Monday, August 31, 2009

Israel Must Take Matters Into It's Own Hands

Dore Gold lament's the world's complacency regarding Iran's nuclear weapons drive:

In 2009, a joint Russian-American report for the East-West Institute played down the dangers emanating from Iran’s ballistic missile program. It boldly concluded that “the military threat from Iran to Europe is not imminent,” also adding that there was no evidence that Iran was able to develop “solid-propellant rocket motors” (solid-fueled rocket capability would put Iran in a whole new league of missile powers).

The East-West Institute report was extensively quoted and featured in both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. Yet within days of its release, the Iranians tested a new solid-fuel missile, called the Sejil, that had a reported range of 1,350 miles and could strike European territory. But in the meantime, the impression had already been given that the Iranian threat was not what it had been trumped up to be.

Then there are some influential commentators who just dismiss the Iranian problem completely. For example, Fareed Zakaria, one of the most respected experts on U.S. foreign policy, put forward the thesis in a Newsweek cover story on June 1, 2009, that Iran had no intentions of developing nuclear arms because there was a fatwa (an Islamic legal ruling) issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2004 describing “the use of nuclear weapons as immoral.”

While Iranian diplomats often cite the story of Khamenei’s “nuclear fatwa” as a ploy to mislead Western audiences, a careful perusal of the Supreme Leader’s website shows that the purported decree is not even listed along with his other legal rulings ( see here), which are normally carefully updated by the Iranian authorities. In short, the famed “nuclear fatwa,” at best of dubious value to the West in any case, does not even exist. But Zakaria’s claim undoubtedly contributed to the general sense that the Iranian challenge is not urgent.

The west is in complete denial as it was during the rise of hitler. We haven’t learned from history at all. Just as then, when it was believed that only the Jews would be targeted by the nazis, today the belief is that only the Jewish state is threatened by Iran becoming a nuclear power and so the west will do nothing to stop it. Israel must come to grips with the fact that no one is going to protect it from its enemies genocidal intentions and must take matters into its own hands. Unlike then, the Jews have a nation and the ability to defend itself before a catastrophe occurs. So enough with the galut mentality and waiting for others to save us and get the job done regarding Iran.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Haveil Havalim

West Bank Mama hosts edition #232 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

The ACLU's Treasonous Activity

The ACLU has been surveilling and taking photos of covert CIA agents and presenting them to terror suspects so they can identify their interrogators in order to aid in these terrorists defense. We always knew the ACLU was insane in its defense of the most vile criminals; murderers, pedophiles and so forth, but now they are committing outright acts of treason, putting at risk the lives of our agents and their families and undermining our national security. We are being endangered by deranged leftists who make it their life's mission to find ways to destroy America, in this case by persecuting the people defending this country and protecting the jihadists who are out to mass murder us. The ACLU itself ought to be on the terrorist watch list and whoever took those photos needs to be tried on charges of treason.

Savor the silence of America's self-serving champions of privacy. For once, the American Civil Liberties Union has nothing bad to say about the latest case of secret domestic surveillance -- because it is the ACLU that committed the spying.

Last week, The Washington Post reported on a new Justice Department inquiry into photographs of undercover CIA officials and other intelligence personnel taken by ACLU-sponsored researchers assisting the defense team of Guantanamo Bay detainees. According to the report, the pictures of covert American CIA officers -- "in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes" -- were shown to jihadi suspects tied to the 9/11 attacks in order to identify the interrogators.

The ACLU undertook the so-called "John Adams Project" with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers -- last seen crusading for convicted jihadi assistant Lynne Stewart. She's the far-left lawyer who helped sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing and N.Y. landmark bombing plot mastermind, smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.

The ACLU's team used lists and data from "human rights groups," European researchers and news organizations that were involved in "(t)racking international CIA-chartered flights" and monitoring hotel phone records. Working from a witch-hunt list of 45 CIA employees, the ACLU team tailed and photographed agency employees or obtained other photos from public records.

And then they showed the images to suspected al-Qaida operatives implicated in murdering 3,000 innocent men, women and children on American soil.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Israel Making a Deal With the Devil

This is a crock. As if stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability is a favor to Israel rather than being a threat to the entire world. And as if sanctions at this point is actually going to stop Iran anyway. Again, another example of projecting weakness and helplessness on the part of the Israeli leadership. Israel shouldn’t need anyone else to deal with Iran, it needs to take matters into its own hands, not make deals with other countries in the foolish hope that the international community will take care of Iran for it in exchange for relinquishing its territories to muslim terrorists.

Report: Israel to freeze settlements in exchange for tougher Iran sanctions
By Haaretz Service and Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama is close to breaking the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians by getting Israel to agree to a partial settlement freeze in exchange for a tougher U.S. stand against Iran’s nuclear program, the British Guardian reported.

The report, which cites U.S., European, Israeli and Palestinian officials, said that Obama will be ready to announce the resumption of long-stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians by the end of September.

“The message is: Iran is an existential threat to Israel; settlements are not,” the Guardian quoted one official close to the negotiations as saying.

In exchange for Israel agreeing to a partial and temporary settlement freeze, the U.S., Britain and France would push the United Nations Security Council to expand sanctions on Iran to include its oil and gas industry, the report said.

Israel is also seeking normalization with Arab states, which would include the right for El Al to fly within Arab states’ airspace, the establishment of trade offices and embassies and an end to the ban on travelers with Israeli stamps in their passports.

Details of the negotiations are expected to be outlined Wednesday during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting in London with George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East.

“It has been pretty hard going but we are getting there,” the Guardian quoted another official as saying. “We are closer to a deal with the Israelis than many think. The Arabs are more difficult to pin down.”

The report said Obama plans to announce the breakthrough either at the meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York in the week of September 23 or at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on September 24-25.

Obama plans to make his announcement together with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and sources said he hopes a final peace deal can be negotiated within two years.

Israel and the United States on Tuesday said they are closing the gaps over the contentious issue of West Bank settlement construction, senior American officials told Haaretz.

The Obama administration has demanded that Israel halt all construction in settlements in the West Bank, which the Palestinians claim for a future state.

Netanyahu has resisted calls for a total freeze on construction, arguing that the Bush administration had acquiesced to continued Israeli settlement activity in large blocs that are likely to be annexed by Israel in any future agreement with the Palestinians.

He reiterated during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street in London, that Israel will not limit construction in East Jerusalem.

“What we’re seeking to achieve with the United States in the talks we’ve conducted, and will conduct tomorrow and will conduct after tomorrow, is to find a bridging formula that will enable us to at once launch a process but enable those residents to continue living normal lives,” Netanyahu said.

Administration's Selective Use of the Word "Terrorist"

The obama administration is quick to label as "terrorists" people who want to protect our borders or those who oppose socialized medicine, are pro-life, pro-gun etc., while refusing to call actual terrorists, terrorists. How can we win the war against islamic terrorism if we refuse to even name the enemy and treat American patriots as though they are the enemy? This is the frightening and perverse direction being taken by those who are entrusted to protect our security.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Interview with Meridor

Dan Meridor is interviewed by Germany's Speigel.

In an interview with SPIEGEL, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor, 62, speaks about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to Berlin, the chances for a new peace process in the Middle East and why the world can’t let Iran get its hands on nuclear weapons.

SPIEGEL: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting George Mitchell, the United States’ special envoy to the Middle East, this Monday in London before coming to Berlin on Wednesday. Will we see a very confident and relaxed Benjamin Netanyahu or a politician whose hardline policies have put him under a lot of pressure?

Dan Meridor: I don’t think we are hardline. But if you’d like to characterize our government in this way, you are entitled to do so. But please take into account the fact that the position of Israeli’s prime minister is unique. The Israeli prime minister is confronted with problems you don’t see as head of the government in Switzerland, Norway or even Germany. These are questions of a different scale and magnitude: a dramatically changing society, the absorption of immigrants and borders that are not yet defined and are challenged all the time. These are questions of the legitimacy of the state — and its very survival.

SPIEGEL: And because of that …

Meridor: … you need to be relaxed and very stable as an Israeli politician. You can’t try to meet all the expectations of the Israeli opposition, foreign powers or journalists. If I may say so, the issues are too serious to be taken at the press level.

SPIEGEL: What does this mean for the peace process and your government’s decisions?

Meridor: We face many challenges that we did not create. Our government came in after a very serious attempt by (former Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert to reach an agreement with the Palestinians that offered more than anybody in Israel had ever done. He did not get a positive response. Perhaps Abu Mazen (ed’s note: Abu Mazen is the name most commonly used in the Palestinian Authority for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) reacted the way he did because he doesn’t control Gaza, where 40 percent of the territories’ population lives and into which he cannot even travel. Perhaps Abu Mazen wants even more than just the Palestinian state; but there is nothing more to give. It was Olmert’s — and not our government’s — offer. Surely, nobody expects Netanyahu to offer more than what Olmert offered.

SPIEGEL: Are you not happy with the Palestinian leadership?

Meridor: I don’t know. The question is whether Abu Mazen can deliver. Is there a real leadership in the Palestinian camp now? Do we have a partner for a peace process?

SPIEGEL: You blame Palestinian intransigence. Western leaders are, of course, demanding that the Arab side compromise on some issues. But they are also putting pressure on Israel to make concessions, as well, especially when it comes to its aggressive settlement policy in the West Bank.

Meridor: There is no such policy.

SPIEGEL: You don’t regard new settlements in the occupied territories as being a major stumbling block in the peace process?

Meridor: That’s exactly why we aren’t building new settlements. We haven’t approved any.

This always bothers me about Israel’s leaders. Why whenever confronted about the settlements they take on a defensive posture by answering that they aren’t building and don’t approve of “settlements”? Why not simply defend the rights of Jews to live anywhere in Israel? Also why do they go along with the arab and international narrative that Israel’s presence in the territories is an occupation?

SPIEGEL: You are sidestepping the issue. US President Barack Obama wouldn’t urge Israel to stop its settlement policies if he didn’t have a reason to do so. He has demanded an immediate freeze to any expansion, but your government has chosen not to comply. Some of your colleagues in Israel’s cabinet are even encouraging the most radical settlers to build new, completely illegal outposts. Just recently, several ministers visited these places and delivered provocative speeches.

Meridor: Ours is a big coalition government with diverging views. What you describe is neither the official policy of Prime Minister Netanyahu nor the official policy of the government.

SPIEGEL: But there is no question that your government is providing financial assistance to the ongoing, provocative expansion of existing settlements. This makes it impossible for the Palestinian leadership to negotiate with you.

It’s impossible for the palestinian leadership to negotiate with Israel? Is this ever an inversion of reality. Isn’t it the palestinians who don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist which makes it impossible to negotiate with them?

Meridor: That’s one of your misperceptions. Olmert made an agreement with the administration of former President George W. Bush according to which the Americans accepted that there would be construction within existing settlements. This has been admitted by the deputy national security adviser of the US, and it was recently published in the Wall Street Journal. That did not stop the Palestinians from negotiating with us over three years.

SPIEGEL: Well, the fact is that there is now a new American president who is urging Israel to make this concession. Why is it so difficult for your government to show some restraint and agree to the building freeze, when this is something that the US, the European Union and the United Nations are demanding?

Meridor: We don’t feel pressured by Obama. We haven’t built any new settlements, so we are fulfilling the understanding. Now there are some ongoing discussions about a compromise.

Again the defensive posture, assuring the interviewer that Israel is behaving itself. Why doesn’t Meridor respond by saying it is not the business of Obama, the EU and UN to demand where our citizens can build and live in our sovereign state?

SPIEGEL: You are sidestepping the issue. US President Barack Obama wouldn’t urge Israel to stop its settlement policies if he didn’t have a reason to do so. He has demanded an immediate freeze to any expansion, but your government has chosen not to comply. Some of your colleagues in Israel’s cabinet are even encouraging the most radical settlers to build new, completely illegal outposts. Just recently, several ministers visited these places and delivered provocative speeches.

Meridor: Ours is a big coalition government with diverging views. What you describe is neither the official policy of Prime Minister Netanyahu nor the official policy of the government.

SPIEGEL: But there is no question that your government is providing financial assistance to the ongoing, provocative expansion of existing settlements. This makes it impossible for the Palestinian leadership to negotiate with you.

Meridor: That’s one of your misperceptions. Olmert made an agreement with the administration of former President George W. Bush according to which the Americans accepted that there would be construction within existing settlements. This has been admitted by the deputy national security adviser of the US, and it was recently published in the Wall Street Journal. That did not stop the Palestinians from negotiating with us over three years.

SPIEGEL: Well, the fact is that there is now a new American president who is urging Israel to make this concession. Why is it so difficult for your government to show some restraint and agree to the building freeze, when this is something that the US, the European Union and the United Nations are demanding?

Meridor: We don’t feel pressured by Obama. We haven’t built any new settlements, so we are fulfilling the understanding. Now there are some ongoing discussions about a compromise.

SPIEGEL: A freeze for the next 12 months?

Meridor: I can’t comment on details at the moment because I’m very involved in these things. But, concerning the Palestinians, we are ready to negotiate. We don’t want to wait. We said that from day one of our government. But the problem with the Palestinians is a serious one. You can’t resolve it unless there is a readiness on their side to accept that, along with a Palestinian state, there is a Jewish state, too.

SPIEGEL: Fatah and its leadership have done it.

Meridor: No, they haven’t — at least not yet. I hope they will. They will only deserve their own state — something which has never been offered to them in history — if they do it.

SPIEGEL: What are you willing to negotiate on? Prime Minister Netanyahu needed months before he grudgingly accepted the two-state solution at all. And he didn’t use the expression “Palestinian state” until June 14. And then there’s the fact that he has announced a number of preconditions, such as that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel.

Meridor: Again, not true. Netanyahu never set these positions as pre-conditions, although these are our strong positions in the negotiations process. Should we not have a position on Jerusalem?

SPIEGEL: Of course you can have a position. But you can’t make this position a precondition. In a number of international accords, Israel agreed that the final status of Jerusalem would be part of the negotiations.

Meridor: Again, not accurate. These are not preconditions. The Old City with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall will never be part of an Arab state; all the major Israeli parties share this conviction. There could be a compromise on land in Judea and Samaria (ed’s note: these areas are the biblical names for what is now referred to outside of Israel as the West Bank). But all Israeli governments have agreed on having a united Jerusalem. This is our clear position, but we can negotiate about Jerusalem. There are no preconditions, as you claim.

Names that the territory was called until King Abdullah I of Transjordan changed the name to the west bank in order to eradicate the area’s Jewish history. The editor makes it appear that these names belong to ancient history. The purpose of course is to portray those that rightfully refer to the territory as Judea and Samaria as religious fanatics.

Part 2: ‘People Can Compromise, But Gods Never Compromise’

SPIEGEL: How much of the occupied land would you be willing to give back? By allowing the settlements to grow, aren’t you more or less making a viable Palestinian state impossible?

Meridor: The final borders are open for discussion. But we will not return to the line of 1967 — that’s for sure. It was agreed in both President Bush’s letter to Olmert and in the Geneva understandings that the settlement blocks would be part of the State of Israel in the final agreement.

SPIEGEL: Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian leader: Would you be satisfied with the fractured state that Netanyahu is offering — which doesn’t include an army, control of your air space and East Jerusalem as your capital?

Meridor: I’d accept it. You know, I would like the whole land to be my land — because I think it’s mine and they think it should all be theirs. But I changed my mind over 15 years ago: We need to divide it, and both sides have to accept this. For a long time already, we had a difficult, but very positive process.

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that there is no longer any peace process?

Meridor: We hope it will resume, and we have some hopeful signs. But, all in all, it has become more difficult over the years because of the introduction of religion into this conflict. Arab rulers hated us in the past, but they did it because of nationalistic ideas. Since the (1979) revolution in Teheran, we hear a different tune: The Iranians, Hezbollah and Hamas fight us in the name of religion. This is very bad because people can compromise, but gods never compromise.

SPIEGEL: Are you sure that the Iranians introduced religion into the conflict? Isn’t Jerusalem about religion, too? Aren’t the ultraorthodox settlers claiming the Holy Land for themselves because of their God-given rights?

Meridor: You can’t compare these things. The previous pope (John Paul II) said that Jerusalem is sacred to all religions but was promised to one people. We have no religious claim on Jerusalem; we have a national one. Jerusalem is our capital. We shouldn’t talk about the settlements 90 percent of the time and neglect the most important problems …

SPIEGEL: … like Iran and nuclear weapons.

Meridor: This is certainly a cause of serious concern.

SPIEGEL: John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, recently claimed that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear sites by the end of the year. Although the well-informed Israeli newspaper Haaretz did not give an exact timetable for such an attack, it did report that Netanyahu has made the decision to bomb Iran. Is this true?

Meridor: I don’t think the prime minister has made up his mind in the way it has been described. But I don’t want to get into details …

SPIEGEL: …which is a pity. And that’s because you — as the minister of intelligence and atomic energy and a member of Netanyahu’s inner circle — should know.

Meridor: Let me say this much: I think Iran shouldn’t be allowed to become a nuclear power. This is not only an issue for Israel but for the whole world. It would be a victory for the extremists over the moderates in the Arab world. This worries the moderate Arab countries more than anything else. It would change the equilibrium in the Middle East; it would mean the end of the (Nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty; it would be a serious threat for us. One shouldn’t forget that Iranian President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken about the illegitimacy of Israel and its destruction. But we should concentrate now on harsher sanctions against Teheran, with America leading the way. And we are counting on the Europeans to follow with serious actions. This includes Germany, which is one of Iran’s very important trading partners.

SPIEGEL: But what if the sanctions fail to divert Iran from its present course? Will Israel attack alone? Or only with the consent of the US?

Meridor: I don’t want to go into this. But we all see the clock ticking — and Netanyahu knows what he’s doing.

SPIEGEL: At the moment, he is much more popular in Israel than he is abroad. Are you worried that Netanyahu might get a somewhat cool reception in Berlin?

Meridor: No. Germany is one of Israel’s best friends. And, all in all, I am quite optimistic that things in the Middle East will develop in a positive way. There’s something in the air.

SPIEGEL: Really? Could Marwan Barghouti, the intifada leader who is currently serving five life sentences for murder in an Israeli jail, be released and become a respected Palestinian leader and partner for peace? Many think that he has become a moderate, and the Fatah Party’s congress held in early August voted him into its Central Committee with the third-best results of any candidate.

He should be considered as turning “moderate” because fatah voted him to its central commitee? As though fatah has any moral constraints about voting for an unrepentent mass murderer of Jews.

Meridor: I’ve heard similar ideas.

SPIEGEL: Many people think that both the Palestinians and the Israelis have made peace with the status quo and are not prepared for any more painful compromises. Are they right?

Meridor: For us, the status quo is a bad option. We need to change it — and take risks. But we must take into account the lessons we’ve learned from the past.

Interview conducted by Erich Follath.

Swedish NGO Demonizes Israel

You would think that a church based NGO would be concerned about the persecution of Christians in muslim lands and focus their work on helping them. But instead their agenda is to demonize the only country in the Middle East where Christians are free and side with those who persecute Christians.

Diakonia–Sweden’s Largest Humanitarian NGO– Funds Radical Anti-Israel Agenda
(Jerusalem) – NGO Monitor today published a report on Diakonia – a church based NGO and Sweden’s largest humanitarian organization. Receiving 90% of its budget from the Swedish government in 2008, Diakonia funds some of the most radical NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict while its events and publications encourage the vilification of Israel.

NGO Monitor’s report highlights the following:
· Diakonia’s stated goal is “fair and sustainable development”, but their work related to the Arab-Israel conflict is very political and counterproductive in terms of promoting their humanitarian objectives. Diakonia reportedly sponsored ten articles in the Swedish media in October 2008, nine of which focused on Israel.

· Diakonia’s International Humanitarian Law (IHL) program receives the majority of Diakonia’s funding for the region (SEK 46.4m, 2006-9). The program provides the foundation for the political and legal war against Israel and its International Advisory Council is comprised overwhelmingly of Palestinian advocates, including Charles Shamas, a founder of Al Haq and Human Rights Watch Middle East North Africa board member who compares Israeli policy to “apartheid” and “genocide”.

· From 2007-9, Diakonia directed SEK 1.5m to the radical NGO known as the “Alternative Information Center (AIC)”. AIC compares Israeli military and political figures to Nazis, and claims that working with Peres Center for Peace is “morally disgusting” and that Shimon Peres is an “enemy” of “human rights and of peace”.

· Sabeel received SEK 800,000 from 2006-8. Sabeel is a leader in the anti-Israel church divestment campaign. Its Director, Naim Ateek promotes the one-state solution and regularly employs anti-Semitic theological themes, referring to the “Israeli government crucifixion system” which places “Jesus…on the cross again, with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him.”

· SEK 3.2m was directed to Al-Haq from 2006-10. In July 2008, Israel’s Supreme Court upheld a visa denial for Al-Haq’s General Director Shawan Jabarin, due to evidence that he is “among the senior activists of the Popular Front terrorist organization.”

· Diakonia’s “Position Paper on Israel and Palestine” is the only country specific paper Diakonia has issued. It promotes the Palestinian narrative including the “right to resist”, uses “apartheid” rhetoric, and repeats the fictitious history that blames Israel entirely for the conflict.

· NGO Monitor recommends that Diakonia cease funding extremist NGO partners and provide professional and non-ideological criteria for decision making. In addition, the IHL program should be ended, or redesigned to ensure that it reflects both Palestinian and Israeli perspectives, with a professional and transparent evaluation process to determine whether stated objectives are being met.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Untold History of Hebron

Here is the story about the Hebron massacre of Jews by Arabs in 1929. This history needs to be publicized a great deal more and hammered into the heads of those putrid ignoramuses from academia and other assorted leftists and rifraff who falsely claim that Jews living in Hebron and elsewhere in Judea and Samaria are “occupiers” who have “stolen” Arab land. It was the Jews who were mass murdered and ethnically cleansed and who's property was stolen. The British authorities at the time either tacitly approved of the Arab rampage by standing by and doing nothing to stop them or in some cases they actually incited the Arabs. Those Jewish “settlers” who came to Hebron after the six day war merely returned to claim land that their family members were driven out from or had been murdered.

The Hebron Massacre 1n 1929

Eighty years ago, an Arab mob went on a rampage and murdered 69 Jews.

by Toby Klein Greenwald, AISH

On August 23, 1929, the day before the Hebron Massacre, rumors were circulating about anticipated riots, but of the 700 Jews who lived in Hebron, most did not believe anything bad would happen to them. They considered their relations with their Arab neighbors to be strong, based upon years of friendship and shared experiences. Moreover, the Arab Governor of Hebron, Abdullah Kardos, had promised the Jews that they would not be harmed.

According to first-hand accounts recorded in Sefer Hevron, [1] the most comprehensive book on the history of Hebron, some Jewish notables in the city, among them Eliezer Dan Slonim, the highly respected manager of the Hebron branch of the Anglo-Palestine Bank and the son of Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Slonim, the chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Hebron, met to discuss the situation. When they couldn’t resolve their differences of opinion, they went to consult with Rav Meir Franco, the chief Sephardi rabbi of Hebron. Together they decided to bring the Jews who were scattered in outlying areas to homes in the city center, where they thought it would be safer.

As they walked out of the meeting, they were met with a barrage of stones thrown by Arab youths. Yet, shortly after the Arabs finished their Friday prayers, Arab notables came to Slonim to reassure him that no harm would come to the Jews of Hebron.

These notables were either misinformed or misinforming. At 2:30 that Friday afternoon, a young Arab on a bicycle, coming from Jerusalem, called out to the Arabs of Hebron that the Jews were murdering thousands of Arabs in Jerusalem. Other Arabs in cars followed him, shouting that Jews were attacking Arabs (rather than vice versa, as it was in reality).
The riots were hardly spontaneous.

According to The Martyrs of Hebron, which was written by Leo Gottesman, who was a student at the Slabodka yeshivah but was not present at the time of the massacre, [2] the author’s brother was on his way back to Hebron for Shabbat in a cab filled with Arabs, when he saw them eyeing him and snickering. He realized that something was afoot; when his hat blew out an open window, he used it as an excuse to leave the cab and escape back to Jerusalem.

The riots were hardly spontaneous. The mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, (who would, in the ensuing years, offer help to Hitler) had been preaching venomously against the Jews. In 1924 the Moslem Wakf began the instigating against the Jews’ connection to the Kotel, and in 1928, the mufti further provoked a dispute about the Kotel, claiming that the Jews were trying to take control of the mosques on the Temple Mount. The Moslems argued that the Kotel was holy to them because Mohammed had tied his horse there before he went up to the Temple Mount. (To this [3]day, in fact, the Moslems call the pogroms of 1929, “the pogroms of the horse.”) On erev Tishah B’Av 1929, a week before the Hebron Massacre, a large demonstration was held by the Jews, in the plaza before the Kotel, in an attempt to affirm the Jewish connection to the Kotel.

In the aftermath of the demonstration, the mufti encouraged riots around the country. To what extent he merely “encouraged” them and to what extent he actually orchestrated them is still a matter for research, according to Aryeh Klein. “I believe he orchestrated them,” says Klein, “but it is difficult to prove.” Since the British were blatantly pro-Arab, he was able to stir them up unhindered. In Motza, for example, a suburb of Jerusalem, there was the cruel murder of the Makleff family. There were murdered the day before the Hebron Massacre. One of the three children who survived — Mordechai Makleff — became the fourth chief of staff of the IDF.

Hebron Jews were particularly vulnerable since they had made the city more modern and economically prosperous. While the Arabs who wanted modernity regarded the Jewish presence as a blessing, those who didn’t, despised the Jews and led the incitement.
Read the whole thing. Read about it here also.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Duplicitousness of MSNBC

Here is just one example of what vicious, lying scumbags there are over at MSNBC. Recall the controversy over a gun-toting protester outside of an appearance by obama. Well the little bitch pundit in the studio said the protest had racial overtones where you have a president "of color" and angry, gun-wielding white protesters. Keep in mind the video never shows the guy's face or hands, all we see is the gun and holster strapped across his back. Well it turns out that this gun wielding "racist" was a black guy who opposes obamacare. Something much more insidious than political correctness or bias on the part of MSNBC is at work here. This is a deliberate intent to incite against critics of obama and sow racial discord across the nation. Goebels would be proud. Thank goodness we have alternative media such as PJTV to expose the malevolent agenda of MSNBC and other left wing propaganda outlets.

Enemies of Israel May Decide It's Fate

Four enemies of Israel; Carter, Baker, Scowcroft and Brzezinski give their ideas on how Israel should be carved up and will present their DVD to members of Congress, the White House and State Department.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Comment by Ted Belman
While I agree that US “mediation”, otherwise known as imposing its will, is needed to reach an agreement, I object to the notion that the Arabs should receive 100% of the territories. I also object to the notion that the US must weign in on the Palestinian side because they are weaker. And finally I object to the notion that Israel can’t refuse to create another Arab state.

For a process (Roadmap) that prohited anyone, meaning Israel, from doing anything that pre-judged the outcome, the US has done everything to pre-judge it. Israel was always assured that all final issues would be left to negotiations, the actions of the US totally deny her the right.

Former U.S. Statesmen Say U.S. Role Critical to Securing Middle East Peace
By Mohamed Elshinnawi, VOA

The meeting between President Barak Obama and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak this week (Tuesday) was the latest in a series of meetings aimed at exploring new avenues for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians. It comes amid a chorus of proposals from independent groups suggesting ways the U.S. can help resolve the bloody, decades-old conflict. Recently, four prominent American statesmen, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, joined that chorus. They present their recommendations in a privately-produced 20-minute film titled New Hope for Peace: What America Must Do to End the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

Voices of experience in Middle East politics

In addition to President Carter, the four men in the film are former Secretary of State James Baker, and two former national security advisors, General Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. They are among the most well-known and experienced proponents of the idea that a U.S.-brokered peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is key to a wider peace among Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The film was produced by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a private Washington-based group. Retired U.S. Ambassador Philip Wilcox is the Foundation’s president and a 30-year veteran of U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. He says without intervention and mediation by a third party, “there will be no peace and that is the role that these four statesmen recommend for the President of the U.S.”

Wilcox says negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are difficult, because “there is no balance between the negotiating powers; one is vastly more powerful than the other.” He notes that both Israel and Palestine “are dysfunctional when it comes to dealing with security, territorial and peace issues.”

Obama Panders to muslims, Persecutes Patriots

While pandering to and praising the muslim world in speeches and whitewashing the evil brutality of that ideology, hussein obama intends to persecute CIA agents defending us from those same islamic jihadists by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate those involved with interrogations at Gitmo. Do you feel safe knowing these are the twisted priorities of our current commander and chief? Here's a gem from his latest speech marking ramadan.

In the message posted on the White House Web site, Obama says the rituals of Ramadan are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common. He says those principles include advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Christianity and islam have NOTHING in common. These most definitely are NOT the principles of islam. Islam is about injustice, intolerance, hatred, violence, murder of apostates, the submission and oppression of women and non-muslims and their death if they become defiant.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Garofalo's Latest Rant Against Decent Americans

Lunatic Jeanine Garafalo went on another rant against critics of obama. This time attacking people for opposing his health care plan.
"racists, functionally retarded adults," and "teabaggers."
"I want my country back" are referring to wanting "my white guy back"

So apparently according to this bitch, to believe in individual liberty, free markets and opposing big government having control over our lives amounts to being retarded and racist. Screw you garafalo.

Still Resorting to the Race Card

A headline in the reads: "White Anger Fueling Health Care Debate".

Ever since the primaries those putrid scoundrels in the hussein obama camp and the democratic party as a whole along with their media enablers, have been resorting to the race card whenever they are in trouble, unable to counter legitimate criticism. This will be their strategy for four years, to label any criticism of his policies as "racist". This is without a doubt the most divisive president in this country's history. A strong message needs to be sent to the democrats. They MUST be thrown out of office en masse in the midterm elections. They will stop at nothing to force socialism upon Americans and deprive us of individual liberties. Socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship.

The White House's War on Critics

Several advertisers have been intimidated into dropping their sponsorship of the Glen Beck program. And it won't stop with him, especially if the obama administration and its supporters succeed. We must do everything in our power to see to it that Beck stays on the air. Critics of obama are being put on notice that they had better keep quiet or else. There should be no doubt that the democratic party has become a gang of stalinists.

NEW YORK – Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.

Haveil Havalim

Edition #231 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is hosted by Esser Agaroth.

The Real Legacy of Robert Novak

It really disgusts me that conservatives are praising the legacy of faux conservative Robert Novak. Debbie Shlussel and the Sultan Knish expose the true legacy of Novak, a hater of Israel, anti-Semite, pro-muslim, pro-jihadist, appeaser, supporter of hamas who he once praised as "freedom fighters" and believed that 9/11 was an inside job or that a splinter group of al qaeda was responsible as though al qaeda was really moderate and also that our support for Israel was to blame. He opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars, took the side of China and supported appeasement of North Korea and called those wanting to stop the influx of illegal aliens as "nativists". This was a guy who was considered a conservative? I knew novak was bad, but after reading these articles he's much worse than I even thought. It sounds cruel to say this, but I don't mourn the passing of Robert Novak. What he represented was evil.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Bibi Has Been Capitulating All Along

With fake "conservatives" like Bibi caving to hussein Obama, Israel might as well have had Livni as leader. This is extremely distressing that even a Likud leader would capitulate to obama's unreasonable and bigoted demands. Why are Israel's leaders so afraid of defying the White House? It's apparent that Likud isn't right wing and that the nationalist camp must elect a true hard line party which will stand up for the right of Jews to live in ALL of Eretz Israel and which will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and tell the international community to go fuck themselves.

Jews should simply stop trying to explain to the world their rights to build and live in all parts of Eretz Israel and just do it. Ignore the world's haranguing and quietly continue to build.

Column One: Netanyahu's perilous statecraft
Aug. 20, 2009

This week we discovered that we have been deceived. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's principled rejection of US President Barack Obama's bigoted demand that Israel bar Jews from building new homes and expanding existing ones in Judea and Samaria does not reflect his actual policy.

Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Attias let the cat out of the bag.

Attias said that the government has been barring Jews from building in the areas since it took office four months ago, in the hopes that by preemptively capitulating to US demands, the US will treat Israel better.

And that's not all. Today Netanyahu is reportedly working in earnest to reach a deal with the Obama administration that would formalize the government's effective construction ban through 2010. Netanyahu is set to finalize such a deal at his meeting with Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell in London on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, far from treating Israel better as a result of Netanyahu's willingness to capitulate on the fundamental right of Jews to live and build homes in the land of Israel, the Obama administration is planning to pocket Israel's concession and then up the ante. Administration officials have stated that their next move will be to set a date for a new international Middle East peace conference that Obama will chair. There, Israel will be isolated and relentlessly attacked as the US, the Arabs, the Europeans, the UN and the Russians all gang up on our representatives and demand that Israel accept the so-called "Arab peace plan."

That deceptively named plan, which Obama has all but adopted as his own, involves Israel committing national suicide in exchange for nothing. The Arab plan - formerly the "Saudi Plan," and before that, the Tom Friedman "stick it to Israel 'peace' plan" - calls for Israel to retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. It also involves Israel agreeing to cease being a Jewish state by accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as citizens within its truncated borders.

The day an Israeli government accepts the plan - which again will form the basis of the Obama "peace conference" - is the day that the State of Israel signs its own death warrant.

The UK Sucks

It turns out that the real reason ali al-megrahi was released was because England wants an oil deal with Libya. Who cares about the lives of innocents that were lost, especially Americans, when there's billions of petro dollars at stake. Due to its treatment of Israel and now this, I have nothing but extreme contempt for England. It is a hideous, pathetic little country of cowards and moral degenerates and frankly deserves its inevitable destruction. When the Church of England gives its approval to sharia law, you know that its all over for them. Britain is increasingly becoming a liability in the war being waged against us by islam. This is a country clearly on its way out as a free western nation and in a short period of time will become part of the islamic ummah and we should no longer consider it our ally or part of the free world.

Libyan Oil Is Thicker Than American Blood

By Rachel Erhenfield, Huffington Post

In a chillingly cynical excuse Scotland released the former Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who blew up Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The pretext “compassion” for the allegedly terminally ill Libyan, barely disguised the real reason — oil buried deep in the Libyan sand.
The murder of 189 dead American, and 81 other nationals including 11 from Lockerbie matters not when Libya conditions British oil companies’ concessions for exploration in the release of their imprisoned terrorist.

Justifying the unconscious [sic] release, David Blair wrote in the Telegraph: “Libya, under the newly pragmatic rule of Col Muammar Gaddafi…ideally placed to help us combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation - the two biggest threats to British national security. So keeping Libya happy matters a great deal, particularly as the country also possesses 42 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and a similar abundance of natural gas.” This new friendship won BP the world’s largest oil exploration. Therefore says Blair, “Britain needs to make sure that nothing interferes with…”our bilateral relationship” with Libya. If that means sending one 57-year-old prisoner back to his homeland… allowing him to be released on “compassionate grounds” - then so be it.”

Blair, whose fictional reporting in 2002 on the Israeli fight against Palestinian terrorist in Jenin, took years to refute - Human Rights International, and even the U.N. issued reports refuting Blair’s and the Palestinian bogus claims - extols the “companionate” release of the Libyan terrorist, and praises earlier British governments who ignored large-scale atrocities the world over, because the British national interest was on the side of the aggressors.

To remove any doubt where [sic] Blair is proud of the Britain’s pragmatic “national interest” polic y decisions, he reminds us how smart was the decision to quash the 2006 Serious Fraud Office investigation into a £1 billion bribe from BAE Systems to Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The investigation stopped as soon as the Saudis threatened to cancel the £40 billion arms deal for which Bandar and other Saudi royal family members received hefty payments. And Blair applauds that decision because “it was a classic case of interests triumphing over values.”

British values? To better comply with the latest radical Muslim dictate, growing number of municipalities in the U.K. ordered swimmers to wear “Burkinis”; The man “must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

Clearly, justice and national pride are missing from the British political lexicon. In effort to downplay the terrorist release, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, wrote a personal letter to Gaddafi, asking the Libyan dictator to treat the affair “with sensitivity.” The Libyan promptly leaked the letter, and the terrorist was received in as a hero by cheering crowds in Khartum.

Yet, Blair is so hard at applauding England’s “pragmatic” choices that he fails to notice that that “pragmatism” led to the downfall of the once powerful British Empire, and to the rapid pace of Islamization of the remains of Great Britain. Then again, he - like a growing number of British politicians - probably see nothing wrong with that.

In the meantime, the U.S. reaction t o all this has been muted, perhaps because the U.S. is also eying prospect oil deals with Libya.

Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, is director of the American Center for Democracy

The islamic takeover of Europe

The Europeans lack the guts and self-respect to defy the imposition of islamic law and culture into their countries and tell the muslims, leftists and their feckless, traitorous governments where they can stick their sharia rules and take back their freedoms and countries. I know or at least I hope that Americans would not stand for their freedoms and way of life being taken away and replaced with a primitive, seventh century barbaric civilization. Europe is finished. There's no going back. There's still hope for us to stop islamization in its tracks lest we wind up as horrible as Europe is today.

Islam's European Conquest: Is America Next?
By John Griffing
Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic...We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again."
- Ali Al-Faqir, the Jordanian Minister for Religious Endowment

Britain, birthplace of parliamentary democracy, has fallen to Islam. Oxford, once home to the likes of C.S. Lewis, now houses a giant Eastern Islamic Studies Center. If this were the only Islamic addition to Oxford, the mood would be less somber, but when Oxford citizens are forced to awake every morning to the Muslim call to prayer with the full consent of the Church of England, nothing short of conquest has taken place.

Britain's Muslim demographic is now so dominant that the British government recently began to allow Islamic civil and religious law, known as Sharia, to be enforced along side British law.

But if religious tolerance is good, why is this a problem? Simple-this is not an issue of religious liberty. Islam is not designed to co-exist with western civilization. It is designed to conquer it.

Most would agree that Judeo-Christian values are consistent with Anglo-American tradition. Can the same be said of Islam? Even Muslims don't think so. The chief Justice of London's Sharia Court made this chilling statement:
If Sharia is implemented then you can turn this country into a haven of peace...Once a thief's hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. Once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. This is why we say we want to offer it to British society.

Statements like this have not stopped prominent British figures from endorsing Sharia. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Protestant equivalent of the Pope, called Sharia "unavoidable."

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Amnesty Gives in to Pressure From Anti-Israel Groups

Several Anti-Israel organizations have pressured Amnesty International into withdrawing from its involvement in a concert being given by Leonard Cohen to fundraise for various other peace groups. Although I would oppose the naive kumbaya goals of the Cohen concert, nevertheless, can there be a more stark example that the true aim of these misnamed "peace" groups is most definitely not peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Jews, but in fact is the obliteration of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the country?

Amnesty International caves to Israel boycotters
Leonard Cohen is planning to play a concert in Israel on September 24th. The 47,000 tickets, ranging in price from $90 to $315, sold out in a day.

Cohen turned the concert into a fundraiser for pro-peace groups. He worked together with Amnesty International to create a special fund that would hand out the proceeds to places like a peace group made up of the parents of Israelis and Palestinians killed called the Parents Circle-Family Forum, a children's health program run by the Peres Center for Peace in Tel Aviv, an organization that brings together Israeli army veterans and former Palestinian fighters and a center for special needs children in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Cohen tried to also schedule a concert in Ramallah, but this was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs.

The Israeli concert is not in Jerusalem, but in Tel Aviv. In no way can it be considered controversial to anyone who thinks that Israel has the right to exist.

However, the "peace" organizations who do not share that belief immediately started pressuring Amnesty International to withdraw its involvement in a charity that would give literally millions of dollars to groups that are dedicated to Arab-Israeli coexistence. These groups sent an open letter to Amnesty insisting that they stop all involvement with the concert. The signed groups include:

Terrorist Should Have Been Made to Die Alone in Prison

The release by the Scottish government of the terrorist who mass murdered hundreds on Pam Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on the grounds of misguided "compassion", is indicative of why Europe is going to hell in a hand basket. Extreme liberalism has resulted in moral confusion and suicidal policies in the west. Michael Savage has it right when he refers to liberalism as a disease.

The Scottish government actually said they were promised by Libya that he would not receive a hero's welcome! Of course upon this mutant's return to Libya he indeed received a hero's welcome. And these are the inhuman monsters obama wants to appease. And we and Israel are expected to make peace with a people and culture which does not value life, it values and celebrates death, lauds the murderers of innocents as heroes. There is no peace and coexistence to be had with the muslim world. Liberals cannot get this through their thick skulls. And neither will our government, which continues this absurd muslim outreach, including the State Department planning events for ramadan. They are not protecting this country. They are more concerned with political correctness and avoiding offending muslims, who want to murder and dominate us.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Sharia Rules Being Imposed in U.S. By Kuwaiti Bank

Sharia in any way, shape or form has no business being implemented in America. Many greedy companies are rushing to do business with islamic banks unaware and apparently uninterested in the fact that they are contributing to the islamification of America and the implementation of repressive sharia law. American banks themselves are even complying with sharia in order to draw muslim customers. Any such businesses should be boycotted, better yet sharia needs to be outlawed.

A Kuwaiti bank, through its partnership with Colorado based real estate firm UDR, is imposing shariah.

Kuwait Islamic Bank Successfully Imposes Shariah in the USA, Courtesy of UDR

Earlier today, we posted a link to an article which mentioned that Kuwait Islamic Bank had entered into a joint venture with Colorado-based real estate company UDR:

"Shariah Compliant Sovereign Wealth Funds Resume Investing in West"

We were curious as to what, if any, restrictions were to be imposed on the real estate properties in which Kuwait Islamic Bank invested here in the United States, so we made an inquiry via UDR’s “contact us” form on the company’s web site.

The company was quick to reply as, within minutes, we received a phone call from Dave Messenger, CFO of UDR.

I asked Mr. Messenger two questions:

1. What, if any, special restrictions or qualifications relating to Shariah were required in the deal with Kuwait Islamic Bank?

2. Are zakat payments to be made as part of this venture?

Mr. Messenger did not attempt to address question number 2, but referred me to Kuwait Finance House to get an answer to that question.

Mr. Messenger was also quite insistent that UDR’s agreement was in fact with Kuwait Finance House and not with Kuwait Islamic Bank. We regard this as a distinction without a difference, since Kuwait Finance House is an arm of Kuwait Islamic Bank. In all the media being devoted to this new deal, the entity identified is in fact Kuwait Islamic Bank.

Mr. Messenger was able to provide much more information in response to question number 1.

His answer was troubling, right from the outset.

First of all, he mispronounced “shariah.” Shariah is pronounced shu-ree-uh. Messenger pronounced it shu-rye-uh.

It does not inspire a great deal of confidence in terms of due diligence when the CFO of the American entity which entered into the agreement with an Islamic bank cannot even correctly pronounce the name of the underlying doctrine which governs their joint venture partner.

Messenger was not bashful at all about the issue of shariah-compliance.

He declared that the entire agreement was written to be shariah-compliant to make sure that the joint venture properties fit in with their partners’ religion.

When asked about specific provisions which he knew about to establish and maintain shariah compliance, Messenger named two: “cinematography and food served on the property.”

I asked what he meant by cinematography and he explained that some of their properties include movie theaters.

Evidently, Kuwait Finance House/Kuwait Islamic Bank wants to make sure that no offensive movies are shown on properties in which they invest.

In terms of “food served on property” Messenger explained that no pork would be served on the property at functions put on by UDR.

I asked him if any of the properties leased to sandwich shops or delis or such. He said that 8 of their 160 properties did have such tenants.

Again, evidently, those businesses would be prohibited from serving pork to prevent any conflict with shariah or the religion of UDR’s venture partners.

Messenger explained that potential conflicts with shariah were addressed up front with the JV partners and would continue to be addressed up front to prevent conflicts.

What has clearly happened here is that Kuwait Islamic Bank has been able to impose shariah here in the United States by using its financial leverage over UDR>.

This is the essence of Shariah-Compliant Finance.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Swedish Paper Publishes Blood Libel

Reminiscent of nazi era and medieval blood libels against Jews, radical leftist anti-Semite Donald Boström wrote an article in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet accusing Israel of murdering palestinians and cutting out their organs to sell them. Hatred of Israel and Jews in Sweden and throughout Europe is reaching epidemic proportions, even as the continent is increasingly being conquered by hostile and violent muslims. You would think the Swedes would focus their ire against the muslim population trying to transform their country into an islamic state rather than Jews and Israel. This will only get worse as Sweden and the rest of Europe becomes increasingly islamized. This is also the result of an emasculated socialist nanny state which resents and envies individual achievement, and Jews are high achievers.

Stop the Presses: Blood Libel Goes Mainstream: Swedish Newspaper Proves Antisemitism Is Anti-Zionism Is Now Acceptable
By Barry Rubin

We are not talking about a Saudi newspaper or Hamas radio station but a Swedish newspaper. We are not talking about a neo-Nazi rag but a daily closely tied to the Swedish Social Democratic Party. And we are not just talking about an obscure item but an article that received top billing.

On August 18, Aftonbladet published an article by a man named Donald Boström. The editor responsible is named Åsa Linderborg. She is the newspaper’s cultural affairs’ editor.

This was no random decision for her. When asked once: “What do you wish for most in life right now?” She answered: “What a simple question. What I want is a free Palestine.”

And what did this article say? That Israel’s army deliberately murders Palestinian civilians so that it can cut out and sell their organs to sick people needing transplants.

The story is based on the arrest of a Jewish man in Brooklyn for selling organs but the news coverage has no hint of any Israeli connection.

The Swedish story is based on Palestinian sources (though the author also claims he has UN sources for it)--like so many slanders of Israel which are widely purveyed. It is easy to forget that the false claim of a Jenin massacre--which received massive coverage in the Western media--was based on an interview with a single Palestinian who nobody even knew.

[Ironically, the Beirut Daily Star has a very responsible article, also with no claim of Israeli involvement, on the issue of organ sales.]

At this point you are no doubt thinking: This is some kind of sick joke.

Yes, it is. But the newspaper published it any way.

Apparently, the author is a left-wing activist for Palestinian causes, though the newspaper calls him a journalist.


State Department to Celebrate ramadan

Liberals are always so quick to fight displays of crosses or the ten commandments in public buildings, yet strangely they are silent about the most blatant attempts of our government to promote islam. Pamela Geller reports about the State Department's islamic outreach program and how it plans to celebrate ramadan. Why won't our governmet understand that islam's aim is to dominate us not live in peaceful coexistence with us?

The State Department's Ramadan programs are wide-ranging. "On August 10," the cable continues, " will publish a ‘Multicultural Ramadan' feature. American Muslims trace their ancestry to more than 80 countries and the feature will highlight the richness of these various cultural traditions through the lens of Ramadan and Eid. Content will include essays by young Muslims who are part of Eboo Patel's Interfaith Youth Core (IYC). Contact: Alexandra Abboud ("

There's more! The Bureau of International Information Programs "will publish three articles for Ramadan 2009 addressing the concept of an Islam in America 'brand'; advocacy (civic and political) of the Muslim American community; and community innovation/community building. The writer will contact Muslim American experts in each of these fields. These articles will be available on in English, Arabic, and Persian."

The main publication is Being Muslim In America: "Conceived as IIP's flagship print publication on the rich and varied experiences of the nation's growing Muslim population, this lavishly illustrated new book links the Muslim-American experience to those of other American racial, religious, and immigrant groups as they moved into the American ‘mainstream.'"

Can you imagine every Embassy and consulate putting up a Menorah and having some Rabbis as speakers via a webcast?

Can you imagine if we had the Stations of the Cross put on the walls of all of our embassies, consulates, and other posts, as well as the many Department of State buildings across the country, including C Street?

Why aren't priests, pastors, etc. invited during Christmas to give blessings or talk about Christianity in the United States?

Can you imagine if the Buddha were revered and we had some monks coming to do a meditation session with all of the officers of each embassy, consulate, etc.?

Can we get printed and distributed Hare Krishna posters for all of our posts, so as to reach massive audiences?

I mean, put it in reverse and see how crazy it is. Absolutely nuts.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Update on Teenage Christian Convert

Leave it to the leftist media to invert reality and demonize the Christian couple protecting this poor girl as kidnappers who forced her into Christianity, while treating her crazy muslim parents who would murder her for being an apostate, as the real victims. This kind of political correctness in turning a blind eye to the true nature of islam is endangering innocent lives.
Fathima Rifqa Bary, the Muslim teenager who converted to Christianity at least four years ago but who only recently ran away, has been taken away from the two good Samaritan Christian pastors who took her in and is now in state custody in Florida. On Friday, a judge will decide whether her case should be heard in Florida or in Ohio. Her parents have “lawyered” up, her father Mohamed Bary, a jeweler, insists that he never threatened to kill her, that he wants her to come home. The mainstream media is getting nervous. What if they believe what Rifqa says and they end up sued? Or worse?

After all, the Columbus police have challenged the girl’s claim that she is in danger. Sgt Jerry Cupp, chief of the Columbus police missing person’s bureau, has said that “Mohamed Bary comes across to me as a loving, caring, worried father about the whereabouts and the health of his daughter.”

So much for Ohio. But allow me to point out that for weeks, Mohammed Shafi and his second wife, Rona Amir Mohammed, wept, mourned, and generally carried on about the deaths of their three daughters and of Mohammed’s first wife–until the police arrested both Mohammed and Rona, along with one of their sons, for having been behind these heinous, heartless, murders.

Now, Florida Imam Hatim Hamidullah, with the Islamic Society of Central Florida, has informed us that the Muslim faith does not call for a father to hurt his child, should she convert to another religion.

“It is not Islam for the father to bring harm upon his blood daughter or any other human being because of anger,” he said. “Our position is to exhaust all measures that would bring peace and harmony back to the family,” Hamidullah said. “Being angry and threatening the life of someone is not one of those methods.”

Someone has got to explain the technique of taqiyya (the high Islamic Art of disinformation) to the Ohio police, to the judiciary in both Ohio and Florida, and to the mainstream media.
Continue reading

Mary Robinson

No second thoughts

By Jonathan Tobin

Is Obama's bestowing Presidential Medal of Freedom on woman who presided over a United Nation's anti-Semitic hate fest yet another testing of the waters for future outrages against Israel? | When asked about whether US President Barack Obama was rethinking his decision to give Mary Robinson his nation's highest civilian award, a spokesman for the White House was quoted as saying that the president "had no second thoughts" about giving the former Irish president the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Indeed, the ceremony went off without a hitch and nary a discouraging word as Robinson and 15 other less controversial recipients got their medals amid a blizzard of presidential praise.

Obama lauded Robinson, the woman who presided over the United Nation's anti-Semitic hate fest at the 2001 Durban Conference on racism, as "an advocate for the hungry and the hunted, the forgotten and the ignored," and ignored the widespread criticism of the honoree from a wide range of Jewish groups as well as some members of Congress.

Robinson is a longtime foe of the Jewish state and even today holds the post of honorary president of Oxfam, an NGO that gained publicity last week for firing actress Kirstin Davis of Sex and the City fame as its spokeswoman because she also represents Ahava, whose Dead Sea cosmetics are considered off-limits by Israel-haters.

The funny thing is that Jewish businesses operating in Judea and Samaria actually create jobs for the Arabs living there. These leftist NGO's like Oxfam and many others expose their agenda as one not being about the improvement of
life for the Palestinians, who's lives have been vastly improved since 1967, but rather for the abolishment of Israel. Look at how life in Gaza has been since Israel left and hamas took over.

Though the dustup over Robinson cast something of a shadow on an event that is almost always non-controversial (because the White House generally eliminates questionable candidates), the dispute did not generate a great deal of publicity. It was Robinson's good fortune that the weeks leading up to the ceremony were dominated by a divisive national debate over health care reform.

Even Obama's most virulent critics on the right were too preoccupied with the debate over the president's massive expansion of government power for it to register much of an impact on the nation's political Richter scale.

But friends of Israel, especially those Jewish Democrats who have been doing their best to ignore the White House's increasingly belligerent tone toward the Jewish state, would do well to note what happened with Robinson. Obama honored a virulent enemy of Israel, someone who bore a great deal of responsibility for Durban, one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of an institution — the UN — that is no stranger to disgrace. And he has gotten away with it with hardly a scratch on his reputation.

Though some will dismiss this incident as a minor mistake that will soon be forgotten, the main lesson to be learned here may not be the one about presidential award nominations needing to be more thoroughly vetted. Rather, it may be that as much as this was an unforced error on the part of the White House, what Obama and his advisers may take away from this incident is how easily they were able to dismiss a nearly universal Jewish dismay.

There was nothing mistaken about it. Robinson was chosen precisely because she is anti-Israel. This was an screw you from obama to the pro-Israel community. When will liberal Jews get it? Read the rest

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Huckabee in Israel Defends Jewish Construction

Mike Huckabee was in Israel Monday and stated his opposition to hussein Obama's demand that Israel halt construction in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and said that no one should be telling Israelis where they can live in their own country.

Dozens of right- and left-wing activists squared off outside the Shepherd Hotel on Monday evening as past and future US presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, joined by a number of MKs, attended a private reception inside the compound, which has become a central point of contention between the American administration and Israel over Jewish building rights in the annexed parts of the capital.

Huckabee visit sparks protests
Ex-presidential hopeful attends reception at controversial east J'lem site.

Huckabee, who is focusing his current tour of Israel on visits to east Jerusalem and the West Bank and meetings with settler leaders, has positioned himself in direct opposition to US President Barack Obama and his administration's demands that Israel halt all construction over the Green Line.

"It concerns me when there are some in the United States who would want to tell Israel that it cannot allow people to live in their own country, wherever they want," Huckabee had told reporters earlier in the day.

While the reception at the hotel was closed to the press and Huckabee made no formal statement, his participation was widely seen as an endorsement of plans by the Ateret Cohanim organization to build housing units at the site, which was purchased in 1985 by American tycoon Irving Moskowitz and was once home to the pro-Nazi mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

The US has called on Israel to suspend the building plans, as part of a larger demand for a freeze of all Jewish construction in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

On Monday evening, left-wing protesters outside the gated compound heckled Huckabee as he arrived, yelling at him, "Go Home!" and "Racist!" while a contingent of right-wing activists, separated from their left-wing counterparts by border policemen and police officers, waved Israeli flags and blasted "Hatikva" through a bullhorn.

Members of the left-wing camp said they had come in the name of peace, and that the nearly 100 guests at the reception were fomenting violence and continued strife in the capital.

"They don't want peace," said Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, who works with the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. "They are full of hatred and teach their children to hate. It's very far away from Judaism."

The right-wing protesters, however, said they were defending Jewish rights in the capital and would not allow the leftists to "promote the division of Jerusalem" without having their say.

"We're here to represent the majority of Israelis, who believe that Jerusalem should not be divided," said Amit Barak. Members of his university student organization, Im Tirtzu, were outside the hotel to support Huckabee and counter the left-wingers who had congregated nearby.

"If you look at the [left-wing protesters], you'll see that many of them are foreign, anti-Semitic international activists or older Israelis, calling for the division of Jerusalem," Barak said. "We, on the other hand, are the youth of this country, and we want our voices to be heard."
Continue reading
Why are foreign left wing aggitators allowed to stir up trouble inside Israel? Who the fuck are they to demand Israel give away her territory to muslim terrorists? I suggest they go to Gaza and make demands upon hamas. Let's see how far they get.

Bless Mike Huckabee. What a wonderful man he is. Huckabee/Palin 2012.

Will a palestinian State be Imposed Upon Israel

Some of Israel’s worst enemies come from within. Gershon Baskin makes a proposal that the UN should impose a settlement on Israel by recognizing a palestinian state whether there is an agreement between Israel and the palestinian Arabs or not. This could theoretically lead to the UN using military force against Israel in order to enforce this declaration. While the UN would never agree to military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, I could certainly see it using military force to impose a palestinian terror state and destroy Israel.

Will the UN recognize Palestine as a state without Israel’s agreement

Comment by Ted Belman
The UN could do what Baskin suggests. But is it legal? Who cares? When it comes to the UN’s treatment of Israel, there is no rule of law. If a UN mandated force tries to enter Israeli air space, I don’t see Israel shooting them down or facing them down. Thus we would have 500,000 Israelis living in Palestine. Of course the Arabs would expel them as they did in the fifties and keep their properties. This would lead to war, the international force notwithstanding.

According to its Charter, the purpose of the UN is
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The UN could decide that the continuing occupation is “a threat to peace” and an “act of aggression”, thereby justifying their “collective measures”. By recognizing the State of Palestine it would be elevating the current dispute to “an international dispute” justifying their “adjustment or settlement of the dispute”.

By Rhonda Spivak, Special to Israel Resource Review

Gershon Baskin, Co-CEO of the Israel-Palestine Centre For Research and Information [IPCRI]said that that he was the one who “put forth” the idea to European Union Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana of having the United Nations Security Council recognize a Palestinian state, even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians.

Baskin told an IPCRI conference entitled “Education for Peace” on August 8 in Beit Jalla, at Talitha Kumi near Bethlehem that “He [Solana] heard it first from me, but it’s fine, let Solana get the credit.”

Baskin said under the proposed plan the United States would not use its veto power to prevent the U.N. Security Council from recognizing the existence of the State of Palestine within provisional borders.

Baskin told the conference that about two weeks ago he met for “secret talks in the U.S.” with five Palestinians, five Americans and five Israelis.

“[PA President] can submit a request [to the U.N. Security Council]that the State of Palestine become a member state of the U.N., and if the U.S. does not veto this, all of the Security Council members will vote in favour,” said Baskin, noting that currently the Palestinians only have observer status at the U.N.

After passing the Security Council, the State of Palestine would be recognized by the U.N. general Assembly and “from that moment, the State of Israel is now occupying the entire member state of Palestine,” he said. He added that once that happened the U.N. could create a mechanism to send in international forces to implement the two state solution, with Jerusalem as a capital for both states.
Continue reading

Monday, August 17, 2009

Drop Dead Syria

Tovia Singer tells it like it is. If only Israel's leaders would be just as blunt. There is no way Syria should ever be given back the Golan Heights. The Syrians lost the Golan because they were involved in a war of aggression against Israel and when they were in control, used the Heights to shell Israeli farmers. You want to start wars, you lose territory permanently, too damn bad. What kind of a message would it send to the Arabs if the Golan were to be surrendered? It would tell them there is no long term price to be paid for their aggression against Israel. Wasn't anything learned from surrendering Gaza? There is no doubt that the Golan Heights would be used again to attack Israel, this time with missiles, likely through a terrorist proxy. As Tovia put it, they Syrians should be told to drop dead.
Tovia Singer delivers a powerful message to Syria

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Haveil Havalim

Edition #229 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is over at Letters of Thought.

Correcting Mideast Myths

It’s astonishing that the Arabs have successfully been able to convince the world community that they are the victims of Israeli aggression and territorial conquests when you consider just how miniscule Israel is and how vast the territories controlled by the Arabs are and how many countries they have.

Steven Plaut writes an excellent piece debunking that notion and the many other preposterous myths about the Middle East.

The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle East

[Many people sent this article to me with their opinion that it was one of the best defenses of Israel, they had read. I agreed.]

By: Steven Plaut

Israel’s enemies around the world have poisoned the debate with their smoke and mirrors.

If a Martian were suddenly to land on earth and start listening to and reading the mainstream media, he would form the impression that the entire Middle East conflict were due to Israel building some settlements in land that much of the world thinks should become a Palestinian state. A near-consensus exists among the governments of the world and among media writers that peace has yet to break out in the Middle East because of three principle reasons. The first is that the Jews and the Arabs have been unable to agree about whether there should be a Palestinian state. The second is because Israel has obstinately refused to withdraw its troops from (so-called) “occupied Arab” lands. The third is because Israel behaves cruelly towards the Palestinians.

The Martian could easily carry these beliefs back to its home planet, as long as it did not bother to learn the background and the history of the Middle East conflict. Those three reasons cannot survive an antibiotic of familiarity with Middle East history.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian statehood and even less to do with Israeli “settlements.” In fact Israel has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from the Palestinians — like recognizing Israel’s right to exist. As it turns out, even so-called “moderate” Palestinians reject any such idea.

Meanwhile debate about the Middle East conflict is based on an incredible absence of historic information and on a series of stylish misconceptions about Middle East history. The anti-Israel Lobby, which grows by the day in its maliciousness and antisemitism, counts on the ignorance of much of the public concerning how the Middle East got to where it is.

Here are just a handful of popular misconceptions and their antidotes:

1. Falsehood: Israel was erected on land that belonged to Palestinian Arabs.

Truth: Before Israel was created its territory never belonged to Palestinian Arabs and had not been ruled by any Arabs at all since the Middle Ages. It had been a Turkish province for centuries until it was captured by Britain during World War I. The League of Nations awarded governance of “Palestine” to Britain at the end of the war in exchange for its commitment to turn the area into a Jewish homeland. The lands on which Jewish immigrants settled before Israel was created were purchased by Jews at above-market prices and in most cases had no Arabs living on them. Virtually no Arabs were evicted.

2. Falsehood: The Jews came to Palestine as foreigners and aliens whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the territory.

Truth: Jews lived in “Palestine,” which is the Land of Israel or “Eretz Yisroel,” continuously from the time of the Bible. Most families of “Palestinians” migrated into “Palestine,” during the same period as the Zionist waves of immigration, starting in the second half of the 19th century. The largest ethnic group in the country at the time was the Turks. The “Palestinian Arabs” in 1948 were primarily families of migrants from Lebanon and Syria. Ironically, they were motivated to become “Palestinians” in the first place thanks to the Zionist movement, which brought capital and labor into “Palestine” and improved living conditions there. Huge numbers of the names of “Palestinian” Arab villages and towns are slightly-modified Hebrew names. It is difficult to dig in the ground of “Palestine” without uncovering Jewish artifacts, some thousands of years old. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine’s territory had been sliced off in the 1920s and used to set up Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel. The remaining territory, Western Palestine, was to become the Jewish homeland. That was the original “two-state solution,” the same “innovation” now being promoted for the Western third of the remaining part of Palestine.

3. Falsehood: There is no Palestinian state today because of Israeli aggression and obstinacy.

Truth: There is no Palestinian state today because of Arab aggression and obstinacy. In late 1947, the United Nations approved by a two thirds majority a proposal to create in to create in Western “Palestine” two states to replace the British Mandatory regime there. One would be Jewish and the other a Palestinian Arab state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs rejected the idea. The Arab states launched an attack of genocidal aggression against the Jews, invaded “Palestine” and gobbled up the lands earmarked for the Arab Palestinian state. Most of those lands were then held illegally by Jordan and semi-legally by Egypt until 1967 when they were liberated by Israel in the Six Day War. The Arab world has maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948, refusing to recognize its legitimacy, and attacking Israel over and over in a series of wars and terrorism campaigns. The Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, and sponsored terrorist atrocities against Jews in Israel since it was created. The reason for the attack which produced the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 is exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace settlement today.

4. Falsehood: Israel conducted “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948-49.

Truth: The Arab states conducted ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948. About a million Jews were expelled by Arab states, their property stolen, and most then became citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948-49 as a direct result of the Arab war of aggression against Israel, in which the Palestinians participated. The estimated number of such Arab refugees varies between 400,000 and 750,000, with the former the more likely correct estimate. Afterwards, many were quietly allowed to return to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs from other Arab countries then declared themselves “Palestinian refugees” in order to get handouts from the UN and other international relief organizations. The actual Palestinian Arabs became refugees for the same reason that ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe became refugees after World War II: because they were on the losing side of the war of aggression launched by their own political leaders.

5. Falsehood: Israel is an apartheid regime and mistreats Arabs.

Truth: Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate
Read the Rest

Peace Prize Awarded to Israel Hating "Journalist"

Anti-Zionist and terror apologist scumbag john pilger, received the Sydney Peace Prize, much to the consternation of Australia's Jewish community. Why even bother getting upset? None of these "peace" prize awards should ever be taken seriously. These are politicized extreme left-wing organizations pretending to advocate for peace when in fact they are all about promoting an anti-Israel and anti-American agenda. How can any organization which awards backers of genocidal terrorists with a "peace" prize be seen as anything but a fraud and a sick joke? It was the same with peace movements during the cold war which were really communist fronts. Today's peace movements are jihadist fronts. I'm actually more disturbed that Israel hater and terror apologist Mary Robinson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, because that used to mean something, but now such a prestigious honor has been diminished by the current White House occupant and his politicization of the award. She was chosen precisely because she is anti-Israel and also because she condemned the Bush administration.

Pilger's Preposterous Peace Prize

Australia's Jewish community's in an uproar because journalist John Pilger is receiving the Sydney Peace Prize, the country's most prestigious international award.

It's bad enough that Pilger's polemics debase journalism. Among other things, he has mishandled quotes and produced Palestine Is Still the Issue, a discredited documentary.

Unfortunately, the Sydney Peace Foundation also cheapens the concept of peace prizes. Previous winners include Hanan Ashrawi, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson, Hans Blix and Irene Khan.

I doubt we'll receive any Rosh HaShanah cards from Pilger. He considers HonestReporting "a thoroughly sinister organization."

Saturday, August 15, 2009

J Street Supported By Israel's Enemies

The fact that J Street receives muslim donations tells us all we need to know about where they stand.

Muslims, Arabs among J Street donors

Hilary Leila Krieger, The Jerusalem Post

The J Street political action committee has received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as from several individuals connected to organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian issues advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Additionally, at least two State Department officials connected to Middle East issues have donated to the PAC, which gives money to candidates for US Congress supported by J Street . The organization describes itself as a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby pushing for more American involvement and diplomacy in resolving the Middle East conflict.

Arab and Muslim donors are extremely rare for other organizations that describe themselves as supporters of Israel as J Street does, Jewish leaders at organizations across the political spectrum told The Jerusalem Post. Because most of these other organizations are not PACs, however, US law does not require them to release their donor lists. J Street ’s non-PAC arm also does not release a complete list of contributors.

J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami estimated the amount of Arab and Muslim donors to be a very small percentage - at most 3 percent - of the organization’s thousands of contributors. But he said that such supporters show the broad appeal of J Street ’s message and its commitment to coexistence.

“I think it is a terrific thing for Israel for us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel and willing to support Israel through J Street ,” he said. “One of the ways that we’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel is that you actually don’t need to be anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian to be pro-Israel.”

Activists from several other Israel-oriented groups, though, suggested that J Street ’s donor list reflects on the group’s commitment to Israel and approach to the peace process.

“It raises questions as to their banner that they’re a pro-Israel organization. Why would people who are not known to be pro-Israel give money to this organization?” asked Lenny Ben-David, a former Israeli diplomat and staffer for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major Washington lobby but not a PAC that makes contributions to candidates. “Once you introduce a large group and large amount of money from people who are suspect in their pro-Israel credentials, J Street loses some of its credibility in claiming it is pro-Israel and representing the Jewish community.”

Ben-Ami described the organization as one that is “primarily but not exclusively Jewish” and said that as the numbers of Arabs and Muslims participating in J Street are low, he would like to welcome more non-Jews into the fold.

The funds that come from these sources indeed constitute a small fraction of the year-and-a-half-old organization’s political fundraising, which totaled around $844,000 in 2008 - a key election year - and $111,000 so far in 2009. They comprise several dozen of the PAC’s 4,000-5,000 donors.

But some of the contributors play key roles in the organization. The finance committee’s 50 members - with a $10,000 contribution threshold - include Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute, and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council board. The group has also received several contributions from Nancy Dutton, an attorney who once represented the Saudi Embassy in Washington .

Smaller donors include several leaders of Muslim student groups, Saudi- and Iranian-born Americans, and Palestinian- and Arab-American businessmen who also give to Arab-oriented PACs.

Additionally, Nicole Shampaine, director of the State Department’s Office for Egypt and the Levant , gave $1,000 last summer. Lewis Elbinger, who used to serve in Saudi Arabia , gave a combined $150.

A State Department legal adviser said there were no laws or codes prohibiting employees from donating to groups doing advocacy work on the policies they are formulating.

“The State Department ethics rules don’t prohibit contributions to lobbying groups,” she said.

Shampaine did not respond to a request for comment from the Post and Elbinger could not be reached.

The donations raised the eyebrows of some Jewish organization officials.

“It informs our view of where these individual foreign service officers’ heads are in relation to US-Israel policy,” said one who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It might not be the smartest move for them to be showing their hand in that way, though I don’t think it’s illegal or even unethical.”

Though Abdoo, Lynch and Dutton also did not respond to queries from the Post, donor Zahi Khouri was reached by telephone during a visit to the West Bank , where he splits his time along with Orlando .

He explained that he donated to the J Street PAC because “I believe that they are sincere about being pro-Israel and they are sincere about being pro-peace. And AIPAC I consider an enemy of Israel rather than a friend of Israel because they’re not helping it to achieve peace.”
Continue reading
So let me get this straight, according to the logic of J Street, to be pro-Israel is to support policies which will lead to its dismantlement, and to be an enemy of Israel is to support a strong and secure Israel maintained as a Jewish state. Makes sense to me.

Anyway why is AIPAC labeled a “right wing” group when it in fact foolishly supports a two-state solution? Such a view of AIPAC reveals oneself to favor the destruction of Israel. Because apparently as far as they are concerned, any individual or group who merely supports the existence of Israel is to be considered “right wing”, even if they also support a palestinian state.