martes, enero 30, 2007

Truce again: Suicide bombing in Eilat

29.01. 2007
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center

We have had another lesson in Palestinian Arabic. Once again we have
been taught the meaning of Hudna (truce).

The murder of three Israelis in Eilat by a Palestinian suicide bomber
will cause hardly a stir in world capitals. The UN Human Rights
Council will not condemn anyone for it, except possibly Israel, nor
will angry and righteous young ladies write about "genocide" plans and
ethnic cleansing programs of the Palestinian reactionary imperialist
warmongers in American journals and online media such as Counterpunch.
No former U.S. Presidents will write books entitled "Palestine: Peace
not Apartheid" condemning the evil, land greedy and violent benighted
fanatics who perpetrated this act.

The deed was nonetheless committed by the Islamic Jihad, a reactionary
organization, acting on behalf of their reactionary imperialist
paymasters the Tehran, in order to foment war. The deed was committed
during the "truce" between the Palestinians and Israel, and applauded
by the reactionary Hamas movement, which is in charge of Palestinian

Fawzi Barhoum called the attack a "natural response" to Israeli
military policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as its
ongoing boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian government. "So long as
there is occupation, resistance is legitimate," he said.

Of course, if you press him, Mr. Barhoum would tell you that Eilat,
like Tel Aviv and Haifa, is part of "occupied Palestine" in his view.
The fact that the Palestinians undertook to honor a truce, a "Hudna,"
means nothing to him. Tomorrow he, or similar apologists, will be
asking for more Hudna. Barhoum did not even try to resort to the
facile and obvious defense, that the act was committed by a rival
organization. We will be told that if Israel will only withdraw to the
1967 borders, there will be a Hudna. A Hudna just like this one. For
no sooner will Israel withdraw, then the bombs will start exploding,
and the spokesman will again be explaining, "So long as there is
occupation, resistance is legitimate." As this year is the fortieth
anniversary of the Six Day War, it is well to remember that in the
first months of 1967 there were over 120 terror incidents. Israel did
not occupy a single millimeter of Gaza or the West Bank. Israel does
not occupy any of the Gaza Strip now either. Indeed the Islamic Jihad
were more frank than their Hamas counterparts. They announced
that the murder:

"underscores the Palestinian resistance's intention to pursue Jihad
(holy war) until all
Palestinian lands are liberated."

Jihad, one is told, is an inner spiritual struggle, but that is
apparently not the sort of Jihad
that these progressive luminaries of the Islamic Jihad have in mind.

When they are done "liberating" Palestine, what then? Will the terror
groups who now rule
Palestinian society go on to create a model society there, like the
one they are creating in Gaza, where rival gangs shoot at each other
and little children, and people go hungry while aid funds are used to
purchase more weapons?

When you think about Mr. Carter's book, about the mythical "Israel
Lobby" that stifles criticism of Israel, about the "genocide"
supposedly being perpetrated by Israel, about the "Hudna" offered by
the Palestinians, remember today. Remember this bombing.

Sometimes a single act, a single fact, can shine the correct light on
what seemed to be a complex moral dilemma, and make it simple and
crystal clear. Does it take the light of an exploding suicide bomber
to show us the simple truth?

Ami Isseroff

lunes, enero 29, 2007

La mayoría de paz

The Peaceful Majority

by William Haynes

I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy
prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large
industries and estates. I asked him how many German people
were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me
and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed
the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to
care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a
bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it
all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we
had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My
family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp
and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads"
that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast
majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make
us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of
fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage
any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics
who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups
throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb,
behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take
over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously
spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the
"peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed
and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live
in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for
the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful
majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was
peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a
staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not
a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered
its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that
included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese
civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And,
who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could
it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet
for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic
and uncomplicated of

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't
speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will
awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the
end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans,
Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians,
Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful
majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to
the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our
way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone who
rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without paying
heed to it, or sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets
quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons
which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war
against terror. They are trying to protect the interests
and well being of the world and it's citizens. Best we
support them.

William Haynes

domingo, enero 28, 2007

leído en la Red

No hay noticias...

Making a Little Extra Money...the Palestinian Way

Posted: 26 Jan 2007

When there was a draft lottery during the Viet Nam War, my brother got a
relatively low number, 182. As his number approached, my mother would tell
my dad to get in shape, because if they reached 182, my dad was going to
have to serve in my brother's place.

It seems the Palestinian families have a totally different philosophy, they
encourage their children to harass IDF soldiers so they can get arrested.
For the time their kid(s) are in jail they get a stipend from their favorite
terrorist organization.

This report made me annoyed until I realized if they send their kids to blow
themselves up, I guess this is nothing.

Palestinian children encouraged to go to jail
Ali Waked(YNET)

Exactly a year after Hamas' January election to the Palestinian government,
the wild optimism of early 2005 is noticeably absent. Ongoing inter-faction
violence and rising poverty are providing Palestinians with little to be
optimistic about.

Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) member Issa Qaraqe told Ynet of an
increasing phenomenon of Palestinian minors deliberately provoking IDF
soldiers at checkpoints in order to be arrested, and thus receive shelter in
Israeli prisons.

"Prison time provides these lads with shelter, and also provides their
families with prisoners' benefits," Qaraqe explained.

"We were actually amazed to find that some families encourage such a
phenomenon in order to reduce expenses, and primarily to receive the weekly
benefits given by the Palestinian government to the family of every
prisoner," he added.

Qaraqe recounted a recent visit to a family whose underage son had been
arrested: "I started to comfort the father and was amazed to hear him say
that it's actually not so bad, because now the family will receive a
government benefit. It will be their only income."

According to Qaraqe, such sentiments by parents illustrate the financial and
emotional hardships suffered by Palestinian families over the past year.

"How can one explain a parent who not only isn't sad that his son is in
jail, but rather, encourages him to go there?" Qaraqe queried. "These people
are sick, and it indicates the severe deterioration of Palestinian society
over the past year."

Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to

sábado, enero 27, 2007


Un interesante comentario se puede leer en el blog de Chuikov y Sasha "Diálogo de Sordos".
ver la entrada de Chuikov sobre el antisemitismo y los palestinos

El Estado de Israel

26.01. 2007
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center

I was struck by the following quotation of Abba Eban, Israel's first Foreign Minister, quoted by Adi Schwartz:

"Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist'," wrote Abba Eban in a November 1981 article in The New York Times. "Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair, awaiting acknowledgement by the Saudi royal house. Nor does the Palestine Liberation Organization have the legal status to grant recognition to any country, or to deny it recognition."

The article by the former foreign minister, one of Israel's most impressive spokesmen in the international arena, was written in response to the plan by Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, who proposed an implicit recognition of Israel's right to exist as part of an initiative to end the Israeli-Arab conflict. "There is certainly no other state," wrote Eban, "big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession."

Israel's right to exist should indeed be self-evident. I have always thought this peculiar about the 'land for peace' concept (which I otherwise support in principle): Israel gives up the occupied territories in return for recognition and peace. Many, not just Arabs, feel that Israel only has a right to exist when there is also a Palestinian state. Recognition is something that Israel has to earn with good behavior, by making sufficient concessions, and peace apparently is something it then, perhaps, may get in return. I am in favor of peace for peace: in a peace treaty between Israel and the Arab states both parties promise to recognize the other, not to attack it, and to engage in peaceful relations. Giving back conquered territories is a part of that, like finding a solution to the refugee problem or Jerusalem. It goes without saying that one does not call for the destruction of the other side, or blame it for all the problems of the region including illnesses and natural disasters. Recognition and compensation for the Jewish refugees from Arab countries is also a requirement.

The land for peace principle dates from before the occupation of 1967. In the 1950's the USA and Great Britain promoted the idea that Israel should give part of the Negev desert to Egypt in return for a promise of non-belligerency. Egypt, it was believed, could not sign a treaty with Israel without 'getting something in return'. In their view, Israel needed nothing in return from Egypt, aside from the promise not to be attacked. Israel rejected this proposal, of course, but so did Egypt, and thus the plan was aborted. Jordan also suggested a peace proposal at that time, in exchange for a corridor to the Mediterranean Sea.

So peace has always been something that Israel needed to 'buy' with land, and sometimes the offer was not even peace but the mere promise not to attack. Likewise the Hamas now proposes not to attack Israel temporarily, in exchange for the occupied territories including East-Jerusalem. How generous! The Arab states always like to point to Israeli aggression; however, if Israel is indeed that aggressive, then isn't it worth something to them to get a promise that Israel won't attack them, in exchange for Arab concessions? How about trade (ending the boycott), compensation for the Jewish refugees, ending the support of Palestinian terrorist groups, support for sanctions against Iran, ending Israel's isolation in the UN, etc. etc. In short, there is enough Arab states can offer Israel in exchange for a non-aggression pact.

Friends of the Palestinian cause claim that peace is only possible from a position of power balance. There is none according to them, as Israel occupies the Palestinian territories and has one of the most powerful armies of the world. If the Palestinians indeed are in such a poor position, then why won't they accept a two state solution with a compromise on the refugee issue? Why did most of them vote for a party which time and again proclaimed that it does not want peace with Israel, but rather to keep on fighting it until all of Palestine is liberated? Even the presumably moderate Machmoud Abbas does not refrain from pugnacious rhetoric. In a speech during Fatah's birthday celebrations he proclaimed:

"Since our launching to this day, we have believed in principles which we shall not relinquish. From the dawn of our beginning we have said 'Let a thousand flowers bloom and let our rifles, all our rifles, all our rifles, be aimed at the Occupation.' And we will keep the oath, the renewed national unity, for everyone who cares for the sake of the homeland and in the path of the homeland,"

"Today more than any other day, we must hold fast to our Palestinian principles, and we will not accept a state with temporary borders" said Abbas, adding, "We will not give up one grain [of land] in Jerusalem."

"No one [here] is a criminal. All our people are as one hand to free our land," declared Abbas, speaking about the struggle against Israel that unites all Palestinians. Not once in his speech did he condemn or even disapprove of continuing rocket attacks and attempted suicide assaults by Hamas and by his own Fatah movement."

These are not the words of a loser, of a leader of a people that is forced by its parlous state to take a conciliatory and mild stance and accept compromise. Sympathizers of the Palestinians may say that this has to do with the dignity and pride of the Palestinians, who will not succumb to the Israelis with their superior tanks and F16s. I would rather say that it has to do with the fact that Abbas feels supported by the USA and other Western countries and the moderate Arab states, and primarily needs to show to his own people that he is not a meek sheep whose strings are pulled by the West or Israel. He is not likely to lose support of the West, as there is no reasonable alternative to him available. On the other hand he does need to win over the Palestinian people from Hamas.

The wide international support for a Palestinian state and for the idea that Israel needs to earn its recognition by making such a state possible, allows Abbas to venture such bellicose speeches. If Ehud Olmert were to say in a speech that Israel should not relinquish one inch of holy ground in Jerusalem, and that the settlers need to join forces with the 'doves' to exterminate terrorism, and would praise Israeli 'martyrs' like Baruch Goldstein, the world would be enraged. 'Israel on the warpath', 'right extreme rhetoric by Olmert', etc. the headlines would say, and the US would demand an explanation from the Israeli ambassador. The EU would not hide its outrage either, and of course Olmert would be fiercely criticized within Israel itself. The US did call Israel to order for much less, namely the planned building of 30 houses in a Jordan Valley settlement for ex-settlers from the Gaza Strip, which has been cancelled, probably because of US pressure.

Power consists not only of tanks and F16s, although those come in handy. Power consists of allies, of adoption of your narrative by others, of a mighty block of countries that cannot be ignored, for example because they have underground resources that keep our economies running. This was the case in the 1930s, when the British rulers of Palestine proposed to give the Jews a mini state of 15% of the mandate, in the 1950s, when it was proposed that Israel cede land for peace or non-belligerency with its neighbors, in 1974 when the PLO was granted observer status in the UN without any conditions, and Arafat made a bellicose speech with a pistol visible in his back pocket (while Israel was accepted in 1949 only on the condition that it would make every effort to make peace with its neighbors), and it was the case with the Zionism-is-racism resolution of 1975. It is still the case today when the US accepted Hamas' participation in the elections (a violation of the Oslo accords), a nd the right of the Jews to self-determination is made conditional on the establishment of a Palestinian state and other concessions, despite the fact that the Palestinians also are to blame for the failure to establish their state.

No other people gets so much money from the international community; the UN has a separate organization for the Palestinian refugees alone (UNRWA), which has a unique guideline to give refugee status to all descendants of the refugees. For no other people has the UN erected specific committees and a separate secretariat department (see The Question of Palestine), that campaign against a UN member state with millions of dollars of international donor money.

It is no wonder the Palestinians feel strong enough to express themselves in such firm language, to put high demands on Israel, to daily violate a ceasefire. No wonder the Arab states demand a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories in return for a vague promise of recognition, not of Israel as a Jewish state, but of Israel as a state that exists, and that is required to absorb a substantial number of the Palestinian refugees, while denying any responsibility for the approximately 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab states.

In the past, Israel often profited from Arab mistakes and miscalculations, both in wars and in negotiations. If the Palestinians would manage to stop their violence against Israel for a period, Israel would be highly pressured to accept an unfavorable deal in which it would be required to make substantial and risky concessions in return for a vague paper recognition.

I am in favor of negotiations that lead to a Palestinian state and peace between Israel and the Arab world. However, I don't believe that the Arab world at this time is ready for peace with a strong and prosperous Israel; this would be considered a humiliation. And so I am rather ambiguous about peace negotiations without asking for some commitment from the Arab states first, for instance by treating Israel as a normal, recognized state for some years, a state not held responsible for all misery on earth, a state that is allowed full membership of all UN institutions like any other state, a state against which they do not sponsor and incite violence. After a few years of normalized relations there can be talks of peace and of a Palestinian state. Or, to put it differently, the Arab states first need to prove that they have peace on offer before demanding such a high price for it.

Let's hope some people in the White House or in Brussels reach the same conclusion. And let's hope we find a way to drive cars without oil.

Ratna Pelle

viernes, enero 26, 2007

¿Está la ONU e Israel en curso de colisión?

Are Israel and the U.N. on a collision-course?
Grobman's new book touted as "Indispensable"

The eye-opening and exceptional new book Nations United from Alex Grobman noted on is a MUST READ for all Jews, Christians, students, and scholars.

Nations United is a fascinating bit of research that doubles as critical analysis and gripping narrative! Grobman traces the UN's efforts to coddle radical regimes, and shows in shocking detail the harmful effects of the infamous "Zionism equals Racism" resolution that put air under the wings of terrorists threatening Western values.

Concerned about the often volatile relationship between the U.N. and Israel as well as the United States? This one-of-a-kind book compares the historical and currently evolving role of the U.N. has taken in its involvement with the issue of terrorism.

"This book is a valuable tool for all students on campuses where the Arab/Israeli debate needs to be defanged. Even Muslim and Arab students can learn truth from this book, and see how callously contemporary Arab dictators of the Muslim world have manipulated them and deformed Islam in order to promote their anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish agenda."
Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi,
Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community

Alex Grobman is an historian with an MA and Ph.D. in contemporary Jewish history from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is president of the Institute for Contemporary Jewish Life, a think tank dealing with historical and contemporary issues affecting the Jewish community. He is a contributing editor for Together, a publication of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants. He is a member of the academic board of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and a contributor to the Encyclopedia Judaica and the Partisan website. He also served as director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angles where he was the founding editor-in chief of the Simon Wiesenthal Annual, the first serial publication in the United States focusing on the scholarly study of the Holocaust. He is the author of several other books and a contributor to a number of scholarly periodicals and media sites.

jueves, enero 25, 2007


Palestinians Growing Tired of Hamas

Posted: 25 Jan 2007 11:29 AM CST

A report today in the Guardian says that Palestinians are beginning to tire of the civil war in the territories, and are getting angry at Hamas. The British paper covered a meeting between Haniyah, the Palestinian PM and Palestinian Newspaper Editor. These same Editors whose readers rushed out last year to put the terrorist organization in power are now questioning Hamas' rule.

One year on [after the election of Hamas], hopes for a significant change in their fortunes have for many Palestinians turned into disillusionment. Most questions at the meeting highlighted the deep and widespread anxiety that society was sliding into factional conflict.

The Editor's Questions showed their disillusionment

"If this civil war carries on it will destroy everything. Why don't we use the courts instead of killing people involved in killing?"

"Please step away from the problems between you and look to the Palestinians who are suffering now. It is causing chaos and insecurity."

Another said that Mr Haniyeh should put more effort into the struggling negotiations between Hamas and Fatah, to form a coalition with a political programme that might lift the economic boycott which Israel and the west had imposed after the formation of the Hamas government.

"Why don't the Palestinians speak with one voice and go to the world and ask for a state?" suggested another speaker. "We are paying the price of the differences among us."

The question now is how much Hamas is held responsible for the crisis of the past year. Ali Badwan, a Palestinian economist in Gaza, said Israel and the west were to blame, but that Hamas also bore some responsibility. "For me, after one year they have failed and they have to change and eliminate the mistakes they made before. They don't recognize the change from being a resistance movement to being in power ... and having to deal with the international community.
Raji Surani, a secular, leftist lawyer who runs the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, said he believed Hamas was ready to accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in 1967, and said it had been a mistake to boycott the government. But in the past month the possibilities offered by a new government have been losing ground to fears over the factional fighting that has taken hold on the streets of Gaza, he said.

"They have lost support from the grey area of voters. People tolerated the economic problems for a long time and didn't punish Hamas. But now they are scared to death. We can tolerate anything except this internal conflict.

The real question is, "Does it matter anyway? " The difference between Hamas and Fatah is only a matter of degrees, they are both terrorist organizations that want Israel destroyed--Hamas is Just more open about it.
Please email me at to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to

Israeli Citizens Action Network

Last weeks' diary referred to a letter I received from someone living
on a kibbutz on the Lebanese border. It expressed the feeling that the
UN is doing nothing to reign in the Hizbollah. One recipient of this
diary sent me another letter from the USA this week, in which the
following is a quote:- Just to let you know that I have a tenant who
is a German police officer assigned to the UN who very recently was
assigned to survey the Lebanese-Israel "border". He came back very
depressed that few if any Lebanese he met cared to implement the
"truce" and that he expected hostilities to begin again shortly. He
found nothing but hatred of Israel. There seems to be a general
feeling of resignation that another war will happen sooner or later
but on the other hand, the attitude is that this time, we will

a) On another issue, much is talked about the attitude of the
Israeli Arab citizens and how they are unpatriotic. While Jimmy Carter
and other critics of Israel attempt to paint the country as intolerant
and discriminatory toward Arabs based on their ill-informed and
distorted views of both the past and present, Israeli Arabs themselves
have a very high opinion of their country. According to a new poll
released in January 2007 (Uzi Arad and Gal Alon, "Patriotism and
Israel's National Security - Herzliya Patriotism Survey 2006,"
Herzliya: Institute for Policy and Strategy, 2006), 82 percent of
Israeli Arabs said it is "better to be a citizen of my country than
others." By comparison, 90 percent of Americans agreed with the
statement and 88 percent of Israeli Jews.

In addition, 77 percent of Israeli Arabs agreed "my country is better
than others," which was only slightly less than the 83 percent of
Australians and 79 percent of Canadians and Americans who felt the
same way.

Analyzing the survey data it is clear why Israeli Arabs are adamant
about remaining citizens of Israel and express no desire to be part of
a Palestinian state. The results also illustrate why Palestinian Arabs
in the territories express a high regard for Israel in polls. They see
how their fellow Arabs are treated and the type of society Israel has
built and wishes to emulate it.

It is too bad the Jimmy Carters of the world do not see Israel the way
its citizens – Jewish and non-Jewish – view their nation. If they did,
they'd recognize that Israeli society can serve as a model, albeit an
imperfect one, for the values they espouse.

b) In a report by Edgar Lefkovitz in the Jersusalem Post this
week, it is reported that as many as 100,000 French and British
citizens have converted to Islam over the last decade, according to a
new book by an Israeli historian. The figures cited by Hebrew
University Prof. Raphael Israeli in his upcoming book The Third
Islamic Invasion of Europe are representative of the fast-changing
face of Europe, which the Islamic history professor says is in danger
of becoming "Eurabia" within half a century.

He noted that about 30 million Muslims currently live in Europe, out
of a total population of 380 million., adding that with a high Muslim
birthrate in Europe, the number of Muslims living in the continent is
likely to double within 25 years.

Israeli also cited massive immigration and Turkey's future inclusion
in the EU as the primary reasons why the face of Europe will be
indelibly changed within a generation.

European concerns over a fast-growing Muslim population is at the
center of opposition to Turkey's entry into the EU, he said, as the
inclusion of Turkey into the EU will catapult the number of Muslims to
100 million out of a total population of 450 million.

"The sheer weight of demography will produce a situation where no
Frenchman or Dutchman could be elected to parliament without the
support of the Muslim minority," he said Monday in an interview with
The Jerusalem Post. "Muslims will have a more and more decisive voice
in the makeup of European governments."

The historian, who has authored 19 previous books, said that Muslim
political power in Europe would directly impact domestic politics,
including Europe's immigration policy, with millions of additional
Muslims waiting at the door to gain entry to the EU as part of "family
reunification" programs. "Every European with a right mind has every
reason to be frightened," Israeli said.

The 50,000 French and 50,000 British who have converted to Islam over
the last decade, including many from mixed marriages, did so for
personal convictions, romanticized notions of Islam, as well as for
business reasons, while others see Islam as the wave of the future at
a time when Christianity is on the wane, Israeli said. He said that
Muslims converting to Christianity existed but their numbers were
significantly smaller.

Israeli noted that conversions in mixed marriages worked only in one
direction since a Muslim woman who marries a Christian is considered
an apostate in her community, and faces physical danger. "It is time
one should wake up and realize what is happening in Europe," he

c) Palestinian Media Watch report that after Saddam
Hussein's execution, the Palestinian Municipality of Yaabid decided to
name both a school and its main street after the Iraqi dictator. It
appears that the same street was paved 18 months ago using grants from

This is not the first time that US money has gone to build Palestinian
infrastructures that are named to glorify terrorists and enemies of
the US. Three examples:

1. After the US gave the Jenin municipality money for road works in
the city, a block in the center of Jenin was named for the first Iraqi
suicide terrorist who killed four American soldiers in Fallujah. The
mayor of Jenin participated in the anti-American rally and the
speakers blessed the "resistance of the residents of Fallujah"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 4, 2004].

2. USAID funded the building of the Salaf Khalef Sports Center. Salef
Khalef (Abu Iyad) the head of the Black September terror organization,
was behind the killing of two US diplomats in Sudan and the 11 Israeli
Olympic athletes. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May, 30, 2004]

3. USAID funded renovations of the Dalal Mughrabi School named in
honor of Dalal Mughrabi and her terror group, who killed American
photographer Gail Rubin and 36 Israelis. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December
14, 2004]

Here's hoping for a peaceful week. I am off now to give another
lecture today, this time to a group of Hadassah volunteers from Canada
(last weeks were from the USA).

miércoles, enero 24, 2007

Web con mucha información

Recibida esta información sobre un web que pasa revista a la situación actual de Israel y el conflicto que arrastra con los palestinos:

"I have just come back from a workshop on Israel Advocacy which was run by
Simon White of Beyond Images (, and it was part of a
series of workshops over the next five weeks. It was very good, and I am
looking forward to the rest of the series"

martes, enero 23, 2007

Alex Grobman

An alien limb on the Arab body
Kuwait Times - Kuwait City,Kuwait
Alex Grobman refutes this allegation in his book 'Nations United.' Here are some of his arguments: Arabic is an official language in Israel on par with ...

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

A rabbi's warning to U.S. Christians

Posted: January 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin

© 2007  I am certainly not a Churchill. I am not even a Revel. I am having enough trouble just trying to be a Lapin. But I am issuing a very serious warning about deep consequences, just as they did. It is a warning about the earliest stages of what could become a cataract of disasters if not resisted now. During the 1930s, Winston Churchill desperately tried to persuade the English people and their government to see that Hitler meant to end their way of life. The British ignored Churchill, which gave Hitler nearly 10 years to build up his military forces. It wasn't until Hitler actually drew blood that the British realized they had a war on their hands. It turned out to be a far longer and more destructive war than it needed to be had Churchill's early warning been heeded. In 1983, a brave French writer, Jean-Francois Revel, wrote a book called "How Democracies Perish." In this remarkable volume, he described how communism's aim is world conquest. For decades he had been trying to warn of communism's very real threat. Yet in January 1982, a high State Department official said: "We Americans are not solving problems, we are the problem." (Some things never change.) A good portion of the planet fell to communism, which brought misery and death to millions because we failed to recognize in time that others meant to harm us. (Column continues below) Heaven knows there was enough warning during the 1980s of the intention of part of the Islamic world to take yet another crack at world domination. Yet instead of seeing each deadly assault on our interests around the world as a test of our resolve, we ignored it. We failed the test and lost 3,000 Americans in two unforgettable hours. I am not going to argue that what is happening now is on the same scale as the examples I cite above, but a serious war is being waged against a group of Americans. I am certain that if we lose this war, the consequences for American civilization will be dire. Phase one of this war I describe is a propaganda blitzkrieg that is eerily reminiscent of how effectively the Goebbels propaganda machine softened up the German people for what was to come. There is no better term than propaganda blitzkrieg to describe what has been unleashed against Christian conservatives recently. Consider the long list of anti-Christian books that have been published in recent months. Here are just a few samples of more than 30 similar titles, all from mainstream publishers:
"American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America"
"The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us"
"The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason"
"Piety & Politics: The Right-wing Assault on Religious Freedom"
"Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism"
"Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America"
"Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right"
What is truly alarming is that there are more of these books for sale at your local large book store warning against the perils of fervent Christianity than those warning against the perils of fervent Islam. Does anyone seriously think America is more seriously jeopardized by Christian conservatives than by Islamic zealots? I fear that many Americans believe just that in the same way that many pre-World War II Westerners considered Churchill a bigger threat than Hitler. Some may say that today's proliferation of anti-Christian print propaganda is nothing to become worried about. To them I ask two questions: First, would you be so sanguine if the target of this loathsome library were Jewish? Just try changing the titles in some of the books I mention above to reflect anti-Semitism instead of rampant anti-Christianism and you'll see what I mean. Second, major movements that changed the way Americans felt and acted came about through books, often only one book. Think of Rachel Carson's 1962 error-filled "Silent Spring" that resulted in the pointless banning of the insecticide DDT and many unnecessary deaths. Other books that caused upheavals in our nation were Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," many of Ayn Rand's books and of course "Uncle Tom's Cabin." No, I would advise you not to underestimate the power of books to alter the behavior of the American public, and I fear for an America influenced to detest Christianity by this hate-filled catalog. It is not just books but popular entertainment also that beams the most lurid anti-Christian propaganda into the hearts and minds of viewers. One need only think of who the real targets of the recent hit movie "Borat" are. The brilliant Jewish moviemaker Sacha Baron Cohen, as his title character, using borderline dishonest wiles, lures some innocent but unsophisticated country folk, obviously Christians, to join him in his outrageously anti-Semitic antics. Cohen then triumphantly claims to have exposed anti-Semitism. In fact, he has revealed nothing other than the latent anti-Christianism of America's social, economic and academic secular elites. Even the recent PBS documentary, "Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century: The Resurgence," managed to do more attacking Christianity than defending Judaism. Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University professor, is one of the generals in the anti-Christian army of the secular left. American academia treats him with reverence and hangs on his every word when he insists that "religious myths ought not to be tolerated." For those with a slightly more tolerant outlook, he asks, "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free impose their beliefs on their children?" He suggests that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs. Needless to say, he means Christian beliefs, of course. Muslim beliefs add to England's charmingly diverse cultural landscape. The war is against those who regard the Bible to be God's revelation to humanity and the Ten Commandments to be His set of rules for all time. Phase one in this war is to make Christianity, well, sort of socially unacceptable. Something only foolish, poor and ugly people could turn to. We have seen how a carefully constructed campaign pretty much made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. For years, there had been stringent laws against drunk driving. They achieved little. In the end, the practice was all but eliminated by groups allied with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their effective ways of changing the way Americans thought about it. We have seen how a carefully constructed campaign has pretty much made it socially unacceptable to smoke. In the face of a relentless campaign (dare one call it propaganda?), Americans became docile and forfeited the right to make their own decisions. Nobody was willing to stand up to the no-smoking tyrants. Nobody even asked whether health was sufficient grounds for freedom to be reduced. Now, entire cities and even states have banned smoking, not only in public places but even in privately owned restaurants. Tyranny comes when citizens are seduced into trading freedom for the promise of safety and security. Considerably more intellectual energy is being pumped into the propaganda campaign against Christianity than was ever delivered to the anti-smoking or anti-drunk-driving campaigns. Fervent zealots of secularism are flinging themselves into this anti-Christian war with enormous fanaticism. If they succeed, Christianity will be driven underground, and its benign influence on the character of America will be lost. In its place we shall see a sinister secularism that menaces Bible believers of all faiths. Once the voice of the Bible has been silenced, the war on Western Civilization can begin and we shall see a long night of barbarism descend on the West. Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the West is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. Many of us Jews are ready to stand with you. But you must lead. You must replace your timidity with nerve and your diffidence with daring and determination. You are under attack. Now is the time to resist it.
Related special offer: "Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion"
Scholar, author and Jewish community leader Rabbi Daniel Lapin is president of the national organization Toward Tradition .

jueves, enero 18, 2007

Videos of British Mainstream Mosques

You Must Watch The Vidoes Below

If you preach Islam, orthodox Islam, the Islam of the Koran, hadith,
and early Muslim biographies of Muhammad, THIS is what you preach,
plain and simple...As Hirsi Ali put it so unequivocally:
Hirsi Ali's response to the standard non-sequitur apologetic about the
putative existence of, 'different Islams', is unequivocal:
"No that is an erroneous idea . If one defines Islam as the religion
founded by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by hadiths,
there is only one Islam that dictates the moral framework."
Finally, she concludes that true reform of Islam, to render it
compatible with modern human rights standards, must include criticism
of both its core sacred text, and founder:
"You cannot liberalize Islam without criticizing the Prophet and the
Koran...You cannot redecorate a house without entering inside."
Notice how these various Brit mosques and Islamic Centers do LOTS of
"dialogue" too.

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque From LGF
Here are parts one, two and three of the much-anticipated UK Channel 4
documentary Dispatches: Undercover Mosque, exposing evidence of
Islamic supremacism, shocking misogyny, and support for violence at a
number of Britain's leading mosques and Muslim institutions. (Thanks
again to LGF operative kasper.)
If the videos don't play, try again in a few minutes. YouTube uses a
distributed server network, and videos sometimes take a little while
to propagate across the network.
Part One:

UK Mosques. Part... 1

Part Two:

UK Mosques. Part ... 2

Part Three:

viernes, enero 12, 2007

Sharon no aconsejó a Bush invadir Irak

From Israpundit Today:

Sharon warned Bush not to invade Iraq

Yossi Alpher writing in The Forward made some startling disclosures,

[..] But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon's words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an "acute threat" to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel's ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not "push one way or another" regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. "In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization," Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq's borders.

Sharon's advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. The American occupation of Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran, Israel's number-one enemy, and enfranchising militant Shi'ite Islamists. A large part of Iraq is slipping into the Iranian orbit. Iraq's western Anbar Province is increasingly dominated by militant jihadi Sunnis who could eventually threaten Syria and Jordan, the latter a strategic partner and geographic buffer for Israel.

All these developments harm vital Israeli interests. This past summer, Israel fought a war against two militant Islamist movements supported by Iran — Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — that were enfranchised and legitimized in their anarchic countries thanks to Bush's insistence on hasty and ill-advised democratic elections "in this part of the world."

Had Sharon made his criticism public, citing the dangers posed to vital Israeli interests, might he have made a difference in the prewar debate in the United States and the world? Certainly he would have poured cold water on the postwar assertions of critics, like professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who have fingered Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and pro-Israelis in the administration for instigating the war. Ayalon, incidentally, was directed by Sharon to warn all Israelis visiting Washington not to encourage the American scheme for war in Iraq, lest Israel be blamed for its failure.

There were, of course, neoconservative types in Israel who did encourage the United States to occupy Iraq and advocated democratic elections wherever possible in the Middle East. But there were also many Israelis, this writer included, who spoke out openly and publicly against the American scheme.

Even Aipac officials in Washington told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the United States deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq. And pro-Western Arab leaders like Egypt's Husni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdallah were outspoken in their criticism of Bush's war plans, even though they could fall back on far less credit and lobbying support in Washington than in Israel.

As a faithful ally of the United States, Israel is morally obligated to tell Washington when its policies are not only mistaken but also harmful. Many American Middle East policy initiatives since 2003 have indeed been detrimental to Israeli interests. When Bush ignored his advice about Iraq, Sharon should have found a respectful and friendly way to make his reservations public.
Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:05 pm |

sábado, enero 06, 2007

Canterbury... y el Muro.

"Mr Andrew Nunn
Premises and Administration Secretary to
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London SE1 7JU

Dear Mr Nunn

Thank you for replying to my letter on Archbishop Williams's behalf. I regret that you regard my views as polemic.

Rowan Williams was wrong to publicly castigate Israel regarding the Security Barrier, whilst omitting to mention publicly why she felt it necessary to erect it, and not mention equally as publicly the suffering the Palestinian Christians undergo at the hands of the Palestinian Authority. What message could this send to supporters of Israel's right to live in peace and security other than a bias against her? His comment at the International Peace Centre in Bethlehem on 21 December: was very clear indeed:-

"…………..The wall which we walked through a little while ago is a sign not simply of a sign of a passing problem in the politics of one region; it is sign of some of the things that are most deeply wrong in the human heart itself………"

The economic dislocation the Archbishop speaks of is clearly the result of the Palestinian Authority's extremism, and its failure to rein in terrorists operating with its full support. One does not have to think very hard to realise that if the area had not been used as a base to launch murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, there would have been no need to build any sort of barrier at all. There are many Israelis who would rather it did not exist either, but they owe their safety and in many cases their lives to it.

It is all very well that Archbishop Williams has brought together leaders of the different faiths in the area to discuss the problems they all face, but this was not reported widely in the media, and the fact that attacks against Christians by people supported by the Palestinian Authority continue unabated proves this method is hardly effective. Publicly criticising Israel, who has always sought to allow Christians and all other faiths to worship in peace at their Holy sites, for finding an effective way of defending her citizens can hardly help either, especially when the violence perpetrated on Palestinian Christians is publicly ignored by a man of Archbishop Williams' standing.

I, too, believe that prayer, patience and understanding can help build bridges between the protagonists. However, there needs to be an atmosphere of trust and the willingness to abandon violence as a means to an end for this to have even the smallest chance of succeeding. Israel has shown her willingness to compromise again and again, with no reciprocal gesture from the other side. The continual bombardment of Israeli towns from Gaza when a cease-fire has been agreed is one example among many.

Yours sincerely

Ilana Rosen

martes, enero 02, 2007

This article is found on the blogsite
Best Wishes, Shalom,
Eliyahu Green

Sunday, December 24, 2006

The European Union: Madness & Moral Corruption vs A Rare Voice of Sanity in Europe

The European Union is hostile to Israel following a European tradition of hostility to Jews going back 2,000 years. The hostility operates in many ways. The European Union is not an innocent bystander in Israel's conflict with the Arabs, nor can the EU be an "honest broker." Obviously, it has NOT been honest or decent in its relations with Israel, nor in its favoritism for anti-Israel Arabs. This deeply rooted policy can be partly explained by Bat Ye'or's Eurabia theory. But it goes back much farther into European history, into the history of European relations with the Jews, and into the European mind than the Eurabian phenomenon, which emerged in the early 1970s. In the context of its abysmal hatred for the State and People of Israel [and Jews generally], the EU propagates lies big and small. A recent EU declaration illustrates this phenomenon. Of course, there are sane voices in Europe, and Israel has many friends there. One of our favorites is the intelligent Italian daily, Il Foglio. Here is their excellent report and commentary on the pre-Christmas summit meeting of the EU and the ensuing anti-Israel declaration.

Europe against Israel
Gaza Is Exploding and Lebanon Is Exploding, but Brussels Only Attacks Jerusalem.
For Iran? A Slap on the Wrist

Brussels. With the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon on the verge of civil war, the pre-Christmas summit of the European Union accused the usual suspect, Israel. Yesterday, Europe ordered the Jerusalem government to "stop violations of Lebanese air space," to release prisoners, extend the truce to the West Bank, unblock funds for the Palestinians, and guarantee freedom of access and movement across the Rafiah crossing. "The parties --the conclusions of the Twenty-Five declaim-- must take immediate measures to put an end to activities contrary to international law, including the settlements and the construction of the barrier on Palestinian territory." Hamas and Fatah have traded bullets and accusations, but the EU "salutes the efforts to form a government of national unity" and is ready to resume the partnership with and financing for the Palestinians. According to Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema [of Italy], in this way Europe expresses its "will to continue to be more active" in the Middle East, as it is doing "in the Israelo-Lebanese conflict of this summer, not without some positive results."

The UN reports on the powerlessness of the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon and the arrival of weapons through Syria into the Palestinian camps in the Biq`ah Valley were not discussed. On the other hand, the Twenty-Five self-celebrated their own "prominent" role "in the new UNIFIL" and requested "international jurisdiction" for the Shaba Farms. Their support for Lebanese prime minister Fuad Siniora will be concretized in the Paris Conference of 25 January, whereas his government might have passed into history by then. For the moment, the dialogue with Syria, desired by German chancellor Angela Merkel and by Italian premier Romano Prodi, has come up against the veto of French President Jacques Chirac.

As to Iran and its nuclear program that is by now moving ahead under full sail, according to the words of president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and will be concluded by March, the European statement limits itself to "concern" over its impact on the [role favoring] Middle Eastern stability played by Teheran --the orchestrator of the crises both in the Territories and in Lebanon-- threatens sanctions postponed for more than three years, and confirms the promise to "furnish everything that it (= Teheran) needs in order to develop a modern civilian nuclear industry." [Il Foglio, 16 December 2006]
The main impression of the EU given by the article is foolishness and fatuousness. While Teheran's Islamomaniacs build The Bomb, the EU condemns Israel for building a barrier to keep out terrorist mass murderers. As to Iran's bomb, the EU expresses "concern" and promises nuclear goodies, if only the mullahs play nice. Then there is the Judeophobia disguised as Israelophobia under the cover of chirping about "international law" and concern for the rights and sensitivities of the invented "palestinian people." Then we have D'Alema's lie --perhaps he is not conscious that he's lying-- about an "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" over the summer. The war was with Hizbullah, not with Lebanon. Most of Lebanon sat and watched from the side, unable to control a foreign-controlled force operating on Lebanese territory, and thereby trampling Lebanese sovereignty, yet being identified with Lebanon by foolish or deceitful EuroCommunists like D'Alema. But the EU does not much care for Lebanon, although the Lebanese are not even Jewish. Lebanon's sovereignty is not of concern to D'Alema, for instance, since, for him and many others, Hizbullah is Lebanon. The contempt for Lebanon's sovereignty also appears in the order to Israel to stop overflights over Lebanon which are meant to track weapons shipments from Syria or elsewhere to anti-Israel forces in Lebanon [including Hizbullah]. The EU and the UN do nothing to enforce SC resolution 1559 which called for disarming the Hizbullah. That is the real violation of Lebanese sovereignty, much more so than Israeli overflights which are self-defense measures, albeit they do not go far enough.

The EU falsifies international law by claiming that Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria are illegal. This nowhere appears in Geneva Convention IV. Rather, it is an invention of Arab and pro-Arab ideologues. Forbidding Jews to go to live in Judea-Samaria is anti-Jewish racism.

It is obvious that the EU, given its bi-millenial history of Judeophobia, is playing the role of an enemy of Israel. The EU cannot be a partner in Israel's relations with the Arabs, unless its policy toward Israel and Israel's neighbors undergoes profound change. Obviously, no peace for Israel can be expected to ensue from the EU's madness and moral corruption.