UN's hidden agenda about Muslims

[EvidenceForIslam]

'Islam is a religion of tolerance'
'Islam is a religion of peace'

We have heard these and similar comments many a times. But what have
we not heard and what exactly is the United Nations not telling us?
Here is just a snippet of very interesting information.

What the U.N. Wants Hidden

With unbridled audacity, the Muslim population of the world has
adopted the technique of Hitler's Big Lie to accuse the other of
crimes they themselves have been guilty of for thousands of years and
are still guilty of today: apartheid, racism, genocide, and ethnic
cleansing. It is the Muslims, not the Christians, not the Nazis, and
not the Serbs, who first taught the world such atrocities. It began
with the Muslims, centuries before the Crusades, and continues openly
and shamelessly into the 21st century, without an objection from the
U.N.

FACTS THE U.N. AND ITS MUSLIM ALLIES WANT YOU TO IGNORE
- According to Islam, an agreement made between a Muslim and an
infidel (non-Muslim) need not, and should not be honored. Does this
speak volumes on why Oslo failed? This is Muslim apartheid.

- Muslims/Arabs control vast amounts of land - over 56 countries, 21
in the Middle East, none of which are democracies. All of which are
oppressive repressors of the MOST BASIC human rights. The 21 Mid East
countries are all Arab, all Muslim, all homo-geneous (with tiny
sprinklings of Christians fearing for their lives). They find it
unbearable a country such as Israel, a democracy which thrives on
religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, should exist amongst them.
This is intolerance of the OTHER. This is Muslim racism,
discrimination, and apartheid. They desire and live for Israel's
destruction, the West's destruction. This is Muslim ethnic cleansing.

- In 622 A.D. Mohammed traveled to Medina and tried to force the Jews
to convert. When they refused, two of the major Jewish tribes were
expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of
the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst
themselves. This is Muslim racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and
genocide.

-The Dhimmi, an inferior status accorded Christians and Jews, were
forced to pay a tribute to the Muslim rulers in exchange for their
lives. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize
the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch
a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non­Muslim as a
wife). This is Muslim racism, discrimination, and apartheid.

- Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were
forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or
camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to
construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in
public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that
might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference
toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi
was not allowed to give evidence in court against a
Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend
himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great
expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed
by a Muslim. This is Muslim racism, discrimination, and apartheid.

- Everyone other than Dhimmis faced a choice of either Death or
Conversion. This is Muslim racism, genocide, and apartheid.

-Dhimmis were forced to wear distinctive clothing with huge collars
which made them the subject of ridicule. In the ninth century,
Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews,
setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi
Germany. Today, the Taliban continue this practice on the Hindu
population of Afghanistan. This is Muslim racism, discrimination, and
apartheid.

- On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada,
Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish
quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was
incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw
as inordinate Jewish power. A precursor to the incitements of the
Muslim clerics today to kill Americans and Jews everywhere. This is
Muslim racism, apartheid, and genocide.

- in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving
only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in
"an offensive manner." The killings sparked a wave of massacres
throughout Morocco. This is Muslim racism genocide, and ethnic
cleansing.

- 8th century - mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in
Morocco, whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I;
North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly
converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali
Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were
massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakech, Morocco, where more
than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.Decrees
ordering the destruction of synagogue were enacted in Egypt and Syria
(1014, 1293-4, 1301-2),Iraq (854­859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite
the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face
death in Yemen(1165 and 167 , Morocco(1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and
Baghdad (1333 and 1344). Does this remind you of the 20th century
where Jewish communities were slaughtered in Hebron in 1929, where
Christians are
arrested, falsely charged, and executed on a daily basis, where Hindus
are murdered en masse, where Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish Holy sites
are plundered and destroyed by Muslims? Today is just a continuation
of Muslim history of racism, apartheid, and genocide of the OTHER.

- 19th century- Jews in North Africa were forced to live in ghettos.
In Morrocco,( the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora),
Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside
the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of
Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The
frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were
executed on charges of apostasy. This was all before the State of
Israel existed, yet their actions were no different then from today's
charter of the PLO and other Muslim countries - destroy Israel, kill
the Jews, kill democracy, kill the OTHER. This is Muslim racism,
apartheid, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

-Today, Sudan's Islamic government continues to enslave women and
children from Christian tribes. This is Muslim racism and apartheid.
Muslim Sudaneese have murdered approximately one million Christian
Sudaneese. This is Muslim genocide.

-Hindus and Muslims fight for the Kashmir. Thousands of Hindus are
executed. This is Muslim genocide.

-After NATO gave them the province, Albanians in Kosovo cleansed 80
percent of the Serb population and destroyed over 100 Orthodox
churches. This is Muslim apartheid, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

- In Indonesia, the Laskar Jihad (which includes veterans of Bosnia
and Afghanistan) attacked Christian villages in September 2000 . In
two provinces, over 5,000 have died and over 250,000 were driven from
their homes since January 1999. This is Muslim genocide and ethnic
cleansing.

-According to the Guardian, Muslims in England are trained in
paramilitary camps and sent to Lebanon and Jordan to join the holy war
against Israel. One young recruit explained: ``We have a problem with
oppression. That is, with the Hindus in Kashmir, the Russians in
Chechnya, the Christians in the former Yugoslavia and the Israelis in
Palestine.'' Anything OTHER than Muslim dictatorships signifies
oppression. This is Muslim racism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Today in Southern France, there are more mosques than churches. How
long before the Muslims in France, the United States, and other
Western countries begin to view the non-Muslims as their oppressors
and start their jihad for "liberation" of those countries?

Today in Israel, Muslim clerics who control the Temple Mount (where
the Dome of the Rock and the silver domed Al Aqsa mosques sit) claim
that there is no evidence of a Jewish connection to Jerusalem. These
brazen statements fly in the face of our common Western Heritage of
the City of David, the Jewish monarch. The Palestinian Muslim clerics
are guilty of gross historical revisionism so as to justify a future
attempt at ethnic cleansing.

Who will the citizens of the "infidel" world depend on for protection
when churches, synagogues, and Buddhist / Hindu temples start to be
torched? Synagogue desecration has already begun.

When Muslim suicide bombers (who continue to be romanticized by
Western media) come to your doorstep, will you ask Kofi Annan and Mary
Robinson of the U.N. for your protection?

They will help you as they have helped Israel and the Jewish people be
blown up and dismembered by Muslim "activists" in Israel. They will
help you as they have helped the 2 million slaughtered Tibetans (by
Communist China). They will help you just as they have helped the
enslaved, slaughtered and beheaded Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Sudan, Malaysia and other Muslim countries. They will help you as they
have helped the slaughtered Hindus in the Kashmir and Afghanistan.

They will protect your places of worship as they have protected the
Great Buddha and the Hindu Temples in Afghanistan in their
destruction, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in its plunder and
desecration by the Muslim expatriates, the Tomb of Joseph in its
burning stone by stone and replacement by a mosque, the destruction of
Tibetan monasteries in illegally occupied Tibet. The U.N. will help
protect you and your places of worship the same way they have
protected those above.

No doubt, the U.N., together with the Arafat's and Saddam's of the
world will hold a World Conference Against Racism and accuse the U.S.,
France, England, and Italy of crimes against humanity. They will
accuse them of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and brand them all
apartheid states, just as the NGO has done to Israel (the forerunner)
this week. The Motto: Accuse the OTHER of crimes you are guilty of.

It will no doubt be a democratic process of voting by those who
practice tyranny, but no matter, democracy and equal votes for all
dictatorships of the world. And on the last day of their conference, a
resolution will be passed effectively branding all democracies and
Western governments as racist, genocidal, apartheid states guilty of
ethnic cleansing. Where will you be then? Back

What do Muslims think of Osama bin Laden?, by Daniel Pipes

Ask Westerners and you'll hear how marginal he is. President Bush says
bin Laden represents a "fringe form of Islamic extremism . . .
rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics."
American specialists on Islam agree. "Osama bin Laden is to Islam like
Timothy McVeigh is to Christianity," says Mark Juergensmeyer of the
University of California. Karen Armstrong, author of a bestselling
book about Islam, reports that the "vast majority of Muslims . . . are
horrified by the atrocity of Sept. 11."

Well, that "vast majority" is well hidden and awfully quiet, if it
even exists. With the exception of one government-staged anti-bin
Laden demonstration in Pakistan and very few prominent Islamic
scholars, hardly anyone publicly denounces him. The only Islamic
scholar in Egypt who unreservedly condemns the Sept. 11 suicide
operations admits he is completely isolated.

American officials are still waiting for Muslim politicians to speak
up. "It'd be nice if some leaders came out and said that the idea the
United States is targeting Islam is absurd," notes one U.S.
diplomat.They don't because the Muslim world is bursting with
adulation for the Saudi militant.

* "Long live bin Laden" shout 5,000 demonstrators in the southern
Philippines.

* In Pakistan, bin Laden's face sells merchandise and massive street
rallies have left two persons dead. Ten thousand march in the capitals
of Bangladesh and Indonesia.

* In northern Nigeria, bin Laden has (according to Reuters) "achieved
iconic status" and his partisans set off religious riots leading to
200 deaths.

* Pro-bin Laden demonstrations took place even in Mecca, where overt
political activism is unheard of.

Everywhere, The Washington Post reports, Muslims cheer bin Laden on
"with almost a single voice." The Internet buzzes with odes to him as
a man "of solid faith and power of will." A Saudi explains that "Osama
is a very, very, very, very good Muslim." A Kenyan adds: "Every Muslim
is Osama bin Laden." "Osama is not an individual, but a name of a holy
war," reads a banner in Kashmir. In perhaps the most extravagant
statement, one Pakistani declared that "Bin Laden is Islam. He
represents Islam." In France, Muslim youths chant bin Laden's name as
they throw rocks at non-Muslims.

Palestinians are especially enamoured. According to Hussam Khadir, a
member of Arafat's Fatah party, "Bin Laden today is the most popular
figure in the West Bank and Gaza, second only to Arafat." A
10-year-old girl announces that she loves him like a father. Nor is
she alone. "Everybody loves Osama bin Laden at this time. He is the
most righteous man in the whole world," declares a Palestinian woman.
A Palestinian Authority policeman calls him "the greatest man in the
world & our Messiah" even as he (reluctantly) disperses students who
march in solidarity with the Saudi.

Survey research helps us understand these sentiments. In the
Palestinian Authority, a Bir Zeit poll found that 26 percent of
Palestinians consider the Sept. 11 attacks consistent with Islamic
law. In Pakistan, a Gallup found a nearly identical 24 percent
reaching this conclusion.

Even those who consider the attacks an act of terrorism (64 percent of
both Palestinians and Pakistanis) show respect for these as acts of
political defiance and technical prowess. "Of course we're upset that
so many died in New York. But at the same time, we're in awe of what
happened," said a young Cairene woman.

An online survey of Indonesians found 50 percent seeing bin Laden as a
"justice fighter" and 35 percent a terrorist. More broadly, I estimate
that bin Laden enjoys the emotional support of half the Muslim world.

That America's politicans and experts on Islam insist on seeing bin
Laden as an isolated McVeigh-like figure is worrisome; they miss the
danger that bin Laden's militant Islam poses to existing governments -
perhaps their greatest challenge of recent times. Their fear of him
goes far to explain why the authorities so heavily discourage pro-bin
Laden sentiments (forbidding posters of him, arresting militant
Islamic leaders, blocking street gatherings, closing schools and
universities, patrolling streets with loaded machine guns, and even
shooting demonstrators).

The wide and deep Muslim enthusiasm for bin Laden is an extremely
important development that needs to be understood, not ignored. Back

Containing Islam, by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Middle East expert Daniel Pipes proposes a policy of "containment"
against what he calls "radical anti-Westernism among Muslims." He
states: "Containment was the successful U.S. policy toward the USSR in
the Cold War." He quotes George Kennan's influential 1947 article,
"The Sources of Soviet Conduct": "The main element of any U.S. policy
toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm
and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies." Pipes's
analogy is misleading, to say the least.
First of all, the U.S. is confronted not by a hostile IDEOLOGY, i.e.,
Soviet communism, but by a hostile 1,300 year-old CIVILIZATION: Islam.
Pipes reduces this civilization to what he elsewhere calls "Islamism,"
which he defines as "politicized Islam." It can readily be
demonstrated, however, Islam is and has always been a political
religion.

Second, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, some 43 years after
Kennan's containment policy was enunciated. It is highly questionable
that this policy led to the disintegration of the "Evil Empire."
During the 1980s, the Soviet Union, to compete with the United States,
spent some $400 billion in military hardware. Its economy, never,
sound, collapsed. Besides, Russians are not Moslems. The Russians had
been disillusioned about Communism at least since the purge trials of
the mid-thirties. In contrast,
during the last few decades, or since the end of Western colonialism,
Islam has been resurgent.

Third, Islam is anti-Western because the secular democratic lifestyle
of the West, which increasingly influences mankind, threatens the
religio-political power structure of the Islamic world. Where and how
and to what extent Islam's anti-Westernism will manifests itself will
depend on the changing balance of power between Islam and the West;
and now Islamic regimes possess or are acquiring weapons of mass
destruction.

Fourth, unlike the Soviet Union, Pipes' so-called Islamists are not
reluctant to use such weapons. Communists were not suicide bombers.
Communism, moreover, is a Western phenomenon. Whether one thinks of it
terms of Marx or of Lenin, it is a product of the social engineering
envisioned by the Enlightenment and modern rationalism. Although
Soviet communism and Islam have much in common-both are totalitarian,
both divide the world into a "peace camp" and a "war camp," and both
therefore reject national borders-the cultural mentality of their
respective devotes is fundamentally opposed, and not only because
Communism is atheistic. Suffice
to say that Islam has a love affair with death, and that blood is one
of its fundamental motifs.

Fifth, there are 1.2 billion Moslems on planet earth, and
approximately 60 Islamic regimes. In the Teheran Conference of October
1991, four hundred delegates from these regimes-including "moderate"
Egypt and Jordan-unanimously signed resolutions calling for the
elimination of the United States from the Middle East as well as the
destruction of Israel. These delegates were not mere "Islamists."

With all due respect to Pipes' insightful articles about the Middle
East, like others he obscures the "clash of civilizations" between the
West and the Islamic East. The policy of "containment" is almost
laughably inadequate to this conflict. At stake in this conflict is
the materialistic and hedonistic lifestyle of the West, most
conspicuously exemplified by the United States. In the final analysis,
the issue is between atheism and religion-which is not to say that
Islam is a true religion.

Atheism dominates the West. Western civilization-if it may be called a
civilization-is morally complacent, steeped in nihilism, and long
recognized as decadent by serious people. It is incapable of
containing Islam-another decadent civilization. If proof is wanted,
only note how Western "civilization" is allied with Islam against
Israel! Back

A Detrimental Unity?, by Ruth and Nadia Matar, October 16, 2001,

With the resignations of the Nationalist oriented factions, what
remains is a Government led by Shimon Peres. In the name of a Unity
Government, Sharon has capitulated to Peres and the failed Oslo
process of the Labor Party. It moreover dictates a continuation of a
Peres policy of appeasement to Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
Labor resoundingly lost the last election, but surprisingly rules the
roost today. The Shas Party remains in the Government and can be
counted on never to leave. Its major concern is its own survival and
Party advantages, rather than the vital interest of the Jewish People.
Added to the pot-pourri is the Dan Meridor faction, which
lacks any real program nor any plans for solving national ills. A
Government composed of such a motley group is doomed to failure. It
can have no real leadership because of the serious conflicting
viewpoints of its main members.The result is a Government of
compromise and appeasement.

Where do we go from here? The Government is following the path of
Peres to renew Oslo, and to live with Arafat and a Palestinian State.
In fact Sharon incredulously initiated a statement talking about the
creation of such a State several weeks ago. As such, he offended the
majority of Jews who do not believe he was speaking in their behalf.
One does not have to be clairvoyant to realize that the Palestinian
Authority and Arafat are not capable of changing their ways. They have
had a sustained course of action of teaching hatred and hostility in
their schools and in their media against Israel and the Jewish People.
Such action has borne fruit - suicide bombers
and ruthless shootings of civilians . It will be a very long time
before there can occur any change in this Arab hostility, if ever.

There is virtually a lack of concern by Peres and the U.S. State
Department for the loss of Jewish life. Remarkably, the catastrophe of
September 11 hasn't changed the U.S. State Department's policies in
the Middle East. They have divorced Arafat from terrorism and insist
that Israel sit down with him to work out a peace process. Such a
myopic approach is a clear message to Israel that there will be no
moral leadership from the United States. A spark which Sharon recently
generated by his pointing out American inconsistencies about the
terror of Arafat, has been quickly extinguished. The Israeli
Government is back to its subservient role to American interests, to
its own detriment.

What should be the course of action of the Jewish People who a year
ago entrusted the leadership of their nation to Sharon? He has
grievously disappointed this electorate. At the time, the Jews
resoundedly defeated the Labor orientation of Barak and Peres. Yet
those policies dominate the present Government of Sharon.

The latest Sharon appeasement is his failure to retain Abu Sneineh.
Once again we are turning over this area to Arafat's control, thus
exposing the Jewish Community of Hebron to murderous attacks. Sharon,
who has called Arafat a murderer and a liar, is entrusting the safety
and security of the Jews of Hebron into Arafat's hands. It is an
incomprehensible situation. It well deserved the departure of the
nationalist camp from Sharon's Government.

Unfortunately, Sharon will go down in Jewish history as a mediocrity.
He has failed to meet the historical needs of his People. He has
missed opportunities to retake part of his ancestral homeland.
Sharon's major failure, however, under the guise of unity, was
elevating Peres to a position where Peres is able to defy the Will of
the Jewish People.

Back

What was behind Sharon's warning to the West?, October 7, 2001, by By
Reuven Koret

Publicly the furor has subsided over Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon's warning to the Western democracies, and the United States in
particular, not to repeat the lessons of 1938 and appease the Arabs at
Israel's expense. It was dismissed by the U.S. Secretary of State as a
brief "cloudburst." America and its allies understandably want to
focus their attention on the expected Afghan campaign. The
Israel-American media war of words is over, for now.

But behind the scenes, the anger and suspicions on both sides have not
subsided. The Israeli press Sunday morning was filled with stories and
speculation about why Sharon decided to go public with his
unprecedented caution to the Western coalition and his comparison of
the situation of Israel with that of Czechoslovakia before the Second
World War.

What brought Sharon is launch such an outburst at such a sensitive
moment? An "inside" report by senior correspondents Shimon Shiffer and
Nahum Barnea in Israel's leading daily, Yediot Ahronot [translated
unofficially here from the Hebrew original] sheds considerable light
on the circumstances that led to the speech.

They report that on Thursday, Sharon received an excited phone call
from German Foreign Minister Yoshka Fischer, considered one of
Israel's diplomatic allies in Europe. "I spoke with Bashar Assad,"
Fischer said. "He told me that Syria was always against terrorism. You
have now idea how moved I was. To hear such things from the Syrian
President." Sharon, the report went on, exploded with anger, to hear
that not only was Syria believed to have been "always" against terror,
but that the senior German diplomat was so moved to hear Assad claim
as much.

Not only that. Fischer went on to make demands of Israel. "You must go
toward the Palestinians," he said. "It is possible that these
concessions will be painful for the current generation, but they will
promise a better future for coming generations."

It is possible that the conversation with the German about
"generations to come" reminded Sharon about generations that came
before. And with the prospect of a major war breaking out, the Israeli
Prime Minister evidently felt it was necessary to go on record with
his strongly felt perspective on what he clearly felt to be a
concerted effort to force Israel into concessions for the sake of
appeasing the Arab states that the Americans want to support its war
coalition.

"THERE IS A CERTAIN MOMENT," YEDIOT QUOTES SHARON AS SAYING, "THAT YOU
DISCOVER THAT THEY ARE WORKING BEHIND YOUR BACK." IT WAS AT THAT
MOMENT, HE SAID, "I DECIDED, THAT'S IT. IN A LITTLE WHILE THE WAR WILL
BEGIN.
ISRAEL WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE FAR-REACHING CONCESSIONS TO THE
PALESTINIANS. IF IT WILL REFUSE, IT WILL BE BLAMED FOR UNDERMINING THE
WAR EFFORT. THIS WAS THE LAST MOMENT."

Sharon had observed the developments following the events of September
11 with growing trepidation. The United States had formulated a new
Middle East initiative without consulting Israel, and press reports
indicated that the U.S. had further modified that initiative in favor
of Arab positions. This would not be the first time, and the Yediot
reports makes the colorful observation that in times of crisis, Israel
always goes from being the presentable wife to being shunned as the
"other woman" who must be concealed from polite company. This time the
"freeze-out" of Israel from U.S. consideration appeared almost total,
as if Israel no longer existed in the eyes of
the Americans.

Nevertheless, Sharon said that he ordered Israel's secret services to
give "everything" to assist the American war preparations, passing on
intelligence "worth more than gold" with regard to bin Laden and
sharing operational secrets of Israel's special anti-terrorist units.

But like the loyal wife that had been supplanted, Sharon felt that not
only were the efforts unappreciated but that the Americans seemed to
be going out of their way to scorn and snub Israel. The decision of
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to leave Israel off his itinerary
on his weekend trip to the region was particularly galling.

Then there was the apparent distinction that the Americans and the
Europeans were trying to make between global terrorism (against them)
and local terrorism (against Israel). There was the effort to make a
reconciliation with Iran, with dangerous strategic implications for
the ability of the Iranians to develop their nuclear capability, and
the wooing of Syria, despite the Syrian support for Hizbullah in
Lebanon, which only last week launched an unprovoked cross-border
missile attack on Israeli bases.

And there was the most immediate bone of contention: the pressure to
cover for Arafat and the Palestinians. American pressure forced Sharon
to agree to let Foreign Minister Shimon Peres meet Arafat "under
fire." After the ceasefire agreement, as a senior Sharon adviser put
it, Israel "ceased" and the Palestinians "fired." The result were a
first-of-its-kind terrorist incursion into an Israeli settlement in
Gaza, a car bomb attack in Jerusalem, a shooting attack at the Afula
bus station, and dozens of other attacks.

Arafat, from Sharon's perspective, did not do even the minimum, not
making even a single arrest. For simply making a condemnation of
violence, Sharon noted, Arafat won worldwide praise. Not only that, he
was rewarded with a removal of American pressure but also with
President Bush's expression of support for a Palestinian state as part
of the traditional American "vision" for a peaceful Middle East."

"There's a limit," Sharon told Yediot, and he feared the worst was yet
to come. "The minute the war breaks out, an American envoy will come
around with a plan, and Israel will be represented as undermining the
war effort." Sharon felt it was the last moment to make a statement,
and that this was not the time for quiet diplomacy. Besides, there was
an issue of self-respect, the right of an independent to state its
case and stand on its rights. "Since when do we pass speeches to the
Americans in advance?" the Prime Minister asked, rhetorically.Back

Terror in The US and the Jonathan Pollard Case, September 26, 2001, by
Larry Dub

A Must-Read! Terror in The US and the Jonathan Pollard Case If you saw
the article that follows below on WorldNetDaily but it was
gone before you had a chance to read it, or it you received it from
IMRA on the eve of Yom Kippur but never had a chance to read it,
Justice4JP strongly recommends that you do so now.

This is the first time Terror in the US and the Jonathan Pollard Case
is being circulated by Justice4JP. If you never again read anything
else on the Pollard case, you must read this one!

It is an article that best lends itself to a being read in hard copy,
so please take the time to print it out. It is worth it. Your
understanding
of the Pollard case and of current events will be radically affected.

If you prefer a formatted copy with bolding and italics it is
available on the web at www.jonathanpollard.org/2001/092601.htm
Here is the plain text version:

In a bitterly ironic way, the devastating terrorist assaults on New
York and Washington which recently claimed thousands of innocent
American lives bring to mind the desperate and futile attempts of
Jonathan Pollard to save America and Israel from just such a
catastrophe.

In the early 1980's Jonathan Pollard was a civilian analyst in an
anti-terrorist unit of the US Navy. He was responsible for identifying
state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East, analyzing information
on terrorist activities, and briefing American officials on the
probability of terrorist strikes both at home and abroad.

Pollard's unceasing message in these briefings and in the reports he
submitted was if America did not combat terrorism abroad, the battle
would eventually be brought home to be fought on American soil. Much
to Pollard's dismay, as long as his reports were "only" about murdered
Jews and Israeli targets, his exhortations were met with indifference.
His warnings and his recommendations - which if implemented threatened
to disturb America's relations with her so called "moderate" Arab
allies - were largely ignored.

For example, Jonathan Pollard was deeply troubled that the US
Government did not seem to appreciate the threat to American interests
posed by Saddam Hussein. He repeatedly warned American officials of
the dangerous game the US was playing both in arming Iraq and
providing it with sensitive intelligence. He also tried desperately to
hold the US to its commitment to warn Israel of "the Butcher of
Baghdad's" lethal plans for the Jewish State. In his efforts to get
this information legally released to Israel, Pollard appealed all the
way up the chain of command in the Pentagon. To no avail. In
desperation, Pollard finally gave the information to Israel himself.

Essentially, Jonathan Pollard warned Israel that Saddam Hussein was
planning to scorch the Jewish State with weapons of mass destruction.
What is perhaps most shocking of all, though, is the fact that this
vital information was being purposely withheld from Israel by the US,
Israel's closest ally.

While the exact reason for this betrayal will probably never be known,
at least two high-ranking members of the American national security
establishment at the time - Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and
Deputy CIA Director Admiral Bobby Ray Inman - were well aware of
Iraq's genocidal intentions towards Israel, and chose to blindside the
Jewish state. Their motive, it seems, was to curry favor with the
Egyptians and the Saudis who viewed Saddam's covert strategic arsenal
as a means to finally destroy Israel.

Nevertheless, thanks to Jonathan Pollard, Israel was ready with gas
masks and sealed rooms when Iraq attacked her during the Gulf War.

In warning Israel, Jonathan broke the law. He deserved to be punished.
But the punishment has to fit the crime. The usual sentence for spying
for an ally is 2-4 years. Jonathan is about to complete his 16th year
of a life sentence, with virtually no possibility of parole.

Jonathan Pollard did not spy against the United States. He was never
indicted for intent to harm the United States nor for treason, though
he has been falsely accused of both. He received his life sentence
without benefit of trial, as the result of a plea bargain which
Jonathan honored and the US violated.

Jonathan received a sentence far harsher than most of those who spied
for an enemy nation. Twentieth Century spies Michael Walker, Clayton
Lonetree, and Richard Miller, who spied for the Soviet Union and did
inestimable damage to American national security, are all free men
today. Only Jonathan Pollard, a Jew who spied for the Jewish State,
remains in prison with no end in sight.

The case of Michael Schwartz highlights the disparity in sentencing
between Jew and non-Jew and between Israel and other US allies.
Schwartz, a non-Jew who spied for Saudi Arabia, was arrested,
confessed and indicted. But before he ever stood trial a quick deal
was worked out in order to appease America's Saudi ally. His
punishment? Loss of his Navy job, rank and pension. Whereas Jonathan
Pollard got life for his activities on behalf of a US ally, Schwartz
did not get single day in prison.

An article (Crime and Punishment, LA Jewish Journal - 04/03/9 by J.J.
Goldberg, Editor of The Forward (NY), cites high level Washington
sources indicating that the Joint Chiefs of Staff acted through Caspar
Weinberger to secure a life sentence for Jonathan Pollard that has
nothing to do with Jonathan's guilt or innocence and everything to do
with sending an intimidating message to Israel and to the American
Jewish community: "High-ranking sources say that it was the Joint
Chiefs of Staff who urged the judge, through then-Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger, to ignore the plea agreement and throw the book at
Pollard.... They wanted to send a message ...Pollard is still in jail,
these sources say, not because his crime merits his lengthy sentence
-- it doesn't -- but because too many American Jews still haven't
gotten the message."

Perhaps this explains why both the American Justice system and the
clemency process have been repeatedly subverted in the Pollard case
and why in spite of the patently false accusations against him,
Jonathan Pollard remains in prison nearly 16 years later.

Granted, there is resistance to releasing Jonathan Pollard from
numerous officials and institutions in Washington which have gone to
great lengths over the years to exaggerate and fabricate the damage
Pollard allegedly did to US national security. The record, however,
has never supported these unsubstantiated claims.

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D. NY) recently wrote a letter to
President Bush in which he stated: "The facts of the case show that
none of the information provided by Mr. Pollard resulted in the loss
of lives or the utility of any agents, the need to replace or relocate
intelligence equipment, the loss of sources of information, or the
compromising of technology. And while sentences in espionage cases are
traditionally proportional to the damage caused, Mr. Pollard's
sentence is in gross violation of this principle. Having reviewed many
of the documents in the case myself and received numerous briefings on
the subject, I believe that if anyone were to conduct an original
review of Mr. Pollard's case, they would come to the same conclusion
that I have: Mr. Pollard's sentence does not fit his crime." [see
www.jonathanpollard.org/2001/080701a.htm]

Indeed, the Government's own Victim Impact Statement (VIS), which was
submitted to the court prior to sentencing indicated that Pollard's
greatest "sin" was that by giving Israel vital security information
which permitted the Jewish State to act in its own defense, he had
made Israel "too strong" and thus angered America's "moderate" Arab
allies.

The assertion that Pollard had disturbed the balance of power in the
Middle East by making Israel "too strong" is absurd. As pointed out by
David Zwiebel Esq. in his 1997 critique of the VIS:

"For decades, Washington has sought to assure Israel of a qualitative
military and strategic advantage vis-ŕ-vis its Arab neighbors;
Pollard's actions were, if anything, consistent with this goal.

Moreover events of subsequent years (and especially the Gulf War) have
shown America's enormous credibility with its allies in the Arab
world; Pollard's actions had no discernible impact here.

Finally, intelligence-sharing between the United States and Israel has
actually been strengthened in the past decade, culminating in a
historic strategic cooperation agreement between the two states in
1996; Israel now receives real-time data throughout the day from US
intelligence satellites.

If Pollard's actions indeed "adversely affected US relations with both
its Middle East Arab allies and the Government of Israel," as claimed
in the VIS, it seems fair over a decade later to say that such adverse
impact was of short duration".
[See www.jonathanpollard.org/1997/061397.htm]

Nevertheless, in response to the "moderate" Arab allies' complaints
that Pollard had made Israel "too strong", the entire American
judicial process was subverted. This judicial subversion resulted in
an unprecedented life sentence for Jonathan Pollard, which was
intended not only to send a severe warning to Israel, but more
importantly, to placate America's oil-rich Arab allies.

In spite of the passage of time which has exposed Government
allegations against Jonathan Pollard as either gross exaggerations or
outright lies, and in spite of the all evidence to the contrary,
America continues to punish Jonathan Pollard as if he had committed a
far more serious crime and as if Israel were an enemy state. Meanwhile
America continues to indulge her "moderate" Arab allies as if she were
unaware of their connection to and tolerance of terrorism.

As of September 11, 2001 the above situation is no longer tolerable.
America's sufferance of Arab "allies" who tolerate terrorism and give
it safe haven must cease immediately; and the grossly disproportionate
sentence meted out to Pollard to placate these so called allies must
be immediately resolved.

What can be done to bring resolution to the Pollard case which has for
16 years remained impervious to due process and truth? In 1998 a
political solution was sought and found - but never implemented. That
solution remains viable to this day.

Most Americans and Israelis know that on the heels of the Pollard
crisis at the Wye River Summit in 1998, former President Clinton
promised former Prime Minister Netanyahu that he would review the
Pollard issue. What very few people know is that both prior to the Wye
summit and then again as an integral part of the Wye accords,
President Clinton had in fact committed the United States to freeing
Jonathan Pollard. The US commitment still stands to this day, waiting
to be honored. Israel has fulfilled its part of the deal. The US must
live up to its end of the agreement.

In order to understand why America still owes Jonathan Pollard to
Israel it is necessary to understand the sequence of events before,
during and after the Wye River Summit. According to a variety of
eyewitness participants, including Mr. Netanyahu himself, this is what
happened:

In September, 1998, just before the mid-term Congressional elections,
President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and
in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians
at Wye River, Maryland. Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye
just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his
image, but would also reap political benefits for the Democrats in
their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to
Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the
context of the summit.

Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election
bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal
to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican
friends like Newt Gingrich, who implored him not to hand a PR victory
to the Democrats, and agreed to attend the summit.

Once the Summit was underway Clinton "forgot" his promise to free
Pollard. Netanyahu knew he had been had but there was little he could
do about it at that point.

Talks at Wye soon broke down over the release of Palestinian murderers
with Jewish blood on their hands and over Israel's request for the
extradition of Ghazi Jabali, the Chief of Police in Gaza who was
wanted for his role in planning and executing terrorist attacks in
Israel. To break the stalemate the Palestinians suggested Jonathan
Pollard as the solution. They proposed that Pollard be "sold" to
Netanyahu once again: the US would give Jonathan to Israel in return
for Israel's freeing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists, and immunity
for Ghazi Jabali.

The US and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for
terrorists and murderers. President Clinton personally worked out the
details in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an
Israeli representative. According to the deal, Prime Minister
Netanyahu was to receive a side letter from President Clinton the next
morning (one of approximately 30 side letters the Americans had
promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one
week after the US House elections. Jonathan Pollard did not agree to
this deal. He was not even consulted.

Had Pollard been consulted, he would have warned the US and Israel
that making deals with terrorists only encourages them; and that his
freedom should be arranged in a way that redresses the injustices in
his case and brings honor to both the United States and Israel.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Pollard's release was negotiated
at Wye in a currency agreed upon by both Israel and the United States.

What is more, the Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which
allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing
ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington on Friday,
October 23, 1998.

Only hours before the signing ceremony P.M. Netanyahu received all of
the American side letters that had been promised to him except one -
the one guaranteeing the release of Jonathan Pollard. Netanyahu
threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the
Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he
was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second
time, refused.

Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a side letter of guarantee,
Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing
ceremony. Ariel Sharon, who was then a Cabinet Minister and is now
Prime Minister of Israel, supported Netanyahu and they threatened to
leave Wye without signing the Accords.

In order to take the pressure off President Clinton, CIA chief George
Tenet leaked the news of Pollard's imminent release to the media in a
deliberate - and ultimately successful - attempt to torpedo the deal.
He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with
leading Senators and Congressmen to enlist their support in publicly
denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA
emissaries to convince the American legislators to act swiftly and in
unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an
unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of
Jonathan Pollard.

Meanwhile at Wye, under heavy pressure and still fearful that
Netanyahu would not back down, Clinton quickly negotiated a private
fall-back position with Netanyahu: Clinton would publicly promise to
do a "speedy review" of the Pollard Case and he would use that review
to free Pollard a few months later, parallel to the release of the 750
Palestinian terrorists who were part of the price Israel had agreed to
pay for Pollard.

Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own Minister of
Defense, Yitzhak Mordecai, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu
reluctantly and with misgivings accepted this private deal. The
signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled.

Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye and the lopsided deal he brought home
from the summit, now that Pollard was no longer publicly perceived to
be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership. This in turn
would jeopardize the private deal that Netanyahu had made with Clinton
because it required the next Prime Minister to ensure that Pollard's
release was delivered as promised by the US.

After the signing of the Wye Accords, when Clinton had all that he
wanted from the Israeli leader, the White House falsely accused
Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the summit at the last
moment. However, eye-witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including
the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with
Clinton, and the former Israeli Cabinet Secretary, Dani Naveh
(currently Minister without Portfolio), all later contradicted the
White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had
committed the United States to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an
integral part of the Wye Accords.

When Netanyahu returned to Israel after Wye, he created a firestorm of
publicity by releasing 200 Palestinian common criminals from Israeli
prisons. The Palestinians were outraged because they insisted that
these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained
for at Wye. The Americans also angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded
Washington that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners
Israel must release.

Critics wondered why the Prime Minister would so deliberately
antagonize the Americans this way. Only those close to Prime Minister
Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed
reminder to Bill Clinton that if he were thinking of double-crossing
him over Pollard yet a third time, he should think again. No Pollard,
no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists. Unfortunately
for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able
to act on this.

In a meeting with Netanyahu right after his electoral defeat in the
Spring of 1999, Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, received assurances
from Netanyahu that the new prime minister, Ehud Barak, had been fully
briefed about what had been agreed to at Wye and about the fall-back
position; that is to say, Israel had yet to free the 750 terrorists
with blood on their hands and was still supposed to receive Pollard
home in what would be publicly presented as a parallel "gesture" from
President Clinton.

Not long after Barak took office, the 750 Palestinian murderers and
terrorists walked out of prison as free men. Jonathan Pollard remained
in his American jail cell.

In an attempt to justify Clinton's reneging at Wye, a story was leaked
to the press that George Tenet had threatened to resign as head of the
CIA if Pollard were released. It became popular to cite the opposition
of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not
honor the US commitment at Wye to free Pollard. This would soon be
exposed as nothing more than a lame excuse.

In September of 1999, Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from
the Justice, Intelligence and Defense Departments and Congress, and
invoked his powers of executive clemency to free a group of
unrepentant FALN terrorists in an apparent attempt to gain Hispanic
support for his wife in her NY Senate bid. In doing so, Clinton
effectively put the lie to the notion that any government agency might
tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. CIA
chief Tenet's alleged threat to resign was clearly an excuse, not the
reason, for keeping Pollard in prison.

More than two years after Wye, President Clinton's "speedy review" of
the Pollard case still had not occurred. Jonathan Pollard remained in
prison while the US continued to extract Israeli concessions for his
release. Those who still believed the myth that the American
Intelligence Community was tying the hands of President Clinton also
clung to the belief he would finally honor America's promise to
release Jonathan Pollard at the end of his term, when he could do so
without fear of political reprisal.

But when Clinton left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not
included among those to whom he granted clemency, in spite of the
American commitment to free Pollard as an integral part of the Wye
Accords; in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community; and in spite
of the demonstrable injustices of the Pollard case which include:
+ a grossly disproportionate sentence
+ a plea agreement violated by the US (honored by Pollard)
+ the use of secret evidence
+ a false charge of treason
+ ineffective assistance of counsel
+ a lack of due process
+ a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies

On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people.
Many of these pardons were judicially insupportable and it was
suspected that many of the recipients had "bought" them with very
large financial contributions. The most flagrant of these tainted
pardons was granted to a notorious billionaire, a criminal fugitive
from justice who never stood trial, much less spent time in prison.
[See www.jonathanpollard.org/clemency.htm]

Again, although the legal system and the clemency process have
repeatedly failed to do justice in the case of Jonathan Pollard, there
remains one last avenue for relief:

The commitment that the United States made at Wye to free Jonathan
Pollard is still in effect, still viable, and has yet to be honored.
On February 28, 2001, Minister Dani Naveh, an eyewitness to the Wye
deal, made the following remarks in the Knesset Record:

"...The former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, made an
explicit commitment to the then-Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin
Netanyahu, to release Jonathan Pollard.... This promise was made prior
to the Wye Summit and [again] during the course of the negotiations at
Wye... This was not a personal promise made to a particular prime
minister... This was a promise made to the
State of Israel and to the People of Israel..." (Dani Naveh, Minister
without Portfolio)
[See The Wye Doublecross Page : www.jonathanpollard.org/wye.htm]

As Naveh clearly indicated, at Wye Mr. Clinton acted in his capacity
as President of the United States and the commitments he made as an
integral part of the Wye Accords are binding upon successive
Administrations until fulfilled. The current Prime Minister of Israel,
Ariel Sharon, was also an eyewitness to America's promise to free
Jonathan Pollard. Both morally and legally Sharon has no right to
"forgive" that commitment to free Jonathan Pollard which was paid for
so heavily in Israeli blood, territory, and self-respect.

Since the Wye Summit, terrorist Chief of Police Ghazi Jabali has
remained immune from all charges and to this day continues to plan and
promote terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets. Thanks to
the US, the ranks of his bloodthirsty "army" are now larger by 750
terrorists - the price Israel paid at Wye for Jonathan Pollard. It is
high time for America to fulfill her end of the deal by releasing
Jonathan Pollard. His life sentence is a travesty of justice - the
product of malicious lies - driven by America's determination to
appease
her Arab allies.

Jonathan Pollard put it best when he recently said, "My release must
be a matter of principle - of justice and of due process - and it
should reflect the honor and integrity of the US-Israel special
relationship. Israel has already paid for my release at Wye. It is
time to collect it."

Now more than ever, Israel must honor its commitment to Jonathan
Pollard by collecting on America's promise to free him; and America
must fulfill its commitment to Israel.

By releasing Jonathan Pollard, America will demonstrate her renewed
commitment to equal justice for all, untainted by political motive;
and reaffirm her relationship to Israel as a valued ally and faithful
partner in the war against terrorism. Back

Terrorism is terrorism

Editorial
--------------------------------------------------------
Here we go again. By the time the security cabinet met Saturday night
to assess the latest cease-fire, the Palestinians had racked up 50
acts of violence - including the mortar attack on Tekoa - since the
Peres-Arafat meeting on Wednesday morning. It was decided to give
Yasser Arafat another 48 hours to do what he had pledged to do
"immediately": issue clear instructions to prevent terror, arrest
terrorists, end violent activities and attacks, and end incitement to
violence and terrorism.

Security officials reportedly noticed that the relative calm that
preceded the Shimon Peres-Yasser Arafat meeting quickly deteriorated
after the meeting took place, indicating that once Arafat had what he
needed, he loosened the reins on violence and terrorism a few notches.
Arafat's Gaza security chief, Muhammad Dahlan, has already stated that
no Palestinian on the list of 108 terrorist suspects handed over to
the Palestinian Authority will be arrested, despite Arafat's agreement
to do just that.

A pattern, to put it mildly, seems to be emerging here. Whenever
Arafat is under pressure, such as following the particularly horrific
suicide bombings at the Dolphinarium and Sbarro and now post-September
11, he has agreed to "cease-fires" and urged his Hamas and Islamic
Jihad allies to temporarily hold back. Whenever the pressure eases,
the "cease-fire" melts away, until the next time Arafat fears
international wrath and isolation.

The conclusion should be that what determines Arafat's behavior is not
whom he meets with and what he agrees to but his perception of what he
can get away with. Arafat's clear objective, if he can get away with
it, is to get Israel to accept a "low level" of attacks, which will
continue as Israel offers him further diplomatic concessions.

Just as Arafat is attempting to get Israel used to the idea of
negotiations and funerals at the same time, he is exploring how much
he can attack Israel and still remain off America's post-September 11
"bad guys" list. We can assume that Arafat is offering America
intelligence goodies that may or may not be useful in fighting Osama
bin Laden's al-Qaida network in tacit exchange for not pressing him to
the wall.

Some might be offended by the thought that America would even consider
a Faustian bargain with Arafat along these lines: You let me kill just
a "few" Israelis and I'll help you get bin Laden. Yet the alternative
explanation for the seeming American eagerness to see Israel negotiate
with Arafat even if there is no real cease-fire is even worse: that
the US wants to define violence and terrorism against Israel as quiet,
even if it is not getting any direct benefit from Arafat.

We would sincerely like to believe that neither the Faustian bargain
nor the Faustian giveaway is the case. We want to assume that
Secretary of State Colin Powell meant it when he said that the US
would "go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world" and that
America would not limit its war against terrorism to bin Laden, but
would fight groups "that have conducted attacks previously
against US personnel, US interests, and our allies." But barring
evidence to the contrary, it is hard to believe that the US has
decided to hold Arafat to the standard of "zero tolerance" of
terrorism, as if his terrorism were not against Israel, but the United
States.

The US should say to Arafat in no uncertain terms: zero terrorism, or
you go on our terrorism list. If the US holds him to such a standard,
Arafat will explain to his people and allies, as he has in the past,
that the "supreme Palestinian interest" is to return to the
negotiating table. If, on the other hand, the US lets Arafat be the
exception to the war on terrorism, that war will be lost from the
beginning. To concede the acceptability of terror anywhere is to
concede it everywhere. Back

Why America Has Already Lost the War, By Moshe Feiglin

Last Thursday I realized that America had already lost the war....

I came to the US for four days for a meeting that was to have been
held in Manhattan on Tuesday evening, September 11. The meeting didn't
take place -- no-one could get in or out of the great city. I'm not
sure if all those invited to the meeting are still alive. There were
no flights back home, and all that remained to do was to listen to the
reports and hope for a place on the first flight returning to Israel.

I never stay abroad on Shabbat. The trip is more costly and less
efficient, but that's the way it is; my own rule. I had now missed out
on Shabbat in Eretz Israel, and I could only pray that I would be home
in time for Rosh Hashana.

It was impossible to get away from the reports of the massacre in
downtown Manhattan. The news was everywhere: on the air, at home, in
the car, in the shops. I entered the neighborhood grocery store. The
storekeeper's radio was on: Bush was speaking to the American people:

"I declare tomorrow to be a day of prayer", said the President.

Now that's interesting, I think to myself, I can't recall an Israeli
Prime Minister who declared a day of prayer. Even when the Yom Kippur
War broke out, Golda Meir was shocked, but I don't remember her asking
anyone to pray. But after all, I think, America's national anthem is
directed to G-d and Americans sing "G-d bless America". Even the
British maintain close contact with the Almighty: "G-d save the
Queen". But the Israelis have lost their connection to G-d in their
anthem, and all that remains is a dismal hope for a meaningless sort
of freedom. To whom precisely should they pray?

"I ask every American", the President continues, breaking into my
train of thoughts, "during lunch time tomorrow" (not on the employer's
time, like a good Histadrut worker) "to pray for all the injured,
their families, and the American nation".

"Go to church, to the synagogue, to the mosque, and pray", ended the
President.

"Did I hear right?" I ask the storekeeper. "Did he say mosque?" She
nodded.

"At this very moment you've lost the war", I say to the astonished
storekeeper, and start looking for what I need on the shelves.

America has lost the war. The Americans have made the same mistake as
the Israelis, and just as Israel is retreating from one defeat to the
next, so the Americans are now lined up on the track to
disintegration.

When the black boxes of the hijacked airplanes are recovered, we will
hear the pilots screaming "Allah Achbar" in the last moments before
the crash. They slaughtered you in the name of Allah, and now the
President calls on you to pray to him.

The American giant received a far more serious knock-out blow than
that which brought America into the Second World War. Those who gave
the Americans the knock-out blow at Pearl Harbor received in two
atomic bombs in return. The latest knock-out blow has no return
address. During the first hours, it seemed that the American revenge
would be horrifying and terrible. US Jews thought that now Sharon
could "finish off" the Arabs, blow up the El Aksa mosque, expel them
all, and do as he wished. In light of the pictures of horror from the
World Trade Center, and the television coverage of the spontaneous
celebrations from Ramallah, Sharon would only receive words of thanks
from the Americans. The Americans' revenge would be dwarfed by
Israel's reprisal. The hours passed, and the days, and the American
tiger turned out to be a helpless kitten.

The American President was busy running after the countries of the
world, trying to set up a strange coalition against a few cave
dwellers in Afghanistan, while senators explained on live television
to the American people that "we must remember that the enemy is the
terrorists, not Islam".

America has been trapped by the same weakness that has visited Israel
in the recent years. It is entrapped in a notion of power and is
therefore incapable of identifying the enemy and fighting it.
Consequently, America will lose the battle, in the same way Israel is
losing it.

The State of Israel was founded on the notion that the Jewish people
is a "normal" people like all other nations. One that has to establish
a normal state, based on Western cultural values, and be accepted into
the family of nations. If these premises are valid, Israel's disputes
with its neighbors are also "normal", rational, territorial issues,
that may be resolved in a logical manner.

But the Jewish people is not a "normal" nation, and its conflicts are
not "normal" ones. The war being waged against us is not about
territories but rather about our very existence as a Jewish nation.
This is a war against our message and our mission. That is what our
enemies are fighting against, while we reply to them through our own
subjective interpretation of reality: we speak of security and of
territories. We fail to understand why they refuse to accept even all
the territory.

"The Emperor has no clothes!" Arafat shouts at us, and murders three
people in Netanya.

"Do you want us to wear something else in your honor?", Peres asks.

"He's naked!", shouts Arafat, and murders a young mother from Alfei
Menashe.

"Perhaps we'll wear red for you?", asks Beilin.

Arafat continues to attack us, and we continue to propose solutions
that fail to admit the naked reality.

It is no wonder we are losing the war.

The same is now happening to America. The Americans are in fact the
children of Christianity. While America is not a Christian country, it
is the standard-bearer of Western culture which draws from Christian
culture. Why do the terrorists hate the US so much? Why are they
prepared to commit suicide in order to kill Americans? After all,
America has not conquered their country. On the contrary, many of them
receive generous aid from the US. How strange that even Arabs in New
Jersey, who are actually living in the flesh-pots of America, and were
liable to have suffered physically from the terrorist attack, rejoiced
at the sight of the horrible massacre.

Why this hatred?

Two deviant daughters came forth from Judaism but left the fold to
conquer the world: Christianity and Islam. Both hate their mother, and
both fight each other.

Judaism integrates the qualities of strict justice and mercy, in
harmony and in proper measure. Christianity took only the quality of
mercy while Islam took the quality of strict justice.

The Moslems see with jealousy how the culture based on Christian mercy
succeeds in gaining control over the world. Let everyone come and
benefit from the cornucopia open to all -- to everyone we proffer the
other cheek, and the whole body, in fact. Come and take your part in
the wealth, come and enter the gates of the World Trade Center. We
aren't conquering you with the sword, but with gold.

"Why are they bringing their wars here?", a soot-covered broker
shouted into a CNN reporter's microphone. He didn't understand that he
was conquering, not territories, but the opposing culture, straight
from here -- from the twin towers.

But every Moslem child understands it clearly. What the political
commentators and senators in the US fail to realize is crystal clear
to the other half of the world. America is not at war with a single
individual --Bin Laden, but with every child that will be born
tomorrow in Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Gaza and, if he is a Moslem, even in
New Jersey.

America will never admit that it is involved in a war of cultures, in
fact in a religious war. Such an admission implies that, as in the
case of Israel, American values are fundamentally at question. They
are not as universal as Americans would like to believe. The happiness
they pursue in the name of all humanity may be happiness for a
specific group based on Christianity, but it means hell for another
group that is just as large.

It is entirely possible that the balance has changed and the other
half of the world is now beginning to realize its aspirations for
happiness (and woe to such a culture immersed in rivers of blood).
America will never admit it, and consequently will be unable to fight
back. Just like the Israelis. They fail to identify the enemy. They
seek the terrorists just as Sharon is pursuing individual terrorists.
They are pursuing the wasps instead of destroying the nest, because
they are afraid of the nest. They are afraid of a real confrontation
between their values and those of Islam.

They want a coalition with moderate Arab countries. They have to prove
that neither Islam nor the Arabs, but terrorism, is their enemy. The
situation is so ludicrous that even Arafat is being wooed -- Arafat,
who invented hijacking, Arafat, the father of 20th century terrorism.
They want to make a coalition with him, if only to avoid facing
reality.

They will in fact catch the wasps. Bin Laden doesn't stand a chance.
He won't be able to escape the power of the US. And then what? Today
every Arab child wants to be a Shahid, a martyr for Islam. Bin Laden
will enter the pantheon of the Shahids, but another million are
waiting their turn, and they are impatient. America is waging a
physical war against a metaphysical enemy. They are incapable of
understanding what we in Israel witness every day -- overjoyed parents
of suicide bombers.

In the coming months, we will see a lot of military planes take off
and land. We will see destroyers and missiles, and millions of tons of
TNT exploding in the Iraqi desert and in Afghanistani caves. They will
kill thousands of innocent people, and in the end America will lose --
because it failed to identify the true enemy.

The previous campaign was code-named Desert Storm, and the current one
will be called Infinite Justice, but this justice has no aim, and will
therefore actually lack justice. If only America had the clairvoyance
and the moral fortitude to face up to reality, America could win
easily, without a coalition, without deploying armies, and without
senseless killings.

But America is too busy deceiving itself. Not only the politicians,
but everyone in the population. An interesting phenomena I noticed,
was the self-imposed censorship of the American media. I sat and
watched as the drama unfolded live on television. In the first hour,
there were live broadcasts from Ramallah and Shechem, in which the
"Palestinian" masses could be seen rejoicing over the massacre in
Manhattan. I was pleased to see the pictures broadcast for all to see.
Suddenly the reports ceased as if they had never happened. After the
first hour, I didn't see them again. I don't believe that the American
administration contacted the media networks and told them what to
screen. This happened naturally: don't show the American people a
reality that conflicts with its fundamental values. "We shall preserve
the American way of life and win" was the message.

There was no longer any footage from Ramallah or from anywhere else.
Instead, there began to appear an endless stream of interviews with
American professors having Arab names and speaking with Arabic
accents. The message was this: here is an American called Ahmed, who
is a Moslem, but who is also an American.

"I vehemently condemn this attack", said a professor. "You have to
realize that the majority of Arabs are not like these despicable
terrorists. Most of them think like I do, but…" added the professor in
a knowledgeable manner, "when you aid the Israeli occupation of
Palestine, you cause more Arabs to be on the side of the terrorists
rather than on my side".

Hence Israel is out of the coalition. Even the crack rescue unit from
Israel that was ready to come and help was courteously sent back to
its base. Israel is the mistress that must be hidden, and Arafat, the
king of terrorism, is the legitimate wife, who is sought after.

Better this way, since at the end of the day, America is not truly
Israel's ally -- but we'll leave that issue for another time.

The day after the attack, a wealthy American acquaintance approached
me and asked for my comments on the situation. I told him what I
thought, and he then surprised me by making an offer that couldn't be
refused: "I am ready to pay for a full-page ad in the New York Times".
"I want you to compose the ad" he said. I didn't want to do it,
because America's war isn't my war, and because I had hoped that this
dear Jew would direct his financial resources to far more important
endeavors in which we are engaged in Eretz Israel. But the man
persisted, so I composed the following quick draft:

IT IS A CULTURAL/ RELIGIOUS WAR.

We can kill a million Bin Ladens, but they will continue to celebrate.
[Photo of Arabs celebrating in the streets.]

They have destroyed our symbols.
[Photo of the twin towers going up in flames]

We must destroy their symbols.
[Photos of the El-Aksa mosque on the Temple Mount, and the Kaba
building in Mecca.]

Shocked?

Americans don't do such things?

Right.

Therefore, America will continue to be destroyed until you understand.

My friend was astonished. "But they will start a religious war!", he
exclaimed. "Can you imagine what acts of vengeance will result from
this?"

"And what have you suffered just now?", I asked him. "Do you think
that they only killed nearly ten thousand people because at the moment
they don't hate you so much?"

"This is a religious war", I explained to him. "They aren't afraid to
die. They have sanctified death, they die with the name of Allah on
their lips, and seventy virgins are waiting for them in Paradise. You
don't frighten them with your bombs. At best, you'll turn them into
Shahids. They have directed their attack against your god. You have no
alternative, but to direct your attack against theirs. When you
destroy their god, they will become powerless and come back down to
this world. They will suddenly be frightened by the sound of
footsteps, and by the prick of a pin. They will know that not only
they understand your language, but you understand theirs, and you are
fighting them according to their own rules".

"Think about it", I added. "How many people are you going to kill in
vain, and how easy it would be to win this war without killing
anyone".

My friend was convinced, but in the end decided not to run the ad.

I am worried by what is to come. Since America is going to lose,
tremendous frustration is going to build up in the American
population. The twin towers will only be the beginning. The success of
the terrorist attack will create an unconquerable desire among every
Arab child to claim his share of martyrdom. Terrorist attacks will
increase, and America won't have an answer.

The Arab professor's words of incitement will then start ringing true
to Americans ears: Israel is the problem and by extension so are the
Jews.

There won't be large-scale pogroms in America, perhaps small ones, but
not the kind we became accustomed to in Europe. After all, there is
something too good about the American people that won't allow it. But
how will a Jew show his face in the street when every American is
convinced that he has lost his job, his property, and that his
relatives are being killed in terrorist attacks and in an endless war,
all because of the Jews?

My return trip to Israel was no picnic. I sat at the airport in
uncertainty for nearly 24 hours with thousands of others, until I
managed to get onboard one of the flights of El Al's air shuttle
returning the stranded Israelis home.

"If this is the line of Israeli visitors wanting to go home", I
thought to myself, "how long will the line be when American Jews rush
to come home to Israel?"

I always kneel and kiss the ground when I return home.

Our holy land had never received as warm a kiss from me as it did this
time.Back

Are Most Moslems anti-Terror?, by Steven Plaut

Since the jihad against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US
officials and civic leaders have been wringing their hands over the
"racist stereotyping" of Moslems, over assaults on Moslems in US
cities, and insisting over and over that the "vast majority of
Moslems" oppose terrorism and violence, that Islam is the religion of
peace. Even the asslibs (assimilationists liberals) amongst US Jews
have been spending more time on denouncing the "stereotyping of
Moslems" and protecting Arab civil rights than on anything else. Now
let us be clear. Yes the word "Islam" comes from Salaam or peace. Yes
there are some Moslems who have consistently opposed violence and
terror, although they are a small minority. The vast majority of
Moslems have condoned and endorsed terrorist violence, especially when
directed against Jewish children and civilians.

And yes, for centuries Islamic civilization was the most advanced and
most tolerant and most enlightened on the planet. Islamic civilization
preserved the ancient Classical Greek and Roman learning, invented
algebra and chemistry, led the world of scholarship. The great tragedy
of Islam is that this brilliant civilization of the seventh through
fifteenth centuries has long ago degenerated into savage barbarism,
where violence is commonly worshipped. Where - aside from Turkey - no
Moslem country has embraced democracy or freedom or tolerance or
diversity.

One of the unchallenged axioms of American civic religion is that each
and every group of people on earth must consist of an "overwhelmingly
vast majority of decent hard-working honest people who want peace and
are tolerant and freedom-loving and anti-violence."

It is an unchallengeable presumption of this theology that "vast
majorities" of not only each and every racial/religious/ethnic group
may
be so described, but even vast majorities of each and any subgroup
within society. Hence we even sometimes hear assertions that the vast
majority of prisoners, prostitutes, drug users, gang members, etc. are
also decent, honest, peace-loving, honorable people.

The one imponderable in American civic theology is the idea that
somewhere out there someplace there just might be is a group of
people, the majority of whom are NOT peace-loving or honest or
tolerant. This belief in universal peacefulness in the minds of
Americans is the main obstacle to Americans ever understanding the
Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelmingly
vast majority of Arabs, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of
Moslems, are not peace-loving and are not
opposed to violence.

Noting this could not be more timely. Commentator after commentator
among the Western media discuss the reactions in the Moslem world to
the US atrocities with self-righteous fawning observation that Islam
is a religion of peace, that the terrorists are about as
representative of true Islam as the IRA bombers are of Christianity,
or as white supremicists are of Christianity. Each commentator goes
out of his way to emphasize how we all understand that the vast
majority of Moslems oppose terrorism and violence.

The only problem with this is that it is simply false and empirically
disprovable. It is wishful thinking. The vast majority of Germans
supported Hitler, supported wars of aggression, and supported
genocide. The vast majorities of Hutus and Tutsis support massacres of
the other. Similarly, the vast majority of Arabs support terror and
violence and war. They do not see anything wrong with the blowing up
of hundreds of civilians in an Embassy of the United States or in an
office building of Argentinian Jews. They see any act of force taken
against the perpetrators of such things to be itself a crime. (This is
not to say that the vast majority of each and every subgroup of
Moslems support such barbarism; the Turks and Indonesian-Malays come
to mind as possible exceptions.)

True, Islam is a religion of peace and its very name derives from
salaam - peace. But it is a religion of peace with other Moslems and
for non-Moslems living under the clear domination of Moslems. True
also, the vast majority of Moslems do not personally engage in
violence and terror in their daily lives. The vast majority of Germans
did not take personal part in the Holocaust. Indeed, as a blanket
statement regarding Arabs in Israel, I would say that most Arabs
behave in a far more polite daily manner than Jews, exhibiting on
average far better manners and more consideration than do Jewish
Israelis. But of course that is hardly the point.

The vast majority of Moslems support the random and indicriminate use
of terror and violence against Jews and against Americans. The
reactions of Moslems everywhere are there on the TV screens for all to
see and will be more unambiguously pro-terror the moment the US begins
to attack Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Arab political thought is
fundamentally Orwellian: murder is peace, prevention of murder or
retaliation for murder is terror. Moslems are outraged by events in
the Balkans because Moslems are being massacred; if Bosnians and
Albanians were instead massacring Serbs they would have trouble hiding
their approval and delight.

We have known for decades that the vast majority of Moslems also
approve of Palestinian atrocities and bombings directly against Jews.
There is no act of savagery directed against Israelis or Jews of which
they will not approve by enormous majorities, and no act of defense by
Israel that they will legitimize.

Public opinion polls are not conducted in most Moslem countries, but
if they were they would no doubt reflect this popular approval. Polls
ARE conducted among Palestinians and they show without exception that
Palestinians approve of bombings and suicide bombs and atrocities
committed against Jews, by enormous majorities. Their approval rates
have generally increased with each Israeli concession to them under
Oslo. The vast majority of Palestinians support Saddam Hussein. The
vast majority probably support Bin Laden and the bombings of the
Americans. The vast majority would approve if Iran or Iraq dumped
chemical weapons or nerve gas on Tel Aviv. These are the people with
whom Oslo is supposed to produce peace.

Oh, you might object, but Arafat has DENOUNCED Bin laden and even
endorsed the US bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan. Well, yes he did,
no doubt hoping thus to get the US to force Israel to make a few more
concessions as quid pro quo, and he was no doubt as sincere as were
the IRA folks who denounced the bombing of Omagh. But the Palestinian
fascist hordes, taking their signals from the PLO, know he is
posturing and winking and these folks support Bin Laden by
overwhelming majorities.

All this week there have been massive anti-American marches by the
Palestinian brownshirts. US flags have been burned throughout the
Palestinian zones.

Now the entire Oslo "peace process" is based on the naive American
civic dogma, adopted by Israeli politicians, holding that the vast
majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel. They do not. Unless
of course one means the sort of peace that prevailed and prevails in
traditional Islamic societies, where the non-Moslems live as
low-profile minorities with no political sovereignty. (The vast
majority of Germans, one supposes, would have favored peace in 1940 if
they could get it at Hitler's terms.)

The vast majority of Palestinians want to see Israel destroyed, and
support all violence against Jews. Once Israel is destroyed and large
portions of its population are killed or dispersed, no doubt the
remainder will be permitted to live under conditions resembling those
of the Copts in Egypt or the Armenians and Bahais in Iran. That is the
only peace Arabs want by majorities.

Sweeney was the name of an Irish king who believed he was a bird and
spent his life in treetops. (Really.) The Oslo "peace process" is the
direct function of the Sweeneyization of the political establishment
of Israel. Peres Sweeney and Beilin Sweeney adopted the wishful
thinking of American civic religion, presumed that the vast majority
of Palestinians prefer peace and prosperity to continuing war and
violence. They took it as axiomatic that Palestinians would compromise
over land and sovereignty because after all THEY were willing to do
so. Their evidence that Palestinians would place peace above land is
that Jews do so. Their belief that economic prosperity would interest
Palestinians more so than irredentist aggression and terror is that
decent honorable people anywhere should feel this way. In short, Oslo
is the godchild of King Sweeney taking over the Israeli Labor Party,
Meretz, and even swaths of the Likud.

These Sweeney weenies are the same people who refuse to even ponder
the possibility that the vast majorities of Palestinians, other Arabs,
and Moslems are not at all peace-seeking (at least not when it comes
to Israel and the US), are not anti-violence, are not anti-terror. In
other words, Oslo is based upon a fundamental denial of empirical
reality. Like the old Peter and Gordon song from the 60's, it is based
upon the Sweeneyish assertion that "I don't care what they say I won't
stay in a world without love." And what happens to Sweeneys who live
in unlit corners of the earth without love? They pretend to be birds
and rise above such mundane things
as reality to live in treetops of utopian dreams. Leaving the rest of
us to face terror, murder, violence, Arab fascism, and threats of
genocidal extermination. Back

ATTACK ON AMERICA - A JEWISH VIEW

(the following analysis is based on concepts and principles set down
by Rabbi Meir Kahane, z"tl, during the Gulf Crisis over ten years ago,
at a time when Jews believed that the American-Iraqi confrontation was
beneficial for Jews and Israel. Much of what is written here is
extracted from articles he wrote on the subject only several weeks
before his murder)

That the startling events in America are yet one more giant leap in
this, the era of "atchalta d'geula" and "ikvot d'mshicha", the
beginning of the redemption and the footsteps of the Messiah, is too
painfully clear for all but the most blinded to see. The nightmare of
world terror, the rage of the nations, the pandemonium of economies
and the politics of the nations, all testify to the escalation of the
Almighty of the final era.

And so few understand what it means! So many are overjoyed to see the
United States facing an Arab enemy, hoping that "at least the whole
world sees that the PLO and the Arab world do not want peace". And how
happy and certain we are that it is all good for Israel and how Jews
who are un-Jewish in their thinking can understand and see nothing!

For all the pragmatic and practical Jews who look at world events
through the spectacles of geopolitical and socio-economic theory, let
it be understood that Israel will come out the loser in all of this.
You think not? Consider.

Let's Be Logical

America's effort to crush the Islamic fundamentalist threat will be
done under the umbrella of a multi-national force that will see Egypt,
Saudia Arabia and other Arabs fighting at the side of US forces. These
Arab states will tell Washington: "we are fighting against our own
brothers for you; now you owe it to us to save our Arab credentials by
stopping Israeli aggression, too."

You think that Bush and Powell, who are hostile to Israel in any
event, will not agree? Is there anyone who believes that the United
States will not try to save its reputation in the Arab world by
showing "evenhandedness" against Israel? Remember, the American
interest to remain on good relations with "moderate" Arab is a fact
that directly clashes with Israeli interests!

There is more. Listening to radio talk-shows across America has become
frightening. Many callers are openly blaming Jews for the bombings,
literally quoting the terrorists - "It is all because of U.S. policy
in the middle East and the support for Israel."

Rather than say that this is a war between Islamic terrorists who see
America as the big Satan, Israel and Jews are being scapegoated by
many. And this may only be the beginning. What if gasoline prices
continue to rise, or if more such attacks against innocent Americans
are launched because of "U.S. aid to Israel"?

What if Israel is forced to take stronger action against Arabs, or if
the U.S. more blatantly and openly blames Israel for Mideast unrest?
Just as America was beginning to hear the shocking news of the
attacks, Powell was already urging Israel to do more for peace and
meet with Arafat. The distance between open hostility between average
Americans and Jews may be a lot closer than most Jews would like to
understand. And let us not even speak of the obvious Islamic threat to
Jews in America. If they could hit the Pentagon, then certainly they
could hit any Jewish institution they want, G-d forbid.

The fact that planes were grounded should also be an issue for
American Jews to consider. What if things get really bad, and more
unexpected terrorism shocks America? What if Jews feel that they need
to leave this country for Israel? Who says they will have the
opportunity to get out?

The fact remains that the United States rejected Israel's plea to
help. And Israel has the ability to help in rescue and in anti-terror
areas. Yes, quietly, behind the scenes Israel is helping with critical
advise. However America refused to allow Israelis to openly enter
U.S. soil where they could truly have helped much more. This American
rejection of Israeli help comes for the same reason that America
rejected Israel's help in the Gulf War, in spite of the fact that
Israeli pilots could have gotten the job done and would have taken
much more risky flight patterns and missions.

In the end, the Americans do not want to risk their coalition and
reliance on Saudi Arabia and other so called moderate Arab states. It
is these very relationships that will ultimately force America to
place more pressure on Israel.

"A Nation That Dwells Alone"

Of course Israel cannot win in any secular "practical" event, for that
is what the Almighty decrees. He will never bring the redemption to a
Jewish people that has not returned to Him and His Law except through
the creation of conditions that create the foundation for the
redemption: Isolation. Israel alone and without allies; Israel with no
one to turn to except God. "The son of David will not come until
Israel loses hope of redemption, as it is said, 'when He sees that
their power is gone...' as if to say, there is no one to support or
aid them" (Sanhedrin 96a)

As long as Jews have even one supposed ally, they will always believe
that it was that ally that enabled them to overcome and survive. Thus
was it with France in the '50s and for the last 30 years with the
United States. Never was God seen as the One who saved Israel. A
people of little faith never looked to Heaven and never credited it
with salvation. This includes religious Jews as well (or shall we say,
practitioners of Jewish ritual). As long as their faith is not
genuine, and they are always looking to the
nations, the redemption cannot come.

The Jew must be alone. He must be isolated. That was from time
immemorial, the demand and command of God. Am lvadad yishkon, a people
that dwells alone (BaMidbar, 23).

Only a Jewish people that is alone with no allies, will perforce turn
to Heaven. It will then have to turn to Heaven. If it does so
willingly, the redemption will come swifty and with joy. If the Jew
eagerly and with total faith turns from the gentiles and looks to God,
the Messiah comes "today, if you will but hearken to My voice." If the
Jew refuses and in his tiny lack of faith clings to the gentiles, the
nations, then his allies will turn on him, and the isolation will come
anyway. But because we did not seek it ourselves, only with terrible
punishment.

This is how the Jew, the authentic Jew, looks at world events. The
others will continue to wallow in their gentilized delusions, changing
the names of Israeli streets to "Pentagon Street" and "New York"
Street in the pathetic hope that U.S.- Israeli ties will be
strenghtened, and all the while bringing down tragedy on all of us.

Time to Go Home

And for the Jews of the exile, who up to now had been worrying about
us here in Israel: That there is a crisis in the Middle East is
undeniable. And that an Israel that does not go back to God faces
terrible times is of course true. But the Jews of Israel can never be
exiled again. There can be no destruction of the Jewish state; at
worst, great suffering than can be stopped by a return to God and
having the kind of faith in Him that leads Jews to do all the things
that will anger the world: Strike at the PA, annex the territories,
drive out the Arabs - without asking America for permission, without
groveling. But this last disaster is a reminder that
for the Jews of the United States and the rest of the exile, there is
no way out. For them, who worry about Israel, let the message be: Heal
thyselves! Worry about your fate, for yours is by far the more
dangerous situation.

It will be difficult for so many Jews to come to terms with the fact
that Jews will be scapegoated for the terror in America. But the fact
is that Jew-hatred in American runs rampant. The average American
red-neck hates Jews. Unlike their attitude to blacks, they are
bitterly and violently jealous of Jews. The same Jew-hater is a black
fearer. He fears blacks physically but holds them in contempt
emotionally and intellectually. He is not jealous of them and there is
nothing more fierce and frightening and
more terrible than jealousy. In the words of King Solomon (Mishlei
27): "Wrath is cruel and anger is overwhelming but who is able to
stand before jealousy?"

Jealousy is an irrational demon that drives people to the depths of
hate. It is a monster that possesses its owner and that becomes an
obsession that will not leave him. The object of that jealousy becomes
an enemy that must be destroyed and irrationality becomes king of his
manor. And that is what the Jew faces today in an America that is
addicted to materialism in a way
that no crack addict can match.

Material has controlled the very soul of America and what once was
sheer luxuries today have become necessities that one cannot do
without. And should the day come when those necessities and much, much
more basic needs cannot be satisfied - the beast that is within
material man will explode in a horror of jealousy and viciousness
against the object of his jealousy - the Jew.

And how sad that even as these words are being read, reader after
reader feels a momentary terror (it is called a recognition of truth)
and then, immediately, a defensive reaction of denial and rejection of
the conception. Because it is false? No. Because it is true. Too
painfully true.

The Islamic fundamentalists know that in order to bring America down,
military invasion is not necessary. It is enough to hurt the economy,
which is so pitifully weak today, a huge baloon that is on the verge
of explosion. When the Material Man in America is deprived of some of
his basic needs, it is the Jew who will be the vicitm, the target, the
target of the bitter bile of jealousy, before which who can stand?

The end of days are upon us, and they come with a decree: "flee out of
the midst of Babylon and save every man his life." The exile is a
curse for the Jew and a punishment, and the Almighty, when the era of
Messia and redemption comes, will not allow the Jew to remain in the
impurity and desecration of the nations. Just as he brought tragedy
upon the Jews who left Egypt, so too will He never allow the Jew of
the Exile to remain peacefully and in tranquility. "Depart ye, depart
ye, go out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out from the
midst of her (Isaiah 52). And the Ibn Ezra (ibid) states: "Go out
every one from the place of his exile...so that they shall seperate
themselves from the nations of the world, go out each one from his
country of exile.."

The ferment in the world today are all part of the end of days and the
beginning of the redemption. The events in America has caused the Jew
to stop just worrying about Israel, and that's a good thing. For in
Israel there will never be total destruction. But for the exile... Ah,
dear Jews, get out while you can.

"For on Mount Zion there shall be an escape and it shall be holy."
(Ovadiah) On Mount Zion, the Land of Israel. And only there. Back

Some Important Observations - Please Read, by Yekutiel Ben Yakov

We just thought we would share some important observations with our
readers.

1- No Working With So Called Moderate Arabs To Put Down Terror
2- Jews Become Scapegoats

1- It is important to remember that the CIA trained and financed Bin
Laden's friends in Afghanistan and blind Islamic cleric Omar Abdul
Rahman presently sitting out prison terms for his role in the previous
World Trade Center terror attack of 1993. The United States helped
these bands of terrorists into the United States, some with false
papers, so that they could establish a recruiting center, known as the
Al Kifah Refugee Center, in order to help in the struggle against the
Soviets in Afghanistan.

El Sayed Nosair, one of the ringleaders who later assassinated Rabbi
Meir Kahane was one of these operatives that helped run the Islamic
Recruiting Center in Brooklyn that trained and sent many terrorists to
Afghanistan. Some of these terrorists remained in the U.S. Some
returned. Some participated in the Kahane assassination in 1990 and
the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

For all we know, some participated in last week's horror.

While everyone is talking about Bin Laden we are missing the point.
Every American or Israeli attempt that has ever been made to court
moderate Islamic sectors or to appease them has only backfired in the
most horrific way. Israel helped finance and create the Hizbullah and
the Hamas to weaken the PLO, only to learn that they would be even
more deadly. The U.S. created these monsters in Afghanistan. The
results we all now see.

The U.S. and Israel are making the same foolish error again. Now,
Israel places their faith in Arafat to dismantle the "radicals", and
the U.S. continues to rely on the moderate state of Pakistan, when
Pakistan is the only state to recognize the Taliban regime that
harbors Bin Laden.

Similarly, the U.S. continues to place their faith in various
so-called Arab moderate states. Will Syria, a state sponsor of
terrorism, once again be a part of the U.S. coalition? Relying on
Moslem or Arab states or terrorist factions to put down other states
and factions will only backfire, once again.

Terror is terror and Islamic fundamentalism continues to fuel the
fires of hatred and suicide bombers in Tel Aviv and in New York. There
is no difference between Arafat and his Palestinian Authority TV
encouraging suicide bombers and brainwashing young to follow the
example of the murderous martyrs, or Bin Laden preaching his hate in
Afghanistan. There can be no partnership with these barbarians.
Anything we do with them or teach them will be used against forces of
good and innocent people in the
future.

2- Jews Become Scapegoats

Listening to traditionally pro-Jewish radio talk-shows across America
has become frightening over recent days. Many callers are openly
blaming Jews for the bombing and literally quoting the terrorists when
they say, "It is all because of U.S. policy in the Middle East and the
support for Israel."

Rather than say that this is a war between Islamic terrorists who see
America as the big Satan, Israel and Jews are being scapegoated by
many. And this may only be the beginning. What if gasoline prices
continue to rise or if more such attacks against innocent Americans
are launched, "because of U.S. aid to Israel"? What if Israel is
forced to take stronger action against Arabs or if U.S. begins to more
openly blame Israel for Mideast unrest? Powell already urged Israel to
do more for peace and meet with Arafat, just as the American nation
was beginning to hear the shocking news of the recent attacks. The
distance between open hostility
between average Americans and Jews may be a lot closer than most Jews
would like to understand. Not to speak of the obvious Islamic threat
to Jews in America. If they could hit the Pentagon they could hit any
Jewish institution they want, G-d forbid.

The fact that planes were grounded should also be an issue for
American Jews to consider. What if things get really bad and more
unexpected terrorism shocks America? What if Jews feel that they need
to leave this country for Israel? Who says they will have the
opportunity to get out?

The fact remains that the United States rejected Israel's plea to
help. And Israel has the ability to help in rescue and in anti-terror
areas. Yes, quietly, behind the scenes Israel is helping with critical
advise. However America refused to allow Israelis to openly enter
U.S. soil where they could truly have helped much more. This American
rejection of Israeli help comes for the same reason that America
rejected Israel's help in the Gulf War, in spite of the fact that
Israeli pilots could have gotten the job done and would have taken
much more risky flight patterns and missions.

In the end, the Americans do not want to risk their coalition and
reliance on Saudi Arabia and other so called moderate Arab states. It
is these very relationships that will ultimately force America to
place more pressure on Israel. It is these Arab states that will bring
America down, just as their alliance with Bin Laden's and Omar
Rahman's friends helped develop these terrorist cells in America, that
would be turned against America in the most bloody fashion.

Even the Islamic cleric who spoke at the special national prayer
service in Washington refrained from openly attacking and condemning
the suicide animals who killed thousands of Americans. President Bush
sat there as the "moderate" Muslim spoke about uprooting evil in the
name of Allah. No reference was made to which evil he was referring
to. Was it the evil Satan represented by the West and Western
landmarks like the World Trade Center, or the evil Muslim terrorists
who carried out their carnage? Back

Why Is Damascus Still Standing?, by Richard H. Shulman

It was a beautiful morning for walking to work. Passing directly over
me at 8:45 a.m., an airliner passed headed south towards New York Bay,
not along an air lane and too low for safety. Another second and it
was beyond the Empire State Building, but I feared that it was too low
to clear the World Trade Center, especially when it veered west,
towards it. Further view was blocked by its angle with the tall
buildings around me. At my next glance, I saw a lone cloud in the
otherwise clear sky. But it was rising and no cloud, rather, the
result of a conflagration. THE fire.

For the next five hours, one constantly heard the sirens of emergency
vehicles. Thousands slain! Walking home, I looked back at the tip of
Manhattan, saw dense smoke, and wept for what terrorists did to my
country and in my city. Passing a hospital uptown, I saw a crowd of
people either giving blood voluntarily or seeking word on relatives
from whom blood had been taken involuntarily, and I wept again. Then I
gained some understanding of why the US atom-bombed Japan, for this
was the "Pearl Harbor" of World War III.

I had warned that jihad was coming. Then experts warned that the
terrorists were plotting. Today a plot hatched. Arab Internetters used
to deny there is such a thing as jihad, but I pointed out that the
Arabs were fighting here, infiltrating there, scheming everywhere. The
clash of civilizations has become audible to the politically hard of
hearing. Will they also be
soft of will?

The US has been infirm, its spirit corrupted by petrodollars and
confused by misconceptions. In the name of justice, the US contends,
even after the atrocity, we cannot just attack terrorist states and
terrorist gangs. We have to prove exactly which gangs and which
members of them were involved. Then we have to search the world for
them. By that time, other gangs, hosted by terrorist states, will have
struck. They are at war, whereas we imagine we are fighting one crime
at-a-time. Nor are the gangs discrete entities, but merge for joint
missions and subcontract for specific tasks. Meanwhile, our government
does business with some of their governments, as if the relationship
is normal instead of, on their part, deadly.

Will the US stop pretending it is making war on terrorism and replace
half-measures with full-scale war? Will the US stop demanding that
Israel "restrain" its retaliation against the daily, yes DAILY,
terrorist attacks it faces? Will journalists "understand" that the
poor Arabs are "frustrated?" It's jihad, not frustration.

Although most Arab and other Muslim Arab states sympathize with jihad
against the West, from which some of them beg for aid, not all of them
participate. The states that strongly aid terrorism or threaten
neighbors are: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, S. Arabia, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen. The PA does, too. Expel their
students and deport their nationals!
Let the US destroy their armed forces, terrorist bases, military
industry, and mad scientists! But let Israel have the honor of
annihilating the PA, which is celebrating our travail! Back

Rosh Hashana, The Time for "Tsheuva" & Kahane Was Right, by Lenny
Goldberg

The essence of "tsheuva" is the admitting of one's mistakes. In the
Bible story of Yehuda and Tamar, we see Yehuda pave the way for "baale
tsheuva" by way of his admission, "Tsadka mimeni" - "She is more right
than I".
Indeed, the hebrew root of the name "Yehuda" is "LeHodot" - to admit.

To admit. And how amusing it is to see right-wing rabbis and
intellectuals wriggle uncomfortably as they belatedly approach the
conclusion that killing "innocent" Arabs may be halachaically
permissible after all. In their weekly columns and in their parsha
sheets, we begin to see half-hearted admissions that expulsion may be
the only answer..

And concerning this it is written: What's the difference between Rav
Kahane and Gush Emmunim? About 10 years.

Kahane & "Kiruv"

With just about every religious camp finding itself "ideologically
stuck" (except for Aturei Karter), it becomes an urgent duty to learn
authentic Torah as espoused by Rav Meir Kahane, H"yd and his son Rav
Binyamin, H"yd.

As the knitted yarmulkes unravel from the heads of the religious
nationalist youth, it becomes obligatory to teach a relevant Torah
which provides real answers to the burning problems of Am Yisrael.
What could be more convincing testimony to the divine truth of our
Torah than the verses, "But if you will not drive out the inhabitants
of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those
whom you allow to remain of them shall be as thorns in your eyes, and
stings in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein you
dwell". (BaMidbar, 33:55) That's a pretty accurate diagnosis,
especially when considering it was written over 4,000
years ago. One doesn't even need "gematrias" to see the truth in THESE
verses.

And if "kiruv" seminars want to makes Jews Jewish again, they can
bring down the "Ohr HaChaiim", who commented on the above verse (300
years ago!): "Not only will they seize the lands you didn't succeed in
conquering, but even on the lands you succeeded in conquering, they
will say: 'Get out of here' ".

The very fact that there was someone, guided by the simple
understanding of the text, commentaries, and Jewish halacha predicted
precisely what is happening today - perhaps this can be a boost for
the religious nationalist
camp to extricate itself from the ideological trap it finds itself in.
Back

Israel as the Battered Woman, by Dr, Miriam Adahan

In years to come, historians will be shocked at how Israeli leaders
happily encouraged a bunch of Arab murderers to create a country that
never existed before within our tiny borders, gave them arms knowing
that those arms would be used to kill and maim its citizens and then
continued to try to appease the murderers. Why are we fulfilling
Hitler´s dream? Why do our leaders ignore Yasser Arafat´s rhetoric
calling for our destruction, ignore the fact that his people are
flooding their cities with arms and ignore the warnings that they are
preparing for all-out war?

Having worked with battered women for most of my life, I see a
similarity between the behavior of the Israeli Left and the mentality
of those women who are so hungry for love that they search desperately
for any signs of it, because the truth is unbearable.
Want to know how the Left thinks? Look at the battered woman:

1. "It takes two to make a fight, so I must deserve this abuse. After
all, I´m not perfect either. I left dishes in the sink, was talking
on the phone when he came home and didn´t have dinner ready on time.
Sometimes, I was a little confused after he beat me up and didn´t
function so well. When he spits at me and bullies me, it´s sometimes
hard to make the elaborate meals he demands."

(Israeli Left: "As penance for not being perfect, we must allow them
to continue murdering us.")

2. "If he´s so angry, it must mean that I´m to blame. People don´t
angry about nothing. It must be that I haven´t done enough to please
him. If I just try harder, I´m sure I´ll eventually win his love."

(Israeli Left: "We must keep making more concessions. We´re the more
enlightened country, so we have to keep trying harder to get them to
become more democratic, more humane, more civilized.")

3. "No matter how bad he acts at times, I truly believe that he
doesn´t really mean to hurt me and that he really does want a
peaceful home and does really love me underneath it all. He just has
to act like this to prove his masculinity. It doesn´t really mean
anything, because underneath it all, there´s a man of true kindness."

(Israeli Left: "It doesn´t matter how many Israelis are killed, he´s
our partner. The fact that he keeps wanting to talk is proof.")

4. "I´m proud of myself for being LOYAL and DETERMINED! I stand by my
man through thick and thin. You don´t leave during the bad times. When
you´re willing to forgive after getting beaten up, that´s when you
prove how strong your love is."

(Israeli Left: "We take pride in the fact that we keep negotiating
even when we´re being murdered.")

5. "I don´t have delusions of grandeur. I simply believe in love. Love
is the only power in the world. With the strength of my love, I
CAN turn this frog into a Prince! A woman has the power to do the
impossible! If I love HIM so much, it must be that HE loves me too.
It can´t be that I´m creating something out of nothing. That would be
foolish. I´m not a fool - I just believe in love!"

(Israeli Left: "We´ll make the Arabs love us.... We´ll get their
approval in the end.")

6. "True, some days I just feel like committing suicide, because,
after all, If I didn´t exist, I wouldn´t be abused! I´ll give up my
dreams, my identity, my desires, and shrink myself to nothing. Then
the abuse will stop, because I will no longer be here to take it."

(Israeli Left: "Let´s shrink ourselves down to nothing and then there
won´t be anything left to attack.")

7. "If I can´t please him, it´s MY failure. I have to examine where
I´m failing."

(Israeli Left: "If it´s my fault, then I can maintain the illusion
that I have the ability to fix the problem.")

8. "I´m proud of my ability to take abuse. I´m a SURVIVOR! I´m a
fighter! I´m superior because I´m always ready to forgive and forget.
That puts me at a higher level. If I continue to make concessions for
a peaceful home, even though I´m hurting, it proves that I´m TRYING.
Effort is always rewarded eventually. The more he hurts me, the more
opportunities I have to prove my superiority by forgiving and
forgetting and showing restraint."

(Israeli Left: "Hey world! Look at how much we´re willing to suffer
and not fight back! Now will you love the Jews?")

9. "All my relatives, especially my rich uncle Sam - keeps telling me
that I have to stop the violence. I don´t really know what he means,
because I was cooking him a meal in the kitchen the last time he took
a shot at me. But Uncle Sam tells me it´s my fault and Uncle Sam helps
me pay the bills, so I have to listen and try harder to please. If I
can´t win his love, it´s my fault."

(Israeli Left: "Every country puts all this pressure on us to give in.
We have to listen or we won´t be able to pay the bills.")

10. "I´m a nice person, a peace-maker. I´ll destroy my self-image if I
turn into one of those aggressive types who fights back, argues,
calls the police or makes waves. It makes me feel superior to be the
one who´s so enlightened and civilized."

(Israeli Left: "We´re so good! No Arab country is willing to take in
Arab refugees. Think of what an impression it will make on the world
if only the Jews are willing to act as the saviors of the Arabs. I´m
sure that THEN, we´ll really win the love of all the nations of the
world.")

11. "Everyone says that it´s a sign of true spirituality to be
optimistic. So, I´m having hope. I´m sure I can win his love. I just
have to try harder. My European relatives are constantly urging me to
`Hang in there! Respect him more!' I really want these relatives to
like me. I can´t bear rejection."

(Israeli Left: "If we just keep giving in, the anti-Semitism will
stop.")

12. "Look, we´ve been to all these romantic places - Madrid, Sharm el
Sheik, Taba, Camp David, Wye Plantation - and we talked and made love
and you don´t know how truly charming he can be. If there´s a chance
to work things out, I´m willing to do ANYTHING. I have to give in. He
gets SO angry if I refuse. The fact that he wants to talk must mean
that he cares about me on some level, doesn´t it? It must mean that he
really loves me."

(Israeli Left: "Look how much they want to talk! Doesn´t that mean
they really love us?")

13. "I have no choice. He´s my only hope for love. I can´t stand to be
rejected. What he´s giving me is better than no relationship at
all. I can´t bear the thought of being alone."

(Israeli Left: "We have to keep making concessions or they´ll kill us.
We have no choice. There is no other partner for peace. Better an
illusion of love than facing the reality of his hatred.")

14. "I´m so weak and helpless. I need him to protect me."

(Israeli Left: "I´m sure we can trust the Palestinian authority to
fight terrorism and take care of our holy places in the future. Past
history doesn´t count.")

15. "People keep telling me that the whole problem is that I didn´t
show enough respect in the past. They tell me that if I just respect
him more, THEN he´ll love me. Even if he beats me up, I have to show
restraint and be more respectful. They tell me that that, truly, is
the ultimate key - respect. Then I´ll be LOVED. I can´t wait!"

(Israeli Left: "If Arafat gets enough peace awards, it´ll become a
self-fulfilling prophecy and he´ll change and become the nice guy
we´ve always envisioned he can be.")

16. "I´m tired of fighting. I have no strength left. I just want him
to love me. I´m sure he´ll learn to appreciate all I´ve done for
him."

(Israeli Left: "No more war. We need to be loved. There isn´t any
other partner for peace.")

17. "I got used to it. Most of the time, it doesn´t really even hurt
all that much."

(Israeli Left: "We can take it. We´re tough. We clean up the blood and
go on. These are the sacrifices I have to make for peace.")

18. "At least he´s showing me attention. That´s better than being
ignored."

(Israeli Left: "The Americans didn´t try to protect the Kurds or the
Tibetans or all the others. They didn´t try to make peace between the
Greeks and the Turks or the Pakistanis and the Indians. Look how much
attention their giving little Israel. This MUST be love! The whole UN
dwells only on Israel!")

19. "I feel such pity for him. He keeps saying that HE is the abused
one. He looks so pitiful. When he´s shooting at me with his new gun,
he tells me about how much he´s suffered from me and I feel so bad for
him. So, if it makes him feel like more of a man to beat me up, what´s
the big deal? He needs this release. You know how frustrated men get!"

(Israeli Left: "The Arabs are SO frustrated! This occupation is
depriving them of their manhood. So we have to let them let off steam
and give MORE money, more ARMS - after all, Arabs love their
guns....")

20. "He´s really not evil, just misguided. He had such a difficult
childhood. He doesn´t realize what he´s doing. It´s really not his
fault. He doesn´t know any better. He needs to be convinced, educated.
That´s my job. And if I don´t succeed. It´s MY fault."

(Israeli Left: "Arabs aren´t bad, just frustrated. By example, we´ll
teach them how to be more humane.")

21. "Everyone tells me to forget the past. Start again. They promise
me that he´s turned over a new leaf. I HAVE to give him another
chance. Maybe he´s changed. People keep pointing out the fact that he
did bring me flowers when I was in the hospital after he broke my
nose. And he´s often so helpful to the neighbors. He can´t be ALL bad.
With the right therapist, I´m sure he´ll change."

(Israeli Left: "No one was killed today. So maybe he really did turn
over a new leaf! Maybe we CAN trust them! Hurray! Things ARE getting
better. I always knew he could do it! See, my faith and love have been
rewarded! We just have to be brave and stick it out and while longer.
We just have to get to the right negotiating team and talk for long
enough and it will work out....") Back

Time to Say ´Good Riddance ´ to Yasser, by Jackie Mason

Why are we still negotiating peace with Arafat if he already admitted
that he can´t be responsible for the killing of Israelis on a daily
basis? We have decided long ago that Arafat was the man in charge of
our enemies in the Middle East, but almost every time an Israeli life
is destroyed, the Hamas takes the credit and Arafat claims that he can
´t help it because the Israelis caused it by their "intransigence". Or
he claims that he can ´t be responsible for everything the Hamas does,
especially when they kill people.
When he ´s told that he should do what the Israeli government does -
arrest and prosecute any murderer immediately, Arafat announces that
he ´s ready to negotiate in good faith, if only the Israelis would
make an honest effort to control the violence and make peace. How long
will the Israelis continue to victimize themselves with this phony
charade? Why are we negotiating for
peace with a man who admits that peace is not his line of business?
For the purpose of conferences and negotiations he ´s the man in
charge, but killing Israelis is "out of his control."

How hard is it to understand that after 20 years of these flip flops,
we should not go to another negotiating table, we should announce a
timetable. The timetable should be very simple: Arafat's time is up!
The Israeli government has no moral right to allow more Israeli lives
to be lost because of another fraudulent peace conference. How many
more years will we be blinded by the holiness of the words "peace
process"? If the man admits that he can ´t control the violence, are
we supposed to accept the idea that "peace" is important, except when
human life is involved? The fact is that Arafat has long ago abdicated
his right to be a peace negotiator. It is only Israel''s desperation
for peace that made it adopt the Arafat fantasy.

Instead of negotiating with Arafat, we should search for our own
sanity. If we could find it, we would not accept for one more day any
"acceptable level of violence". We have no moral right to sacrifice
one Israeli life by use of the shameful word "acceptable" and we have
no moral right to care what the rest of the world will "accept" as an
"acceptable" level of Israeli retaliation. World "opinion" will gladly
continue to ""accept"" the sacrifice of Israeli lives for the "peace
process". Would the American government accept the idea of a terrorist
organization killing its citizens every day in the streets of this
country for 20 years and still wait for world opinion to ""accept""
their right to do something about it?

When President Clinton decided that bin Laden was planning a terrorist
attack, nobody knew if it was true or just a diversion from Monica
Lewinsky. Nevertheless, he didn ´t ask for permission from world
opinion. He didn ´t care or ask if it was an "acceptable level of
violence" and hundreds of innocent Sudanese lives were sacrificed for
reasons nobody knows or questions or even cares about. When an
American president decides to even fantasize a threat to human life,
he wantonly bombs countries with impunity, but when Israelis die every
day we still wait for acceptance while we negotiate with America about
the definition of an "acceptable
level of violence."

Israel has the responsibility of any legally constituted government to
protect the lives of its citizens and it would be derelict, sinful,
and even criminal to sacrifice one Israeli life for the hypocrisy of
Arafat or for American "acceptance".Back

A New Guide for the Perplexed?, by Ruth and Nadia Matar

The complex Middle East picture which Prime Minister Sharon is
required to solve, cannot but baffle him. On the one hand, there is
wily Arafat who skillfully blurs his terrorist and barbaric activities
under the guise of a National Liberation Movement. Then there is the
United States which acts to protect its need for Arab oil.
Accordingly, it engages in a macabre dance whereby it seeks to assuage
the Arabs by unreasonably bashing Israel. Moreover, to keep the region
quiet, U.S. policy demands Israel show restraint in the face of
Israel's citizenry being slaughtered on a daily basis. Added to this
stew, are the hostile positions of the nations of Europe. They too
need Arab oil; they too want the massive oil monies deposited in their
banks; and they too seek favorable trade from the many
Arab countries in the region. Then there is the United Nations
overhanging threat to intervene. Its policies are dominated by
countries currying favor with the Arabs and their oil wealth.

The situation becomes more complex because Sharon has chosen the path
of a unity government. The leftist-oriented Labor Party holds pivotal
posts in such a government, led by the Socialist-International
adherent Shimon Peres, as Israel's Foreign Minister. A ludicrous
phenomenon is occurring. The Israeli electorate overwhelmingly voted
in the last elections for a nationalistic-oriented government. Yet
today Shimon Peres virtually rules this nation, despite the fact that
his views are those of a slim minority, not shared by the major bulk
of the electorate.

Add to this complex picture, the fact that Sharon is no longer a young
man. He was previously maliciously smeared by Labor, who invented a
bizarre accusation against him in the Sabra and Shatila matter. More
recently, Labor's major platform in the last election was the
prediction that Sharon will lead us to war. Faced with the many years
of attempting to exonerate his name and reputation, Sharon no longer
seems to possess his former daring and courage. The psychological
factors involved may have taken their toll, and affected his
confidence and ability to act decisively.

Israel desperately needs a leader who believes passionately in the
value of its noble Ancient Heritage, and its historical rights to its
Homeland. Above all, it requires a leader to inspire and unite the
Jewish People in the present war being waged against them by the
Arabs. Sharon, up to now, has not shown such leadership.

Given the above considerations, it is a gigantic task for anyone to
lead. Yet, despite such problems, Israel desperately needs an inspired
leader. Recent polls indicate that the Jewish People in Israel are
losing faith in Sharon. Under the present trying circumstances of the
Arab intifada, they need to be fortified in their faith, belief in
themselves, and in their rights to this Promised Land. Sharon, or some
other leader, must have the courage and wisdom to provide new
guidelines and objectives. Oslo is dead. It is now quite clear that a
Palestinian state is a dire threat to Israel's survival. Israel must
meet the challenge of Arab enmity
that refuses to abate, or ever to go away.Back

No way to win a war, by Moshe Arens, Aug 21 2001

Slowly, too slowly, Israelis are beginning to realize that the
Palestinians are waging war, a war that is now entering its 11th
month. Some preferred to believe that it was only the Muslim fanatics
among the Palestinians that were intent on killing Jews, or that the
participation in the violence by Palestinians under the direct orders
of Yasser Arafat was at most marginal. Or, that possibly Arafat was
really our partner in fighting Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and
eventually our partner in making peace between Jews and Palestinians.

But with every funeral of victims of Palestinian violence, there seem
to be fewer Israelis who put any faith in Arafat and more who conclude
that it is Arafat with the troops under his command aided by Hamas and
the Islamic Jihad who is waging a war against Israel.

This war is daily claiming innocent Israeli victims, many of them
women and children. There can be no disagreement that it is the
Israeli government's foremost task to put an end to the killing.

And yet, Shimon Peres remains unconvinced. He still claims that
negotiations with Arafat hold the key to ending the violence and
threatens to leave the government if he is not permitted to meet with
Arafat. He refuses to be confused by the facts - his mind is made up.

But for most Israelis, after a string of disappointments, Arafat has
revealed himself for what he really is. His word is worthless and his
credo is violence. He is not a partner for peace with Israel, and
force must be used to counter his violent acts.

Seeking the support of the international community, the government has
been restrained in using force against the Palestinian militias while
the killing continued month after month. Even after the Dolphinarium
massacre, the government decided that the best response was no
response. As should have been expected, the sympathy that Israel
enjoyed in the aftermath was short-lived.

It is in this context that the government's response to the next major
act of Palestinian terror - the bombing of the Sbarro restaurant in
Jerusalem that claimed 15 lives - should be judged. Advertised by
government spokesmen as a brilliant move to impose a "political
penalty" on Arafat, the takeover of Orient House seems to make little
sense as a deterrent measure against further acts of terror. What is
the connection between the outrage committed and the takeover of a
building by the police in Jerusalem? Does anybody really believe that
the takeover of Orient House will lead Arafat to call off his campaign
of violence?

In any case, it was the activity pursued in Orient House that was
illegal and not the building itself, and it is the people engaged in
illegal
activities there and in Abu Dis who should have been arrested and put
on trial long ago. Using the massacre at the Sbarro restaurant as the
trigger to attempt to put an end to Arafat's illegal activities in
Jerusalem seems at the very least inappropriate and is in no way
commensurate with the crime committed by the Hamas suicide bomber in
Jerusalem.

There is no alternative to using the IDF to suppress Palestinian
violence and terrorism. If, after the latest terrorist acts, there are
still those in the international community who fail to see that the
Israeli government at this juncture has no choice but to use force
against the Palestinian militias and terrorist groups in defense of
its citizens, no demonstrations of restraint by Israel are going to
convince them. In any case, it is wrong to base Israel's strategy on
reprisals for Palestinian acts of terror. It is not a matter of
returning blow for blow. No reprisal for an individual act of terror
is going to prevent the next atrocity. It is their ability to commit
acts of violence and terror that has to be neutralized. Much more than
symbolic acts like taking over Orient House will be needed to win this
war.