“Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.”

By Ted Belman

I thought I would begin with a prediction. “Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.”

Fox News are on to him and all the arguments our “smear” camping is making and for the most part it is running with them. Sean Hannity is the best.

Slowly, but surely Obama, is doing himself in. It is not just the company he keeps but also what he is now saying.

Ed Lasky, the News Editor of The American Thinker, reports on Senator Obama’s Coming Out Party in Cleveland. Ed does a brilliant job of ferreting out the true meaning of Obama’s remarks. But in my opinion he mis-states two things which I want to address first.

“Most supporters of Israel now understand there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions.”
Recent polls disclose that 2/3 of Israelis are against dividing Jerusalem and retreating from Judea and Samaria and that is despite the fact the the entire world including the Government of Israel and its media have been embracing the two state solution.


“Senator Obama also sought to dispel rumors of anti-Semitism within his church (American Thinker has never made this accusation; nor do we support this allegation).”
I submit that The American Thinker is wrong in taking this position. Organizations and individuals who take positions critical of Israel, which Obama’s church does, often cross the line into antisemitism. Lasky knows the difference between legitimate criticism and antisemitic criticism. Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ sure fits the later category.

Bill Levinson posted to very important articles on Israpundit which can’t be ignored; Obama’s Church Connected to Sabeel, Naim Ateek and Obama’s Church and Black Liberation Theology

The respected NGO Monitor had this to say about SABEEL’s Ecumenical Facade

Reflecting its mission statement, Sabeel is active in promoting an extreme anti-Israel agenda in Protestant churches in both North America and Europe. Sabeel’s efforts have promoted the campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel through the divestment campaign, which have recently been adopted by the World Council of Churches, the Anglican Church in Britain, the Presbyterian Church, and others.
What could be clearer? Now here is part of Lasky’s article.

Nevertheless, other parts of his speech were far from reassuring, and once again cast substantial doubt on his views not just toward Israel but also specifically toward supporters of the America-Israel relationship here at home. Senator Obama believes words matter; it is a mantra of his candidacy. Therefore, it is only fair to look at the words he used in Cleveland to divine his views.

He seems to be addressing many supporters of Israel in America who have questions regarding his views and his plans. He finds fault with them:

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel”.
Senator Obama characterizes those who have concerns about policies he might follow as President as being Likud-supporters. This has been a charge propagated by the fiercest opponents of Israel, who have often slipped into conspiracy theories regarding American supporters of Israel. (Try googling Likudnik and “dual loyalty” or “conspiracy theory”; Likudnik has become a term of opprobrium. As David Berstein notes, “Likudnik has gradually become a general anti-Semitic term for Jews whose opinions one does not like.”

One wishes Senator Obama would be bit more sensitive going forward when he uses such a term. After all, the Likud Party has not been in power for years, and Americans should feel free to express their concerns without being characterized as that party’s supporters, with its suggestion of dual loyalty. The suggestion that supporters of Israel who express their concerns are subscribers to the view of the Likud Party of Israel is simply not grounded. After all, supporters of Hillary Clinton have also expressed qualms regarding Senator Obama’s views of Israel. Are they supporters of Likud, too?

Haaretz columnist Shmuel Rosner raises an additional reason to have qualms. Will a President Obama be supportive of an Israel headed by a Prime Minster who hails from the Likud party? Does this statement by Senator Obama risk interfering with Israeli politics?

It is important to note that Likud did give up the Sinai and that Ariel Sharon — a former Likud leader — did remove all the settlements from the Gaza Strip. So one wonders why Senator Obama is so anti-Likud to begin with? Does he not know the history of this volatile region? Who has he been his counsel when he chooses to use such a term?

Senator Obama also sought to distance himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose anti-Israel views are well known. However, he made no mention of two other advisors with a long record of hostility toward Israel: Robert Malley and Samantha Power. Power, in particular, is very close to the Senator and is a key foreign policy adviser . Why the omission of any mention of both?

But in trying to disentangle himself from Brzezinski, Senator Obama engaged in some rhetoric that is unsettling:

“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”
Senator Obama apparently views Israel as a “belligerent” and perhaps wants to see America’s support for Israel’s military reduced. This is hardly reassuring. Israel is not a belligerent, it only defends itself. It is a tiny sliver of a nation of a few million people surrounded by 300 million people who have made quite clear over the past 60 years that they desire its destruction. Few supporters of Israel indeed think that the only way to bring peace to the region is for Israel to crush all the opposition. Israel herself, since her founding, sought — and sometimes fought — for peace. These steps did not involve crushing all the opposition. Israel has taken great risks in it steps towards peace (leaving Lebanon — which led to the rise of Hezbollah; leaving Gaza — which led to the rise of Hamas; allowing Yasser Arafat to come to the West bank, where he set up a terrorist regime and brainwashed Palestinian children to hate. A leading Presidential candidate all but accuses Israel of being “belligerent” — is that unsettling to anyone?

Also unsettling is the implication that may lie behind his statement that we are going to have “problems moving forward” if critics raise questions about his views. Is this a statement meant to forestall discussion? If so, it would be similar to the views expressed by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who abhor the role that pro-Israel Americans (including Christians) sometimes play in the foreign policy discussion.

These statements are difficult to square with his position that he has a long record of support for Israel. If he is perturbed by critics and indicates questions may cause problems in the future regarding his policies and actions, then perhaps people have legitimate reasons to be concerned about the depth of his support for the America-Israel relationship and the role of Americans in the foreign policy discussion.

Senator Obama also said that supporting the view that only by defeating its Islamic foes can Israel enjoy any semblance of peace and security “can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”. This is disconcerting. How firm and deep will President Obama’s support for Israel be when it comes to dealing with terrorists? Israel needs to defeat its Islamic foes who seek its destruction and who celebrate martyrdom for peace to reign. Even Palestinian moderates will feel constrained in making peace deals with Israel until these Islamic extremists are defeated. Wouldn’t Israel be justified in stopping Islamic foes that are calling for another Holocaust?

Would President Obama feel the same towards Islamic foes who target America?

Senator Obama also indicated that siding with those who seek the dividing of Israel does not make him anti-Israel. This is true. Most supporters of Israel now understand there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions. He stated that backing the Jews’ biblical, historical and legal claim to all of the land in question also can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. Of course, Israel has already made such concessions: the result is Hamasstan in the Gaza, which has become a center for terror directed daily against Israel. As Israel moved its forces out of the West Bank, those areas became centers of terrorist activity.

Senator Obama has already telegraphed his views regarding land, which seemed to prejudge the final outcome. But it might be wiser from a diplomatic point of view if he does not signal to opponents of negotiations his position if he becomes President. Also, violence has ensued when Israel voluntarily withdrew from lands; the world has remained silent and expresses very little sympathy for Israeli victims. Is counseling the division of land now something a friend would do?

Notably, the word “Jerusalem” is entirely absent from Senator Obama’s remarks. Surely that is not inadvertent. Does Senator Obama support or oppose the division of Jerusalem? Is Senator Obama aware of the destruction of Jewish and Christian religious sites when Jerusalem had been divided previously? Is he aware of how Jews were denied access to their religious sites when the city was divided? If Senator Obama does support the division of Jerusalem, how would it be divided? American Jews certainly cannot evaluate the Senator’s views on Israel when in a lengthy speech to Jewish leaders he keeps his views on Jerusalem to himself.

Senator Obama also stated that a full withdrawal from Iraq would strengthen America’s ability to deal with Iran. This logic is difficult to see. How would that happen? A precipitous withdrawal would embolden Iran. There would be no fear of American forces near its borders and its Shiite allies within Iraq would be strengthened. If anything, Iran would be empowered by such a retreat. How leaving would help us deal with Iran is opaque.

Senator Obama also sought to dispel rumors of anti-Semitism within his church (American Thinker has never made this accusation; nor do we support this allegation). Within the speech was this nugget:

“But I have never heard an anti-Semitic comment made inside of our church.”
And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans — that’s maybe a possibility that’s just, I am not suggesting that’s definitive.”

This is a Clintonesque statement if there ever were one. Senator Obama has never heard anti-Semitic statements “inside his church.” How about members who may have made such comments outside the church? How about his pastor’s relatively recent written anti-Israel statements that he excuses on the ground of Israel’s former relationship with South Africa. This also conveniently elides the fact that his Church’s magazine very recently gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, one of the most infamous anti-Semites in America.

In an attempt at self-justification, Senator Obama relegates his pastor, who is his spiritual mentor, and who inspired the title of his book The Audacity of Hope, as something like a crazy old uncle in the attic. Worse, he suggests that Jewish leaders may themselves have relatives who have made remarks that might be considered anti-African American. That is entirely irrelevant. There is a substantial difference between relatives who make private (or even public) comments that are disagreeable, and a relationship with a pastor that was sought out and supported, praised, and regarded as a mentor for two decades. Although one can distance oneself from relatives, it’s not so easy to resign from them. The same is not true of a pastoral affiliation.

Undoubtedly, the Jewish community would expect a presidential candidate to resign from a church whose pastor publicly supported David Duke and whose magazine gave him an award. The community would hope that Senator Obama would have taken such a step many years ago. Some may consider it disingenuous of the Senator to excuse his own voluntary association on the ground those Jewish listeners might have family members who harbor private prejudices.

Senator Obama’s speech occurred in the wake of comments made by Ralph Nader on Meet The Press. Nader claims that Senator Obama is too pro-Israel these days and remarked that the Senator was pro-Palestinian for years before he began his campaign for higher office. While some may view this as a reflection of Senator Obama’s evolving views (certainly his supporters will), others might question the coincidence of changing his views when he sought to garner support for his campaign.

Now that he has racked up a string of victories and vast amounts of financial support, he apparently feels comfortable in articulating some views regarding Israel and supporters of Israel in America that may give comfort to Ralph Nader but might leave others with even more questions than before.

Finally we can’t forget this quote from Obama’s book Audacity of Hope

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Whatever did he mean by that?

Obama is not legally African-American as he claims but Arab-American and Islam still considers him to be a Muslim. Surely Americans are entitled to take this into account when they are voting for the next President of America.

No, Obama is going down and rightly so.



Ted Belman

WHAT TO DO WITH GAZA

The Sderot Calculus
By Bret Stephens,

The Israeli town of Sderot lies less than a mile from the Gaza Strip. Since the beginning of the intifada seven years ago, it has borne the brunt of some 2,500 Kassam rockets fired from Gaza by Palestinian terrorists. Only about a dozen of these Kassams have proved lethal, though earlier this month brothers Osher and Rami Twito were seriously injured by one as they walked down a Sderot street on a Saturday evening. Eight-year-old Osher lost a leg.

It is no stretch to say that life in Sderot has become unendurable. Palestinians and their chorus of supporters — including the 118 countries of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, much of Europe, and the panoply of international aid organizations from the World Bank to the United Nations — typically reply that life in the Gaza Strip is also unendurable, and that Palestinian casualties greatly exceed Israeli ones. But this argument is fatuous: Conditions in Gaza, in so far as they are shaped by Israel, are a function of conditions in Sderot. No Palestinian Kassams (or other forms of terrorism), no Israeli “siege.”

The more vexing question, both morally and strategically, is what Israel ought to do about Gaza. The standard answer is that Israel’s response to the Kassams ought to be “proportionate.” What does that mean? Does the “proportion” apply to the intention of those firing the Kassams — to wit, indiscriminate terror against civilian populations? In that case, a “proportionate” Israeli response would involve, perhaps, firing 2,500 artillery shells at random against civilian targets in Gaza. Or should proportion apply to the effects of the Kassams — an exquisitely calibrated, eye-for-eye operation involving the killing of a dozen Palestinians and the deliberate maiming or traumatizing of several hundred more?

Surely this isn’t what advocates of proportion have in mind. What they really mean is that Israel ought to respond with moderation. But the criteria for moderation are subjective. Should Israel pick off Hamas leaders who are ordering the rocket attacks? The European Parliament last week passed a resolution denouncing the practice of targeted assassinations. Should Israel adopt purely economic measures to punish Hamas for the Kassams? The same resolution denounced what it called Israel’s “collective punishment” of Palestinians. Should Israel seek to dismantle the Kassams through limited military incursions? This, too, has the unpardonable effect of resulting in too many Palestinian casualties, which are said to be “disproportionate” to the number of Israelis injured by the Kassams.

By these lights, Israel’s presumptive right to self-defense has no practical application as far as Gaza is concerned. Instead, Israel is counseled to allow goods to flow freely into the Strip, and to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

But here another set of considerations intrudes. Hamas was elected democratically and by overwhelming margins in Gaza. It has never once honored a cease-fire with Israel. Following Israel’s withdrawal of its soldiers and settlements from the Strip in 2005 there was a six-fold increase in the number of Kassam strikes on Israel.

Hamas has also made no effort to rewrite its 1988 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction. The charter is explicitly anti-Semitic: “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” (Article Seven) “In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.” (Article 15) And so on.

It would seem perverse for Israeli taxpayers, including residents of Sderot, to feed the mouth that bites them. It would seem equally perverse for Israel merely to bide its time for an especially unlucky day — a Kassam hitting a busload of schoolchildren, for instance — before striking hard at Gaza. But unless Israel is willing to accept the military, political and diplomatic burdens of occupying all or parts of Gaza indefinitely, the effects of a major military incursion could be relatively short-lived. Israel suffered many more casualties before it withdrew from the Strip than it has since.

Perhaps the answer is to wait for a technological fix and, in the meantime, hope for the best. Israel is at work on a missile-defense program called “Iron Dome” that may be effective against Kassams, though the system won’t be in place for at least two years. It could also purchase land-based models of the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System, used by the U.S. to defend the Green Zone in Baghdad.

But technology addresses neither the Islamic fanaticism that animates Hamas nor the moral torpor of Western policy makers and commentators who, on balance, find more to blame in Israel’s behavior than in Hamas’s. Nor, too, would an Iron Dome or the Phalanx absolve the Israeli government from the necessity of punishing those who seek its destruction. Prudence is an important consideration of statesmanship, but self-respect is vital. And no self-respecting nation can allow the situation in Sderot to continue much longer, a point it is in every civilized country’s interest to understand.

On March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa attacked the border town of Columbus, N.M., killing 18 Americans. President Woodrow Wilson ordered Gen. John J. Pershing and 10,000 soldiers into Mexico for nearly a year to hunt Villa down, in what was explicitly called a “punitive expedition.” Pershing never found Villa, making the effort something of a failure. Then again, Villa’s raid would be the last significant foreign attack on continental U.S. soil for 85 years, six months and two days.

The Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal.

'Jews’ Parade on the Streets of Vilna

Going as a Jew’: Each year in the capital, Lithuanians celebrate the holiday of Uzgavenes by dressing up and acting, in rather unflattering ways, ‘as Jews.’

The Jewish Daily Forward
By Michael Casper
Wed. Feb 06, 2008

'Going as a Jew’: Each year in the capital, Lithuanians celebrate the holiday of Uzgavenes by dressing up and acting, in rather unflattering ways, ‘as Jews.’

Funny, You Don't Look Jewish: A reveler during the Lithuanian capital's pre-Lent celebration dressed as a 'Jew.'

Vilnius, Lithuania -

Last week, a samba group in Rio de Janeiro caused an international furor when it announced its intention to participate in the city’s Carnival event on a float depicting Holocaust victims. After outcries from the Brazilian Jewish community, a judge banned the group from using the float.

Although less well known, a similarly questionable effort to celebrate the same holiday takes place in this city, once known as the Jerusalem of Lithuania because of the breadth and piety of its Jewish community. During Carnival — or Uzgavenes, as it is known in Lithuania — Catholics from around the world congregate for a feast of foods prohibited during Lent. The festival usually involves a parade or circus, with attendees in masks and costumes. But in Vilnius — commonly known to Jews as Vilna — participants traditionally dress and act “as Jews,” a feat that generally calls for masks with grotesque features, beards and visible ear locks and that is often accompanied by peddling and by stereotypically Jewish speech.

Perhaps even more shockingly, the “festivities” extend beyond the parade itself and into a Halloween-style trick-or-treating. When Simonas Gurevicius, the 26-year-old executive director of the Jewish Community of Lithuania, opened the door to his house during last year’s Uzgavenes, he was greeted by two children dressed in horns and tails, reciting a song that translates as, “We’re the little Lithuanian Jews/We want blintzes and coffee/If you don’t have blintzes/Give us some of your money.” (It rhymes in Lithuanian.)

“They understand it as Halloween, a time to have fun and adventures,” Gurevicius said. “On one hand, it is important to respect the traditions of the country. On the other hand, psychologically it stays in their brain: The image of the Jew will be closely associated with the image from the festival.”

Jewish history in Lithuania, centuries long and distinguished by a profusion of yeshivas and Torah scholars, nearly ended when most of the country’s Jewish community was murdered during the Holocaust. Today, the small but close-knit community hosts school groups at its center for educational sessions on Jewish life.

But according to Gurevicius, members of the Jewish community do not speak out against the parade, because they wish to avoid conflict with Lithuanians. “For sure, the Jewish people don’t like so much the way Jews are shown with the other creatures,” he said. But, “someone could say we don’t understand the humor. People think it’s normal.”

Diana, a 20-year-old Jewish medical student from Vilnius who did not wish to give her last name, was surprised to learn that Lithuanians dress as Jews during Uzgavenes. “It’s not the most pleasant thing, but it could be worse” she said, adding that “they could be smashing menorahs” — a reference to protests surrounding the erection of a large menorah in the Lithuanian town of Siauliai last December.

Last Saturday, hundreds gathered in front of city hall in the capital to celebrate. The Web site of the Vilnius City Municipality promised that during Uzgavenes, which is an official holiday in Lithuania, “creatures wearing different masks — devils, witches, deaths, goats, Gypsies, and other joyful and scaring characters — hang around.” Claiming to be dressed as a Jew, one woman tried to convince spectators to buy dirty handkerchiefs.

Although typical costumes include farm animals and monsters, masquerading is sometimes broadly referred to as “eiti zydukais,” or “going as Jews,” regardless of how one dresses.

The Roma do not fare better. Participants who masquerade as “Gypsies” wear gaudy makeup, hold babies and ask bystanders for money.

Last Friday, Vilnius’s Center of Ethnic Activity hosted an exhibition of Uzgavenes masks and screened archival footage of past celebrations. Masks of Jews were displayed between those of witches and animals, and shown with no apparent compunction to cultural delegates from Latvia and Denmark. In a video shot in Vilnius last year, a man dressed as a Jew carrying a briefcase full of toilet paper haggled with cab drivers as he led a group of people made up as beasts through the streets.

“From my point of view,” said Svetlana Novopolskaja, director of the Roma Community Centre of Vilnius, “Lithuanians like to dress as Roma, like their music and habits, but don’t like Roma as people. They accept them as personages from fairy tales — as hobbits, for example — and are surprised and afraid when they meet real Roma.”

Ethnologist Inga Krisciuniene, who works at the Centre of Ethnic Activity, led the event, explained how she believed that in earlier times, Jews and Gypsies dressed alike. Revelers wore the same mask on Uzgavenes to depict them, so that the characters were distinguishable only by performers’ actions. When asked whether it could be seen as offensive to mock these minorities, Krisciuniene replied, “No one has ever complained.” The intent, she said, is humorous.

“Besides,” she added, “it’s true that Gypsies steal.”

The Brzezinski/Obama Axis By Paul Eidelberg

I. Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?

It was reported in the New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussain Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy.

Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.

Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts.

Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”

Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002 that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts.

The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all.

With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about CHANGE may be more serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime. That would fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire George Soros, a globalist committed to the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government.

Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the existence of objective or transhistorical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly would be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Arab or Islamic terrorist state.)

Brzezinski’s relativism makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He urns with the winds of power; he is nothing if not “politically correct.” Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.

Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam.

II. Iran’s Vision: A World Without Israel and the United States

With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran. The Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history, a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state.

As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.

“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”

Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.” Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of Islamic imperialism. Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran.

Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of thought or political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It might accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States.

This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizing of Israel’s Third Commonwealth. Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski. The mere fact that they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish!

But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries. The nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum. Terminate the nation-state and you are heading for world government. But a world government must also have a monopoly of power. Its agents must be everywhere, to make sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops weapons of mass destruction. A world government must have the equivalent of the KGB in every country. A world government would be the greatest tyranny in human history.

Israel is the target of all those who oppose the nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites.

Will Israel be the target of CHANGE — the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussain Obama?

How Rachel Corrie really died - Naomi Ragen

It turns out that not only is the Mohammed al-Dura myth a total
fabrication, but the conventional wisdom about another "martyr",
the American Marxist activist Rachel Corrie, is also a total
fabrication. Yes, Virginia, the mainstream media have been caught
lying again.

Rachel Corrie did not die while protecting a house about to be
flattened by an Israel bulldozer. She died while protecting an
arms-smuggling tunnel, as the video available here clearly shows!

(http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-rachel-corrie-reall
y-died-hint-not.html)

So next time the New York Times tells you something, be
skeptical.

Naomi

Anti-Semitism in America must not be ignored

Wednesday Feb 20, 2008
Posted by Abraham Foxman

I have been in Israel for a week speaking on a subject that doesn't often get a lot of attention in this country: anti-Semitism in America.

Why is it a subject that is largely ignored here? Actually, it is understandable given the immediate and urgent threats that face Israel. And even when anti-Semitism is addressed, the focus appropriately falls on Islamic anti-Semitism and European anti-Semitism.

Moreover, American Jews always like to talk about how they are the most successfully integrated Jewish community in the history of the Diaspora. So what's to worry?

I came here to talk about America and anti-Semitism not to set off alarm bells. Rather to say that despite the comfort level of American Jews, which is very real, there is no reason to be complacent.

Israelis need to know that even in America, though hardly on the same scale as in Europe, there is that combination of daily incidents of anti-Semitism -- against individuals and Jewish institutions -- and larger conspiracy theories about Jews that are so pernicious. Of course, Israelis should always pay attention whenever there are any troubling signs coming out of America or for American Jews because both are so vitally important to Israel's security and well-being.

So what are those signs which should not be ignored? I'd say they break down into four categories.

First, are anti-Semitic incidents, including several violent attacks on Jews. The numbers, as presented in ADL's annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents, are not extraordinarily high this year. Still, incidents take place across America which leaves those who are the targets traumatized and the community a little bit less secure.

Second, and probably more unsettling, are the findings in our latest opinion poll of the American people which shows that a third of the public believes that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America. Now mind you, we didn't ask people if they believed Jews were as loyal to Israel but more loyal. Such high numbers raise questions as to how fully accepted.

Third, is the phenomenon of the Internet, that great facilitator of information and communication, but also a facilitator for hate and anti-Semitism. It is hard to quantify anti-Semitism on the web and who is exposed to it. We do know, however, that the racists and hate groups have found a remarkable tool for recruiting to their organizations and for trying to lure the young into a life of bigotry and particularly hatred of Jews.

Finally, and most surprisingly, is the appearance in the mainstream of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. We expect these kinds of things from the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, or Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. We don’t expect it from professors at Harvard and the University of Chicago or from a former President of the United States. One has to go back to the period before WWII when the aviator hero Charles Lindbergh accused "powerful Jews" of dragging America into war against the Nazis to serve the interests of the Jews.

Now Jews are being accused of bringing America to war against Iraq; of controlling American Middle East policy for the benefit of Israel against American interests; and of stifling free discussion if Middle East issues.

Quite a combination of accusations -- right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not that I believe most Americans buy into this claptrap. Still it circulates in respectable circles. Mearsheimer and Walt, the two professors, are welcomed on campuses across the country, as if all they did was present another point of view.

What's it all about? I believe it's an effort to intimidate American Jews, to get us to back off from exercising our rights as Americans to lobby and educate on behalf of what we believe -- the safety and security of Israel and the goal of peace in the region.

We won't be intimidated but we take these developments seriously. And Israelis need to be aware of what's going on.

Israel, China and Germany

This Monday, Moshe Feiglin spoke at a Tel Aviv demonstration for human rights in China. In his speech to the diverse crowd, Moshe said as follows:

"As a Jew, I am embarrassed by the fact that the State of Israel ignores the horrible crimes being committed in China. We must all remember that the crimes of the German nation during World War II and the horrifying holocaust that it perpetrated against our brethren were preceded by broad international legitimacy given to Hitler's regime - at the Berlin Olympics. When the Israeli delegation will march at the opening of the Beijing Olympics, it will be a seal of approval of the Jewish nation for the horrors that the Chinese regime is committing."

Moshe promised a survivor of the Chinese concentration camps at the demonstration that he will do all that he can to assure that the State of Israel will once again represent the eternal ethical values with which the Jewish Nation is destined to light up the world.

In a related article on Germany, long-time Manhigut Yehudit member Ohad Kamin wrote as follows:

The day after a Palestinian rocket severely injured a young boy in Sderot, the Israeli prime minister flew to Germany. In his meeting there with the Chancellor, he explained the situation in Israel and sought German approval for an Israeli retaliatory strike.

The Germans have been acting as mediators between Israel and the Palestinians in the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit. They are also involved in other behind the scenes talks. They know much more about the true situation in Israel than Israel's citizens. It is interesting that just seventy years after the Holocaust, it is specifically the Germans who can dictate what happens in Israel.

In Israel, Germany is also considered the representative of the finest that human culture has to offer. Germany enjoys this status despite the Nazi savagery that cannot be detached from German psycho-politics. There is no need for anything more than clear logic to understand that the anti-Semitic madness that murdered millions of Jews cannot flourish without a culture to back it up. Nevertheless, many of Israel's leaders and artists frequent Germany and seek its blessing, mediation and instructions on both political and cultural issues.

It is clear what part of the history of the last century makes the Germans ideal partners and confidantes of the Arab enemies of the Jewish Nation - particularly when Israel sees Germany as a neutral, reliable party. There is no doubt, though, that in following generations, many will question the current cultural coordination between the nation that gave birth to the murderers and the nation that provided their victims.

Manhigut Yehudit needs your help now more than ever. You can also help create the Jewish majority revolution. Now is the time to support Manhigut Yehudit. Click here for our on line secure donation form. If you are in Israel, now is the time to volunteer to help. For more information, call (Israel) 02-996-1123.

The Finger in the Gaza Dike: By Moshe Feiglin

Adar I, 5768
Feb., '08

The children of Sderot are the finger in the Gaza dike. They are there to save us all from the great flood. The difference between them and the Dutch Hans Brinker is that they did not volunteer for the job. We have forcibly stuck their fingers in the dike, and returned to our own affairs.

After one (Italian) bomb, the children of pre-State Haifa were evacuated to Hadera. Haifa's residents were no less patriotic than today's Israelis. Winston Churchill evacuated London's children during the Blitz. Chruchill was certainly no less a patriot than Olmert.

So after seven years of missile bombardment, why hasn't Israel evacuated the children of Sderot? Are we braver than the War of Independence generation?

The answer is simple. If we evacuate the children of Sderot, their parents will follow, and they won't come back. They won't come back because the State of Israel is not capable of winning a war that it does not understand - a war that it denies. Unlike the War of Independence or London in World War II, we know that we will not win. That is why the children of Sderot will not return and that is why their parents will follow suit. If we evacuate the children of Sderot, the same scenario will quickly take place in Ashkelon and Ashdod - until everything collapses. We have stuck the children of Sderot in the Gaza dike to maintain Peres' 'peace legacy' - and then we changed the channel.

At one point or another, Olmert's prime ministerial chair will begin to quake, and he will have to send the IDF into Gaza. Even if we momentarily ignore the outrageous lack of moral standing of those responsible for the Expulsion, it is still clear that it is absolute folly to send the IDF back into Gaza. A military incursion into Gaza that is not for the purpose of conquering it, solving its overpopulation problem in other places in the world, declaring full Israeli sovereignty there and making the entire area flourish with one hundred Gush Katifs - will achieve nothing but the pointless deaths of our soldiers.

Our sons will run through the alleys of Jebalyah, being sure not to harm 'innocent civilians.' And with maximum consideration and concern for our foes, our sons will be murdered as they fight from house to house, until they complete their mission with supreme heroism. (Assuming that the Four Mothers don't mix in too early.) And then the Prime Minister (no matter who he is) will ceremoniously give Gaza to the Fatah - the good terrorists. Simply put, we are about to sacrifice our sons so that we can transfer the Gaza Strip from arch-murderer A to arch-murderer B.

Since Oslo, Israel's political strategy has been compelled exclusively by the Oslo option. Rabin brought Arafat to Israel so that he would fight the Hamas. Now terrorist B is launching missiles at us. So we will conquer Gaza, this time for terrorist C. Or even worse and more absurd, we will send our sons to be killed to conquer Gaza and return it to terrorist A. After all, Yossi Beilin is sure to sternly warn that if we do not take advantage of the 'window of opportunity' and get killed for terrorist A, we will get terrorist D or who knows? Maybe even terrorist E. And we will continue to transfer Gaza from one terrorist to the next. And each and every one of them will continue to fire missiles at Sderot.

Do we really think that the world will allow us to rebuild Gush Katif? Of course not. So let's be serious. Maybe we should just cut off their electricity and water. But if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that the world will not allow us to do that either. And rightfully so! Because if Gaza is not part of our land, Sderot is not part of our land either. And of course, if we gave the Temple Mount to the Moslems, there is also no justification for the Jews to settle in Tel Aviv. The fact that the world claims that every potentially effective action that Israel takes in Gaza is illegitimate does not stem from a sudden outbreak of uncontrollable world-wide humanism. In the eyes of the world, it is illegitimate for Israel to defend Sderot because the world is convinced that the Hamas is right.

Just imagine if, in the beginning of World War II, Churchill would have announced that London actually does belong to Hitler. Or even worse, just imagine what would have happened if Churchill himself had destroyed the border towns of England and then ceremoniously bestowed them on the Nazi murderer. Would he have enjoyed world support after that for bombing Dresden?

But we have already left Gaza? Very true. And by fleeing Gaza, we have also proven that Sderot is not ours, either. The entire world has seen how Israel has driven the Jews who believe in the Jewish claim on the Land of Israel from their homes. Everyone saw how Israel destroyed their towns and abandoned their synagogues to the Arab hordes. In full view of the gleeful world media, the State of Israel performed the most amazing moral hara-kiri of all times - obliterating any measure of justification for Jewish sovereignty over even one grain of the Holy Land in the process.

The Hamas terrorists may not be nice, but in the eyes of the world, they are just. They bomb civilians? So what? The British and Americans also bombed civilians. The world is with them because they are convinced that they are right. Israel has already made that clear.

So now what do we do about Sderot? The solution is to re-build one hundred Gush Katifs. That is impossible to accomplish under our present circumstances? Then we must evacuate the children.

But the children of Sderot are the finger in the dike!

We have only two choices. Either we create leadership that will fight, liberate the Temple Mount and Gaza and restore the justice that we lost in Gush Katif, or we will continue to live in Oslodian denial - at the expense of the blood of Sderot's children

A Political State of Judea

All the miracles and wonders of the exodus from Egypt did not help. The psychological servitude to the idol of slavery continued to gnaw away at the Israelites. Moses seemed to tarry in his descent from Mount Sinai and within a few hours, the nation despaired of liberty and danced around the Golden Calf.

"So what if you are the largest faction in the Likud and the Likud Central Committee?" our detractors say. "So what if you won 14% of the primaries two years ago and close to 25% last year? You have nobody in the Knesset. And even if you will be elected to head the Likud, so what? Then the Likud will turn into nothing more than an upgraded version of the National Union party. And if the Likud with Feiglin at its head would win the general elections, so what? He will need a coalition. Not everybody in the Knesset is our type."

If a person has not succeeded in liberating his soul from the worship of slavery, he will always find a reason to despair of serving G-d, preferring to worship the Calf, instead. No accomplishments, signs or wonders will help. Any difficulty will be used as an excuse to jump off the responsibility wagon, back into the easy flow of idol worship.

Eight years have passed since Manhigut Yehudit joined the Likud. Who would have dreamed that in such a short time, we would overtake the other candidates and be in second place with one quarter of the Likud vote? Who would have dared to bet on that result even one year ago?

If a person does not want to take responsibility, though, the solution of the Judean state - or in political terms - sectoral parties - is an enticing escape. In an effort to increase its membership, Effie Eitam's new Achi splinter party (1/4 of the National Union) has been providing a special service to the Likud members of Yesha. Eitam's people convince the Likud voters to join their new party and even supply them with the necessary forms to fill out to resign from the Likud and to join Achi.

Eitam has decided to exchange essence for technicalities. There is nothing new in the official rhetoric of his party - no fresh message for the observant or secular Right. Achi does not talk about leading the nation. If you read the fine print on the party's internet site, you will discover that Achi's ultimate goal is to join the Likud. Who knows? Maybe the party's leader will find a good position there?

The therapy that Achi prescribes for the paralysis of the National Union party is 'democracy.' Achi has misled the public, creating the impression that they are registering for the National Union when in truth, Achi is just one quarter of the party. But if many people register for Achi, Eitam will win leadership of the National Union in democratic primaries. And then? He will join the Likud.

A leader must propose a principled path and leadership. After that, he can turn to the public for support. Effie Eitam and his supporters are fooling themselves and the public. Just like the public was led in a pointless march around Kfar Maimon instead of being led to dare and to triumph, Eitam and his supporters once again lead a futile march inside the political system.

Manhigut Yehudit calls on Effie Eitam to join us. True, in the Likud, we have been forced to leave the familiar comfort of the 'Judean State.' But we are in the place where the entire National Camp shares responsibility for determining Israel's future leadership. All the miniscule differences between the four parties that make up the National Union evaporate when the goal is to lead the Nation of Israel to its Jewish destiny. It is high time to leave our private swimming pools and to jump into the great sea. We at Manhigut Yehudit have already taken the plunge. We invite you to join us. We'll be happy to help.

Check out Manhigut Yehudit, if they appeal to you..
Email me....We have much work to do!

Debunking Barack Obama - Naomi Ragen

In an election year, we need to be really careful about what we
send out and what we say about all candidates who might become
the next leader of the free world. But we also need to arm
ourselves with information.

I was very interested in the e-mail circulating quoting Newsweek
and Snopes about the "lies" being spread about Mr. Obama. I
investigated. Interestingly,the debunkers debunk all kinds of
things I never heard of, like Obama not saying the Pledge of
Allegiance, or using a Koran instead of a Bible in his swearing
in ceremony. I never even heard those, and I am glad to hear they
are lies.

But there are a number of other things circulating that haven't
yet been "debunked" and these are far more worrying because they
are true. Like the fact that Mr. Obama's church gave an award to
the notorious Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. As Richard Cohen wrote
in the Washington Post on January 15:" Barack Obama is a member
of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and
Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In
1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's
daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year,
the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it
gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it
said "truly epitomized greatness." That man was Louis Farrakhan."


Huh?! Say what? You mean the Farrakhan who said: "The real
anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in
Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in
fact, they converted to Judaism," as Farrakhan told Al Jazeera
on March 18, 2007. The Farrakhan who said in a Swing magazine
interview: "Until Jews apologize for their hand in that ugly
slave trade; and until the Jewish rabbis and the Talmudic
scholars that made up the Hamitic myth -- that we were the
children of Ham, doomed and cursed to be hewers of wood and
drawers of water -- apologize, then I have nothing to apologize
for." Or as he said in the Mosque Maryam, Chicago, 3/19/95:
"German Jews financed Hitler right here in
America...International bankers financed Hitler and poor Jews
died while big Jews were at the root of what you call the
Holocaust...Little Jews died while big Jews made money. Little
Jews [were] being turned into soap while big Jews washed
themselves with it. Jews [were] playing violin, Jews [were]
playing music, while other Jews [were] marching into the gas
chambers..."

I suggest you google Farrakhan ADL or Nation of Islam and see
some of the other things Mr. Farrakhan has said.

And yet, the man who would be president has a spiritual leader
who has applauded Farrakhan's: "depth of analysis when it comes
to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and
honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for
change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and
his purpose." As Mr. Cohen wrote in the Washington Post: "These
are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the
Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he
pray with him just before his inaugural?"


Now, Mr. Obama is no dummy. Following the Cohen outing of this
information in the Washington Post,Obama's aides issued the
following statement on his behalf: "I decry racism and
anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic
statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet
Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his
efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision
with which I agree."

Yes, Mr. Obama distanced himself. Even Mr. Farrakhan understands
why. As Farrakhen said recently on ABC's Nightline: "I like him
very much. ...He has a fresh approach...If avoiding me would help
him to become president, I'd be glad to stay in the background."

Jews like Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation Committee are
forgiving. ""When someone close to a political figure shows
sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name
espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance
himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."

Well bully for Mr. Foxman! Having been in a suicide bombing
attack which killed people- many of them Survivors and their
children and grandchildren- at a Passover Seder in 2002, I'm a
little less warm-hearted and forgiving. If I had a Rabbi, for
example, who publicly supported and honored a despicable racist,
I'd change shuls. Mr. Obama's distancing himself, even during a
political campaign, has not included either changing churches or
spiritual leaders. In light of this, the fact that Mr. Obama's
father and step-father were both Muslim, and that he spent part
of his childhood in a Muslim school in Indonesia perhaps should
begin to concern us. Yes,indeed, depite the fact that CNN (which
we all know has tremendous credibility) has taken great pains to
put our minds at rest by visiting this school, assuring us that
it is not a medrassa that educates suicide bombers.

But honestly, all this wouldn't be enough for me to dimiss the
very articulate and charismatic Mr. Obama if he wasn't
consistently exhibiting worrisome, non-debunkable evidence that
he is neither a friend either of Israel, or the Jewish people.
And please spare me the letter from the token Jew who "met him
and spoke to him and is completely convinced he is a friend of
Israel blah, blah.

Actions speak louder than words.

As reported in the New York Sun,:
( http://www.nysun.com/article/71373 ), Mr. Obama has chosen
Zbigniew Brzezenski to advise him on Mideast policy, sending this
anti-Israel, anti-Semite, in the words of one of my
listmembers,"this dinosaur resuscitated from the Jimmy Carter
administration, a man who spent over 30 years attacking Israel,
an Arabist who recently signed a letter demanding that Israel
negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and a defender of the
notorious Walt-Mearsheimer ideology that Israel and Jews have too
much influence on American foreign policy against the interests
of the U.S. " to ...Syria!? What, to negotiate a new peace plan?

A list-member writes: "While the terror rocket attacks from Gaza
into Israel are leading up to another major conflict in that
region, the Democratic Party, party headed by Sen. Barack Obama,
continues its support for the "besieged" Palestinians. In a talk
in Iowa, given by the contender for his party's presidential
nomination, Obama called the Palestinian people "the most
oppressed people on Earth." Of course, the reference was that the
Israelis were the oppressors. Also, please take note that he
recently stated to Paris Match (Jan. 31) that if elected, he
would, "organize a summit in the Muslim world with all the heads
of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the
gap that grows between Muslims and the West. I want to ask them
to join our fight against terrorism. We must listen to their
concerns." Yes, that's what the world really needs, to "listen
to the concerns" of Muslims.

Unfortunately, Obama is not alone. Recently, Dennis Kucinich and
10 other Democratic House members sent a letter to Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice calling on the United States to exert its
"influence to urge Israel to end its blockade of Gaza." They
claimed the human rights of the Palestinians were being violated
by Israel. As a list-member writes: "As a former "Jewish
umbilical-cord Democrat," I wonder how my fellow Jews could still
consider themselves Democrats knowing the anti-Israel bias of
their party?"

The Jews who are considering voting for Obama (or
Clinton) should be doing alot more research. Even if they don't
care if Israel is wiped off the map, do you really want a man
whose Church gives out awards to people like Louis Farrakhan? Do
you want a man whose volunteers sit under Che Guevara posters
(according to the picture shown on KRIV-TV iin Texas)?

How many times can a voter turn his head and pretend that he just
doesn't see?

If I've made a mistake, please debunk me. Until then, I guess
I'll have to believe what I see. Just a reminder: I am a U.S.
citizen who pays taxes and I have every right to express my
opinion on candidates running in an election in which I plan to
vote.I don't mind telling you: It won't be for Barack Obama.

Naomi Ragen

Free Speech is a one way street!

By Brooke M. Goldstein
Published 1/15/2008

Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions on vague allegations of "subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" and being "flagrantly Islamophobic" after Maclean's magazine published an excerpt from his book, America Alone.

The public inquisition of Steyn has triggered outrage among Canadians and Americans who value free speech, but it should not come as a surprise. Steyn's predicament is just the latest salvo in a campaign of legal actions designed to punish and silence the voices of anyone who speaks out against Islamism, Islamic terrorism, or its sources of financing.

The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), which initiated the complaint against Steyn, has previously tried unsuccessfully to sue publications it disagrees with, including Canada's National Post. The not-for-profit organization's president, Mohamed Elmasry, once labeled every adult Jew in Israel a legitimate target for terrorists and is in the habit of accusing his opponents of anti-Islamism -- a charge that is now apparently an actionable claim in Canada. In 2006, after Elmasry publicly accused a spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress of being anti-Islamic, the spokesman reportedly resigned amidst fears for his personal safety.

The Islamist movement has two wings -- one violent and one lawful -- which operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published, the lawful arm is maneuvering within Western legal systems.

Islamists with financial means have launched a legal jihad, manipulating democratic court systems to suppress freedom of expression, abolish public discourse critical of Islam, and establish principles of Sharia law. The practice, called "lawfare," is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning and undertaken as a means to intimidate and bankrupt defendants.

Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of "libel tourism" that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.

At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and other jurisdictions, by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work. With its "human rights" commissions, Canada joins the list of countries, including France and the United Kingdom, whose laws are being used to attack the free speech rights and due process protections afforded American citizens.

A MAJOR PLAYER on this front is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Egyptian who resides in Saudi Arabia. Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue more than 30 publishers and authors in British courts, including several Americans, whose written works have linked him to terrorist entities. A notable libel tourist, Mahfouz has taken advantage of the UK's plaintiff-friendly libel laws to restrict the dissemination of written material that draws attention to Saudi-funded terrorism.

Faced with the prospect of protracted and expensive litigation, and regardless of the merit of the works, most authors and publishers targeted have issued apologies and retractions, while some have paid fines and "contributions" to Mahfouz's charities. When Mahfouz threatened Cambridge Press with a lawsuit for publishing Alms for Jihad by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, the publisher immediately capitulated, offered a public apology to Mahfouz, pulped the unsold copies of the book, and took it out of print.

Shortly after the publication of Funding Evil in the United States, Mahfouz sued its author, anti-terrorism analyst and director of the American Center for Democracy, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, for alleging financial ties between wealthy Saudis, including Mahfouz, and terrorist entities such as al Qaeda. The allegations against Ehrenfeld were heard by the UK court despite the fact that neither Mahfouz nor Ehrenfeld resides in England and merely because approximately 23 copies of Funding Evil were sold online to UK buyers via Amazon.com.

Unwilling to travel to England or acknowledge the authority of English libel laws over herself and her work, Ehrenfeld lost on default and was ordered to pay heavy fines, apologize, and destroy her books -- all of which she has refused to do. Instead, Ehrenfeld counter-sued Mahfouz in a New York State court seeking to have the foreign judgment declared unenforceable in the United States.

Ironically, Ehrenfeld lost her case against Mahfouz, because the New York court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi resident who, the court said, did not have sufficient connections to the state. Shortly afterwards the Association of American Publishers released a statement that criticized the ruling as a blow to intellectual freedom and "a deep disappointment for publishers and other First Amendment advocates."

The litany of American publishers, television stations, authors, journalists, experts, activists, political figures, and citizens targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mention. There is an obvious pattern to these suits that can only be ignored at great peril. And we must expect future litigation along these lines:

* Joe Kaufman, chairman of Americans Against Hate, was served with a temporary restraining order and sued for leading a peaceful and lawful ten person protest against the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) outside an event the group sponsored at a Six Flags theme park in Texas. According to ICNA's website, the group is dedicated to "working for the establishment of Islam in all spheres of life," and to "reforming society at large." The complaint included seven Dallas-area plaintiffs who had never been previously mentioned by Kaufman, nor been present at the theme park. Litigation is ongoing.

* The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) sued Andrew Whitehead, an American activist, for $1.3 million for founding and maintaining the website Anti-CAIR-net.org, on which he lists CAIR as an Islamist organization with ties to terrorist groups. After CAIR refused Whitehead's discovery requests, seemingly afraid of what internal documents the legal process it had initiated would reveal, the lawsuit was dismissed by the court with prejudice.

* CAIR also sued Cass Ballenger for $2 million after the then-U.S. Congressman said in a 2003 interview with the Charlotte Observer that the group was a "fundraising arm for Hezbollah" that he had reported as such to the FBI and CIA. Fortunately, the judge ruled that Ballenger's statements were made in the scope of his public duties and were protected speech.

* A Muslim police officer is suing former CIA official and counterterrorism consultant Bruce Tefft and the New York Police Department for workplace harassment merely because Tefft sent emails with relevant news stories about Islamic terrorism to a voluntary list of recipients that included police officers.

THESE SUITS REPRESENT a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Even if the lawsuits don't succeed, the continued use of lawfare tactics by Islamist organizations has the potential to create a detrimental chilling effect on public discourse and information concerning the war on terror.

Already, publishers have canceled books on the subject of counterterrorism and no doubt other journalists and authors have self-censored due to the looming threat of suit. For its part, CAIR announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, partly to "defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam." One of CAIR's staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, bragged that lawsuits are increasingly an "instrument" for it to use.

U.S. courts have not yet grasped the importance of rebuffing international attempts to restrain the free speech rights of American citizens.

This is troubling. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle of the freedom to criticize religion. Islamists should not be allowed to stifle constitutionally protected speech, nor should they be allowed to subject innocent citizens who talk to other citizens about issues of national security to frivolous and costly lawsuits.

Brooke M. Goldstein is a practicing attorney, the director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the director of the Children's Rights Institute. She is also an award-winning film producer of The Making of a Martyr, an adjuct fellow at the Hudson Institute, and the 2007 recipient of the E. Nathaniel Gates Award for Outstanding Public Advocacy.

War On Gaza?

As calls for all-out war on Gaza increase, it is important to set things straight. As Moshe Feiglin explained this week in an interview on the Knesset channel of Israel TV (Hebrew), there is no reason for Israel to enter Gaza if it does not intend to stay there, expel its hostile elements, declare Israeli sovereignty and rebuild one hundred Gush Katifs.

It is unacceptable to send Israeli soldiers to almost certain death in the booby-trapped alleys of Jebalyah for no real purpose. It is not an option to send them to fight, equipped with a Christian ethical code that prefers their deaths over the deaths of hostile civilians. And worst of all, it is unthinkable to send them to give their lives to conquer the Gaza Strip from an arch-terrorist from the Hamas, and to then turn it over to a different arch terrorist from the Fatah, who, after a short break, will thank us by renewing the Kassam fire on Israel.

A war on Gaza now will suit Olmert well. After allowing the situation in the Negev to reach the boiling point, he will stage a war with wall-to-wall public and political support. The war will not solve the problem because it will not be fought to win and remain in Gaza. But there will be funerals, and that will create public pressure. Olmert will then diffuse the pressure by destroying settlements and throwing their residents into the streets. Soldiers will be killed, settlements will be destroyed and the Kassams and terror will steadily increase. But in the dust kicked up by all the turmoil, Olmert will have bought himself another two years in office.

If Manhigut Yehudit says "no" to war on Gaza, then what exactly do we propose?

We have proposed a bill in the Knesset that would mandate complete disengagement from Gaza. No, this is not the ideal option. The ideal option, as above, is to re-conquer Gaza, drive out all hostile elements and make it flourish with Jewish settlements. But as long as we do not have leadership that believes in our historic rights in the entire Land of Israel and as long as we do not have leadership that will initiate a war on Gaza to re-conquer and settle it, we must not endanger our soldiers for nothing.

The next best thing that we can do is to demand complete disengagement from Gaza. We must not supply them with anything. No bread, no electricity, no fuel, no gas and if it would be possible, no air, either. Any hostility from Gaza should be met with heavy artillery fire to force them to pull the missile launchers all the way into Gaza city and to turn all the launching territory into a sure-death zone. The longer the range of the missiles, the longer the range of the sure-death zone.

What if the world protests?

In the 41 years that have passed since the miraculous Six Day War, the State of Israel has done all in its power to convince the world that the Land of Israel belongs to its enemies. We have nobody to blame for that but ourselves. As long as Israel continues to justify its enemies, it is difficult to think about a return to national health. Complete disengagement from Gaza is the most that we can expect from Israel's current leaders. If Israel is convinced that this action is just, the rest of the world will be convinced as well and negative world opinion will dissipate.

It is important to join the residents of Sderot in their protest. But our message must be clear: We demand complete disengagement from Gaza. Not cynical sacrifice of more soldiers in a rerun of the recent Lebanon war.

ADL Calls On Polish Catholic Church To Denounce Anti-Semitic Meeting In Krakow

New York, NY, February 13, 2008 …

About 1,000 people reportedly attended the February 9 meeting at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was convened by Radio Maryja and the Committee Against Defamation of the Church and For Polishness. The meeting, widely reported by the Polish press, allegedly was publicized with posters that declared,
"The Kikes will not continue to spit on us!"
and featured virulently anti-Semitic speeches.

"We were deeply disturbed by reports that an anti-Semitic meeting was held in a Krakow church," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, a Holocaust survivor who was born in Poland. "Such sentiments are a troubling reminder that anti-Semitism is alive and well in Poland, and that the memory and lessons of the Holocaust, while still fresh for survivors of the war, is fading for ordinary Poles."

At the Krakow meeting, virulent anti-Semitism reportedly was the order of the day. A man identified in news reports as Professor Bogoslav Wolniewicz reportedly told the gathering: "The Jews are attacking us! We need to defend ourselves!" Radio Maryja, one of the meeting's organizers, is a right-wing Polish Catholic station that has a history of anti-Semitic broadcasts.

In a letter to Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, Archbishop of Krakow, ADL called on the local archdiocese and the Polish Bishops conference to speak out. "One of the great lessons the world learned from Pope John Paul II is that ignorance and bias are never remedied unless all of us are willing to challenge them at every turn," wrote Mr. Foxman. "We ask Your Eminence and the Polish Bishops Conference to publicly denounce these words and this group in the strongest terms, and to take steps to ensure such gatherings never again take place in the holy space of a church."

Poland........Priceless Stupidy Remains!

How can we stand here - without Israel?

What will happen to us if there is no Israel?

Do you feel accepted? Where is your Star of David around your neck at work?
Why are there no Hanukiyah's in your window at Channukah?
Why no Kippah's outside of Temple / Shul?
Do your kids say stop acting so Jewy? Why?

If Israel is gone then who will defend you?
Where will you go if the exile becomes less friendly?
What makes anyplace different then Eurabia?

So what to do?

Unless you are ready or planning to make aliyah...what can we do?

What if we start a Social Action Group to do what?

Idea's?

PA Arabs Set Fire to Joseph's Tomb, Later Claim He Was a Muslim

by Ezra HaLevi

(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority Arabs set fire to Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) Tuesday. The burial site of the Biblical Joseph is supposed to be protected under all agreements with the PA.

The attack was first reported by World Net Daily's Aaron Klein, who spoke with a Fatah official who confirmed the attack.

The Arab official said PA forces were alerted Tuesday that 16 burning tires had been thrown inside the tomb, which had already been smashed and torched in 2000. He said that there was fire damage to the holy site and reported that the PA, fearful of embarrassment, set up a team to figure out who was behind the attack.

The arson comes shortly after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would instruct the security establishment to coordinate the reconstruction of the site with the PA.

When Israel handed Shechem over to PA control following the 1993 Oslo Accords, a stipulation was freedom of access to the site for Jews. Buses would transport visitors and a yeshiva was present at the site, though it was declared that Jews could not stay in the city overnight. The compound and structure surrounding the tomb were smashed to bits after the IDF abandoned the site in 2000, with the outbreak of the Oslo War. PA Arabs proceeded to paint its dome green and declare it a mosque in the days following the initial abandonment.

A follow-up report by WND's Klein Thursday elicited a statement from Fatah referring to the tomb as the “burial site of the holy Muslim Joseph” and promising to guard “this holy Muslim site."


Rand: More proof that Arabs/Muslims remain incendiary and they want all Jews in the Sea. Are they alluding to the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds?
No matter Hezbulah rattles their rusty sword today and we can only hope that the wake up call is coming. Where is Kahane when you really need him?
Perhaps we will see him on a Donkey Eh?

Judaism is nice, Isn't it more important to feed the Hungry?

Judaism is Nice, But Isn't it More Important to Feed the Hungry?

By Aron Moss

Question:

Each year, we Jews spend so many millions of dollars, and devote so much time and energy, to building synagogues, Jewish schools, and a slew of other religious and academic institutions. Wouldn't it be better if we applied all those resources to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and working to alleviate all the horrendous suffering that goes on in so many places in the world?

Answer:

Why do you care about the homeless? What's it your business? Are they members of your own family that you should be concerned about them?

And who's children are starving? Yours? Why should you feel responsible for someone else's child? Why is it your problem? What is it that makes you care for the needs of others?

It is certainly not logic that drives you to help others. If anything, it is illogical to give away your hard-earned money--money you may need some day for yourself or your family--to someone who you don't even know. Neither is it human nature that compels us to care for a stranger. And there is no legal obligation to share your wealth with others. So what drives your desire to do so?

The answer: You have values, principles of right and wrong, conceptions of "good" and "bad" that direct your life and demand that you behave a certain way. You don't give charity because it makes sense, or because you instinctively feel the urge to give, or because the law of the land instructs you to. You give charity because it is moral, it is right, it is good to help those who are in need.

Where do your morals come from? What is the source of the value of charity? The Torah. It was the Hebrew Bible that proclaimed that our income is only partly ours. It doesn't really belong to us at all, but is given us on loan, to use to serve G-d, better G-d's world and distribute to the needy. The Hebrew word for charity is tzedakah, meaning "justice." The Jewish tradition saw charity not as a noble act of generosity, but as a moral act of justice. To give is simply the right thing to do.

You have a wonderful sense of values. But values do not live in a vacuum. To survive and spread, values need institutions and communities in which they are fostered and taught. That is the function of a synagogue, a yeshivah, an adult education program. A place where values are taught and lived. By joining a community devoted to Torah ideals, we become sensitized to the needs of others. By studying the Torah's messages and following the way of life it teaches, its values are shared and passed down.

We need to give tzedakah to feed the poor and shelter the homeless. But we also need to ensure that the very value of tzedakah is nurtured and sustained, so that our children should never suffer from moral poverty.

Chumash or Tikkun Olam?

Chumash or Tikkun Olam?

Which is more important?
If you only have the time or energy for one or the other...
Which is primary. Which function does HaShem want you to do first?

Are we to take care of ourselves and our family (Jews) first?
Who will look out for us if we don't?
Who would have helped the Jews in Russia or Ethiopia if we didn't (and don't)?
Nobody!!

Who will defend Israel if we don't?
Nobody!!

Who will help if we don't?
Nobody!!

Who are we? Are we defined by the Gentile world or our own?

Are we to take the Torah anywhere near literally? What do we adjust to today and what do we leave alone?

Are we to use it as a guideline to live by?
Of course we are or else what is a Jew?

The present danger facing Israel and all Jews

The entire body of the Jewish people today -- in Israel, in Europe, in America, in Australia and New Zealand, and throughout the world -- is in grave danger. Our very existence as a people and as a faith is in jeopardy. The threat to our survival has two components to it: the external siege being waged against Israel and the Jewish people throughout the world by the international jihadist movement, its sympathizers and appeasers; and the internal siege that we Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, including the United States, are waging against ourselves.

We will look first at the external siege -- war that is being waged against us. It has its military, diplomatic, and ideological-propaganda aspects.

Military threat


Israel has been under constant assault since the signing of the Oslo accords.

On the "military" front (if that is the right word for the front of violence and terror) we have been under constant assault since the signing of the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO in 1993.

During the past fourteen and a half years the Palestinian Arab terrorists have murdered over 1,800 Israelis, two thirds of them civilians. This is more than the total number of Israelis murdered by the Palestinian Arabs in the 44 years preceding the "peace accords." Many of the killers have been members of the Palestinian Arab "police force" established with Israel's consent in Gaza, Judea and Samaria under the Oslo accords. Indeed, Palestinian "police" have murdered three Israelis just over the past month.

For the past seven years, Israeli towns and villages near the border with Gaza have been subjected to rocket attacks; during the past two years, the city of Sderot, with a population of some 23,000, has been bombarded with rockets nearly every day. Its residents have about 15 seconds whenever a warning siren sounds to duck into a shelter. The missiles have killed some people; many more have been wounded; and thousands, including Sderot's children, have suffered shock and trauma.

Egypt, supposedly at peace with Israel, has enabled the Hamas terrorists who control Gaza to move vast amounts of armaments, money and soldiers into this territory, and to transform themselves from a guerilla force into an army able to fight Israel on nearly equal terms. The Israelis have even captured on videotape Egyptian "border guards" helping to smuggle in terrorists.

Then there are the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, who killed about 140 Israeli soldiers and 43 civilians in 2006, many of them with long range rockets that struck deep inside the Galilee, including Israel 's third largest city, Haifa. Hezbollah recently struck again with rockets at kibbutz Shlomi. Since the 2006 Lebanon war, Hezbollah has completely rearmed, and now has missiles that can strike at the heart of Tel Aviv.

Standing behind Hezbollah are Syria and Iran. Both of these hateful regimes make no bones about their desire to destroy Israel. Both are armed with chemical and biological weapons, missiles that can reach every inch of Israeli territory, the most advanced fighter jets, and numerous other ultramodern weapons. Both regimes are working at break-neck speed to develop nuclear weapons. This has been thoroughly documented, despite the attempts of the recent "National Intelligence Estimate" to deny this reality.

Threat of violence

The campaign of violence against Jews has been extended to the Diaspora. There has been a massive increase in anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe. In London, Paris, and Brussels, Jews are routinely assaulted on the street and on public transportation facilities. Many synagogues have been vandalized, and some burned to the ground. Desecrations of Jewish cemeteries are so common that they have ceased to be news. In "peaceful" Switzerland, a rabbi was gunned down recently in the street simply because he was wearing traditional Jewish garb.


Of some 1,500 hate crimes connected with the religion of the victims last year in the U.S., over 1,000 were directed at Jews.

Nor should we American Jews think that we have been immune to the spreading hatred. According to FBI statistics, of some 1,500 hate crimes connected with the religion of the victims last year, over 1,000 were directed at Jews -- more than five times the number of crimes directed at the next most vulnerable group, Muslims, and more than ten times the number of hate crimes directed against Christians. On March 1, 1994, a Lebanese Muslim murdered a Jewish boy and seriously injured several others on the Brooklyn Bridge, simply because they were Jews. On July 4, 2002, at the El Al terminal of Los Angeles Airport, two Jews were killed and four wounded by an Egyptian gunman, simply because they were Jews seeking to board a plane for Israel. On July 28, 2007 an Arab Muslim man walked into a Jewish center in Seattle, murdered a Jewish woman and injured five other women simply because they were Jews.

Even more troubling, perhaps, is the strange insensitivity often displayed by our own government toward many of these hate crimes. For example, the FBI described the murder of the Jewish boy on the Brooklyn Bridge as a case of "road rage," even when the political and religious motives of the assassin were attested to by many witnesses. And when the Egyptian, Muslim fundamentalist gunman mowed down Jews at the Los Angeles El Al terminal, the FBI investigating officer asserted, "there is no evidence that this was terrorism."

Diplomatic threat

On the diplomatic front, Israel has been under relentless pressure from the international community, including, sad to say, our own beloved United States, to make unilateral concessions to the Palestinian terrorists that place Israel in deadly peril. The so-called "Quartet" of great powers, consisting of the United States, the European Community, the United Nations, and Russia, has bludgeoned Israel into accepting the so-called "Road Map" plan, which requires Israel to withdraw more or less to its June 4, 1967 borders. The late Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, once aptly called these lines "the Auschwitz frontiers."

Pressure to implement the "road map" has continued relentlessly through the Annapolis conference last month and during President Bush's recent visit to Israel. The United States has also put relentless pressure on Israel to withdraw security checkpoints that are vital to preventing the movement of terrorists and their weapons into Israel, to end all construction of Jewish housing outside the 1967 borders, including those neighborhoods of Jerusalem outside of this "green line," to acquiesce in the partition of Jerusalem, and to evacuate Jewish residents from the so-called "unauthorized settlements" or "illegal outposts" -- many of them on land legally owned by Jews, in some cases owned by Jews for decades.

The Palestinian Arab leadership, for its part, has demanded that Israel accept within its borders all four million Arabs who claim that they are descended from refugees who left Israel sixty years ago, during her War of Independence. They also want Israel to evict the roughly 450,000 Jews who live in areas outside the 1967 lines, which would require Israel to resettle these unfortunate people, too, within its now-truncated territory. Obviously, Israel could not survive the importation of millions of Arabs who have been taught to hate her from birth. But it also would be very difficult to absorb half a million Jews forced from their homes. They would have good reason to hate their own country.

Yet the United States has given Israel little encouragement to resist these demands of the Palestinian Arabs.

Propaganda threat

The most insidious and dangerous front in the war against Israel is the propaganda war.

But by far the most insidious and dangerous front in the war against Israel is the propaganda war. In the Arab countries and Iran, this takes the form of the crudest lies and stereotypes derived from Nazi propaganda and the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it is also being waged in a more subtle way by the media throughout Europe, the United States, and even within Israel itself; and by the academic and educational establishments of all of these countries as well. The Western media and academic "experts" portray Israel as a Western colonial implant into the Middle East that has uprooted and dispossessed the "indigenous" Arab population and stolen their land. Israelis are portrayed as religious fanatics intent on seizing other people's land in order to fulfill Biblical promises.

Nor should we overlook that the hate propaganda and libels directed against Israel are directed against the Jews of the Diaspora as well, especially American Jews. Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer and former President Jimmy Carter claim that American Jews exert excessive power over American foreign policy; that they use this power on behalf of a foreign country, Israel, to the disadvantage and injury of the United States; and that we silence anyone who criticizes Israel with threats, unfair criticism or dismissal from their jobs.

All of these allegations, both those against Israel itself and those against its Jewish supporters in the United States and elsewhere, are lies. But through constant repetition, they have been bought into by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, including Europe, the United States, and saddest of all, within Israel itself. This is the ultimate fulfillment of Hitler's observation in Mein Kampf that the bigger the lie is, if it is repeated often enough, the more likely it is to be believed.

Internal threat

But it is we Jews' siege of ourselves from within our own communities that presents the gravest danger to our survival as a people and as a faith community: our self-doubts; our demoralization; our loss of confidence in the righteousness of our own cause; our lack of unity; the loss of our religious beliefs, and of what is an essential part of our religion, our mission as a people.


Before we can win, we must heal ourselves.

Because so many of us have lost faith in the righteousness of our own struggle for survival, and have accepted the lies of our enemies, the government and people of Israel have been increasingly yielding to the demands of our enemies and false friends without even putting up a struggle. In order to survive, we must win a victory over the sickness of our enemies; but before we can do that, we must heal ourselves.

For some Jews, their psychological sickness has progressed to the point of outright identification with the enemies of our people, and active participation in their ideological, propaganda and political assault on us. These Jews have actively taken sides with the enemy, at least on the level of ideology, communications and propaganda -- perhaps in the belief that "if you can't beat them, join them." These Jews constitute an internal Jewish fifth column that threatens us more severely than all our external enemies combined. The anti-Israel and anti-Jewish Jews among us are like a dagger pointed directly at the heart of Israel and the Jewish people.

Thousands of Jewish journalists, academics, filmmakers, artists and "intellectuals" in the United States, Canada, Europe, and within Israel itself have actively participated in the campaign of vilification and lies against Israel. There is even a "minyan" of Jewish reporters working for the notorious al-Qaeda mouthpiece al-Jazeera. These Jewish haters of Zion have a greater impact and credibility than any other group of anti-Israel propagandists. Who, after all, would believe that Jews would lie about their own people and institutions? And their impact is greatest on their fellow Jews, of course; they have sapped the will of Israelis to resist the demands of their enemies, and the will of the American and other Diaspora Jews to stand behind Israel, by persuading them that Israel 's cause is not just.

But our internal propagandist fifth column, disastrous though its impact has been on our morale, is only one of the negative influences contributing to the collapse of the Jewish will to resist the relentless pressure of our enemies.

A tremendous, and humanly understandable, war-weariness has gripped Israelis. Prime Minister Olmert gave voice to this terrible war fatigue when he said, "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies."

We must remember that a man or woman struggling to walk to safety through numbing cold may become very tired indeed, to the point of wishing to lie down in the snow and fall asleep. But then he or she will not wake up.


Our lethargy and indifference are grave mistakes that will come back to haunt us.

Loss of faith in God and in the truths of our religion is yet another reason for our spreading defeatism and our failure to resist the assault on us as Jews. It is our religion that teaches us that we are a distinct people with a land of our own. It is our religion that teaches us that we have a unique destiny, and that we must survive as a people if we are to fulfill our mission to be "a light unto the nations." Once we forget our faith, the temptation to assimilate into our environment completely and forget about what happens to our fellow Jews becomes very great.

And for us, the Jews of the golden American Diaspora, our very comfort, prosperity and seeming security have concealed the common danger from us -- much as they concealed from the Jews of Germany and elsewhere in Europe the grave danger that they faced from Nazism, until it was too late to do anything. They think, "What has all this got to do with me? I am leading a perfectly contented and prosperous life here in America with my family. I am very comfortable. Why should I care about what is happening to other Jewish people 6,000 miles away?"

The answer to this understandable human reaction is the answer that Mordecai sent to Esther when she expressed her fear of approaching King Ahasuerus to appeal for the life of her fellow Jews: "Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king's palace. On the contrary . . .you and your father's house will perish." (Esther 4:12). If Israel should fall, do not imagine that we American Jews shall escape persecution by enemies who see our vulnerability.

Our lethargy and indifference are grave mistakes that will come back to haunt us. While World War II was going on, few Jews in America even knew about, or much less reacted to, the genocide being committed against our brethren in Europe, even though the essential facts about their fate were known to American Jewish leaders as early as 1942. It was only after the war ended and photographs of the bodies of the victims appeared in the newspapers that the enormity of what had happened began to sink in with American Jews. Serious discussion and study of the Holocaust did not even begin among us until the 1960s.

This time, we will not have the luxury of a slow response to the dangers facing not only the Jews of Israel, but also ourselves.

Nor should Christians and other non-Jews in America and throughout the Western world be indifferent to what is happening. The international jihad waged by the radical Islamists targets not only Jews, but all Christians (referred to by the jihadis as "Crusaders") and all of Western civilization as well. The Jews are the first on the list of groups targeted for extinction by the radical jihadis, but they are by no means the last on this list. In our vulnerability to the poisonous ideological winds sweeping in from the Middle East and South Asia, we Jews are the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" -- the first to suffer the lethal effects of the poison, but not the last.

John Landau contributed to this article.


Visit Rachel's website at http://www.MiddleEastSolutions.com