis of Ein Gedi was] second only to Jerusalem in the fertility of its land and in its groves of palm-trees, but now like Jerusalem, [is] a heap of ashes."[57]
    Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio provide details about Jerusalem in their accounts of Roman conquests of the city. Despite the fact that the city had been destroyed, Tacitus uses the present tense as if it were still standing. Prior to his lengthy section on the Great Revolt, he gives a brief summary of the history of the city which he introduces as follows: ..."The first line of fortifications protected the city, next the palace, and the innermost wall the temple."[58] At the time of Titus' siege of Jerusalem, Tacitus describes its defenses: "...the city stands on an eminence;... the two hills that rise to a great height had been included within walls that had been skillfully built ... The rocks terminated in sheer cliffs and towers rose to a height of sixty feet where the hill assisted the fortifications, and in the valleys they reached one hundred and twenty; they presented a wonderful sight ... An inner line of walls had been built around the palace, and on a conspicuous height stands Antony's tower ... in the hills are subterraneous excavations, with pools and cisterns for holding rain-water."[59]
    Cassius Dio briefly states that at the time of Titus' siege, some Romans thought that the city was impregnable and went over to the other side. Its strength lay in the fact that it "had three walls, including one that surrounded the temple" and that the Jews "had tunnels dug from inside the city and extending out under the walls", from which they attacked the Roman water carriers.[60] Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio emphasize the fortifications of the city and thus show the great achievement of the Romans in capturing and devastating Jerusalem. The physical descriptions clearly are subordinated to the aggrandizement of the Roman Empire.
    The Use of the Term "Solyma"
    Several Roman writers after 70 CE use the term "Solyma" (Jerusalem) in a derogatory manner. As discussed above, the explanation of the etymology of the name of the city was part of the foundation narratives of Lysimachus, Plutarch and Tacitus. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the term "Solyma" seems to have acquired a pejorative meaning used in personal insults and accusations and not associated with its etymology.  This use of the term connotes both the derision of Judaism and a link with a defeated people and a destroyed city, whose capture was difficult for the Romans. 
    Apparently, despite the fact that Jerusalem was in ruins and its inhabitants killed, exiled or sold into slavery, Judaism continued to be a source of attraction for the Romans. In the late first century CE, both Valerius Flaccus and Martial, the well-known coiner of epigrams, insult their non-Jewish rivals and opponents by linking them with "Solyma." In his diatribe against Domitian, the brother of Titus, the former notes that he is "foul with the dust of Solyma." The latter contemptuously likens his rival to one who "comes from Solyma now consumed by fire, and is lately condemned to tribute."[61] 
    The term appears in the Satires of Juvenal (60-130 CE), who penned several barbs against Judaism, which he viewed as superstitious nonsense and as destructive to Roman society and family life because of its widespread popularity. He labels Jews as false prophets and beggars and ridicules "a palsied Jewess" who is "an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem" (Latin, legum Solymarum).[62] In this instance, "Solyma" or "Jerusalem" means the hated religion of Judaism.
    For ancient Greek and Roman pagan writers, Jerusalem was a Jewish city and the site of the Temple, the holy place of the Jews. It was founded in the remote past by ancient Jews, possibly by Moses, who led a pariah people, expelled from Egypt, and established its theology, laws and customs, which were and continued to be inimical to most of humanity.  
    The Temple was the religious center of the Jews where their hostility to others was reinforced. Jerusalem was a strongly fortified and fertile city, attacked on several occasions by Greeks and Romans. Although difficult to capture, because of its natural circumstances and its fortifications, the Romans invaded it and later destroyed both the city and the Temple. All Jews were linked to Jerusalem, through historical origins, financial contributions to the Temple, or religious observances which derived from that city and its founder. As Judaism was considered a type of xenophobic superstition, innately hostile to the pagan gods and to the Greek and Roman way of life, and a threat to the Roman society because of its appeal to many, the memory and term "Solyma" or "Hierosolyma" occasionally became a synonym for all that was Jewish and abhorred by various Roman authors. Thus, the sole identity of Jerusalem was its status as the "capital of the Jews."
    *     *     *
    * To Isaac Jacob Meyers (1979-2008) In Memoriam Perpetuam.
    My cousin, Isaac Jacob Meyers of New York, was a doctoral candidate in Classics at Harvard University. An observant Jew, Isaac loved Jerusalem, Judaism, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. His untimely death in a traffic accident is a great personal loss and a loss to scholarship. May his memory be blessed. 
    I should like to express my gratitude to Mr. David Zwebner and Mr. Menahem Lewinsky of the Hazvi Yisrael Synagogue in Jerusalem who invited me to address the congregation at the Jerusalem Day commemoration on 1 June 2008, where I gave a lecture in Hebrew on this subject which served as the inspiration for this article.
    [1] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1, in Menahem Stern, Greek  and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. II, No. 281,1980), 21,28. The Latin reads: "Hierosolyma genti caput." The term "gens" refers to the people of Judea, the Jews, mentioned in the first part of the sentence. All sources in this article are from Stern's anthology, see note 9.
    [2] Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (New York:  Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004), 694, 699.  It is noteworthy that the pagan town of Nablus (the Arabic pronunciation of the Greek "Neapolis") was founded by the Roman Emperor Vespasian several years after his victory over the Jews and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 C.E.  Neapolis, located in Samaria near the Biblical town of Shechem, had a pagan population. A brief popular summary of officially supported and sanctioned rewriting and falsifying of the ancient history of Jerusalem and the region by the Palestinian Authority, in order to negate their Jewish past, deny Jewish claims and replace them with those of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians may be found in Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, "Anti-Semitism among Palestinian Authority Academics," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism 69, 1 June 2008,.
    [3] The vehement negations of the existence of a Jewish pre-Islamic past in the history of Jerusalem and numerous counter-narratives claiming that the Temple was built by Adam or Abraham and later renovated by King Solomon and Herod have been collected and analyzed by Yitzhak Reiter, From Jerusalem to Mecca and Back: The Muslim Rallying Around Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2005). [Hebrew] For a summary in English see Nadav Shragai, "In the Beginning was Al-Aqsa," Ha-Aretz, 27 November 2005. For the use of Muslim arguments in promoting plans for division of Jerusalem see Nadav Shragai, "Jerusalem: The Danger of Division," 1-6 (Hebrew) .  On Islamic appropriation of the Biblical Jewish past see Jacob Lassner, "The Origins of Muslim Attitudes toward the Jews and Judaism," Judaism, 39, 4 (Fall, 1990), 494-507. According to Lassner, "... the Muslim response to the Jews and Judaism stemmed from an intense competition to occupy the center of a stage held sacred by both faiths. The story of the Jews was a history that Muslims appropriated in the Qur'an, its commentaries and other Islamic texts," 497-98. The history of Jerusalem seems to belong to this category as well.
    [4] For a cogent presentation of the issues, see Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2007). An excellent integration of historical and archeological sources may be found in Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of a City in the Second Temple Period (538 BCE - 70 CE) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), which clearly demonstrates the Jewish character of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period. On the Temple Mount excavations see Eilat Mazar, The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic and Research Publication, 2002).
    [5] Martin Goodman emphasizes the intense anti-Judaism of the Flavian dynasty (69-96 CE) which owed its prestige to the decisive and brutal victory against the Jews. Furthermore, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Flavians initiated an anti-Jewish policy in order to show that "the conquest was being celebrated not just over Judea but over Judaism." Goodman argues that this Imperial policy was a source of Christian anti-Judaism.Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 453 ff., 582 ff.  Similarly, Rene S. Bloch relates the negative statements of Tacitus to the anti-Jewish discourse of the Flavian era and their influence on Western attitudes to Jews and Judaism. Antike Vorstellungen vom Judentum: Der Judenexcursus des Tacitus im Rahmen der Griechisch-Roemischen Ethnographie  (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 221-223. [German]
    On Greek and Roman attitudes to Jews and Judaism see E. Gabba, "The Growth of anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards Jews," in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. II: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614-656; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), especially 123-176; Peter Schaefer, Judeophobia:  Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1997). On the origins of anti-Semitism in Egypt in the third century BCE and the circumstances of the first pogrom against Jews, which took place in Alexandria in 38 CE, and was perpetrated by its Greek majority see Manfred Gerstenfeld, Interview with P.W. van der Horst, "The Egyptian Beginning of Anti-Semitism's Long History," Post Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 62, 1 November 2007. 
    [6] Josephus, The Life; Against Apion, translated by H. St. John Thackery (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).  For a summary of the history, importance and contents of Against Apion see E. Schuerer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), I, 54-60. The most recent and thorough study of Against Apion is: Louis H. Feldman & John R. Levison, eds., Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context (Leiden:  Brill, 1996).
    [7]Josephus, Against Apion, II: 151-296.
    [8] Schuerer, I, 20-43, 63-68.  
    [9] Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I-III (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84).  My teacher and master, Professor Menahem Stern, of blessed memory, was professor of Jewish History of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Stern, a prolific scholar and expert in Greek and Latin texts, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist while on his way to the Hebrew University and National Library in Jerusalem in 1989. For an earlier, smaller anthology of Greek and Latin texts: Theodore Reinach, Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme  (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895). [French]
    [10]Arnaldo Dante Momigliano, "The Hellenistic Discovery of Judaism," in: Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 74-96. Momigliano states that "by the end of the sixth century B.C., they were already writing books on ethnography and geography," 74.
    According to Bloch, passim., 222, Greek and Roman ethnographers related to the Jews differently than they did to other ancient peoples whose dress, habitations, climate, and weaponry were discussed at length.
    [11] Herodotus, Historiae II, 104:3; Stern, I, No. 1,,2.
    [12] On the twentieth-century Palestinian Arab adoption and use of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" as labels of ethnic identification, which originally and for millennia were geographical terms see Bernard Lewis, "The Palestinians and the PLO:  A Historical Approach," Commentary, 59 (January, 1975), 32-48. Lewis notes that the Roman renamed Judea "Syria-Palestina" and Jerusalem as "Aelia Capitolina" in 137 CE, in order to "stamp out the embers not only of the [Bar Kokhba] revolt but of Jewish nationhood and statehood ... with the same intention - of obliterating its historic Jewish identity," 32.  
    [13] For a summary of scholarly interpretations of the varied reactions of Jews to the impact of Hellenism and the significance of Hellenization in Jewish history of the Second Temple and Talmudic periods see L. Levine, "Hellenism and the Jewish World of Antiquity," Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence (Seattle:  University of Washington Press, 1998), 3-32.
    [14] Momigliano, 90-91; Johanan Hans Lewy, "Aristotle and the Jewish Sage," in: Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Hebrew: Olamot Nifgashim) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1969), 15-43; Josephus, Against Apion, I, 176-183; Stern, I, VII, no. 15, 47-52.
    [15] On the anti-Exodus narrative as a major motif of Greco-Roman anti-Semitism: Van der Horst; Schaefer, 15-33.  Momigliano, 91-95, holds that the Greek authors either did not know of the account of the Exodus in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Torah or refused to acknowledge its historicity. In contrast, Erich S. Gruen maintains that these tales were not part of a concerted pagan anti-Jewish campaign and they "do not derive from Egyptian distortion of Jewish legend, but the reverse, Jewish inventiveness expropriated Egyptian myth." ("The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story," Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 41-73, especially 71-73. Gruen's argument, however, is neither relevant nor convincing as it is clear that the oft-repeated anti-Exodus tales indeed formed part of the essential underpinning for anti-Judaism and Jew-hatred in the Greco-Roman world. For a reaction to Gruen, see John J. Collins, "Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt," Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 44-57 and 191-193.   
    [16] The anti-Exodus  texts by Hecataeus: Aegyptiaca, in: Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica  XL:3  (Photius, Cod. 244)  Stern, I, V, no. 11, 1-8; pp. 20-35; in: Against Apion I, 183-204; Stern, I, V, no.12, pp.35-44; and by  Manetho, in: Against Apion I, 73-91, 93-105, 228-252; Stern, I,  X, nos.19-21, 66-86.  On theories concerning the date of the texts attributed to Hecataeus, see Note 21.
    [17] Van der Horst, op.cit.
    [18] Daniel R. Schwartz, "Introduction," Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1992), 10-15, attributes the wide-spread phenomenon of conversion to Judaism, a way of life and set of beliefs which transcended territorial boundaries, to the influence of the massive acculturation to Hellenism throughout the Mediterranean world, whereby one could become Hellenized without living in Greece. On the attraction of Judaism and the success of proselytism among Greeks and Romans see Feldman, 177-341. J.H. Lewy, "The Second Temple Period in Light of Greek and Roman Literature", op.cit., 3-14, argues the crises which stimulated  anti-Jewish writing were the influx of Jews into Ptolemaic Egypt during the third century BCE, the triumph of the Hasmonean dynasty (mid-late second century BCE) against the Greek Seleucids, Hasmonean policies toward Greeks,  the subjugation of formerly Greek dominions to the Romans, and the crisis fomented by Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula's insistence on worshipping his statue. Later Roman intellectuals perceived attraction to Judaism and Jewish missionary activity as undermining their traditional way of life. Repeating the anti-Exodus material in order to support his campaign against the rights of Jews, Apion led the Greek delegation to the Emperor Gaius Caligula (37-41CE) during the period of inter-ethnic crisis in Alexandria, aggravated by the Imperial policies and the pogrom of 38 CE. On Alexandria, see: Van der Horst op.cit; Schaefer, Judeophobia, 136-160; and Collins, "Anti-Semitism in Antiquity? The Case of Alexandria," op.cit., 181-201.   
    [19] Tacitus, Historiae V: 4:1, Stern, II, XCII, no. 281,19, 25. According to Bloch, 221-223, Tacitus' excursus on the Jews reflects the anti-Jewish discourse of the Flavian era and beliefs in the superiority of the Roman Empire. See Goodman, 453 ff. Erich S. Gruen, however, downplays any notion of a "long-simmering hostility" as the basis of anti-Jewish expression in the wake of the revolt in Judea and attributes negative Roman attitudes to the shock of the challenge of a "laughable" people. Gruen, "Roman Perspectives on the Jews in the Age of the Great Revolt," in Andrea M. Berlin & J. Andrew Overman, The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, Ideology  (London: Routledge, 2002), 27-39.    
    [20] Manetho's references to Jerusalem come from his Aegyptiaca, refuted by Josephus in Against Apion I, 90; I, 93; I, 228; Stern, I, X, no.19, 68-69; no. 20, 74-75; no. 21, 78,81,83.
    [21] Hecataeus, in Stern, I, V, no. 11, 26-28. According to Stern (I, 20-24), Hecataeus wrote in c. 300 BCE. His Aegyptiaca comes down to us from the first century B.C.E. work of Diodorus Siculus via the tenth-century Bibliotheca of Photius. Diodorus may have altered the original text. In Against Apion I, 183-204, Josephus includes a selection entitled "On the Jews" by Hecataeus, which was regarded as the earliest Greek description of the Temple and Jerusalem. Several scholars have challenged the authenticity of the passages in Josephus. Stern presents the commonly accepted opinion that "Josephus had before him a Jewish revision, however slight" which was more pro-Jewish than the original Hecataeus (I, 23-24). However, an exhaustive study of the material which Josephus attributes to Hecataeus, asserts that it was written by an Egyptian Jew of the late second- early first century BCE and not by Hecataeus at all, see Bezalel Bar Kochba, Pseudo-Hecataeus' On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), especially 110-121, 249-252. This view suits Erich S. Gruen's later thesis (Note 15), although it is not universally accepted. See also Bloch, 29-36.
    [22] On Moses in pagan writing: Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 232-287. On the Greek logic behind the identity of the founder of the religion, conqueror of the land and builder of the shrine see Bloch, 34, Note 38. Josephus, Against Apion II: 154-178, 352-365. Josephus argues that Moses is the oldest legislator in human history and that his laws are superior to those of other peoples and they are accessible to all.
    [23] Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica XXXIV, 1: 1,2, 3, in : Stern, I, XXXII, no. 63.
    [24] Lysimachus, in: Against Apion I, 304-311; Stern, I, LXII, no.158, 383-386. Stern notes that Lysimachus' reference to "Hierosyla" is an example of the etymology of a name of a nation (386, no.311).
    [25] Tacitus, Historiae V, 2:1-2; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 17-18, 24-25. Stern points out that Tacitus' references to "Hierosolymus "and "Iuda" resemble those of his contemporary Plutarch (33, Note 2:2).  For Plutarch: Stern, I, XCI, No. 259, 563..
    [26] Tacitus, Historiae V, 3: 1-5:5; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 18-19, 25-27. 
    [27] Tacitus, Historiae V, 6:1-13:4; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 19-23, 27-31. Bloch, 102-107, points out correctly that Tacitus devotes hardly any attention to the political history of Judea prior to the Great Revolt, siege of Jerusalem by Titus. It simply did not interest him. The otherness of the Jewish religion, which he knew from the Jews of Rome, however, merited his critique (Bloch, 222-223). 
    [28] Menander of Ephesus, in Against Apion I, 126; Stern, I, XX, no.35, 120-121; Dius, in Against Apion I, 114-115; Stern, I, XXI, No. 36, 124-125; Laetus, in Stern, I, XXIII, No.39, 128-129. Perhaps these authors were acquainted with the Biblical account which describes the relationship between Solomon and Hiram and the latter's role in providing materials for the Temple or obtained their information from an unknown Phoenician source.
    [29] Hecataeus "On the Jews", in Against Apion I, 198-199; Stern, I, V, No.12, 36-37, 39. See Note 21 on the problems relating to this passage. Bar Kochba, 153-154, 160-168, states that the author, Pseudo-Hecataeus, an Egyptian Jew at the turn of the first century BCE, based his description on Greek literary models of temples and was acquainted with pagan temples and their surroundings. Therefore, the Temple in Jerusalem is not the structure described in the text. 
    [30] Tacitus, Historiae V:12:1 (Stern, II, XCII, no. 281) 22,30.
    [31] Hecataeus, in Diodorus, Aegyptiaca, Bibliotheca Historica XL, 3, 4-6; Stern, I, V, No. 11, 26-28.
    [32] Livy, in Stern, I, XLVI, No. 133, 330. Tacitus, Historiae V: 8:1, 9:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. Tacitus relates that only after Pompey's invasion of the Temple in 63BCE did the emptiness of the sanctuary become common knowledge. He does not repeat the Greek calumnies and rumors about the sanctuary.
    [33] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 17:2-3; Stern, II, CXXII, No.406, 349, 351.
    [34] Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, XXXIV:2-4; Stern, I, XXXII, No.63, 182-183. On the pagan accusation of Jewish ass worship see Schaefer, 58-62.
    [35] This account differs from the Jewish versions of Antiochus IV invasion of Jerusalem and desecration of the Temple of I and II Maccabees. While all stress Antiochus' attempts to abolish Jewish practices, Diodorus states that after taking tribute from the Jews and dismantling the walls of Jerusalem, he left the Jews alone. He does not mention the Jews led by Judah the Maccabee taking the Temple from Antiochus' soldiers and supporters and consecrating it.
    [36] Posidonius, in: Against Apion II, 80, 89-96; Stern, I, XXVIII, No. 44, 145-146; Apollonius Molon, in: Against Apion II, 80, 89-96; Stern, I, XXIX, No. 48, 12-154; Apion, in: Against Apion II, 80-90-96; Stern, I, LXIII, no.170, 408-412.
    [37] Ibid.
    [38] Ibid.
    [39] An explanation of the origins of Apion's accusation of cannibalism on the part of the Jews may be found in Stern, I, 412, Note 89. See also Schaefer, 62-67. Periodic kidnapping and killing of a Gentile, of course, occurs in the medieval blood libels, the first of which took place in Norwich, England in 1144. There are vast differences between Apion's claims and the context of blood libels in Europe, in which innocent Christian children appear as the victims, murdered by Jews who use their blood for Passover rituals.
    [40] Cicero, Pro Flacco 28:66-69; Stern, I, XXXIV, No.68, 196-201. On Cicero's attitude to the Jews see J. Lewy, "Cicero and the Jews in the Pro Flacco," op.cit., 79-114. According to Feldman, 70, the Jews were so loyal to Jerusalem and the Temple that they were prepared to defy a Roman edict and send large sums of money to the Temple.
    [41] Tacitus, Historiae V, 5:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 19, 26.  Both Bloch, 93 and Feldman, 110, state that the fact that the numerous proselytes also paid the annual half-shekel to the Temple in Jerusalem resulted in the accumulation of vast sums of money collected throughout the Empire and sent to the Temple treasury, thus causing Gentile envy of Jewish wealth and antipathy toward converts to Judaism.
    [42] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 21, 28.
    [43] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:2; Stern, ibid.
    [44]Against Apion I, 209-211; Stern, I, XVII, No. 30a, 106-107.
    [45] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 15:2:1-4: Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. Josephus praises and describes at length the fact that the Jews did not put up defenses around Jerusalem during Pompey's campaign in order not to desecrate the Sabbath and thus facilitated his invasion of the city and the Temple (Jewish War I: 145-147; Jewish Antiquities XIV: 63-65).
    [46] On the Feast of Tabernacles:  Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales IV: 6:2, in: Stern, I, XCI, No.258, .553-554, 557-558. On Plutarch's description of the festival: Schaefer, 53-54.
    [47] Plutarch, Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata; Stern I, XCI, No. 260, 563-564. For a similar reference to the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes on the Feast of Tabernacles see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XIII: 242-248. Josephus, however, points out that Antiochus withdrew the siege, whereas Plutarch states that the Jews were amazed and placed themselves in his hands.
    [48] Livy, Periochae CII; Stern, I, XLVI, No. 131, 329.
    [49] Cicero states that Pompey "'laid his victorious hands on nothing in that shrine,'"Pro Flacco 28:67; Stern, I, XXXIV, No. 68, 196-197; Tacitus, Historiae V, 9:1; Stern, II, XCII, No.281, 21, 28, notes that during Pompey's invasion "the walls of Jerusalem were razed and the Temple remained standing." Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 15:2:1-4; Stern, II, CXXII, no. 406, 349-350, briefly describes the difficulty of capturing the Temple, but unlike the others, writes that "its wealth was plundered." In both the Jewish War I: 152-153 and Jewish Antiquities XIV: 72, Josephus praises Pompey's virtuous character and the fact that he touched none of the gold and Temple vessels.
    [50] Tacitus; Stern, II, XCII, Nos. 273-294,1-93; Cassius Dio; Stern, II, CXXII, Nos. 406-441, 345-407. On Tacitus' depiction of Vespasian and Titus in light of the Jewish revolt, see Bloch, 137-142.
    [51] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, "Divus Titus" 5:2; Stern, II, XCIV, No. 317, 125-126.
    [52] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana  LXIX, 12:1; Stern, II, CXXII, No. 440, 391-392.
    [53] Against Apion I: 197; Stern, I, V, No. 12, 36, 39. Bar Kochba, 110-113, argues that this description of a walled and fortified city serves as part of the proof of a later date and a different author of the passage attributed to Hecataeus by Josephus.
    [54] Against Apion I:209; Stern, I, XVII, No. 30a, 106-107.
    [55] Timochares, in: Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX:35:1; Stern, I, XXV, No. 41, 135. Stern explains the source of the exaggerated figures.
    [56] Xenophon of Lampsascus, inPE IX: 36:1; Stern, I, XXVI, No. 42, 138.
    [57] Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia V:71: Stern, I, LXXVIII, No. 204, 469, 471-472.
    [58] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. On Tacitus' physical description of Judea and Jerusalem in comparison with his geographical data about other locations, see Bloch, 101-102.
    [59] Tacitus, Historiae V, 11:3; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 22, 30. The most detailed physical description of Jerusalem and the Temple prior to the siege of Titus may be found in Josephus, The Jewish War, V, 136-247.
    [60] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana  LXVI, 4:1; Stern, II, CXXII, No. 430,  371, 373.
    [61] Valerius Flaccus , Argonautica, I, 14; Stern, I, LXXIX, No. 226, 504-505; Martial, Epigrammata, VII,82, 7; Stern, I, LXXXIV, No. 242, 526.
    [62] Juvenal, Saturae, VI, 542-544; Stern, II, XCIII, No. 299, 100-101. On the threat of Judaism as perceived by the Romans: Stern II, 94-95,106-107. Both Tacitus and Juvenal, displayed their contempt for proselytes (Bloch, 134-135) and their dislike of all peoples, whether Jews, Germans or Greeks, who did not behave like Romans (Goodman, 110, 160; Bloch, 136-137).
    *     *     *
    Rivkah Fishman-Duker is a Lecturer in Jewish history at the Rothberg International School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel School of Tourism. She teaches courses on the Second Temple and Talmudic (Roman\Byzantine) periods in both institutions and has published several articles on Byzantine historiography of Jews in the ancient period and numerous book reviews of scholarly works on ancient Jewish and Byzantine history.   


      Jewish World Review
    Nov. 13, 2008 / 15 Mar-Cheshvan 5769

    Iran Returns to the Global Stage
    By George Friedman

    After a three-month hiatus, Iran seems set to re-emerge near the top of the U.S. agenda. Last week, the Iranian government congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on his Nov. 4 electoral victory. This marks the first time since the Iranian Revolution that such greetings have been sent.

    While it seems trivial, the gesture is quite significant. It represents a diplomatic way for the Iranians to announce that they regard Obama's election as offering a potential breakthrough in 30 years of U.S. relations with Iran. At his press conference, Obama said he does not yet have a response to the congratulatory message, and reiterated that he opposes Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism. The Iranians returned to criticizing Obama after this, but without their usual passion.


    The warming of U.S.-Iranian relations did not begin with Obama's election; it began with the Russo-Georgian War. In the weeks and months prior to the August war, the United States had steadily increased tensions with Iran. This process proceeded along two tracks.

    On one track, the United States pressed its fellow permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) and Germany to join Washington in imposing additional sanctions on Iran. U.S. Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns joined a July 19 meeting between EU foreign policy adviser Javier Solana and Iranian national security chief Saeed Jalili, which was read as a thaw in the American position on Iran. The Iranian response was ambiguous, which is a polite way of saying that Tehran wouldn't commit to anything. The Iranians were given two weeks after the meeting to provide an answer or face new sanctions.

    A second track consisted of intensified signals of potential U.S. military action. Recall the carefully leaked report published in The New York Times on June 20 regarding Israeli preparations for airstrikes against Iran. According to U.S. — not Israeli — sources, the Israeli air force rehearsed for an attack on Iran by carrying out a simulated attack over Greece and the eastern Mediterranean Sea involving more than 100 aircraft.

    At the same time, reports circulated about Israeli planes using U.S. airfields in Iraq in preparation for an attack on Iran. The markets and oil prices — at a high in late July and early August — were twitching with reports of a potential blockade of Iranian ports, while the Internet was filled with lurid reports of a fleet of American and French ships on its way to carry out the blockade. The temperature in U.S.-Iranian relations was surging, at least publicly. Then Russia and Georgia went to war, and Iran suddenly dropped off the U.S. radar screen. Washington went quiet on the entire Iranian matter, and the Israelis declared that Iran was two to five years from developing a nuclear device (as opposed to a deliverable weapon), reducing the probability of an Israeli airstrike. From Washington's point of view, the bottom fell out of U.S. policy on Iran when the Russians and Georgians opened fire on each other.


    There were two reasons for this.

    First, Washington had no intention of actually carrying out airstrikes against Iran. The United States was far too tied down in other areas to do that. Nor did the Israelis intend to attack. The military obstacles to what promised to be a multiday conventional strike against Iranian targets more than a thousand miles away were more than a little daunting. Nevertheless, generating that threat of such a strike suited U.S. diplomacy. Washington wanted not only to make Iran feel threatened, but also to increase Tehran's isolation by forging the U.N. Security Council members and Germany into a solid bloc imposing increasingly painful sanctions on Iran.

    Once the Russo-Georgian War broke out, however, and the United States sided publicly and vigorously with Georgia, the chances of the Russians participating in such sanctions against Iran dissolved. As the Russians rejected the idea of increased sanctions, so did the Chinese. If the Russians and Chinese weren't prepared to participate in sanctions, no sanctions were possible, because the Iranians could get whatever they needed from these two countries.

    The second reason was more important. As U.S.-Russian relations deteriorated, each side looked for levers to control the other. For the Russians, one of the best levers with the Americans was the threat of selling weapons to Iran. From the U.S. point of view, not only would weapon sales to Iran make it more difficult to attack Iran, but the weapons would find their way to Hezbollah and other undesirable players. The United States did not want the Russians selling weapons, but the Russians were being unpredictable. Therefore, while the Russians had the potential to offer Iran weapons, the United States wanted to reduce Iran's incentive for accepting those weapons.

    The Iranians have a long history with the Russians, including the occupation of northern Iran by Russia during World War II. The Russians are close to Iran, and the Americans are far away. Tehran's desire to get closer to the Russians is therefore limited, although under pressure Iran would certainly purchase weapons from Russia, just as it has purchased nuclear technology in the past. With the purchase of advanced weapons would come Russian advisers — something that might not be to Iran's liking unless it were absolutely necessary.

    The United States did not want to give Iran a motive for closing an arms deal with Russia, leaving aside the question of whether the Russian threat to sell weapons was anything more than a bargaining chip with the Americans. With Washington rhetorically pounding Russia, pounding Iran at the same time made no sense. For one thing, the Iranians, like the Russians, knew the Americans were spread too thin. Also, the United States suddenly had to reverse its position on Iran. Prior to Aug. 8, Washington wanted the Iranians to feel embattled; after Aug. 8, the last thing the United States wanted was for the Iranians to feel under threat. In a flash, Iran went from being the most important issue on the table to being barely mentioned.


    Different leaks about Iran started to emerge. The Bush administration posed the idea of opening a U.S. interest section in Iran, the lowest form of diplomatic recognition (but diplomatic recognition nonetheless). This idea had been floated June 23, but now it was being floated after the Russo-Georgian War. The initial discussion of the interest section seemed to calm the atmosphere, but the idea went away.

    Then, just before U.S. presidential elections in November, the reports re-emerged, this time in the context of a new administration. According to the leaks, U.S. President George W. Bush intended to open diplomatic relations with Iran after the election regardless of who won, in order to free the next president from the burden of opening relations with Iran. In other words, if Obama won, Bush was prepared to provide cover with the American right on an opening to Iran.

    If we take these leaks seriously — and we do — this means Bush has concluded that a formal opening to Iran is necessary. Indeed, the Bush administration has been operating on this premise ever since the U.S. troop surge in Iraq. Two things were clear to the Bush administration in 2007: first, that the United States had to make a deal with the Iraqi Sunni nationalist insurgents; and second, that while the Iranians might not be able to impose a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, Tehran had enough leverage with enough Iraq Shiite factions to disrupt Iraq, and thus disrupt the peace process. Therefore, without an understanding with Iran, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be difficult and full of potentially unpleasant consequences, regardless of who is in the White House.

    The issue of Iran's nuclear program was part of this negotiation. The Iranians were less interested in building a nuclear weapon than in having the United States believe they were building one. As Tehran learned by observing the U.S. reaction to North Korea, Washington has a nuclear phobia. Tehran thus hoped it could use the threat of a nuclear program to force the United States to be more forthcoming on Iranian interests in Iraq, a matter of fundamental importance to Iran. At the same time, the United States had no appetite for bombing Iran, but used the threat of attacks as leverage to get the Iranians to be more tractable.

    The Iranians in 2007 withdrew their support from destabilizing elements in Iraq like Muqtada al-Sadr, contributing to a dramatic decline in violence in Iraq. In return, Iran wanted to see an American commitment to withdraw from Iraq on a set timetable. Washington was unprepared to make that commitment. Current talks over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Washington and Baghdad revolve around just this issue. The Iraqi Shia are demanding a fixed timetable, while the Kurds and Sunnis — not to mention foreign governments like Saudi Arabia — seem to be more comfortable with a residual U.S. force in place to guarantee political agreements.

    The Shia are clearly being influenced by Iran on the SOFA issue, as their interests align. The Sunnis and Kurds, however, fear this agreement. In their view, the withdrawal of U.S. forces on a fixed timetable will create a vacuum in Iraq that the Iranians eventually will fill, at the very least by having a government in Baghdad that Tehran can influence. The Kurds and Sunnis are deeply concerned about their own security in such an event. Therefore, the SOFA is not moving toward fruition.

    There is a fundamental issue blocking the agreement. The United States has agreed to an Iraqi government that is neutral between Washington and Tehran. That is a major defeat for the United States, but an unavoidable one under the circumstances. But a U.S. withdrawal without a residual force means that the Iranians will be the dominant force in the region, and this is not something United States — along with the Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis, the Saudis and Israelis — wants. Therefore the SOFA remains in gridlock, with the specter of Russian-Iranian ties complicating the situation.

    Obama's position during the election was that he favored a timed U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but he was ambiguous about whether he would want a residual force kept there. Clearly, the Shia and Iranians are more favorably inclined toward Obama than Bush because of Obama's views on a general withdrawal by a certain date and the possibility of a complete withdrawal. This means that Obama must be extremely careful politically. The American political right is wounded but far from dead, and it would strike hard if it appeared Obama was preparing to give Iran a free hand in Iraq.

    One possible way for Obama to proceed would be to keep Russia and Iran from moving closer together. Last week, Obama's advisers insisted their camp has made no firm commitments on ballistic missile defense (BMD) installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, repudiating claims by Polish President Lech Kaczynski that the new U.S. president-elect had assured him of firm support during a Nov. 8 phone conversation. This is an enormous issue for the Russians. It is not clear in how broad of a context the idea of avoiding firm commitments on BMD was mentioned, but it might go a long way toward keeping Russia happy and therefore making Moscow less likely to provide aid — material or psychological — to the Iranians. Making Iran feel as isolated as possible, without forcing it into dependence on Russia, is critical to a satisfactory solution for the United States in Iraq.

    Complicating this are what appear to be serious political issues in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been attacked for his handling of the economy. He has seen an ally forced from the Interior Ministry and the head of the Iranian central bank replaced. Ahmadinejad has even come under criticism for his views on Israel, with critics saying that he has achieved nothing and lost much through his statements. He therefore appears to be on the defensive.

    The gridlock in Baghdad is not over a tedious diplomatic point, but over the future of Iraq and its relation to Iran. At the same time, there appears to be a debate going on in Iran over whether Ahmadinejad's policies have improved the outlook for Iran's role in Iraq. Finally, any serious thoughts the Iranians might have had about cozying up to the Russians have dissipated since August, and Obama might have made them even more distant. Still, Obama's apparent commitment to a timed, complete withdrawal of U.S. forces poses complexities. His advisers have already hinted at flexibility on these issues.

    We think that Bush will — after all his leaks — smooth the way for Obama by opening diplomatic relations with Iran. From a political point of view, this will allow Bush to take some credit for any breakthrough. But from the point of view of U.S. national interest, going public with conversations that have taken place privately over the past couple of years (along with some formal, public meetings in Baghdad) makes a great deal of sense. It could possibly create an internal dynamic in Iran that would force Ahmadinejad out, or at least weaken him. It could potentially break the logjam over the SOFA in Baghdad, and it could even stabilize the region.

    The critical question will not be the timing of the U.S. withdrawal. It will be the residual force — whether an American force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops will remain to guarantee that Iran does not have undue influence in Iraq, and that Sunni and Kurdish interests are protected. Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, and he promised to withdraw all U.S. troops. He might have to deal with the fact that he can have the former only if he compromises on the latter. But he has left himself enough room for maneuver that he can do just that. It seems clear that Iran will now return to the top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. If Bush re-establishes formal diplomatic relations with Iran at some level, and if Obama responds to Iranian congratulations in a positive way, then an interesting dynamic will be in place well before Inauguration Day.

    Bush wants to make a move that saves some of his legacy; Obama knows he will have to deal with Iran and even make concessions. Obama also knows the political price he will have to pay if he does. If Bush makes the first move, it will make things politically easier for Obama. Obama can afford to let Bush take the first step if it makes the subsequent steps easier for the Obama administration. But first, there must be an understanding between Bush and Obama. Then can there be an understanding between the United States and Iran, and then there can be an understanding among Iraqi Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. And then history can move on.

    There are many understandings in the way of history.


      Dear Friends,

    As we are writing this email, we have been told that the Supreme Court has announced its decision regarding Bet Hashalom in Hebron: despite the fact that the Jews brought all the proofs necessary to prove that Bet Hashalom was properly and legally bought, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered to evict the Jewish legal owners. The Jewish residents have three days to leave willingly, otherwise the government will evacuate them by force.

    We will update you as to what decisions are taken in the next few hours by the Kiryat Arba Hevron leadership. Meanwhile, it is very fitting that Women in Green just came out with a new booklet: "The Cain Syndrome", the violent history of the Leftist Establishment's Dirty War Against the Right"

    Women in Green hope to find the funds to print and distribute this booklet in thousands of copies in Hebrew, English and Russian. Meanwhile the booklet, below, will be put on our website. We urge you to forward this message to as many people as you can.

    The time has come once and for all to stop the persecution of the leftist establishment in Israel against the national camp!

    Ruth Matar ­ Nadia Matar- Anita Finkelstein
    Women in Green

    November 2008

    The Cain Syndrome
    The Violent History of the Leftist Establishment's Dirty War Against the Right 1904-2008

    It feels like deja vu, but it's a real and recurrent pattern in Zionist history: when the Leftist establishment in Eretz Yisrael feels its hold on power being threatened by the Right, it abandons democratic principles and methods for Bolshevik ones. The leftist arsenal is full of dirty tricks -- from disinformation to outright murder ­ but because the Israeli media and the cultural and academic elites have always been dominated by the Left, the Left’s war against the Right is one Israeli war that has never been properly publicized.

    As the Olmert-Barak-Livni government, riven with corruption and in-fighting, conducts a close-out liquidation sale of the Jewish Nation'€™s geographic, strategic, and spiritual assets, what alarm is being sounded? A familiar alarm about the danger to the State posed by the incitement and violence of the "extreme"€� right.

    Government forces come in the dead of night, drag the Federman family with nine children from their beds, beating and cursing them, and destroy their home together with all their possessions. When a neighbor overcome by outrage and grief curses the destroyers, a siren is sounded throughout the state that wails out the threat of the "dangerous" settlers. Israel'€™s citizens are expected to suspend their normal cognitive activities, redefine the enemy, and stand at attention.

    The confluence of the approaching elections and the remembrance day for Yitzchak Rabin, marked annually as a day of hatred and incitement against the Right, is now occasioning another hunting season or 'Saison',€� the actual name of the pre-state persecutions of the Revisionist Right. Women in Green has chosen to mark this occasion by laying out the historical record of who is violent and who threatens democracy so the public will not be duped by the government’s tried and true blood libels.

    This booklet by historian Aryeh Yitzchaki is a brief abstract of his soon-to-be-published book on the subject. Its sketchiness is dictated by its brevity, so readers wishing to know more are advised to consult the publications listed in the Hebrew bibliography at the end.

    Women in Green want to thank our dear friend and member Timna Katz for the translation of the booklet into English.

    May we soon merit new leadership in Israel -- a real Jewish leadership that will serve the interests of the Jewish people in their land.

    Women in Green

    "The Mark of Cain"
    A History of Leftist Violence and the Incitement Against the National Camp In Israel
    1904 ­ 2008
    by Aryeh Yitzchaki

    During a century of Zionist history, the Left has gone to great lengths to prevent the Right from attaining leadership. The leftist factions generally utilized a two-pronged strategy to defeat their political opponents: by labeling their victims as public enemies, they justified their physical persecution. They kidnapped, tortured, beat, and murdered men on the Right and then congratulated themselves for their crimes.

    The Murder of Da-Haan

    Leftist violence started with verbal followed by physical attacks on leaders of the farmer communities of the First and Second Aliyah by workers of the left. It continued with the extradition of the Nili underground espionage network and with the failed murder attempt of the "Hashomer" organization on Yosef Lishanski, one of the Nili leaders. There were other political assassinations, such as the murder of chareidi politician Dr. Israel Da-Haan in Jerusalem in 1924 by Haganah commanders in Jerusalem led by Avraham Tehomi. Commanders of the Haganah also stole weapons from the warehouses of the rival "Haganah Leumit" organization.

    Vicious Attacks Against Beitar Members

    A new level of organized thuggery was reached with the savage beatings of Beitar Movement members all over the country by "Plugot HaPoel" groups belonging to the Histadrut. A typical attack took place during Passover of 1933, when hundreds of men armed with clubs and metal bars fell upon a group of Beitar youth, aged 12 to 14. Twenty-four children, some of them badly wounded, were hospitalized.

    The Arlozorov Blood Libel

    In June 1933, Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Arlozorov was murdered. Three innocent men, Abba Achimeir, Avraham Stavsky, and Meir Rosenblatt, were charged with the crime when their only real crime was their membership in Beitar.

    Kidnappings, Torture, and the Murder of Eliyahu Shlomi

    The war against the Revisionists continued in 1939 with the kidnapping and torture of Irgun men. The attacks climaxed with an attack by hundreds of thugs on a Beitar camp in Hertzliya on August 18, 1940. Eliyahu Shlomi was murdered and seven of his friends were wounded.

    The Small Saison

    In April of 1942, a new red line was crossed. The Shai, the intelligence service of the Haganah, organized a manhunt in which dozens of Lechi fighters were kidnapped, cruelly tortured, and finally extradited to the British. This ugly operation was called "The Small Saison (hunting season)".€�

    The Big Saison

    Between November 1944 and January 1945, the "anti-terrorist unit"€� of the Haganah kidnapped, tortured, and handed over about 200 Irgun fighters to the British. Most of the men were expelled to holding camps in Africa. The man responsible for this operation, called "The Big Saison," was David Ben-Gurion. The operation’s commanders were Yigal Alon followed by Shimon Avidan. Sadistic interrogators under the command of David Shaltiel beat and tortured their prisoners with terrible brutality. Irgun commander Ya'akov Tavin was held in a barn in Ein Harod for six months, handcuffed to a bed, where he was forced to defecate and urinate. Before interrogations he was sprayed with hoses; during interrogations the nails of his fingers and toes were torn out, his limbs were scorched with white-hot metal, and other horrors too graphic to describe were perpetrated.

    Teddy Kollek the Collaborator

    In the years that followed, the Haganah continued to hand over Jewish fighters to the British and to sabotage Irgun operations. Teddy Kollek, who liasoned with the British in his capacity of Jewish Agency communications officer, was a prominent collaborator. The Haganah led the British to the hiding place of the Lehi fighters Menachem Luntz and Shabtai Druker in Moshav Yavne'el on April 6, 1943. The fighters were surrounded and fought bravely to their death.

    The Second Small Saison

    Acts of kidnapping and torture continued in 1947 ("The Second Small Saison"). On January 11, 1948, two Irgun fighters, Yedidya Segal and Moshe Levi, were kidnapped in Haifa. Yedidya was brutally tortured to death by men of the special forces of the Haganah. Moshe Levi was injected with dangerous chemicals meant to act as a "truth serum" that irreversibly damaged his health. He was released after the murder of Yedidya Segal was exposed.

    On April 8, 1948, twelve Irgun men sent to reinforce Mishmar Hayarden were attacked next to Ginnosar by a Palmach force of 100 men. They were savagely beaten and their weapons were confiscated. Mishmar Hayarden was left with no reinforcements, helping the Syrians to conquer the moshav later in the war.

    The Altalena Massacre

    In June 1948, the newly formed provisional government of Israel ordered the newly established Israeli Defense Forces to open fire on the Altalena, an Irgun ship carrying 900 immigrants, including Holocaust survivors, and arms to fight the battle of Jerusalem. Most of the immigrants barely managed to jump from the ship before it was blown up off the shore of Tel Aviv. Senior Palmach commander Yitzchak Rabin gave the order to open fire. Aside from bombing the ammo-heavy ship with cannons, sniper fire was directed at people in the water who were trying to reach land from the burning ship. Sixteen Irgun men were murdered in the attack, and hundreds of Jewish volunteers coming to Israel to fight the Arab enemy were arrested and humiliated.

    Murdered by the Shai

    During the War of Independence, two Irgun men were murdered without trial by the Shai, the Haganah'€™s intelligence branch. They were suspected of unintentionally killing Haganah men in an operation against the British in 1947. The Irgun men were fighting as soldiers in the 3rd and 9th Brigades of the united Israeli army. While battling the Arab enemy, they were shot in the back to make it appear that they were killed in combat.

    After the Creation of the State

    Unfortunately, once the State came into being, the dominant Mapai party did not call for national reconciliation and unity. Instead, the Left's suppression of the Right moved from physical violence to civil and social discrimination. In the 50's, Irgun and Lehi fighters were prosecuted, ostracized, and banned from employment or advancement in many areas of public life. It was difficult for them to find jobs, and they were barred from joining the security forces.

    The Kastner Blood Libel

    The Shai created fictitious underground organizations so they could cook up new blood libels against the Right. When Israel Kastner was murdered by agents of the Shai on March 4, 1957, the murder was pinned on a fictitious right-wing underground movement.

    The Likud'€™s rise to power in May 1977 put a temporary end to the incitement against the Right. For the first time in 44 years, the Left was in the opposition and briefly on the defense. But if the Left feared that once in power, the Right would treat it as it treated the Right, they quickly discovered that Menachem Begin truly sought a government of national reconciliation and unity. The Left, never interested in reconciliation but only in power, bided its time.

    Oslo and the Renewed War Against the Right

    In 1993, Yitzchak Rabin became prime minister and signed the Oslo Agreement with mass murderer Yasser Arafat. Israel'€™s public enemy number one now became the "€œenemies of peace",€� those citizens opposed to Oslo, which included most prominently the Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. A campaign of hate and delegitimization was directed at the "settlers" which successfully marginalized them, preventing the growing mass public dissatisfaction with Oslo from becoming a decisive political force.

    Over the course of fifteen years, hundreds were arrested, beaten, and humiliated, thousands were harassed, and hundreds of thousands were intimidated. The government adopted methods such as fabricated criminal files, anti-democratic administrative detentions, and destruction of private property. It reached the point where ordinary civil and human rights were suspended when it came to those branded as "€œsettlers"€� or "right-wing extremists". This process, sanctioned by a politicized court system and a cheering media, successfully suppressed effective opposition to the anti-Zionist drift of a post-Zionist government.

    The (Anti-)Jewish Division of the Shabak

    Its name changed, but not its methods: the State'€™s intelligence branch was now called the Shabak instead of the Shai, but it continued to instigate operations designed to falsely discredit the Right. A special department was actually created for this purpose. The Shabak recruited agent provocateurs such as Avishai Raviv ("Champagne") who founded fake underground organizations like "Eyal" and incited unbalanced figures like Yigal Amir to violence ­ all for the purpose of destroying the legitimate and democratic opposition to Oslo and Israel's post-Zionist leadership. An entire population was dehumanized and demonized in the service of this goal.

    The Rabin Murder Blood Libel

    On November 4, 1995, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin was murdered by an apparently lone assassin with a strong connection to Shabak agent Avishai Raviv. The entire right wing public was blamed for the murder and its leadership was singled out for a campaign of legal harassment and public condemnation. Non-official investigations of the murder have advanced dramatically, and once their conclusions are published, they will dwarf the Arlozorov blood libel.

    The Expulsion

    In the summer of 2005, a crime of epic proportions was perpetrated against the Jewish People as a whole and against 8,000 of Israel's most loyal and productive citizens in particular. Bulldozers of the State of Israel destroyed twenty-five blossoming Jewish communities in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria, and soldiers of the Jewish State dragged 8,000 men, women, and children out of the homes and farms that they had diligently and lovingly built over the course of a generation. The campaign of degradation and vilification against the people of Gush Katif and Northern Samaria that preceded their exile was especially heartless and ugly.

    Once Gush Katif was handed over to Palestinian terrorists to use as a base for continued warfare against Israel, the leftist government announced "The Realignment Plan," an extension of the Gush Katif expulsion in Judea and Samaria. This plan called for the expulsion of another 70,000 Jews from their homes and the destruction of 60 additional towns and villages. While Israel's abysmal failure in the Second Lebanon War temporarily froze this plan, the Left has lately resumed its efforts.

    The Sternhall Provocation

    The blatant harassment of ideologically strong individuals and communities in Judea and Samaria who live quietly on their land and the glaring disregard for their civil and property rights has been the order of the day for the past few years. To justify the unjustifiable and to remind the public who Israel'€™s real enemy is in the wake of the approaching elections, it was time for a new blood libel against the Right. A leftist professor who has spent his career inciting violence against the "settlers"€� was attacked by some shadowy group that ­ surprise, surprise ­ appears to bear the hallmark of past Shabak fictions.

    A Second "Big Saison" Circa 2008?

    During these days the government has been issuing new decrees almost daily against the national camp in general and the citizens of Judea and Samaria in particular: expulsion orders, restriction orders, administrative detentions (indefinite imprisonment without legal process), police violence, the prohibition of demonstrations, cutting off water and electricity to Jewish settlements, the destruction of settlements ­ all accompanied by the familiar, strident denunciations of the “violent extremistsâ€� on the right.

    If the public makes clear that it knows what the real score is ­ who the violent ones really are and who is really trampling democracy ­ perhaps we can avoid a "New Big Saison" in 2008.


    Women In Green has noted the growth of a new phenomenon, a new tool in the Left'€™s bag of dirty tricks not mentioned in the inventory above: the government is allowing outsiders into Judea and Samaria to foment constant clashes and conflict. Foreign "anarchists"€� and anti-Israel activists of all stripes have banded together with Israeli traitors and Arab activists to stir up trouble and undermine the Israeli army presence and the state's security needs in Judea and Samaria.

    These groups are funded, whether secretly or openly, by foreign, anti-Zionistic and anti-Semitic organizations, often with the cooperation of Muslim and Arab terror organizations. They are protected by an unholy alliance within the government, the Israeli press, and the judicial system. They are encouraged by a cultural and intellectual elite that lauds Israel's enemies while excoriating her defenders.

    May the people of Israel rise above their sectarian quarrels and differences to address the huge existential threats to Israel'€™s existence in the coming elections.

    Distributed as a public service by Women for Israel's Tomorrow ­ Women in Green.
    Contact us to order booklets at

    Bibliography:(in Hebrew)

    Arieh Yitzhaki, "The Cain Syndrome" (to be printed in the coming months)
    Yehuda Lapidot, "The Saison"
    David Niv, The Irgun, 1965
    Shlomo Nakdimon, Altalena, 1978


      Successfully Attacking America
    by Emanuel A. Winston
    Freeman Center Middle East analyst & commentator

    Few realists are surprised that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are issuing threats that, in the coming months, attacks exceeding the destruction of 9/11 will be launched against American and European targets. I am certain that all counter-terrorism experts are burning the midnight oil, assembling lists of vulnerable targets, delivery systems of all the weapons of choice and who in our communities might be the sleeper cells who will be the attackers.

    We should add to that list what our leaders should be doing or what they should or could do - once the inevitable attacks commence.

    I am concerned that the new President Obama will waffle and do virtually nothing against whatever the radical extreme "Jihadists" (holy warriors for Islam) proclaim they will do. Most of Obama s staff of advisors are well-known to be pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, pacifists and various other profiles which indicate a tendency to do nothing, hoping that appeasement will halt the assault. The same would be true for PM Gordon Brown of England, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, among all the other countries of the E.U. As for the U.N., no doubt they would vote that the attacks against the West were justified - that the West has behaved badly and "deserves" to be attacked.

    What can we expect from sleeper Muslim Terrorists now in the U.S., courtesy of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department?

    The following is a brief list of likely possibilities:

    *Blow up radiation bombs (dirty bombs) in American cities, so prevailing winds will carry the deadly radioactive plume as far over population areas as possible.

    *Main targets would be financial districts, nuclear power plants to further the contamination, electric power plants, water treatment plants, chemical plants, airports, and other service based industries.

    *Full nuclear bombs, in addition to radiation (dirty) bombs.

    *"Jihadists" cells would likely hit rail stations, subways, schools, shopping malls, etc. in effect, closing down all systems of transportation and general transit.

    *Food disruption to cause famine and panic.

    *Fire-bomb supermarkets.

    Where wouLd the Islamo-Fascists get their main power to act as foot soldiers to do the small bombings, gassing of subways or spying out targets? The answer is that they are already here, assisted by the Arabist State Department to obtain visas to study at American universities where they study Nuclear Physics, Biology and Chemistry - all useful degrees to use back in their home countries.

    So how will they get materials and weapons into U.S. cities? American ports are virtually wide-open to container ships with minimum security. Making home-made bombs with fertilizer, fuel oil and a few other things they could make truck bombs like that which Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma.

    We can all recall how the blind Sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman used a similar truck bomb in his attempt to blow up the support columns of the World Trade Center in 1993.

    As I recall the FBI did a deliberately poor job in tracking the evidence, lest we insult our Islamic guests. This artful avoidance was elevated under President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who ordered the FBI to take sensitivity training classes so as not to insult Imams who themselves were conducting classes in their mosques and madrassas, that directed their students to hate Americans and their values.

    Recruiting of politicians to be funded and placed in positions of power with a step-by-step advancement in the U.S. political process. Not only are they expected to advance the cause of Islam but, wherever possible to interfere with police or intelligence actions against Muslim sleeper Terrorists. American law and the Court have proven to be useful tools for Islamic Terrorists and their supporting organizations.

    So, what is a sitting President like Barack Obama going to do if America is attacked with any or all of the methods mentioned above?

    Will Obama do as President Clinton did? Will he fire a few missiles at empty factories as a political show?

    Will Obama simply send envoys to sit down and talk? Will he send pacifist envoys such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer, known as Jim Baker s Jew-Boys?

    Will Obama send in the new Secretary of State (perhaps Hilary Clinton who is so well-known for entertaining Yassir Arafat at the White House) or (Bill Clinton who has received hundreds of millions from Muslim and Arab oil States for his Library)?

    In other words, will Obama avoid destroying Iran, Syria, Bin Laden s safe retreat in the Afghanistan area bordering Pakistan?

    Will Obama do nothing of consequence and accept the blow(s) merely as an opportunity to talk and negotiate the Terrorists to death?

    Regrettably, with the passage of time, the concept of useless appeasement has faded from the minds of leaders. We see Bush and Rice backing away from confronting Iran and Syria. Even the Israeli leaders seeing their territories assaulted by Muslim Arab Palestinian Terrorists wedded to the Koran and "Jihad" try to appease both Mahmoud Abbas s FAtah and America s Arabists - even as rockets fall daily on civilians in Southern Israel, the Negev desert s Kibbutzim.

    As is said: "There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see." Leaders of appeasement always have a deep, safe hole in which to save themselves and their families. It is us ordinary folk who are killed or maimed by enemies who can never be bribed to stay peaceful.

    G-d forbid America or Israel will be successfully attacked by "Jihadists" swearing allegiance to Allah as our leaders fail in their obligations to the people.

    ### Obama Warned of 'Huge' Terror Plot Friday, November 14, 2008 NEWSMAX.COM

    British security officials say intelligence experts are seriously concerned that al-Qaida will try to pull off a "spectacular" terrorist attack during the transition period from a Bush administration to an Obama administration.

    In fact, British Home Office Security Minister Sir Alan West raised the specter of a "huge threat" and noted that "There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this," according to the London Times.

    Bush administration officials also point out that terrorists have often struck during a time of official change:

    The first World Trade Center attack came just weeks after President Bill Clinton's inauguration in 1993.

    9/11 occurred less than a year after President George W. Bush took office in 2001.

    British officials thwarted nightclub and airport plots soon after Gordon Brown became prime minister in June 2007.

    Earlier this week, CIA Director Michael Hayden said that al-Qaida remains the single greatest threat to the United States.

    According to the Times, al-Qaida has been experimenting with biological weapons, such as anthrax.

    And Vice President-elect Joe Biden warned during the last month of the presidential election: "Watch, we re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle [of Obama]. And then he said: "I guarantee it."

    2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


    By David Basch
    November 18, 2008

    Studying the Wall Street Journal figures on the US presidential
    election, it is evident that Protestant Christian voters moved
    away from Republicanism. Elsewhere it was pointed out that right
    wing Christian voting was down by 4,000,000 voters. These alone
    -- though not the only factors -- made a great difference
    in results and helped bring in Obama.

    Some have alleged that it was the dispiriting McCain campaign
    that was responsible for this alienation. For myself -- not a
    Christian -- Sarah Palin's announcement of McCain's support for a
    Palestinian [Arab] State in the last weeks of the campaign came
    with shocking force. It could have been a similar shocker to
    Right Wing Christians, who apparently voted with their feet.

    As was reported, American Jewish voters in general gave Obama 78%
    of their vote. This was obviously not because Obama was more
    supportive of Israel than McCain since Obama did not disguise his
    support for a Palestinian [Arab] State. So this issue was not
    overly relevant in the decision of these Jews.

    On the other hand, Right Wing religious Christians do see Israel
    as a more important issue in their calculations than American
    Jews and even of some Israelis. It is therefore possible that
    this issue could have played an important part in the decision of
    Christians to defect from Republicanism.

    And while this may not have affected Jewish voting overall, that
    McCain too resembled Obama in his support for a new Arab State
    in Israel, McCain's support may, nevertheless, have served as a
    facilitator in the Jewish vote. For such Jews who indulged
    their liberal obsessions could then declare to the more conservative
    voting Jews that this vote was not cast at the cost of Israel
    since McCain offered no alternative.

    The outcome is very shocking since it is evident that support
    for a Palestinian Arab State is bipartisan despite the fact that
    this policy is based on falsifications of history and injustice
    toward the Jews and that its advent will be achieved at the
    expense of a greatly weakened Israel. Since the only reason
    Israel survives in the Middle East is because of its strength,
    such a strengthening of the Arab side will make more likely the
    eventual destruction of Israel -- the most universal, implacable,
    and cherished goal of the Arabs. The Arabs are enthused at US and
    world support for them and the real possibility that the
    Muslim-Arab goal of eliminating Israel will be achieved.

    The irony is that the US, under cover of supporting democracy,
    actually sells itself out in supporting the twin Arab tyrannies
    of Fatah and Hamas that weaken the only democracy in the Middle
    East, Israel.

    Alas, the result will be a vanished Israel and with it a largely
    vanished Jewish people that will then only survive in forms such
    as Satmar Chassidism that rejects a humanly-achieved resurrection
    of the ancient Jewish commonwealth. Such Jews will be satisfied
    to be frozen in the pose of yearning on the Grecian vase -- a
    youth forever yearning for his love and she being eternally fair.

    I can't help believing that this outcome, which seems ever more
    likely to be the result of the bipartisan US policy, will not
    only be disastrous to Israel and the Jews but will also be
    achieved at the weakening of traditional Christianity -- what has
    been one of the great staples of the US ethos -- that had seen in
    the rebirth of Israel an important religious sign. This weakening
    will be accompanied by the weakening of political unity in the
    US and its role in the world as well of the weakening of the
    West against the Islamic threat. The West, in this battle, will
    be without that once "unsinkable aircraft carrier" at the Eastern
    end of the Mediterranean, which was Israel.



    [Freeman Center Note: We said this in 1992 and nothing has changed since, except the murder of 2000 Israelis and the maiming of 10,000.]

    Former IDF Chief of Staff: 'Land for Peace Brought Wars'

    Cheshvan 21, 5769, 19 November 08 11:14

    by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

    Yaalon {with Bibi) Land for peace brings war
    Yaalon {with Bibi)
    Land for peace brings war

    ( Moshe Ya'alon, a former IDF Chief of Staff who this week joined the Likud party, declared Wednesday morning that the "land for peace" policy he once backed has proven that giving up Jewish land to Arabs brings war.
    He once stated that Israel could defend itself without the Golan Heights, which outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed giving to Syria. Ya'alon told Yaron Dekel, host of the It's All Talk Show on Voice of Israel government radio, "I was a believer in land for peace, but I have learned the past 15 years... it deteriorates our security."
    Ya'alon was Chief of Staff during the government of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who made the unprecedented move of not extending his term of office because of Ya'alon's doubts about the plan to destroy all Jewish presence in the Gaza region and withdraw all IDF troops.
    He said that the expulsion and the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, now Defense Minister, left Israel with Kassam and Grad attacks on the south and the Second Lebanon War in the north.
    Ya'alon, who lives on a Kibbutz, explained that the values he grew up with no longer are represented in political parties he once identified with..
    Referring to Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, Ya'alon said that if he were alive today, he "would not choose Labor, Meretz or Kadima."
    The new Likud member admitted that the decision to move into politics was not easy. "My heart said 'no' and my head said 'yes", he told reporters Tuesday. "The head won."
    He explained Wednesday morning that he and his family will pay a heavy price for his entering politics, a path that is strewn with booby traps for the values he holds. "We need leadership in the face of the security, education and economic crises," he explained.
    Asked if he wants to be Prime Minister, Ya'alon replied, "It is not an obsession. I did not even want to be an Army officer. I know people who wanted to be Prime Minister from the day they were born, but I am not one of them."
    © Copyright
    Subscribe to the free Daily Israel Report -


     Column One: Civilization walks the plank

    Nov. 20, 2008
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    A Somali pirate and a former US defense secretary are flying to London for vacation. One of them is stopped at immigration at Heathrow airport and arrested on suspicion of committing war crimes. Which one do you think it was?

    On Tuesday, Somali pirates, sailing in little more than motorized bathtubs, armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, and sustained by raw fish and narcotics, successfully hijacked the Sirius Star, a Saudi-owned oil tanker the size of a US aircraft carrier. The tanker was carrying some $100 million worth of crude oil. News of its capture caused global oil prices to rise by a dollar a barrel.
     The next day, Somali pirates attempted to hijack the Trafalgar, a British frigate, but were forced to flee by a German naval helicopter dispatched to the scene. They did manage to hijack a Chinese trawler and a cargo ship from Hong Kong. They nearly got control of an Ethiopian ship, but it, too, was saved by the German Navy that heeded its call for help in time.  Piracy is fast emerging as the newest old threat to stage a comeback in recent years. Over the past week and a half alone, 12 vessels have been hijacked. And according to the International Maritime Bureau, in the three months that ended on September 30, Somali pirates attacked 26 vessels, capturing 576 crew members. Britain's Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) assesses the ransoms they netted at between $18m. and $30m.  And with financial strength comes increased military sophistication. The US Navy expressed shock at the pirates' successful hijacking of the Sirius Star. The pirates staged the hijacking much farther from shore than they had ever done previously.  Beyond the personal suffering incurred by thousands of crew members taken hostage in recent years, piracy's potential impact on global economic stability is enormous. In the Gulf of Aden, where the Somali pirates operate, US shippers alone transport more than $1.5 trillion in cargo annually. One of the unique characteristics of pirates is that they appear to be equal opportunity aggressors. They don't care who owns the ships they attack. On August 21, Somali pirates hijacked the Iran Deyanat, a ship owned and operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards-linked Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL). In September, the US Treasury Department designated IRISL as a company that assists Iran's nuclear weapons program and placed it under stiff financial sanctions.  
    Iran Deyanat's manifest asserted that its cargo included minerals. Yet shortly after the pirates went on board they began developing symptoms such as hair loss that experts claim are more in line with radiation exposure. According to reports, some 16 pirates died shortly after being exposed to the cargo. Just this week, a second Iranian ship - this one apparently carrying wheat - was similarly captured.
    Then, too, in September, pirates seized the Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying 33 Russian-made T-72 tanks. The Ukrainians and Russians claimed that the tanks were destined for Kenya, but it later emerged that they may have been seized en route to Sudan. So, ironically, in the case of both the Faina and the Deyanat, pirates may have inadvertently saved thousands of lives.
    THE INTERNATIONAL community is at a loss for what to do about the emerging danger of piracy. This is not due to lack of capacity to fight the pirate ships. On Monday an Indian naval frigate, the INS Tabar, sank a pirate "mother ship" whose fleet members were attacking the Tabar in the Gulf of Aden. NATO has deployed a naval task force while the American, French, German and other navies have aggressively worked to free merchant ships under attack by pirates.
    As David Rivkin and Lee Casey explained in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, the problem with contending with piracy is not so much military, as legal and political. Whereas customary international law defined piracy as a threat against all nations and therefore a crime for which universal jurisdiction must be applied to perpetrators, in today's world, states are unwilling to apprehend pirates or to contend with them because they are likely to find themselves in a sticky legal mess.
    In centuries past, in accordance with established international law, it was standard practice for naval captains to hang pirates after capturing them. Today, when Europe has outlawed capital punishment, when criminal defendants throughout the West are given more civil rights than their victims, and when irregular combatants picked off of battlefields or intercepted before they attack are given - at a minimum - the same rights as those accorded to legal prisoners of war, states lack the political will and the moral clarity to prosecute offenders. As Casey and Rivkin note, last April the British Foreign Office instructed the British Navy not to apprehend pirates lest they claim that their human rights were harmed, and request and receive asylum in Britain.
    THE WEST'S perverse interpretations of human rights and humanitarian law, which bar it from handling one of the most acute emerging threats to the international economy, is a consequence of the West's abdication of moral and legal sanity in its dealings with international terror. In the 1960s and 1970s, when international terrorism first emerged as a threat to international security, the West adopted international treaties and conventions that tended to treat terrorism as a new form of piracy. Like piracy, terrorism was to be treated as an attack on all nations. Jurisdiction over terrorists was to be universal. Such early views were codified in early documents such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft from 1970 that established a principle of universal jurisdiction over aircraft hijackers.
    Similarly, in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the US, the UN Security Council passed binding Resolution 1373, which also compelled member states not only to treat terrorists as illegal combatants who must be universally denied any support of any kind, but to take action against anyone involved with or supporting terrorists in any way. That is, as in piracy, the tendency of states contending with terrorism has been to view it as an act requiring universal jurisdiction, compelling all UN member states to prosecute offenders.
    And yet, over the years, states have managed to ignore or invert international laws on terrorism to the point where today terrorists are among the most protected groups of individuals in the world. Due to political sympathy for terrorists, hostility toward their victims, or fear of terrorist reprisals against a state that dares to prosecute terrorists found on its territory, states have managed to avoid not only applying existing laws against terrorists. They have also refrained from updating laws to meet the growing challenges of terrorism. Instead, international institutions and "enlightened" Western states have devoted their time to condemning and threatening to prosecute the few states that have taken action against terrorists.
    The inversion of international law from an institution geared toward protecting states and civilians from international lawbreakers to one devoted to protecting international menaces from states and their citizens is nowhere more evident than in the international community's treatment of Hamas-controlled Gaza.
    One of the reasons the international community has failed so abjectly to take reasonable measures to combat terrorism is because international terrorism as presently constituted is the creation of Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren. Since the 1960s, and particularly since the mid-1970s, Europe, and to varying degrees the US, have been averse to contending with terrorism because their hostility toward Israel leads them to condone Palestinian Arab terrorism against the Jewish state.
    THE INTERNATIONAL community's treatment of Hamas-controlled Gaza epitomizes this victory of politics over law. Both the US and the EU have labeled Hamas a terror group. That designation places Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, under the regime of UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
    Among other things, Resolution 1373 requires states to "freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of... entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by [terrorists]."
    That is, the resolution requires UN member states to end all financial and other support for Hamas-controlled Gaza.
    The resolution also requires UN member states to "cooperate [with other states] to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts."
    This means that states are required to assist one another - and in the case of Hamas, to assist Israel - in combating Hamas and punishing its members and supporters.
    While it can be argued that given the absence of a binding legal definition of terrorism, states that do not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization are not required to abide by the terms of 1373 in dealing with Hamas, it is quite clear that for states that do recognize Hamas as a terror group, 1373's provisions must be upheld.
    And yet, the EU and the US have willfully ignored its provisions. They have steadily increased their budgetary support for the Palestinian Authority while knowing full well that the Fatah-led PA in Judea and Samaria is transferring money to Hamas-controlled Gaza to pay the salaries of Hamas employees.
    More disturbingly, the US and the EU as well as the UN demand that Israel itself sustain Hamas-controlled Gaza economically. The UN, EU and the US have consistently demanded that Israel provide Gaza with fuel, food, water, medicine, electricity, telephone service, port services and access to Israeli markets, in spite of the fact that international law actually prohibits Israel from providing such assistance, and in fact arguably requires Israel to deny it.
    Recently, supported by the UN, and in connivance with Hamas, European leaders began supporting illegal moves to end Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza, which was established to block weapons and terror personnel from entering and exiting the area. Expanding this trend, this week Navanethem Pillay, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for Israel to end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, perversely calling the blockade a breach of international and humanitarian law.
    This inversion of the aims of international law - from protecting states and innocent civilians from attack to protecting aggressors from retaliation - has brought about the absurd situation where terrorist ideologues and commanders such as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi are feted in Britain while retired Israeli and American generals are threatened with arrest. Germany welcomed Iranian President and genocide proponent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit and indicted former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld for crimes against humanity. Belgium allows Hamas and Hizbullah supporters like Dyab Abu Jahjah, who calls for attacks against Jews, to operate freely, but indicted former prime minister Ariel Sharon for crimes against humanity.
    The consequence of this absurd state of affairs is obvious. The international law champions who argue that international humanitarian law provides a nonviolent means for nations to defend themselves against aggressors have perverted the purpose and meaning of international humanitarian law to such a degree that the only way for nations to protect themselves against pirates, terrorists and other international rogues is to ignore international law aficionados and secure their interests by force.




    By Moshe Phillips, AFSI

    A new motion picture in which James Bond fights Nazis during the Holocaust is scheduled for release this Chanukah season. Well, not exactly. Daniel Craig is the British actor who stars in the new blockbuster James Bond movie Quantum of Solace. Craig will play another character in 2008 and unlike Bond, this character is based on a real life hero. Craig plays Tuvia Bielski in the movie Defiance. Bielski and his brothers, Zus and Asael, led the Jewish effort that rescued 1,200 fellow Jews from the Nazis and started a partisan brigade that battled the German Wehrmacht. Zus Bielski is portrayed by Liev Schreiber.
    The movie is based on Nechama Tec’s 1993 book, Defiance: The Bielski Partisans. An additional work, 2003’s The Bielski Brothers: The True Story of Three Men Who Defied the Nazis, Built a Village in the Forest, and Saved 1,200 Jews was written by Peter Duffy. Duffy’s book did much to bring the heroism of the Bielski brothers to the wider audience that they so rightly deserve.

    Tuvia Bielski (1906-1987) was the leader of the partisan group known as the Bielski Partisans. The group was situated in the Naliboki forest in the border area between Belarus and Poland. The Bielski group rescued Jews from the ghettos and brought them to a forest sanctuary where they created a society based on surviving the war, fighting the Nazis and preserving the Jewish way of life. And they succeeded. There was simply no other similar group during the Holocaust that has such success.
    The Bielski Brothers story is worth telling - they fought back, saved other Jews, survived and sought revenge. Their story should become one of the stories that people think of when they recall the Holocaust.
    Defiance offers an opportunity to correct the history of the Holocaust by remembering the contributions made by the Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky and his Betar student movement.
    Jabotinsky molded and commanded Betar from its inception in 1923 through his death in 1940. The political enemies of Jabotinsky and his movement have worked since the 1930s to delegitimize them. First lies and slander were hurled at them. Later the Leftists made every effort to write them out of history, so their views, and the views of their ideological heirs, would seem less valid. The Jabotinsky Zionists introduced an authentically Jewish worldview to Zionism. Many of the fighting heroes of the Holocaust embraced the new ideology. Peter Duffy writes that Zus Bielski attended Betar meetings before the war. The man the Bielskis entrusted with the role of chief of staff of their partisan group was a former Polish army officer and Betar veteran named Layzer Malbin. Malbin and Zus commanded the fighting units while Tuvia ran the camp and made political decisions. In Defiance Malbin is played by Mark Feuerstein who is perhaps best known for the NBC sitcom Good Morning, Miami.
    There are other well known Betar trained men who fought the Nazis and led underground fighters during the war, and these heroes must be remembered too.
    The most famous Jewish leader of armed resistance was Mordechai Anielwicz commander of the ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organization) during the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Anielwicz received paramilitary training in Betar as a young teenager and left Betar before the war. The ZOB had a Socialist orientation and Betar as an organization did not participate in it.
    The Jewish Military Organization, (ZZW) was the other armed resistance group in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The ZZW was led and manned by Betar members and their allies. Betar’s fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were largely written out of history by the Left. Moshe Arens, Israel’s former defense minister and a Betar alum, recently wrote a yet to be published book on Betar’s heroic battle against the S.S. in the ghetto. Articles by Arens about the ZZW were published in Yad Vashem Studies, Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post and have helped to create a far more accurate account of the ZZW’s participation in the Uprising.
    In the Vilna Ghetto, Betar leader Joseph Glazman was deputy commander of the United Partisan Organization, the only armed Jewish resistance group in that ghetto.
    Professor Daniel J. Elazar (1934-1999) was a scholar of the Jewish political tradition. In the May 15, 1981 edition of the journal Sh’ma Elazar remarked about Jabotinsky’s legacy writing:
    “Would there be serious public commemoration of the 100th birthday of Zev Jabotinsky had it not been for the fact that the Likud won the election in Israel in 1977? Not likely. For thirty years and more, Jabotinsky was one of those non-persons in Israel and the Jewish world… The ruling Labour Party made him a non-person for the same reasons that it portrayed Menachem Begin and his supporters as uncivilized fascists — it is easier to beat the opposition by painting it as irrelevant, intolerable and non-existent, until it is too strong to be dismissed.”
    Defiance offers an opportunity to remind today’s Jews about Jabotinsky’s vital contribution to Jewish Thought. His words and ideas animated a generation to resist the Nazis and fight for the freedom of Israel. The Islamofascists and Iranians are focused on destroying Israel and the Jewish People in a future Holocaust more intense than the original. Jabotinsky needs to be remembered.
    Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For a Safe Israel - AFSI. The chapter’s website is at: and Moshe’s blog can be found at


    by Emanuel A. Winston
    Freeman Center  Middle East Analyst & Commentator
    Through incitement and provocation, the present Government of Israel has deliberately incited part of her population to revolt. At the same time, this non-Government has incited another part of the Israeli population to hate and attack those citizens being dispossessed of their rights, property - civilians who have had their lives put in great danger.

    Whatever mandate this government thinks it may have had to rule, based upon pre-election promises has been squandered away with a cold and calculating policy of "Dispossession".
    This exceedingly corrupt assemblage of politicians within the Kadima Party have made a mockery of any law or rights of her citizens. They have corrupted an already biased Court system. They have exercised control and influenced the office of Israel s Attorney General and have enlisted officers of the both the Army and the Police to attack and dispossess her citizens of their rights and property.
    They use the methods of a provocateur to cause the citizens to protest and resist, thus allowing unconventional arrests, destruction of homes and beatings of the unarmed civilian protestors. Clearly, such a government follows the well-known path and techniques used by dictatorships, with tyrants giving orders much the same as a radical King or Conqueror.

    The Jewish nation of Israel and her citizens have every right - even an inalienable duty - to revolt, having been deliberately incited and provoked into her citizens resistance to tyranny.
    The rule of law is no longer relevant to this government as they create new laws to support their misuse of office. Where there is no justice, there is a no High Court of Justice.
    This government uses the once admired Secret Services, IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and Police to act on government orders to harass, expel and dispossess legal citizens whom they call "dangerous" to the State because they protest illegal and immoral government policy.
    Acting like a gang of thugs, this government has become a Democratic Dictatorship. The word "Democratic" is merely cover in a cynical attempt to legitimize what has become a rolling "coup d etat" designed to control all the citizens of Israel through incitement, provocation and other forms of corruption. Demanding silence and obedience are their credo or M.O. (Modus Operandi), followed by threats, then arrests and dispossession of citizens legal property.
    We have all seen this sort of progression of latent Dictatorship. Like a latent cancer, it awakens itself to spread and grow aggressive until it is likely to kill the victims that it feeds on. We have seen such horrors over time in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist Cuba, Nuclear North Korea, Egypt, Syria, Nuclear Iran, across Africa.... Self-declared Dictators always wish to control the people and often get exceedingly rich by bleeding their own people through taxes or simply confiscations.
    The Olmert Kadima Party became the magnet for some of the most corrupt politicians the nation has ever produced. Even those who claim to be "clean" knew very well the corruption and criminal enterprise of these fellow Kadimites. They knew and stayed.

    One can only be reminded of the time just before Sodom was destroyed for its licentious evil and corruptions. Regrettably, the people overall will share the pain because they elected the same scoundrels again and again, knowing full well they carried the stigma of thievery, corruption and a vicious evil nature.
    Hopefully, the wiser among them will see that the Government, at all levels, has left its position of responsibilities. The people must act to banish this Government, the shameful Courts and bring to a real and honest trial all those who carried out orders to harm the people.
    Recall that many nations borrowed evolved law from Torah and built their judicial system on this wisdom. But, the government of Israel has revised the process and borrowed new laws which are practiced by dictatorships, both in Christian Europe and the 57 nations of Islam.
    Israel is no longer governed by leaders who speak or govern in the name of her people. Ethical people should rise up and take back the Government, her Courts, her Police and her Army for re-education in Democracy for a free people.


      Countless Jews are appalled or dumbfounded
    An Untried Policy
    (1995 updated)
    By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

    Countless Jews are appalled or dumbfounded. They cannot understand how a Jewish government, backed the Israel Defense Forces, could give away Judea and Samaria , the sacred heartland of the Jewish people to terrorist thugs.

    The Prophets and Sages of Israel predicted that, in the end of days, the Jews would have such a government. They foresaw that Israel would be ruled by "scorners" of the Torah. These scorners, said the Prophet Hosea (12:1-3), will fill Israel with lies and deception. They will strive after wind ("peace") and make alliances with Israel 's enemies.

    The Prophet Isaiah (28:14-18) chastises these insolent Jews. He foretells that they will make a "covenant with death," but that this pact will not protect them, indeed, that they will be swept away like refuse. Remarkably, the Targum translates this pact with death as a contract with "terrorists" (mechablim)!

    Similarly, the Zohar (Exodus 7b) predicts that in the end of days certain Jews in Israel will make an alliance with the enemies of the Jewish people. The Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles fits this dire prediction.

    In the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin (98a), we learn that in the end of days Israel will have the "cheapest" government. Only the cheapest politicians would negotiate with terrorist thugs responsible for the murder and maiming thousands of Jewish men, women, and children. Such shamelessness should make any man of taste want to vomit. This leads me to examine the certain conclusions of Mishna Sotah (49b):

    With the footsteps of the Moshiach arrogance shall increase and honor dwindle. The government shall turn to heresy [such as secular humanism] and there shall be none to utter reproof. The council-chamber [the Knesset] shall be given to immorality. Galilee will be barren, the Golan shall be desolate, and the dwellers on the frontier [in Judah , Samaria , and Gaza ] shall go from place to place with none to take pity on them.

    The wisdom of their writers [journalists and academics] will become insipid and degenerate [will become morally neutral if not anti-Jewish]; they that shun sin shall be despised. The truth shall nowhere be found [thanks to the university-bred doctrine of relativism]. Youth shall shame their elders, and the elders shall stand up in the presence of youth [a commonplace in democracies] . . . The face of this generation is as the face of a dog [impervious to shame] . . . So upon whom can we rely? Upon our Father in heaven.

    Is it not obvious that the Jews in Israel cannot rely on the opposition parties such as Likud to save them from disaster?

    Is it not obvious, from the experience of Lebanon and Sderot, that Jews cannot rely on the Israel Defense Forces?

    Is it not obvious that Jews cannot rely on rabbis who pontificate about pikuach nefesh?

    Is it not obvious that Jews cannot rely on political and strategic analysts to stop the suicidal course of Israel 's government?

    Is it not obvious that Jews cannot rely on the United States or on information campaigns (hasbara) to save them from the successors of the Nazis?

    By now it should also be obvious that it is precisely because Jews have relied on such vanities that they have been given spineless politicians who would sacrifice Eretz Yisrael for mere wind.

    Finally, consider Rashi's commentary to Genesis 1:1.

    If the nations of the world should [question Israel 's title to Eretz Yisrael] and say: 'You are robbers in that you have seized by force the territories of the seven nations,' Israel can retort: 'The entire world belongs to the Holy One, Blessed be He. He created it and gave it to whomsoever it was right in His eyes. It was His will to give it to them and it was His will to take it from them and give it to us.'

    To whom are these words of centuries ago addressed? Surely, to Jews in Israel today. But no Israeli government has ever uttered these words. Nor has any religious party in any Israeli government ever made such words its clarion call!

    You will say: "But the nations will mock these words and laugh at us." I reply: Have countless appeals to "security" won the supportive concern of the nations? Have ingratiating words about "Israeli democracy" earned the respect of the democratic world? Has willingness to yield "territory for peace" appeased the voracious appetites of Janus-faced Arab despots?

    Is not Israel despised by the nations no matter how yielding it has been in the "peace process"? I dare say that it is precisely because Jews have not based their claim to Eretz Yisrael exclusively on Rashi's commentary to Genesis 1:1 that Israel is so often disdained and condemned by the nations!

    I am not saying that citing Rashi will convince any nation that the Jews have a G-d given title to Eretz Yisrael. The task of the Jews is not to convince the nations of anything! That happens to be the compulsion or futility of assimilated Jews. Too many Jews -- religious included -- want to win the approval of the nations rather than the approval of G-d.

    Legions of religious Jews rely more on politicians and political rhetoric than on the Torah and on the G-d of Israel. This is why the above Mishna indicates that in the end of days, when we have exhausted the heresies of our time and are utterly helpless, that we shall turn to our Father in heaven.

    This is not a counsel of despair. It is a plea for rational analysis. Stop relying like addicts on failed ideas and flawed politicians. Start proclaiming that G-d alone has given us title to Eretz Yisrael -- and never mind the scorners! Just do it and leave the consequences to G-d, Who alone is the Master of war and peace.


      The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
    Nov. 24, 2008

    Our World: Time for the Real Bush to Stand Up
    By Caroline Glick

    US President George W. Bush has six weeks left in power. If he acts fast, that may be enough time to secure his place in history - at least in terms of the Middle East.
    Bush's initial reactions to the Sept. 11 attacks were a rare display of political and intellectual courage. Gazing at the rubble of the World Trade Center, Bush recognized that the primary failure of US policy towards the Arab and Islamic world until that day was found in the predisposition of his predecessors to slavishly maintain a Faustian bargain with tyrannical Arab regimes in the interest of maintaining "stability." That bargain committed the US to providing military assistance and political backing to authoritarian regimes throughout the Arab and Islamic world in exchange for cheap oil for the West.

    What Sept. 11 showed Bush was that the "stability" the US had purchased was an illusion. As the US propped up dictators, their subjects fumed under the chains of state terror and economic privation. For millions of frustrated young men, the only outlet for resistance open to them is the mosque. There they are indoctrinated in the ways of jihad and mobilized to fight for Islamic global domination.

    In the months that followed the attacks, Bush radically changed the course of US Middle East policy by pledging American support for the democratization of the Arab and Islamic world. Bush announced that from then on, the US would no longer blindly follow its duplicitous client states but would support voices of democracy and freedom in the Middle East no matter where they came from.

    Bush's message did nothing to endear him to the likes of the Saudis and the Egyptians. The Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference attacked Bush's freedom agenda and indignantly argued that it would be impossible for them to reform their ways for as long as the US maintained its support for Israel - the sole democracy in the region.

    THEN THERE was Europe. Until Bush came around, Europeans had delighted in showing off their false multicultural and humanitarian credentials built on buying off terrorists, attacking Israel and giving the Palestinians billions of euros in foreign aid. Bush's freedom agenda exposed their deceit and their cowardice. They were appalled.

    Implicit in Bush's view was the understanding that the US's most stable allies - and indeed only stable allies - are fellow democracies. And this understanding necessarily led Bush to the conclusion that Israel is the US's most dependable and valuable ally in the Middle East.

    Bush's views were nothing short of sacrilege not only for the Arabs and the Europeans, but for Washington's foreign policy establishment, headquartered at the State Department and the CIA. For the men and women of these bureaucracies, Bush's recognition that the Arab regimes they championed were the primary source of regional instability and anti-Americanism was a repudiation of everything they worked for. More disgraceful, in their view, was his open embrace of Israel - the mortal foe of all their Arab friends - as the US's most trustworthy and strategically vital ally in the region.

    All these forces joined together almost immediately to scuttle Bush's freedom agenda for the Arab world. In country after country, Bush's message of democracy was watered down to nothingness. In post-Saddam Iraq, rather than embrace democratic champions like Ahmed Chalabi, the foreign policy bureaucracy in Washington foisted strongman and former Ba'athist Ayad Allawi on the newly liberated country. The State Department and the CIA allowed Iran and Syria to freely subvert Bush's freedom agenda by buying politicians, building militias and fomenting the insurgency.

    Iraq was Bush's central foreign policy initiative. And it is for his work in Iraq that he will chiefly be remembered. Today the battle for Iraq is all but won. But it was only won after Bush realized in 2006 that if he continued following the advice of those who rejected his goal of a free Middle East, the US would be forced from Iraq in defeat.

    IN LEBANON in March 2005, when more than a million pro-democracy Lebanese citizens staged the Cedar Revolution and ousted Syrian forces from their country, Bush's battle for freedom was finally joined by the Arabs themselves. To secure the gains of the Cedar Revolution, Bush needed to work with Israel to protect the pro-Western Siniora government.

    As Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah in 2006, and as the US's championing of the UN ceasefire resolution which facilitated Hizbullah's takeover of Lebanon showed, neither Israel nor the US was willing to protect Lebanon's democrats. Today, with the forces of democracy defeated after Hizbullah's violent takeover of the government in May, rather than decry this state of affairs and work to undo it, Bush has chosen to deny it. And not only does he deny it, he exacerbates it. Bush welcomed the "stability" that Hizbullah's takeover has facilitated. And today he is arming the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese army with tanks and other heavy arms. That is, in Lebanon, Bush has adopted the very same Faustian bargain he rejected in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

    Bush's confused and self-defeating policies towards Lebanon are a direct consequence of his policies towards Israel and the Palestinians. In 2002, Bush recognized that the root of the Palestinian conflict with Israel is not Israel's continued control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem but the absence of Palestinian leadership willing to live at peace with Israel. Moreover, he recognized that the US's primary role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was not to mediate a dispute the Palestinians are unwilling to reconcile, but to stand by Israel as America's main ally in the region. Bush's views earned him the enmity of the Arabs, the Europeans, the Washington elites and the Israeli Left. And together they undermined his policies and isolated him until less that a year later, he abandoned his positions. In mid-2003 he set aside his demand for a reordering of Palestinian society and his decision to side with Israel. In their place, Bush joined the Arabs, the Europeans, the UN and the Israeli Left in making the establishment of a Palestinian state the centerpiece of his Middle East agenda. As with Lebanon, here too Bush's acceptance of the establishment's position came at the cost of eschewing Israel as a US ally.

    BUSH'S UNWILLINGNESS to carry through on his freedom agenda in the face of unrelenting opposition from Europe, the Arabs and his foreign policy establishment is what has prevented him throughout his presidency from contending with the greatest source of volatility and danger in the region - Iran. Largely as a consequence of the ambiguity and weakness of his policies on Iran, it is likely that one of the most prominent legacies of Bush's Middle East policies will be a nuclear-armed Iran.
    With just six weeks remaining to his tenure in office, much of what Bush will leave behind him has already been determined. But there are two things he can still do that will impact greatly both the world he leaves behind and how he is judged by history: He can take action against Iran's nuclear program, and he can embrace Israel as an ally by pardoning four men who have been persecuted for assuming the alliance exists.
    On the surface, these two agenda items couldn't be more disparate. By neutralizing Iran's nuclear installations Bush would save the lives of millions of people. By pardoning Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, he would save the lives of four people.
    But the fact of the matter is that the two issues present Bush with the same challenge. They both require him to find the courage to embrace the vision that he tried but failed to realize in the early years of his presidency.
    By attacking Iran's nuclear installations - or by permitting Israel to fly over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear installations - Bush will do two things. He will bolster the US-Israel alliance. And he will demonstrate that the stability engendered by the status quo is antithetical to US interests.
    Until now, Bush has been prevented from taking action in Iran by those who insist that the status quo in Iran and throughout the region is preferable to every other alternative. This was the view that propelled Washington's foreign policy establishment to oppose Israel's independence 60 years ago and has caused them to continue to oppose accepting Israel as an ally to this day.
    To maintain the predominance of this view, over the years its proponents have persecuted individuals who reject it. In 1985, when Jonathan Pollard was arrested for transferring classified information to Israel, he was not treated like a man who had transferred secrets to a US ally. He was treated like a man who had transferred secrets to al-Qaida. His sentence of life in prison was meant to serve as a deterrent for anyone who dared question the view that Israel is nothing more than an albatross placed around the US's neck by a powerful American Jewish lobby and by dimwitted politicians.
    Whereas Pollard's fate was sealed long before Bush entered the White House, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman's nightmare began under his watch. In 2006, former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was sentenced to 12 years in prison for seeking the assistance of two AIPAC lobbyists - Rosen and Weissman - in bringing the threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program to Bush's attention. By speaking with Rosen and Weissman, Franklin was behaving as countless government employees behave. He was prosecuted not for sharing information with the men, but for mistakenly assuming that his view of Israel as a US ally was shared by the powers-that-be in Washington.
    Weissman and Rosen are in the midst of a long, costly, drawn-out trial and stand charged with mishandling classified information under a statute that has not been enforced since World War I. For more than four years they have been treated as criminals for doing nothing more than their job as lobbyists - for a lobby that was founded on the understanding that the US and Israel are strategic allies.
    The Bush who understood that a stable tyranny is a threat to a vibrant democracy knew that Iran had to be defeated and its regime overthrown. The Bush who celebrated the shared values on which both the US and Israel are founded knew that those who seek Israel's destruction will also never peacefully coexist with the US. If that Bush is still around, the time has come for him to act on those understandings. Before he leaves office he should embrace Israel as an ally and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not only will he secure the lives of millions of people. He will also secure his place in history.


      Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Israeli-Syrian Air and SAM Strength Analysis:
    Working Estimates of Force Numbers and Locations

    By Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan
    November 25, 2008

    The relative balance of Israeli and Syria air combat capabilities has long been a key factor shaping both the level of deterrence in the Arab-Israel conflict and the outcome of any conflict. It is easy to address this balance in purely quantitative terms, and such comparisons are part of a broader comparison of the Israeli-Syrian military balance entitled THE ISRAELI AND SYRIAN CONVENTIONAL MILITARY BALANCE: An Overview, which is available on the CSIS web site at:

    It is far more difficult to make qualitative comparisons, either through static or dynamic analysis. The Burke Chair has developed a draft analysis of Israeli-Syrian air and air defense capabilities that addresses these issues through a first order operational analysis level to project air force and air defense warfighting capabilities. The paper is written by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman, is entitled Israeli-Syrian Air and SAM Strength Analysis: Working Estimates of Force Numbers and Location. It is available on the CSIS web site at:

    The study looks at the overall integrated air defense capabilities of each country, and focuses on the Ground Based Air Defense Systems and Surface to Air Missiles, Command Control Communicati ons Computations and Intelligence (C4I), Air force Air Defense Operational Readiness and Air Intercept Capability, and the role of Electronic Warfare.

    The analysis reflects fundamental changes in the nature of war combat in the region. The development of precision guided weapons, standoff missile and guided bomb attack ranges, a high speed, secure data transfer, and advanced electronic self-protection systems have changes the theater of operations. It has become one in which coordinated air and ground operations involving the accomplishment of several missions or tasks over a specified period of time are essential and critical in controlling the combat and electromagnetic arena of modern air warfare,

    These are a requirement that Israeli military forces have proven to have mastered and Israel is continuously developing and upgrading its military force and Industry to support such capabilities in future battlefield. In contrast, Syria changed its strategy during the late 80's, from one of seeking "parity" based largely on force numbers to one of using smaller amounts of the same kind of forces to a strategy of "deterrence" designed largely to discourage Israeli attacks.

    Syria still maintains a force equipped with many obsolete military weapon systems, with low operational readiness, and over-centralized battle management. Accordingly, the new study examines a possible modernization of the Syrian Air force and Air Defense that would result in a complete overall of all the weapon systems presently deployed. The end result further highlights the overall superiority of Israeli air Forces.

    To Download the Report Click Here


     The Jewish Press, Posted Nov 26 2008

    American Jewish Indifference

    By Caroline B. Glick
    Apparently Israel is no longer a voting issue for most American Jews.
    Seventy-eight percent of American Jewish voters cast their ballots for
    Senator Barack Obama on November 4. Obama, who boasted the most liberal
    voting record in the Senate, has never distinguished himself as a firm
    supporter of Israel and opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that called on
    the State Department to place Iran's Revolutionary Guards on its list of
    international terrorist organizations.

    Obama counts no deeply committed Zionists among his close associates. Men
    and women like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
    William Ayers, Robert Malley and Rashid Khalidi were all people Obama turned
    to for advice, guidance and support in his early years in politics and as a
    U.S. senator considering a run for the White House.

    His "pro-Israel" advisers -- mainly late pick-ups as the presidential race
    progressed -- included no ardent Zionists to oppose the voices of his
    anti-Israel advisors. Instead, Obama turned to Dennis Ross and Daniel
    Kurtzer to advise him on the Middle East. These men, like his designated
    White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have views of Israel that are
    indistinguishable from the positions of Israel's post-Zionist Meretz party.

    During the course of the campaign, Obama gained notoriety for his hard left
    promises to appease U.S. foes like Iran, largely at the expense of U.S.
    allies like Israel. It could have been presumed that his expressed
    willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have
    raised red flags throughout the American Jewish community.

    After all, given the failure of the now five-year-old European-U.S. attempt
    to appease Iran into ending its nuclear weapons program, it is apparent that
    a direct U.S. presidential dialogue with Ahmadinejad will be perceived by
    Iran as a green light to complete its nuclear weapons program.

    But American Jewish voters were only too happy to believe Obama's
    unconvincing attenuations of his pledge to hold talks with Ahmadinejad
    without preconditions. American Jews were also eager to accept his
    unconvincing disavowals of his association with the likes of Wright, Power,
    Khalidi, Malley and Brzezinski.

    Obama is now signaling his support for the so-called Saudi Peace Plan, first
    released in 2002, which calls for Israel to essentially destroy itself in
    exchange for its Arab neighbors establishing "normal" relations with it.

    The Saudi plan calls for Israel to remove itself completely to the
    indefensible 1949 armistice lines and accept millions of foreign-born,
    hostile Arabs as full citizens as part of the so-called right of return of
    the descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948.

    The fact that the Saudi initiative -- even if Israel were to commit national
    suicide by taking such steps -- limits the relations the Arabs would have
    with the rump bi-national state to "normal" rather than "peaceful" shows
    clearly that far from being a peace plan, it is a blueprint for Israel's
    destruction.In light of all of this, it is apparent that by voting for Obama,
    four-fifths of American Jews voted for a candidate more openly hostile to
    the U.S.-Israel alliance than any other major-party presidential candidate
    in the past generation.

    One might argue that American Jews were simply unaware of Obama's actual
    views on Israel. It is true, after all, that the U.S. media worked overtime
    throughout the campaign defending and hiding Obama's longstanding
    connections to haters of the U.S.

    But despite the media effort to conceal or explain away difficult truths
    about Obama's character, concerned American Jewish voters had access to the
    facts. Any number of alternative media outlets provided a steady stream of
    information about Obama's associations with Israel bashers.

    More than anything else, the willingness of American Jews to believe Obama
    is pro-Israel shows they simply didn't care that much. If they had cared,
    they would have scrutinized Obama's alarming connections at least as
    carefully as they attacked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for her anti-abortion
    views. They would have wondered what it means that Obama spent twenty years
    of his life in the pews of a deeply anti-Semitic church at least as much as
    they wondered about a Jews for Jesus preacher who once spoke at Palin's

    There are several possible and complementary explanations for American
    Jewry's apparent indifference to Israel's fate.

    High assimilation rates cause many American Jews to feel more attachment to
    non-Jewish causes than to Jewish causes. At the same time, the watering-down
    of Jewish teachings in various Jewish communities and the replacement of
    Jewish law and traditions with amorphous and trendy concepts of "social
    justice" and multiculturalism have engendered a basic ignorance of the
    exceptional significance and beauty of Judaism among a large portion of
    American Jews.Then there is the leadership crisis affecting world Jewry. Weak and
    uninspiring Israeli leaders and weak and uninspiring American Jewish leaders
    have failed to assert and explain the connection between Israel's security
    and the wellbeing of the American Jewish community.

    Whereas until the 1980s it went without saying for most American Jews that
    their fortunes were directly tied to Israel's security, today the unity of
    Jewish fate has been lost on ever widening circles of American Jews.

    To all of this must be added the unique self-perception of American Jewry.
    The American Jewish community is the only community in Jewish history that
    refused to view itself as an exile community. Even before the American
    Revolution, Jewish settlers in the New World viewed America as a permanent
    home.As a consequence, on a philosophical level American Jews have always held
    Israel and Zionism at arm's length. They could support Israel as a refuge
    for persecuted Jews from other countries, but they couldn't support Israel
    as the permanent and irreplaceable homeland for all Jews without revoking
    the foundational belief of their American Jewish identity.

    Today Israel is threatened with annihilation and the U.S. Jewish community
    is suffering from more blatant and organized anti-Semitic attacks than it
    has seen in the past fifty years. But during this year's presidential
    campaign, the basic truth that the security of all Jews is dependent on the
    security of Israel was no match for the full consequences of failed
    leadership, assimilation and the basic American Jewish desire to reject the
    singularity of Jewish destiny.

    Israel's next government will be called on to defend Israel against Iran and
    its Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese proxies, And it will be called to act
    at a time when the U.S. is led by an Obama administration pledged to appease
    these forces. Israel will have to rally all of its supporters in the U.S. to
    its side in order to stand up for its survival.

    In light of the American Jewish vote, it is an open question whether Israel
    will receive the help of its American Jewish brethren in its hour of need.

    Caroline Glick is deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her Jewish
    Press-exclusive column appears the last week of each month.


    by David Basch
    November 29, 2008
    Reading of the attempts of Olmert and Israeli leftist leaders to
    deal with the Arab adversary, the following is how one can view the
    essential characteristics of what is occurring.


    It resembles that of virulent jackals besetting the habitat of lambs.
    In this analogy, the jackals are the Muslim Arabs; the lambs are the
    Jewish/Israelis; the habitat is that of Israel. The analogy captures
    the reality of implacable Muslim-Arabs intent on devouring the
    Jewish/Israeli lambs and taking possession of their habitat and the
    ineffectual attempts of the lambs to deal with the crisis using the
    full extent of the intellectual resources of lambs.


    This consists of imagination the reality away of an implacable
    adversary, wishing away the appetite of the jackal for the lamb's

    The Jewish/Israeli strategy consists of educational policies intended
    to change the nature of the adversary, to transform the nature of the
    jackal enemy into that of the peaceful bovine -- the equivalent of
    teaching water to run uphill.

    Prominent Jewish/Israeli lamb tactics consist of ever louder
    pronouncements declaring that jackals are like lambs and of concrete
    lamb actions to remove all physical barriers between jackals and lambs
    that would otherwise smack of a lack of confidence that the jackals
    could live peacefully with lambs.


    Continuing immolation of the lambs -- death and maiming the rule --
    and progressive surrender of lamb habitat, removing barriers that
    would prevent the ravages of the jackals against the lambs.


    For the Jewish/Israelis: Dismal

    For the Muslim-Arabs and the enemies of the Jews: Euphoric


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