Jordan draws Arab ire on Dead Sea-Red Sea canal project with Jewish state
Joint venture touted as environmental scheme to save inland resources

Probe into Palestinian civilian deaths: troops acted correctly

Munich Massacre Settlement

The relatives of those murdered at Munich in 1972 have agreed to a settlement of a lawsuit against the German government.

Thirty years after the massacre of 11 Israelis by Palestinian gunmen at the Olympic Games, Germany announced Friday that relatives had accepted $2.98 million in compensation - far less than the $29 million they demanded and without an apology.

Speaking to reporters at a ceremony marking the anniversary of the Sept. 5, 1972, massacre, Interior Minister Otto Schily rejected suggestions German police made mistakes that contributed to the carnage.

``Even in Israel, hostage-takings and attacks are not prevented,'' Schily said. He said the compensation was a humanitarian gesture from the German government, the state of Bavaria and city of Munich.

The Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah meant the families of the slain Israeli team members didn't attend the ceremony at the military air base near Munich, where the drama came to a bloody end.

Although readers are free to draw their own conclusions, the settlement amount, which comes to less than $10,000 per year per victim, the lack of an apology when "incompetence and perfidy of the German government" both during and after the hostage stand-off and massacre aided the terrorists, and the circumstances of the announcement, when taken together, appear to me to be another slap in the face to the victims and their families.

Holocaust Museum Burned in Germany
By THE NEW YORK TIMES


BERLIN, Sept. 6 — A firebomb badly damaged a Holocaust museum near the northeast German town of Wittstock, the Brandenburg State police said today.

Police officials posted a $10,000 reward for information leading to an arrest in the attack on Thursday on the Belower Forest Museum. Half the museum's exhibition space was destroyed, and swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti were painted in pink on a nearby monument's walls.

The museum's spokesman, Horst Seserens, said: "We were quite lucky because the police were very fast and stopped the fire. A few minutes more and the whole building would have burned down."

The vandals also painted an anti-Semitic slogan, "Jews have short legs," a twist on the German saying that "lies have short legs." Mr. Seserens said the intended message was that "the Holocaust is a lie."

The Belower Forest memorial is dedicated to the victims of the Nazi death marches of the spring of 1945, when the Nazis emptied concentration camps that were about to be liberated by the advancing Soviet Army and forced some 45,000 inmates to march farther into Germany. Thousands died, just days before the camps were liberated by Soviet and American troops.

The Jewish Population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza

An item on today’s Arutz 7 reports:

Yesha Population Keeps Growing
The Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and Gaza [Yesha] has grown in the past two years - the years of the Oslo War - by 12%. Not including the areas officially annexed to the capital city of Jerusalem, the Yesha settlement enterprise now numbers some 220,000 pioneers. The largest town is Maaleh Adumim, with close to 27,000 inhabitants, followed by Beitar Illit and Ariel. Some 30 babies are born in Beitar Illit every week, and 50 new classes were opened there this school-year. The Binyamin Regional Council gained 620 new families this past summer.

One of the phenomena that impressed me most when I explored the history of Zionism and Israel, was the pioneering spirit of the Jewish immigrants to Palestine and later Israel, who engaged in a never-ceasing effort to found settlement and develop the country. The following brief review of this phenomenon will corroborate this statement (Normally, I would provide web links, but in the absence of suitable links, I refer the reader to the work of the British historian, Sir Martin Gilbert:
Gilbert, Martin. Israel. New York: William Morrow and Co, Inc., 1998.)

Decades before the “official” Zionist movement got underway in 1897, Jews were already building settlements in what today is Israel. Symbolically, the first two settlements incorporated “hope” in their names, as Martin Gilbert (p. 4) documents:

“In 1870, a French educator, Charles Netter, with the approval of the Turkish authorities, founded an agricultural school at Mikveh Israel (Hope of Israel)... In 1878 a number of Jews from Jerusalme decided to establish a Jewish village in the Palestinian countryside... They did manage to buy land from a Greek landowner in the coastal plain, and named their village Petah Tikvah (Gateway of Hope)”.

From that point on, and to this very day, the Jews in Palestine/Israel continued to build settlements of many types - urban, rural, collective-agricultural (Kibbutzim), private-agricultural (Moshavim) etc. The building of such settlements accelerated considerably after the 5th Zionist congress established the Jewish National Fund, JNF, in 1901, with the objective of purchasing land. In 1909, for example, this Fund financed the creation of Tel Aviv (Martin Gilbert, p. 27). Between the creation of the JNF and the time WW I broke out in 1914, the Jews had created 45 settlements (Martin Gilbert, p. 30).

The period of the British occupation and mandate, 1918-1948, was marred by a series of riots by the Arab-Palestinians against the Jewish population, the most noteworthy being the outbursts of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39. However, the Jews never stopped the building of new settlements and the development of the land. The year 1929, for example, saw the founding of Netanya, the scene of recent terrorist attacks (Martin Gilbert, p. 62). Nor did the founding of settlements cease during WW II. For example, in 1943, Polish immigrants founded Yad Mordechai, named after Mordechai Anielewicz who led the Warsaw Ghetto uprising (Martin Gilbert, p.114).

Once Israel was founded in 1948, the limitations and restrictions which the British authorities imposed on development by Jews were removed and the founding of settlements went into high gear.

After the 1967 war, the nature of settlement acquired a new dimension. In 1968, a small group of Jews established a token presence in Hebron, a site at which Jews were massacred at the hands of rioting Palestinian Arabs in 1929. In 1975, as the intransigence of the Arab states stiffened, a second Jewish presence was established, this time near Nablus in Samaria. After the May 1977 elections, Likud’s leader, Begin, became prime minister and the founding of settlements in Judea Samaria and Gaza accelerated (Martin Gilbert, Ch. 25). Which brings us back to the first paragraph: today, the Jewish population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, exclusive of East Jerusalem which has been annexed, has reached 220,000.

The founding of settlements in Yesha seems to me a continuation of the spirit that Jewish immigrants brought with them since the 19th century, and which their descendants continued. This spirit has turned the country from a combination of desert and malaria-infested swamps into a veritable garden. As such, the enterprise should be applauded.

To those who consider the settlements in Yesha “an obstacle to peace”, I ask: Let us assume that the jurisdiction and sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are still disputed. Regardless of the outcome, what is the justification for prohibiting Jews from living and owning property in these areas, when Jews are not restricted or prohibited from living and owning property in any democratic country in the world?

May Israel Flourish.


Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland

Why One Should Oppose a Second Palestinian-Arab State in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - Part 1 of 23


On September 2, 2002, IsraPundit posted a “catalogue” of 23 reasons as to why one should oppose the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The present article begins a series which will corroborate and document each of the reasons cited.

Readers who already oppose the creation of such a state, may find this series to be useful as a database and resource, since most of documentation will be derived (as much as possible) from web sites. The text of the British mandate over Palestine is an example. Readers who are still forming their view, as well as readers who support the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state, may wish to use this article to reconsider their views and consult the documentation cited, lest it be argued that I quote “out of context”. Again, since most of the references are web-based, this should be an easy task, using the present series.


Reason 1 of 23:

1. Palestine belongs to the Jews as their ancestral land, a land inhabited by Jews continuously for thousands of years. The Jewish connection to Palestine was recognized by the “Internationl Community” in the form of the League of Nations’ mandate over Palestine.

This statement appears repeatedly in advocacy articles written from a pro-Israeli viewpoint, an example being quoted below. The statement is also corroborated by authoritative historians, but these works are not available on the web.

On the other hand, it is easy to establish and document definitively that the “international community” has accepted the Jewish historical claim to Palestine, and consequently the claim of the Jewish people to a national home in Palestine. To substantiate this statement, I quote from the preamble to the text of the League of Nations Mandate:

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country ; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country...”

(The text quoted above may be found on many web sites; we selected to quote from the site of Yale Law School).

Among the parties present at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, were Felix Frankfurter and Chaim Weizmann on behalf of the Zionist movement, and the Emir Feisal on behalf of the Hedjaz (now Saudi Arabia). In the course of their meetings, Feisal wrote a letter addressed to Frankfurter and dated 3 March, 1919. The letter, which may be found at http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal2.html, stated:

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

Unless Feisal himself recognized the Jewish historical claim to Palestine, there would be no meaning to the sentence, “we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home”. Hence it is clear that the Jewish claim to Palestine was already well established even among the Arabs, when the League of Nations granted the British a mandate over Palestine on July 24, 1922.

As an example the many web sites which deal with the Jewish connection to Palestine I quote from http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm:

In 135 CE, after having long-become a province of the Roman Empire, Judea's third and last revolt against Rome was crushed by Emperor Hadrian; but Rome's army also suffered devastating losses, including the complete annihilation of its illustrious XXII Legion. In furtherance of Rome's costly victory, Hadrian -- in a blatant propaganda effort to delegitimize further national Jewish claims to the Land -- renamed the province Palestina (Palestine) after the Philistines, a long-extinct Aegean people who had disappeared from History approximately a millennium earlier. However, although the province had been converted from Judea (-- Land of the Jews --) into Palestina (-- Land of the Philistines --), it continued to be populated by Jews, together with substantial minority populations of Christians and Samaritans, but hardly any Arabs, at least until the great Arab invasion of 638 CE, as a result of which, 73 years later, Byzantium's Christian basilica known as the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, which then sat atop Jerusalem's Temple Mount, was remade into Islam's Al-Aksa mosque. But even under the rule of the Arab and all subsequently superseding empires, the Jewish people nevertheless maintained a continuous national presence in "Palestine" -- right up until the resurrection therein of the Jewish nation-state of Israel in 1948 CE.”

This is a work in progress. As the work progresses, I will amend and revise the text on the basis of readers' comment and/or new material. Please contact me if you have suggestions (see address below).

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca

Israeli checkpoint
An Israeli soldier holds a Palestinian child's hand as her family passes through the Israeli Kalandia checkpoint on their way to the West Bank town of Ramallah on Sept. 4.
(AP/Muhammed Muheisen)

The prestigious Arab League and anti-semitism.
Lies Poison Mideast's Hopes

re Blood Libel

The editor of the largest Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, Ibrahim Nafi', who is also chairman of the Association of Arab Journalists, was subpoenaed by French legal authorities in Paris for incitement to antisemitism and racist violence. The subpoena came nearly two years after Al-Ahram published, an article on October 10, 2000, titled "Jewish Matzah is Made of Arab Blood," by journalist 'Adel Hamooda. The article was based on the 1840 Damascus blood libel in which the Damascus Jewish community was accused of murdering a priest and his assistant to obtain their blood for making Passover matzos.[1] Click here for full article via MEMRI

Rabbi Sacks

But on the other hand: Sacks: it was a mistake to speak to Guardian

Hezbollah

I had often wondered why America, knowing Hezbollah to be a batch of terrorists, seemed relatively reticent to say much about that group. But now this has changed and, in fact, Hezbollah is now viewed as number one terror group world-wide by American experts. Meanwhile, Hezbollah Slams U.S. Threatened Action against It ‘In Good Time’

Barghouti

Here is a load of information from the IDF, including related to the numerous murders he participated in, of Marwan Barghouti. Link from JCPA

NYT:
"In exchanges with Mr. Barghouti, the president of the three-judge panel, Sara Sirota, urged him to use a lawyer, but he refused. "I am a freedom fighter, fighting for the freedom of my people and peace between the two peoples," he said in Hebrew. Someone fighting for peace, Judge Sirota fired back, "doesn't turn people into bombs and kill children.""

The Times continues:
"But Israeli newspapers have been increasingly questioning the government's wisdom in putting Mr. Barghouti on public trial, because until the current uprising the popular West Bank leader was accepted in Israel as a political moderate, a staunch supporter of the Oslo peace agreements, and as a potential successor to Yasir Arafat."

Is that all Israeli newspapers? Or do you think that they are really referring to leftwing papers? Maybe it is more important what the Israeli people think, not elites writing in newspapers? Or how about the good ole' rule of law? What does the fact that Barghouti was viewed, obviously incorrectly, before he helped to kill numerous people have to do with whether he was put on trial. As President Bush has said, the US will not deal with Palestinian terrorists, period. No consideration is given to peace loving pasts.

What is interesting is that the left wing groups, Europeans, and so called human rights groups say that Israel should not assassinate terrorists but put them on trial. When Israel puts terrorists on trial, these same people say that the terrorist is a freedom fighter not a criminal, and Israel can not try him.

Article - US Official Calls Hezbollah 'A-Team of Terrorists'

A top U.S. diplomat took aim at Hezbollah on Thursday, saying the United States would go after the group he called "the A-team of terrorists."

"Hezbollah made the A-team of terrorists, maybe al Qaeda is actually the B-team," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in answer to a questions after a luncheon speech.

Link from JCPA

Article: Analyst who criticized Saudis leaves RAND Link From JCPA

In the July 10 briefing,[Laurent] Murawiec told the Defense Policy Board, a non-governmental grouping of former senior officials and intellectuals, that "the Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader." . . .

David Egner, a spokesman for the US-government funded RAND think tank, said: "Laurent Murawiec has resigned from RAND and is no longer a RAND employee. His departure had nothing to do with his July 10 presentation to the Defense Policy Board."

Two US officials said that Murawiec had been forced out.

There also seems to be tapes in which he insulted the Saudis involved, although what he is supposed to have said, although insulting, are probably true. You can listen to the tape - the offending parts are about 5:30 through.

Israeli Forces Kill Two Palestinian Militants, related news.

"It's all connected, you see?"

Thousands of anti-globalization protesters marched Saturday on the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development, supporting land redistribution, debt forgiveness, and full employment, and denouncing free trade, privatization, and Israel.

The tendency to see everything one opposes politically as being somehow connected reminds of me of those occult-minded people who throw everything 'esoteric' (astrology, the Nasca lines, crop-circles, poltergeists, ESP, etc.) into one big explanatory bag. This is how socialism turned into environmentalism, and bin Laden was turned into an anti-capitalist protester.

As Jews across Israel get ready to celebrate Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, we wish them a year of prosperity and peace, of hapiness and tranquility. We wish these blessings upon the Arab-Palestinians as well. That they realize the folly of their current ways, the foolishness in following their current leaders and in allowing them to continue to lead. That they lay down their weapons, erase the hatred from their hearts, and join together with the Jews of Israel to create a truly prosperous, creative, and, above all, free, and therefore great, country.

Musings Following The World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg, August 2002


It was not as bad as Durban, 2001, or Rome, 2002, but Johannesburg, 2002, was “plenty bad”.

Under the headline, Lobsters, caviar and brandy for MPs at summit on starvation, Britain’s OnlineSun reported on August 28, 2002, in the Sun’s typical staccato:

THE sickening champagne and caviar lifestyle being enjoyed by Earth Summit delegates was exposed yesterday.

They are gorging on mountains of lobster, oysters and fillet steak at the Johannesburg conference — aimed at ending FAMINE. [Caps in the original.]

As the summit began yesterday, desperate kids in nearby shanty towns queued for water at standpipes.

Bigwig politicians among the 60,000 delegates, including Deputy PM John Prescott, also get vintage bubbly and brandy.

Taxpayers are footing the £500,000 bill for the 70-strong British party.

As usual, the Palestinian-Arab propaganda machine was out in force. On August 27, the Jerusalem Post reported:

Israeli hopes to keep a low profile at the UN World Summit for Sustainable Development were already dashed on the first day of the conference Monday [August 26], when Palestinians accused Israel of torturing children, stealing land, and poisoning Palestinian water.

South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma had expressed hope that the summit would be a positive, apolitical event, but the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused the South African government Monday of taking a political stand by endorsing the Palestinian delegation's calls for Israel to release terrorist Marwan Barghouti.
...
The Jewish National Fund, the only Israeli non-governmental organization exhibiting at the conference, has been under consistent attack by Palestinian demonstrators and Muslim local radio on political grounds.

As the UN extravaganza continued, the anti-Israeli rhetoric increased. On Sunday, September 1, even as IsraPundit was being launched, the Jerusalem Post reported:

Thousands of anti-globalization protesters marched Saturday on the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development, supporting land redistribution, debt forgiveness, and full employment, and denouncing free trade, privatization, and Israel.

In a stadium in the poor Johannesburg neighborhood of Alexandra, visiting Palestinians and their supporters in the African National Congress gave speeches which made the connection between sustainable development and Israeli occupation.

"The whole conference is about sustainability," said one man. "How can there be sustainability in Palestine if there is occupation?"

Protesters charged the Jewish state with destroying 700,000 trees in Palestinian areas, "stealing land and water, demolishing homes, uprooting olive and citrus trees, dumping toxic waste and chemicals, and possessing weapons of mass destruction."

There was more anti-Israel talk at a separate rally, organized by the Landless Peoples Movement in coalition with the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and Friends of the Earth.

(A propos of “destroying trees”, arson aimed at burning Israeli forests to a cinder was one the Intifada’s terrorist tactics. On the other hand, one of the major enterprises of the Zionist movement and then of Israel was afforestation of Palestine barren hills. There is no end to the Palestinian-Arab chutzpah.)

And then the violent, terrorist side of the anti-Israeli lobby surfaced, as the Jeruslem Post reported on September 2, 2002:

South African riot police used a water cannon against pro-Palestinian activists trying to prevent Foreign Minister Shimon Peres from delivering a speech in Johannesburg, media reports said Monday.

Some 100 supporters of the Palestine Solidarity Committee were bombarded with water by police, in an attempt to move them from the front of the venue, a college in central Johannesburg. Police on horseback were deployed at the scene and a police helicopter flew overhead, the reports said.

The Palestinian-Arab system of silencing anyone they don’t like, whether of their own people or not, has a very long history, and it’s vital that we, in the West, become aware of it because it is increasingly turned against us.

Following is a description by historian Howard Sachar concerning the Mufti’s application of this system to silence his competitors within the Palestinian-Arab community during the riots of 1936-1939:

“At his [the Mufti’s] orders, many hundreds of noted Arab leaders, among them prominent members of the Nashashibi national Defence party, were either murdered or terrorized into fleeing the country. Thus, Hassan Bey Shukri, mayor of Haifa, barely escaped attempts on his life in May i936 and January 1937. In February 1937 the mukhtar of Caesaria was shot down outside his home. In April of that year Ibrahim Yusuf, a member of the Tiberias municipal council, was assassinated. The mayor of Nablus, Suleiman Bey al-Toukan, fled the country in December 1937. The mukhtar of Majdal and his wife were slain in April 1938. So was Nasr al-Din Nasr, the mayor of Hebron, the same month. The wife and three sons of the mukhtar of Deir es-Sheikh were killed by a bomb in September 1938. Hassan Sidqi al-Dajani, a member of the Jerusalem municipal council, was shot to death in November 1938, and the remaining Arab council members fled Palestine.

Efforts bv Fakhri Bey al-Nashasbibi, leader of the anti-Husseini faction, to mobilize a counterassault against this terror campaign were largely unsuccessful. The Mufti's offensive grew in scope and momentum, until by the end of 1939 his victims exceeded 3,000. Egypt and Lebanon were crowded with nearly 18,000 fugitives of the terror. Yet from beginning to end Haj Amin's principal Arab target remained Fakhri Bey al-Nashashibi. The Muftfs henchman, Aref al-Bazzaq, issued a "death warrant" against Fakhri Bey, calling upon every Arab "in the name of God" to shoot this "traitor" on sight. Several years passed before the warrant could be executed. But on November 9, 1941 as Fakhri Bey was walking through the streets of Baghdad, a Palestinian member of Haj Amin's organization rode past on a bicycle and gunned him down.

(Cited from p. 212-213 of:
Sachar, Howard M. A History of Israel. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1966.)

When one reads that Palestinian-Arab terrorists assassinated a mother of seven on suspicion of “collaboration”, one sees the spirit of the Mufti in action. When one hears that Arab terrorists have put a bounty on the head of Danish Jews, one sees the spirit of the Mufti in action. When one learns about the endless train of Palestinian-Arab acts of terror against the West, one sees the spirit of the Mufti. Eventually one is compelled to ask, if the spirit of the Mufti has permeated the Palestinian-Arab modus operandi, what is the justification for handing the Palestinain-Arabs a sovereign state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as George Bush wishes to do?



Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland

Report on BBC Coverage of the Matsav

bbcwatch.com has a excellent report by a couple of British solicitors analyzing how BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has violated its legal charter and subjects the network to legal action in Britain, although they don't suggest a remedy.

The authors analyze BBC use of language, presentation of context, balance, and distortion/omission of facts. Their Fisking of the disparate treatment of Sharon and Arafat is devastating:

There is a marked disparity in the treatment of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the BBC website – profile section.

I Ariel Sharon- Prime Minister of Israel

Sharon is treated with undisguised hostility. Vitriolic comment is passed off as fact or as unattributed quotation. Examples include:

“Ariel Sharon has a thick skin and is proud of it.”

An unattributed comment of this sort is out of place in a factual profile.

“He does not care who loves or hates him.”

This is an implausible statement about a democratically elected politician, who includes his principle political opponents in his Cabinet and who was voted to power on the basis of a huge swing in popular opinion.

“[His] one aim in life… is to ensure total security for Israel on his terms.”

This comment is inconsistent with Sharon’s publicly stated aim to comply with the Oslo accords, which contain terms negotiated by people at the opposite end of the political spectrum to himself. The tone suggests that the security of Israel is an ignoble aim. In fact it is a foundation stone of UN Resolution 242.

“That means keeping maximum land and political rights for the Jewish state and giving the very minimum of both to the Palestinians.”

The Oslo accords, to which Sharon is publicly committed, provide a framework for granting significant areas of land, and effective virtual sovereignty to Palestinians.

“Cynics say Mr. Sharon knew the visit [to the Al-Aqsa mosque] would trigger violence and gambled on the Israeli public turning to a tough leader like him who would know how to handle it firmly.”

This unattributed comment suggests that Sharon is happy to sacrifice human lives for his own political ends.

“But once again, Mr. Sharon is not interested in what cynics or anyone might say.”

This is an implausible statement about a democratically elected politician, who includes his principle political opponents in his Cabinet, and who was voted to power on the basis of a huge swing in popular opinion.

“Ariel Sharon’s mission – his enemies call it a dangerous obsession – is to fight for Israel’s security, believing all the while that the end justifies the means.”

This unattributed comment implies that Sharon uses unbridled violence. In fact, he operates under the glare of considerable international press presence, is answerable to an electorate, shares his Cabinet with his political opponents, and is subject to a rule of law which has in the past stripped him of office. It is implausible to suggest that he believes that any means are available to him.

II Yasser Arafat – Chairman of the Palestinian Authority

Arafat is treated as a noble, dignified and courageous statesman:

“Mr Arafat has carried on his shoulders the burden of that struggle [for statehood]”

<>Note the language of heroism and selfless devotion to public duty

“…his pathological refusal to share power or delegate responsibility has taken a toll on his health and is weakening popular support”

Arafat has ruled in a dictatorial manner, employing many separate police forces, and carrying out “torture of detainees, arbitrary arrest, prolonged arbitrary detention…executions after grossly unfair trials [and failing] to bring to justice those responsible for vigilante killings.”[18] This is all painted as a mild character defect, which it appears, has troubled Arafat more than anyone else, by affecting his health and popularity. Yet even here the expression used is crafted principally to confirm that he remains popular notwithstanding his character defect.

“Arafat is, without question, the Palestinian’s greatest asset”

More heroic language, and a comment of doubtful accuracy.

“But when the peace process failed to live up to expectations, more and more Palestinians lost patience with his mercurial and dictatorial style of leadership”

Rather than criticise Arafat’s dictatorship, it is painted mildly as a character defect, with a hint that it is anyway only the result of the failure of the peace process, which could perhaps be blamed on Israel.

“…a natural publicist and a workaholic…”

Arafat described as hardworking, with natural leadership talents.

“an obsessive desire to be leader of the pack and to get his way. The end always justified the means”

Note the contrast of the expression “the end always justifies the means.” With Sharon it is used to suggest that any degree of violence against Palestinians can be justified. With Arafat it is used only to suggest that he will do what he can against his co-Palestinian political colleagues to attain his position as their leader.

“…to his credit, he did more than anyone else to put the Palestinian’s cause on the world agenda”

Another expression of heroic leadership and achievement.

“Led by Arafat, the PLO…committ[ed] …acts of violence”

This is one of the few references to violence. The word ‘terror’ is avoided, and the words used distance Arafat from direct involvement. Arafat’s close involvement in encouraging and organising terrorist attacks, is effectively overlooked.

“When backs were against the wall … Arafat never lacked for personal courage”

Further words of heroic leadership qualities, evoking sympathy for the underdog.

“Arafat had no choice but to make peace with Israel from a position of weakness”

Words evoking sympathy for the underdog, and appearing to excuse the making of peace as a form of ‘selling out’ to some greater cause.

“There was little that Arafat could do but accept whatever he was offered”

Words evoking pity for the underdog.

“[if] Arafat die[s] before achieving his life long goals… he will die a broken man”

Words evoking pity and heroism, suggesting that Arafat will even sacrifice his life for the noble cause for which he fights.

“Arafat is a brilliant leader but a hopeless organiser and negotiator”

Note the unambiguous words of praise. Note also the way his dictatorial and brutal rule is summarised, and impliedly excused, by describing it as due to an almost quaint ‘hopeless[ness]” at organising.

They conclude

The BBC does not report on the Middle East with “due accuracy “ or “impartiality”, as required by the License Agreement.

Breaches of the Guidelines which we have detected include:

Incorrect use of language

Unbalanced reporting

Inappropriate selection of material

Distortion and omission of facts.

We understand that the Israeli Palestinian Conflict is an emotive topic, and that it is difficult to avoid taking sides. Most broadcasters and other media may and do take sides. The BBC may not.

The BBC is funded by public money. Partly because of this, it has accepted a duty on itself to cover politically controversial issues in an impartial way. The persistent failure to treat the Middle East in an impartial way constitutes a breach of the trust which Licence payers have placed in the BBC.

Given the huge influence of the BBC on attitudes around the world, we believe that any bias by the BBC could have far reaching effects.

If the BBC is to adhere to the lofty ideals which it has set itself, and to which it is legally bound, it must strive to report on the Middle East in an impartial and accurate manner.

This is great stuff and, written in March 2002, pre-dates Operation Protective Shield and the alleged massacre in Jenin. Imagine what an updated version could say. I found the report through biased-bbc.blogspot.com, which I highly recommend for regular Fisking of the BBC.

Now, let's get started on NPR!

To My Jewish BISI Colleagues And IsraPundit Readers

Happy New Year,

and may it be a year of peace and great happiness.

Joseph Alexander Norland
Ottawa, Ont., Canada
5 Sept 2002

Marwan Barghouti goes on trial today in Israel for numerous counts of murder.

He says that he does not recognize the court. This is fine, lets see if he will recognize the cell he will be kept in. This man is a murderer. Statements that this is a show trial are inappropriate, since this guy really did it. Such calls are just meant to compare Israel to totalitarian regimes which do put on show trials.

PA rejects Ayalon-Nusseibeh document

This agreement was much more generous than Barak's offer at Taba.

The Palestinian View on the War With Iraq

From Woman in Green

Very Good Article By Benny Begin on the failure of Oslo:

Years of Hope.

"The signing of the Oslo agreement, exactly nine years ago, brought forth a great wave of hope for peace in Israel. But a review of the PLO's approach during the first three years following the agreement proves that the seeds of disaster were planted at the moment of the signing. "

There are two Arab replies to Begin by Ziyad Abu Zayad and Yossi Beilin

Arafat's Involvement in Munich

In 1999, a member of Black September named Mohammed Daoud Machmoud Auda, aka Abu Daoud, published his autobiography. In it, he admitted that he was the mastermind of the Munich massacre and that

Yasser Arafat's PLO was directly responsible for the assault on Israel's athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics[...] Daoud writes that Arafat had been briefed on the planning for Munich by his PLO number two, Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf), who was subsequently assassinated by another Palestinian group. He says Arafat and two other men saw him off on the mission with the words, "Allah protect you."

This was not the first time that Daoud had admitted Arafat's involvement.

Although this is said to be the first public acknowledgment that the PLO was behind Munich, Daoud himself essentially admitted this when under interrogation by Jordanian police in 1972. The Al-Dustur newspaper quoted him at the time as telling them: "There is no such organization called Black September. Fatah announces its own operations under this name so that Fatah will not appear as the direct executor of the operation." Fatah is Arafat's faction of the PLO.

Not only did Arafat win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, but "Daoud was awarded the Palestine Prize for Culture in 1999" for the book in which he admitted his and Arafat's involvements in the Munich Massacre.

Bin Laden did not do it?

It seems that the almost ‘unanimous’ view of Muslims is that bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11 (As reported on Sixty Minutes II from a Gallup Poll). Also according to Sixty Minutes, a lot of these people believe Israel and the Jews are responsible.

These leads me to a couple of questions:

If bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11 (even though some of the videos clearly indicate he was and I assume, not responsible for other terrorism, why do many Muslims think that he is the best thing since pita bread? Seems a little contradictory.

Secondly, for a religion of peace and love, it seems a little funny for Muslims to probably almost unanimously blame the whole thing on the Jews. I actually caught the segment while flipping channels ( I normally do not watch either Sixty Minutes because they are very anti-Israel) and the transcript linked to above actually does not include a whole chorus of Pakistanis saying the Jews did it shown on TV.

I just get the feeling as frequently as we are told that Islamic Fundamentalism (I like the European name , Islamicism, making it into an ism, like communism) represents the few of only a small percentage of Muslims, that this story does not represent the whole truth.

While maybe only a small percentage of Muslims may be actively gunning for westerners, I think a very large percentage of Muslims, certainly at least a majority, would cheer these guys on. If not in public, although many would do it in public, than in private.

The views of most Muslims on bin Laden, I worry, do not indicate so much that he was not responsible for 9/11 but that it was not a bad thing that was done. If very few Muslims want to destroy the west, a great majority, I worry, would sit quietly by, or laugh, or snicker, or condone or approve.

PS – Sixty Minutes blames the story of blaming the Jews to a large part on al Manar, a television station controlled by the radical Islamic group Hezbollah. Hezbollah is listed by the State Department as a terrorist group. The question for the readers is should western companies be advertising on this station? I will write about this issue in a few days.

Two Articles

Given the New York Times' normally blatant anti-Israel bias I am reluctant to post articles from it but below are two pieces from Serge "Schmendric" Schmemann that are interesting. An article by Joel Greenberg on the deportations of two people who helped their relative with a suicide bombing quotes people in saying that the deportation is collective punishment and a crime against humanity but does not give the Israel point of view that these actions are legal under 'international law'.

1) A report about an interview with Muhammad Dahlan - A Palestinian Senses an Opening for Peace

2) Peace moves by Sharon - Sharon Says Tough Measures Could Lead to Peace Talks

The titles tell you where the sympathies of the NYT lies.

What They Said in Durban

We all remember the media coverage of the Durban World Festival of Jew-Hatred last year. But I only recently read the actual text of the declaration by the "human rights" groups at the non-governmental organization (NGO) forum that was held in conjunction with the government summit.

The NGO forum was where most of the really, really bad stuff happened. In fact it was so bad that even Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a staunch Israel-hater, denounced the NGO declaration. Of course the government declaration was also anti-Israel. But below is the disgusting text from the NGO declaration.

Now, a lot of mainstream human rights groups have since disassociated themselves from this language, but it it is still a telling fact that they did not, at the time, try to prevent its adoption by the NGO forum and only really responded once they were embarrassed by the media coverage. Furthermore, the fact that it was adopted at all is important. Similar language is included in virtually all international documents, both NGO and governmental, no matter what the subject. As we have seen in Jo'Burg at the Earth Summit, Palestinians, with Arab government and Third World support, try and generally succeed in inserting anti-Israel language into everything, including declarations about women's rights, children's rights, and the rights of the elderly. And, as with Durban, the NGO documents are typically much worse than the government documents. Further confirmation of the need for Israel and her supporters to be wary of the "international community."

At Durban, the NGOs called for:

the immediate deployment of an independent, effective international protection force for Palestinian civilians and the dismantlement of the illegal Jewish Israeli colonies (settlements) and a complete withdrawal of the colonial military occupation...the withdrawal of the Israeli colonial military occupation (of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including Jerusalem), the right of return for refugees, and for the protection for refugees of the UN High Commission for Refugees until such time as they may be able to exercise their right to return and in accordance with UN resolution 194...the reinstitution of UN resolution 3379 determining the practices of Zionism as racist practices which propagate the racial domination of one group over another...through colonial expansionism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, including Jerusalem), and through the application of discriminatory laws of return and citizenship, to obliterate their national identity and to maintain the exclusive nature of the State of Israel as a Jewish state to the exclusion of all other groups...the repeal of all discriminatory laws within the state of Israel, including those of return and citizenship, which are part of the institutionalized racism and Apartheid regime in Israel..the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the crime of Apartheid which amount to crimes against humanity that have been or continue to be perpetrated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories..an increased awareness of the root causes of the Israel’s belligerent occupation and systematic human rights violations as a racist, apartheid system, through relevant UN agencies working closely with international civil society networks to widely disseminate information including educational packs for schools and universities, films and publications...the establishment of a UN Special Committee on Apartheid and Other Racist Crimes Against Humanity perpetrated by the Israeli Apartheid regime to monitor and to report Apartheid and other racist crimes, and to recommend the implementation of measures to combat Apartheid and other racist crimes..the establishment of programmes and institutions to combat the racist media distortion, stereotyping and propaganda, including the demonizing and dehumanizing of Palestinians as all being violent and terrorists, and undeserving of human rights protections...the correction of misleading information surrounding their status as indigenous peoples, the history of the violations perpetrated against them, and the on-going distortion of the facts and nature of the peace negotiations...the launch of an international anti Israeli Apartheid movement as implemented against South African Apartheid through a global solidarity campaign network of international civil society, UN bodies and agencies, business communities and to end the conspiracy of silence among states, particularly the European Union and the United States...a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state as in the case of South Africa which means the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel. Call upon the Government of South Africa to take the lead in this policy of isolation, bearing in mind its own historical success in countering the undermining policy of “constructive engagement” with its own past Apartheid regime...Condemnation of those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli Apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide.

And, I should add, the "anti-racism" website where I found this document also has a photo of a Hassidic anti-Zionist holding a sign that says, "Authentic Rabbis Have Always Opposed Zionism." It has his name, too, and he lives in Monsey, where I'm going for Rosh HaShana. Maybe I should pay him a visit.

He will be an expert in "sh-tty little countries" - moving from the UK to Algeria - does not sound like a promotion.

Israel-bashing French ambassador to UK reassigned to Algeria

"Daniel Bernard, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom has been reassigned to Algeria, the International Herald Tribune reported.

Bernard, who achieved notoriety when he described Israel as 'that shitty little country' which threatens world peace, was recalled from his position in the UK last month. "

DEMAND THAT PM SHARON OPEN THE MOUNT

Close to 2,000 Jews showed up last night at a special rally on behalf of
the holiest site in Judaism: the Temple Mount. The participants demanded
that Prime Minister Sharon finally open the site to Jewish visitors. "For
two years we have waited for the Prime Minister," MK Uri Ariel told the
crowd. "We talked with him, and received promises from him - but nothing
happened. In the name of the People of Israel, we turn from here to the
government and to the man who stands at its head, and say: This is your
primary obligation! Whoever does not fulfill this primary obligation will
not receive the confidence of the nation [in the next election]. There is
no justification for us, with the great army, police, and security forces
that we have, not to be in full sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Mr.
Prime Minister, we are with you in opening the Temple Mount! Just like you
closed Orient House [illegal PA headquarters in Jerusalem] and no one
remembers it any more - so too, open the Temple Mount so that the Jewish
nation will be sovereign there! We hope that in the near future, we will
in fact actualize our full sovereignty there, and that the government and
the Prime Minister will not force us to begin a widespread public campaign
in order for that to happen speedily in our days."

Deputy Minister of Absorption Yuli Edelstein also spoke: "We often lately
ask wryly if the Temple Mount is truly in our hands or not. My answer is
this: The Temple Mount is in our hearts! We must always remember this,
and if it truly is in our hearts, then it will remain in our hands as
well." Likud MK Eli Cohen and the National Religious Party's Rabbi
Yitzchak Levy spoke as well.

Two Israeli Soldiers Killed - Mine and Shooting.

"A bomb blew up under an Israeli tank, killing one soldier and wounding three. The blast tore off the turret, pinning down the soldiers for several hours and complicating rescue efforts. Elsewhere in Gaza, a gunman fired on an army patrol, killing an officer and wounding a soldier. Soldiers shot and killed the gunman. Militiamen linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement claimed responsibility for both attacks. "

NYT: Germany Says April Arrests Thwarted Attacks on Jews

A top German official said today that vigorous police work by the authorities here had disrupted a militant Islamic group that was plotting attacks on Jewish and Israeli targets throughout the country.

Otto Schily, the interior minister, said the arrest last April of 12 men suspected of belonging to an "Arab-Mujahedeen network" was a milestone in Germany's campaign against terrorism.

"As far as we know at the moment, this Palestinian-Jordanian group was drafting first plans for strikes against Israeli or Jewish institutions in Germany," Mr. Schily said at a news conference timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States.

Check out the blogburst commemorating the 30th anniversary of the masacre of Israeli Olympic athletes by Palestinian terrorists from the Black September group at the 1972 Olympic Games at Munich.



The very name of the group Black September is sadly indicative of the way Israel is treated by the world then and now. Black September commemorates fighting and atrocities between Arabs. "Palestinian" Arabs living in Jordan against the Jordanian government. The Palestinians, as is their custom, claimed victim status in this fighting, and they therefore termed the fighting "Black September" which they continue to commemorate. The fact that the goal of a terrorist organization who's name is meant to recall Jordanian atrocities against Palestinian-Arabs is to terrorize not Jordanians, but Jews and Israelis, as I said above, is indicative of Israel's treatment internationally. Blame Israel. Blame the Jews. A group is upset that Palestinians were murdered by Jordanians - let's get those Jews. The Israelis are responsible for everything anyways, why not this also?



Even more worrisome is the world's reaction to the Munich massacre. The usual refrains were heard - they're victims, it's a struggle between a strong Israel and weak Palestinians, etc. It's one thing, although to me unacceptable, to morally equalize when the terrorists are Palestinians who claim to have been victimized by the Israelis. It's completely different, however, when a group claiming to be victimized by Jordanians attacks Israelis and still manages to garner sympathy for its cause. Sometimes I think if the Basque Seperatists were to plant a bomb in Tel Aviv they would find sympathetic and understanding statements from European diplomats.



e-mail me: yoshi78 [at] yahoo [dot] com

BIUblog

Munich Anniversary Blog Burst: Terror, Inc. (Part 1/2)



My contribution to the Munch Massacre 30th Anniversary Blog Burst can be read here.



Preview: The Munich Massacre in 1972 remains one of terrorism's most durable images from the 1970s. But it was not the first. Or the most extensive. Or the most significant.



Indeed, the most significant development for terrorism in the 1970s may be the most unremarked: Despite their leftist origins, the terrorist groups that survived and prospered often did so because they became self-sustaining businesses. The leader and examplar, in this as in so many other aspects of terrorism, was the Palestine Liberation Organization…."

History Channel - Not True To History

The History Channel is running a special all week related to 9/11 - The 9/11 Year. I saw some of their programming on Islam last night at 9:00 and 10:00 - a total whitewash - from what I saw you would conclude that no Muslims could have ever taken part in their attack on 9/11.

Here is how History describes their program:
"Inside Islam
Wednesday, September 4: 9pm-11pm.

Islam is a religion of peace and love, vision and clarity, knowledge and science. But to many in the West, Islam seems shrouded in mystery and steeped in ritual. "

"Peace and love" - love of killing maybe - the people who put this show together need to use a better quality of crack. Islam is a religion of peace and love mainly in theory (and not even much then), in practice there seems to be a lot of violence.

"knowledge and science" - Hello - algebra is no longer considered science - what have they done lately - like lets say in the last 500 years?

I get a couple of those mass e-mails people have started sending around regarding current events. Although a lot of people won't necessarily agree with everything written here, I thought this was definitely worth repeating:

The pope has never found it necessary to express publicly the least discomfort over phenomena like pederast priests or IRA gunmen. Not a single self-respecting Moslem cleric has found it necessary to express the least shame about the use of Islam to justify the wanton killing and maiming for life of innocent men, women, children, babes in arms… But in the columns of a newspaper that has remained indifferent to repeated manifestations of Arab rapture over terror attacks against Jews, the Chief Rabbi of Britain finds it necessary to express his "profound shock" over a group of Israeli soldiers who were photographed smiling alongside the body of a dead Palestinian" -- without mentioning that the soldiers in question were later disciplined.


[...]


Perhaps, in the luxury of his Hamilton Terrace London mansion, under 24-hour protection by friendly bobbies and faceless detectives, the good rabbi cannot quite understand how 18 and 19 year old Israeli soldiers, who daily risk their lives in the front line confronting an enemy that knows no depths of cruelty and depravity, might spontaneously break out in a smile at seeing one of them dead.



The phrase "give back" implies that something was stolen. How can the Chief Rabbi of all people collaborate in this myth-making? Is he not aware that many of the lands currently "occupied" by Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were purchased
for good money and owned by Jews in Turkish times, long before there was a Jewish state?



If the Rabbi is too much of a good chap to cite the biblical rights of the Jewish People to the entire Land of Israel, why does he ignore International Law? Neither the West Bank nor Gaza belonged to any sovereign state when Israel captured them in 1967; they were essentially stateless territories. Both had originally been part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. According to the UN partition plan of 1947, they should have become part of a new Arab state when Britain abandoned the Mandate in 1948. But since the Arabs themselves rejected this plan, not only did that state never come into being, it never even acquired theoretical legitimacy. The West Bank and Gaza were therefore not owned by anyone when they were seized by Jordan and Egypt respectively in 1948. Since their annexation by these countries was never internationally recognized, they were still stateless territory in 1967.

And, of course, regardless of the veracity of Rabi Sacks's statements, the level of sheer irresponsibility inherent in making such statement to the Guardian is incomprehensible. The British Jewish community should demand Rabbi Sacks's immediate resignation.



e-mail me: yoshi78 [at] yahoo [dot] com
BIUblog

MUNICH OLYMPICS MASSACRE, 1972

Today is the 30 anniversary of the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches by the crew of Yasir Arafat. The Olympics does not commemorate this event at the Olympics- it was only Jews who were killed.

Much more information on this tragic event is a KesherTalk.

Here is a picture of those murdered.

Here is a very good news account of what happened - They're All Gone. And here is a US Olympics presentation.

The Official International Olympic Committee press release on the subject, and these wusses have to be commended to even have a press release, quotes the president of the movement nicely saying :"The IOC will never forget this event which was the most tragic incident to have happened in the history of the Olympic Games. We will always remember it and ensure that the memory of our colleagues and friends who passed away is maintained".
OK - so why don't you commemorate it at the Olympics than? When the Olympics are held, no mention is ever made of the murders.

The press release refers to the "Munich Tragedy", "tragedy", " of the victims lost their lives", "tragic incident" and "memory of our colleagues and friends who passed away is maintained". But never actually tells you what happened - some people, died - how many 3 or 4? How did they die, did they OD on steroids? Were they killed - no one seems to know. And if they were killed, certainly no one knows who did it.

Israeli Arab Militancy Seen Growing Fear of increased involvement in terror from within Israel’s borders. by Stewart Ain

(link from Fred L)

The specter of a fifth column — Israeli Arabs — conspiring from within Israel to help Palestinian terrorists emerged anew this week with the arrests of seven Israeli Arabs from one family in the Galilee. Members of the Bakri family were charged with helping the suicide bomber who blew up an Israeli bus Aug. 4 that killed nine Israelis and injured dozens of others.

Just a week ago, five other Israeli Arabs were arrested for allegedly being part of a Hamas terrorist cell in East Jerusalem that was responsible for carrying out eight terrorist attacks that killed 35, including the bombing of the cafeteria at the Hebrew University that killed five Americans and four Israelis.

Ashrawi Speeking in honor of 9/11. Maybe she can show us some of the dance moves here people used after the attack.

9/11 Outrage In Colorado By Steven Plaut

Osama Bin Laden was apparently not available to address the students at Colorado College on the first anniversary of the September 11 Islamist atrocities. I say this because I doubt there could be any other plausible explanation for why Colorado College saw fit to ask Hanan Ashrawi, the most prominent spokesman for Palestine's war of terror in the west, to address its student body for the First Anniversary of America's second Pearl Harbor.

Join me in letter-writing to the Danes

Following is a letter I sent to the Danish embassy in Ottawa. If you agree with the contents, please send your own letter to the Danish legation in your country.

Ottawa, September 4, 2002

For the attention of the Danish Ambassador:

Dear Mr Ambassador,

I am writing to you to request that you bring the contents of this
letter to the attention of your government.

Following a decision of the Supreme Court of Israel concerning the
relocation of two Palestinian Arabs who were implicated in terrorism,
“Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller criticized the expulsions
as "collective punishment" not conducive to dialogue before he met
Sharon to present a new European Union initiative for Middle East
peace.” This news item was reported by Reuters on 4 September, 2002.

The propriety of your government criticizing decisions of a foreign
supreme court is a matter for diplomats to decide, but as a Canadian
citizen I wish to protest your consistent support for
Palestinian-Arab terrorists and their equivalent. Below are a few
examples that happened to land on my desk, and I’m sure that anyone
compiling a systematic portfolio could come up with many more
examples.

Israel is our sister-democracy, a courageous republic struggling to
survive in a sea of dictatorships and terrorists. Your consistent
anti-Israeli policies are nothing short of fratricide. As a Canadian
citizen, it is my duty to express my profound revulsion at your
government’s conduct. Please convey my sentiments to your
government.

Examples of Danish anti-Israeli and pro-terrorist action as reported
recently in the press:

On March 27, 2002, the press reported that “Reserve soldiers
stationed south of Ramallah this morning stopped a Palestinian Red
Crescent ambulance and, upon inspection, found a suspected suicide
bomber on board.” The following day, it was reported that Denmark
and Sweden were sending ambulances to the Palestinian-Arabs (but
never to the Israelis, the victims of terror).

On 19 April, 2002, it was reported that “Danish Foreign Minister
calls for international investigation of Israel`s incursion into the
Jenin refugee camp”, joining the Arab propaganda machine in ganging
up on Israel in her self-defence.

On May 8, 2002, it was reported that a Danish Trade Union cancelled
an order of computer hardware from Israel, joining the boycott
imposed by the Arab League since 1948.

On August 28, 2002, Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard (a Danish
journalist) reported the fact that the Danish authorities have done
nothing about “death threats against Jews or a recent Islamic edict
calling on Muslims to drive Danes out of the Nørrebro quarter of
Copenhagen... Mohammed Omar Bakri, the self-proclaimed London-based
"eyes, ears and mouth" of Osama bin Laden, won permission to set up a
branch of his organization, Al-Muhajiroun.” The death threats
against Danish Jews were quite specific: “A Muslim organization in
Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be paid
for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews”.

On the following day, August 29, 2002, the press reported that the
Danish government is hatching a three-stage plan for the Middle-East,
according to which “The three-stage plan foresees a Palestinian state
by 2005". This implies rewarding the Palestinian-Arabs for years of
terror with a state that will imperil Israel and the Western
democracies in general (we all remember seeing the cheering
Palestinian Arabs on 9-11). You are joining a repeat of Munich,
September, 1938, this time at Israel's expense.

I request that you confirm receipt of this letter, as a matter of
common courtesy.

Sincerely yours,

If enough of us let “them” know enough times, the message may get through. Eventually.


Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca

The Supreme Court´s Assault on Israel´s Self-Defense


The following op-ed in Arutz Sheva describes how the meddling of the radical leftists on the Israeli Supreme Court severely curtails Israel's ability to defend itself from terrorism.

One of the greatest threats to Israeli democracy is the anti-democratic behavior of its Supreme Court. Non-elected justices who cannot be impeached, and who are great advocates of “judicial activism”, which is essentially illegal judicial legislating by non-elected judges who trump the elected representatives of the people, dominate the Court.


The Supreme Court is composed largely of leftists and radical secularists who believe that their mission is, among other things, to constrain the Orthodox in
Israel and invent new "rights" that the people and the Knesset are unwilling to create, like the right to import pork but not kosher meat. The Chief Justice insists that the Court´s obligation is to issue rulings in line with "enlightened”- meaning leftist radical secularist- opinion.


A while back, the extremist Chief Justice of the Court ordered the Arab terrorist murderers of the Jewish child Dani Katz to be returned to the streets, until they were reconvicted of the murder. Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the Court´s misbehavior, though, is its self-imposed need to micromanage Israel´s army and military defense activities. The justices believe that they have the right to dictate to the army in every single case what bullet, and in which direction, the soldiers may fire, and that they may second-guess every military micro-decision.........[read on]

Meta Advocacy

This piece is concerned with advocating advocacy, hence “meta advocacy”.

I was jolted into writing this piece by a story posted today [September 4, 2002] by AP, reporting under the headline, Poll: Europeans Blame U.S. Policies as follows:

A majority of people in six European countries believe American foreign policy is partly to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks, a survey found.

Researchers interviewed people in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland for the survey, which was done for the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

The article proceeds to spell out the details: In France, 63% said that US foreign policy was partly to blame for the attacks; in Holland, 59%; in the UK, 57%; in Germany, 52%; in Poland, 54%; and in Italy, “only” 51%.

Of course, the term, “American foreign policy is partly to blame” is a code-phrase for US support for Israel and possibly for the US policy concerning Iraq.

This news story tells me that (a) Israel and the US have failed in getting their narrative through to the people of Europe; (b) losing the battle for the minds and hearts of Europe’s people is a dangerous loss for democracy; (c) Europeans have reverted to their appeasement conduct of September, 1938, and a second Munich is being perpetrated even as I write, both in relation to Iraq and the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (which would be the 23re Arab state).

A sober appraisal of the Israeli PR situation has been given by Benjamin Netanyahu, the one Israeli leader who takes advocacy seriously. Following are excerptss from pp. 374-385 of:

Netanyahu, Benjamin. Durable Peace. New York: Warner Books, 2000.

The importance of advocacy, what Israel could do and what Israel actually did:

To win militarily, you must also win politically; to win politically, you must over public opinion; and to win over public opinion, you must convince the public that your cause is just...

[T]he nations of the world form their alliances and their antipathies according to their changing interest and, in an increasingly democratic world, according to their public opinion. Israel could therefore act on both these fronts of interest and opinion to persuade governments and their citizens alike about the advisability and the justice of siding with it...

While the Arabs were exceptional in waging the battle for public opinion so long and so systematically, the Jews of Israel were unique in abandoning the field for so long...

[S]uccessive Likud governments...frequently took actions that were justifiable in themselves, but they made absolutely no effort to persuade the world that this was the case...

The absence of a credible effort to explain Israel's position to the world over the last few decades has led to one political defeat after another, and as long as only the Arab side is doing the explaining, the situation can only go from bad to worse.

About the Arab strategy:

the Arabs sought to rob the Jews of every aspect of the historical case that suggested the justice of their cause, constructing an extraordinary distortion of Jewish history and substituting in its place a fictitious Palestinian one: The Arabs took the place of the Jews as the natives in the land, and the Jews took the place of the Arabs as the invaders; the horrible Jewish exile into a hundred lands was exchanged for a Palestinian Arab "exile" (into the neighboring Arab states); the atrocities committed against the Jews were denied and dismissed, while any hardship encountered by the Arabs was inflated into a miniature Holocaust. All this was meant to persuade the peoples of the world, especially those of the United States and Europe, that Israel had committed a grave injustice, which the Arabs were merely trying to correct, and that decent people everywhere were obligated to help them correct it.

What is required of Israel, according to Netanyahu, is:

...a major overhaul in Israel's abilities to present its case and its policies before world audiences. This must be understood to be a central pillar of policy and be treated accordingly, necessarily changing both the formulation of Israel's messages to the world and the quality of its messengers... Israel must explain to world audiences the basis of the Jewish right to the land, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the goals and tactics of its adversaries, and the prerequisites for genuine peace in the region...

As for Israel's messengers, its ministers, parliamentarians, and diplomats will have to become adept at communicating with international audiences. The diplomats, in fact, ought to be chosen in the first instance with these capacities in mind. Israel will have to recruit the sharpest minds and most eloquent pens to refute the many lies hurled at it and to present the truth. In the technical sense, this requires an overhaul of the government ministries involved, defining differently, for example, the job of a diplomat and recruiting candidates accordingly. It also requires a radically different level of staffing and funding to engage in research, publication, broadcasting, and press relations.

I applaude this incisive analysis, presented so clearly by one of Israel’s foremost leaders. However, residing as I do in Canada, I can do little to reform the Israeli PR system along the lines suggested by Netanyahu, and I suspect that most of this site’s reader are in the same position. On the other hand, there are several steps that we can take. For example, in the specific case of the blogosphere, rather than restrict our postings to “friendly” sites, where we preach to the converted, we should seek out our opponents’ sites, and post comments there, in the hope of generating a discussion.

Another way of supporting pro-Israel advocacy is writing to the PR departments of foreign embassies and to foreign governments. Whenever the EU-niks and the Norwegians take hostile steps towards Israel (embargos, statements, accusations...) I protest to the relevant foreign legations in my city. Moslty, I end up with form-letter responses, but at least I present the pro-Israel case. upon occasion I get a customized response and a phone call, as in a recent case when the Dutch Charge d’affaires in Ottawa phoned me after I had sent a letter of protest. In the conversation I asked him why he thinks that the anti-Israeli perception of his country differs so markedly from that of North Americans. His answer gave me new insight into Netanyahu’s text. Europeans, said the Dutch Charge d’affaires, are sensitive to such words as “occupation”, having been themselves occupied during WW II. Alas, a long, painful and arduous task awaits pro-Israel advocates.

An additional area where we can and should try to assist Israel is letters to the editor and op/ed pieces in our local newspapers. Nobody can doubt the influence of the media and the scope of their reach. At the same time, the tenor in many of the media outlets is one of overt anti-Israeli bias. A recent article in IMRA
corroborates this statement:

A comprehensive study of the television networks in the Western world and in South Africa reveal an increasing tendency of editors and reporters to
'understand' the position and actions of the Palestinian Authority, at the
expense of the State of Israel. The quantitative coverage, its content and
its quality shows a continuous deterioration of Israel's standing, and this
especially in the period after the events of September 11. This tendency is
found uniformly in the United States, Britain, Germany and South Africa.
Israel is the big loser in the battle for media supremacy.

I have had several letters and one op/ed piece published in the Ottawa Citizen , and while this paper is no New York Times, it is a major paper in Canada’s capital, with a larger audience than any blogger can hope to have. It’s worth giving it a try.

These are but three suggestions, and more can be found on the Web. For example, the web site of the Orthodox Union
has several links for this purpose, divided into four categories: “grass-roots activism”, “political action”, “PR/media monitoring” and data sources.

These links notwithstanding, I’d like to end this posting with a request to readers for advice and proposals for additional ways in which to bolster pro-Israel advocacy. Such proposals can be entered as “comments” under this posting, or sent to me via e-mail.

Notes:

1. On August 4, 2002, I posted an article on the topic of Israel advocacy which may be found on Dawson Speeks. The article includes links to selected new advocacy groups.

2. The World Union of Jewish Students, WUJS, has an advocacy-dedicated web site at wujs. It features a free subscription for advocacy materials delivered by e-mail.

3. Among the articles relevant to the advocacy topic, one might find the following to be of interest:

Emanuel A. Winston, Suing the Anti-Jewish Media,
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1297

Noga Tarnopolsky, `Demon Israel' and the ivory tower,
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=198969

David D. Perlmutter, What did you do while Israel was destroyed?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/what_did_u_do.asp


Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca

600 Kg Car bomb Is Arafat's Gift to Israelis for the Jewish New Year

(Ha'aretz) Security forces prevented what a senior police officer described as one of the biggest terror bombing attempts since the start of the intifada, when they intercepted a car in the early hours of Thursday morning filled with 600 kilograms of explosives near Pardes Hana, not far from Hadera. Two cars - an Isuzu van and a Golf - were captured at around 2 A.M. after they aroused the suspicion of civilian volunteers serving with the police, because they were traveling very fast at about two o'clock in the morning, on a winding dirt road leading from the West Bank into Israel. After police at a roadblock ordered them to stop, the cars continued driving for a short distance and the occupants then jumped out and fled. Police then discovered the explosives in the van, along with a cellular phone and two large containers filled with fuel and metal fragments.


The cellular phone was likely to be used to detonate the bomb and the second vehicle as a getaway car.
The two cars were headed in the general direction of the town of Hadera, where several Palestinian suicide bombings and shooting attacks have taken place in the past two years.


"This was one of the biggest (successes in) foiling an attack that we know of," said Borovsky. "We did not have any specific warnings, but our working assumption is that the eve of a Jewish holiday is a time when terror attacks are likely." David Baker, an official at the Prime Minister's Office, said the car bomb was the Palestinians' gift to Israelis for the Jewish New Year. "A New Year tragedy has been averted and many Israeli lives have been saved," he said.

Former Soviet refusniks fight against the execution of Palestinian refusniks by Arafat

Interesting article discussing the controversial issue of "Transfer" in its various forms

Transfer- a Viable Solution? by Boaz Fletcher

Since 1979, Israel has signed two peace-treaties, one with Egypt and the other with Jordan. Both of those treaties incorporated the concept of “land-for-peace”, the former, necessitating Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and the latter, certain border modifications with Jordan.

The solutions for the current phase of the Arab-Israeli conflict are playing out on a similar theme: Israel will cede territory that it came into possession of in the course of defending itself in 1967, and the Palestinians will sign a treaty that ends hostilities, recognizes the Jewish State, and puts a final end to all claims in pre-67 Israel.

Most readers of this column probably don’t believe that the solution put forth above is the proper solution for the situation, for reasons ranging from lack of trust of the Palestinians or their intentions (been there, done that); to international precedent and law dating back millennia that permits a nation-state to retain territory conquered in a defensive war; to belief that the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza with their continuous 3500 year Jewish presence are part of the Jewish heritage; and not least because the Almighty said that it’s ours.

There is another approach being put forward to solve the conflict, and it has the support of anywhere between 35% to over 50% of the Israeli population, depending on whose polls you read and believe. It goes under the popular name of “Transfer”. . . . [read on]

The intifadeh's over, and the Israelis won by Zev Chafets

Lets hope this guy is not premature.

There has been no official declaration, no formal surrender, but the Al Aqsa intifadeh, launched by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat two years ago, is over. As usual, the Palestinians have lost. "All forms of Palestinian violence have to stop," Arafat's military chief, Abdel Razak Yehiyeh, told an interviewer. "All resistance acts that are characterized by violence, such as using arms or even stones ... are harmful."

Only six months ago, Palestinian military leaders thought they had an unstoppable weapon - suicide bombers. But Operation Defensive Shield, March's much-maligned Israeli invasion of the West Bank, changed the situation dramatically.

"When we began Defensive Shield, there were roughly 70 senior terrorists in the northern West Bank," says an Israeli security analyst. "They were the hard core, responsible for hundreds of killings. Today there are fewer than 10 left, and it's just a matter of time before we catch up to them."

"Gaza first" - to what end?

The events since "Gaza first" was implemented leave little doubt that the Palestinian-Arab terrorists have no interest in anything akin to peace. Here is today's news review by Arutz 7:

Palestinian mortar shells continue to bombard Jewish homes and communities in Gaza, and residents are wondering when the army will take action. Three shells hit local Jewish neighborhoods last night, two smashed into Kfar Darom this morning, and a sixth one landed near Gadid this afternoon.

Asher Mivtzari of Kfar Darom told Arutz-7 what happened in his house early this morning:

"At 6 AM, we had a very big miracle when a shell exploded in the kitchen. A tremendous boom shook the building, and the whole house was filled with a cloud of smoke and soot. Thank G-d no one was hurt, but it could have been very different: Our kids often use the kitchen as a central meeting place... We've already had over 1,600 shells in this area - a genuine war situation. We truly had a miracle, but there's no reason to wait for further miracles; the army must take much stronger action."

Nearby, IDF forces killed a terrorist at the Kisufim Junction last night when they saw him attempting to approach the area. He managed to throw at least two grenades before he was killed. Arabs also threw grenades at soldiers stationed near Kfar Darom last night, as well as at troops near yet another Gush Katif community, Ganei Tal.

And these are the people to whom George Bush wishes to give a sovereign state!

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

The Ayn Rand Institute has taken a consistent pro-Israel position, as its site, In Defence of Israel indicates. Today, the Institute disseminated the following Press Release:

Press Release from the Ayn Rand Institute

September 4, 2002

The Murder of Palestinian “Collaborators”

IRVINE, CA -- Last week’s little-reported torture and murder of a 35-year-old Palestinian mother of seven, along with the brutal killing of a teenage Palestinian girl, both accused of “collaborating” with Israel, is further reason that the Palestinian leadership must not be negotiated with but destroyed.

A few days after September 11 President Bush vowed to Congress and to the American people that the “war on terror” would not end “until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

The United States has already listed the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which carried
out the executions, as a terrorist organization. “It is time,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, “to include Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority on that list--and eliminate both.”

“To achieve this, America need not commit its own troops. It need only give its moral sanction to Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Is anybody in the US administration listening?

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland

Yasser Arafat and the Myth of Legitimacy by Daniel Polisar

Some bloggers have posted this long article previously. I just got around to reading it and am posting it now.

In a detailed fashion, the article shows how Arafat established a thugocracy and why his election was not legitimate. Besides, the issue of the first election, his legitimacy is called into question by the fact that his term expired in 1999 and new elections where never held.

The article is interesting from the point of view of being a case study on how to set up an authoritarian regime. It should be read by all aspiring dictators.

It is important to note that the US and Israel (and more specifically, the people in power at the time, the Democrats and Labor) basically acquiesced in the setting up of a dictatorship. It is the warhawks, Bush and Sharon, who are showing more concern for democracy and human rights.

MESA Culpa

Martin Kramer lambastes the Middle East Studies Association (MESA, not to be confused with MENSA) for two main reasons:

1) For honoring Edward Said on September 11. Mr Said is an apologist for Muslim violence.

2) For it members abdicating their responsibility to educate the West about the Middle East and instead serving as advocates of the Middle East (not including Israel)

Link from Little Green Footballs. Yes that is the site's real name, go and check. But back to the article:

Here's a novel way to mark one year since the tragedy of September 11, 2001: honor Edward Said.

This is the choice of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), and its companion associations in Europe. On the evening of September 11, the First World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies (WOCMES) will confer upon Said the "WOCMES Award for Outstanding Contributions to Middle Eastern Studies."[1] Said will go to Mainz, Germany, to accept it. The congress is an initiative of MESA (where Said is already one of ten "honorary fellows," for having "made major contributions to Middle East studies"). Could there be any more telling evidence for the total alienation of this field from the changing realities of the world around it?

Said is the Columbia University celebrity professor who has made a career of accusing all and sundry of misrepresenting Islam. In the process, he has committed not a few acts of misrepresentation himself. For example, in introducing the latest (pre-9/11) edition of his book Covering Islam, Said ridiculed "speculations about the latest conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage commercial airliners and poison water supplies." Such talk is based on "highly exaggerated stereotypes."

IDF Deserters Petition High Court


Eight IDF deserters are petitioning the High Court to declare the "occupation" of Judea, Samaria and Gaza illegal. These cowards, who should be happy that they have not been shot for desertion during a time of war, are instead trying to undermine the efforts of the loyal IDF soldiers.

(Ha'aretz) Eight IDF reserve soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to rule that the Israeli occupation of those areas is illegal.

It was not clear whether the court would hear the case. Petitioners said it was the first legal challenge to Israel's 35-year presence in the lands the Palestinians claim for a state.

The petitioners argued that in the past two years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, Israeli has abrogated its duties - as stipulated by international law - to take care of Palestinians living under occupation.

The Temple Mount - Judaism's Holiest Site

Israel's neglect of this issue is shocking. Just because Israel, a secular state, does not see the need to do anything, does not mean that this is not a historic tragedy that the world should be concerned about. The world seemed to be more concerned with the Buddha statues in Afghanistan than with the ongoing destruction of parts of the Temple Mount by the Muslims as well as their refusal to let peoples of other religions pray there (both of these are violations of 'international law').

Save the Temple Mount By DANIEL PIPES

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem holiest spot on earth for Jews and ranking up there in sanctity also for Christians and Muslims may soon come partly crashing down. . . .

A portion of the wall on the southern side might cave in due to the fact that the Palestinian Authority has had administrative control over the Temple Mount since the mid-1990s and since then has made many structural changes, all aimed at increasing Muslim claims to the site. . . .

"It will collapse," warns Eilat Mazar, an archeologist at the Hebrew University. Mazar goes on: "The central issue at present is whether it will collapse on the heads of thousands of people who are praying there, or whether it will be done in a controlled manner." The moment of truth might come in November. That is the Ramadan holiday, when thousands of Muslim worshipers will congregate in the mosque at Solomon's Stables. Their weight and movement could cause the southern wall to give way, causing meter-long rocks to come cascading down on them, possibly killing many. . . .

Governments around the world, Jewish organizations, and others with influence over the Israeli prime minister should get him to attend to the wall before it and much else crashes.

ALSO read the more detailed THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT ANTIQUITIES by Mark Ami-El

It deals with the following topics: The Holiest Site of the Jewish People / Islamic Disregard for the Heritage of Others / The Temple Mount in 1967 / Muslims Change the Status Quo / The Pit / The Debris and the Artifacts / A Plan to Bring "Holy Water" from Mecca / Public Calls to Stop the Destruction / The Southern Wall is About to Fall / What Needs to Be Done

Watch it Syria - Israel sends a warning

Syria's and Iran's surrogate Hizbollah is trying to heat up Israel's northern boarder and killed an Israeli last week.

The Jerusalem Post editorializes in A warning to Damascus

Despite bickering over the state budget and disagreements over how to handle the Palestinian terror campaign, leading Likud and Labor MKs were quick to join hands in issuing dire warnings to the Syrian regime.

Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who is also Labor Party chairman, told the weekly cabinet session on Sunday that Hizbullah is likely to intensify its provocations in the North, and said that Israel is "using various channels to clearly warn Syria, Lebanon, and Hizbullah that they are playing with fire." Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon (Labor), who is also a member of the security cabinet, was even more blunt: "We have no choice but to strike targets in Syria and Lebanon, because we cannot let the current situation continue. We have to make clear that we cannot tolerate what is going on and there will be an end to restraint." Communications Minister Reuven Rivlin (Likud) pointed out that Israel had done its part to fulfill UN resolutions that had called for the IDF to leave Lebanon, and that just as there are no excuses for anti-Israel terror to continue on the northern border, so too there are no excuses for Israel not to retaliate against such attacks.

N.Y. Times vs. Israel
There is a full page ad in today's NY Sun. I will reproduce it here:

Pulitzer Prize Board

c/o The School of Journalism

Columbia University


To the Members of the Board:


Some months ago you awarded seven Pulitzer prizes in journalism to The New York Times. In many respects The Times is indeed a newspaper of distinction. However, in its coverage of the Middle East, and specifically in reporting the Arab-Israeli conflict, The Times has been guilty of journalistic misrepresentation and deliberately biased reporting. Correspondents and editors have intentionally chosen stories to elicit sympathy for the Palestinians while making little effort to report on the Israeli victims of Palestinian suicide bombings. They have also given disproportional greater space to Palestinian perspectives and spokespersons while often describing Israel's views and policies in a few sentences or in the "back pages." Moreover, The Times continually displays a reluctance to properly expose the corruption, authoritarianism and complicity of the Palestinian Authority in its terrorist campaign against both innocent Israeli and Arab civilians.


Some media commentators have argued that the Mideast war is a complex situation that has generated a number of different viewpoints. And, as we must all admit, truth is not absolute. Our criticism of The Times, however, is not its editorial viewpoint which, of course, every newspaper is entitled to have. What confounds us is why The Times treats Israel so unfairly. Why is it so biased against the only democratic nation in the Middle East---a region composed of 22 totalitarian countries surrounding Israel? Above all, why is it so disdainful of the only country in the region that shares America's values of freedom, liberty and democracy?


The Times' lack of balance and fairness in its news stories, headlines and choice of photographs dealing with Israel is in violation of its own policies.


A few examples:


1) The large photo on the front page after the Israeli Solidarity March in May, displaying an "End Israeli Occupation of Palestine" sign distorted what really happened and occasioned an editor's note the following day because of the outcries and massive subscription cancellations.


2) An article by correspondent Joel Greenberg describing the death of two girls, 17-year old Rachel Levy and 18-year old Ayat al-Akhras as two high school seniors whose lives intersected, divided by war but joined in carnage, was totally obscene and morally repugnant. To somehow put a homicide bomber on the same level as an innocent girl shopping for the Sabbath is odious. Imagine if The Times had printed an article after September 11 describing how the lives of Muhammad Atta and a 25-year old bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald had been intertwined and joined in carnage. This is moral relativity at its worst.


3) The Times reported the 39-day standoff in The Church of the Nativity almost entirely from a Palestinian perspective. It was continually referred to as an Israeli "siege" and not an occupation by Palestinian terrorists. Even though Palestinians shot their way into one of Christendom's holiest sites and held the church and it's religious leaders hostage, Times journalists frequently turned the terrorists into victims by reporting that they had taken "refuge" in the church.


4) The Times uses the words "terror" and "terrorists" selectively. In articles about the horrific attacks against the World Trade Center and the USS Cole, The Times freely used the term "terror" to describe the men who had carried out the attacks. However, in describing members of the Palestinian terrorist groups, such as Hamas or the al-Aqsa Brigade, that have committed similar acts in Israel, The Times frequently refers to them as "militants" or "activists." President Bush said that terror is terror no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is. Apparently The Times disagrees.


5) In a Camera report dated May 1 (www.camera.org), The Times coverage of the Mideast war was demonstrated to be particularly biased and skewed against Israel during the two-week period from March 28 to April 11. This was when Palestinian terrorists committed ten homicide bombings against Israelis and when Israel's military incursion---"Operation Defensive Shield"---took place. When asked to comment on this report, The Times has repeatedly refused.


It is true that The Times may not be the worst offender. Other media networks and outlets are possibly worse in this respect. But The Times is certainly the most influential in its impact on public opinion both here and abroad. And inadvertently, it is contributing to the rising tide of anti-Semitism that is once again rearing its ugly head.


Israelis waging a just struggle for its very existence against terror and the brutal murder of civilians. The least we can expect of the nation's premier newspaper is to present the news of that war in a fair, balanced, and unbiased way. The New York Times is simply not telling the whole truth about Israel. And this is in contravention of its own motto of reporting "All the News That's Fit to Print."


In 1904, Joseph Pulitzer wrote a credo in The North American Review in support of his proposal for the founding of a school of journalism: "Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mold the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations."


We would hope that, in granting Pulitzer prizes for journalistic excellence in the coming years, you will be mindful of the shameful state of affairs at The New York Times.


The Ad Hoc Committee to Protest The New York Times Mideast News Coverage


If you agree with this letter, and would like to do something concrete about the concerns we raise, please visit our website at www.nytimesprotest.org for further information and suggested actions to be undertaken.

This kind of says it all. I don't see the need to add anything further.

It's astonishing. Thomas Friedman's op-ed in today's New York Times starts out very promising. He quotes two sources in his article, both of whom are anti-Idiotarians, a group to which Friedman hardly belongs. Friedman makes the points that the war on terror is important, that the grievances of the 9/11 terrorists are the resul of their own failings, not our's, and that, Arabist aplogists notwithstanding, the Western system of free and democratic government is the best one on Earth.



And then, out of nowhere, this sentence appears:

Because our presidents want to get votes, they readily tell the Palestinians how foolishly they are behaving, but they hesitate to tell Israelis how destructive their West Bank settlements are for the future of the Jewish state.

Thomas Friedman manages to criticize Israeli settlement policy in every article he writes. No matter what the topic is, or how irrelevant Israeli settlement policy is to that topic. It's truly astonishing.

Another call for action

When I started blogging in May, 2002, I was struck by two characteristics of the sites that could be labelled, “pro-Israel advocates”. First, there were so many of them, no one could cover even a fraction. Second, they were mostly information-vectors rather than being action-oriented. In joining BISI/IsraPundit, I hoped to make a contribution towards remedying both these problems.

Yesterday, I posted a note about Dr Bornstein’s petition, and about the help he requested readers to render. Today, I received another request to post a call to action, this one from Diana Muir. It reads:

Join a new program that allows people to do something on those occasions when The New York Times publishes severely biased stories or editorials about the
Middle East.

Take a Vacation Break!!

The next time that The New York Times publishes editorials or articles that are extremely biased or factually incorrect in a significant way, JAT will send out a notification message to a pre-registered group calling for people to request a three-day "vacation stoppage".

The notification will include the text of the article/editorial in question so that YOU CAN JUDGE THE EXTENT OF BIAS FOR YOURSELF.

If you agree with our call, you can multiply the impact of your indignation by participating in our coordinated vacation stop.

This is easily accomplished by dialing the home delivery department (1-888-NY-TIMES), asking to be connected to an operator and requesting a three day vacation stop, making reference to this campaign. It is important that you NOT use the automated system but actually speak to an operator and note why you are taking a break from the paper.

JAT encourages you to continue to read the Globe and/or Times on the web for FREE at: http://www.nytimes.com/

JAT may -- depending on developments -- send out a press release to other media outlets giving the number of subscribers (but not the names) who have agreed to stop their papers on the designated day to protest bias against the Jewish state.

ACTION

If you are a subscriber to either paper and wish to participate in this movement for media fairness and responsibility, sign up for the appropriate special email list over which you will receive our e-mail notice requesting that you take your Vacation Stop.

These special emailing lists are similar to the main JAT list but are operated through Yahoo. You sign up in the same way, simply by sending an email message to the appropriate address listed here. It does not matter what you put in the
subject line or body of the message.

* The New York Times:

NY-Times-Vacation-Stop-Protest-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your name and e-mail address will be confidential. The only email you will receive from this list is our STOP notifications. We will not contact the newspapers on your behalf. You must do that yourself.

For further information or to comment on this campaign, please contact the Boston Israel Action Committee (BIAC) at info@biac.org (mailto:info@biac.org). For more information about BIAC, visit their website at http://www.israelaction.org/.

You can read about this campaign on the following page: http://www.israelaction.org/activism/Globe_break.htm.

DON'T FORGET -- IN ORDER TO PARTICPATE YOU MUST PRE-REGISTER BY SENDING AN E-MAIL TO THE ADDRESS(ES) LISTED ABOVE.

Reasons why Vacation stops are worth doing:

• 1. It makes our objections to specific editorials and news stories emphatic
  
  
• 2. Surprisingly, the admintrative cost of vacation starts and stops is not trivial. the Los Angeles community has been doing this with the LATimes for several months it is driving the management fo the L.A. Times bonkers.
  
  
• 3. Vacation Stops are preferable to cancelling a subscription because cancellation is a one-time action, but Vacation Stops can be repeated every time the Times offends.
  
  and
  
• 4. With Vacation Stops, Israel activists are reading the paper and in a position to object whenever something appalling is printed.

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca

Israel National News (Arutz-7) is rightly proud to report that one of its producers helped to kill a terrorist shooting at Israelis. The New York Times would be ashamed of such a thing.

Read "Arutz-7 Producer Kills Terrorist"

Ariel Sharon has moved to remove the Israeli Broadcasting Authority from the grasps of the leftwing.

The Jerusalem Post has prepared a special report on the victims of Arab violence in Israel:

Since Rosh Hashanah 2000, Palestinian terrorists and militants have killed more than 600 people in Israel. The victims have ranged in age from less than a year to more than 80.

They have been Israeli, American, Arab, Chinese, Thai and more. They have included soldiers, tourists, students, grandmothers, and members of the same family. The Israelis ranged from new immigrants to fifth-generation Jerusalemites.

The deaths have occurred at a bat mitzvah party, a Pesach seder, a pizzeria, a college campus, a discotheque, a café, a home, an Army outpost and on the street. Their deaths have occurred in virtually all parts of Israel, from big cities to lonely rural areas, from bus stops to the buses themselves.

What we can do - what we must do - is remember them. To that effect, we at the Jerusalem Post Internet Department have created a living memorial to these casualties of war. On the following pages - and it is heartbreaking to see how many pages it takes - are the original Jerusalem Post articles reporting the terror attacks that caused their deaths. At the bottom of each article is a list of each of the victims - including those who died in subsequent days or weeks. Click on each name and the picture of the person who was killed will pop up.

As the Palestinian campaign of terror against Israel continues into its third year, we hope this living memorial to its victims honors their memory.

This special section would not have been possible without the Herculean efforts of Content Editor Doreen Ravona and Senior Graphic Designer Kira Volvovsky. Many thanks to them.

Moshe Arens Tells It Like It Is

Haaretz today has the normal hand wringing editorial about the IDF being too aggressive and taking actions against the pals as if there is a war on but publishes the antidote to the Haaretz malaise with an op-ed piece from Moshe Arens:

But over these past two years, a third threat to Israel's existence has arisen - the Palestinian war of terror launched by Yasser Arafat in September 2000. Although possessing no tanks or aircraft that could begin to match the power of the IDF, Arafat believed that by terrorizing Israel's civilian population, he would manage to bring Israel to its knees.

. . .

Now, the IDF's operations must be vigorously pursued till a decisive victory is attained - an end to Palestinian terror and the removal of the entire Palestinian leadership that launched this war. Such a victory, and nothing less, will serve as a deterrent to a renewal of this threat to Israel's existence in future year. There can be no greater mistake than returning at this time to negotiations with representatives of this leadership. Their removal must be an object lesson to future leaders of the Palestinian cause. Let us not pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Ultra Orthodox View.

Here is the first paragraph from an editorial from the Jewish Press which I think can best be described as a moderate Ultra Orthodox Jewish newspaper from Brooklyn. These are the guys with the black hats you read about. The editorial supports President's Bush's call for democracy for the pals and supports the war with Iraq. The New York Times loves to refer to these guys and show pictures of them picking up body parts after attacks but rarely tells you what they think. I think this editorial shows the view of the bulk of the Ultra Orthodox. See, not all fundamentalists are alike.

For months, we have been focusing on the realism that is at the heart of President Bush`s approach to foreign policy. Thus, when it became clear to him that Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority were irremediably committed to violence against Israel as an aspect of their statecraft, he eschewed the time-honored diplomatic equivalence doctrine and declared that there must be a "regime change" and he has stuck to that notion despite the blandishments from across the globe. His unshakable resolve — and his acknowledgement of Israel`s inherent right to deal with the violence, has brought many nations around, even some in the Arab world, and for the first time, serious Palestinian Arab reform seems to be possible. Yet, as Mr. Bush now seeks to extend this doctrine to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, a firestorm has ensued, fueled largely by the public opposition of some members of his father`s foreign policy team during the Gulf War period. The other day, however, in a speech to a veteran`s group, Vice President Dick Cheney explained the President`s thinking.

Israel is Winning

Occupation without responsibility By Danny Rubinstein

Columnist Mohammed Shaker Abdallah of Al Quds wrote recently with a measure of despair that all signs now show that the Israeli government appears to be succeeding in its campaign against the intifada. He's not the only one who thinks so. The renewed occupation of the West Bank, which began with Operation Defensive Shield five months ago, has largely succeeded. The IDF and the security forces have managed to change all of the West Bank's cities from Area A, where the Palestinians had full control, into Area B, where Israel has security control. . . . The new Israeli policy has accomplished the impossible: having the cake and eating it too. Israel rules over the West Bank but it shirks any responsibility for full control, since the Palestinian Authority continues, at least formally, to function in the civic arena.

Digging deeper: Israeli citizenship and non-Jews

With the constant rush of headlines, we are sometimes left with no time to investigate issues a bit deeper or in a wider context. As a result, we can miss the larger picture, or end up with large wholes in our knowledge.
That is why I am starting this corner- to explore and dig a bit deeper into issues of this conflict. Please feel free to let me know about any subject you think that I should investigate.



I want to start with exploring the status of non-Jews in Israel. Two of the most common misconceptions about Israel are “only Jews can be citizens of Israel”, and “only Jews can naturalize and become Israeli citizens”.

Becoming an Israeli citizen

Under Israeli law, the acquisition of nationality is one of the few areas in which the law differentiates between Jews and non-Jews. Under the Law of Return, a Jew gets Israeli citizenship automatically when immigrating to Israel.
Non-Jews can acquire Israeli nationality in one of five ways.

1. Nationality by residence in Israel

Subject to certain qualifications, this section of the law grants Israeli citizenship to former Palestinian citizens who are currently residents of Israel and have lived in Israel since its creation on May 14, 1948, or have entered Israel legally between that time and July 14, 1952, the date the Nationality Law went into effect.

2. Nationality by birth

Nationality by reason of birth is given to any person whose father or mother was an Israeli national at the time of his birth. This provision holds true regardless of where the person in question may happen to have been born.

3. Naturalization by birth on Israeli territory in addition to 5 years immediate prior residence in Israel.

This provision grants Israeli nationality to persons who are born on Israeli territory who meet these qualifications: apply for Israeli citizenship between their 18th and 21st birthdays, have 5 consecutive years of residence in Israel immediately prior to filing a request for citizenship, have no criminal convictions for violation of security regulations, and have not been sentenced to jail for 5 years or more for violation of any other type of law.

4. Naturalization

A person 18 years of age or older may acquire Israeli nationality by naturalization if he meets these criteria: (1) is currently in Israel, (2) has been in Israel for 3 of the 5 preceding years, (3) intends to settle in the country (4) has some knowledge of Hebrew (former Palestinian citizens are exempt from this provision), (5) renounces any and all foreign nationalities, and (6) takes an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel. Completion of all of the above requirements is not essential in all instances, however, as the Minister of the Interior at his discretion has the power (for a special reason) to waive requirements (1), (2),(4), and (5) above.

5. By grant from the Minister of the Interior to certain categories of minors.

The law provides, in addition, for a discretionary grant of citizenship to minors who are not Israeli nationals but who are residents of Israel.

The number of non-Jew citizens in Israel

The Central Bureau of Statistics published today Selections from “The New Statistical Abstract” (in Hebrew). According to it, Israel's population is estimated at 6.592 million people.

Out of that number, 77.2% are Jews, 15.4% are Muslim, 2.1% are Christian and 2.1% are Druze. The rest are "unknown".

The Institute of Policy and Strategy published a paper, which explores demographic trends in Israel in further detail. The figures given there are very similar to the above.

The legal rights of non-Jewish citizens in Israel

Israel’s Proclamation of Independence states:

“The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
[…]
We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

In that spirit, citizens who are non-Jews have freedom of religion as well as equal voting rights- Israel has quite a few non-Jewish members of the Knesset, as well as Arab parties. Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel.
Except for the “Law of return”, one of the other few laws which differentiates between Jews and non-Jews is that the latter (specifically- Arab citizens) are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This is to spare Arab citizens the need to take up arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, Bedouins have served in paratroop units and other Arabs have volunteered for military duty. Compulsory military service is applied to the Druze and Circassian communities at their own request.

Both Jews and non-Jews can purchase land. However, of the total area of Israel, 92 percent belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8 percent of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Wakf, for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.

That is the legal part. In practice, as I wrote here before, Israel (like any other western country), is struggling with issues of prejudice and racism.
This situation is improving slowly, a lot due to the work of organizations like The Movement for Quality Government, The Association for Civil-Rights in Israel, The Abraham found, The Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development, Adalah, (to name just a few) as well as official bodies like The State Comptroller & Ombudsman.

Law Permits Prosecuting Left Wingers


I have written many times about the treachery of the traitors at Gush Shalom. They are the criminal vermin who have been collecting evidence of so-called "war crimes" against the IDF for presentation to the anti-Semites at the International Criminal Court. It appears that finally the government may be doing something about it as Arutz Sheva reports.

In response to Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit, State Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein announced the law does provide for prosecuting left wing activists who have been accumulating information against IDF officers regarding activities in PA areas, to be turned over to the World Court to prosecute them.


Sheetrit referred to them as "traitors" and announced he was planning to prosecute them for their actions if the law permitted. Other government officials have also had harsh words for the their actions, decrying the effort to collect information against IDF soldiers to prosecute them while they were involved in a war against terror.

Lessons in Hatred, in Palestinian Schools Link from JCPA (I guess this sort of answers the question in the previous post)

A program broadcast on Palestinian television featured young Palestinian girls describing the central role of the armed struggle (against Israel) in their lives.

One small girl described how in her Palestinian elementary school, the physical education teacher directs the game "Soldier and Arabs". The children take various objects and pretend that they are weapons. They use these "weapons" to "kill" other girls, playing martyrs. They then grasp the "martyr" and shout, "Martyr, wait! Wait! Take us with you to Paradise!"

Another child spoke of her 6 year-old brother, who spends the entire day playing with toy weapons. He has revolvers, machine guns, and heavy arms. The girls explained that "The children imitate what they see on television. My brother tells my sisters: 'I am a martyr. You should now escort me and rejoice."

On the First Day of School Israeli Students Read About Peace.

In the picture, an Israeli student (of Ethiopian origin) on the first day of school, reads the words to the song "Peace" by Mirik Snir. The students were accompanied by thousands of guards to prevent palestinian attacks.

I wonder if Arab students read similar things on their first day of school, if at all.

Rolling Back Radical Islam by RALPH PETERS

You cannot win a war if you do not fight, and you cannot win a peace through inattention. In peace and war, the American response to the violent extremism that so damages the Islamic world has been as halting and reactive as it has been reluctant. We simply do not want to get involved more deeply than “necessary.” But Muslim extremists are determined to remain involved with us.

We are not at war with Islam. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. For decades we have downplayed—or simply ignored—the hate-filled speech directed toward us, the monstrous lessons taught by extremists to children, and the duplicity of so many states we insisted were our friends. But nations do not have friends—at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. And we deal with cynical, corrupt old men who know which words to say to soothe our diplomats, while the future lies with the discontented young, to whom the poison of blame is always delicious.

Hatred taught to the young seems an ineradicable cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunity, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders. Above all, those futureless masses yearn to excuse their profound individual inadequacies and to explain away the prison walls their beliefs have made of their lives.

. . .

The time has come for a modest degree of honesty. The good news is that the Islamic world, on its populous, decisive frontiers, is far more hopeful than we might suspect in the wake of recent events. While we must deal with fanatical, soulless killers in the present, Islam’s future is undecided. The door to a brighter tomorrow has not closed—far from it—and millions of Muslims are willing to keep that door open, despite the threats of a legion of fanatics. A struggle of immense proportions and immeasurable importance is under way for the soul of Islam, a mighty contest to decide between a humane, tolerant, and progressive faith, and a hangman’s vision of a punitive God and a humankind defined by prohibitions. And we have not even noticed.

We have been looking in the wrong direction, because that is where we have been conditioned to look. This great battle—this war for the future of one of the world’s great religions (and, certainly, its most restive and unfinished)—is not being fought in the Arab homelands, which insist upon our attention with the temper of spoiled children, distracting us from better prospects elsewhere. The contest between competing Muslim visions, between those who would turn back the clock and those who believe they must embrace the future, has already been lost in the sands of Arabia. Fortunately, the Arab homelands are far less critical than our policymakers and strategists unthinkingly believe.

Interesting Interview with Bernard Lewis in Jewsweek.

People in the West are accustomed to ask “why don’t they like us” and the simple answer is that you can’t be wealthy, strong and successful and be liked, especially considering that for a few hundred years you have won every battle. The correct question is: “why have they stopped respecting you, or at least fearing you? . . . ”

A FEW YEARS AGO YOU PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE WHICH HAD GREAT RESONANCE: “THE ROOTS OF MUSLIM RAGE”. WOULD YOU AGREE TO ENCAPSULATE THE BASIC IDEAS IN THE ARTICLE AND UPDATE THEM IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE IT WAS PUBLISHED.

In the whole Muslim world in our day a feeling of frustration and crisis prevails. Everything is mixed up. For more than a thousand years the Muslims became accustomed to the belief, justified in its time, that they represented the most advanced part of the world, and that they are the ones who set the standards in politics, economics and science. In the new age the Muslims came to realize that their power had weakened and that even adopting western technology wasn’t any help. The western ideas of socialism and capitalism did not halt the economic deterioration, and then the belief arose that redemption was to be found in adopting the western democratic brand of government. Most unfortunately it was proven that the only western brand that succeeded in taking root in the Muslim world was dictatorship, based on a single party. Political independence did not give rise to freedom. The reaction to these disappointments is resistance to any ideas imported from the west and blaming the west for all the unhealthy evils that stemmed from the failed attempt to imitate its culture.

Now there are two options: some feel that the failure stems from abandonment of the earlier traditions, leaving behind the authentic Islamic culture. The two main versions that have stemmed from this feeling are Wahabi Fundamentalism which is disseminated by the Saudis, and the Iranian-Shiite Fundamentalism. The other option, which adherents to the modern hold, says that the failure stems from the Muslims having adopted the shell of western culture and not its deep content, and therefore it is necessary to introduce western values in their full depth. In all of the Muslim world there are people who think that way, but the dictatorships make it difficult for them to express their opinions openly. . . .

YOU PEGGED YOUR HOPE ON THE OSLO PROCESS.

That would be correct.

WERE YOU PROVED WRONG?

To my great regret, I must confess I made a mistake.

PBS Propaganda?
As part of their programming surrounding the September 11th anniversary, PBS is airing a documentary this week, the topic of which is following "the lives of three diverse Arab Americans living in New York City as they struggle to negotiate life in a changed America." The three are a NYC police officer, a Lutheran minister and a U.N. official. This N.Y. Sun article says that the PBS documentary website is anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

The city’s largest public television station is marking September 11 with a documentary whose Web site is being lambasted by Israelis and American Jewish groups for offering an inaccurate and one-sided history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Web site includes a map portraying all of Israel as “Palestine,” a time line that blames Ariel Sharon for provoking the recent wave of violence by Palestinian Arabs, and links to Web sites of Arab American organizations that have defended groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which the American government considers terrorist organizations.



Thirteen WNET, the New York City station that is airing the documentary, “Caught in the Crossfire: Arab-Americans in Wartime,” listed it as one of the “programs that offer analysis, comfort, and opportunities to reflect on September 11.”

[...]

The documentary, a look at the lives of three Arab-Americans, is scheduled to air tomorrow at 10 p.m.

[...]

While Channel 13 is airing the documentary and promoting it in New York, the program and Web site were produced by the Independent Television Service, an arm of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB gets about $342 million a year from the federal government.



The executive producer of “Caught in the Crossfire,” Calvin Skaggs, said the Web site was produced by the Independent Television Service, not by the producers of the film. “There was no offense meant here,” Mr. Skaggs said. He said that the two directors of the documentary are Jewish, and he said the filmmakers had asked the Web site makers to consult with some mainstream Jewish organizations and try to make the history on the site “as accurate as possible.”

[...]

The Israelis and Jewish leaders said they had no objection to a documentary on Arab Americans, but said they were taken aback by the history and resources presented on the Web site. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, called the Web site “a serious hatchet job.”

[...]

A few of the many aspects of the Web site criticized by the Israelis and American Jewish groups:



• The site makes it sound like Jordan did not participate in the 1948 Arab attack on Israel. As Mr. Safian of CAMERA put it: “That would be news to the defenders of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and those of the Etzion Block — especially the ones executed after they surrendered to the Jordanian Legion. How exactly do the producers think Jordan came to occupy the so-called West Bank?”



• The Web site lists the election of Mr. Netanyahu and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin as setbacks to peace negotiations in the 1990s, but makes no mention of terrorist bombings by Hamas against Israeli civilians.



• The site includes a timeline with an entry for when Mr. Sharon “provokes al-Aqsa intifada.” In fact, Palestinian Arab officials, including Mr. Arafat’s justice minister and communications minister, have acknowledged that the violence was planned by the Arabs weeks before Mr. Sharon’s visit.

I visited the PBS website and took a look around. The page that summarizes the history of Palestine looks like it could have been written by the PLO themselves. Let's just say it reads a bit skewed to me.

The U.N. proposed partitioning Palestine into two independent states, one Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized. Zig-zagged borders that cut off portions of Arab and Jewish populations from each other proved impractical. Antagonism between Arabs and Jews quickly escalated into a cycle of violence characterized by gunfights, bombings, riots and sabotage.

[...]

...By the end of the war in 1949 Israel had expanded to occupy 77 percent of the total territory defined in the UN's resolution. Over half the Palestinian Arab population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab state that never came into being.



In 1967, after a period of increasing hostilities between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel launched a strike against Egypt, sparking a full-scale war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. After six days Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip-which had been under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively. This included East Jerusalem and the Old City, which Israel annexed. Five hundred thousand Palestinians left.

As soon as you see "cycle of violence", you should be alerted to carefully filter what you're readying. "A period of increasing hostilities" is an understatement. How about mentioning that there were troops massing to invade Israel? They make is sound like Israel woke up in a grouchy mood one day and decided to start a war.

In this period, Yasir Arafat of the Fatah Party became chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and leader of the movement for a Palestinian state...



In 1987 a popular uprising, the intifada, brought international attention to the Palestinian cause, but resulted in a heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population...

Apparently, no Jews were killed during this intifada. The Palestinians were just killing each other???

Former military leader Ehud Barak was elected Israeli Prime minister in 1999. His withdrawal from the Security Zone in southern Lebanon, where Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerillas had been fighting, raised hopes for a final peace settlement that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. An agreement was nearly reached at Camp David, but broke down over two issues: the status of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and a proposed Palestinian right-of-return. In February 2001, Israelis elected as prime minister right-wing politician Ariel Sharon, who had inflamed Palestinians eight months earlier by visiting the temple mount in Jerusalem, which is also the site of the Al-Aqsa mosque holy to Muslims. This marked the beginning of the second intifada.

Notice how they don't characterize Arafat as anything other than a leader, but they call Barak a "former military leader" and Sharon a "right-wing politician". Which wing does Arafat belong to, the psychiatric perhaps?

Since then, the area has suffered the worst violence in decades. Palestinian suicide bombers have killed and wounded many Israeli civilians. Many Palestinian civilians have also been killed by Israeli troops, who have intermittently occupied most of the West Bank in military attacks they claim are meant to hunt down militants and damage terrorist infrastructures.



With political opinion on both sides increasingly polarized, there is no end in sight to the historic and ongoing struggle over this land.

That's rich. The Israelis "claim" that the military "attacks" are meant to hunt down terrorists, but we don't really buy that around here. No siree, we think they just do it for sport.



There's this little gem in a paragraph about religion for Arab-Americans.

Religious practices that direct personal behavior--including the five-times-daily prayers, month-long fast at Ramadan, beards for men and the wearing of the hijab (headcover) for women make Muslims more visible than most religious minorities and thus more vulnerable to bigotry.

Here in the U.S., we have those roaming gangs of thugs on the lookout for long beards and head scarves, just itching to deliver a beating.



And this one in the paragraph about ethnicity.

The U.S. Census classifies Arabs as white along with the European majority, although a number of Arab Americans believe they are treated more like other ethnic minorities than European Americans.

Hello.....you are an ethnic minority. Look at the numbers. I'm not even sure how to treat that sentence without inferring a whole lot of racist crap that I'm sure they didn't actually mean. *wink, wink*



And, of course, an entire paragraph on stereotypes & racial profiling.

Fueled by foreign policy and public ignorance about the Arab American population, negative stereotypes of Arab Americans have blossomed in American pop culture since the 1970s. The Arab characters in movies are often seen as the "bad guys" or terrorists, greedy sheiks or barbarians.

Puhleeze. We've all taken our turns at having "bad guy" characters who shared our ancestry. They are all portrayed as greedy and/or barbaric. That's what makes the audience think they're bad guys. Every ethnicity has had it's turn. Bad guys have been German, Russian, Columbian, Mexican, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, British, you name it. I don't see "mob" movies or drug movies going away any time soon - get over it.

After 9/11, anti-terrorism policies of airline passenger profiling have disproportionately affected Arabs and Muslims. Some have been taken off planes or not allowed to board because of their ethnicity. Anti-terrorist programs and policies that single out people of Arab descent have also contributed to creating negative bias in the public eye, not to mention fear of the police and hesitation to report hate crimes among Arab Americans.

Hmmmm....why do you think that is? Maybe because the most recent attacks were executed by those of Arab ethnicity? We were suspicious of Germans and Japanese, and we were suspicious of Russians and Communists in turn. Isn't it funny how that works? You tend to be a little cautious around people who share the same characteristics of those who have declared that they want to kill you.



There's even a special page on this site just for documenting stories of discrimination or hate crimes related to September 11th, with a few "warm fuzzy" anecdotes thrown in for balance. For your education, there is also a resources and source materials page, which will give you a clear idea of where this information came from.



Overall, the site seems to have been written from the perspecitve of the far Left - does that really surprise anyone? It's a disgrace, but a well-illustrated one. Read it and use it educate yourself about the thought processes we're up against. Remember, these are our U.S. tax dollars at work.



UPDATE 9/4: Parts of the PBS website have been edited since yesterday. Certain pages have been removed altogether, and others have been revised slightly.

Foreign Minister Peres Met in South Africa with Officials from Several Western Countries.
See what he had to say to them from IMRA. Nothing startling. He seems to be towing the Israeli line instead of going out on some ill thought out 'peace' flier.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres met
today (2 September) in Johannesburg with the Prime Ministers of
Italy, Holland, Belgium and Russia, as well as the Indian Foreign
Minister and the Jordanian Planning Minister.

FM Peres Holds Diplomatic Contacts in Johannesburg
(Communicated by the Foreign Minister's Bureau)
Jerusalem, 2 September 2002
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres met
today (2 September) in Johannesburg with the Prime Ministers of
Italy, Holland, Belgium and Russia, as well as the Indian Foreign
Minister and the Jordanian Planning Minister.

The Jerusalem Post has a report on Peres's appearance in SA including that life imitates SFSU - Jewish attendees at Peres's speech were attacked on the way out.

You can send care packages wishing a happy Jewish New Year to Israel Defense Force soldiers at http://www.honeyidf.org. I can not vouch for whether this is a non profit organization or not.

No Israelis have been killed recently but this has not been for a lack of trying on the part of the pals. There have been numerous attacks in the last few days. As Arutz-7 (Israel national news) reports.

IDF troops shot and killed an Arab who threw a fragmentation grenade at
their outpost in Gaza this morning. One of the soldiers was lightly wounded
in the attack. In a separate incident last night, Arabs hurled grenades at
soldiers in the Tarmit outpost in the Rafiach area of southern Gaza. No
injuries were reported.

An Israeli resident of Nevi Tzuf was moderately wounded in a shooting near
the Bir-Zeit bridge in the Ramallah district this afternoon. The same man
was shot and severely wounded by Arabs about a year ago. He had since
recuperated from that attack…

Arab gunmen shot at civilian vehicles in four separate episodes
throughout the Shomron last night, without causing injuries. Two of the
shootings took place between the "T" junction and Beit-El…

Israel to Deport Relatives of Suicide Bomber Who Aided Bomber.


MY question is - if these people helped the bomber, why not put them in jail.

The New York Times Sucks, Part 1. - Here is the New York Times with an AP dispatch on the subject. As biased as ever.

"The ruling written by Chief Justice Aharon Barak said that the military can only expel a relative of a militant if that person poses a real security threat."

So why not put them in jail if they are a threat?

"``That (the demolition) was not enough for them. They want to kill everyone in the family by deportation,'' Mrs. Ajouri [mother of the deportees] said. Ali Ajouri was killed in an Israeli army strike Aug. 6.

She said the wives of two of her sons gave birth in recent days, and both infants were named Ali, in memory of her son. ``God took Ali, but gave us two Alis instead and ... they will be fighters against oppression and for the justice,'' she said."

Killing by deportation - normal form of arab overstatement. God did not take Ali, Israel took Ali because he was a murderer. Fighters against oppression do not blow up civilians. If any one questions why your house was destroyed, I hope that your glorification of murder convinces them.

If you want to see the full text of the Israeli Supreme Court decision, see part 1 and part 2.

The only blogger in town who thinks blogging is a waste of time isn't terribly impressed with Israpundit. He describes your typical blog as "the outlet of the ordinary man in the street who craves an audience for his rants." Presumably we're no different.

1. Of Blogs & Blogmen

Well, I'm going to resist pointing out the fact that Brendan himself runs a blog, in which - judging from the content - considerably more than five minutes a day is invested. (Oops - I just have pointed that out, haven't I?) Instead, I'm going to suggest that "the ordinary man in the street [why is he always 'in the street'?] who craves an audience for his rants" is a pretty good description of almost any journalist. What are the differences between a blogger and a journalist? Actually, when you stop and think about, the differences are highly superficial: journalists pass their work through sub-editors and editors, and get paid a wage. Blogger don't. Journalists usually do some kind of course to learn how to write pithily and succinctly, while there is no special pressure on bloggers to take formal lessons of any kind - nor is there necessarily any need.

But these differences are all to do with the nature of the bottle, not the bouquet of the wine inside. Fact is: trained, paid journalists are as capable of producing ill-conceived, cliché-riddled tosh as any blogger. While newspapers also convey news that is inaccessible to bloggers for financial reasons, their opinion pages (which make up an ever-increasing proportion of their output) are themselves really little more than outlets for that same ordinary man or woman, craving an audience for his or her rants (how else can Charlotte Raven be explained?) - the insult, however, is that often we have to pay for the privilege.

However there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between blogs and newspapers. When you read a newspaper article, opinion column or editorial, you know that what you are reading has been 'passed' or 'approved' by some senior editorial figure; the aesthetic aspect of the newspaper (or newspaper's website) says: "Take me seriously!" - and mostly, you do. Were Alan Rusbridger's editorials written in crayon on paper napkins, you would dismiss them without reading them, especially if you'd never heard of Alan Rusbridger. But with blogs this is a little different. The visual design is quite often poor and amateurish, and when reading them, it is you who are the editor, not someone sitting in a remote office; if you don't think much of someone's effort, you don't read it (unless they're talking about you, in which case it has a strange and morbid fascination) - or: you read it, and then post an irritable and splenetic piece on why All Blogs Are Crap on, um, your blog. Either way, it's you deciding what's worthy and what's a pile of shite.

Now, I can understand that there are some breast-fed types who like to be told what is good for them and what is not - people for whom the effort of individual discrimation and judgement is fraught with worry ("What if I'm wrong? Will people laugh at me?"), and who therefore will find this whole process of being-your-own-editor a little daunting. After all, for many human beings, safety is the overriding concern - sticking your neck out over an issue, whatever it may be, brings the risk of ridicule (or sometimes worse). Best to stick with 'received opinion,' run with the herd, and so on. Newspapers and mainstream journalism in general offer that safety in truckloads. After all, a politician has no qualms of appearing on TV to quote the latest Times editorial, or refer when arguing his case, to a point made by Paul Foot in last week's Private Eye or Guardian - but he'd be nervous of saying: "Here's an argument in favour of attacking Iraq I read on Instapundit," (assuming everyone knew who that was) no matter how compelling the argument was. After all, professional journalists get paid to have an opinion, and there must be good reason to pay someone to have an opinion, mustn't there? But Glenn - he don't get paid for this. And as we all know, the size of the pay packet is in direct proportion to the quality of the opinions. QED.

Personally I don't think the cultural significance of weblogs has really been finally figured out. Plenty has been written - and is still being written - on the phenomenon, but I'm always left with the feeling that every commentator (including our friend Mr O'Neill) never really gets it straight. Either they overestimate blogging as a major challenge to the dead-tree media (it isn't), or they underestimate it as no more than a forum for pointless chatter (some of it is, some of it isn't), a kind of faux engagement with reality, a way of trying to make a difference while not really making a difference at all. I believe that the effect of both blogging and the reading of blogs is mostly impossible to discern, like the effect of doing most things. Who can tell how it will make a difference in the real world?

2. Of Israel & Israelmen

I was hoping, in the course of Brendan's post, to discover why - as he put it in his e-mail notification - "Israpundit sucks." Alas, no reason was given, so I'll just have to answer the points he did make. His thesis is mainly that the pro-Israeli has lost some ground in recent years:

This might just be one little blog, but it captures what the once-mighty pro-Israel lobby has been reduced to. Remember when those who supported Israel had the ear of the US government and were confident that the media would argue their case while vilifying the Palestinians as criminals and animals? Now those people have been reduced to challenging what their paranoid mindsets tell them is all-pervasive Arab propaganda via a blog - the outlet of the ordinary man in the street who craves an audience for his rants.

There then follows a lengthy account of the claims and counter-claims of media bias against Israel, with which we are all familiar. There is an element of fairness in his critique, but also an equal element of unfairness.

It is a hefty exaggeration indeed to suggest that the "once mighty pro-Israel lobby" has been "reduced" to a weblog. It hasn't. America still exports arms to Israel, in spite of ever more clamorous calls for those arms sales to cease. During Operation Defensive Shield, Bush asked Sharon to withdraw the IDF from West Bank cities, but this call was clearly not serious in intent; we all know that Powell, touring the Middle East, placed Israel at the end of his itinerary, giving Israel ample time to do what it set out to do - much to the exasperation of Middle Eastern leaders at the time. Furthermore, when Bush called for the cessation of settlement-building and the creation of a second Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, he was expressing a view I agree with entirely (although I know that some contributors to Israpundit do not agree) - and don't forget that the 'two-state solution' has been around since 1947, when the UN voted on the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine. While it is true that Israel no longer has strategic significance as a 'bulwark' against Soviet influence in the Middle East, it has nonetheless been re-invented as a bulwark against Islamist influence, and is still important for that reason. It is also true that for the US to reduce its substantive support for Israel would send a message to America's enemies that America is weak, and we have already seen the consequences (in respect of Somalia and Lebanon) of that. In a nutshell, Brendan is failing to distinguish between word and deed, and in any case, his analysis of the situation - in terms of its history - is full of holes - big holes - most of them, I'm afraid, below the waterline.

However it is a fair point to make that support for Israel has been dissipated somewhat recently, and a great deal of time and effort has been spent in picking over media bias. (Note: Brendan also overlooks the equally noisy complaints from pro-Palestinian groups of anti-Palestinian bias in the media. This oversight - along with his earlier contention that most bloggers are right-wing - seems to me to say more about the online company Brendan has fallen into than it does about the state of the on- and offline media itself.) Such exercises have a limited value - though they are indulged in by bloggers and journalists alike - but they do suggest that a struggle for 'hearts and minds' over Israel is in full swing, and this fact alone suggests that support for Israel isn't as solid as maybe it once was. But this is an entirely neutral point. If you are losing ground, your natural response is to fight to re-take that ground. But Brendan overstates his case - he is, after all, more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli - :

Part of me wants to point out that the pro-Israeli lobby is now facing a similar kind of isolation, vilification and frustration to that experienced by pro-Palestinian groups over the past 30 years - but that would be churlish.

Is it? Methinks Brendan doth protest too much. Has he asked any pro-Palestinian groups whether or not they themselves still feel "isolated, vilified and frustrated"? I think I can answer that question on their behalf in one word: yes. Do they feel the Palestinian viewpoint is insufficiently represented in the media? Yes. Do they feel, to paraphrase the pro-Israeli supporter quoted in Brendan's piece, that it's all 'Israel, Israel, Israel'? Yes - they do.

The curious notion embedded in Brendan's piece is that pro-Israeli people should - if all were well - be able to leave the advocacy to their governments and the mainstream media. I should trust the media to articulate my opinions for me. Why should this be so? I would have thought that he, as a journalist, would of all people understand the desire to have one's own say, irrespective of what other people are saying. Isn't that ultimately why people become journalists - because they are not prepared to passively sit by while other voices make all the running? And in the case of Israel, isn't it indeed the truth that a good deal of the media's bias isn't simply tied up in the meanings of words like 'bold,' 'audacious,' and 'daring' but is about serious substantive issues of fact and the vast memory-hole into which so many of those facts have - it would seem - disappeared?

If the existence of pro-Israeli weblogs - or pro-anything weblogs, or weblogs full stop - tells us anything, it tells us that not every human being is a passive sheep-like creature, willing to be herded this way and that without question by others. Not every opinion is received. Some are actually made, too.

An Anti-terror initiative from the other side of the globe

The Introduction to our 3-day old IsraPundit underscored that this site is action-oriented, and that one aspect of action that we, BISI members, can take in a collaborative manner is initiating and supporting petitions.

Dr David Bornstein, an Australian physician, was the moving force behind a petition to his government, calling for a UN resolution that would declare suicide bombing a crime against humanity. The petition was tabled in the Australian Parliament on August 26, 2002.

The text of the petition was as follows:

To: Government of Australia

Calling on the humanitarian ideals of the People of Australia as represented by the government.

That the government of Australia act immediately to bring on a debate
at the United Nations to declare clearly and unequivocally that the
practice of suicide bombing is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. This crime
and its promoters, organisers and supporters are guilty of a crime
which has been committed against the perpetrator (who has been
indoctrinated) as well as the victims of the crime.

Further, that there is no moral, religious, or political ustification
for this crime and that the results constitute genocide. The
criminals should be prosecuted and punished by the international
courts of justice.

Now that the petition with 87,500 signatures has been tabled, Dr Bornstein needs our help, even if most of us live thousands of miles from Canberra. In a personal communication to me, Dr Bornstein urged us all to “write to The Hon. Mr Alexander Downer, MP, Foreign Minister of Australia, requesting him to act on the petition. A short letter which is polite and does not go into detail other than identifying the petition is best...”


The e-mail I have sent is the following:

To: The Hon. Mr Alexander Downer, MP,

Foreign Minister of Australia

E-Mail: a.downer.mp@aph.gov.au

With reference to Dr David Bornstein’s petition concerning suicide bombings, I am writing to express my support for the petition. I urge you and your government to act on it.

Though I am a Canadian citizen, I believe that the cause of world peace would be served if the Government of Australia initiated UN action to declare suicide bombings a crime against humanity.

Sincerely,

If you support Dr Bornstein's initiative, please send your letter to the Australian FM,
E-Mail: a.downer.mp@aph.gov.au .

A hard-copy letter is even better, and can be addressed to:

The Hon. Alexander Downer,

Foreign Minister, Australian Government,

Parliament House, Canberra, ACT,

Australia.

On August 28, 2002, The Australian Jewish News printed the following article on Dr Bornstein’s initiative; the article is chock full of information as well as details of Dr Bornstein’s personal experiences. Having read the article, I concluded that Dr Bornstein is an example to us all.

Anti-suicide bombing petition tabled in parliament

Bernard Freedman

More than 87,000 people around the world have supported two Australian
petitions calling for the UN to declare suicide bombing a crime against humanity.

One of the petitions was presented in Federal Parliament this week by (Liberal) Member for Wentwoth, Peter King.

Orthopaedic surgeon Dr David Bornstein, a voter in Mr King’s electorate, organized both petition - despite receiving minimal support from local Jewish organizations.

The petitions urge the Federal Government to propose a motion at the UN, declaring suicide bombing a crime against humanity, and calling for criminals to be prosecuted and punished under international law.

Mr King said he intends to raise the issue with Foreign Minister Alexander Downer - a necessary step if the quest for ta UN declaration is to receive Australian Government support.

Under House of Representatives rules, Mr King could present only one of the petitions, carrying 2,402 signatures, to parliament.

He was able only to refer the other one because the 87,000 people who signed it were not all Australian, but had responded to Dr Bornstein’s four-month internet campaign.

Petitions to parliament must be signed by Australian citizens only, and cannot be submitted electronically, the House Of Representatives Clerck’s office said this week...

Mr King, who visited Israel in February, said a UN declaration would emphasise that suicide bombing ran counter to international law.

Dr Bornstein said he had received responses to his internet campaign from Sri Lanka - which has also experienced problems with suicide bombers - Thailand, US, Israel, Canada and Australia.

He spent months promoting the petitions, contacting Jewish organizations aroung the world, and seeking - with limited success - support from Jewish organizations in Australia.

“I tried to get Jewish organization behind the petition, but it was a dismal failure. There was nit reponse from shuls in Australia. The most supportive Jewish organization was the JNF”.

However, “there was great support from a Christian group in Queensland”, he added.

Nivertheless, the campaign that he orgznised through an American Internet organization had given people around the world a forum to express their views on suicide bombing. Most condemned it, while there were 500 hate signatures.”

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca.

Touring the Kingdom of 15/19

The daily, Ottawa Citizen is probably read by very few of this site’s readers (which is OK - I don’t read the Akron, Ohio, Beacon Journal either). On Sunday, August 25, the Ottawa Citizen ran an article about Saudi Arabia, that extended over three pages of the broadsheet. Written by Robert Sibley, an editorial writer, the article was based on a tour to Saudi Arabia, in which the author travelled with other journalists on an “Islam Study Tour”.

The tour seemed to have been joyous from the outset:

As our Lufthansa flight approached Riyadh, the flight attendants advised us not to take copies of the Bible with us and to make sure any non-Islamic religious symbols - crucifixes, the Star of David, for example - were out of sight. This ban on non-Islamic worship also means that no churches, synagogues or Hindu or Buddhist temples can be built.

Here is a vignette from Mr Sibley’s sightseeing in Riyadh:

The plaza is also known as "Chop-chop Square." It is here that the kingdom's murderers, rapists, drug smugglers, sorcerers and, sometimes, treasonous rebels are beheaded. According to Human Rights Watch, 121 Saudi citizens and non-western foreigners were beheaded in 2000, and 81 in 2000. The count is 67 so far this year.

Apart from this kind of sightseeing, the journalists’ tour also included meeting high Saudi officials. In one such meeting, dealing with 9/11 and Arab hostility towards the US,

[i]t was even suggested that the Americans had only themselves to blame for supporting Israel and the Jews. "The Jewish lobby controls the United States," said Khedir al-Qurashi, the vice-minister for education. "They control your economy. They control your media." Similarly, Fouad ai-Farsay, the Minister of Information, when asked why the Saudi media knowingly publicized false reports that the Israeli Mossad was behind the Sept. 11 attacks and that 4,000 Jews had been warned to stay away from the World Trade Center, said: "We don't defend our enemies." In other words, I thought, you're willing to print lies if it serves your purpose. [Bold type inserted by me.]

The element of "lying", to which Mr Sibley alluded, reminded me of a passage in Philip Roth’s Operation Shylock:

One's interest allows anything. Very, very basic. Comes from the desert. That blade of grass is mine and my animal is going to get it or die. It's my animal or your animal. That's where interest begins and it justifies all duplicity. There is in Islam this idea of taqiya Generally called in English 'dissimulation.' It's especially strong in Shi'ite Islam but it's all over Islamic culture. Doctrinally speaking, dissimulation is part of Islamic culture, and the permission to dissimulate is widespread. The culture doesn't expect that you'll speak in a way that endangers you and certainly not that you'll be candid and sincere. You would be considered foolish to do that. People say one thing, adopt a public position, and are then quite different on the inside and privately act in a totally different way. They have an expression for this: 'the shifting sands'--ramal mutaharrika An example. For all their bravado about opposing Zionism, throughout the Mandate they sold land to the Jews. Not just their run-of-the-mill opportunists but also their big leadership. But they have a wonderful proverb to justify this as well. Ad-daroori lih achkaam. 'Necessity has its own rules.' Dissimulation, two-facedness, secretiveness--all highly regarded values ...

[Cited from p. 145 of:

Roth, P. Operation Shylock. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1993.]

Dining with an American businessman, Mr Sibley was introduced to the realities of the Saudi educational system:

"Four out of the country's eight universities teach only Islamic studies,” the businessman said. "So the Saudi education system is producing thousands of graduates who think and act on the basis of religious training. Not only can't they work, they don't want to work" The Saudi monarchy "allowed the education system to be hijacked by the religious fundamentalists. That was their big mistake. Instead of getting people who could run petrochemical plants, you got a bunch of jihadists."

The result:

Already, about 50,000 students who leave school each year are unable to find a job. Unemployment among the youngest job seekers is as high as
30 per cent. "The government is certainly worried," said the businessman. "How do you keep control when you have a huge population of young men with no jobs, no prospects and no place to go except to the mosque, where the mullahs fill their heads with anger for America?”

And this is the country to which George Bush pledged eternal friendship?



Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca

IDF Chief of Staff Interview: Moshe Ya'alon

by Joe Katzman, Winds of Change.NET



Ha'aretz Daily recently did an interview with the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army. General Ya'alon talked about the strategic threats before Israel, including weapons of mass destruction, nuclearization, and Arab pyschology in the context of 4th Generation Warfare with the Palestinians. Specific controversies, including Iraq and the Shehadeh military strike, are discussed.



Anyone interested in the Mideast situation would do well to read this article [part one | part two], which presents the professional Israeli military view of the situation that confronts their nation and the perceived psychology of her adversaries. Efforts to create a better situation in the Middle East need to understand that point of view and take it into account, or they will fail.



(Thanks to Charles Johnson of the excellent blog Little Green Footballs for this pointer.)

The Temple Mount: What Now?

by Joe Katzman, Winds of Change.NET



AZIN Webmaster writes, of the Temple Mount:

"Why is it that the MK who most represents the dream of a secure Israel must petition the High Court to visit the site while the Jew murdering savages are being given free hand to destroy it?"

Because unlike its Arab neighbours, the law means something in Israel. The Waqf's actions on the Temple Mount are similar to those of the Taliban in its treatment of Afghanistan's Buddhas. But they were given that authority by legal charter or grant. Which means changes, superceding orders, or abrogations of that grant must be dealt with in a legal manner.



Perhaps they should not have been given that authority in the first place. I'm sympathetic to that view, myself. But they were, and so the process for doing something about the situation is defined. I wish MK Kleiner and his allies all success in their efforts.



AZIN Webmaster also writes:

"G-d willing we will live to see the day when the words spoken by Commander, Motta Gur in 1967 become reality, "The Temple is in our hands! The Temple Mount is in our hands!" A good way to start would be to demolish the Muslim abominations that currently disgrace the site."

Look, if you don't like the Waqf and want that authority transferred, that's one thing. But if demolition is really your preferred solution, don't stop with the Mosque. Make sure the Wailing Wall goes, too. Because if you demolish that mosque, the wall won't be good for anything.



Certainly not prayer before the G-d of Abraham, a G-d of justice and love who hears the sincere prayers of all of His children, and desires that all hearts turn to receive His grace.



Key'n yehi ratzon / insh'allah.

The Temple Mount Is In Our Hands?

Ha’aretz is reporting that Herut MK Michael Kleiner is petitioning the High Court for permission to visit the Temple Mount. Meanwhile there have been numerous reports in the last weeks that the southern retaining wall of the Temple Mount is in danger of collapse due to the mismanagement and willful destruction of the site by Muslim Wakf officials. This has created a situation in which thousands of people may be killed when the wall collapses. This will certainly be blamed on Israel and should serve as a splendid excuse to murder lots of Jewish children. Hopefully this calamity will draw attention to the fact that despite our victories in 1967, the Temple Mount is still under Muslim control 35 years later. Why is it that the MK who most represents the dream of a secure Israel must petition the High Court to visit the site while the Jew murdering savages are being given free hand to destroy it?


G-d willing we will live to see the day when the words spoken by Commander, Motta Gur in 1967 become reality, "The Temple is in our hands! The Temple Mount is in our hands!." A good way to start would be to demolish the Muslim abominations that currently disgrace the site.

More on twisted logic

The murder of the Palestinians who allegedly provided information to Israel that Lori Anne discusses below is a strong message directly from the Palestinian Authority. The fact that the Palestinians claim these people provided information that led the Israelis to Raed Karmi is telling. The assassination of Karmi was a massive embarrassment to the PA. Not only did it mean the death of one of the Palestinians’ most effective terrorists, it also exposed yet another blatant lie by the PA. According to this article in the Jerusalem Post, printed just after his death, Karmi

was not in the custody of Palestinian security officials, even though the Palestinian Authority recently informed European officials that he had been arrested and was in custody.

The only reason the Israelis were able to get to Karmi was because he was a beneficiary of the PA’s revolving-door penal system. Well, certainly they figured that such a hero of the Palestinian people would bring no harm to anyone.

In interviews with the media, Karmi did not hide his intentions and those of the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade he represented. In an interview with the newspaper Azman Haifa, he boasted he was the first to shoot Tel Aviv restaurateurs Motti Dayan and Etgar Zeitouny, who were murdered outside Tulkarm last January.

"They were allowed to complete their meal, and as they left we abducted them. We drove them outside the city and ordered them out of the car and [to] empty their pockets and pray. As they emptied their pockets, we shot them. I was the first to shoot them," he said.

How utterly generous of him to allow them to finish their last meal. In addition, Karmi enjoyed his work with youth.

In an interview with CNN last August, he said, "We train the teenagers to carry out terrorist attacks inside Israeli territory. We train 17- and 18-year-olds to attack settlers [and] kidnap soldiers from inside Israel."

The list of his humanitarian activities in the months before his untimely demise is nearly endless.

* On December 15, he attempted to send a suicide bomber from Tulkarm into Israel, but the bomb exploded prematurely near Sha'arei Ephraim.

* On November 28, the beefed-up presence of security forces near the Green Line foiled an attempt to send two suicide bombers into Israel.

* On November 19, he shot and wounded three Israelis, one seriously, riding in a taxi near Shavei Shomron.

* On October 29, he attempted to plant a bomb in the Ra'anana home of navy Capt. Natan Barak.

* On October 28, he shot and killed St.-Sgt. Yaniv Levy and wounded a female soldier as they rode in a car near Kibbutz Metzer.

* On October 5, he shot and killed Hananya Ben-Avraham as he drove near Taibe.

* On September 6, he shot and killed Lt. Erez Merhavi and wounded a soldier as they drove near the village of Bir Sicca.

* On August 26, he shot and killed Dov Rozman of Netanya as he drove near the village of Zita.

* On July 30, he shot and wounded three Border policemen, one seriously, near Bir Sicca.

* On July 4, he shot and killed Bnei Brak resident Eli Ne'eman, near Shuweikeh.

* On June 18, he shot and killed Danny Yehuda of Homesh and wounded Alex Briskin.

* On May 31, he shot and killed Zvi Shelef of Mevo Dotan, near Baka al-Sharkiya.

* On December 7, 2000, he shot at a vehicle near Burka, wounding two soldiers and a female civilian.

I know, Gandhiesque is the description that comes to my mind as well. The fact that people such as Karmi are worshipped as heroes speaks volumes about the depths to which the Palestinian Authority under Arafat (in conjunction with their Arab apologists) has led the Palestinian people. For the Israelis to grant them sovereignty would be suicide.

Support for Pro-Israel Advocacy

The following message concerning pro-Israel advocacy was posted today [Sept 2, 2002] on the site of Arutz 7, aka, Arutz Sheva - IsraelNationalNews.com .

As the Oslo War comes close to entering its third year, we at Arutz-7 sense that though there has been an improvement, most of the world community still does not quite understand or identify with Israel's plight. Israel's desire to live in peace amidst a hostile set of neighbors; the Jewish People's religious and historic claims to this land; Israel's significant contributions to rejuvenating a desolate land and improving the quality of life of all its citizens, whether they be new immigrants from Africa or Moslem Arabs; the strivings of Israeli society to build a just social framework based on Torah principles; the true story behind the Oslo Agreements - these are just some of the points that are still not receiving a "fair hearing" in the all-important media front around the world.

As you know, Arutz-7 strives to publicize and promote understanding of Israel and its goals in the above spirit. We therefore ask you, our loyal readers, to help us "spread the word." Permit us to request of each of you to identify ten friends, co-workers, relatives or acquaintances, and recommend that they sign up for a free subscription to Arutz-7 e-mail news. Send them an e-mail, possibly including a sample report, and direct them to "http://subscribe.IsraelNationalNews.com" or, by e-mail, to "subscribe@IsraelNationalNews.com". Hebrew, Russian and French editions are also available.

Please address questions, comments and suggestions regarding this campaign to "campaign@IsraelNationalNews.com".

Sincerely,

Arutz-7's Internet News Staff

It's free and it's informative - it's an offer one can't refuse.

Syrian President: Shun Arafat

An interesting tidbit from DEBKA.

Informed Arab circles, including high Saudi and Egyptian officials, are wondering what lies behind an order the Syrian president Bashar Assad has just issued to the radical Damascus-based Palestinian “Fronts” to break off all operational ties with Yasser Arafat.

Apparently, the Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front from the Liberation of Palestine, the Hamas, Jihad Islami and Ahmed Jibril’s Popular Front fro the Liberation of Palestinian –General Command have all cut ties with Arafat and his al Aqsa. They have cancelled meetings with Arafat's operatives and have turned down invitations to Ramallah. Is this a good sign or a bad sign? Is Arafat being shunned because he's a lame duck and they plan to continue terrorist operations without him? Is he being shunned because he won't or can't control the terrorists and Syria wants it to stop rather than having the U.S. stop it for them? Is Syria cooperating with U.S. requests? Is Syria trying to clearly extricate itself from any collaboration between Saddam and Arafat? The DEBKA article explores each of the angles.


Why isn't my crystal ball working today?

While rummaging around in Islam Online I discovered this little snippet on Israeli "aggression" (or self-defence as sane people call it):

It’s an unfailing demand of Islam that all forms of aggression practiced against innocent people should be halted, and peace should be given a chance to breathe. In case, the aggressor refuses to do this, we, Muslims are to fight him until he backs down. Almighty Allah says: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."

This is a fairly widespread reckoning of the Arab-Israeli conflict among Muslims, and it just goes to show the massive divide between Islam and the West; the sentiments expressed here, were one to drop the Q'uranic references and change 'Muslims' to 'Americans' or 'Israelis,' are precisely the same as those from the other side. This hardly surprising. The entire language in which these debates are conducted is slippery and throughly debased to the point where two people from opposite sides of the ideological divide can say exactly the same words to each other while meaning two totally different things. 'Terrorism,' 'innocent,' 'aggression,' even 'peace' are words emptied of any concrete, universal meaning.

And as a last word, if Allah "loveth not aggressors" then he is clearly going to be none to pleased with the continuous Arab efforts to destroy, or latterly undermine, Israel starting in 1948.

An exercise in twisted logic

Take another close look at the Palestinian version of justice in action.

Palestinian militants shot a teenaged girl in the head and killed her on Friday for "collaborating" with Israel, Palestinian sources said.



They said 18-year-old Rajah Ibrahim was the second female in a week to be killed by members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who are affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. The first was her aunt, a mother of three.



Sources close to al-Aqsa said they killed her three days after abducting her in Tulkarm, one of six Palestinian cities in the West Bank reoccupied by the Israeli army in June after a series of suicide bombings in a Palestinian uprising.



The sources said she had provided information to Israeli security services that allowed troops to track down and kill the group's Tulkarm area commander, Raed Karmi, in January.



A source close to the Ibrahim family said Rajah's brother, Alla, was also abducted and remained in al-Aqsa's custody while her mother, Yusra, had been detained and badly beaten before being released.

Why is there no outcry? Why are these savages permitted to enforce this control by intimidation? Executing people left and right without trial? After beatings and torture?

Dozens of men accused of steering Israeli troops to wanted militants have been shot dead for "collaborating", their bodies sometimes mutilated and dragged through cities, since the start of the 23-month-old Palestinian revolt.



But Ikhlas Yassin, the woman shot on August 24, was the first woman to be killed for so-called "collaboration" during the conflict and was also the aunt of Ibrahim.

This is a sick double standard that the international community does not confront or even address. The al-Aqsa abduct people and keep them "in custody" while torturing and threatening them. I'm sorry, is the al-Aqsa a terrorist organization or a law enforcement organization? I'm a little confused with all of these blurred lines. Remind me again, they are or they are not under Arafat's control? Let's see....al-Aqsa is a terrorist organization and they are not under Arafat's control. They abduct, torture and execute Palestinian people. Why aren't the Palestinian law enforcement authorities after them? Why isn't Arafat working to shut them down, since they are killing his own people? Or, they are a law enforcement organization and they are under Arafat's control. They abduct, torture and execute Palestinian people. Why isn't the international community up in arms over these killings by on out of control police state? Or, they are a terrorist organization and they are under Arafats control. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!



No matter how you try to twist the logic, it just doesn't work folks. The Palestinian Authority is a lawless organization and a police state. The torture and execution of civilians who are considered "subversive" because they have different political ideas is an old and familiar tactic. Why is it that everyone goes out of their way not to recognize it in this incarnation?

The Gathering Storm

One of the most spectacular triumphs of the Arab propaganda machine is the fact that it has succeeded in seducing even the most savvy among us into believing that a second Palestinain-Arab state in Judea, Samaria and and Gaza is inevitable.

You see this belief expressed everywhere. On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, my PBS station (WNPI) aired David Shipler’s film, “Arab and Jew: Return to the Promised Land”. One Israeli Jew, an immigrant from the US no less, stated quite explicitly that we all know the end game, and we even know the approximate borders of the two states to be, so why go on shedding blood?

Another example: In his recent book on Israel (dated May, 2002), journalist Anton La Guardia states,

Over the decades of struggle, the Palestinians have fought, rioted, hijacked and bombed their way back into western conscience... [T]here is also realization that Palestinians need a country of their own. That country is not Lebanon or Jordan, but a piece of historic Palestine.

[Cited from p. 9 of:
La Guradia, Anton. War Without End. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, May, 2002.]

This success of the Arab propaganda machine even found its way into the White House, with George Bush being the first US president to openly and explicitly endorse the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state in Judea, Samaria and and Gaza. And today’s news brings another sign of the gathering storm, as the EU-niks go into overdrive in their attempts to repeat the folly of Munich, September 1938, this time at Israel’s expense. Here is the bad news as presented on September 1, 2002, by AFP, under the headline, EU envoy to head to Mideast with new peace "road map":

A senior EU envoy heads to the Middle East on Monday for a three-day trip to present a new peace "road map" hoping to take advantage of a relative lull in violence, diplomats said.

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, secured support for the plan at a weekend meeting of EU foreign ministers in Denmark...

The three-page EU document is based on ideas including [sic!] from the Americans but also specifically from France, Germany and Saudi Arabia, officials say.

According to a copy of the plan seen by AFP, the first stage of the EU plan would involve negotiations later this year, leading before the Palestinian elections next January to a security agreement allowing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from re-occupied Palestinian areas.

The second stage of the process "starts after the Palestinian election in January 2003 and ends with the conclusion of an agreement on the creation of a Palestinian state with provisional borders by August 2003."

The third phase of the plan, after August 2003, would involve a final phase of negotiations aimed at the formal creation of a full Palestinian state "with limited arms" by 2005, according to the Danish presidency document.

For the sake of Western democracies, if not for the sake of Israel, this plot must be defeated, and public opinion in North America must be marshalled against it.

As my humble contribution to averting the calamity embedded in the EU meddling, I am reproducing below a “catalogue” of reasons to oppose the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state. In future articles, I will expand and document each of the 23 reasons cited.




Reasons to oppose a second Palestinian-Arab state: list in point form

A. Arguments based on fundamentals and principles




• 1. Palestine belongs to the Jews as their ancestral land, a land inhabited by Jews continuously for thousands of years. The Jewish “ownership” of Palestine was recognized by the “International Community” in the form of the League of Nations.
  
  
  
• 2. With Britain accepting the mandate over Palestine, subject to the conditions of the League of Nations, Britain committed herself to establishing the Jewish National Home in Palestine by encouraging Jewish immigration and settlement.
  
  
  
• 3. The mandatory power, Britain, betrayed her mandate by slicing off the majority of the territory allotted to the Jews by the League of Nations; the Jewish people should not now be required to relinquish sovereignty over more territory.
  
  
• 4. The Jews have further established their right to the land by developing a desolate, barren, virtually abandoned territory into a flourishing country.
  
  
  
• 5. The notion of the Palestinian Arabs as a nation is a recent invention. Palestine's Arabs are indistinguishable from the Arabs in neighbouring countries, especially Jordan, which is in effect a Palestinian state. Creating a second Palestinian state, and a 22nd Arab state, is unjustified.
  
  
  
• 6. "Palestine" is a geographic term, assigned to a region, and has never referred to an Arab state; during the 400-year Ottoman occupation, which ended with the British mandate, Palestine was divided into several administrative regions. This underscores that a "Palestinian nation" does not exist except as an anti-Israeli propaganda card. Hence, creating another sovereign Arab state in is unjustified.
  
  
  
• 7. Israel is in possession of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a consequence of the 1967 defensive war that Israel was forced into. The areas were previously occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, from 1948 to 1967, but no calls for "Palestinian sovereignty" were heard during that period. Since Jordan and Egypt have relinquished their rights to these territories, Israel has the strongest claim to these territories. The term "occupied Arab land" is propaganda.
  
  
  
• 8. The Palestinian Arabs had at least three opportunities to establish their own state by peaceful means: the Peel commission plan of 1937 which the Arabs rejected; the UN partition plan of 1948 to which the Arabs reacted by engaging in war; and the Barak/Clinton offer of 2000, to which the Palestinian-Arabs reacted by igniting Intifada II. (The Oslo Accords of 1993, stipulated self-government, i.e., autonomy and not sovereignty.) By their actions, the Palestinian Arabs have forfeited any right they might have had to a sovereign state.
  
  
  
• 9. The growth of the Arab population in Palestine was, in great measure, a consequence of Arab immigration, attracted to Palestine from the surrounding Arab lands because of the development initiated by the Jews. The British authorities turned a blind eye to this migration, while placing severe restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine.
  
  
  
• 10. Creating a second Palestinian-Arab state will reward terrorism and in this respect is a blow to all Western democracies.
  

B. Arguments based on Middle East realities




• 1. Creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state will not solve the Israeli/Arab conflict. Palestinian-Arab spokesmen leave no doubt about their intention to eliminate Israel.
  
  
  
• 2. Creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state and will not pacify the region. Destabilizing internecine wars among the region's countries, such as the Iran/Iraq or the Iraq/Kuwait wars, are unrelated to the Israeli/Arab conflict or to the absence of a second Palestinian-Arab state.
  
  
  
• 3. Creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state will obviate Israel's ability to defend herself in time of war. In fact, weakening Israel by creating the second Palestinian-Arab state may precipitate another war against Israel.
  
  
  
• 4. Given the record of the Palestinian Arabs regarding Iraq, and considering the joy in the Palestinian-Arab street when 9-11 occurred, one should deem a second Palestinian-Arab state, which could form alliances with leader such as Saddam Hussein and which could station WMD on its soil, as a potential threat to the entire world, and particularly to Western democracies.
  
  
  
• 5. Similarly, recalling that the Palestinian-Arabs turned their bases in Lebanon into international terrorist training grounds, the West is in danger of coming under attack in the future by Bin Ladens trained in a sovereign Palestinian-Arab state.
  
  
  
• 6. The size and the lack of resources in Judea, Samaria and Gaza do not permit a viable sovereign state to develop.
  
  
  
• 7. The scarcity of water in the region underscores the non-viability of a second Palestinian-Arab state; water shortages also ensure that such a state will be a permanent threat to Israel.
  
  
• 8. The record of the Palestinian Arabs, and to a great extent the record of the Arab states, proves that they continually breach agreements. Even if a second Palestinian-Arab state were created under restrictive terms, the record suggests that the terms will not be adhered to.
  
  

C. Other consideration




• 1. Since Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not "occupied Arab lands", as established in Section B1, the settlements are not "illegal". And in any case, it is incomprehensible that Jews be allowed to live in any European or North American city, but not in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
  
  
  
• 2. An undivided Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jews. Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish state but of secondary importance to the Palestinian-Arabs, except as a propaganda tool.
  
  
  
• 3. The very talk about a second Palestinian-Arab state encourages terrorism, giving terrorists hope that if they persist they will be vindicated, displace the Jews and succeed in enlarging the area they will eventually control. The proposed state reeks of appeasement, reminiscent of Munich, 1938. And just as "self-determination" for the Germans in the Sudetenland spelled the demise of Czechoslovakia, so will a second Palestinian-Arab state spell the demise of Israel.
  
  
  
• 4. An alternative to a sovereign Palestinian-Arab state is autonomy within a sovereign Israel for the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This will safeguard the civil and religious rights of the Arabs, rights that no one disputes.
  
  
  
• 5. Islamist hatred towards the West will not diminish with the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state, since this hatred has far deeper roots: “a clash of civilizations”, in the words of Bernard Lewis.
  

[The foregoing “catalogue” was posted, inter alia, on July 29, 2002, on CitCUN.]

Feedback from a Canadian reader - posted with permission








Dear Mr. Norland:

Thank you for your piece in the newly launched "Israpundit". You spoke for me as a Canadian who is neither Jewish nor Israeli but is still intensely interested in the situation in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza.

At one time I felt sympathy for the Palestinians but their actions the past year have really angered me and any empathy for their cause was lost after September 1th/01, when we saw them dancing in the streets.

In fact, ever since Arafat turned his back on the offer made to him by Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the Clinton White House, I have seriously questioned the validity of their motives.

As a Canadian, some might say I don't have a dog in this hunt or in the War on Terrorism, but as human beings we were all affected by September 11th, especially those of us in Toronto with relatives and close ties to New York City; and no one escapes the fallout from terrorism.

Once again, thank-you for a well-reasoned piece, well-written.

Elizabeth Coote

Toronto, Canada

Something else to remember this September

In 10 days we will commemorate the first anniversary of the worst terrorist attack ever against the United States. On September 11, 2001, we Americans could no longer deny that we were all potential targets of terrorists. But we would do well to remember that Americans are not the only targets. I am, in fact, at this very moment watching a story on television about the terrorist attack at the Munich Olympics in 1972 - an all-too-vivid reminder that the people of Israel have for decades been fighting the same war that we realized our involvement in on September 11.

Neither the international spotlight on terrorism since 9/11 nor the American response to the attacks has done much to slow anti-Israeli terrorism. The following is an abbreviated list of terrorist attacks against Israel since September 11, 2001, complied from the Israeli government’s official website (warning: there are some graphic photographs on this site):

December 1, 2001 – Hamas terrorists detonate two suicide bombs at a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. This is followed several minutes later by detonation of a nearby car bomb, a tactic designed to create casualties among rescue personnel. Eleven are killed and 188 wounded.

December 2, 2001 – A suicide bombing by Hamas on a bus in Haifa kills 15 and wounds 40.

December 12, 2001 – Hamas terrorists explode a road-side bomb as a bus passes in Emmanuel. As the bus stops the terrorists toss grenades and fire at the fleeing passengers, killing eleven.

March 2, 2002 – A suicide bombing at a yeshiva in Jerusalem by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade kills 11 and wounds 50.

March 9, 2002 – Eleven die and 54 are wounded in a suicide bombing at a café in the center of Jerusalem by Hamas.

March 27, 2002 – A suicide bomber sent by Hamas detonates himself at a Passover seder in Netanya killing 29 and wounding 140.

June 5, 2002 – Seventeen are killed by an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber, who drives a car filled with explosives and detonates it near a bus at the Megiddo junction.

June 18, 2002 – Hamas kills 19 and wounds 74 in a suicide bombing on a bus in Jerusalem.

July 16, 2002 – Hamas terrorists disguised as IDF soldiers detonate a road-side bomb as a bus passes. The terrorists fire and throw grenades into the bus as the helpless passengers are unable to escape the bus, whose doors were damaged in the explosion. Nine are killed and 20 injured.

July 31, 2002 – A Hamas terrorist remotely detonates a bomb at the cafeteria at Hebrew University killing 9, including 5 Americans, and wounding 85.

August 4, 2002 – Thirteen are killed and 68 injured in three separate attacks – one suicide bombing and two shooting incidents by Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and Fatah, respectively.

This list contains just a small fraction of the attacks against Israel. Many others, such as the Palestinian gunmen who entered a settlement and killed six on June 21, 2002 and the dual suicide bombing at a café in Tel Aviv on July 18 that killed five and injured 40, are not included. The shock, grief, and anger we Americans felt on September 11, 2001, are much too common in Israel.

Why I joined BISI/IsraPundit - A very personal statement

BISI/IsraPundit are all about supporting Israel’s advocacy. I joined this initiative because I truly believe that Ink Saves Blood. As a Canadian, living in peace, thousands of miles away from Israel, ink is the least I can contribute to Israel’s welfare.

From a Canadian’s perspective, I have a keen interest in Israel’s welfare for several reasons, quite apart from the fact that I happen to think that Israel is the aggrieved party and justice is on her side (In the political arena, that never convinced anyone).

In the first place, I feel enormous guilt that my country, Canada, and my former prime minister, Lester Pearson, contributed greatly to Israel’s current problems, by pressuring her to withdraw from Sinai in 1956/7, with no security guarantees. This led inevitably to emboldening Israel’s Arab foes, especially Egypt, which created one casus belli after another on the even of the Six-Day War (1967). The one casus belli that rankles me most is the unilateral eviction of Pearson’s UN buffer troops by Nasser, proving just how misguided a step it was to pressure Israel to withdraw unconditionally after the Sinai War. Pearson may have received a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, but to my mind he contributed to the Six-Day War, and, consequently, to the current situation, not to mention hundreds of Israeli casualties. (Of course, had I been a US citizen, I would have felt much worse, because Eisenhower was the main cause behind Israel’s forced, unconditional withdrawal from the Sinai (See my articles in CitCUN, dated June 3, 2002 and June 23, 2002.)

The second reason I am motivated to rush to support Israel is my strong belief that harming one democracy harms us all. No one can dispute the fact that Israel is the one, true, democratic republic in the entire region. The way the EU-niks pounce on Israel to the delight of the Arab dictatorships is nothing short of fratricide, the very type that characterized the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia between September, 1938 and March, 1939. In the case of democratic Czechoslovakia then, as in the case of Israel now, weakening a democracy backfires on all of us. In fact, it has backfired already. I sincerely believe that there is a direct link between the West’s appeasement of the Arab states over the last decades, at Israel’s expense, and the terrorism of Al Qaeda. In an article I posted in Dawson Speaks on August 16, 2002, I listed the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Arab terrorists against the West (excluding Israel) over three decades, without the West ever responding in a manner commensurate with the terrorists’ crimes (the list includes over 30 serious incidents, such as the murder of Cleo Noel, the US ambassador to Khartoum, in March 1973). Seeing the West’s ineptitude in protecting its own citizens, and seeing that instead, the West gangs up on Israel to appease the Arabs, what are potential Arab terrorists and Arab dictatorships to conclude?

The concrete and most serious danger which Israel now faces is the creation of a second sovereign Arab-Palestinian state (the first being Jordan). If this ever happens, it is bound to go into history as the second dismemberment of a democracy, in order to appease dictatorships, and historians of tomorrow will marvel at the extent to which Western democracies refuse to learn from history.

It is to avert this danger, to protect our own democracy and to atone for the sins my country committed after the 1956 Sinai War, that I have joined BISI and IsraPundit.



Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland, dt804[at]yahoo[dot]ca

Why Are Palestinian Refugees Treated Differently?



This excellent and fact filled article asks a worthwhile question: why are Palestinian refugees treated differently than all other refugees in the world?



Some excerpts:

"In the roster of the world's unfortunate shifts of population the number of refugees is staggering: from 1933 to 1945, a total of 79,200,000 souls were displaced; since the Second World War at least 100,000,000 additional persons have become refugees..."



"Virtually all mass movements of refugees - even those which went one way and were not reciprocal, as are population exchanges - have been solved by resettlement or absorption of the refugees in either the original host country or another designated area...."



"The modem precedent was set in 1913 when Turkey and Bulgaria began their equal population exchange; and in 1923, Turkey and Greece exchanged 1,250,000 Greeks and 3 55,000 Turks. An agreement was signed in 1930 abandoning individual appraisal in favor of wholesale liquidation of accounts by lump-sum compensation between Greece and Turkey. Since almost all the property of the Indians and Pakistanis who changed homelands had been taken over and put to use by the respective governments, India and Pakistan eventually had to reach a similar solution.



Millions of refugees who left their homes because of religious, ethnic, or political pressures have been successfully resettled. Many millions more are now being absorbed slowly into the life of their respective countries of asylum. The United States Committee for Refugees' (USCR) latest official figure (1982)10 estimated a current "Worldwide Total" of more than 10,000,000 refugees. As that committee reported, "...few resettled refugees ever require assistance again from the UN," although the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) "lists resettled people as refugees until they acquire a new nationality...."



"n 1981, the United States Committee for Refugees noted, as it had not done in many previous reports, the "600,000 Jewish refugees resettled from Arab countries... three decades ago...."

Note that the number of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 is estimated at approximately 700,000, though of course population growth over time has increased the numbers we're dealing with today. On both sides. Again, this is common. What isn't common is how the population exchange was handled on the Arab side.

"Among the dozens of countries to which tens of millions of refugees have fled for asylum, the only instance in which the "host countries refused," as a bloc, to assist properly, or even to accept aid in the permanent rehabilitation of their refugees, occurred in the "Arab states." In March 1976, the director of the United States Committee for Refugees said that while "everyone must accept their refugees - that's the world situation," still, the "Arab refugees are a special case."



Why is the "Palestinian refugee" problem treated as a special case?..."

Why indeed, except to be exploited as a weapon of war by those who are not - and never have been - interested in peace.



(Joe Katzman, Winds of Change)