Moshe Feiglin: One Honest Man

Last night, March 8th, we attended a dinner honoring Bradley Jacobs, z’l - a great champion for the Jewish Nation and Jewish State of Israel. The guest speaker was...Moshe Feiglin of Manhigut Yehudit, the Jewish Leadership Movement.

Years ago I had met Moshe Feiglin at our home in Mevasseret Zion. I accorded him every courtesy in his solicitation for political assistance. However, at that time I had hopes that my friend, Arik Sharon, would rise to political prominence. Well, he did and, to my bitter disillusionment, he adopted a Leftist path, in coordination with U.S. State Department policy to re-partition Israel for the benefit of the Muslim Arab Palestinians. Arik was a great general but, sadly, a failure as a politician in protecting Israel as a sovereign nation.

Which brings me today to Moshe Feiglin. Over the years I have read his statements, interviews and generally agree with his views. Last night as he spoke to a small, intimate crowd, I concluded that I should have paid more attention. 

As a professional observer of politicians and the problems that Israel has faced since and before 1948, I saw a man of determination and steel in his spine. I saw in him flashes of Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Theodore Herzl and even bits of Arik Sharon when he was a straight forward military man who understood the maliciousness of our enemies as he protected the State. 

These were all subliminal cues for me in evaluating the man, Moshe Feiglin. I was left with the sense that Moshe was a man of many parts and all good for a nation which is mired in political scams and weakness. I saw a man of high intellect, a former officer in the first Lebanon War of 1982 and, therefore, experienced in battle. I saw a man of conviction as a proud, observant Jew who could not be swayed by corrupt politics, bribery or interests which were weighted by Arab oil. 

But, could Israel actually stand "One Honest Man" after being acclimated to dishonesty by most past Prime Ministers and political parties who preceded Feiglin? They all showed weakness and lack of pride in their own Jewishness when pressed by the world’s greatest Super Power to surrender and abandon our own Land to please the Muslim world.

Do the Jewish people really want a Jewish State or will they settle for one that accommodates her most dedicated enemies, including the nations of the world who also are craven in the face of demands by the 56 Muslim states?

The people of Israel are no longer surprised when their politicians are caught using their official status to cut illegal deals. When we see the Arabist U.S. State Department easily manipulate such people as Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Arik Sharon, Ehud Olmert and, regrettably, Bibi Netanyahu, there is no shock or surprise because that is what the people of Israel have grown accustomed to.

I concluded that Moshe Feiglin would put a proud Jewish Israel back on the map as a democratic sovereign country - not to be manipulated or used as a political door mat. He wouldn’t wait to deliver a killing blow to an existential nuclear threat that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens.

It’s possible that secular Jews or Leftists might find it hard to accept a truly honest, proud Jewish man as Israel’s Prime Minister. Although many Jews of that description have joined his efforts. Once they believe that Israel can be governed as an honest nation, with courts and Media that are no longer able to conduct legal affairs of State as if they were a political party; no longer siphoning public funds to bribe party hacks; no longer recruiting and training military units (like the Yassam) whose sole mission is to attack Jews and drive them out of their homes - only then will the people of Israel (and the world) understand that honesty and integrity governs. Only when the now officially sanctioned spiral of government corruption is broken that put the world’s demands over the needs of our own people - only then will the Israeli people feel pride in their Government, their nation and, therefore, themselves.

Feiglin’s stated goal is to first win the Israeli primaries for Chairman of Likud. Next, he aims for a re-invigorated Likud to win the election. Then, he plans to "Unite the Right" - form a Jewish Israel bloc with all the parties who identify with Israel as a strong and proud Jewish State - achieving a minimum of 65 seats to lead the State of Israel!!

Feiglin can honestly run under the title of "One Honest Man". While he is a quiet, confident man who has no need to shout or use clever word-games to trick the people, his presence sends a powerful message to those who are willing to listen. 

That same message sends shivers through the vested Mafia of the corrupt who will fight with every dirty trick possible to keep Feiglin away from their coveted seats of power.

Good luck, Moshe. We believe in you.

To Win We Must Know our Enemies and Know Ourselves - Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, once declared: “We are going to win because they love life and we love death.”  Let’s translate this into an Islamic meaning horizon: “We are going to win because infidels love life, something transient, whereas we Muslims love death, something eternal.” 

Another rendering: “We Muslims are going to win because unlike westerners we do not fear violent death.”  This rendering would disturb the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. He thought Englishman, like mankind in general, regarded violent death as the greatest evil.  Hobbes, the unknown founder of modern psychology, seems to have been ignorant of Islam. 

Be this as it may, fear of violent death has permeated liberal-leftists in America and Europe.  This fear, no less than their secular humanism, explains why they abhor war and seek peace. Recall the Cold War, when a leftwing American academic coined the phrase “Better Red than Dead.”  This servile attitude cannot but encourage Muslims like Nasrallah, who are more cunning than wise.  Know this: underlying Islam’s love of death is fear of life!

Islam’s fear of life is rooted in pre-Islamic times, in Arab culture, which was tribal, polytheistic, and shaped by a desert environment where life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”  One hardly dared sleep in that uncivilized environment.  If your throat wasn’t slit, your camel, on which your survival depended, was stolen by a rival tribe. Here is where Hobbes’ fear of violent death seems to apply. Not so, because Arab culture bred warriors.  As in Sparta, manliness or courage was deemed the highest virtue.  Fear of violent death would be shameful. 

An Arab tribe’s survival obviously required tribal loyalty, a strict code of conduct, a suspicious attitude toward strangers. Your tribe was essential to your safety and sense of identity. Arab culture therefore suppressed individuality, discouraged change, novelty, creativity—ingredients distinctive of human life and which enabled the West to excel Arab culture.

I have omitted the most important thing: monotheism. Monotheism generated the idea of a rational universe, the presupposition of science, which launched the West’s modern project: to conquer nature, to alleviate the human condition, to extend human longevity and, to this extent, to conquer death. Nasrallah is correct in saying we infidels love life, but he sees only the materialistic conception of life fostered by Hobbes and the Enlightenment, which undermined the highest conception of life rooted in monotheism.

Thanks to the influence of Judaism and Christianity, monotheism was superimposed on Arab polytheism.  The trouble is that Islam has never fully transcended its pagan substratum. 

From a behavioral perspective, Islam should be regarded as a semi-pagan religion despite its monotheism.  This is why scholars have trouble classifying Islamic terrorists.  Some call them “Islamo-fascists,” and attribute suicidal terrorism to “political” Islam or “militant” or “radical” Islam”—adjectives indicative of paganism.    Few see, and hardly anyone dares say, that Islam is a syncretistic religion—ostensibly monotheistic, but culturally pagan vis-à-vis the non-Islamic world.  Islam’s attitude toward life and death is not quite what Nasrallah believes.

True, Islam does not love life; indeed, it fears life. But fear of life is not unique to Islam because human life is inherently fearful.  We know that life may be snuffed out in a moment, and by accident.  That you are mortal means that in this vast and seemingly timeless universe you have no necessary existence, no essential purpose, which suggests that your life is meaningless.  This is the exoteric teaching of Ecclesiastes: “Futility of futilities … all is futile” (12:8).

This impression of Ecclesiastes cannot but engender a more or less vague sense of psychological and metaphysical insecurity.  One sees this in Albert Camus, The Stranger—a man condemned to be free in a meaningless universe. Freedom makes human life insecure. You are free to make choices, hence to err. This freedom is intolerable in Islam, from a political and theological perspective.  Allah is not the God of freedom.

The awareness that your thoughts, feelings, and actions are ultimately meaningless can  make one hate and fear life.  The poet Heinrich von Kleist (1777–1811) is said to have committed suicide upon learning from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason that metaphysical truth is not knowable.

Be this as it may, belief in the accidental and futile nature of life might make one more fearful of life than of death.  Notice, however, that the Quran is permeated with references to hell.  This can arouse fear of life as well as of death. (By the way, the Quran’s obsession with hell suggests the influence of Christianity. There is no reference to hell in the Hebrew Bible, which is an apotheosis of life.  L’chaim—to life—is said whenever Jews meet and drink wine or any distilled alcoholic beverage.)

Nothing can be more opposed to each other than Judaism and Islam.  The Quran’s dismal view of life is the polar opposite of the Jew’s love of life. The Quran, which “exalts the Muslim who slays and is slain for Allah” (Sura 9:111), expresses Nasrallah’s love of death.  Hence, the Muslim must destroy the Jew whose love of life contradicts Islam’s fear of life.

Islam’s holy book is described by an influential Egyptian Islamic activist in these terms: “The Quran for mankind is like a manual for a machine.” 

Islamic fatalism contradicts the free will implied in the Book of Genesis. Allah is not the God Who created man in His own image.  Alain Bosançon puts it this way:

Although Muslims like to enumerate the 99 names of God, missing from the list, but central to the Jewish and Christian concept of God, is “father”—i.e., a personal God capable of a reciprocal and loving relationship with men.  The God of the Quran, the God who demands submission, is a distant God; to call him “Father” would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege. 

But if God is not “Father,” then, as theologian George Weigel observes, it’s difficult to imagine the human person as having been “created in the image of God.”  This not only precludes human freedom, but also reason.  In fact, the Taliban religious police posted placards bearing the words “Throw reason to the dogs—it stinks of corruption.”   Imagine how a devout Muslim might react to the philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead who defined reason as “the organ of emphasis on novelty.” Novelty is of the essence of life.

Alas, there was a time in the Middle Ages when Reason competed with unreason for the Moslem’s soul.  Suffice to mention al-Farrabi (872-950), one of the greatest philosophers and scientists of the Islamic world.  However, al-Farrabi was really a Greek in Muslim dress.  To avoid persecution and death, he concealed his philosophic kinship with Aristotle and Plato by means of an esoteric form of writing.

The rationalism of the Greek philosophers bore fruit in Christian Europe, not in the Muslim Middle East, where Reason succumbed to irrationalism. The primacy of intimidation, so evident in Islamic scriptures, supplanted the primacy of logical persuasion in Plato and Aristotle.  

Reason, which is inseparable from the Biblical concept of man’s creation in the image of God, is also inseparable from the idea of the human community. Islam’s negation of the idea of human community was made quite clear in 1985, when Iran’s permanent delegate to the United Nations, Raja Khorassani, declared that “the very concept of human rights was ‘a Judeo-Christian invention’ and inadmissible in Islam.”  I therefore see in Islam’s denial of the human community the dubious nature of Islamic monotheism on the one hand, and an atavistic stratum of Arab paganism and polytheism on the other. 

Israel’s ruling elites will hint nothing of this.  They shun the truth, lest they antagonize Muslims and expose themselves to the canard of “racism.”  But shunning the truth about Islam—the most dangerous enemy of Western civilization—has not spared Israel from demonic anti-Semitism. Shunning the truth has made Israel the constant victim of unmitigated lies.

Israeli governments are typically on the defensive—obsessed with futile information programs called “hasbara.”   Israel’s most powerful weapon is truth, but it has yet to have a prime minister with enough wisdom and courage to employ truth to distract and disarm Israel’s enemies.  For example, Israel’s UN ambassador could submit a resolution calling for Iran’s eviction from the General Assembly for having repeatedly violated the UN’s anti-genocide convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Having failed to do this, Israel has itself been denounced for such crimes.

More important, however, is this: Israel must forge ahead in science and technology, for therein is the key to decodifying the Torah, the key to Israel’s knowing itself and being recognized as a wise and understanding nation (Deut. 4:6).

Geert Wilders Speech, House of Lords, London, Friday the 5th of March 2010

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.
Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.
Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film ‘Fitna’. Thank you my friends for inviting me.
I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.
And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!
Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.
Churchill was right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.
Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.
As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.
Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!
Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.
I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of Islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.
No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.
Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.
As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.
Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.
I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.
Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.
Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.
Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.
Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.
I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.
But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.
Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.
I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:
First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.
Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.
Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalization, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.
Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.
And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchill's. Let's elect real leaders.
Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.
What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
Thank you very much.

Fundamentally Freund: Holy hysteria

You don’t have to be a biblical scholar to recognize the incontestable Jewish nature of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs.

A new malady is sweeping through the Middle East and beyond, spreading as rapidly as any contagion in recent memory. Like any epidemic, this nefarious virus has left havoc in its wake, claiming an increasing number of victims as it crosses borders and continents with all the speed that broadband can offer. It is “holy hysteria,” and it has even struck some of the leading members of the international community. The most common sign of this ailment, as any political physician will tell you, is an irrational overreaction to the Jewish people’s basic and fundamental right to revere its own sacred spaces. In especially severe cases, the symptoms of this illness have also been known to include denying the Jewish historical connection to various holy sites and willfully ignoring the mounds of evidence to buttress such claims. The latest person to be hit by this dreadful disorder is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who this week joined the growing ranks of world leaders who have denounced Israel’s recently-published list of national heritage sites. In a telephone conversation on Tuesday with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Mubarak reportedly warned against what he termed “the dangerous implications of the invasion of the Temple Mount and of including the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb in the list of Jewish heritage sites.” Cairo even submitted an official protest to the government over the matter. Mubarak’s blunt reaction actually seemed downright composed when compared with some of the frenzied responses emanating from the Palestinian leadership, who tried to outdo one another in their condemnation of the Jewish state. TAKE, FOR example, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who on a visit to Brussels last week asserted that the decision could spark hostilities, labeling it “a serious provocation which may lead to a religious war.” Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza likewise called on Palestinians to launch a new intifada and defiantly declared that “Jerusalem is ours, the land is ours. We will not accept these decisions.” And at its weekly meeting in Ramallah, the PA cabinet went still further, denying the Jewish link to the burial places of the biblical patriarchs and referring to them in a statement as “Palestinian archeological and heritage sites.” Not surprisingly, the international community was also quick to side with the Palestinians. The European Union called it a “provocative act,” as did the US State Department, and the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process issued a statement saying he was “concerned” by the decision. This tempest over tombs is both absurd and offensive, and Israel should not in any way buckle under to the pressure. Sites such as Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are part of the national and religious patrimony of the Jewish people, and we do not need anyone’s permission to renovate and maintain them. Our reverence for these sites and attachment to them predates Muhammad and precedes Jesus, and no one has the right to lecture us about where and how we choose to serve God. In fact, this entire episode provides a revealing glimpse of just how transparently hypocritical our critics have become. After all, it was nearly 15 years ago, in the September 1995 Oslo II Accords, that the Palestinians themselves recognized Israel’s attachment to Rachel’s Tomb. In Article V, Annex I to the agreement, the Palestinians agreed that “the present situation and existing practices in the tomb shall be preserved,” meaning that they clearly consented to Israeli control and use of the site, which has never been anything other than a place of Jewish worship. So for chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat to say last week that Israel’s move amounts to a “unilateral decision to make Palestinian sites in Hebron and Bethlehem part of Israel” is not only absurd, it is patently false. And since the accords were signed on the White House lawn in front of the world, and were formally witnessed by representatives of both the US administration and the European Union, one would expect them to see right through the Palestinians’ shenanigans. Worse yet, by playing along with the feigned outrage of the Palestinian leadership, the international community is merely giving credence to their boorish denial of the Jewish essence of these sites. YOU DON’T have to be a Biblical scholar or a learned archeologist to recognize the long-standing and incontestably Jewish nature of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs. Arguing otherwise is akin to asserting that the earth is flat, Elvis is still alive and the moon is made of cheese, and that is how the Palestinian claims should be viewed. Indeed, the late Prof. Ze’ev Vilnai, in his monumental study Holy Tombstones in the Land of Israel, noted that “the Cave of Machpela and the tombs of the patriarchs were known throughout all of the eras, and Jews looked upon them with great esteem” (Vol.1, p. 102). Similarly, regarding Rachel’s Tomb, Vilnai, considered the leading expert on the subject, wrote that it “was known throughout all of the generations, from the earliest ones onward” (Vol.1, p. 149). But the sad fact is that history and reality just do not seem to matter all that much when it comes to how the world views Israel. Consumed by “holy hysteria,” they prefer to insult and even denigrate our most ancient traditions even as they give the Palestinians a free pass for their refusal to return to the negotiating table. But let them grumble all they wish. Those who cherish and visit Jewish holy sites will continue to do so, whether or not others approve. And I am pleased that the government will at last begin to invest the funds needed to refurbish and restore them. We have nothing to apologize for in paying our respects to the founding fathers and mothers of the Jewish people, and it is a blessing that our generation has been given access to their resting places. Treasuring our past, it should be clear, is no sin. But allowing others to trample on it most assuredly would be.

The Mossad's Mistake - By Moshe Feiglin

Everyone is telling us there is nothing to worry about. The international Mabhouh assassination scandal will eventually evaporate, explain Israel's Intelligence veterans. After all, this is not the first time that undercover security agencies used foreign passports. The main thing is that Mabhouh has been eliminated and that all of our forces – according to foreign reports, of course – are safely back at home.

What, then, is the problem?
The planning was brilliant.
The intelligence gathering – above and beyond.
The execution went without a hitch.

So why the international brouhaha?

Once again we see that the most advanced intelligence organization equipped with the most sophisticated UAVs, state of the art technologies and the most expensive intelligence devices are no match for the preconceptions of the person making the decisions. Intelligence excellence does not help the organization that is fighting yesterday's war.

Stalin knew about the imminent German invasion but his preconceptions did not allow him to use the information that streamed to him on the eve of the attack. Golda knew – from Jordan's King Hussein and other sources – about the impending Egyptian/Syrian attack on Israel, but was surprised for the same reason.

After 9/11, I wrote an article explaining that America was going to lose the war against Iraq. How did I guess? I wasn't privy to a fraction of the information that the decision makers in Washington had. The answer is simple. If a person is entrenched in a preconception, all the information in the world will not help him. I understood that the Americans are incapable of understanding an enemy that is not a state. When the US was attacked on 9/11, President Bush looked for a guilty state. With remarkable stupidity, Saddam Hussein provided him with the return address he was looking for. The Americans certainly did conquer Iraq for a few days. But they lost the war because their preconceptions do not fit reality.

For the very same reason, Israel lost the last two wars that it fought. It looks like the same thing also happened to the Mossad in its Dubai mission.

I assume that the people at the Mossad don't understand what we want from them. For decades, they have been using foreign passports and no problems arose. The enlightened Western world is actually pleased that someone did the dirty work for it and rid it of a menacing terrorist. So why the international uproar? All the intelligence agencies in the world use foreign passports.

The pundits explain that the Arabs are pressuring the British, so they must let off some steam. Soon, they reassure us, all will return to normal.

But it won't. Somebody in the Mossad and the echelon that authorized the Mabhouh mission is still living in the eighties. They didn't notice that the Western world, and particularly the British, no longer sees Israel as the good guy in the story. For them, Mabhouh is a freedom fighter.

If you didn't notice, Israel's most senior ministers are wanted in Europe's capitals for war crimes. No need for sophisticated electronics. All that you have to do is open your eyes to reality. If Israel's leaders are wanted for crimes against humanity, what does that say about our country? In the eyes of much of the world, Israel is no more than a pirate ship sailing on borrowed time.

The world has changed, ladies and gentlemen. Israel can no longer expect the international community to wink its eye and look the other way.

To the esteemed Meir Dagan  (Director of the Mossad). Please turn off your computer and your telephones - and think for a moment about Israel's place in the world today.

Haman-dinijad: By Moshe Feiglin

Something about this Purim bothers me. It seems too relevant. Once again, a Persian Haman has emerged - Haman-dinijad - and once again, he has made the existence of the Nation of Israel a topic for debate. Some say that the world is better off with Israel and others that the world is better off without Israel. The 'enlightened' academia has not yet decided, but it looks like the scales are tipping in favor of a world without Israel.

These days are too reminiscent of the thirties. The giddy optimism after World War I was gradually replaced by the foul winds of anti-Semitism and hatred. Slowly but surely, the enlightened world surrendered to the new fashion. Weak politicians made peace with the trend. Frightened Jews closed themselves in their neighborhoods as violent anti-Semitic incidents became routine. The establishment explained that the Jews must ride the murky wave and that with time, it would pass. Only a few Jabotinskys made the rounds of Europe, futilely warning of an impending holocaust.

When I was a boy, I was taught that another Holocaust cannot happen because we have a state. This line of thinking was bolstered by Religious Zionist determinism that declared that the redemption process was a given; despite its ups and downs, it could not stop. I always found comfort in the thought that while the State of Israel could bring suffering upon itself, its existence was guaranteed. Today I no longer think so. The redemption is certainly guaranteed, but on one of the declines on the path that leads to redemption, we can certainly lose our state - at a terrible price.

Every physical holocaust must be preceded by de-legitimization and de-humanization of the intended victims. The Haman of old and today's Haman both rely on the political/conceptual plane before executing their plans of annihilation. The murder of six million Jews would not have been possible if not for the fact that it was preceded by the negation of their honor and basic human rights. Annihilation was simply the next step in the process. The Persian tyrant's nuclear plans are not as dangerous as the public debate that he has managed to arouse and the "Jewish Question" that has once again found its way into public discourse.

The Mabhouh affair is a good example. If it were not so serious, it would even be funny. The entire 'enlightened' world is busy hunting down the cops and protecting the robbers. What does that say about how Israel is viewed today in the world?
If Israel's most senior ministers have arrest warrants waiting for them in Europe's capitals, if 'enlightened' regimes are searching for them as if they were international criminals - pirates - what does that say about the State of Israel? Israel has turned into a pirate ship, sailing on borrowed time. In the eyes of much of the world, the sooner its captain and crew are captured and the ship sunk - the better.

It is more comfortable for the average Israeli to hide his head in the sand and to trust Israel's leadership to deal with this problem. If he or she do not look too Jewish, they can also feel fairly comfortable outside Israel. But that is precisely the syndrome of 1938. The threat is so horrific that the average person cannot integrate it and chooses to ignore it, instead.

This is not a problem that will go away if we ignore it. If you read the Scroll of Esther, you will understand what made Haman hate the Jews. Listen to the current Haman-dinijad and you will find the same paradigm.

The story of Purim begins with a feast that the king, Ahashverosh, hosted in his palace. The feast was actually a celebration of his royal decree forbidding the Jews who had returned to Israel from the Babylonian exile to continue building the holy Temple in Jerusalem. In honor of the auspicious event, Ahashverosh invited the Jews of his capital, Shushan, to celebrate. He made sure that the holy Temple vessels that had been stolen by the Babylonians when they destroyed the Temple were prominently on display.

The Jews were flattered to be invited and were glad to participate in the feast. In other words, they forgot who they were, wanted to prove that they were good Persians and were happy for the opportunity to rub shoulders with Persian high-society. That is where Haman stepped in. If you look at the caricatures in the Nazi Der Sturmer, you will see that the assimilated German Jew aroused the same disgust in the German Amalek.

And what does the current Haman-dinijad say? He says that he has no problem with the Jews. He only has a problem with the Zionists. "It is a shame what the Germans did to the Jews," he disingenuously says, "so let the Austrians and Germans find them a place to live in Europe - not at the expense of the Palestinians." And between us, the Foreign Ministry of the 'Singapore of the Middle East' - as Israel's president defines us - has a hard time explaining why the modern-day Haman is mistaken. If we are not a Jewish state, but rather, a state of all its citizens - as former Chief Justice Aharon Barak claims - then what right do we have to act like colonialists? What right do we have to conquer and expel another nation from its land in Sheikh Munis, a.k.a. as Ramat Aviv?

"It is all the settlers' fault. We will eliminate their settlements and everything will work out," some people in Tel Aviv claim. There were German Jews who also thought that the hatred they were experiencing was because of the Ost Yidden - the Eastern (Polish) Jews. About a year ago, I read an interview with German Jewish Holocaust survivors who are still convinced that the horrors that they experienced could have been prevented if not for the Ost Yidden.

It can't happen to us because we have the IDF? We love to rely on the IDF, its sophisticated weapons and cutting edge technology. But the IDF lost its moral balance in Gush Katif and has not yet regained it. An army without moral balance will not be able to save us.

The Purim story has a happy end. But Jewish history has other stories that do not end quite as happily. We would be wise to learn the Purim story well to understand what caused the turn-about that saved the Jews. It just may help us to deal with the storm clouds gathering on our horizon.

Tel Aviv Court Paves Way for Likud Central Committee Elections – Feiglin Gains Expected

March 3, 2010...

Despite Israeli Prime Minister – and Likud Chairman - Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu's best efforts to derail them, Likud Central Committee elections are on track to take place on April 28th  (14 Iyar, Pesach Sheni). Moshe Feiglin and his Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction are expected to do well in these internal Likud elections. Manhigut Yehudit is currently the largest faction in the Central Committee, and the results of this election should serve to further strengthen Feiglin's growing power in the party.



Netanyahu has pushed hard to have the elections delayed until at least 2012 in order to gain time to register more Kadima defectors to offset the growing base of Feiglin loyalists. Tel Aviv District Court Judge Yehuda Zeft made it clear on Tuesday that elections should go forward as planned stating, “Even if you decide to declare yourselves central committee members for life and that it will also carry on to your children, it doesn’t mean it counts.” In the wake of this warning, Bibi has cancelled a planned Likud internal vote on his postponement, while leaving open his option to appeal to the Supreme Court.  



Netanyahu waged an intense personal campaign against Feiglin in the 2008 Likud Party primaries. His goal was to prevent his rival from influencing the structure of the Likud list running in the general election of 2009 and to prevent Feiglin from entering the Knesset at that time. The power of Manhigut Yehudit's grassroots organization behind candidates proclaiming support for strong Jewish values and connection to the entire land of Israel won the day with Likud voters.



Bibi Netanyahu is now concerned that Feiglin's movement will sweep into a stronger position through the upcoming process of selecting a new party Central Committee. The Central Committee of the Likud was the source of the only serious opposition to Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally abandon the Jewish communities of Gaza in 2005 and is gearing up to become an insurmountable obstacle to Netanyahu and his current plan to create an Arab state in the Jewish biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria.

Palestine: the Real Apartheid State In the Making

By David Bedein

Wed Mar 2 2010

• "Palestine"is an apartheid state in the making.
• "Israel Apartheid" Week is the time to publicize that fact.
• During Israel Apartheid Week, orchestrated on campuses around the globe, the time has come to put the shoe on the other foot.

In 1948, Apartheid laws institutionalized racial discrimination in South Africa & denied human rights to 25 million Black citizens of South Africa.

In 1948, the Arab League of Nations applied the Apartheid model to Palestine, and declared that Jews must be denied rights as citizens of Israel, while declaring a total state of war to eradicate the new Jewish entity, a war that continues today.

In 1948, at the directive of the Arab League of Nations, Jordan devastated the vestiges of Jewish life from Judea and Samaria, and burned all schules in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. In 1948, member states of the Arab League of Nations began to strip the human rights of Jews and to expel entire Jewish communities who had resided in their midst for centuries

In the mid 1960's, The Arab League of Nations spawned the PLO to organize local residents to continue the war to deny Jewish rights the right to live as free citizens in the land of Israel - well before Israel took over Judea, Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem in the defensive war waged by Israel in 1967.

And since its inception in 1994, the newly constituted Palestinian Authority, created by the PLO, has prepared the rudiments of a Palestinian State, modeled on the rules of Apartheid and institutionalized discrimination:
1. The right of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendents to return to Arab villages lost in 1948 will be protected by the new Palestinian state.
2. While 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, not one Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian State
3. Anyone who sells land to a Jew will be liable to the death penalty in the Palestinian State
4. Those who murder Jews are honored on all official Palestinian media outlets.
5. Palestinian Authority maps prepared for the Palestinian State depict all of Palestine under Palestinian rule
6. PA maps of Jerusalem for the Palestinian State once again delete the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem
7. Recent PA documents claim all of Jerusalem for the future Palestinian State.
8. The right of Jewish access to Jewish holy places is to be denied in the new Palestinian State.
9. The Draft Palestinian State Constitution denies juridical status to any religion except for Islam.
10. No system which protects human rights or civil liberties will exist in a Palestinian State
If that is not a formula for a totalitarian apartheid state of Palestine, then what is?

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh - a known terrorist by the world

Even though virtually the entire world understands that this "Man" was a terrorist, they continue to act as if he was a legitimate head of state.  The British, Australians and the rest of the media condemn Israel as being behind this act and instead of congratulating them for killing a terrorist and saving the lives of his future victims.....they act as if this was a despicable act.

Good will be as Evil and Evil will be as good....It is all around us. Some people say the world has turned upside down....but this is way it is supposed to happen.

"In every generation, there are always a few who understand; Always understand... even if you remain among the few." - Meir Kahane

Watch and study, continue to live a Jewish or Noahide life and be patient and strong.

Avi 

On Dogs and the Middle East - Paul Eidelberg

Part I

Jews and Christians should not feel insulted when Muslim Arabs call them dogs. Actually, it’s an unwitting form of flattery!  Let me explain before you call for my head.

As everyone knows, a dog invariably wags its tail when its master returns home.  On the other hand, if its master scolds the dog, the creature’s tail disappears between its legs.

The motion of the dog’s tail reveals its inner feeling, joyful when it sees its master, unhappy when scolded.

What is more, you cannot easily deceive a dog by cooing in a friendly and welcoming voice when you’re inwardly annoyed or angry by his dirtying your Persian rug.  The dog’s tail still will go between its legs despite your friendly voice. 

Unlike dogs, human beings can conceal their feelings. In other words, a dog is a “sincere” creature, meaning, it will not happily wave its tail and yet have murder in its heart. 

The same cannot be said of a human being, who may smile at you, shake your hands, and even flatter you—only to disarm you in order to facilitate his scheme to slaughter you.

The intelligent reader may now understand why it’s so difficult to negotiate genuine peace in the Middle East.  Hence, it would be a grave mistake as well as an insult to call Muslim Arabs what they call Jews and Christians.

Part II

Isn’t it amazing that you cannot deceive dogs as readily as Muslim Arabs can deceive Jews, and Christians?  Yes, but how are we going to explain the behavior of Barak Hussein Obama—his outreach to Arab-Islamic states, even to such murderous regimes as Iran and Syria?

Alternatively, how are we going to explain the behavior of Israeli prime ministers who have not only released thousands of Muslim Arab terrorists, but have also given them arms, money, and even Jewish land?

Another enigma: We all know that Muslim Arabs have used their own children as human bombs.  But how are we to explain the fact that many seemingly civilized people are not outraged by such barbarism?  I am referring to Americans and Europeans who, in utter disregard of the Western idea of personal responsibility, blame not Islam but Israel, the original source of that idea?

Has Western civilization with all its emphasis on personal freedom and human dignity lost its bearing, has gone mad?  Is evil running amok on planet earth? 

Consider the assassination of a Hamas terrorist in Dubai. Shouldn’t decent men applause or at least feel relieved at the end of that murderous villain? Instead, the civilized world blames Israel! The Prophet Isaiah would say—in one way or another: “Woe unto them that call good evil …”

But what does Israel’s feckless prime minister say about ridding the earth of a wanton murderer in Dubai?  He denies Israel’s complicity—period!   Suppose he had said: “Sorry folks, we were a little late.”

The curious reader may ask: “What has this to do with dogs?  In Plato’s dialogue, The Republic, Socrates speaks of three parts of a just city, and he likens the guardians to dogs. Why?  Other subtleties aside, the dog represents courage and loyalty, on which the safety and survival of the city depends.  Also, a dog is wary if not hostile to strangers.  The trouble is that a dog (unlike Barak Obama!) does not readily distinguish between good and bad strangers. 

The dog represents the spirited (or “patriotic) part of the city but not its intellectual part; the just city needs both.  This applies to a human being, who needs a good heart, the seat of honor, and a good mind, the seat of wisdom (so lacking in America and Israel).

The Muslim Arab has an overweening if not pathological sense of honor.  In the place of wisdom he has an abundance of cunning.

Lacking in Arab-Islamic culture is moderation, for Plato, one of the cardinal virtues, the virtue conducive to peace. 

This is why there will be no peace in the Middle East—unless Jihadic Islam is relegated to the dust heap of history.