Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 17             B"H   November 2009             NUMBER 11

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

November 2009



  • THE OBAMA "CULT" ..............Emanuel A. Winston

  • THE MULLAHS' BIG WEEK ..............Caroline Glick

  • JIHAD AT FORT HOOD ..............Robert Spencer

  • THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ALLAHU AKBAR ..............Gamaliel Isaac

  • PALESTINE, PERES AND PRETENSE ..............David Singer

  • OBAMA'S FAILURE, NETANYAHU'S OPPORTUNITY ..............Caroline Glick

  • BIBI'S BAD WEEK ..............Caroline Glick

  • BETWEEN THE LINES ..............Joseph Farah


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




    by Michael Anbar PhD  
    For centuries Jews have been subject to bigotry, i.e., misojudaic prejudice, often associated with violence that ranged from arson, molestation and pogroms to the Holocaust.  Yet the Jewish nation survived in a grueling Diaspora. But later, once Jews were fully emancipated, many of them assimilated, and the Jewish nation lost many individuals. People born to Jewish parents have denied their heritage, joining subcultures that disregard ethnicity or religion but still hate Jews.  This process is ongoing in American Jewry, especially among its younger, most productive members.
    The older generation, including Holocaust survivors, who are the majority of synagogue attendees, is not likely to abandon Judaism. However, their sons and daughters seem to assimilate in droves.  Unlike in 19th Century Germany, assimilation of American Jews is not by conversion to Christianity but by joining transnational “progressive” political movements that despise Jewish nationalism. Giving up the national rights of Jews is not better than giving up the Jewish religion. A substantial number of the Jews who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are assimilated transnationalists.
    This demographic danger to the Jewish nation, half of which resides in the US, must be effectively curbed. It is aggravated by the existential risks facing the other half of the Jewish nation in Israel. 
    Substantial lip service has been paid by Jewish national organizations to the need to “maintain Jewish identity” of American Jewry as a way to combat that ongoing rampant assimilation.  One way suggested is to demonstrate Jewish identity in society by distinctive markers on the attire of Jews or by distinctive dietary habits.  Maintaining Jewish identity by external markers has allowed Jews to survive in hostile environments by facilitating mutual help among Jews (the classical tribal instinct), while significantly reducing assimilation.  However, while having been of benefit in periods of rampant persecution, Jewish markings generally helped not Jews but bigots who have imposed them on Jews to facilitate discrimination in misojudaic environments.
    The yellow Star of David was mandated by Muslims in the 9th Century to facilitate discrimination against Jews. In the 11th Century it was imported European Christians for the same purpose. Jews were marked by Muslims and Christians as downcast people, or even as unredeemable sub-humans (e.g., in Nazi Germany).  The distinctive sign on the attire of Jews was instrumental to inhibit association with those god-forsaken people, as mandated by Islam.
    Identifiable Jewish markers have become redundant in the free and tolerant United States, where Jews gained full civil rights even before Napoleon emancipated European Jewry.  One must then ask: Can Judaism be maintained without external markers and without misojudaic discrimination? Emancipation facilitated assimilation both in Europe and in the US.  Many of American-born Jews may be aware of the Jewish ethnicity of their parents, but do not indentify themselves as members of the Jewish nation. There is little reason for them to do so. It is noteworthy that German Jewry followed the same mode of behavior following the Napoleonic emancipation.
    In brief, the Jewish nation survived in the Diaspora not because Jews chose to be different from their neighbors out of free will. They were not. They were marked to appear different by their oppressors, e.g., wearing funny pointed “Jewish” hats, with or without a yellow patch on their garments. They were forced to live in segregated quarters subject to occasional violent assaults by disgruntled peasants, incited by the local clergy.  As pariah subhumans they were forbidden to marry non-Jews.
    Now, that America is becoming more and more secularized and atheism has no more stigmas attached to it, “progressive” Jews are at the forefront of American anti-religious movements, such as the ACLU, because these legitimize assimilation, i.e., abandonment of the Jewish nation. 
    On the other hand, while 78% of Jews voted for Obama and his transnational socialist agenda, there has been a recent tendency among the new generation of Jewish college students to become secular Zionists, i.e., non-religious Jewish nationalists. Although this new development will hopefully evolve, evidently, an overwhelming majority of American Jewry seems to support transnational anti-Zionist socialists. This might lead to the eventual extinction of a majority of American Jewry.
    Why should a person of Jewish ethnic ancestry identify himself as a Jew? If he is a believer in God, he does this because it was mandated by God. One should not argue with believers. But then one should not argue with devout Muslims who have been told by their god to kill all non-believers (Qur’an 4:89). “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” Here you see religion-sanctioned misojudaism.
    Can a “progressive,” open-minded, Jew claim that the commands of the god of Islam have less validity than those of the God of Israel? Can that Jew claim that the revelations of God to Mohammad are less valid than His earlier revelations to Moses? Thus if a “progressive” Jew wishes to be fair, he should endorse the killing of Jews by devout Muslims as an exercise of an explicit Islamic religious decree.
    This shows the absurdity of accepting religious doctrines as binding; it explains the secularization of our society and the rapid assimilation of non-religious or anti-religious Jews. Moreover, since people typically need ideals, many of Jewish ethnic ancestry, who have no compelling reason to keep Jewish identity, join the misojudaic radical left and become ardent Jew-haters.
    Too manyst American Jews have not been proud to be identified as Jews! In fact, many of them have been ashamed of being Jewish. What is there to be proud of being a member of a traditionally hated and discriminated community?
    Misojudaic prejudice, seen today in the UN and in leftist and Muslim rallies, cannot maintain the Jewish nation, nor can the Jewish religion in a world that is rapidly becoming secularized.
    To survive as a nation, Jews MUST be proud of their national heritage. Yet to be proud of something one must know what is to be proud of. Therefore, to maintain the Jewish nation one must know the history of this nation, not as a chain of defeats, exiles, segregations and persecutions, but as a succession of cultural, political and military achievements that have contributed to Western civilization for almost three millennia.
    The leadership of the Afro-American community justifiably understood the need for developing a sense of pride in black Americans. They created a semi-mythical African past, taught in tens of academic “black studies” departments. They invented a unifying African language and new African holidays. Obama’s “black liberation” church has been a revolutionary version of this effort, inventing even a non-historical, non-Jewish, black Jesus.
    To meet the same goals in the Jewish community one does not need to invent a new history or language. The 3300 years of Jewish national history and language should be more than sufficient to make all Jews proud of their heritage.
    The history of the Jewish people in the Diaspora between the 7th and the 18th Centuries CE has been characterized by repeated persecutions and exiles - little to write home about. But the preceding 2000 years of Jewish nationality, between the 13th Century BCE and the 7th Century CE (the Arab conquest of the Jewish homeland), and then since the emancipation, at the end of the18th Century, to date, Jewish national history has a lot to be proud of.
    Moreover, the Jewish nation has maintained its language, ethics, and religion for 3300+ years. It is the only live nation with such a long national history.  No other nation lost its sovereignty over its homeland for such a long period without disappearing. Most importantly, no existing nation had such a profound effect on the life of humanity at large. Not only Christianity, which is a direct offspring of Judaism, but also the Islam is based on Jewish traditions, though generally in a highly distorted form (read the Qur’an).
    One cannot ignore the host of philosophical, scientific, technological and artistic innovations made by hundreds of people of Jewish heritage all over the world since the 18th Century to date. Their number is out of all proportions to the relatively small number of Jews in the world. Last but not least – the political renaissance of the Jewish nation in its ancient homeland has no parallel in human history. It has demonstrated the amazing ability of a small number of Jews to withstand the repeated onslaughts of Arab aggression, while building up a flourishing, outstandingly productive society.  
    In addition to producing the Bible and Christianity, Israel’s War of Independence and the Six Days War were unique in man’s history. Yet that was not the first time that Jewish fighters challenged “irresistible” armies – the Bar Kochba revolt in 134/6 CE required seven Roman legions to be vanquished, but not crushed - the Jewish community in the Land of Israel recovered within a generation to produce the monumental Mishna and later the “Jerusalem” Talmud. That revolt took place just 60 years after the fall of Jerusalem in the Great Revolt, which required “just” three roman legions to quell. The resilient rebellious kingdom of Judea was the Afghanistan of the Roman Empire. The spiritual strength of the Jewish nation in those days was amazing.
    Contrary to the image of the meek Ghetto Jew, the Jewish nation was historically a nation of warriors, while scholars and clergymen were its political leaders – “a nation of philosophers” according to Greeks and Roman contemporary writers.  It may, therefore, not be surprising that the kingdom of Samaria led a large coalition of nations against the Assyrian Empire in the 8th Century BCE, and later Judea led smaller coalitions against the Chaldeans in the 7th and 6th Centuries. Four hundred years later, in the 2nd Century BCE, the Egyptian Ptolemaic army was under the command of Jewish generals. The defeat of the Seleucids by the Hasmoneans in 165 BCE was perhaps less of a miracle.
    On the other hand, Judea was also the main commercial center of the ME, successfully competing with Egypt, because the routes of commerce from India and East Africa to the West crossed Judea, not Egypt.  This economic boom allowed the impressive constructions of Herod the Great, including the renovation of the Temple in Jerusalem.
    Two thousand years later, the scientific and technological achievements of less than 6 million Jews living in Israel, their ancient homeland, has put this subset of the Jewish nation ahead of most other Western nations with manifold larger populations.
    All these historical facts and statistics should be a source of pride for all Jews and should inhibit assimilation. Proud people who know the virtues of their national heritage will be reluctant to give these up to become an insignificant part of a shapeless multinational conglomerate. We must only find ways to instill this knowledge in American Jews.
    President Obama is trying his best to destroy the exceptionality of the US through his foreign, social and economic policies. That anti-national philosophy, when translated to the very existence of the tiny Jewish nation, implies its demise. Obama’s “progressiveness” is the greatest danger the Jewish nation has faced since the Holocaust; it is greater than the current Iranian threat. Jews must realize the danger of giving up the uniqueness of their nation, just as all Americans must realize the dangers of losing their own unique national stature and consequently their national pride. Most American Jews are not aware of the virtues of the long history of their nation, so they are more likely to accept Obama’s socialist “universalism,” that has no room for national Judaism.
    Maintaining Jewish religious rituals in American Jewish communities is certainly not sufficient to preserve the Jewish nation. Jewish religious identity could have been preserved if American Jews preferred to lives in self-imposed ghettoes, like the Amish – the fossil German religious sect. Then their religious rituals could differentiate Jews from the rest of the US population, like the isolated residues of Native Americans.  However, unlike the Amish or Native Americans, American Jews wish to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by US colleges and universities and integrate into the mainstream of academic and economic activities of this country.
    Assimilation is inevitable if American Jews, especially the younger generation, will not be equipped with ideological tools, including appreciation of Jewish history, to withstand assimilatory pressures that are inherent in the prevailing secular antinational socialism.  Religious rituals by themselves, including distinctive sectarian attire, without strong ideological ties to Jewish national heritage, will not prevent assimilation.  
    “Progressiveness” cannot be used as a source of Jewish national pride, since there is no difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish “progressive”. Both are anti-nationalist universalists, i.e., anti-Zionists.  Zionism, the 2500 year-old expression of Jewish nationalism, is a foundation of Judaism. The messianic idea, the rule of a descendent of King David over Jerusalem, which is a central premise also in Christianity, is essentially a Zionist idea.  Zionism is an anathema to socialist “progressiveness.”  Like Jewish communism, Jewish “progressiveness” is a tool for assimilation and the eventual disappearance of Judaism.
    Nationalism is a positive attribute, leading to the progress of nations, very much like personal freedom, which results in personal prosperity. Socialism antagonizes nationalism just as it curtails personal freedoms. Socialism and nationality cannot coexist. “National socialism” is a contradiction in terms that leads to aggressive despotism - see the rise and fall of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany.
    In conclusion: Anti-nationalistic socialism is prejudiced against national Judaism. This is the reason for intrinsic misojudaism among socialist ideologues. Genuine Jewish socialists must become self-hating Jews, ashamed of their heritage. Likewise, American socialists detest and are ashamed of American nationalism, which they call “exceptionalism.” If they had their way, we might end up with Marxist despotism and the demise of American Jewry within a generation. Jewish and non-Jewish Americans, truly proud of their respective heritages, can and must prevent this from happening.
    Michael Anbar PhD
    Professor Emeritus
    School of Medicine, University at Buffalo
    Fayetteville, NY 13066
    Author of Israel and it Future (2004)



    by Emanuel A. Winston,
    Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator

    A few days ago I was watching a documentary on The History Channel. The subject was Cults and how Cult followers attach themselves to a charismatic leader and who simply don’t question their leader’s directions - let alone his faults.

    The History Channel covered Charlie Manson and his Cult who murdered Sharon Tait for the thrill of it and, of course, following Manson’s orders.
    We all can recall the Jones Town Cult wherein they all drank poisoned Koolaid because it was decreed by Jones.

    Then there was David Koresh, who headed the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Koresh armed his followers to defend against what Koresh believed were their enemies. He died along with most of his Cult followers who, like all other cult leaders adopted and believed that their cult leaders were earthly messiahs.

    Numerous Cult leaders slowly develop into their roles as cult leaders who believe they were mystically assigned and destined to lead their flock of believers into another world after death.
    President Barack Hussein Obama sat in front of Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years while he ranted and raved about White America and the Jews. Wright deeply influenced the Obamas, both as their spiritual guide, their political mind-set and his future agenda as President.

    Then within the Obama crowd was the super-racist, anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan who had adopted the Muslims’ prospective wherein blacks should convert to Islam within his Cult and become his front-line warriors as "The Fruits of Islam".   Those dudes were scary.

    We were at a Israel Day celebration on Israel’s birthday one year in the early 1980s - at a Jewish Day School. About 30 of the Fruits of Islam, Black men with close crew cuts, marched in with a menacing aura - like a military squad.  They stood in front of the stage facing the audience - where Israel’s star basketball player, Tal Brody was speaking to those gathered to celebrate the Jewish State of Israel’s birthday. Farrakhan’s "Fruits" succeeded in their intended goal: to intimidate the Jewish people who came to celebrate. Then they left - after a hour or two. The local police were called but they never came. That was our life experience with the "Fruits of Islam". That Cult has grown with the addition of black criminals who converted in prison to Islam: the "Jihadist" blood and death Cult.

    Then there is the ubiquitous "Cult" message to their followers that it’s "Us Against All Others!". This is why David Koresh armed his followers.  This is why Islamists arm themselves as "Sleeper Cells" in America and Europe. Black and White Supremacists arm themselves for their planned future overthrow of the American Government to meets their goals.

    Then there was the Obama speech, wherein he spoke about creating his own "Civilian National Security Force" - a militia as his own Army (as strong as the American Army) - in order to make the "Change" in America that he promised his followers. Obama’s militia (Obama-litia?) would be separate from the American Armed Forces which include the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard and the many Clandestine Secret Services.
    Who exactly is supposed to be the enemy, justifying a separate civilian armed force - reporting only to Obama as their Commander-in-Chief?
    Are his foot soldiers to be recruited from ACORN, Black or Arab Muslims?
    Is this Obama's messianic self-anointed destiny, to rule America?
    It certainly something to ponder.

    We can watch with horror as Americans join the "Obama Cult", wherein he can do no wrong.   He also has his own inner cult which includes Bill Ayers, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gen. James Jones, and the 45 (as of September 9) Czars and Czarinas President Obama has recruited who were NOT vetted by the FBI or approved by Congress. Many Czars in Obama’s Cult or Clique both follow and teach him the ways of Socialism, Communism, anarchy and control of the Congress, the Judiciary, the Military, the subversion of the Constitution and all the various institutions of Capitalism which makes the country function.

    There are other Cults such as radical Islam, "Jihadists" (warriors for Islam), and all those various Muslim entities who believe the Judeo-Christian ethics of the West must be eliminated. Here we see what we think are ordinary, moderate Muslims who are willing to take orders from Mullahs to become "Shahids" (martyrs for Islam) and blow themselves up while killing Jews and Christians.

    What then will the Cult of Obama’s followers be willing to do if asked by their earthly messiah? Cult members committed to a charismatic leader are ready to turn over their own freedom, rights and money to an articulate mystic, because they have committed themselves to what they think is a man-god who will solve all their problems and the country’s in this life and the next.

    The MSM (Main Stream Media) has not only assisted in this charade, they have been point men in their campaign of adulation. Of course, it would be Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod who designed the Cult program, much as Herman Goebbels who was once the propagandist for Der Fuhrer, making him into a larger than life Messiah.

    All Cult leaders need Lieutenants and Czars to hustle the crowd of ordinary people. We observe with dismay, Speaker of the House (third in line to the Presidency) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Majority leader deliver the Democratic Party into the hands of the Obama Cult. No amount of money is too great to spend on ideas which bankrupt the nation but, will keep Obama and his deviants in power.

    Now that Obama and his Cult have control of the Fed and the Treasury, the one-armed-bandit machine, all of America is their Las Vegas. Remember, in those gambling houses the House invariably wins and the players (American tax-payers) invariably lose. But, once you are a brain-washed Cult member, your Cult leader is never wrong.

    Thus, we have Charles Manson, David Koreish of Waco, Jones of the Jonestown Massacre - among others, who were self-made god-lings to lead their followers into their promises of Heaven to come when, in fact, it was a one-way ticket to a Hell of their own making.

    Keep in mind, I am not speaking of dim-witted teens, fainting at concerts of Elvis Presley, the Beatles and the like. Those cults are virtually innocent, even as teen-age girls swoon and swear allegiance to their memory.
    I am talking about Cult leaders who become pall-bearers to their nations.
    Don’t underestimate the power of a Cult, led by a Charismatic articulate person. First, they start as appealing to those who are to become his followers, telling them just how unfairly they have been treated and how he will fight those evil forces for them.

    Adolph Hitler had his Cult-ish following where normal people were led cheering into supporting his Genocide and Conquest toward his 1000 Year Reich under Nazi Germany.

    Josef Stalin also had his Cult, admired by his people for his ruthlessness in killing millions. In Stalin’s Soviet Russia, their fear turned into adoration.
    Genghis Khan had his followers as they pillaged, raped and murdered across the land.

    Cambodia’s dictator Pol Pot, was responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million. Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge and Prime Minister of Cambodia.

    North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il, like any ‘good’ dictator, established an elaborate Cult of Personality. The political propaganda for Kim’s personality cult cost approximately $900 million (4% of the GNP) every year while his people lived in poverty. His people call him "Our Dear Leader".
    I speak about evil people who believe they are gods, chosen and destined to lead, enslave and kill the masses through divine judgement all through their own hands, the messianic leader. There have always been good or evil leaders. You can generally spot them in their early years, more by the people with whom they surround themselves.

    Sometimes the forces that combine to create a Cult are simply forms of religion wherein they adopt the teachings or myths which supports the evolving Cult. Islam is a prime example of adopting the teaching of Mohammed which centered on Conquest and forced Conversion by the Sword of those conquered. Islam has zero tolerance for infidels (non-believers in Islam) and the inbred conviction that they (Muslims) are superior to all others - even when their civilization speaks ofa low, non-productive, often murderous society.

    Cults come in all forms, shapes and sizes but, when a Cult is dedicated to force obedience on all others and led by the charismatic self-styled messiah, you can be sure it is pure evil.

    To some, Obama is infallible and cannot be accused of bad judgement, personal bias or bonding with evil societies because his Cult cannot admit even to themselves their adulation was misplaced. Only when their own lives became catastrophic can they even recognize the flaw in their leader and themselves.

    Here in America, although the Constitution served us so well as a nation, Obama’s Cult is willing to accept that the Constitution is slipping through our (or their) fingers.



    Column One: The mullahs' big week

    Nov. 5, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    At first glance, this past week seems like a week that Iran's mullahs would very much like to forget. Early Wednesday morning, IDF naval commandos boarded the merchant ship Francop and diverted it to the naval base at Ashdod. There the IDF displayed its cargo of 3,000 rockets and various and other sundry ordnance useful only to terror forces.
    The Francop originated in Iran and was intercepted en route to Iran's Hizbullah proxy force in Lebanon via Iran's Arab toady Syria.
    As Israel's political leadership noted, this shipment constitutes hard proof that Iran is actively sponsoring terrorist armies in Lebanon, and doing so in full breach of binding UN Security Council resolutions. The commando raid also exposed the depth of Syria's collusion with Iran in arming Hizbullah. After Israel's seizure of the Francop, voices claiming that Syria is but a bit player in the terror game can be laughed off the international stage.
    Israel's interception of the Francop came a week after Yemeni forces seized an Iranian ship transporting armor-piercing weapons to Houthi Shi'ite rebels in northern Yemen. As Saudi Arabia's Al-Watan reported over the weekend, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are training Houthi rebels in Eritrea and sponsoring their insurgency against the Yemini regime.
    Earlier in October, the Hansa India, which sailed from Iran to Germany, fell under suspicion as it made its way to Syria. It was diverted from Egypt to Malta, where its cargo of bullets and industrial materials intended for weapons production was removed.
    On Wednesday morning, just as Israel was announcing the capture of the Francop, scores of thousands of Iranians in cities throughout the country took advantage of the regime's planned demonstrations celebrating the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran to protest against the regime. These regime opponents willingly placed themselves in front of the batons, tear gas cannons and guns of Iranian regime goons to protest June's stolen presidential election and to call for the overthrow of the mullahs' regime of tyranny and its replacement with a democracy.
    The protesters turned regime supporters' calls for "Death to America," and "Death to Israel" into big, deadly jokes by calling out, "Death to the Dictator" (that is, supreme ruler Ali Khamenei) and "Death to Russia."
    Far from embracing the regime's 30-year war against the US and the nation-state based international system, representatives of the "Green Revolution" asked the US to forgive Iran for taking 52 US Embassy personnel hostage in 1979.
    Back in Israel, for the past two weeks some 1,400 US military personnel have been deployed throughout the country for the biennial Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise with the IDF. Although Juniper Cobra is a routine maneuver, this year's exercise was unprecedented in size and scope. Observers claim that there have never been so many American generals in Israel at one time.
    No previous Israeli-American joint exercise has been conducted with such a high profile. And Israeli leaders did not hesitate to name the enemy in this year's exercise. This year's Juniper Cobra exercise, they said, was part of the two nations' preparations for a joint response to a potential Iranian strike against Israel. The obvious message Israel and the US hoped to transmit to Teheran was that the strategic alliance between the two countries remains strong.
    ALL IN all then, on the surface, this past week seemed like a horrible week for the mullahs. But appearances can be deceiving. Unfortunately and counterintuitively, the past week has been one of the best weeks the mullahs have had for a long, long time. Certainly, it was the best week the Iranian regime has had since it falsified the results of the June 12 presidential elections.
    In January 2002, the IDF commandeered the Iranian Karine A weapons ship en route to Gaza. The Karine A was carrying a 10th of the weapons that the Francop was carrying. But the impact the Israeli commando mission then had on Israel's political position was more than 10 times greater than the political impact of this week's successful operation.
    The exposure then of Iran's support for Palestinian Authority-backed terror forces caused the Bush administration to abandon its previous acceptance of Yasser Arafat as a legitimate political leader. That in turn paved the way for Israel's launch of Operation Defensive Shield three months later. In that operation Israel wrested military control over Judea and Samaria away from Palestinian militias and terror cells.
    Wednesday's raid has had no discernible impact on American policy. The US did not denounce either Syria or Iran for breaching the UN Security Council resolution barring Iranian arms shipments as well as the Security Council resolution prohibiting nations from arming Hizbullah. The US did not state that in response to what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called a "smoking gun," it will reconsider its decision to send an ambassador to Damascus or its commitment to appeasing Iran through its nuclear talks in Geneva. The only thing a State Department official could bring himself to say was that the US is concerned about "Hizbullah's efforts to rearm in direct violation of various UN Security Council resolutions," and remark that the groups remains, "a significant threat to peace and security in Lebanon and the region."
    Despite the government's energetic efforts to use the Francop interception as a means to convince the nations of the world to unite against Iranian-backed terror, no one seems willing to acknowledge the clear strategic implications of Iran's exports of terror weaponry. Today no one is any more willing to treat Iran as the enemy of the international system it has been for 30 years than they were before Israel exposed the Francop cargo of terror for all the world to see.
    And the US-led international community's refusal to take any action against Iran in response to this latest evidence of its rogue behavior is a great victory for the mullahs. Thirty years after their first criminal challenge to the US and the free world as a whole, no one seems to care when their criminality is so graphically exposed.
    WITH THE international community making clear its unwillingness to confront Iran for its support of global terrorism, the greatest single threat to the Iranian regime today is the Iranian people. Since the likes of Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the June 12 presidential elections, the Iranian people have daily risked death in their desperate and courageous bid to overthrow the regime.
    The Iranian opposition movement announced weeks ago that its members would be out in force at the anniversary rallies on Wednesday. And on Wednesday, the protesters begged the world for support. They called out to US President Barack Obama, "You're either with us or with them."
    But Obama - in full appeasement mode - issued a statement ahead of Wednesday's "Death to America" rallies announcing, "We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs." That is, when asked to choose between Iran's freedom riders or their oppressors, he chose the oppressors. The US is with the mullahs against the Iranian people.
    No doubt Obama's statement brought contemptuous smirks to faces of the illegitimate leaders in Teheran.
    As for the Juniper Cobra exercise, far from being a cause for concern for Teheran, it is a cause for celebration. As Iran's centrifuges churn on, by loudly voicing its determination to defend Israel if Israel is attacked by Iran, the US signaled that it is willing to take its chances with a nuclear-armed Iran. More than anything, Juniper Cobra demonstrated that the Obama administration has abandoned its previously stated pledge that it will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Rather than working with Israel to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the US is using Juniper Cobra to noisily demonstrate that it merely hopes to deter Iran from using nuclear weapons once it acquires them.
    While this was perhaps the mullahs' greatest reason for rejoicing this week, three additional developments no doubt also warmed the cockles of their hearts. First, Obama's pledge not to support the anti-regime protesters was part of a larger message in which the president of the United States effectively groveled at the mullahs' feet and begged them to allow the US to enrich uranium for them.
    Obama said, "I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect... We have recognized Iran's international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran's request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community."
    And when Khamenei responded to Obama's obsequious bowing and scraping by saying that negotiating with the US was a "naïve and perverted" enterprise, the Obama administration had nothing to say.
    The White House won't even acknowledge that the Iranians have already rejected the IAEA-brokered deal to have the US, France and Russia enrich uranium for them. Indeed, rather than accept that the Iranians are playing them for fools, administration officials were furious at Israel for Defense Minister Ehud Barak's announcement early last week that their proposed deal with Iran would have little impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
    According to Channel 10, the White House demanded that Netanyahu applaud their efforts. They threatened Israel with unspecified sanctions if he failed to announce his support for their pathetic attempts at appeasement. And so he did. And about five minutes after Netanyahu applauded the Americans for their brilliant offer to enrich uranium for Iran, the Iranians rejected their offer as insufficient.
    Finally, Obama has threatened that if Iran rejects his nuclear appeasement offer the US will move swiftly to enact painful sanctions against it. But with the UN the only international institution the administration believes can legitimately initiate sanctions, and with the UN currently busy discussing the Goldstone Report accusing Israel of committing war crimes in its campaign against Iran's Hamas proxy in Gaza, no one can expect any movement on yet another sanctions resolution against Iran any time soon. (And as to Gaza, neither the US nor anyone else had any significant reaction to Israel's revelation Tuesday that Hamas successfully tested an Iranian missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv.)
    Today we are in a waiting period. At the end of this period, either Iran will emerge as a nuclear power or Iran will see itself disarmed of nuclear power, its regime humbled and its terror proxies deterred.
    Through their actions again this week, the US and the international community as a whole have demonstrated their preferred outcome. It must be fervently hoped that like the brave Iranian people themselves, Israel will not bend to their will.



    Jihad at Fort Hood – by Robert Spencer

    Posted By Robert Spencer On November 6, 2009 @ 2:23 am In FrontPage

    Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people
    and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while,
    according to eyewitnesses, “shouting something in Arabic while he was
    shooting.” Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing
    puzzlement about why he did it. According to NPR [1], “the motive behind
    the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said.” The Washington
    Post [2] agreed: “The motive remains unclear, although some sources
    reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq
    and upset about an imminent deployment.” The Huffington Post spun faster,
    asserting that “there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik
    Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab.”

    Yet there was, and what’s more, Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear ­
    but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic
    advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to
    obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken
    place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss
    to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad
    attack is ignored.

    Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn’t think of himself as an
    American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver
    Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as
    “Palestinian.” A mosque official found that curious, saying: “I don’t know
    why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine.”

    Center. He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry
    from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there,
    NPR reports, Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work”
    and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients
    and colleagues.”

    He was a staff psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six
    years before transferring to Fort Hood earlier this year. While at Walter
    Reed, he was a “very devout” member of and daily visitor to the Muslim
    Community Center in Silver Spring. Faizul Khan, a former imam at the
    Center, expressed puzzlement over Hasan’s murders: “To know something like
    this happened, I don’t know what got into his mind. There was nothing
    extremist in his questions. He never showed any frustration….He never
    showed any remorse or wish for vengeance on anybody.”

    So he identified himself as Palestinian and was a devout Muslim – so what?
    These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is
    a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran’s many
    injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no
    force or applicability for today’s world. Unfortunately, all too many
    Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds
    that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some
    indications that he may have been among them.

    On May 20, 2009, a man giving his name as “NidalHasan” posted this defense
    of suicide bombing [3] (all spelling and grammar as it is in the original):

    There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the
    soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the
    grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He
    inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the
    lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is
    inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that
    sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to
    suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help
    save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100
    enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered
    a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair.
    The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing
    their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call
    them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised
    by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR
    INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

    Of course, it may not be the same Nidal Hasan. But there is more. One of
    his former colleagues, Col. Terry Lee, recalled Hasan saying statements to
    the effect of “Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S.
    military”; “Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors”; and
    even speaking favorably about people who “strap bombs on themselves and go
    into Times Square.”

    Maybe he just snapped, perhaps under the pressure of his imminent
    deployment to Iraq. But it’s noteworthy that if he did, he snapped in
    exactly the same way that several other Muslims in the U.S. military have
    snapped in the past. In April 2005, a Muslim serving in the U.S. Army,
    Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and
    wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. AP reported: “Prosecutors
    say Akbar told investigators he launched the attack because he was
    concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq. They said he
    coolly carried out the attack to achieve ‘maximum carnage’ on his comrades
    in the 101st Airborne Division.”

    And Hasan’s murderous rampage resembles one that five Muslim men in New
    Jersey tried to carry out at Fort Dix in New Jersey in 2007, when they
    plotted to enter the U.S. Army base and murder as many soldiers as they

    That was a jihad plot. One of the plotters, Serdar Tatar, told an FBI
    informant late in 2006: “I’m gonna do it….It doesn’t matter to me, whether
    I get locked up, arrested, or get taken away, it doesn’t matter. Or I die,
    doesn’t matter, I’m doing it in the name of Allah.” Another plotter,
    Mohamad Shnewer, was caught on tape saying, “They are the ones, we are
    going to put bullets in their heads, Allah willing.”

    Nidal Hasan’s statements about Muslims rising up against the U.S. military
    aren’t too far from that, albeit less graphic. The effect of ignoring or
    downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played
    in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to
    prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan.



    by Emanuel A. Winston,
    Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator 

    Is there any doubt that G-d is fulfilling the promise He made to Avraham: "I will bless those who bless thee and curse those who curse thee." ?

    Has President Barack Obama brought this promised curse to America as he bonds with radical Islamists and attacks Israel on their behalf? Muslims in America are a dangerous element in our nation, despite the political dance, firstly by President George W. Bush and now by President Barack Hussein Obama to assure us that Muslims and Islam are perfectly safe for Americans.

    Did today’s November 5th massacre at Fort Hood, Texas prove that wrong? The shooter was named as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim psychiatrist who objected to being posted to either war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Reportedly, Hasan killed 11 and wounded 31 with 2 handguns - at a soldiers’ collection point and processing center for those being organizing to leave for either front or returning stateside and being processed.
    For the first several hours it was reported that Hasan had been killed in the shoot-out, but later reports say he was shot multiple times but, HE IS SAID
    TO BE ALIVE, in custody and in stable condition.
    By now you would have heard or seen the news stories. There were yet-to-be confirmed reports that there was automatic rifle fire and a possible second shooter.

    Major Hasan had, at different times, said that Muslims should rise up against U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a phone interview by Fox News with Hasan’s cousin, Nader Hasan, who said that (contrary to earlier news reports that Nidal had converted to Islam recently) Nidal has always been a Muslim. (Then, suddenly, Nader Hasan cut off his interview - abruptly - like someone told him to shut up already!)

    Whether planned or spontaneous, several Presidents lived in denial, claiming that Muslims posed no threat to Americans or America. While this was a typical political statement to keep the peace, it also artfully avoided exploring the mind-set of Muslims in their "Jihad" (global holy war for Islam). Muslims were (and are) taught from the tender age of 3 to kill all infidels (non-Muslims or un-believers) for their ultimate goal of a Global Caliphate for Islam.

    I recall spontaneous attacks in Israel where a Muslim bus driver simply drove his bus into a crowd. At 2 other times Muslim tractor operators turned their machines against Jewish civilians, women and children on the sidewalks and streets. Killing Jews (and Christians) was always their ultimate purpose. Don’t forget the 10,000 Rockets, Missiles and Mortars launched against the civilians in Southern Israel for 8 years.

    Sometimes, Terror is pre-meditated and well-planned - as in 9/11. At other times Muslims will brood on their inner taught mandate to kill infidels and then act spontaneously to kill or plan to kill - like Hasan at Fort Hood.
    America has been loaded with Muslims - with the assistance of the U.S. State Department through easy entry policies on immigration in order to appease and pacify Muslim oil bearing nations. Muslims have been allowed to attend America’s finest universities in programs that studied Physics (especially nuclear), Chemistry and Biology - all of which deal with WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction, including NBC - Nuclear, Biological and Chemical). Hassan went all the way up to become an Army Psychiatrist. Look where that put him - into the largest military base in America - where he could do the most harm to American soldiers and all who loved them. Where his massacre (for which Islam had programmed him) could undermine America’s underlying feeling of inner security.

    While Muslims can be ordinary people who display kindliness, seeming loyalty to their host countries but, at their core their loyalty is with Islam, Allah and Koranic law. But, listening to what some Mullahs preach in the mosques or teach their children in strict Madrassahs is hostility to Christians, Jews or unbelievers.

    There have recently been captures of Muslims who have planned to attack U.S. military bases and/or other targets in America.
    Obama’s outreach to Iran and the rest of the Islamic world, merely creates a greater expectation that the U.S. is in decline and fair game for conversion to Islam. Obama’s policy also makes Muslims think that Obama will weaken the Jewish State of Israel so the Muslims can revise their history of defeat and proceed to conquer the Jewish State.

    America’s 16 Intelligence Agencies know all this and watch the Muslims in America to the degree acceptable to America’s politicians and, especially, the President.

    It was instructive to listen to Obama’s comments on the massacre of American soldiers at Ford Hood. It was so bland; it was a political campaign speech only - and it was pre-packaged in such a way as to appeal to voters. I wonder if Obama will even mention the Muslim name of the shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. I wonder if Obama will make a royal appearance at the coming funerals of the 11 dead brave soldiers. It will only be to take advantage of the soldiers and their families’ grief in order to make political capital.

    Names mean things to Muslims. Barack Hussein Obama is a name that speaks of the child, turning into the man who will inevitably adhere to Islam, Mohammed and the Koran forever.

    The shooter’s name is Nidal Malik Hasan - 3 names with "meaning"....
    "Nidal" (as in Abu Nidal, head of Black September and over 30 years was responsible for over 900 deaths, including the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, hijacked planes, 1976 Air France to Entebbe, 1982 the Goldenberg Restaurant in Paris, 1985 Greece - 60 people killed; 1985 hijacked a cruise ship, throwing Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair into the ocean; 1985 Rome Airport - killing 13, wounding 75; Vienna Airport killing 3, wounding 30; 1986 Berlin at the LaBelle Disco; 1986 Pakistan - hijacked Pan Am Fl. 73, killing 22, seriously maiming another 150; 1986 Rome, a Boeing 727; 1986 Synagogue in Turkey, killing 21 people in Istanbul’s Neve Shalom’s synagogue; 1988 a Greek cruise ship the ‘City of Poros’, killing 9, 98 were injured; 1988 Lockerbie Scotland and more, more, more ).

    - built the Shrine of the Rock in 696 CE - eventually became the Golden Dome.

    ...Hasan al-Banna was the Egyptian who founded the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, which has been trying to undermine the Egyptian government since 1928.

    So, in Islam, names mean something - usually glorifying those who kill.

    Regrettably, Americans will never understand the Middle East, what a Muslim is committed to by Islamic Law and how he/she will respond to a call from a Mullah to now act in the name of Allah.

    Most Americans may experience a few moments of shock and awareness of our vulnerabilities but soon forget, as we did too soon after 9/11.



    The Significance of Allahu Akbar
    by Gamaliel Isaac
    Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, while shouting Allahu Akbar  (Allah is great) murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas on Thursday, November 5, 2009.  Fox News interviewed a “criminal profiler” who asserted definitively that this attack had nothing to do with religion. Some people suggested he had post traumatic stress syndrome, apparently they didn't know he had never served in combat. NPR and the Washington Post said his motive remains unclear.  
    Muslims have a long history of committing atrocities to the cry of Allahu Akbar.  When the Muslim Turks took children away from their infidel parents to make them into soldiers for Allah, their mothers and sisters would desperately follow the horsemen who would drive them away with whips with loud cries of Allah.
        When the PLO occupied Lebanon they massacred the Christians there.  Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia wrote about one of the massacres as follows:
    An eyewitness gave an account of the massacre of 582 Christians in Damur by the PLO and its Muslim allies on January 22, 1976: "The attack took place from the mountain behind.  It was an apocalypse.  They were coming, thousands and thousands, shouting 'Allahu Akbar! God is great!  Let us attack them for the Arabs, let us offer a holocaust to Mohammad!'  And they were slaughtering everyone in their path, men, women and children."
        When EgyptAir co-pilot Gamil Al Batuti was alone in the cockpit in Oct 31, 1999 of FLIGHT 990 he shut off the autopilot and the engines and put the aircraft into a steep dive, all the while intoning:
      Allahu Akbar.
       The Boeing 767 broke up in midair and crashed into the ocean off Nantucket Island, killing all 217 souls aboard (Allah is the Greatest worldnetdaily 7/31/04).
        Israel National News reported on 11/8/02 how Soldiers near Kedumim, between Shechem and Raanana, prevented a major terror attack on the previous night.  They ordered a PA taxi to stop as it approached the Jit Junction checkpoint, and the two passengers to get out.  The soldiers, standing about 20 meters away, told the men to lift their shirts - a common measure used to check if suspected terrorists are wearing an explosives belt.  The two Arabs did so, uncovering exactly that type of explosive apparel on one of them.  The terrorist then yelled, "Allahu Akbar" and started running towards the soldiers.  The latter fired at him, he fell to the ground - and exploded.  The second Arab, his apparent accomplice, was also killed in the blast.  A search of the taxi turned up another bomb in the trunk.   Ironically the cry of Allahu Akbar saved an Israeli border policeman from being stabbed by a knife wielding 16 year old girl.  He heard her cries of Allahu Akbar and turned around in time to avoid her knife (Israel National News May 29, 01).
       At around 7  Israel time on March 2, 2002, a Moslem walked onto packed Beit Israel Street in the quarter of the same name and detonated a device - packed with explosives and metal - leveling a community that was celebrating the end of the sabbath.
       "I saw children and babies wounded," said an Israeli student who identified himself as Efraim. "I saw a friend of mine with his hand blasted off."
       Hearing the news, Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank town of Ramallah, where Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat has been holed up for three months, rejoiced, pumping their fists in the air and shouting, "Allahu Akbar!" (New York Post Mar 3, 02).
       On January 5, 2002 A Moslem man attempted to kill Rabbi Gabriel Farhi, 34, in a Paris synagogue on Shabbat (Arutz 7 news 1/5/03).  The would-be murderer entered the synagogue, yelled, "Allahu Akbar", and stabbed the rabbi in his stomach.  The victim is a member of a Jewish liberal movement in France, and active in efforts to bring about dialogue between Jews and members of other faiths, especially Moslems. 
     In 2004 Nick Berg, 26, a freelance telecommunications contractor from West Chester, Pa. was beheaded by Muslims to the cry of Allahu Akbar.
      According to The New York Times (9/5/04), when Muslim terrorists took over an elementary school in Belsan, Russia, they shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the greatest").  The terrorists were killed but managed to kill 156 children first.  (Foxnews 9/7/04)
          In 2005, A 30-year-old Palestinian Muslim woman, was apparently murdered by members of her family for having had a romance with a Christian man from Taiba. When her family discovered that she had been involved in a forbidden relationship with a Christian, they apparently forced her to drink poison.  A Taiba resident recounted the revenge of the Muslims (keep in mind the Muslim killed her not the Christians)   (Khaled Abu Toameh, Muslims Ransack Christian Village, The Jerusalem Post, 9/5/05)

    “More than 500 Muslim men, chanting Allahu Akbar [God is great], attacked us at night.  They poured kerosene on many buildings and set them on fire. Many of the attackers broke into houses and stole furniture, jewelry and electrical appliances."

    Another resident said

    "It was like a war, they arrived in groups, and many of them were holding clubs,  Some people saw them carrying weapons. They first attacked houses belonging to the Khoury family [looking for the man who had the affair with the women, not realizing he had already fled the village.] Then they went to their relatives. They entered the houses and destroyed everything there."

    Oriana Fallaci, in her book The Rage and The Pride tells the story of twelve impure women:
    (what was the impurity they had committed I never knew) whom in 1975 the sons of Allah executed at Dacca, Bangladesh.  They executed them in the stadium, with bayonet stabs in the thorax, and at the presence of twenty thousand believers who sitting in the tribunes prayed Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar. God is great, God is great...
    Did they take off their burkahs, did they unveil their faces to drink a glass of water?  Did they challenge the prohibition to sing, did they hum a lullaby to some newborn child?  Or did they commit the crime of laughing? (Yessir: of laughing.  I wrote "laughing".  Didn't you know that Fundamentalist Moslems forbid women to laugh?)
         The book Thunder from the East tells of a frightening scene in which the cry of "Allahu Akbar" was heard.   An excerpt is given below:
    He must have been a raffishly handsome young man, with his bushy eyebrows, large coal-black eyes, high-cheekboned face, and thick mop of black hair dangling over his ears. He looked pale but improbably serene, showing no sign of the torture he had endured, and those eyes were still wide open and frozen in a final instant of surprise. He had a strong, projecting chin, but his head ended a few inches below that chin in a jagged eruption of blood, tissue, and bone. His head had been hacked off with a machete and was impaled on a bamboo stake, and he seemed to be staring at me.
    I stared back. That abrupt transition from human flesh to bamboo stake wrenched my gut and paralyzed my legs. I was scared stiff. The mob that had killed him was in front of me now, the killers waving machetes and screaming Allahu Akbar, God is great. There were about two dozen of them, mostly men in their twenties and thirties, all riding motorcycles slowly down the main street of the little farmtown of Turen, Indonesia.
           On March 31.2004, four Americans guards were driving their SUVs through the Iraqi city of Fallujah.  Iraqis ambushed them and dragged their burned and buthered bodies through the streets, and hung two of them from a bridge - while cheering, dancing and chanting anti-American slogans (New York Post 4/1/04).    Meanwhile, 12 miles from Fallujah, five GIs were killed when a bomb exploded under their armored personnel carrier.  A crowd of hundreds of men and boys quickly surrounded the SUVs, flashing victory signs and chanting, "Long live Islam," "Allahu Akbar (God is Great)" and "We sacrifice our blood and souls for Islam."

       According to the New York Post:

    As plumes of inky smoke rose into the sky, the mob pulled an American who was still alive from one of the SUVs.

    "He had gotten shot in his chest," truck driver Ahmed Obayid, 38, told the Washington Post.  "The people killed him by throwing bricks on him until they killed him.  They cut off his arm and his leg and his head and they were cheering and dancing."

       The riots and burnings in France are accompanied by chants of Allahu Akbar (Spencer, Jihad in Europe: Frontpagemag 11/8/05).  A video of the rioters chanting Allahu Akbar can be viewed by clicking here
          On March 20, 2008 an 18-year-old Arab man grabbed the yarmulke of a Rabbi at the 4th Ave. and 9th Street train station in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn, "while his friends kicked and punched the victim while screaming 'Allahu Akbar.'"  The perpetrator grabbed the rabbi's head covering, then fled the scene only to be hit by a vehicle on a nearby street. The report said police arrested him and requested an ambulance, but were trying "to brush off the crime as just teenagers who don't know what 'Allahu akbar' means."
    When Islamic hijackers crashed flight 93 into the ground near Shanksville PA on Sept 11, 2001, the last words of the terrorists recorded by the flight recorder were:  Allahu Akbar.  When Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad gave a sermon at a London Meeting hall where a giant screen behind him showed images of the World Trade Center falling some of the audience shouted, Allahu Akbar. (Militant Imams Under Scrutiny Across Europe, New York Times 1/25/05)
          What does this tell us about Allah and Islam? What does this tell us about the motives of Major Nidal Malik Hasan?  The Washington Post and NPR need wonder no more.
    Written by Gamaliel Isaac
    Email: or



    Palestine, Peres and Pretense

    Cheshvan 19, 5770, 06 November 09 04:05
    by David Singer
    "The goals bravely sought by Yitzhak, with a bold vision and diplomacy, will not be abandoned," President Peres said, adding that "even if they are delayed we will achieve his goals."
    Regrettably, however,  President Peres was pulling the wool over the Israelis' eyes by not articulating what those specific goals were and by suggesting that whatever goals he was referring to could  be achieved.
    The following is what Mr. Rabin actually proposed. That will enable an assessment of the truth of President Peres' statements.
    Mr Rabin’s ideas and visions are set out in the speech he delivered to the Knesset on October 5, 1995 - just days before his assassination, when presenting the 300 page “Israeli - Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” for approval.
    That speech laid out the following goals:

    “We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states. In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.
    At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel, Muslim, Christian, Druze and others, will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.
    We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
    We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the permanent solution will be beyond those which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
    These are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
    A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev, as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
    B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
    C. Changes which will include the addition to Israel of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Betar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.
    D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria like the one in Gush Katif”(note the irony!!D.S.)
    President Peres himself has rejected Mr. Rabin’s Roadmap, endorsing former American President Bush’s Roadmap which calls for a 22nd independent Arab State rather than Mr Rabin's "entity" which was to be created between Israel and Jordan.
    Releasing murderers of Jews and granting them pardons have now become accepted policy under President Peres.
    The Palestinian Authority has already rejected offers in 2000 and 2008 by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert to end the conflict by dividing Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority demands that places like Maale Adumin, Efrat and Betar become part of the new State of Palestine and continues to insist that Israel return to the June 4, 1967 lines, forcibly removing 500,000 Jews now living beyond them.

    Gush Katif and other settlements in Gaza no longer exist because of Israel’s unilateral abandonment of Gaza in 2005 and the evacuation of 8000 Jews who once lived there.

    Israel no longer controls the border with Egypt and allows flagrant breaches of the Gaza Strip maritime zone for fear of creating a public relations backlash. Those acts certainly do not conform with Rabin’s words.
    Most important, it is clear today that the belief that the Arabs will ever recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people is a pipe dream. Israel’s President must stop telling telling fairy tales by suggesting that Mr Rabin’s ideas and visions can still triumph despite his death.  Peres’ own ideas are to hand over much more to the Arabs than Rabin would have, and they, too, have been rejected out of hand.
    The President needs to acknowledge that Mr Rabin’s ideas and vision are incapable of fulfillment today as Israel pursues a path that is fraught with much greater danger for its continued existence than Mr Rabin’s proposals ever contemplated.  Ironically President Peres made the following comment on the occasion of the 13th commemoration of Yitzchak Rabin’s death last year:

    “The bullets that were fired into Yitzhak’s back didn’t kill his plans, because ideas and visions cannot be killed.”  However, it was not bullets that killed Mr Rabin’s ideas and vision. It was the abandonment of his policies by those who succeeded him in the corridors of power that has been the real cause.
    The official public commemoration service to mark Mr Rabin's death was postponed until 7 November because of inclement weather last week. A videotaped message from President Obama is due to be played to a crowd expected to reach 100,000.
    Hopefully President Obama will not indulge in such duplicity. His message will be awaited with great interest.



    Column One: Obama's failure, Netanyahu's opportunity

    Nov. 12, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
    Once again, US President Barack Obama has demonstrated his intention of "putting light" between America and Israel. His hostility toward Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the latter's visit to Washington this week was breathtaking.
    Prime Minister Binyamin...

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (left) and US President Barack Obama share a moment of laughter during their meeting in the White House in July.

    It isn't every day that a visiting leader from a strategically vital US ally is brought into the White House in an unmarked van in the middle of the night rather than greeted like a friend at the front door; is forbidden to have his picture taken with the president; is forced to leave the White House alone, through a side exit; and is ordered to keep the contents of his meeting with the president secret.
    Ahead of Obama's meeting with Netanyahu, The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama was effectively attempting to blackmail the Israeli premier by conditioning the meeting on Netanyahu's willingness to make tangible concessions to the Palestinians during his speech before the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America.
    Although the report was denied by the Obama administration, if it was true, such a move by the White House would be without precedent in the history of US relations with Israel. And if untrue, the very fact that the story rings true is indicative of the wretched state of US relations with Israel since Obama entered office.
    Obama's hostility was evident as well during his meeting with 50 Jewish leaders at the White House this week. In an obvious bid to split American Jewry away from Israel, Obama refused to discuss Israel or Iran with the concerned American Jewish leaders. As far as Obama was concerned, all they deserved from him was a primer on the brilliance of his economic policies and the worthiness of his plan to socialize the American healthcare industry. His foreign policy is none of their business.
    Obama's meeting with American Jewish leaders was supposed to be a consolation prize for American Jews after Obama canceled his first public address to American Jews since taking office. The White House claimed that he canceled the speech because his visit to the Fort Hood memorial service made it impossible for him to attend. But then the conference was a three-day affair. The organizers would probably have been happy to reschedule.
    Instead, as Iran races to the nuclear finish line, America's Jewish leaders were forced to sit through White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's kitschy Borscht Belt schmooze about his bar mitzva.
    The ironic thing about Obama's nastiness toward Netanyahu and his arrogant treatment of the American Jewish community is that while it has made him the first US president to have no credibility among Israelis and has caused a 14 percent drop in his support among American Jews, it has failed utterly to earn him the trust of the Muslim world.
    Today the Fatah movement is in disarray. Last week its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, announced his intention to retire and has placed the blame for his decision on the Obama administration as well as on Israel. Key Palestinian spokesmen like Saeb Erekat have declared the death of the peace process and called for the renewal of the jihad against Israel.
    As for the larger Muslim world, a report this week in The New York Times stated that the US's key Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been perilously weakened since Obama took office. Their diminished influence has been accompanied by the rapid rise of Iran and Syria. Both of these rogue states have been on the receiving end of continuous wooing by Obama administration officials who seem ready to do just about anything to appease them.
    In the meantime, Iran's Hizbullah proxy in Lebanon has again managed to regain control over Lebanon's government, despite its defeat in June's parliamentary election. Making full use of the fact that it fields the most powerful army in the country and owing as well to the US's decision to abandon the pro-Western March 14 movement in favor of an approach that makes no distinction between America's friends and foes in Lebanon, Hizbullah strong-armed its way back to the driver's seat in the new Lebanese government.
    AS FOR Hizbullah's Iranian bosses, far from convincing them to moderate their policies, the Obama administration's efforts to appease the ayatollahs have emboldened Iran's theocratic leaders to adopt ever-more radical positions against the US. As senior US officials try to make light of the fact that in the past week Iran has thrice rejected their latest offer to have the US, Russia and France enrich uranium for them, the Iranians announced that they will try three hapless American hikers for espionage. The three young Americans were abducted by Iranian security forces along the Iran-Iraq border in Kurdistan four months ago.
    The fact that Obama's policies have all failed so spectacularly presents a unique opportunity for Israel to move its policies in a bold new direction. Many commentators and policy-makers have claimed that it falls on Israel to help Obama succeed where he has failed. In their view, Israel must go out of its way to establish a Palestinian state during Obama's term of office or accept the blame for any renewal of the Palestinian terror war against it. Such voices - most strongly represented this week by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman - have tried to blame the failure of Obama's attempt to reinstate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on Israel's alleged intransigence.
    In response to these allegations, this week Netanyahu expressed profound and urgent interest in holding negotiations with Abbas. This move was ill-advised. Although it is true that by proclaiming his devotion to the so-called peace process, Netanyahu was able to deflect some of the White House's attacks against him, the short-term advantage it brought him this week in Washington is eclipsed by the long-term damage such an approach causes the country. In the long-run, Israel is harmed when its leaders promote the fiction that it is possible to reach an accord with the Palestinians that will bring about the formal and peaceful establishment of a Palestinian state.
    As Netanyahu prepared to fly off to Washington, Abbas made clear that he will not make any concessions to Israel for peace. Together with his fellow Fatah members, Abbas made clear that like Hamas, Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist, does not support peaceful coexistence with Israel, and shares Hamas's dedication to continued war against Israel.
    For their part, pro-Palestinian lobbyists Robert Malley and Hussein Agha are now arguing that the two-state solution has failed and that the time has come for a one-state solution in which Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state by accepting the Palestinians as full citizens in one binational state.
    The Israeli Left, as well as the State Department and several European governments, has now embraced the unelected Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's plan to unilaterally declare Palestinian independence in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem in two years. The aim of the Fayad plan is to coerce Israel into abandoning all the lands it took control over during the Six Day War, by implicitly threatening to deploy international forces throughout "Palestine" that will be charged with "protecting" the new Palestinian state from the IDF.
    BOTH THE Fayad-plan supporters and the one-state solution crowd believe that their plans can indirectly advance the so-called peace process. In their view, frightened of both a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence and of a binational state, Netanyahu will abandon his demand for a demilitarized Palestinian state and for defensible borders for Israel and voluntarily withdraw the IDF and the 250,000 Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria to within the 1949 armistice lines. But the fact is that there is no reason for Netanyahu to fear their plans. Indeed it is high time for Israel to call their bluffs.
    The shocking truth is that the demographic threat is an empty threat. The demographic doomsday scenarios for Israel are all based on falsified Palestinian census data from 1997 that inflated the number of Palestinians in Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza by 50%. As the independent American-Israel Demographic Research Group demonstrated in early 2005, Israel has no reason to be concerned that by maintaining its control over Judea and Samaria, it will become a majority Arab state. Today, the combined population of Israel and Judea and Samaria leaves Jews with a two-thirds majority. With Jewish immigration and fertility rates rising, negative Arab immigration rates, and decreasing Arab fertility rates, the long-term projections for Israel's demographic viability are all positive.
    As Netanyahu knows, there is consensus support among Israelis for his plan to ensure that the country retains defensible borders in perpetuity. This involves establishing permanent Israeli control over the Jordan Valley and the large Jewish population blocs in Judea and Samaria. In light of the well-recognized failure of the two-state solution, Hamas's takeover of Gaza and the disintegration of Fatah accompanied by the shattering of the myth of Fatah moderation, Israel should strike out on a new course and work toward the integration of Judea and Samaria, including its Palestinian population, into Israeli society. In the first instance, this will require the implementation of Israeli law in the Jordan Valley and the large settlement blocs.
    Replacing the military government in these areas with Israel's more liberal legal code will also advance Netanyahu's economic peace plan, which envisions expanding the Palestinian economy in Judea and Samaria by among other things reintegrating it into Israel's booming economy. This plan would reward political moderation while marginalizing terrorists in Palestinian society. In so doing, it will advance the cause of peaceful coexistence over the long-term far better than the failed two-state solution. Far from engendering peace, the two-state paradigm empowered the most corrupt and violent actors in Palestinian society, at the expense of its most productive and moderate citizens.
    Obama's disgraceful treatment of Israel and, for that matter, his atrocious treatment of the majority of America's allies in the Middle East and throughout the world, has strengthened the hands of America's worst enemies and made the world a much more dangerous place. But his obvious failures provide Israel with an opportunity to take control of events and change the situation for the betterment of Israel and the Palestinians alike.
    Applying Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and the major Israeli population blocs in Judea and Samaria will probably not win Netanyahu many friends in the Obama White House. But if we learned anything from Obama's insulting treatment of Netanyahu and American Jews this week, we learned that regardless of what Israel does, the Obama administration has no interest in being his friend.




    Column One: Bibi's bad week

    Nov. 27, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu weakened Israel this week. And he did so for no good reason.

    Thursday's headlines told the tale. The day after Netanyahu bowed to US pressure and announced a total freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria for ten months, Yediot Aharonot reported that the Obama administration now wants Israel to release a thousand Fatah terrorists from prison.

    The Americans also want Israel to allow US-trained, terror supporting Fatah paramilitary forces to deploy in areas that are currently under Israeli military control. Moreover, the Americans are demanding that Israel surrender land in the strategically crucial Jordan Valley to Fatah.

    And these are just American preconditions for starting negotiations with the Palestinians. According to Yediot, if those talks ever begin, the White House will demand that Israel accept a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza and agree to ethnically cleanse all the areas of Jews.

    So far from winning American support or at least causing the White House to ease its bullying, US President Barack Obama sees Netanyahu's decision to implement a militarily irrational, bigoted policy of prohibiting Jews from building in Israel's heartland as a drop in the bucket.

    THE TRUTH is that Israel should not be in the business of negotiating the right of Israeli cities and villages to exist and prosper. The notion that it is acceptable to demand that Jews not be permitted to live in Judea and Samaria - or anywhere else in the world - is not a notion that Israel should countenance.

    That being said, putting the so-called "settlements" genie back in the bottle is a tall order. After all, Israel agreed to place it on the table in the 1993 Oslo agreements and made its willingness to dry out Jewish communities explicit with its acceptance of the so-called road map in 2004. To take Israeli communities off the agenda it would be necessary to repudiate these deals.

    Given what it will take to remove Jewish communities from the negotiations chopping block, it makes sense that Netanyahu has not moved in that direction since taking office. But willingness to discuss these communities is not the same as giving them away for nothing. In discussing the dispositions of these towns and villages, at a minimum Netanyahu should have taken advantage of the fact that the Americans, the Europeans and the Arabs all consider the so-called "settlements" to be the most important obstacle to peace.

    Netanyahu should have capitalized on US Congressman and Obama ally Robert Wexler's statement from last July that in exchange for freezing Jewish construction, Israel would gain normalized relations with all Arab League member states. Were Israel to see 20 Arab embassies opening in exchange for a temporary freeze in Jewish construction, one could say that Netanyahu's massive concession was justified.

    But Netanyahu decided to give away this high card - Israel's ace of spades as it were - for free. Actually, he paid for it.

    The Arabs rejected Wexler's offer in July. And five seconds after Netanyahu announced the freeze the Palestinians proclaimed his unprecedented prohibition on Jewish building worthless. But then unlike Netanyahu, the Palestinians are playing their cards wisely. Why should they accept his move as sufficient when they know the Americans will demand still more concessions from him?

    And sure enough, moments after Netanyahu's speech, former senator George Mitchell stood before the cameras in Washington and said that his move is too little to impress the likes of Mitchell and Obama.

    MANY COMMENTATORS claim that Netanyahu's announcement Wednesday night was his way of balancing his desire to release 450 Hamas murderers from prison in exchange for hostage Gilad Schalit with an equal concession to Fatah. That is, the freeze was required, it is argued, because without a move of this magnitude, the terrorists-for-hostage deal would destroy Fatah completely.

    This view is the quintessence of the notion that two wrongs make a right.

    In an interview with Channel 2 Wednesday night, Defense Minister Ehud Barak admitted that in negotiating Schalit's release, Netanyahu has gone well beyond former prime minister Ehud Olmert's offers to Hamas. With Netanyahu and Likud in the opposition loudly proclaiming the truth that any deal with Hamas will imperil untold numbers of Israelis, Olmert didn't dare accept Hamas's demand that Israel release its most brutal mass murderers from its prisons. But now that Netanyahu and Likud are in the driver's seat, they are only too happy to accept what was previously unacceptable.

    By Thursday, it appeared that the Iranians and the Syrians had placed the
    proposed swap on the back burner. But even if the deal presently being discussed doesn't go through, Netanyahu's moves on the issue to date have already weakened the country considerably.

    Simply by agreeing to negotiate with Hamas, Netanyahu conferred legitimacy not only on the terror group, but on the act of taking hostages. After all, until Hamas had Schalit, no government in Israel was willing to cut a deal with it. But today, in the interest of making a deal, Israel has allowed Hamas commanders - including Schalit's captor Ahmad Jabari - safe passage to Egypt where they are feted by senior Egyptian officials and meet with other senior terrorists. In so doing Israel has effectively accepted them as legitimate leaders.

    Netanyahu's willingness to release murderers from prison also signs the death warrants of countless Israelis. The Schalit-obsessed local media insists that politicians who claim they oppose the deal must be willing to look Schalit's parents in the eyes and tell them that they will not "do what it takes" to bring Gilad home. But Schalit's parents and the 450-terrorists-for-one-hostage-swap champions in the media and in the Knesset need to be asked whether they will be willing to look the families of the next IDF hostages in the eye after they are abducted due to Israel's decision to spring murderers from prison in exchange for Schalit. So too, they should ask themselves what they will say to the families of the Israelis who will be murdered because of this deal.

    Unfortunately, our foolish media elites and their lackeys in the government are incapable of recognizing that the deal with Hamas doesn't pit the Schalit family against the families of the Israelis that these prisoners already murdered. It places Noam and Aviva Schalit against the families of the still unidentified Israelis who will be murdered by these imprisoned terrorists in the future if they are allowed to see the light of day.

    Even if the current negotiations end in failure, Netanyahu this week made clear that he is willing to conduct a massive release of terrorists in exchange for Israeli hostages. The message has been received by our enemies and they will make us pay for it with interest.

    FINALLY, NETANYAHU'S willingness to spring terrorists from prison in exchange for Schalit weakens Israel's deterrent posture. This week The Jerusalem Post reported that the IDF has commissioned a study to figure out how to tell who has won in an inconclusive war against terrorists. It seems a shame that there is apparently such a dearth of common sense in the General Staff that the IDF needs someone from the outside to explain the facts of life to its generals.

    Those facts, for instance, indicate that when you fight a war against a terrorist group that serves as a proxy for enemy regimes, and in the aftermath of the war the terror group takes over the government of its own country and its state sponsors build nuclear arsenals unhindered by your government and the international community as a whole, while your own generals and soldiers are threatened with indictments by UN war crimes tribunals, the terrorists have won and you have lost.

    By the same token, apparently it is unclear to IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi - who said this week that he cannot wait to greet Gilad at home - that by offering to release hundreds of terrorists for a hostage soldier, he is telling all the thousands of IDF troops who risk their lives every day to arrest terrorists and fight them that they are risking their lives for nothing.

    Why bother staging a middle-of-the-night raid in Nablus where your men are liable to be killed in order to arrest a terrorist if he's just going to be released from prison within a year or two in exchange for another soldier? In fact, why have an army at all? Perhaps we'd all be better off if we just paid our enemies protection money until they are ready to deliver the coup de grace.

    BUT THEN, perhaps that's what Israel is doing today. On Tuesday Barak noted that whereas on the eve of the 2006 war Hizbullah had an arsenal of 14,000 rockets, today it has an arsenal of 50,000 rockets. His remarks might have been perceived as a warning that Israel is gearing up to take preemptive action against Hizbullah. But that perception would be wrong, unless what one had in mind was preemptive capitulation.

    On Thursday it was reported that Israel is ready to transfer control over the northern half of Ghajar - the border town that is officially half in Israel and half in Lebanon - to UNIFIL forces. These would be the same UN forces that have done nothing to prevent Hizbullah from rearming and taking over the Lebanese government. These would be the same Italian-commanded UN forces that former Italian president Francesco Cossiga claims cut a deal with Hizbullah according to which UNIFIL turns a blind eye to Hizbullah's activities and in exchange, Hizbullah doesn't kill UNIFIL forces.

    Since the 2006 war, the UN and the US have been bullying Israel to give up the northern half of Ghajar. Their pressure has come despite their sure knowledge that the moment IDF forces withdraw from the northern half of the town, it will again become a smuggling capital for drugs, terrorists, Hizbullah spies and ordnance. Barak and Netanyahu apparently are of the opinion that despite - or worse, perhaps due to - the growing dangers emanating from Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon, it is better for Israel to seek to curry favor with the UN and the US than to take the steps necessary to defend the country from Hizbullah.

    This is the depressing message that Netanyahu and his merry band of ministers have communicated to the world this week. In the hopes of appeasing the unappeasable Obama administration, the government has adopted Obama's anti-Semitic policies against Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. To win points with the imbecilic, unaccountable and irresponsible local media, Netanyahu has jeopardized the lives of untold numbers of Israelis by expressing his willingness to free hundreds of terrorist murderers from prison. And to placate the pro-Hizbullah UN, Israel has decided it is willing to further strengthen Hizbullah.

    The mind reels at the thought of what next week may bring.



    Finally, Israel gets it!

    Exclusive: Joseph Farah rips into those who condone 'blatant ethnic cleansing' of Jews

    Posted: November 27, 2009
    1:00 am Eastern

    By Joseph Farah

    For more than five years, I have been conspicuously alone in pointing out the racist, anti-Jewish nature of policies that require the evacuation of Israelis from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and, more lately, the halts on building and repairing homes and businesses owned by Jews in Jerusalem.

    Finally, someone in Israel has figured this out and called the policies advocated by Barack Obama and the international elite what they are.

    "Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews, Muslims and Christians or between eastern and western Jerusalem," said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. "The demand to halt construction by religion is not legal in the United States or in any other free place in the world. I do not presume that any government would demand to freeze construction in the United States based on race, religion or gender, and the attempt to demand it from Jerusalem is a double standard and inconceivable."

    Barkat was responding to Obama's remarks on Fox News Channel about the approval of 900 new apartments in the southern Jerusalem community of Gilo as "settlement activity," suggesting, irrationally and irresponsibly, that it justified Palestinian violence. The Palestinian Authority quickly adopted Obama's line to rationalize future terrorist attacks.

    However, even the most appeasing Israelis – people like Shimon Peres – see Gilo, with its existing population of 30,000 Jews right in the heart of the Israeli capital, as undisputedly Israeli territory, land that will never be negotiated away.

    It's clear now Obama, like the Muslim world, doesn't believe any Israeli territory is beyond dispute.

    This is what I have been saying and writing since 2004.

    No more ethnic cleansing – not in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.

    When the Palestinian Authority demanded that all Jews leave Gaza in anticipation of declaring it to be part of a future Palestinian state, the world did not notice the implications.

    Why would Jews not be welcome living in a Palestinian state?

    Because the Palestinian leadership is racist.

    Why would blatant ethnic cleansing of this sort be embraced by the world when ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world is roundly denounced? Why is there an exception made for Jews? Why is it OK to remove Jews from their homes and businesses in the Middle East? Why is it acceptable to forbid Jews from building and repairing homes and businesses on the basis of their religion? How can this be tolerated, let alone condoned and championed as progressive policy by people like Obama?

    I made the same point in 2005.

    What would you say if I told you the United States is backing a plan to uproot forcibly people from their homes because they are Muslim?

    You would probably be incredulous, I said.

    You would probably be shocked, I said.

    You would probably be outraged, I said.

    And you would be right.

    (Column continues below)

    Well, rest assured there was no plan backed by the United States to uproot forcibly peaceful Muslims from their homes anywhere in the world.

    There was, however, a plan to do just that to several thousand peaceful Jews, many of whom have lived for a generation in thriving communities – showcases of prosperity and freedom for their neighbors.

    This anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing plan was known as the "disengagement" plan in Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

    There is only one reason these people were displaced – because they are Jews in a land where Jews are not welcome.

    And the world condoned it.

    Earlier this year, I pointed it out, again.

    In May, Obama announced he would be taking what he and his administration referred to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy."

    I explained what that meant.

    "It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank," I wrote. "I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country."

    I returned to this theme in September after what I called "Obama's Judenrein speech."

    "The Nazis had a word for what Barack Obama declared in the United Nations General Assembly last week," I wrote. "When a city or a district or a nation was 'clean of Jews,' it was pronounced 'Judenrein.' The goal of the Nazis was, of course, for all of Europe to be cleansed of Jews – then the whole world."

    Was I being harsh?

    Not if you understand the nature of Obama's demand for an end to "Israeli settlements" in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem – and, now apparently, the entire city.

    Since Obama took office in January, the U.S. government has greatly increased pressure on Israel to halt any and all of the following:

    Why would the U.S. government want to stop Jews from building homes and businesses in lands that have been under Israel's control for the last 42 years and a part of Israel's history for the last 3,000 years?

    Because the U.S. government has predetermined that these lands are going to be part of a future Palestinian state – one that will be conspicuously Jew-free.

    In other words, Barack Obama is in favor of an ethnic-cleansing operation – one that will eventually require the forcible removal of all Jews, no matter how long they have lived in these areas, no matter what they paid for their properties, no matter what.

    I'm gratified to see an Israeli awakening to what has been the plan from the beginning.

    Jews in the Middle East are starting to get the picture – if a little late.