March 29, 2006

Israel National News Summary and Assessment of Israeli elections

Kadima Wins Underwhelming Victory

By Hillel Fendel and Ezra HaLevi

Kadima received 28 seats, significantly fewer than predicted. Only once before in Israeli history has a smaller party formed a government - in 1999 - and it lasted only 18 months. The results, after more than 99% of the votes were counted are as follows:

Kadima - 28 Knesset seats
Labor - 20
Shas - 13
Yisrael Beiteinu - 12
Likud - 11
Arab parties - 10
NU/NRP - 9
Pensioner - 7
United Torah Judaism - 6
Meretz- 4

Based on past experience, these results might change slightly following the counting of special votes and the final distribution of the Knesset mandates. The votes to be counted last include those of the military, the hospital-bound, and the former Gush Katif (Gaza) residents, whose votes must be placed in double-envelopes and compared with national lists to ensure that they did not vote twice. The counting of these votes often causes changes in the final counts that benefit right-wing parties.

Kadima's Ehud Olmert is likely to be called upon to form the next government, as his party won more seats than any other. Only once before in Israeli history has a smaller party formed a government - in 1999 - and it lasted only 18 months. This occurred when Ehud Barak turned Labor into the One Israel party, led it to victory with 26 seats, but was forced to resign as Prime Minister Dec. 2000 and call new elections after only a year and a half in office.

Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said last night he would remain as party head and work to reform the party despite the “harsh blow” it was dealt at the polls. Netanyahu laid partial blame for his party's collapse at comatose Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s doorstep, saying that “Sharon left us with a broken party” when he split off to form the victorious Kadima faction. Netanyahu held a brief consultation with his party faction, at which Silvan Shalom, Limor Livnat, Danny Naveh and Yisrael Katz were not present - signaling a likely attempt to unseat him in favor of Shalom.

Likud MK Michael Eitan said of his party’s decline, "There is no doubt that we deserved a punishment, though I believe that the punishment was a bit too harsh. For one thing, the Central Committee was identified with corruption - sometimes unjustly. Also, we had a big split... Third, the Likud zig-zagged, and the public doesn't like that…Many of the Likudniks remained in the party, but merely stayed home; we see that in the low voter turnout in the Likud strongholds."

Meanwhile, the Labor Party, buoyed by preliminary reports that it had received 22 seats, celebrated the results. By this morning, the joy had become more muted, when it became known that the final result was only 20. Laborites were also happy that Kadima had received only 2/3 of the seats that had originally been predicted for it. MK Danny Yatom (Labor) said the results are a "great blow to Kadima, and bring great joy to Labor."

Rafi Eitan, head of the Pensioners Party, expressed great joy at his party's success. A former Israeli intelligence officer, and the recruiter and handler of imprisoned spy Jonathan Pollard, he said last month that if elected to the Knesset, he would work for Pollard's release. Pollard, however, blames Eitan for keeping him out of the Israeli Embassy in Washington and his capture by US authorities. "I think it is important that people understand that [Eitan] was the one who failed to provide an escape plan for me," Pollard said. "He was the one who was at the heart of my expulsion from the embassy, I believe."

Asked after the election to present his views on the diplomatic situation or on which government he would prefer to sit in, Eitan simply said, "Any leader is acceptable to us, as long as he accepts our demands. We will study the situation and present our positions."

Members of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, headed by Avigdor Lieberman, were not surprised by their positive showing, which surpassed the Likud Party in terms of mandates. "We have become the largest party in the national camp," Lieberman told his joyous supporters, "and I'm certain that next time we will be Israel's ruling party. This is only the beginning.” He spoke when some polls predicted he had won 15 seats - a total which has since leveled out at 11.

Haaretz commentator Ari Shavit said, "Ehud Olmert did not receive mandate to carry out a unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. [His likely coalition partners] Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas are clearly against such a move."

Shimon Peres of Kadima, though, announced after the polls closed that the future coalition will promote the "turning inward" plan – Olmert's euphemism for future unilateral withdrawals, forced evictions, and convergence upon two or three large settlement blocs.

Olmert made his acceptance speech after visiting the Western Wall, saying, "A chapter in the history of the country has ended. We're charged with shaping the future of the State, and before we bring peace with our neighbors we must make peace within – with patience and with love."

Though Kadima performed much worse than all polls projected and is the second-smallest party to ever enjoy the status of the largest Knesset party, Olmert said it received a mandate for its vision. "The people have spoken clearly, they want Kadima," Olmert boomed, adding that the dream of the Greater Land of Israel must be repudiated “and Jews, with much pain, must be evacuated.”

(PS - The Israeli public said no such thing. Those that look at the map of Israel, after Olmert ‘ boomed,’ with relish, at the fact that the dreams of a Greater Israel are over, see that placing Israel in what even Abba Eban, noted Leftist, termed the Auschwitz corridor along the Mediterranean, is suicidal to the existence of the state.) jsk

Olmert also thanked “our prime minister, Ariel Sharon.” Olmert, (a dedicated secularist) donned a skullcap at the end of his speech and recited the traditional Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel.

As predicted by the surveys of the past few months, the anti-religious Shinui party will not be present in the upcoming 17th Knesset. A statement from the party expressed its disappointment but promised, “Shinui was established 30 years ago, and will continue to exist for at least 30 more years."

The Hazit-Jewish National Front party of Baruch Marzel fell far short of the minimum threshold of over 60,000 votes, receiving only some 24,000. Marzel said that the entire right wing and Yesha leadership must be replaced.

The combined Arab parties received 10 mandates - four for the Ra'am party, three for Balad and three for Hadash. Balad, however, is on the verge of losing a seat, depending on the results of the as-yet uncounted votes.

(What does that portend for the State of the Jews when the Arabs, who demand the end of the Jewish State, receive almost exactly the same number of votes as the supposed nationalistic Likud party?) jsk

Likud MK Yuval Shteinitz attacked the NRP/NU, which received 9 seats, for campaigning against the Likud and thereby shifting voters towards Kadima.

Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America also adds:

"Also of note is the fact that the hard left party of Meretz dropped to only 4 seats while the hard right parties of Lieberman and National Union rose to 21 seats."

From the JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) report on the election:

Nearly 40 percent of the electorate didn't vote at all in a country that routinely sends nearly 80 percent to the polls. The right-of-center Russian party and left-of-center Labor both plan to join a Kadima government.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:39 PM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2006

Ex-President Jimmy Carter (aka Pope Pious I)

A delightful review of Carter’s latest illusion.

By Melanie Morgan

© 2006 March 17, 2006

The past few weeks the news media has been fixated on discussions of efforts by Democrats to either impeach or censure President Bush. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has made the push to censure President Bush for the administration's wiretapping of suspected terrorists. Meanwhile a group of activist liberals has launched ImpeachPAC, which is raising money to support congressional candidates who favor impeachment proceedings against Bush for taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq.

I have a better idea, how about censuring a president who has increasingly led an effort to undermine American foreign policy and who has embraced terrorist organizations and urged international funding for them. How about censuring former president Jimmy Carter?

While the mainstream news media has portrayed Carter in a saintly light, preoccupied with building homes for the underprivileged, Carter has devoted most of his time to condemning the United States to any audience who will have him. The man who sat impotent while Iranian radicals stormed the American Embassy in Tehran has been busy appeasing America's enemies since he left the White House.

As WorldNetDaily reported last January, Carter hob-knobbed with an unregistered Iraqi agent, Samir Vincent, inviting him into his home, and giving him a guided tour of the Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga. Samir Vincent was an agent of Saddam Hussein who helped Iraq evade compliance with the U.N.-approved "Oil for Food" program. Billions of dollars were funneled from the "Oil for Food" program into Saddam's military.

While wining and dining the Iraqi agent, Carter blasted U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and the economic sanctions that had been imposed against Saddam Hussein because of his repeated refusals to comply with U.N. sanctions.
Not surprisingly, Carter later emerged as one of the leading figures to oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ironically, one of the reasons Carter cited for his opposition to military action was that it might prompt Saddam Hussein to use chemical or biological weapons, which Carter said he believed Hussein had.

Apparently Carter favors appeasement of those who would seek to bring devastation to American cities, a position not altogether different from the position Carter took in the face of threats of Soviet aggression during his presidency. There doesn't seem to be a white flag of surrender that Jimmy Carter doesn't enjoy waving. Besides playing soft with Iranian radicals and working with Iraqi agents and berating President Bush for being mean to Saddam Hussein, Carter recently expressed support for the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas.

Hamas is recognized as the largest and most powerful Palestinian terrorist organization, advocating for the destruction of Israel and responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks, which have maimed or killed thousands of innocent civilians. A day after the terrorist group emerged victorious in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, Carter urged the international community to support Hamas and provide financial assistance to the new government.

But the peanut farmer from Georgia wasn't done meddling with American foreign policy. This month, Carter announced he had made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba that he would fight to undermine U.S. opposition to the new U.N. Human Rights Commission. The United States opposed the new panel because it would continue to allow known human-rights abusers to serve on the commission.

It's understandable why the United States, led by the fabulously stalwart and principled Ambassador John Bolton, would oppose such a commission. In May 2001, a bloc of nations led by despots and tyrants voted the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Nations with known human-rights violations, such as the Sudan, were instead placed on the panel.
So here was Jimmy Carter urging the nations of the world to rebuke the United States once more. "My hope is that when the vote is taken ... the other members will outvote the United States," Carter recently told the Council on Foreign Relations. And they did.

In a recent editorial, "Colonization of Palestine Proceeds Peace," Jimmy Carter laments that, "For more than a quarter century, Israeli policy has been in conflict with that of the United States and the international community."
No, Mr. President, for more than a quarter century your politics have been in conflict the interests of the United States.

A growing number of Democrats in Congress believe that President Bush should be censured for wiretapping suspected terrorists and waging a war against terrorism. The act of censure is an official statement of condemnation or denouncement by Congress. Congress has the authority to censure its own members – or anyone else, for that matter – in the form of a resolution.

If the members of Congress are feeling the itch to issue a resolution of censure, they should start first with a man who has repeatedly sought to undermine this nation's foreign policy – a man who has repeatedly sided with America's enemies and promoted known terrorist groups. All patriotic Americans should join with me in demanding our elected leaders censure the man from Plains, Ga., for repeatedly working to undermine the interests of the United States of America and its citizens. It's time for the Congress of the United States to censure Jimmy Carter.

Melanie Morgan is chairman of the conservative, pro-troop non-profit organization Move America Forward and is co-host of the "Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show" on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:25 AM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2006

Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Dov Weissglas and the Gaza Surrender

By Emanuel Winston
Middle East analyst and commentator

The Jewish Press, March, 2006

When Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was advised by his senior military and intelligence staffs that Gaza would become a global terrorist base, Sharon ignored their advice — even to the point of forcing out his excellent chief of staff, General Moshe Ya’alon, and Avi Dichter, director of the General Security Service. Sharon had two other advisors, Ehud Olmert and Dov Weissglas, who advised him that abandoning Gaza would cause such a public stir that upcoming indictments for criminal actions which he and his son faced would either be ignored or would become inconsequential by comparison. So, to save himself, he and his perfidious advisors decided to implement a Disengagement policy that would turn Gaza into a global terrorist outpost.

In effect, Sharon (famous for his superb military planning) should have known that Gaza would become a military outpost for Iran, Syria and the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. The terror groups that drew their financial and weapons support from Iran and Syria were already operational, but only on a small scale.

Operating in the area were the Fatah, Yasir Arafat’s army, which he left in the hands of Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority (PA). In addition, there were other terror groups in operation, such as Al Aksa Brigades (the military wing of Fatah), Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and, last but not least, Hamas - now voted into power with Olmert’s assistance. Also operating freely in the Gaza Strip and the cities turned over to the PLO’s (and subsequently the PA’s control, there are other terror groups, such as the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah, and now Al Qaeda — spreading terror all over the Middle East and the world.

But all were funded, in one way or another, with both money and weapons by Iran. Syria, of course, continued to play its spoiler role as a planner, supplier and terrorist base for some 10 to 12 global terrorist organizations. Saudi Arabia was always the “Big Bank” for all the terrorist organizations. Remember, of the 19 hijackers and suicide/homicide plane bombers on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia.

In effect, Sharon, Olmert and Weissglas became the co-”godfathers” of an Iranian-Syrian outpost in Gaza. When the Karine A ship was caught in the Red Sea with a massive load of weapons and explosives from Iran and headed for the PA, in January 2003, there was the lie that it was a one-of-a-kind shipment. But it indicated that Iran and Syria were actually backing the PA.

No doubt, the Karine A was only one of many ships that are smuggling weapons to the PA from Iran via Syria with Egypt playing its role as the enabler. Regrettably, Egypt was criminally responsible in letting other ships through to Alexandria to unload the weapons that were being transported into Gaza by small craft. These weapons, as we now know, are in the hands of all the abovementioned terrorists Now, of course, all kinds of weapons, small and large, as well as terrorists themselves, can pass through Gaza directly into Israel.

Because of Sharon’s Gaza blunder and Olmert's continuation, what formerly would have taken months to smuggle contraband weapons, explosives and terrorists through the Sinai tunnels can now be accomplished in only days. Tonnage and weapon size were no longer limited by a tunnel’s small dimension.

Recent reports detail the infiltration of Russian multiple rocket launchers of a larger caliber and capable of more accurate range. They have been openly passed into the armories of the terrorists. These rockets can easily reach Ashkelon — the electric power plant that powers half of Israel — and the fuel depots. The electric plant has already been hit by a primitive Kassam with a small, 10-kilo warhead.

But, now it’s just a matter of time before those rockets fly north to Tel Aviv. Gaza has become a vital base of operations for Iran, Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood. It will not only grow stronger, but it has already become a distributing channel for weapons and explosives into the PLO and soon Hamas controlled cities of Nablus, Hebron, Qalqilya, Bethlehem, Jenin, Jericho and Ramallah. The operational cells of the previously mentioned terror organizations are awaiting the signal to launch attacks into Judea, Samaria and the coastal cities of Israel.

But, even before that, when Intifada 3 arrives, to whom will the people turn for military guidance and protection? Olmert and his Kadima party jumpers? Will he know what orders to give or how to deploy, defend and retaliate? I don’t think so. This is especially frightening to contemplate, since the Left turned the once vaunted Israeli officer corps into an incubator for future Leftist politicians Even now, they meet in useless sessions to quibble about how to deal with Hamas and the terrorist outposts that they, the “godfathers” invited into Gaza.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)

March 23, 2006

(Israelis, Please Read Before You Vote!)

Who is Ehud Olmert?

By Avraham Shmuel Lewin
The Jewish Press March 2006

With elections a week away, many in Israel are concerned and even frightened over the likelihood that Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will be elected prime minister in his own right. A year ago no one dreamed that Olmert would ever head the government. A March 2005 poll in Haaretz showed that Olmert, despite his high profile, was only the fourth most popular Likud candidate for prime minister among the general public, behind Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz, the defense minister. Olmert had a 13.3 percent popularity rating and even that was due mainly to left wing support. Among Likud voters, his own territory at the time, his popularity rating was a laughable 7.3 percent.

Unlike several of his predecessors who had heroic military careers and were strongly identified with national defense, Olmert lacks anything approaching an impressive military background. In recent years he’s increasingly sounded the trumpet of retreat, going so far as to tell a New York audience, “We are tired of fighting. We are tired of being courageous. We are tired of winning. We are tired of defeating our enemies.”

And then there’s the question of corruption — the elephant in the room so far in this campaign. “Since the beginning of the 1980’s,” Haaretz reporter Uri Blau wrote last week, “it is doubtful whether any elected representative has been entangled and investigated in so many affairs. So far, Olmert has eluded conviction in all of them.” In his closest call with the law, Olmert was indicted in 1996 on two counts stemming from a 1989 Likud financial scandal that the Israeli media dubbed the “fictitious invoices affair.” Though Olmert was acquitted in September 1997, the presiding judge. Oded Mudrik, made it clear that while he was obligated to “examine the issue in terms of criminal responsibility,” he had misgivings about Olmert’s conduct, which he described as “quite outrageous.” Blau dryly characterized Olmert as “a very forgiving politician” who over the years has made something of a habit of lending public support to convicted criminals.

When Likud activist Shlomi Oz was convicted of counterfeiting dollars, Olmert sent written character testimony on his behalf. When Yehoshua Halperin, the CEO of the Bank of North America, was slapped with an injunction forbidding him to leave the country, Olmert tried to get the injunction revoked. After businessman Shlomo Eisenberg was convicted of fraud, Olmert sent the judges a letter describing the convicted man’s contribution to the economy of Jerusalem and requesting that they take this into consideration. Olmert attended the mass rally outside the prison on the day former Shas chairman Aryeh Deri arrived there to begin serving his prison term. He also defended Omri Sharon, the prime minister’s son, on the eve of his conviction.

Aryeh Avneri, formerly a highly respected investigative reporter for Haaretz and a past president of Israel’s Press Club, has been following Olmert’s career for many years and in 1992 wrote a book (Hatevusa) that raised disturbing questions about Olmert’s connection to organized crime and corrupt legislators. Avneri recently stated on Israel’s news website NFC that he’s decided to write a series of articles about Olmert for the website because the Israeli media are in effect covering up for the Kadima leader. “The purpose of these articles,” wrote Avneri, “is to expose to the public one of the most corrupted and dangerous politicians in the county. This man is now trying to disguise himself, with the help of the media, as a respectable and qualitative statesman, thereby deceiving the public.”

Last week I had a conversation with Yossi Ben Aharon, formerly the director-general of the Prime Minister~ Office under Yitzhak Shamir. When I mentioned that it looked like Olmert would indeed be Israel’s next prime minister he responded, “Oh no, please don’t say that.” Ben Aharon’s disdain for Olmert was evident in every word he spoke. “I never had any clashes with him,” he said, “but am familiar with the way he operated He’s a manipulator and cunning. “I would hear him speak in cabinet discussions I never heard anything that could be described as wise, or any depth in his presentations but he has a flowery presentation. His best expertise is in his capacity to extract contributions from rich people. He knows how to rub shoulders with the wealthy and to get them to open their checkbooks and sign checks. That is his forte.”

Ben Aharon said he was not surprised by Olmert’s sudden shift from right-wing Likud activist opposing territorial compromise to someone who spearheaded the Gaza withdrawal and speaks of future withdrawals from Judea and Samaria. Appearances to the contrary, Olmert were never really a man of the Right, said Ben Aharon. “Olmert never came off as a right-winger in the sense that, say, Uzi Landau or Benny Begin did. You never heard him quote Jabotinsky despite the fact that he grew up in a Betar family. As a manipulator, he knew where the wind was blowing...”

Ben Aharon’s assessment is buttressed by Shmuel Tamir, who was active in the Herut Party and later in the Free Center and Dash parties and served as a minister of justice in the first Begin government (1977-1980) Olmert was a law student of his and together they formed the Free Center party before Olmert defected to a different party in a move Tamir described as a “stab in the back” They remained bitter enemies until the end. Tamir died of cancer in 1987, but before his death he published his memoirs, Ben Haaretz Hazot.” Tamir wrote the following:

The way Olmert proved to be in this episode (defecting to another party) reminded me of a meeting I had with him back in the days when we still had good relations. Olmert’s father was the secretary-general of the Free Center party. He was hard to deal with but was honest, diligent and very experienced. People were hesitant to appoint him as secretary-general because they knew he was hard to work with. Indeed it turned out that it was impossible to work with him. There was always friction with him and I had to be the one to straighten matters out. Although I respected him I realized that he is not capable of working with others. One morning after I met with him in the Knesset, Ehud walked into my room. I sighed deeply and said: “Your father, may he be well, is not an easy person to deal with.” His response stunned me. “Shmuel [Olmert said], if you want to get rid of him I’ll arrange it within 24 hours.” I said, “I am not suggesting to get rid of him. I just think that it’s hard to deal with him, maybe you can persuade him to become more flexible.” “OK,” said Ehud Olmert, “as you wish, but if you want that he leave his job I’ll arrange it within 24 hours.” I was appalled. This aspect of his personality gave me the chills and a hard feeling.

Olmert’s questionable political maneuverings go back decades. On December 28, 1976, Olmert, then an MK, stated from the Knesset podium, “I have received information that the Israel Police believe they have sufficient material to launch a criminal investigation against Housing Minister Avraham Ofer.” Less than a week later, Ofer shot himself in his car on a Tel Aviv beach. After his suicide, the investigation was shelved. Haaretz reported last week that Ofer’s son Dan, an attorney, in his first public statement on the matter, said: “I accuse Ehud Olmert. In the days preceding the suicide of my father, of blessed memory, Olmert used cheap demagoguery in the Knesset and did a character assassination of my father, an act of McCarthyism. He sought cheap publicity at the expense of my father’s blood.”

American-born writer Naomi Ragen has lived in Jerusalem since 1971. A best-selling novelist and playwright, she was quoted as saying of Olmert, “He is a disaster, a sleazy politician with no vision.” I called to verify whether what she said was based on personal dealings with Olmert or from what she’d observed of him in the media. She told me that prior to the Gaza disengagement she had been working as an editor at a Christian radio station called Front Page Jerusalem:

We were trying to explain to the Christian public why there was going to be disengagement and Ehud Olmert was interviewed about it. I sat across the desk from him and listened to him explain why the disengagement was a wonderful thing. But when I walked out of that meeting I realized that there was no reason for the disengagement that everything he said was absolute nonsense and it was just totally a political move that had no basis in reality for anything positive to come out of it. That is when I realized that all of these steps that had been taken were simply based on nothing.

But besides that meeting with him I have been living in Jerusalem for many years and have seen what happened to the city during Olmert’s tenure as mayor. The city was dirtier, poorer; the most productive citizens left and when it was convenient for him he walked out and got a better job. So all of his talk about standing tough and we will never be divided, all of a sudden turned into “since we don’t have a partner for peace let’s withdraw unilaterally because that will teach them a lesson.” That makes no sense whatsoever. He failed terribly as a mayor and if he becomes prime minister it will be an unmitigated disaster.

When Olmert took over as mayor of Jerusalem the municipal deficit stood at NIS 65 million, or 7 percent of the municipality’s budget at the time. The accumulated deficit at the end of his first term, in 1998, had ballooned to NIS 501 million. In 2003 Olmert resigned as mayor and left behind a deficit of NIS 534 million.

At last week’s Likud gathering convened by party chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, a letter from Knesset Speaker Reuven “Ruby” Rivlin was read aloud: “Are we facing retreats, concessions, collapse and disengagement from all the values on which we have been raised and educated? Or will we succeed in awakening the public and uncovering the true face of Olmert?” “Olmert,” Rivlin continued, “is a man who has, proven that everything is justified in order to attain power. He is a man ‘who has no God,’ a man who has left our camp many times and then returned whenever the regime fell and provided him with new opportunities. We must remind the public how dangerous it would be to abandon the leadership of the country to his hands.” “In the few weeks in which he has been in power,” Rivlin wrote about Olmert, “he has already managed to crumble... He disseminates promises and illusions. Can a person like that be believed?”

Even Israel’s popular Yediot Aharonot newspaper (which according to journalist Yoav Yitzchak is one of the media outlets covering up for Olmert) carried an article a few weeks ago asking what kind of prime minister Olmert would be, considering that he’s surrounded by a wife and children who lean to the extreme Left.

Olmert’s wife is a member of Women in Black, a group that habitually sides with Arabs against Jews; one of his sons is a deserter from the IDF and a member of the extreme leftist group Yesh Gvul; another son never served in the Israeli army and resides in Paris; one daughter is an outspoken lesbian and member of Machsom Watch, a group whose members stand near checkpoints to interfere with the work of Israeli soldiers trying to prevent terrorists from entering Israel; and another daughter is a leftist as well.

As to how Olmert and his people feel about the allegations of corruption that have been floating around under the mainstream media’s radar, Attilia Somfalvi, a political commentator for Yediot Aharonot’s website, provided the answer last week. Following the news that an investigation had been launched into a 1999 sale and lease-back of Olmert’s Jerusalem house, which allegedly was done on financial terms very favorable to Olmert in what would amount to an illegal campaign contribution and/or/bribe, Somfalvi wrote a column, (”Corrupt? Who Cares?”). It began: “There was hearty laughter last night at the home of one senior Kadima Party aide, a man very close to Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. ‘Worried?’ he laughed. ‘Why should I be worried? After the campaign we ran for Arik Sharon during the Greek Island Affair, and after the whole thing with Omri Sharon and the rest of the Sharon family scandals, do you really think I’m going to get all worked up over Ehud Olmert and a few rent shenanigans? Do me a favor. Apart from a few newspaper editors who think Kadima is too strong, these scandals don’t interest anyone.’”

But Israeli voters, according to Somfalvi, aren’t interested in any of this. “They snore away, squeeze open an eye to look at one more ‘exclusive’ report about this-or-another scandal, and they go back to sleep. It’s a lot more comfortable to pass the winter without thinking about it.” Somfalvi is one of the few voices in the Israeli media sounding the alarm over Olmert’s history of lax ethics, opportunism, and conflicts of interest. To most of the editors, reporters and pundits who comprise Israel’s thoroughly leftist media culture, Olmert is a dream come true — a political leader who, whatever his past leanings, is now substantively and demonstrably a man of the Left despite being viewed by most voters as a moderate. No wonder they prefer to let the public slumber on.

Avraham Shmuel Lewin is the Israel correspondent for The Jewish Press

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:38 PM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2006

Israel’s Fatal Retreat Referendum

By Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
16 March 2006

I wanted to send a simple message to my fellow countrymen who oppose the retreat but out of disgust for the politicians do not plan to vote: These elections are not about Netanyahu, or Silvan Shalom, or various other politicians in the other parties in the national camp. These elections are a national referendum on retreat. Staying at home is a vote for retreat. I have no illusions. There is no guaranty that the politicians will ultimately even honor the outcome of the "referendum". But it is our only shot. And sometimes in life you make an effort because an issue is so important even if you can't be certain that the effort will pay off.

In less than two weeks Israel's citizens go to the polls to vote in what has clearly become a retreat referendum. Yes, Acting PM Ehud Olmert only said explicitly that he intended to tear down the Jewish communities located beyond an as yet to be finalized security fence - and two of the Kamida party's senior security personalities, Avi Dichter and MK Gideon Ezra, have asserted that the IDF will not retreat from the rubble, but Olmert has carefully maintained his option to embrace DM Mofaz's position that once the homes are bulldozed that the IDF should high-tail it back behind the fence. And since the retreat is just that - a retreat, this "package" does not include any clear picture regarding what will transpire in the evacuated areas beyond the tradition secular messianic view that the IDF will be eternally able to prevail, at an acceptable cost, regardless of the opening conditions on the ground.

And those opening conditions in a post retreat conflict may be nothing like the IDF-Palestinian clashes we have seen to date thanks both to Hamas' rise to power and Israel's forfeiture of control over transit between the areas and the outside world (as has already happened in the Gaza Strip). Until now, PA armed forces have suffered from internal corruption and a lack of unity that limited their ability to launch an effective war of attrition against the Jewish State. The Hamas led Palestinian army will be considerably more potent. And after an Israeli retreat, they will be able to not only readily arm themselves with considerably more deadly weapons - but also introduce foreign elements both to bolster their forces and to serve as human shields.

Today when an IDF team goes into Jericho or Jenin, they face light arms fire, grenades, and some low grade anti-tank devices and the third party casualties are Palestinians. The Palestinian response is limited to threatening terror attacks that they are trying to carry out anyway and firing Qassam rockets at Israelis in the boondocks. After the retreat the situation will be completely different. A nightmare in the very center of the country. A war of attrition that saps the country and a fighting force that in time of invasion can provide both a bridgehead for the invaders and divert vital Israeli forces needed at the fronts.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:40 AM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2006

Is Your Rabbi Listed? My Brother's Keeper?

By David Meir-Levi

Redacted from an article in | March 13, 2006

Brit Tzedek v’Shalom (BTvS) -
(Covenant of Justice and Peace), a Jewish “peace and justice for Palestinians” group ( published the names of 387 Rabbis who have signed a petition demanding that our government not withhold aid to the Hamas-controlled government of the Palestinian Authority. This petition is BTvS’s response to the Ros-Lehtinen/Lantos Bill, HR4681, which would deny U.S. funds to the PA unless Hamas relents on its commitment to the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people.

These rabbis have to be familiar with the Hamas covenant, which spells out Hamas’s messianic commitment to the end-of-days when the infidels are vanquished and the world is redeemed; when the dead are resurrected and Islam is established as the only religion on earth. According to traditional orthodox Moslem teaching – as we are reminded by Hamas – this happens only after Moslems have murdered every Jew on the planet.

The rabbis cannot have missed the fact that for the past 12 years, tens of billions of dollars in humanitarian aid have gone to the Palestinian Authority and approximately 80 percent has been siphoned off to support the terrorist gangs that have perpetrated 28,000 attacks, killing 1,700 Israelis and wounding approximately 7,000.

These are the numbers since 1993, when Arafat signed the Oslo peace accords. The Palestinians receive per capita more aid than any country on earth except Upper Volta. But they have nothing to show for it except grinding poverty, an obscenely wealthy political elite, and a dozen terrorist armies.

Hamas' commitment to destroy Israel and exterminate its Jews is a religious faith and therefore non-negotiable. In other words, these rabbis know that if they succeed in convincing Congress to send the money to Hamas, this aid to “the Palestinian people” will be used to help Palestine’s Nazis kill their fellow Jews.

But the rabbis would rather abet the murder of Jews than face the fact that Israel is confronting an implacable enemy whose capital is Ramallah and whose answer to the Jewish question is the Final Solution. # #

To view the 387 list and determine the rabbis in your area that have signed this outrageous letter, click the link below. If the link does not work, simply copy the address on to your own search engine.

For those in the Detroit area, the following rabbis are listed:

Rabbi Tamara Kolton - Birmingham Temple, Farmington Hills, MI
Rabbi Norman Roman - Temple Kol Ami, West Bloomfield, MI
Robert Dobrusin - Congregation Beth Israel, Ann Arbor, MI
Rabbi Robert Levy - Temple Beth Emeth, Ann Arbor, MI
Elliot Ginsberg - Associate Prof. of Jewish Studies, U of MI, Ann Arbor

Between the people above reigning at the temples and synagogues in Ann Arbor plus Michael Brooks running the University of Michigan Hillel for the last 25 plus years, is it any wonder our Ann Arbor Jewish students are intimidated by the Arabs on campus? Is it any wonder that they have a problem with their own Jewish identity and their biblical, historical and legal right to the State of Israel? Is it a surprise that the campus is rife with Arab propaganda and hosts frequent conferences directed toward the destruction of the Jewish State?

How is it that these people continue to hold such important influential positions? Maybe, that question can be addressed at the next Board meeting?

Jerome S. Kaufman

I think it is worth noting that one of the Dallas rabbis on the list,
Rachel Goldenberg, is a graduate of the Middle Eastern Studies
Department at Columbia Un. I would venture a guess that she was an
obedient student of Edward Said.

What a shame.

Best from Texas.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:02 AM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2006

Was Slobodan Milosevic Murdered?

And why does this article ring a bell? (jsk)

Redacted from an article by Francisco Gil-White

The former president of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his cell in the Scheveningen detention unit near The Hague Saturday morning, declared the the UN war crimes tribunal and reported by the newspaper, Deutsche Presse Agentur.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) said Milosevic, 64, had been found lifeless shortly after 9.00 a.m. It gave no cause of death, but said an inquiry had been launched. The Daily Telegraph reports that some in the Milosevic camp have been alleging that the cause of death was homicide: Milosevic, his supporters claim, was murdered at The Hague. Does the murder hypothesis make sense?

In order to answer that question, we must first be clear on something. If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO ( North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Why NATO? Because, though the ICTY (or Hague Tribunal) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO. This helps explain why NATO appoints the prosecutors, and why the Hague Tribunal ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO. It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO.

Now, since the accusation that Milosevic was murdered is an accusation against NATO, we must ask -- as one would in a US court of law -- whether NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him. The question of opportunity does not require a special demonstration: Slobodan Milosevic was NATO’s prisoner, so NATO clearly had opportunity. Did NATO have motive?

Anybody who has followed the trial proceedings at the Hague Tribunal knows that NATO failed utterly in supporting its case against Slobodan Milosevic, despite tilting the entire structure and procedure of the trial against the defense in a manner that beggars description. The reasons for this are not far to seek. As HIR has demonstrated multiple times, the accusations against the Serbs -- for which Slobodan Milosevic was standing trial -- are lies. For example, though NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak, this turned out to be a hoax. This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999.

But it pales next to this embarrassment: after claiming that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians (or else 500,000), NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces. The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up a genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while NATO was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But HIR has shown these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well. Without any bodies, how was NATO to make a case against Milosevic in Kosovo?

They brought Patrick Ball to talk confusedly about statistics of refugee movements streaming out of Kosovo, from which Ball pretended to infer that there had supposedly been massacres by the Serbs against Albanian civilians, quite despite the fact that Patrick Ball’s own data called for a different conclusion.

None of this should be terribly surprising for those who know that, contrary to the accusations against the Serbs all over the media, and which helped convince the public that the NATO assault was just, the Kosovo Albanians were the best treated minority in the world, bar none. Consistent with this, the accusations against the Bosnian Serbs -- also lumped together in the case against Milosevic -- were similarly lies.

From the above it follows that NATO’s Hague Tribunal is a kangaroo court whose purpose is to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since, despite cheating all over the place, NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic: preventing his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody will be the wiser, because the controlled media will continue to say this.

From the point of view of this hypothesis Milosevic did indeed die just at the right time, for, as The Washington Post explains: Court officials had said they had expected his trial to conclude in May and judges to issue a verdict by the end of the year. In other words, Milosevic died shortly before the Hague Tribunal, under the law, would have been forced to pronounce him not guilty. Convenient, for NATO.

But there is something else to consider: there is precedent.
HIR has published an investigation that leaves little room for doubt that Slavko Dokmanovic, a Serb fraudulently accused of committing atrocities against civilian Croats, was murdered in the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison two weeks before his expected acquittal. HIR invites you to read this investigation, which helps place in a more complete context the accusation that Slobodan Milosevic was murdered in prison.

Francisco Gil-White
Historical and Investigative Research - 14 March 2006
Department of Psychology
University of Pennsylvania

But, why does this article ring a bell? How many times has the world heard Muslims declare a massacre against them that has riled up the world in their favor and caused the world to have some inexplicable knee-jerk sympathy response to their outrageous claims? In the meantime, massacres where the Muslims are the real culprits, as in Southern Sudan, where the Janjaweed Arabs are deliberately wrecking genocide on the African tribes of Southern Sudan are either studiously ignored or described as some tribal rebellion!

What about historical precedent for declared false Muslim massacres? Is the world not treated to an annual commemoration of a supposed Deir Yassim Arab village massacre in 1948 where there was no massacre at all? The facts were that Deir Yassim was attacked precisely because Arabs (both villagers and 'outside irregulars') were using its position overlooking the main road strangling supplies from Tel Aviv to isolate trapped Jews in Jerusalem. Deir Yassim was a natural ambush point. Any innocent, i.e., non-combatant Arabs, who were killed in that day lost their lives because the Arabs fought from a well-defended and well-prepared position. Civilians had been warned out of the village well before the Israeli attacks began.

The other gross recent lie was the supposed massacre of Arabs by Israelis in Jenin as reported by Richard Starr, May 8, 2002:
"April 8, 2002, the Palestinian news agency Wafa was reporting that Israel had committed the "massacre of the 21st century" in the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin. "Medical sources" informed Wafa of "hundreds of martyrs." This was a lie, concocted not only for local consumption--to keep the Palestinian people whipped up in a patriotic, Israel-hating frenzy--but mostly for export to the West. No, this was an all-out assault on the truth. There was a pitched battle in Jenin. But the "hundreds" of martyrs were a cynical invention. The death toll was 56 Palestinians, the majority of them combatants, and 23 Israeli soldiers."

What about Milosevich then? Was he murdered to hide NATO’s embarrassing support of another fabricated Muslim massacre as so well documented by Francisco Gil-White? Historical precedent would certainly lead one to that distinct possibility.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2006

How far from the tree does the fruit fall?

By Professor Steven Plaut

In case you missed this, the Jerusalem Post recently ran several pieces,
mainly a column by Sarah Honig, about Ehud Olmert's two sons and one

· One son never served in the Israeli army and today lives permanently in Paris.

· The other is an active member in Yesh Gvul, the seditious organization that foments mutiny and insurrection among Israeli soldiers, demanding that they refuse to serve until Israel completely capitulates to all Arab fascist demands.

· The daughter of Olmert is an activist in the communist-front organization Machsom Watch (Checkpoint Watch), which harasses Israeli soldiers and policemen checking Palestinian vehicles for explosives and weapons. In other words, she is trying to help Palestinians infiltrate Israel and murder Jewish children.

This is the guy who may well become Israel's next Prime Minister unless Israeli voters suddenly wake up. The above is his own personal family track record in education and Zionism. A man who himself believes in nothing has raised a brood who evidently believe in Israel's destruction. And this is the man who may shortly be in charge of educating Israeli children!

Professor Plaut teaches at Haifa University, Israel

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2006

December 8, 1941, President Franklin Delinolmert Roosevelt had addressed a joint session of Congress

Suppose that, on December 8, 1941, President Franklin Delinolmert Roosevelt had addressed a joint session of Congress and said something that included the following:

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, the Japanese militarist extremists bombed Pearl Harbor. This proves we have no peace partner because the Government of Imperial Japan has not done enough to restrain militaristic extremism so the United States will have to act unilaterally. We have begun to harden the roofs of our strategic and civilian installations at Pearl Harbor and deploy more advanced early warning systems to prevent such a catastrophe being repeated in the future. At the same time, we will consolidate our borders to distance ourselves from the hostile or potentially hostile ethnic Japanese population that comprises the large majority of the Hawaiian Islands. We will withdraw unilaterally to large settlement blocs, such as Honolulu, which will be surrounded by a protective barrier which will prevent infiltration but not shooting or attack by mortars or rockets. We will also consolidate our borders to reduce our line of defenses in Alaska as well, abandoning the Aleutians and the Arm of the Aleutians, which require tens of thousands of soldiers and sailors to defend the very sparse settler population there. Those personnel can be more beneficially used to defend the perimeters surrounding the large settlement blocks, such as Anchorage and Fairbanks. Of course, no measures will be taken to isolate Japan economically because that would cause a humanitarian crisis among innocent Japanese civilians and the United States would be blamed for it. We do not seek victory but only a different, more constructive relationship with Japan. Accordingly, we will not punish collectively the whole Japanese populace because of the crimes of an extremist minority that control Japan’s military but we call upon the Japanese government and especially the Emperor, who we know to be a moderate man seeking true peaceful coexistence, to do more to rein in the extremist minority who are misusing Japan’s military. For that purpose, and as a good will gesture to restart negotiations toward a fruitful peace process, we will turn over to the Emperor, but not to be used by Tojo and his extremist militarist clique, war ships and planes in addition to a large sum of money to enable the Emperor to combat the extremism in his government. And one more thing: The United States of America will not rest until we track down every last pilot who bombed Pearl Harbor and bring them to justice.”

Congress would have had President Franklin Delinolmert Roosevelt taken away in a white coat.

Should Israel not do as much?

Jack Golbert

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:15 PM | Comments (0)

March 13, 2006

As Olmert lies through his teeth and the Israeli electorate refuses to admit that the Emperor has no clothes

And giving up more land can only lead to more accurate and more frequent Hamas attacks over a useless fence and a useless “separation.”

Kassams at Ashkelon pose ‘disaster’ threat

By Yaacov Katz
March 2, 2006 International Jerusalem Post

Israel needs to prepare for a large-scale disaster caused by Kassam rockets which could strike the Ashkelon power plant or chemical storage tanks in the nearby industrial zone, senior security and government officials have warned. On February 14 eight Kassams were fired at the Western Negev, with one exploding close to a strategic installation in the Ashkelon industrial zone. The attack was not the first time that Kassams landed in the industrial zone - home to a number of factories and strategic installations, including the Ashkelon power station, a desalination plant and sections of the Ashkelon-Eilat oil pipeline.

The IDF censor has prevented the publication of the exact targets hit by the rockets so as not to “help” the Palestinians improve their accuracy.
National Infrastructure Ministry officials told the Post that while the Kassam was a small and relatively primitive rocket, if fired accurately it had the ability to shut down the Ashkelon power plant, which provides electricity to half of the country.

The police and the IDF’S Home Front Command have drawn up plans to deal with a disaster caused by a Kassam strike in the industrial zone and have planned a massive exercise to drill forces in preparation for an emergency. “If fired accurately, a Kassam could cause a huge disaster in the industrial zone,” said a senior police officer who specializes in emergency situations. “If a Kassam hits the power plant, we are probably just looking at a temporary shutdown,” he said. “The bigger problem is what happens if the Kassam falls on chemical tanks there. If that happens, we could be facing a large-scale disaster.” While the IDF said it was working to reinforce the roofs of the factories and to protect the industrial zone,

(Would you not think a normal country’s army would be let loose and instead of repairing roofs! in Israeli territory, attack the enemy in his territory, wipe him out completely and make impossible any lobbing of missiles into Israel? - Jsk,)

senior officers admitted that the military did not have a 100-percent solution to what they called the “Kassam problem." The Home Front Command said it was in the process of implementing a protection plan for the industrial zone and stressed that while Kassam rockets have claimed lives in the past it was mostly a “stupid and primitive weapon” that was far less dangerous than a suicide bomber.

Former chief of General Staff Moshe Ya’alon has accused the government of responsibility for Hamas’s victory in the recent Palestinian Legislative Council elections because of the disengagement from the Gaza Strip. He also accused it of not providing sufficient protection for cities targeted by Kassam rockets. “We need to escalate military action against the Kassam launchers, even if it means entering, the Gaza Strip,” he said in a speech during a conference of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs on February 21. While Israel did not have to keep troops on the ground in Gaza “for generations,” It made a mistake, Ya’alon said, by not responding immediately after the “Kassam showers” began.

Meanwhile, Israel Aircraft Industries and US aerospace giant Boeing have signed a deal to jointly bid for a contract to develop the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense for Israel.

Mar. 12, 2006 Jerusalem Post
A third Kassam rocket landed in the western Negev Sunday evening, causing
damage to a greenhouse and agricultural equipment near Moshav Shuva.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:21 AM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2006

If it’s true that most Israelis hate the settlers, they must also hate themselves

By Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

The Jewish Press, February 24, 2006

Why was the demolition of the nine homes in Amona accompanied by so much violence on both sides of the ideological spectrum, whereas the destruction of the Gush Katif settlements only seven months ago took place amid comparative understanding and sensitivity, with crying and decrying, with dancing and denying, but in largest measure devoid of the use of force? Apparently the overwhelming majority of those who feel part of the settler community, while strongly disagreeing with the “disengagement” policy — either on Zionistic or humanistic grounds or because they are against giving a prize to terror and Hamas in this critical time of Palestinian internal dissension and external aggression — might well endorse passive resistance but would clearly stop short of violence.

So what happened half a year later in Amona? I am not merely writing about the youth who demonstrated in Amona; I’m talking about murmurings throughout the settler community, which has been radicalized far beyond the red lines of Gush Katif. The explanation lies between the lines of a survey conducted by Professor Dalia Mor of the College of Management in Rishon Letzion, aimed at examining the attitudes of Israelis toward the various sectors of our broader society: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, secularists, settlers, haredim, rightists, leftists, Israeli-Arabs, new immigrants and foreign workers.

The survey revealed that the sector most hated by Israelis is the Palestinians, with the settlers a close second. And among those respondents who defined themselves as left-wingers, hostility toward the settlers ranked higher than hostility toward the Palestinians - 67 to 55 percent! This study explained to me a curious phenomenon. Israelis may have many faults, but lack of generosity to people in trouble is not one of them. Our telephones and door bells ring every ten minutes with requests for aid to needy families and institutions, Israel as a fledgling country welcomed under-privileged and undereducated refugees from Third World countries in numbers unrivaled by any other country, and our nation was among the first to take in the Vietnamese boat people and to send volunteers and raise funds for victims of the recent tsunami and Pakistani earthquake as well as the homeless of Hurricane Katrina.

With this history why is there no national outcry on behalf of the expelled residents of Gush Katif, most of whom are still waiting to receive their government subsidies and are living in substandard housing, without any means of employment? It’s not like these residents of Gush Katif built theft settlements as thieves in the night. They were sent as agents of every Israeli government since the Six Day War, and they turned a desert into a garden of flowers, vegetables and flowers. Why is the government, as well as the majority of the populace, so indifferent to their fate? It can only be because the entire settlement community has become a demonized and de-legitimized sector of Israel society.

This explains why in Amona the government (and Supreme Court) would not accept a mere seven-day delay to enable the settlers themselves to dismantle their homes and restore whatever they could as they resumed their lives in Ofra, and why the policemen came out on horseback, brandishing clubs and often striking indiscriminately, as pictures seem to testify.

I certainly do not condone in any way the stone throwing of many of the youth who were there. But the settler community had come to Amona already feeling disenfranchised and abandoned, and unfortunately those who feel pushed against the wall of hatred and indifference often act with violence because they sense they have nothing to lose. Tragically, the overreaction of the police only exacerbated the perception that we settlers are Public Enemy Number One.

What is the source of our repugnant status? Some refer to us as leeches that have sucked the Israeli treasury dry and caused undeserved stagnation to the Negev and the Galilee, by our demands to fund our settlements; others even charge us with immorality, saying we have robbed the Palestinians of lands that rightfully belong to them. There are voices of those like Avrum Burg, who have internalized the cruel canard our enemies have cynically flung at us, holding us responsible for the suicide bombers who murder the innocent citizens of Netanya, Tel Aviv, Hadera and Petach Tikva.

These voices have forgotten the Treaty of Versailles arid the Balfour Declaration, which initially called for eighteen Arab states and one Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan; they portray us as white European Boers conquering and colonizing the “South African” homelands of the native Palestinians, paying no mind that it is we Jews who have lived in this area for 4,000 years in unbroken continuity and that we comprised the majority of those who lived on and worked these lands in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

In their blind idealization of the possibilities for peace with the Palestinians, they choose to overlook that from the UN Partition Plan of 1947 to the tense period preceding the Six Day War to the Oslo accords of 1993 to the Camp David Summit of 2000, it is we Israelis who have consistently been willing to compromise and it has been the Arabs who have refused offer after offer to share this land.

Yes, you can only make peace with your enemy — but that enemy must be willing to make peace with you. Though most Israelis seem to have bought into the “immorality” of our position and condone any ill treatment we may receive as being well deserved, we settlers remain proud of our settlements, proud of the unique and close relationship some of us have succeeded in establishing with our Palestinian neighbors, proud of our educational network, proud of the idealism and patriotism of our youth, who still find their way into the most elite and dangerous units of the IDF.

But we are hurt and dismayed by the hatred leveled against us. Yes, the settler community speaks with different voices and from varying degrees of a wide right-wing perspective, but the overwhelming majority of us are rational, committed, patriotic and idealistic citizens. Do we not deserve to be embraced and co-opted in a consensus government (even if that government rejects Greater Israel as a viable option) rather than cast aside and de-legitimized as criminals?

Most of us would welcome a plan enabling us to live in peace with peaceful neighbors — but instead we are told that many of our legal settlements (beyond the “fence”) will have to be dismantled even as Hamastan is gaining unprecedented political support and renewed terrorism is rearing its ugly head.
The government’s claim that unilateral separation will enhance our ability to defend ourselves — that once we retreat from settlements it will be easier to extirpate the enemy — is unproven, but the destruction of our homes and the uprooting of our settlers is taking place with great dispatch and in an atmosphere that only strengthens our feelings that we, the settlers, have become the enemy.

Does the government not realize that the insensitivity and hatred we feel emanating from its policies only serves to energize the extremist elements of our population and threatens to rob our state of its most committed and idealistic youth (God forbid)? If it’s true that most Israelis hate the settlers, they must also hate themselves. After all, modern Israel was founded by pioneers who settled on lands claimed by the Arabs. If our government continues to de-legitimize the settler community, I fear that eventually we will witness the evacuation of Jews from Tekoa, Efrat — and Jerusalem.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin is the founder and chancellor of Ohr Torah Stone Colleges and Graduate Programs, and chief rabbi of Efrat.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2006

Israel’s Candidates Scramble to Ape Sharon’s Political Center

But, Where's That?

By Herbert Zweibon, Chairman Americans for Safe Israel (AFSI)The Outpost, February 2006

Israel’s politicians are in a rush to claim “the center” in the coming elections When Prime Minister Sharon left the Likud to establish the Kadima Party; it was because he felt confident he could obtain the support of the “political center.” He seems to have been on to something. As a party based on the popularity of a single individual, Kadima should have collapsed But instead thus far the party seems to have maintained the lead it had with Sharon at the helm.

According to Hebrew; University political science professor Reuven Hazan, people are tired of left and right and want “something pragmatic in the middle?
The Likud is being urged by professed well-wishers to “out-center” Kadima. In the Jerusalem Post, Aryeh Green, describing himself as “a business consultant active in Israel’s public diplomacy efforts” urges newly crowned Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu to “bring the Likud back to the center? Netanyahu needs no urging. He made the purging the party of members not fitting the “centrist image his first “mission as Likud head. He sought to prevent Moshe Feigiin, who had come in third in the race for party leadership, from even appearing on the party’s list of Knesset candidates.

For Netanyahu the problem with Feiglin was that he was clearly not prepared to relinquish Judea and Samaria to Israel’s Arab enemies. (In the end Feiglin voluntarily withdrew his candidacy. saying he preferred to build up his movement of resistance to surrender rather than to serve as another rubberstamp Likud Knesset member.)

The National Union Party and the National Religious Party made overtures to the Liked to unite opponents of retreat in an electoral bloc — Netanyahu turned them down, fearful of being “tainted” by the right wing. Likud “insiders” report that the party will be introducing a “new peace plan” to counter its post Sharon image as a party of hardliners. As for Labor, its new head Amir Peretz, a hard-core leftist on economic issues, promises, if elected, to produce a peace agreement within four years (the identical promise Labor made in 1992 and “fulfilled” by Oslo).

But what does “in the center” mean? How does one define a “centrist” solution to the problems confronting Israel? What is a centrist response to Iran - on the verge of possessing a nuclear arsenal, with an apocalyptically inspired leadership dedicated to wiping Israel off the map? What is a centrist policy to preserve a “united Jerusalem” (to which Likud and Kadima are supposedly dedicated)? What is a centrist policy on Arab terror? What is a centrist policy on the across-the-board dedication of Palestinian Arab leaders Fatah, as much as Hamas, to destroy Israel?

Judging from the last decade, a centrist policy is surrender cloaked in euphemisms worthy of the ancient Greeks, who sought to appease the Fates by calling them Euminedes (the kindly ones). (We call them “Moderate Muslims” - Jsk). In the first post-Oslo decade surrender was called “peace,” which has now morphed into “disengagement? It is hard to know which is more delusional — the notion that the Arabs are prepared to make peace or the notion that Israel, by unilateral retreat, can cut itself off from its threatening Arab neighborhood. As Steven Plaut has remarked, what does Israel think its Arab neighbors will do on the other side of the barrier it is constructing - take up knitting?

As the aftermath of Israel’s deportation of its citizens from Gush Katif has already made plain, any territory Israel vacates in its self-satisfied pursuit of “the center” will become headquarters for stepped-up terror operations. Israel’s political leaders should not be pursuing a mythical center but competing to fashion policies that will promote the national security previous policies have so badly eroded. As Israeli columnist Sarah Honig has bluntly observed:
“Compromise without honor isn’t necessarily prudent. It merely broadcasts to the world that we have no national pride; that we’re sick in the head?”

And my parents would add, "nisdugadacht." (Jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:03 AM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2006

Rabbi Michael Melchior and Oslo

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Rabbi Michael Melchior, Member of the Knesset and a long time advocate for peace with the Palestinian Arabs spoke at Temple Emanuel in Palm Beach Florida. He spoke under the sponsorship of his wealthy personal patron along with the Jewish Federation and the Community Relations Council of Palm Beach County.

The lecture was titled, Is Peace Possible? (Between Arabs and Israelis). The addendum should have included, “Don’t let the facts get in the way.” Studiously avoided throughout the lecture was the fact that Jews have been trying to establish a peaceful relationship with their Arab neighbors for 128 years. As a matter of fact, the first modern day Jewish farming settlement was attempted in Petah Tikva in 1878. This attempt failed when greeted with murderous raids by its Arab neighbors along with constant harassment by the Turkish authorities that ruled the Arabs for 500 years. By the way, in all that time, the thought of a Palestinian Arab state never entering anyone’s mind, neither Arab nor Turk.

And, there was no Jewish State to blame in 1878; no “occupied territory”; no other “settlements”; no unemployment and no Arab poverty that one could blame on the Jews. And no, there was no specific organization like Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, etc. for the Jews to blame and rationalize, “if they could only deal with the ‘moderate Arabs’.”

What “moderate Arabs”? We are still looking for them.

While the peace contingency has been stuck in looking for “moderate” Arabs organized Arab riots and the murdering of the Jews of Palestine continued in 1921, 1929, 1936 and the years in between and to this very day. Just about a month ago, a brain-washed Palestinian terrorist female, about age 20, boarded a minibus in the same town of Petah Tikva, but 128 years later, and stabbed its passengers. One Israeli woman was murdered, four other people sustained serious wounds and another lightly injured.

And what about the unprovoked wars against Israel by neighboring Arab states - the attempted annihilation of the Jews of Palestine in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973 with constant fedayeen raids, intifadas, world-wide boycotts, world-wide hate propaganda, an entire educational system directed toward hating the Jews, constant harassment and conferences and motions against the State of Israel in the United Nations, etc, etc. etc.

Rabbi Melchior went into great detail discussing his participation, as Chief Rabbi of Norway, in the Nobel ceremony granting the Peace Prize to
Arafat/Rabin/Peres and how very much he was in favor of the Oslo Peace Agreement signed in 1993. Maybe I missed something warranting that opinion in the last 12 years?

Under Oslo, Israel brought back from Tunisia an exiled powerless Yasser Arafat and made him Lord of the land; granted him all kinds of territory in the West Bank and Gaza; prevailed upon the United States to recognize his PLO as a legitimate organization rather than the terrorist organization it has always been and thus transformed a bunch of stone throwing kids into a formidable terrorist force that is about to become a full fledged army under Hamas. Israel, in fact, created the likelihood of a Palestinian State that will give them hell for as long as Israel manages to exist and only G-d knows how long that will be.

Yet, Melchior is for the Oslo Agreement! What does it take to open the eyes of the Mechiors of the world and the organizations that promote them? When will they stop trying to indoctrinate the uninformed and wishful thinking with their naïve, destructive nonsense? It is exactly as if they were reciting some kind of mantra, “peace, peace, peace” rather than presenting an argument and line of action that makes any sense in light of 128 plus years of painful history and experience.

Dr. Kenneth Levin, a psychiatrist and historian who is a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, just wrote a marvelous book called, The Oslo Syndrome (Smith and Kraus Global, 2005). As the sub-title – “Delusions of a People Under Siege” – makes clear, Dr. Levin is concerned with a pathology that has prompted the Jews of Israel to embrace the false promise of peace - ostensibly an offer first from Arafat, now from his powerless successor but, never, of course, from the real protagonist in the conflict - Hamas.

And please note it was Hamas that the Palestinian Arabs overwhelmingly elected - an organization proud of its main goal, the destruction of Israel. And, predictably what do the Melchiors and fellow travelers now claim, “Oh, Hamas really doesn’t mean it. They will become good boys and our peace partners once they assume the responsibility of power!!”

Dr. Levin describes the roots of this pathology as follows: “[It] lies in psychological responses common among chronically besieged populations, whether minorities subjected to defamation, discrimination and assault or small nations under persistent attack by their neighbors. People living under such stressful conditions often choose to accept at face value the indictments of their accusers in the hope of thereby escaping their predicament.”

One can’t help but wonder what would happen if the Melchiors and the organizations that continue to sponsor misguided self-deluding programs read Levin’s book. If the last 12 years are any indication - not very much.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:02 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2006

We cannot afford the "political correctness" of the Dubai Ports Deal

By Fred Taub

We have all heard the Bush administration telling us not to worry about allowing the Arab Emirates owned Dubai Ports World Company to run our major US ports. There are, unfortunately some major problems associated with this re-assurance.

The Bush administration claims the company managing the ports is not responsible for the security of the ports and then says the job is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard. The fact is everyone working at ports has security responsibility just as individuals are responsible for locking their cars and homes, not the police. The company managing the ports does, however, have special access to all shipments, timetables, routes, container content, bills of lading, secured holding areas and, most worrisome to intelligence analysts, access to information about secret US shipments around the world. The information gathered by any port operator, placed in the wrong hands, can easily be offered to foreign agents without the US knowing it, enabling foreign management to create an intelligence security nightmare for the US.

While the United Arab Emirates is currently friendly to the US and allows US Naval ships to dock there, there is more to the UAE story than just that. The UAE was formed in 1971 and is a federation of seven Emirates, including Dubai. The UAE has limited federal powers, leaving many governmental powers to member emirates, and not all member Emirates are part of the federation court system which has both civil and Islamic courts.

The Islamic courts rule over all family matters and women do not have the right to vote anywhere in the UAE. This raises questions about human rights. Should our ports be operated by a nation that denies women the right to vote? Will US unions go on immediate strike demanding the right of women to vote before working for DPW? Considering that women working US docks are union members, I would expect to hear from Unions on this topic and a strike would not surprise me.

The UAE is also a major drug transshipment point for Southwest Asian drug producing countries and, being a major financial center, this makes the UAE ideal for money laundering which is often associated with the drug trade.

The UAE has undefined and open borders with Saudi Arabia and Oman, thus allowing drugs and other goods, including weapons, to be moved between those countries without scrutiny. A Middle East open-borders crisis occurred in 2002 when North Korean Scud missiles were shipped to Yemen and then vanished. Considering that the UAE has open borders and would control ports on both ends of a single shipment, we need to be concerned with UAE control of our ports.

The UAE is a member of the Arab League and is signatory member of the Arab boycott of Israel. The Syrian-based Central Office for the Boycott of Israel, a.k.a. the Central Boycott Office, enforces the pan-Arab boycott of Israel on 3 levels. CBO-enforced primary boycotts forbid Israeli products into any Arab country, including Israeli components in finished goods. Arabs were upset, for example, when they found Israeli batteries in Apple computers and demanded the suppliers remove all such batteries from future shipments.

Secondary and tertiary boycotts are generally boycotts of companies which work with companies that have other business with Israel, regardless if any element of a shipment emanates from Israel. In a global economy, such boycotts are harder to enforce on a wide scale. These elements of the Arab boycott of Israel are, however, managed by the CBO which goes as far as banning any ship that ever docked in any Israeli port from any future docking at an Arab country port.

The official boycott list is tightly held and is estimated to include more than 200,000 companies. Recent Arab League meetings have included agreements to strengthen an already effective Arab boycott of Israel and further damage our only truly dependable ally against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.

In 1977, the US passed a law creating the Office of Anti-boycott Compliance in the Department of Commerce in order to prevent any US persons from joining into foreign sanctioned boycotts against nations friendly to the US, thus preventing individuals from creating de facto foreign policy. To get around the secondary boycott aspects of this law, Arab countries simply require declarations that the goods shipped are 100% US made and have none of the boycotted countries manufactured components.

The bill of lading itself is documentation of every shipment via truck, train or ship and contains detailed information about the shipment content, quantities, origin and destination. With this information, the UAE via Dubai Ports World would have detailed information about shipments to American allies all over the world. Even simple commercial products could be monitored and give enemy nations the opportunity to offer cheaper alternatives to buyers of US products greatly damaging us economically.

On the terror front, since the UAE is a major drug port and DPW will have access to secured shipping areas, we may potentially be opening US ports to a new channel of drug and weapons imports, including terror weapons imports and money laundering. Yes, the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security are responsible for port security, but when the same company runs both the import and export port for a single shipment, security can more easily be compromised. For that same reason, we should not allow, for example, Columbian or Mexican ports operating company having operational access to US ports for shipments to and from those countries either.

Some economic experts have argued that DPW can manage the ports more inexpensively than any US company, but the price of those savings is too high and too dangerous. It is way past time to say “NO” to such a deal in an attempt to gain any supposed benefits from “political correctness.”

Fred Taub is the President of Boycott Watch ( which monitors and reports about consumer boycotts, and Divestment Watch ( which tracks the anti-American result and illegal nature of the divest-from-Israel campaign.

It just got worse!

Deal would give Arab firm additional role at 16 more US Ports!
Palm Beach Post, Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Washington, DC - The $6.8 billion deal British courts approved Monday, Putting a Dubai-owned company in charge of significant operations at six U.S. ports, also gives the company a lesser role in other dockside activities at 16 other American seaports! By purchasing London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., DP World bought the publicly traded British firm’s concessions to manage and operate some cargo or passenger terminal facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia! (Jsk)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:23 AM | Comments (0)

March 04, 2006

Cal Thomas justifiably calls out Hollywood Jews

By Cal Thomas
The Washington Times
March 3, 2006

“And the losers are . . .”

Jews run Hollywood, some say. If they do, one might expect them to produce films that better reflect their heritage and values, rather than serve as apologists for those who wish to exterminate the Jewish people.

Sunday's Academy Awards ceremony will not only be about the homosexual-friendly flick "Brokeback Mountain" but also about whether the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will award an Oscar to a film called "Paradise Now," which in January won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. The Golden Globes often foretell likely Oscar winners.

"Paradise Now" is well-produced propaganda for the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian side and a justification for people who blow themselves up and take innocent children, women and men with them. The film is about two young Palestinian males and their decision to become homicide bombers (I deliberately use the word "homicide," because it better reflects the true intentions of the killers, rather than "suicide," a word used to describe people who take only their own lives).

The film recalls a real event when a homicide bomber boarded a bus in Haifa, Israel, on March 5, 2003. Ironically (or maybe deliberately), this Sunday, March 5, is the date of the Oscar presentations. The killer dispatched 17 people from there to eternity. Nine of the dead were schoolchildren, ages 18 or younger. Most people would find such a horrific act beyond the pale of any religion or politics, much less entertainment, but apparently Hollywood thinks it good movie material.

Yossi Zur, father of one of the dead children, inspired a petition drive that at last count had collected more than 30,000 signatures. The petition asks the Academy to revoke the "Paradise Now" Oscar nomination. In an article written for the Israel Project, Mr. Zur expresses his grief for his then-16-year-old son, Asaf, adding, " 'Paradise Now' is a very professional production, created with great care for detail. It is also an extremely dangerous piece of work, not only for Israel and the Middle East, but the whole world."

Mr. Zur went to see the film and wonders, "What exactly makes [it] worthy of such a prestigious [Golden Globe] award?" He asks if Hollywood might also think a film sympathetic to the objectives of the September 11 hijackers could someday be made. Why not? Didn't those men believe their act was righteous and in their "desperation" thought it the only way to get America's attention for their "plight"? Mr. Zur wonders if the terrorists get their hands on a nuclear, biological or chemical device and use it to kill 100,000 or more people whether the film industry will think that worthy of cinematic and sympathetic treatment.

Some critics of Steven Spielberg's "Munich" think that film crossed the line in sympathetically portraying the Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics and the Jewish avengers who hunted down the perpetrators as responsible for the continuing "cycle of violence." Jewish guilt can be hazardous to Jewish health.

What is especially troubling is that Hollywood's reservoir of sympathy is shallow and extends only to certain "favored" subjects. Would the film industry do a movie about Josef Stalin and how the forced famine he instigated in the 1930s in which an estimated 7 million people died was really about putting overweight Russians on a needed diet? How about a film on the life of China's Chairman Mao Tse-tung, considered the top killer of the last century? A talented scriptwriter might portray Mao's genocidal acts as a commitment to population control.

It's probably too late to influence the Academy, but as Mr. Zur wrote after the Golden Globes ceremony, "Awarding a movie such as 'Paradise Now' only implicates the Hollywood Foreign Press Association in the evil chain of terror that attempts to justify these horrific acts, whether the number of victims is 17 (as on that Haifa bus) or 17,000." The same might be said of the Academy on Sunday night, depending on who "the winner is."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:57 PM | Comments (0)

March 03, 2006

Islam’s Rage Explained by Professor Asher Susser, Tel Aviv University

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Northern snowbirds escaping to Florida were treated to a brilliant lecture by Professor Asher Susser, Director and Senior Research Fellow, Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University. The lecture was entitled, Islam and the West and given at Temple Beth El in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Professor Susser spoke of the historical origins of the rage and fury of the Muslim masses now being graphically demonstrated in world-wide cartoon riots. He explained how, in inventing the Muslim faith, Mohammed portrayed Islam as a religion which absorbed the best aspects of the previous faiths of Judaism and Christianity, superceded them, and was thus inherently superior to these faiths and their associated cultures.

And for several hundred years this indeed proved to be the case. Islam overwhelmed the Christian and Judaic worlds creating, by the sword, an empire that extended well into Europe and well beyond the Arabian Peninsula to the East. The invasion was finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Since then, their supposedly superior civilization and religion has been defeated on numerous occasions and their illusions painfully challenged. Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798 captured Egypt for a short time and the Ottoman Empire was finally defeated and dismembered completely by the British and French, supported by the Americans, in WWI, 1914-1917.

As a result of this final conquest, an entirely new term was created called the “Middle East.” There was no such previous entity in the Arab mind and for many, there still is not. Everything in what they consider the Arab world and all its inhabitants are simply under one banner - Islam. In more local power struggles, Syria has never given up the concept of a “Greater Syria” which includes the entire British Mandate that was supposed to be Israel, the created nation of Jordan, the recently created Palestinian Arab entity plus Lebanon. Saddam Hussein has always considered Kuwait and much of Iran as Iraqi territory.

The greatest insult to Arab illusions was, of course, the victory of a few hundred thousand Israelis supported by starved refugees from the concentration camps of Europe, defeating five invading Arab armies in the War of 1948 and declaring the State of Israel. This was followed by the humiliating Arab defeat in just Six Days of War in 1967 demonstrating the complete superiority of the Israeli military. Professor Susser also briefly went into the astonishing success story of the Israeli economy and its intellectual, scientific and social achievements, which only serve to fuel even further Arab rage and jealousy.

He spoke also of the unsuccessful attempt by Islam to develop modernity. He spoke of first their attempt to achieve parity by briefly embracing the socialism of the Soviet Union at the time of Egypt’s Gamel Abdel-Nasser. With this failure and the devastating defeat by the Israelis in 1967, a new gambit has been attempted. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed and the concept developed of not trying to reach modernity by imitating the West but rather to return to their basic Islamic fundamentalist values in the hope that this strategy would once again return their society to the world prominence and superiority of the 7th to 17th centuries. This is the strategy in which much of the Arab world now remains and is, of course, doomed to failure.

Professor Susser spoke of modernity being based primarily on a secular society and the inherent right of the individual to civil rights, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, education - all the things that are an integral part of Western culture and completely alien to the fundamentalist religion, tribal loyalty and the recently developed form of Arab nationalism.

He saw no immediate end in sight for this Islamic belief system and the resultant state of affairs. He was pleased with the fact that Israel is now drawing its own borders, setting up its own defenses and taking a very practical view of the fact that this is a centuries old problem and mind set that will not go away.

The professor did not go into details as to borders, territory, etc. but what with the history and intensity of the Islamic antagonism he described, giving up any territory to an enemy sworn to one’s destruction or doing anything to enhance that society, at the expense of your own, has to be an obvious gross error. Its continuation can only result in more of Israel’s never-ending “citizen sacrifices for peace” - Israel’s own self-destructive delusion still embraced by the majority of a badly misguided population.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)

March 01, 2006

Olmert’s Chmielnicki Cossacks

Come Back to Finish Off the Jews, 350 years Later

Click link below to see CD/Video. Or, if link no work, copy and paste link address below into your search engine bar.

Copies of the CD are available upon request:

M6A 2C1
416 256 2858 EXT 26

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:24 PM | Comments (0)