October 1, 2008

Jews in Judea, Samaria Increased by 20 Percent in Olmert's Term


by Gil Ronen


(IsraelNN.com) The number of Jews in Judea and Samaria grew by 20 percent from 250,000 when Ehud Olmert began his term as Prime Minister in April of 2006, to more than 300,000 in the Interior Ministry's official census in 2008, according to Yesha Council Director Pinchas Wallerstein.

Wallerstein said Sunday that the Jewish people are the ones to be thanked for the development, which occurred under what he called "the government most hostile to the settlement movement" since 1967.

"It turns out that the nation is strong," Wallerstein said. The spirit of the people remains steadfast, he said, even at a time in which "the Prime Minister is giving up the Beit She'an Valley and additional parts of
"It turns out that the nation is strong."
the Land of Israel."

'This folding is endless'
Olmert's ongoing concessions, Wallerstein added, "only prove our claim that this folding is endless, and only the stance by the public – that is willing to come out and settle and build its homes – makes the difference."

"This summer more than 400 caravans were built and populated," Wallerstein said. "The meaning of this is that more than 400 families entered the village communities, besides the ones that entered cities like Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim. These are the very same communities that Olmert said he was willing to give up."

"Besides," the former longtime Binyamin Council head said, "300 permanent houses were also put up.

Outposts will stay
Wallerstein estimated that the state will not wind up evicting residents from any of the outposts which are currently under dispute. "If the leadership – including those who disagree with us – wishes to avoid a confrontation with us, we will be able to reach a permanent solution for construction regarding both the outposts and the permanent communities."

Wallerstein also said that the Yesha Council is about to launch a new "massive" campaign which he called "very Jewish," targeting the entire Israeli populace, religious and non-religious. Without revealing details, he said the campaign would mention King David and the Hasmoneans, and will "move the public to the right, a bit more than it already is."

Who moved my note?


The Jewish New Year is upon us, and thousands are flocking to the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Every evening, according to reports, between 100,000 and 150,000 people arrive at the Western Wall plaza, many of them as part of the month of Selichot (penitential prayer said to seek forgiveness for one's sins).

Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitz told Ynet that "it's a special feeling hearing all the versions of the Selichot, each person and his own version and community. It's particularly exciting listening to the prayers and seeing the people come every day, being drawn to the atmosphere of holiness prevailing in this place, in order to ask God for forgiveness.

"There is no place more suitable to seek forgiveness than the Western Wall. This is a place uniting us all, a place where the Holy of Holies resided, where the great priest would enter to ask for forgiveness for the people of Israel."

As before every Rosh Hashana, a campaign was held at the Western Wall in recent days to clean the stones from the thousands of notes placed between them every day by the many visitors. The cleaning campaign was held to mark the tradition of "Yashan mipnei chadash totzi'u" (remove the old because of the new – Leviticus 26:10)

The different notes are cleared into sealed bags, so that no one will read them; it is very likely that one of the notes belongs to US Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.

The removal of the notes is being accompanied by engineers and by placing a crane in front of the wall, to make sure that the rocks don't fall on top of people's heads and to protect the integrity of the stones themselves.

After the notes have been collected, they are hidden in Jerusalem's Mountain of Olives. "Of course we hope that all of the prayers and requests that were placed in the wall over the course of the year, have been accepted by god," said Rabbi Rabinovitz.

The rabbi invited all of the people of Israel to come and pray at the Western Wall and to "connect with the generation chain of the people of Israel, and to the essence of things, the essence being the spirit of the Jewish people."

Tefillin? Not in this school - IN ISRAEL!

By Hila Shay Vazan

A high school in the central city of Modiin forbade a student to bringing his phylacteries (small leather case containing Scriptural texts which is worn during morning prayers) onto school grounds, threatening to expel him.

"It started on the first day of school," says A, an 11th grader. "Two classmates of mine told me they wanted to put on teffilin every morning, and asked me to take them to a rabbi to have them checked. I did that, and the rabbi found the tefillin to be damaged and in need of repair."

For the time being, A. started bringing his phylacteries to school, and in their free time, during breaks and free periods, the three would gather at a small classroom which was not being used, and put on the phylacteries for a few minutes every day.

Other students heard about this and asked to join them, and they would all meet every morning. This went on uninterrupted until one day the students wanted to put on the phylacteries when a class was cancelled and their regular classroom was occupied.

Instead, the group entered the school library, where the librarian pointed them in the direction of the unoccupied photocopy room.

When the students returned to the same room the following day, the librarian told A. that the school principal, Nurit Zak, wanted to see him in her office.

When A. and his friend arrived at the principal's office, Zak reportedly told them, "What you are doing is religious coercion and missionary incitement. There are students in this school whose parents won’t have them exposed to religious characteristics."

A.'s mother was amazed by the decision. "I am shocked and astonished," she said. "We came from France, where such things happen on occasion, but we never imagined that they could happen here, in Israel. It hurts me that he was punished so severely, as if he had brought drugs or alcohol to school."

The high school principal refused to respond and directed us to the Modiin Municipality's spokesperson, who said that "nothing is stopping those who wish to put on teffilin at the school privately and personally. The student was asked not to bring his tefillin to school and to pursause others to join him."

September 28, 2008

Obama, McCain and Israel Who really stands by Israel?


Obama's, McCain's worldviews provide the answer

Published YNET
09.27.08, 14:13

By Yoram Ettinger

A worldview shapes presidential attitude toward Israel as a strategic asset
or a liability and toward Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the Golan
Heights. A presidential worldview determines the scope of the US posture of
deterrence in face of Middle East and global threats, which directly impacts
Israel's national security.

For example, President Nixon was not a friend of the US Jewish community and
was not a leader of pro-Israeli legislation in the US Senate. In 1968, he
received only about 15% of the Jewish vote. However, his worldview
recognized Israel's importance to US national security, as was demonstrated
in 1970, when Israel rolled back a Syrian invasion of Jordan, preventing a
pro-Soviet domino scenario into the Persian Gulf. It was Nixon's worldview
which led him to approve critical military shipments to Israel - during the
1973 War - in defiance of the Arab oil embargo and brutal pressure by the
Saudi lobby in Washington, and in spite of the Democratic pattern of the
Jewish voters.

On the other hand, President Clinton displayed an affinity toward Judaism,
the Jewish People and the Jewish State. However, his worldview accepted
Arafat as a national liberation leader, elevated him to the most frequent
guest at the White House, underestimated the threat of Islamic terrorism,
unintentionally facilitated its expansion from 1993 (first "Twin Tower"
attack) to the 9/11 terrorist tsunami, adding fuel to the fire of Middle
East and global turbulence.

How would the worldview of Obama, McCain and their advisors shape US policy
toward Israel?

1. According to McCain, World War III between Western democracies and
Islamic terror/rogue regimes is already in process. According to Obama, the
conflict is with a radical Islamic minority, which could be dealt with
through diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and a lower US military
profile. Thus, McCain's worldview highlights – while Obama's worldview
downplays – Israel's role as a strategic ally. McCain recognizes that
US-Israel relations have been shaped by shared values, mutual threats and
joint interests and not by frequent disagreements over the Arab-Israeli
conflict.

2. According to Obama, the US needs to adopt the worldview of the Department
of State bureaucracy (Israel's staunchest critic in Washington,) pacify the
knee-jerk-anti-Israel-UN, move closer to the Peace-at-any-Price-Western
Europe and appease the Third World, which blames the West and Israel for the
predicament of the Third World and the Arabs. On the other hand, McCain
contends that the US should persist – in defiance of global odds - in being
the Free World's Pillar of Fire, ideologically and militarily.

3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism constitutes a challenge for
international law enforcement agencies and terrorists should be brought to
justice. According to McCain, they are a military challenge and should be
brought down to their knees. Obama's passive approach adrenalizes the veins
of terrorists and intensifies Israel's predicament, while McCain's approach
bolsters the US' and Israel's war on terrorism.

4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is driven by
despair, poverty, erroneous US policy and US presence on Muslim soil in the
Persian Gulf. On the other hand, McCain maintains that Islamic terrorism is
driven by ideology, which considers US values (freedom of expression,
religion, media, movement, market and Internet) and US power a most lethal
threat that must be demolished. McCain's worldview supports Israel's battle
against terrorism, demonstrating that the root cause of the Arab-Israel
conflict is not the size – but the existence - of Israel.

5. Contrary to McCain, Obama is convinced – just like Tony Blair - that the
Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and
anti-Western Islamic terrorism, and therefore requires a more assertive US
involvement, exerting additional pressure on Israel. The intriguing
assumption that a less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause
of 1,400 year old inter-Arab Middle East conflicts and Islamic terrorism,
would deepen US involvement in Israel-Palestinians negotiations and
transform the US into more of a neutral broker and less of a special ally of
Israel, which would drive Israel into sweeping concessions.

Obama's worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to
the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the
opening of the "Pandora Refugees' Box." On the other hand, McCain's
worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert
the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a
producer – to a consumer – of national security and from a strategic asset
to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region
in the world.

The writer is a Middle Eastern and American affairs expert

http://www.acpr.org.il/people/yettinger.html

http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/newspaper.asp

September 27, 2008

Gog & Magog Starts?



The U.S. Army's European Command deployed an early-warning radar system in Israel last week along with a 120-member support team.

This is the first permanent presence in Israel of American military personnel. The high-powered radar system is meant to augment Israel's defenses against Iranian ground-to-ground missiles.

Is the actual first step in the war of Gog And Magog?

September 26, 2008

The Secret to His Success - Naomi Ragen


This is from Naomis Blog and maybe it describes how one Jew really feels...or more than one?

I got a ton of responses to my short e-mail “exchange with a reader.” Since then, I have been pondering long and hard what the reason could be for the enthusiastic, nay, evangelistic Jewish cheerleaders for Barack Hussein Obama, despite the many, many red flags that have gone up ever since he decided to run for President of the United States of America. One e-mail, in particular, opened my eyes to what could be the underlying reason. He wrote:

“You may think you are right but if McCain and Palin get elected, the U.S. will continue to go down hill, and if this country gets in worse shape financially this country will eventually blame the Jews …..”

Hmm. I never considered that. Could it be that the Jews of America are really not as comfortable there as they pretend to be? Could it be that the Reverend Wright, that home-grown anti-Semite who went to Libya to meet terrorist Qaddafi, and who gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for “leadership, ” being a heartbeat away from the Democratic nominee for President has scared the Jews of America out of their wits?

Could it be that these Jews are so incredibly grateful to Barack Obama for disassociating himself after 20 years with this anti-Semitic message and so terrified of losing his support, pushing him and his golden oratory back into the arms of people like Wright, that they are hell-bent on currying his favor and showing they are “good Jews?” (Caveat: it Obama’s throwing Wright under the bus is clearly a blatant attempt to improve his chances at gaining the Jewish vote --Farrakhan himself said on Nightline that he “admired“ Obama and understood if he needed to disassociate himself temporarily in order to win the Presidency).

Are Jews now beginning to feel the solid ground of the American haven that has sheltered them shaking beneath their feet? Is that the reason that they have listened to the golden-voiced Obama, who is really nothing more than an evangelical preacher, saying: “ Who are you going to believe, your eyes or me?” and dismissed their own vision? Are they truly so enraptured that they are willing to place all their hopes in this unknown with a very hazy past, to protect them from the Ahmadinejads, to “negotiate” for them their way out of the hellhole being dug out for them by the Muslims, and the European Union, and the U.N. and homegrown Black Antisemitism, and anti-Zionist Peace-Nowers-J-Streeters- let’s-blame-Israel-for-daring-to-existers, the Israel- should- give- up -and -give in-ers? Can it be that some American Jews are ashamed to be Israel supporters, and feel they will be safer if they side against their own people and by supporting a clearly, blatantly anti-Israel candidate they are fulfilling that need? Or is it that Obama is not so much a mesmerizing speaker, as he is a person with a message that is music to Jewish American ears; the foolish idea that they don’t have to take sides in this election. That they can be pro-Israel and elect a candidate that says his is also pro-Israel, despite so much evidence to the contrary, including a belief in “diplomacy” i.e. pushing Israel into suicidal concessions to placate enemies like Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, and Hamas? He represents a way out of ancient Jew-hatred, a way thousands of generations of Jews hadn’t thought of? Is that the secret to his success among Jews in America?

Who are you going to believe? Your eyes, or Barack Hussein Obama?
Posted by Naomi's Blog at 11:20 PM

September 23, 2008

Our World: Your abortions or your lives!

Sep. 22, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

American Jews have good reason to be ashamed and angry today. As Iran moves
into the final stages of its nuclear weapons development program - nuclear
weapons which it will use to destroy the State of Israel, endanger Jews
around the world and cow the United States of America - Democratic American
Jewish leaders decided that putting Sen. Barack Obama in the White House is
more important than protecting the lives of the Jewish people in Israel and
around the world.

On Monday, the New York Sun published the speech that Republican vice
presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have delivered at
that day's rally outside UN headquarters in New York against Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and against Iran's plan to destroy Israel. She
would have delivered it, if she hadn't been disinvited.

The rally was co-sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project,
United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish
Council for Public Affairs. Its purpose was to present a united American
Jewish front against Iran's genocidal leader and against its genocidal
regime which is developing nuclear weapons with the stated intention of
committing the second Holocaust in 80 years.

Palin's speech is an extraordinary document. In its opening paragraph she
made clear that Iran presents a danger not just to Israel, but to the US.
And not just to some Americans, but to all Americans. Her speech was a
warning to Iran - and anyone else who was listening - that Americans are not
indifferent to its behavior, its genocidal ideology and the barbarity of its
regime. Rather, they are outraged.

After that opening, Palin's speech set out clearly how Iran is advancing its
nuclear project, why it must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and
why and how the regime itself must be opposed by all right thinking people -
not just Israelis and Americans - but by all people who value human freedom.


PALIN'S SPEECH was a message of national - rather than simply Republican -
resolve against Iran's nuclear weapons program and its active involvement in
global and regional terrorism. She made this point by quoting statements
that Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton has made against the Iranian regime.

The speech detailed Iran's past and current attacks against the US,
beginning with its bombing of US servicemen in Lebanon in 1983 and
continuing with Iran's proxy war against US forces in Iraq and against
Iraqis who oppose its intention of taking control of their country.

By discussing Iran's role in Iraq she not only made a convincing case for
why an American victory there is essential for defeating Iran. She also made
clear that Iran is actively making war against the US, not just Israel.

From Iran's war against Israel, the US, and freedom loving peoples
worldwide, Palin's speech turned to the regime's war against its own people.
She attacked the regime for its systematic repression of Iranian women. She
applauded the extraordinary bravery of women like Delaram Ali who risked
their lives and their families to demand basic rights for Iranian women.
Ali, she noted, was sentenced to 10 lashes and three years in prison for
having the courage to speak out. An international outcry has temporarily
suspended her sentence.

Then Palin returned to Iran's nuclear weapons program and its support for
terrorist groups pledged to Israel's destruction and to the destruction of
the US. She returned to Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's annihilation. She
reiterated Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's solemn
promise to work with Israel to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
and she joined her name to his promise to stand side by side with Israel to
prevent another Holocaust.

IF PALIN had been allowed to deliver this speech at Monday's rally, she
would done just what the organizers of the rally, and what the Jewish people
in Israel, America and worldwide need to have done. She would have elevated
the imperative of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the
implicit moral and strategic imperative of overthrowing the regime in
Teheran to the top of America's national security agenda. Given the massive
media attention she garners at all of her public appearances, Palin's
participation in the rally would have done more to steel Americans - across
the political spectrum - to the cause of opposing Iran than 10 UN Security
Council sanctions resolutions could do.

It was a remarkable speech, prepared by a remarkable woman. But it was not
heard. It was not heard because the Democratic Party and Jewish Democrats
believe that their partisan interest in demonizing Palin and making
Americans generally and American Jews in particular hate and fear her to
secure their votes for Obama and his running-mate Sen. Joseph Biden in the
November election is more important than allowing Palin to elevate the
necessity of preventing a second Holocaust to the top of the US's national
security agenda.

The rally's organizers invited both Clinton and Palin to speak. It was a
wise move. In light of Iran's monstrous oppression of Iranian women, had the
two most powerful women in American politics joined forces in opposing the
regime and its war against human freedom, their appearance would have sent a
message of American unity and resolve that would have reverberated not just
throughout the US and in the US presidential race, but throughout the world
and into Iran itself. But it was not to be.

The moment that Clinton found out that she was to share a stage with Palin,
she cancelled her appearance. By cancelling, she signaled to Jewish
Democrats - and Democrats in general - that opposing Palin and the
Republican Party is more important than opposing Ahmadinejad and the
genocidal regime he represents.

THE JEWISH Democrats on the rally's organizing committee got the message
loud and clear. Two of the rally's co-sponsors - the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs and the UJA Federation of New York demanded that the
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations disinvite Palin.

The JCPA is led by Steven Gutow. Before joining the JCPA, he served as the
founding executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which
is the Jewish support arm of the Democratic Party. The UJA Federation of New
York is led by John Ruskay, who began his Jewish communal career as an
anti-Israel "peace" activist in the radical CONAME and Breira organizations.
Among their other endeavors, CONAME and Breira opposed US military
assistance to Israel during the Yom Kippur War and called for US recognition
of the PLO after the group massacred 26 children in Ma'alot in 1974.

Gutow and Ruskay were supported in their demand to disinvite Palin by the
National Jewish Democratic Council and by the new Jewish pro-Palestinian
lobbying group J-Street.

In an attempt to assuage Gutow and Ruskay, the rally organizers invited
Biden to speak. But he had a scheduling conflict. So the organizers
contacted the Obama campaign and asked it to send a representative. The
campaign offered Congressman Robert Wexler.

But the Democrats knew that Wexler would be no match for Palin. So they
continued on the warpath, absurdly claiming that by inviting Palin (and
Clinton, Biden and Wexler), the organizers were endangering the sponsoring
organizations' tax-exempt status. That is, through Ruskay and Gutow, in
their bid to prevent Palin from appearing at the rally, the Democrats
threatened to bring down the organized Jewish community.

Never mind that the threat is absurd. The likelihood that the Internal
Revenue Service would open an investigation against every major American
Jewish organization for daring to invite Palin to a rally opposing
Ahmadinejad's appearance at the UN and Iran's stated intention of
annihilating Israel is just slightly smaller than the prospect of
Ahmadinejad wrapping himself in an Israeli flag and singing "Hatikva" on the
UN rostrum.

But no matter. The fear that these Democratic Jews would openly split the
Jewish community on the need to confront Iran frightened the organizers. The
notion that the Democratic Party, and its Jewish supporters would openly
turn their backs on the need to confront Iran to advance the political
fortunes of their party and their party's presidential slate was too much to
take. Palin was disinvited.

LIBERAL AMERICAN Jews, like liberal Americans in general, and indeed like
their fellow leftists in Israel and throughout the West, uphold themselves
as champions of human rights. They claim that they care about the underdog,
the wretched of the earth. They care about the environment. They care about
securing American women's unfettered access to abortions. They care about
keeping Christianity and God out of the public sphere. They care about
offering peace to those who are actively seeking their destruction so that
they can applaud themselves for their open-mindedness and tell themselves
how much better they are than savage conservatives.

Those horrible, war-mongering, Bambi killing, unborn baby defending,
God-believing conservatives, who think that there are things worth going to
war to protect, must be defeated at all costs. They must intimidate, attack,
demonize and defeat those conservatives who think that the free women of the
West should be standing shoulder to shoulder not with Planned Parenthood,
but with the women of the Islamic world who are enslaved by a misogynist
Shari'a legal code that treats them as slaves and deprives them of control
not simply of their wombs, but of their faces, their hair, their arms, their
legs, their minds and their hearts.

The lives of 6 million Jews in Israel are today tied to the fortunes of
those women, to the fortunes of American forces in Iraq, to the willingness
of Americans across the political and ideological spectrum to recognize that
there is more that unifies them than divides them and to act on that
knowledge to defeat the forces of genocide, oppression, hatred and
destruction that are led today by the Iranian regime and personified in the
brutal personality of Ahmadinejad. But Jewish Democrats chose to ignore this
basic truth in order to silence Palin.

They should be ashamed. The Democratic Party should be ashamed. And Jewish
American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who
opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up
for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish
state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that.

caroline@carolineglick.com

ARAB Terror attack in Jerusalem

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(IsraelNN.com) An Arab terrorist from eastern Jerusalem ran over a group of soldiers and some civilians shortly before 11 p.m. Monday night at Kikar Tzahal (IDF Square) near the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. The terrorist was driving a private vehicle, a black BMW, when he attacked opposite the entrance to the Old City. He was shot and killed by an IDF soldier in the targeted group.

One of the victims is in serious condition, and all of the others suffered light and moderate injuries. Most of the wounded were evacuated to Jerusalem's Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital, and seven other victims were rushed to Shaarei Tzedek Hospital. The victims were primarily soldiers who had gone to the Old City to participate in the nighttime selichot prayers traditionally recited before Rosh Hashanah.

Shortly after the attack, a group of young hareidi-religious Jews gathered in a spontaneous protest near the scene of the incident. Protesters threw rocks and cursed at Arab passersby, calling out condemnations of the Arab presence in Jerusalem. The small mob was dispersed within a short time.

The terrorist was under 20 years of age and a resident of Jerusalem. Initial police investigation of the incident revealed that he carried out the attack alone. However, security forces are following all leads that may indicate a connection with Palestinian Authority terrorist organizations.

Two earlier terrorist attacks in the capital this year involved a tractor and bulldozer, killing three Israelis and injuring scores of others. Both of the terrorists were Israeli Arabs from eastern Jerusalem who were working in the city.

Asked by a reporter how the police is handling the threat of such vehicle-based attacks, Jerusalem District Police Chief Aharon Franco said, "Jerusalem police are widely deployed throughout the [Muslim] month of Ramadan - an attack such as this can happen anywhere - so that we can respond quickly."

Latest U.N. atrocity against Israel

Payback time at the UN
Michael Freund - Sep 10, 2008
The Jerusalem Post

The war in Lebanon may have ended two years ago, but that hasn't stopped
the UN from exploiting the conflict to besmirch Israel. In a move that
harks back to the bad old days of UN hypocrisy and double standards vis-
Γ -vis the Jewish state, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly set
to demand that Israel reimburse Lebanon and Syria for damage caused
during the war against Hizbullah.

Yes, you read that correctly. The UN wants Israel to pay for having the
gall to defend itself. According to the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, Ban has
prepared a report that he will present to the upcoming General Assembly
in New York. Based on calculations made by the World Bank, he will insist
that Israel cough up approximately $1 billion in "compensation" for
material and environmental harm to Lebanese society and infrastructure.

In addition, Ban will purportedly highlight the bombing of the Jiyeh
power plant 30 kilometers south of Beirut in mid-July 2006. As a result
of the attack, thousands of barrels of oil are said to have spilled into
the Mediteranean, polluting parts of the Lebanese and Syrian coastlines
and causing ecological damage to marine life.

The report is a sequel, of sorts, to one issued last fall by Ban, in
which he called on Israel "to take the necessary actions toward assuming
responsibility for prompt and adequate compensation to the government of
Lebanon." Since Israel rightly ignored that preposterous request, Ban has
now apparently decided to turn up the heat in the hopes of pressing
Jerusalem to pay.

Even for a body with such a long and remarkable record of anti-Israel
hyperbole, the UN has outdone itself this time. Ban's insistence that
Israel pay the aggressors for damage done during a war they provoked is
both morally obscene and intellectually obtuse.

Israel's actions in Lebanon did not occur in a vacuum, and it requires a
highly active imagination to overlook this basic fact.

If the Lebanese authorities allow their sovereign territory to be used as
a launching pad for attacks, as they did in the summer of 2006, they bear
responsibility for what ensues, including any damage caused as a result
of Israel 's actions taken in self-defense.

You don't need to be a moral philosopher or international legal scholar
to figure that one out.

Ban's error is that he focuses entirely on the consequences of an action
while completely ignoring its context, as though the reason for a
particular situation has no bearing on the nature of the outcome. This is
patently absurd, and would be akin to the UN demanding that the US and
its allies who invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks
reimburse Osama bin Laden and the Taliban for destroying the caves in
which they hid.

Make no mistake. The UN's attempt to compel Israel to pay for bombing
Lebanon has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with a
political agenda, one that paints Israel as the unreasonable assailant
rather than the innocent victim. It is nothing less than a shameful
attempt to rewrite history, and it should not be allowed to stand.

BUT IF Ban nonetheless insists on pressing forward with the issue of
compensation, I say: Bring it on. Let's have a real debate over the
matter. We can start by working out compensation for the thousands of
rockets, mortar shells and other projectiles that were fired at Israel
from Lebanese territory during the war.

Let's add to that the loss in income from the drop in tourism, the
calling up of reserve units and the displacement of thousands of families
throughout northern Israel . Then there is the pain and suffering
inflicted on soldiers and civilians who were wounded and killed, as well
as the mental and psychological trauma endured by countless Israelis
throughout the 33 days of conflict.

Why shouldn't Syria, Lebanon and Iran be made to pay for their
sponsorship of Hizbullah and the damage it wrought? And while we're on
the subject of liability, the UN might wish to consult its lawyers. After
all, UNIFIL troops in southern Lebanon have lethargically presided over
repeated Hizbullah arms buildups while doing little to stop them, despite
the requirements of UN Security Council resolutions. Their hands aren't
entirely clean when it comes to preventing the outbreak of conflict.

You can't have it both ways, Ban. You can't invoke principles of fairness
and equity and then demand that Israel be made to pay while ignoring the
other side's culpability.

As the late US Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once pointed out, "Everyone
is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Not even the secretary-general of the United Nations.

Case filed in LA today against Bank of China

Bank of China Sued in Los Angeles Court for Aiding Terror Attacks in Israel

Suit by victims of rocket attacks and suicide bombings in the Jewish state
details how Bank of China transferred millions of dollars to Hamas and
Islamic Jihad terrorist groups, and rebuffed demand by Israeli
counterterrorism officials to halt payments

Over 100 victims of terrorist attacks carried out by the Hamas and Palestine
Islamic Jihad ("PIJ") terror organizations in Israel between 2004 and 2007
have filed an historic civil action in Los Angeles Superior Court against
China's largest bank, the Bank of China Ltd. ("BOC"). The suit, Zahavi v.
Bank of China, seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege in their civil complaint that starting in 2003, BOC
executed dozens of wire transfers for the Hamas and PIJ totaling several
million dollars. These dollar transfers were initiated by the PIJ and Hamas
leadership in Iran and Syria, were processed through BOC's branches in the
United States and were sent on to a BOC account in China operated by a
senior operative of the Hamas and PIJ. From there, the funds were
transferred to Hamas and PIJ leaders in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and
used to carry out terrorist attacks.

In April 2005, Israeli counterterrorism officers met with officials from the
Chinese Ministry of Public Security and China's Central Bank regarding these
Hamas and PIJ wire transfers. The Israelis demanded that the Chinese
officials take action to prevent BOC from making any further such transfers.
Despite the Israeli warnings, the BOC - with the Chinese government's
approval - continued to wire terrorist funds for the Hamas and PIJ.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by attorneys Federico C. Sayre of Los
Angeles, Robert J. Tolchin of New York and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of
Israel, include the family of Afik Zahavi, a four year-old boy who was
murdered on June 28, 2004 in a Hamas missile attack in the town of Sderot.
The toddler was on his way to nursery school when he was killed.

www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2004/Afik+Za
havi.htm
/Afik+Zahavi.htm>
/Afik+Zahavi.htm>

Other plaintiffs include the families of Emi Elmaliah, and Michael Saadon,
who were murdered on January 27, 2007 in a suicide bombing in a bakery in
Eilat. The attack was carried out by a PIJ bomber from Gaza. See:
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+200
0/Suicide+bombing+in+Eilat+bakery+29-Jan-2007.htm
ince+2000/Suicide+bombing+in+Eilat+bakery+29-Jan-2007.htm>
ince+2000/Suicide+bombing+in+Eilat+bakery+29-Jan-2007.htm>

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner stated that: "BOC knowingly assisted Hamas
and the Islamic Jihad to carry out terrorist attacks with the full approval
of the Chinese government, and rejected requests by the Israeli government
to cease and desist. BOC even had the chutzpah to make these funds transfers
through its U.S. branches right under the nose of the Justice Department,
despite the fact that Hamas and the PIJ are designated terrorist
organizations and that such wire transfers are a crime under American law.
We expect BOC to now pay very heavily for its support for terrorism."


A copy of the complaint is available here:



http://www.snapdrive.net/qs/65ea3b0a532f

For more information please contact: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner



(US) 212-591-0073

Email: info@israellawcenter.org