Steven Plaut

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

1. For years Barry Chamish, the Israeli UFO chaser and inventor of the
silliest conspiracy theories, has claimed that members of the Rabin family
endorse his "theories" of the Rabin assassination. This is of course a
complete fabrication and the only "source" for such an absurd claim is
Chamish himself, not exactly a credible journalist. His fantasy about the
Rabins endorsing his books and "theories" is based on the fact that
several of the Rabin family members, all loyal Laborites or leftists, have
indeed suggested that the investigation into the assassination be
continued and that it investigate any "conspiracy", but by "conspiracy"
the Rabins mean any possible involvement by Right-wing Rabbis or Likud
activists in influencing Yigal Amir, an old McCarthyist accusation and not
exactly the Chamish conspiracy involving
Shimon Peres plotting to murder Rabin together with Chamish's pet bogeyman
the Council on Foreign Relations (whose main crime is publishing Foreign
Affairs magazine) and the UFOs. Actually the "conspiracy" the Rabins had
in mind would involve exactly the sorts of people who repeat and believe in
Chamish's silly theories.

Now Chamish has expanded his "claim" (see
to include Leah Rabin, the widow of Yitzhak Rabin. Chamish claims that
she also endorsed his book and he seems to be the only terrestrian in the
galaxy who heard her say this or report this. No real journalist ever
heard her say it.
How convenient for Chamish that Leah Rabin is no
longer on earth to dismiss his fabrication, although I suppose we should
not altogether dismiss the possibility that she is on one of those space
ships that Chamish claims vists earth all the time. In fact, Leah Rabin
never said any such thing. Chamish is letting his own fabrications carry away
his imagination, a bit like with his other "theories" involving UFOs and
the CFR.

I have no explanation why the otherwise reputable Israel Insider web
magazine would run Chamish's nonsense, but maybe you can ask them.

2. The Likud has prepared a list (in Hebrew only alas) of leftist
traitors (its term for them) in Israel at:

3. You think that if that al-Qaida group in Britain had actually managed
to blow Westminster to smithereens, the BBC and the Economist would have
succeeded in bring themselves to refer to the perps as terrorists, rather
than as activists?

4. The Bank of Israel issued a study in which it estimates that the
Palestinian "Intifada" is currently costing Israel between 31 and 40
billion shekels a year. Say, why don't we send the bill to the Israeli
Labor Party?

5. On passover we remember not only the liberation of the Jews from
slavery but also the whining of some of the politically correct (some say
it was actually the non-Jewish "aravrav" from Egypt who tagged along), led
by Dotan and Aviram, bitching about life after slavery and demanding to go
back to Egyptian slavery where conditions were better. And to help us
remember, a Histadrut thug is cited in Haaretz today complaining that
public sector workers have such gawd-awful pay that they would be better
off if they were slaves in Egypt to Pharaoh.

6. Yesterday was "Land Day", in which Israeli Arabs show their utter
contempt for their Jewsish fellow citizens and their hatred for the
democratic country of which they are citizens. They have been
increasingly joined by Israeli anti-Semitic Jewish leftists and academic
This past week, to help the Israeli Arabs celebrate "Land Day", a
number of communists and academic extremists, led by Haifa University's
Ilan Pappe, held a "right of return" conference in a Haifa Arab theater,
to endorse the Arab "right of return", a "right" seen by almost everyone
as equivalent to the destruction of Israel and a Second Holocaust of the

7. The US army in Iraq shut down a local paper that was openly endorsing
the use of violence. Why doesn't Israel follow the same example and use
that as precedent to shut down the Palestinian Authority, the Arab fascist
political parties repesented in the Israeli parliament, and Haaretz?

8. Palestinians threaten US delegation

Associated Press Mar. 30, 2004


The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades militia issued a statement Tuesday saying a
delegation of top US officials visiting the region to discuss Sharon's
disengagement plan was banned from the Palestinian areas. The statement
accused America of unfairly preventing the U.N. Security Council from
condemning Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin last week.

"This visit is rejected completely, and the American administration will
not like the circumstances of such a visit," it said without

The Al Aqsa statement also called on other Muslim nations to oppose the
U.S. stance.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Paul Patin said he did not believe the delegation
planned to enter either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, but "clearly our
security people will be interested in this (threat)."

Meanwhile, a group of prominent Palestinians has rejected recent calls by
intellectuals and moderates to give up violence against Israel, saying it
is justified as long as Israel occupies Palestinian land.

A leaflet widely distributed in the West Bank said continued Palestinian
attacks are the appropriate response to Israeli military action, in
particular last week's assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

The argument underscored the growing disagreements in Palestinian society
over the uprising against Israeli occupation, which began in September
2000. Many Palestinians have grown weary of the bloodshed, but remain
extremely pessimistic about the likelihood of reaching a peaceful
settlement with Israel. More than 2,750 people have been killed on the
Palestinian side and more than 940 on the Israeli side.

Tuesday's leaflet said Yassin assassination "was a Zionist assertion that
there was no security for Palestinians or their Arab or Muslim

"The terrorism of the United States and its spoiled child (Israel) will
only boost our determination to seize our rights," the leaflet said.

Signatories include the deputy speaker of the Palestinian parliament,
university professors, lawmakers and former Cabinet ministers. Most of the
people were supporters of hard-line militant groups, although none is
active in any of the groups.

"Whoever wants peace should give us our rights. If not, then we have the
right to use every possible means to get back our rights," said Abdel
Sattar Qassem, a political science teacher at An Najah University and one
of the signatories.

Last week, some 60 intellectuals signed a newspaper ad cautioning against
revenge attacks for Yassin's assassination, saying it would only lead to a
harsher Israeli response. The group called on the public to "rise again in
a peaceful, wise Intefadeh (uprising)."



This article can also be read at

8. You know how there is this myth about Jews controlling Hollywood?
Well, maybe the Reform Synagogue DOES! See :

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Apologies for yesterday's posting including the addresses at the top. I
was jet lagged and put the list in the wrong position in the message.
Early senility strikes again.

1. So you thought Mitzna had lost the last election? You were wrong:

2. CNN lobbies for suicide bombers:

3. When should Israel NOT be supported?

4. Barbarians in the Hague:

5. Roasting Yassin:

6. Will Bill Clinton now move to Berkeley?

Suppressing free speech in Berkeley:

Saturday, March 27, 2004

Here is a thought. You know how the Reform synagogue movement has decided
that all of Judaism boils down to nothing more than the pursuit of social
justice? And then that the pursuit of social justice boils down to the
promotion of this week's PC liberal political fads?

Well, maybe we can get the Reformies to include these two short prayers in
their litany:

Social justice is a semantic fraud from the same stable as People's
- C. Curran

Envy plus rhetoric equals "social justice."
- Thomas Sowell

2. Nice Cartoon:
Nice piece:

3. Pressuring Israel:

4. Jihad in Toronto:

5. Sounds like Meretz was active over the weekend:

Friday, March 26, 2004

One of the stranger semantic twists in recent days concern use of the term
"revenge" in the media. As in: "The Hamas is now going to "avenge" the
fact that Israel recycled the Sheikh Yassin."
Such a use of the word "revenge" may
be one of the most Orwellian of the distortions by the Anti-Semantites
who operate the Western media. Many of them are also anti-Semites by the

So in order to show you how to express yourself in terms of this
Orwellian use of "revenge" we thought we would add some other examples of the
politically correct use of the term:

1. Germany is considering taking revenge on Czechoslovakia for the 1939
invasion of its lands.

2. Japan is threatening to take revenge against the United States for
Pearl Harbor.

3. France is thinking of taking revenge against Russia for its having
allowed Napoleon to invade its territory.

4. Lee Harvey Oswald is thinking of taking revenge against John F.
Kennedy, and Sirhan Sirhan against Bobby Kennedy.

5. Saddam Hussein is threatening to take revenge against Kuwait for the
1991 invasion of its territory.

6. George W. Bush is threatening to take revenge against Al Gore for
having won the 2000 election and wants a recount.

7. Osama bin Ladan wants revenge against the aggressors who were inside
the World Trade Center in 2001 attacking his people.

8. The bulldozer demands revenge against Rachel Corrie.

9. Abu Abbas's people want compensation from Leon Klinghoffer's family or
else they want revenge.

10. The hijackers of the plane to Entebbe want Israel to compensate them
for the wasted fuel or else they want revenge.

11. Tim Veigh wants Oklahoma City to pay for his fertilizer costs or else
he wants revenge against them for the crime against him.

You get the idea....

1. Thought for the week:
In light of the Madrid bombings, France has raised their terror alert
level from "run" to "hide".
The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

2. One more thought. Buried in today's news is the story of how
Pakistani army troops are bulldozing the homes of frontier tribesmen
families who had been collaborating with al-Qaida terrorists hiding out in
the area. The US administration is applauding!.
Yes, suddenly bulldozing the homes of collaborators with terrorists is
LEGIT! CNN, BBC and the NY Times of course are ignoring this sensational
story. Why? Because it is not Israelis doing the bulldozing!
No one is whining about the suffering and apartheid oppression caused
by the bulldozers in Pakistan! No Rachel Corrie wannabes are challenging
the dozers there! The ISM (International Solidarity Movement) has not
sent in its pro-terror preppies to demonstrate their support in Pakistan
for al-Qaida and block the dozers with their design-jean-bedecked bodies!

3. Chirping Hypocrits:

4. Jewish Ultra-

5. Does not matter:

6. Wake up - Dershowitz:

7. Israeli intelligence is warning that there are fears the Hamas may try
to attack prominent Rabbis as a sort of "revenge" for the recycling of the
genocidal Sheikh Yassin.

Do you realize what this means? Why, it means that it might be a good
time for us all to proclaim that we now acknowledge, for the time being,
all those Tikkun "Rabbis" to be actual Rabbis!


Thursday, March 25, 2004
Israel must not surrender to terror
By Arieh Eldad

Posted: March 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The proposed unilateral Israeli withdrawal of from the Gaza Strip is the
newest (and arguably the most promising) victory awaiting the masters of
terror. The fundamental tenet of the West's almost 3-year-old War on
Terror is moral clarity the courage of consistency. Such manifest
principles shudder in humiliation by the anticipated Israeli pullout from
Gaza. Once the sole battlefront in the Terror War, Israel has sorrowfully
become only one of the many new war zones of this gruesome conflict.

The Jewish state continues to suffer as no other however, a number of
nations have come to experience the horrors of indiscriminate murder, the
fear of sudden and unreserved violence and the mourning of fallen
innocents. Yet with no true examination, no attempt to look beyond the
myth of rhetoric, the West continues to encourage Israeli capitulation to
terror. This must end for, if no other reason, than the defense of
democracies throughout the world.

Sadly, Israel's greatest ally and the victim of one of the most depraved
acts of terror, also seeks to have Israel give in to the terrorists in
exchange for dreamy, tired and ill-conceived "peace plans" with the
radicalized Arab-Islamic enemy. The "Bush Doctrine" defines capitulation
to terror as a defeat, that those who aid the terrorists are as
responsible and therefore as guilty as the terrorists.

With this faultless cognition, moral clarity demands that Israel be
forbidden to capitulate to terror. And, with the unanticipated outcome of
the Spanish elections and the conceivable loss of a staunch U.S. coalition
partner, President Bush stated unequivocally: "Any sign or weakness or
retreat is a victory for the terrorists." The partnership of nations who
seek to do battle against terror must re-evaluate their automatic, and
frankly, illogical, reactions to the Israeli-Arab conflict and understand
that in the face of the bombing in Madrid, their future many hinge upon
yet another terrorist victory.


In 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the
Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. That war broke out after Egypt had poured
large military forces into the Sinai, closed the Tiran Straits to Israeli
shipping and concluded a joint plan, with Syria, for an attack on Israel.
Twenty-two years later, as part of the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt and
following the Camp David talks between Prime Minister Begin and President
Sadat under the auspices of President Carter, Israel returned the entire
Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. However, Egypt declined to re-assume control of
the Gaza Strip, which remained in Israel's possession.

After ruling Gaza for 37 years, Israel, in the wake of the 1993 Oslo
Accords, handed over most of the area of the Strip to the Palestinian
Authority. With all agreements signed, Israel held on to 20 flourishing
communities in a small section of Gaza.

Until recently, it was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who took the
position that Israel must continue to maintain and develop these Jewish
communities under Israeli rule in perpetuity. More importantly, the prime
minister frequently expressed the view that the very existence of these
Israeli communities in Gaza was essential to the prevention of a takeover
of Gaza by extremist terrorist groups and the resultant creation there of
the biggest terrorist base in the world.

The Roadmap: Conditions unmet

The "Roadmap," based on President Bush's vision requires, first and
primarily, the cessation of terror. The plan was never implemented, very
simply because the terror not only continued, but increased. The
leadership of the Palestinian Authority was fleeting and Yasser Arafat
remained the Authority's strongman who, to this day, continues to rule the
PA as a terrorist organization.

Israel rightfully continued to maintain that, unless and until there is a
cessation to terror, the thought of territorial concessions was, in fact,
out of the question and that action would be seen as a reward for
violence. In all, nearly 1,000 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks
over the past three years. Suicide-killers have indiscriminately taken the
lives of women and children in the streets of Israeli towns and cities.

Against this background of ongoing and ever increasing terror, came an
astounding turnabout in the long-standing policy of Israel's prime
minister, Ariel Sharon. In what is clearly an act of desperation, Mr.
Sharon decided that Israel would unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza
Strip, and possibly from areas in Judea and Samaria.

The prime minister's proposal has all the signs of a man brought to the
brink, frustrated by the outrageous behavior of the Palestinian Authority,
its blatant flaunting of all civilized norms, its disregard of any legal
agreements and the refusal of the world community to disqualify the PA as
an entity with any standing. The prime minister would capitulate to the
terrorists through despair and fatigue, uprooting dozens of Jewish
communities, transferring their inhabitants in the thousands and
redeploying to a new and dangerous line of defense. Such matters should
not be left to the tired and depressed.

The lesson of Lebanon

It was Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the extremist Lebanese Muslim
terror organization Hezbollah, who described Israel as "a spider-web
state." A few years ago, when Israel was fighting in Lebanon, Nasrallah
believed that if he just kept up Hezbollah's terrorist strikes against the
Jewish state, it would eventually break and retreat. This, indeed, is what
happened and, in the year 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory.
That retreat, and the hastiness in which it was carried out, represented a
tremendous victory for the Hezbollah, and gave living proof of the truth
of Nasrallah's theory the theory of terror.

The Palestinian Authority learned that lesson well.

Ariel Sharon's announcement of his intention to leave Gaza unilaterally in
order to improve Israel's position and establish a new line of defense is
decisive proof that terror pays. Such a move would indicate that Israel
at one time the very symbol of consistent refusal to surrender to terror
and, in this sense, an example and model for the entire free world was
now signaling to all the terrorist organizations that terror pays. Israel,
moreover, would become living proof that it is possible to overcome even a
country enjoying overwhelming military superiority if one simply persists
in the mass killing of that country's citizens.

Should the terrorists' victory in Spain be topped off with the Israeli
withdrawal from Gaza, the methodology will be set in stone. The threat to
the lives of American and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will
increase substantially, because Islamic terror will then have
incontrovertible proof that all it need do is redouble its efforts and
step up the slaughter in order to defeat the Western democracies. Such a
victory for the terrorists in Gaza would be the opening signal for a
worldwide terrorist offensive of unprecedented proportions.

The extremists will take over

It may be safely assumed that if the Israel Defense Forces evacuate Gaza,
the most extreme terrorist groups will seize control of the area. Hamas,
and perhaps Hezbollah as well, will gain sharply in strength, which will
be understood in one way only: that they have succeeded in driving the
Israelis out. A shot in the arm of this kind for the extremist
organizations will, in effect, put an end to any prospect that a moderate
Arab regime would ever take hold, carry out reforms, fight terror and
realize President Bush's vision and the Roadmap.

Moreover, an Israeli surrender to terror, in the form of a unilateral
retreat from the Gaza Strip, would deal a severe blow to the courageous
American resolve to fight terror everywhere. The United States would be
compelled to invest billions of dollars, and possibly send tens of
thousands of additional armed forces to the Middle East, to avert defeat
in the War on Terror. The bold and noble effort to recreate the Middle
East based on a democratic Iraq will forever be damaged. If the U.S.
experiment is able to survive the proposed terror victory, countless years
will be added to the task, not to mention the added blood and treasure of
the already put-upon American people.

A new dimension has been added to the strategic alliance between Israel
and the United States. In the world of fundamentalist Islam, Israel is
called "the small Satan." In Muslim eyes, the small Satan's surrender to
terror would surely pave the way for victory over "the great Satan" the
United States. For this reason, if for no other, the United States must to
strengthen Israel's resolve and urge its leaders to stand firm against
terror. The level heads in Washington must expose the defeatist policy
proposed by Prime Minister Sharon as the ill-conceived byproduct of
desperation and fatigue.

Professor Arieh Eldad, a brigadier-general (Reserves), has served in the
past as chief medical officer of the Israel Defense Forces, and is a
member of Israel's Knesset. His party, the National Union, is part of the
coalition making up the Sharon government.

9. Peace via Killing Terrorists:
and also

10. Can you spot the Jewish Leftist for a Second Holocaust on this list?:

Thursday, March 25, 2004

1. The UN Human Rights Commission, which has never condemned the
Palestinian nazis for their mass murders and suicide bombing atrocities,
including when they mass murder children, has now taken a courageous
decision and has condemned Israel for human rights violations because it
assassinated the genocidal Sheikh Yassin with the blood of hundres of
Israeli civilians on his paws.

2. The usual apologists for terrorists and the anti-Israel mob are
bellowing that even if killing the Nazi sheikh was ok, NOW was the wrong
time to do so. WHy? Well, every time Israel actually uses its army
half-heartedly against the nazis, the Left and the Bash-Israel mob insists
that the Arab world was just on the brink of making peace with Israel but
that Israel's armed action messed things up. I cannot recall a single
case where Israel used armed might where the response was not the same.
We were almost there, just on the brink of peace breaking out, but Israeli
trigger-happy violence messed things up.

Well, here is a nice piece. Its point is that there is NEVER a
WRONG time to kill nazi terrorists:

3. The REAL Threat to Jews comes from the Campus Left-wing Anti-Semites:
Faculty pose the greatest danger to Israel on campus
By Mitchell G. Bard March 19, 2004

The plight of Jewish students on college campuses has appropriately
received increasing attention in the last two years. Highly publicized
incidents, such as the mob that surrounded Jewish students at San
Francisco State, the shouting down of Bibi Netanyahu at Concordia, and
checkpoints and guerrilla theater at schools such as Georgetown and
Berkeley have created the false impression that such behavior is the rule
rather than the exception on college campuses.

For educators and the professionals who work on campus, the greatest
challenge is not training students to respond to Israel's detractors, but
educating them about the history and politics of the Middle East so they
can become independent thinkers who love and understand Israel, warts and
all. This challenge is not being met because of the absence of scholars
who can imbue this knowledge, and because most of the faculty teaching
about the Middle East today are hostile toward Israel.

The prevalence of outspoken anti-Israel professors is the most insidious
danger to Israel's standing on the campus. Students and advocates come and
go, but faculty remain for years and shape the campus environment and the
minds of students. I can tell you the person who taught my course on the
Arab-Israeli conflict at UC Santa Barbara 20-odd years ago was incredibly
biased. I was back to speak there last year and discovered to my chagrin
that the same professor is still teaching! So that professor has had 20
years to pollute students' minds, which is far more dangerous than the
nonsense that students may engage in. UCSB also has a beautiful new Middle
East studies center. All you need to know about that institution is that
the inaugural speaker was Hanan Ashrawi.

Faculty critical of Israel also tend to be extremely vocal and active
while pro-Israel faculty usually are reluctant to participate in campus
debate. This is certainly not true on all campuses, but it is the case on
the majority. For a variety of reasons, including intimidation, lack of
knowledge, political correctness, and concern for their image on the
campus and in their fields, pro-Israel faculty are hesitant to engage in
public or even private support for students, or to take on their
colleagues. While some anti-Israel faculty in subjects completely
unrelated to the Middle East will use their classrooms as forums for
propaganda, such behavior by pro-Israel faculty is unheard of.

Here are a few examples of the problem:

1,500 academics signed a petition warning of a possible impending crime
of humanity; that Israel would expel large numbers of Palestinians during
the fog of the Iraq war.

Swiss academic Tariq Ramadan, a grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder
Hassan al-Banna, who was accused by French Jews of fomenting
anti-Semitism, has been hired to teach peace studies at Notre Dame.

A professor in Columbia's Department of Middle East and Asian Languages
and Cultures gave a lecture in which he argued that Zionism is a European
colonial system based on racist principles with the goal of eradicating
Palestine, and that Zionists are the new Nazis.

At American University, an anthropology professor used a comic book as a
text that is in the vein of Der Sturmer. Another professor crossed out the
word "Israel" on a student's exam and wrote in the margin, "Zionist
entity." Another handed out maps of the Mideast without Israel on them.

At one southern university, a philosophy professor teaches a Humanities
course entitled, "Living under Occupation."

Though Jews comprise a significant share of academic positions, very few
are involved in teaching about the Middle East, and some of those who do
are unsympathetic to Israel. It is possible to point to positive
experiences in institutions that have, for example, strong visiting
scholar programs in which Israelis can often have an exponential impact in
a short period of time on a particular campus. A handful of influential
(Jewish and non-Jewish) U.S. scholars has also been active and often had
an impact beyond their campuses. Overall, however, a severe shortage
exists of scholars who are qualified to teach about Israel and who have
any sympathy for their subject.

The Israel on Campus Coalition, as well as a separate task force of
individuals with experience in academia and working with students, are
studying the problems with faculty and proposing treatments for what ails
the academy. This is a long-term project and one that is not meant to be a
panacea. Certain aspects of the academic structure and culture, such as
the ingrained anti-Israel bias in Middle East studies departments, and the
perception that academic freedom is a license to teach almost anything
about Israel, will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

Rather than try to fight these endemic structures, the best strategy is to
provide alternatives for educating students about Israel. This requires
the creation of endowed chairs in Israel studies, creating a fund to
support graduate training in Israel studies and related fields, training
scholars whose specialties may be in other fields, but who could be taught
enough about Middle Eastern affairs to allow them to offer courses through
their departments, and establishing programs for visiting Israeli
diplomats to teach in local colleges.

The Jewish community adopted a similar approach to respond to the failure
to teach about Jewish history and the Holocaust by successfully
establishing dozens of departments of Jewish and Holocaust studies and
supporting research and providing scholarships. It is time to do the same
for scholarship about Israel.

4. Zionism's Greatest Achievement:

5. More Palestinian Search for Peace:
Palestinian boy, 14, got NIS 100 to blow up at IDF roadblock

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and AP

Israel Defense Forces paratroopers caught a Palestinian boy aged 14
wearing an explosive belt at the Hawara roadblock, south of Nablus, in the
West Bank on Wednesday afternoon.

Sappers used a remote-controlled robot to pass scissors to the boy, Hussam
Abdu from Nablus, so that he could cut the explosive belt off his body,
and then safely detonated it in a controlled explosion.

Abdu, who was taken in for questioning, said that he received NIS 100 to
carry out a suicide attack.

The IDF believes that Abdu was meant to detonate the 8 kg belt near the
soldiers or close to the nearby army base.

A Tanzim cell from the Balata refugee camp in Nablus took responsibility
for sending the boy.

Abdu told soldiers of his dream of receiving 72 virgins in heaven, which
his dispatchers had promised him, and said that he had been tempted by the
promise of sexual relations with the virgins. He said that he had been
bullied at school for his poor academic performance and that he had wanted
"to be a hero."

The commander of the Paratroopers Brigade, Lieutenant Colonel "Guy," told
Haaretz that the boy was apparently instructed to set off the explosives
he was wearing among the soldiers.

It appears that he was afraid to detonate the bomb at the site, as he was
surrounded by Palestinians and the soldiers were too far away. Lieutenant
Colonel "Guy" added that the "level of awareness" of the soldiers
prevented a serious terrorist attack.

The family of the boy said that he was gullible. "He doesn't know
anything," his brother, Hosni, said.

In a statement, the Israel branch of Physicians for Human Rights condemned
the Palestinian militants for sending the teenager on a bombing mission.

The statement said, "Adults should cease to exploit children by making
them take part in such acts." The Israeli branch of the physicians group
often issues protests about Israel's practices in the territories.

Soldiers at the checkpoint said they had received intelligence that there
was an imminent attack planned there, shut down the crossing and began
searching people there.

Suddenly the boy, wearing an oversized red jersey, approached them in a
suspicious way, said an officer at the checkpoint.

"We saw that he had something under his shirt," he said. The soldiers dove
behind concrete barricades, pointed their guns at him and told him to

They ordered him to take off his jersey, revealing a large gray bomb vest
underneath. "He told us he didn't want to die. He didn't want to blow up,"
the officer said.

The soldiers then sent the robot to hand the scissors to the boy. He cut
off part of the vest and struggled with the rest. "I don't how to get this
off," Abdu called to the soldiers.

After he dropped the vest, soldiers ordered him to take off his undershirt
and jeans, to ensure he had no other weapons on him.

"This is another horrific example of how the Palestinians use their own
children to spread terror against Israelis," David Baker, an official in
the prime minister's office, said in response.

"These children are turned into human time-bombs for the purpose of
spreading as much terror against Israelis as possible," Baker added.

Abdu's mother voiced astonishment at the incident.

"Hussam left home this morning to school, and this was the first we hear
of what happened," Tamam Abdu told Reuters from the family home in Nablus,
just north of Hawara. "This is shocking. To use a child like this is
irresponsible, forbidden."

Just last week, soldiers found an explosive charge on a cart pushed by a
10-year-old Palestinian boy at the same roadblock.

The soldiers released the boy after it transpired that he did not know
what was in the bag he was carrying through the barricade.

Late Wednesday, several Israeli tanks moved back into an area of the Khan
Yunis refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip, residents said.

Military sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was a
similar, limited operation to one the day before in which some structures
were razed.

4 soldiers, 8 Palestinians hurt in territories
An IDF soldier was lightly wounded in a shooting attack near the Gaza
Strip settlement of Gadid. Israeli troops returned fire.

Two Israeli soldiers were lightly wounded by Palestinian stone-throwers in
two separate incidents in the West Bank at the Zif junction south of
Hebron and further north near Elon Moreh. A third soldier was wounded in
an incident in the village of Budrus near the Green Line west of Ramallah.

Eight Palestinian residents of Hebron were wounded Wednesday afternoon in
violent clashes with Israeli security forces, Itim quoted Palestinian
sources as having reported.

The clashes broke out when Palestinians began throwing stones and
firebombs at Israeli troops stationed in Hebron's Old City.

Also in the territories on Wednesday, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on
IDF troops west of Ramallah and near Netzarim in the central Gaza Strip.
No casualties or damage were reported in either incident and troops
returned fire.

IDF troops on Tuesday night foiled an attempt by two Palestinian militants
to infiltrate into the settlement of Morag in the southern Strip.

The soldiers spotted an armed Palestinian approaching the settlement and
opened fire. After the area was searched in the morning hours Wednesday,
two bodies of armed Palestinians were discovered. No Israelis were wounded
in the incident.

According to defense establishment figures, since the beginning of the
intifada, there have been 29 Palestinians under the age of 18 who carried
out suicide attacks, and 22 others under 18 who carried out "sacrificial
attacks" - in which they opened fire and were killed - in the territories.
Forty others under 18 were arrested on suspicion of intending to carry out

Afterword: In the CNN report on this story the airhead news announcer
adds, But we only have the Israeli army's word for it that the boy had
explosives strapped on him.
And of course we only have the CNN's word on it that Israel neeeds to
be destroyed.

6. Israeli Arabs demonstrate their loyalty to democracy:

7. Leftist "Rabbis" support terrorism:
How come they are not being indicted for "incitement"?

8. Hey, maybe we should try VICTORY for a change?

9. New SLAPP suit.
Palestinian group in UK following Neve Gordon's example?:

10. French News:

11. Appeasement Chic:

12. What Occupation?

13. Jihad for Kids on the BBC:
Remember how the UK's "Chief Rabbi" a few weeks back praised the BBC for
having not a smidgen of anti-Israel bias?

14. Lying to help terrorism:

15. Tell this to a Feminist Today:

16. The Left has a new "cause":

(NEW YORK)(March 23, 2004) New York City Police were called by McDonald's
Corporation Tuesday, as Florida U.S. Senate Far-Leftist
anti-Semitic candidate Andy Martin launched
a worldwide boycott to show solidarity with Palestinians who are being
"discriminated" against by McDonald's in Israel. Martin held a news
conference to ask diners to avoid eating at McDonald's restaurant to "help
fight racism in Israel."

"We heard sirens in the distance, and suddenly two police cars filled with
officers showed up and parked in the middle of the street," said Martin."
People who knew nothing about the boycott suddenly wondered what was going
on. Fox 5 New York, as well as a photographer for the Chicago Tribune,
captured the event.

Martin began a boycott of McDonald's after the firm fired an
Arabic-speaking employee. McDonald's Israeli management claims all
McDonald's Israeli employees must speak Hebrew. Arabic is an official
language of Israel. Martin helped launch a successful 2002 boycott of
Microsoft after the firm placed prominent billboards in Israel supporting
Israeli Defense Forces. Microsoft withdrew the billboards.

Martin is in New York Tuesday and Wednesday for campaign planning,
Washington, DC on Thursday and Friday, and returns to Florida Saturday. He
is expected to issue a major foreign policy statement Friday criticizing
the Bush Administration's policy in the Middle East.
Andy Martin claims to be an independent investigative author and talk show
host. He
has been involved in the Middle East since 1971 and is one of America's
most respected foreign policy analysts. He is scheduled to return to
Baghdad in May. Media contact: (866) 706-2639; Web site:;
E-mail: Send him a cyber-moon!

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

1. You might enjoy:

2. Those "pacifist" peace demonstrators against the Fence from the Left
Attempted Murderers:

3. Israeli Arab University Students in the News:

4. Ending Sheikh Chic:

5. And when Israel actually APPLIES the Bush Doctrine?:

6. Useful Idiots:

7. It did not take long for the Israeli Radical Left to show its true
ideology and its devotion to the Sheikh Yassin and his cause. Uri
Avnery's pro-terror Gush Shalom splinter, which seeks to see Israel
destroyed, was among the first to condemn th eoffing of the sheikh. Now
others are chiming in:
Haaretz shows Solidarity
with the Sheikh:
Haaretz columnsist are almost uniformly condemning the killing of the nazi

1. So let me see if I have this straight. The US is holding hearing this
week and the Western media is using this as an occasion to attack the US
administration for NOT using military force to kill the arch-terrorist and
the "spiritual leader" of the Islamofascist terror organization that had
killed many of its civilians, claiming the US had not pursued him with
enough determination and deadly force (e.g.,

And in the very same breath the very same media are attacking Israel
because it DID use military force to kill the arch-terrorist and the
"spiritual leader" of the Islamoofascist terror organization that had
killed many of its civilians, claiming Israel had illegally pursued him
and had used excessive deadly force.

Is that clear now?

2. Liberals Love Terrorists:
and also

3. The Dispatch of Yassin to his virgins:

4. Jihad at U of Illinois:

5. The Left has ALWAYS Hated Jews:
An Anti-Semitic Left Hook
By Patrick Chisholm
Christian Science Monitor | March 24, 2004

Anti-Semitism traditionally has been associated with the extreme right.
Now, it is becoming more common among the extreme left.
Leftist president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe huffed that "Jews in South
Africa, working in cahoots with their colleagues here, want our textile
and clothing factories to close down." Former Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad, who is no right-winger, lashed out against Jews who
"rule the world by proxy." One finds pockets of anti-Semitism at
anti-globalization rallies, and plenty of it at pro-Palestinian rallies.
And in recent years anti-capitalist campaigners have been networking with
radical Islamists and neo-Nazi groups via their websites, according to a
draft report by the Technical University of Berlin's Center for Research
on Anti-Semitism. (This was the same report commissioned by the European
Union, which decided for who-knows-what-reason not to officially release

Contrary to what one would think, left- and right-wing extremists are, in
major respects, ideological soul mates. Don't be fooled by labels;
applying the simplistic terms of "right" and "left" to complex political
realities naturally begets confusion.

While ultra-rightists are generally thought of as racist and
ultra-leftists as nonracist, the latter are by no means immune to such

And both camps share these core attitudes: a readiness to buy into
conspiracy theories, hatred of the rich, contempt for speculators and
financiers, a deep suspicion of large corporate enterprises, and a
conviction that the privileged few oppress the masses.

These notions manifest themselves in the party platforms of radical
groups. Here are excerpts from one such platform (courtesy of Australian
writer John J. Ray):

We demand that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise
from work, be abolished.

We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized
into cartels.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the
immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented
cheaply to small businessmen....

We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and
the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation
any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and
the prohibition of all speculation in land.

And here is a quote from one such leader:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system
for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries,
with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and
property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all
determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Karl Marx? No. Vladimir Lenin? No. Ho Chi Min? No.

Adolf Hitler. And the above platform positions were those of his National
Socialist party. Note the formal name of that party: the National
Socialist German Workers Party.

The far left scapegoats rich people for causing the world's ills. But what
if you live in a society where most rich people happen to be members of a
different religion or skin color? That makes them particularly easy to
recognize and identify. In the popular psyche, the wealthy class becomes
synonymous with members of that minority group. So if you're an
envy-laden, paranoid conspiracy theorist, there's hardly a distinction
between scapegoating the rich and scapegoating the minority group.

That's how the Nazis viewed the Jews. It's how Stalinist Russia viewed the
Jews. It's how Islamic militants view the Jews. And it's how many among
today's far left view the Jews.

Jews are by no means the only (relatively) affluent minority group that
has suffered mass slaughter. The same has been true of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire (present-day Turkey), Tutsis in Rwanda, Tamils in Sri
Lanka, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, and many others.

Palestinian hatred of Israelis, I suspect, is based on more than just land
disputes and the policies of the state of Israel. Much of it likely
derives from envy. Jews as a whole are among the most able, hard-working,
and intelligent people ever to inhabit the earth. Wherever they go they
succeed. They turned Israel into an economic powerhouse for its size, and
"made the desert bloom." Success breeds envy. Envy breeds hatred.

Terrorism is the end result. So is an envy-driven economic philosophy best
described as hard-left or socialist: Islamic radicals generally advocate
government ownership of most sectors of the economy. They detest
"middlemen" and the rich. They loathe "foreign exploiters." They're
disgusted with materialism and consumerism. And they desire complete
economic equality among all citizens (which, in practice, translates into
everyone being equally poor).

Obviously, a mutual dislike for Israel's policies is not the only thing
that binds Islamic radicals and ultra-leftists together.

Leftism is generally tolerant of different races and religions. But not
always. Extremists are not going to let Jews off the hook just because
they happen to be a different religion. When it comes to envy versus
tolerance, envy very often wins out.

6. Leftist Racism:

7. Neville Again:

8. Pipes Blows the whistle:

9. From the WSJ:

The Truth About 3/11

March 24, 2004; Page A20

On March 11, Spain suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history and
one of the bloodiest the world has ever known. Terrorists planned their
cowardly acts with the express purpose of killing as many people as
possible, in order to sow terror and strike a mortal blow against our
freedoms and rights. It was a day we felt an immense pain, pain we will
never forget. But it was also a pain we must all learn from.

Its lessons are simple. If we want to stop terrorists from murdering us
and from dictating how we lead our lives, we must confront them. Some
think the solution is to sue for peace, to negotiate with terrorists so
that they might go and kill elsewhere. But that way is unacceptable to me
and to millions of Spaniards. Terrorism deserves only to be defeated. This
is the debt we owe to the victims of the attacks, and to the society that
mourns them.

* * *
On March 11, in a matter of minutes just after 7:30 a.m., several
backpacks stuffed with explosives detonated on commuter trains on the
Guadalajara-Madrid line. More than 200 people were murdered, more than
1,400 wounded, and hundreds of families destroyed forever. An entire
nation was shaken to its core.

We also witnessed what's most noble in the human spirit: the selflessness
of those who rushed to help the wounded, to give blood, to offer their
help in hospitals, or simply to listen to those who needed relief. We
shall never forget the professionalism of emergency service workers. We
don't know exactly how many people died trying to come to the aid of other
victims, but their courage demonstrates that you can find life in the
midst of carnage, and that horror and fear can give way to a determination
to safeguard liberty, our most precious asset.

As on any other day when we have been struck by a terrorist outrage,
Spaniards had a right to the truth on March 11. Under the impact of that
massacre, and in the consternation that comes from pain and fury, my
compatriots deserved the honest evidence that emerged from the
investigations. And that is what my government gave them.

In the hours that followed the attacks, our investigation focused on one
obvious suspect, the Basque terrorist group ETA. It was a reasonable
inference to make, and those who say otherwise are being either naive or
dishonest. History has left us with clear evidence of ETA's sinister habit
of killing during election campaigns. The terrorists always attempt to
soak our democracy in blood on the days when we Spaniards go to the polls
to reaffirm our liberties.

ETA has committed more than 800 murders, among other crimes, over three
decades, and has sought always to weaken and divide our democracy, which
has just celebrated its 25th anniversary. A few days earlier, the group
had tried to carry out an attack with 500 kilograms of explosives, one
that failed only due to the intervention of the Guardia Civil, the
national police. Those detained in this failed attack had a map that
highlighted the zone of the Henares Pathway, through which run the trains
that were targeted on March 11. And it was ETA that, on Christmas Eve,
attempted another slaughter at Madrid's Chamartin station, also thwarted
by our national police. And to continue the ghoulish catalog, the same
terrorist group brought two vans loaded with more than 1« tons of
explosives to Madrid in December 1999. Once again, our security forces
foiled what would have been mass murder.

My government was not alone in attributing the March 11 attacks to ETA. In
the first few hours, the president of the Basque Autonomous Region, the
secretary general of the Socialist Party, the general coordinator of the
United Left and the secretary general of Catalonia's Esquerra Republicana,
among others, did likewise.

The only person who, in fact, publicly denied ETA's responsibility on the
morning of March 11 was the leader of Batasuna, an organization that our
courts have declared illegal because of its ties to ETA. This organization
is classified as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the
European Union.

Nobody, then, should be surprised that during these first few hours, the
Spanish government wanted to convey to its allies and friends the
conviction that ETA was the group responsible for the Madrid massacre.

On the afternoon of March 11, however, the Ministry of the Interior,
having been informed that an Arabic-language tape and several detonators
had been found in a vehicle, ordered the opening of a new line of
investigation. The ministry immediately informed the public of this.

Although ETA continued to be our prime suspect, we did not dismiss any
evidence pointing elsewhere. This is what I explained in my public
appearance on March 12, the day after. Apart from the tape, which was of a
commercial nature and had no immediate terrorist connotation, there were
only very dubious messages from groups taking responsibility. All these
fragments of evidence needed to be examined with the utmost attention and

As soon as there were signs of other possibilities besides ETA, the
government placed them before our citizens. On the very night of the
attack, all of Spain knew what course the investigation was taking. On
Saturday, Spaniards were informed of all arrests made by the police. The
government revealed all that it reasonably could reveal without
jeopardizing the investigations.

And yet all these efforts at transparency and disclosure were derided as
manipulation by our opponents, who, furthermore, accused us of lying about
what we knew. Ignoring the chronology of events, as well as the
government's efforts, some of our opponents invented a parallel reality,
accusing us of a "coverup" even though the government was keeping the
public informed, practically in real time, of all the evidence available
and of the course of the investigation. Those who twisted the facts in
this way cannot feel very proud today. Instead of backing the government
during the worst crisis in Spain's recent history, our opponents declared
that truth and transparency were on their side.

Mere hours after the attacks, our investigators and security services, as
well as the Ministry of the Interior, were producing results. Within only
two days we had made the first arrests. Spain was in a state of shock,
disoriented, in need of certitudes. It was a time to remain calm and to
maintain national unity, to let the police do their work, and, most of
all, to refrain from adding to the strain of a terrible situation.

But it was also the moment just before the elections, and the temptation
to exploit the situation for political gain proved irresistible to some.
At a time when we most needed a common front, some set out to stoke the
fires of doubt. Barely had 24 hours gone by when those who were themselves
lying began to accuse my government of mendacity, of a coverup, of things
that would be repugnant to all good people in the context of an attack
upon our country.

This wildfire of innuendo spread rapidly among many people who were
justifiably indignant after the attacks. To the accusations against the
government were added others by all those who had anything at all to gain
from this strategy. The din was so loud, so clamorous, that nothing else
could be heard above it.

Once deception had successfully supplanted truth, our opponents sought to
redirect the public's anger against the terrorists, exhorting people to
channel their ire toward a government that was hard at work, a government
that is still working to clarify what happened and to bring the guilty to
justice. Last weekend was a time for solemnity, and for reflection.
Instead, people with partisan motives scarred the moment with their
screeching accusations.

In my long political career, I have been the object of the sharpest
criticism, both for decisions I have taken and for those I haven't. I've
never been so arrogant as to fail to acknowledge those criticisms that
were justified. By the same token, I'm not a coward, and I make it a point
always to hit back at disparagement that has no basis.

In fact, honesty has been the essential principle of my entire political
life. For this reason, but also for the respect and the loyalty I feel
toward the office for which my countrymen chose me eight years ago, I want
to be clear and robust: My government has told the truth. I can put up
with political criticism, but I will never accept being accused of lying
or manipulation. These are accusations that are intolerable, and which
soil the memory of the victims. Some forget that it is this memory, and
nothing else, that should be guiding our actions today.

This is what the government that I still lead has done. Others know in
their hearts that they have ignored their responsibility in order to
create an atmosphere favorable to their partisan interests.

Their accusations are intolerable not only because of the gravity of
Spain's present situation, but also because they destroyed the political
composure that our citizens required on the day before the elections.
Three days after the terrorists struck, Spaniards voted. The results of
these elections are fully legitimate. Our institutions are stronger than
the terrorists.

Spain is a strong nation, able to surmount the considerable problems it
has encountered over the years. This is a time to remain united so that we
can defeat terrorism. Those guilty of the attacks should pay for what they
have done. We should not allow even a hint of a doubt that we retain the
will to pursue them, wherever they are.

Spain has been one of the most active nations in the battle that
democracies are waging against terrorism. This should continue to be the
case. The defense of the liberties we enjoy is not just a fight for the
United States or the United Kingdom to wage against their enemies.
Terrorism hits wherever it can. There have been victims of many
nationalities in New York, in Bali, in Mombasa, in Casablanca, in
Istanbul, in Karbala -- and in Madrid. No one is safe from terrorism, and
no one should pretend that he is safe. Very recently, German and Dutch
engineers were murdered in Iraq, for the crime of trying to lay pipes for
drinking water. Terrorists have already threatened France for trying to
ban wearing religious symbols in schools.

Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one
hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on
March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We
cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight.

* * *
In the entire course of my political life, and especially during the eight
years in which I have been prime minister, I have said that terrorism is
not a local phenomenon, confined to particular areas or countries, to be
confronted with domestic means alone. On the contrary, terrorism is a
global phenomenon, one that crosses borders. And it gains in strength when
we think that it is the problem of "others" and should be taken care of by

The debates that followed the Madrid attacks have been about whether they
were carried out by ETA or al Qaeda. It is obviously essential to find out
who was behind the attacks. But all terrorism carries the same threat; all
terrorist attacks are infused with hatred for liberty, democracy and human
dignity. They feed on each other.

Up until the attacks of September 11, Spain took great pains to
demonstrate to the outside world that terrorism was not an isolated
phenomenon, that it shouldn't be fought by its immediate victims alone.
Following the collapse of the Twin Towers, a new consciousness about the
world-wide reach of terrorism finally emerged.

ETA or al Qaeda -- the difference is important, to be sure, but the
response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political
unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world
was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us,
against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.

It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing
messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make
concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the
moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the
terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded
that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would
allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on
us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.

Mr. Aznar is prime minister of Spain.

Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol

March 17, 2004; Page A16

MADRID -- Spain will have a new government now: it is Socialist, as we
know, and vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq. The prime minister-elect,
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is an old-fashioned European man of the
left: pacifist in his "distaste" for war, and deeply anti-American in his
posturing and rhetoric, to say nothing of his innermost instincts. If one
were, as a laboratory experiment, to manufacture precisely the sort of
Spanish leader the U.S. would find most uncooperative at this juncture in
history, he would resemble Mr. Zapatero almost exactly.

The Popular Party, which lost, was by contrast a standard-bearer for the
most pro-American policies in Spain's democratic history. Its departing
leader, Jose-Maria Aznar, was George W. Bush's foremost European ally --
in this he was no less constant than Tony Blair -- and a man who believed
passionately in an Atlanticist direction for Spain. An alliance with the
U.S., he knew, was also the way to restore to Spain a modicum of her old
clout in the world -- as well as to free Spain from the asphyxiating grip
of France. And as all Americans know, he believed in the prosecution of
the war against terror, of which he saw the war in Iraq as an inseparable

* * *
So where does this leave the Spanish-American alliance, so refreshing in
its departure from the "Old European" mold, and so effective in its
harmony between Messrs. Aznar and Bush? What will the impact of the
Socialist victory be on the foreign policy (such as it is) of the European
Union, which has been at its least anti-American in years, thanks to the
muscular Atlanticism of Mr. Aznar and Tony Blair? And what is Washington
to make of -- and to do about -- the manner in which the Socialists
exploited last week's terrorist attacks in Madrid?

The Socialist Party took a free ride on that atrocity and placed blame for
the deaths on the governing Popular Party for having aligned itself with
the U.S. and British governments on Iraq. Mr. Zapatero's message to
Spain's electorate on the eve of the election was as simple and powerful
as it was invidious: We have been attacked for siding with the U.S. in
Iraq. More ire was directed at America than at those who slaughtered
innocent Spaniards.

If the Socialist Party were to win, voters were told, Spanish troops would
be withdrawn from Iraq and any further Islamist terrorist attacks avoided.
The ethical implications of such a stand didn't make much of an impact on
the voters. The fact that al Qaeda may have killed 200 people in Madrid
and a contender for power reacted by promising retreat and not retaliation
was seen -- in the terrible shadow of the event -- as a good option by a
majority of the electorate. But the message to al Qaeda from our Spanish
"Neville Chamberlain" was: If you manage to strike at us, we will run

Early on Monday morning, the prime minister-elect, Mr. Zapatero, announced
that all Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by June 30. He also
said that "Blair and Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism . . .
you can't organize a war with lies," before going on to declare that he
would "try to restore magnificent relations with France." The implications
of all this for bilateral Spain-U.S. relations could not be more clear.

The Socialist Party believes that it was wrong for Spain to become a close
ally of the U.S. over the last few years, and those ties will be loosened
forthwith. The Spanish left has frequently depicted the Bush
administration as a bunch of warmongers seeking to expand U.S. imperialism
around the globe. The left's policies are so radical that when, in
January, Mr. Zapatero asked to be received by his fellow socialist
colleague Tony Blair as a boost for his election campaign, Downing Street
turned down the request. This happened even as Mr. Blair found time to
host Mariano Rajoy, Mr. Aznar's presumptive successor, for breakfast.

Washington had better take careful note. The Spanish Socialist party has
not the slightest interest in trying to save the privileged relationship
that Spain and the U.S. have had during the last four years. On the
contrary, Mr. Zapatero is determined to put Spain back into the fold of
France -- back, in fact, to where Spain's foreign policy had been for 200
years until Mr. Aznar decided to stand up and give Madrid its own voice.
Spain will now, once more, be infantilized as France's junior partner --
or, to put it bluntly, will become France's Sancho Panza. (Dominique de
Villepin must be uncorking champagne by the caseload. Spain will be pliant
again; all's well with the world.)

A few European governments will be delighted to see the volte-face in
Spain's foreign policy. Five days before the Spanish elections, France's
Le Monde newspaper, an icon of Europe's left-wing intellectuals, published
a two-page interview with Mr. Aznar under the front-page headline "The
lesson of Jose Maria Aznar to the French right." France's Gaullist
president, Jacques Chirac, who never even tried to conceal the disgust Mr.
Aznar's policies provoked in him, is likely to receive Mr. Zapatero with a
big-brotherly hug.

The same will happen with Gerhard Schroeder, Germany's chancellor, and the
leaders of a few other middle-sized European countries. The implications
for other European leaders who took a stand like Mr. Aznar's on Iraq --
Mr. Blair, Silvio Berlusconi or Portugal's Jose Manuel Durao Barroso --
are transparent. What if terrorists strike next in London, or in Rome, or
Lisbon, and the opposition parties there say -- as they did in Spain on
March 11 -- "We told you so!"

The demise of the U.S.-Spain alliance will be bad for Madrid. Prime
Minister Aznar visited the White House more times than all the previous
heads of the Spanish government combined. He created a relationship that
was decisive when Morocco invaded a Spanish-held island off its coast in
July 2002. European allies, headed by France, ignored Spain's plea for
diplomatic support, claiming it was a purely bilateral dispute. Secretary
of State Colin Powell had to act as a go-between for Madrid and Morocco
and conferred American approval as Spanish troops re-took the island.

Furthermore, U.S. intelligence cooperation in the fight against Basque
terrorism has been decisive in many successful strikes by the Spanish
police, which now has ETA virtually surrounded. All of that could now be

The U.S. stands to suffer, too, from the "Zapatero effect." In December
2002, it was the Spanish navy that so expertly intercepted a North Korean
ship bearing Scuds destined for Yemen. And Spanish troops, as everyone
knows, have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in Iraq. On
the political stage -- whether in Brussels or at the U.N. Security Council
-- Washington has relied on Spain to break France's lock on European
foreign policy.

* * *
There is still a chance that relations between Madrid and Washington will
not take a calamitous course in the long term -- and that is if John Kerry
wins in the U.S. elections in November. Spanish Socialists are praying
that the Bush administration will depart in defeat, and are looking
forward to Mr. Kerry with an unseemly impatience. A Kerry administration,
they hope, will accept -- and even welcome -- the new soft approach of the
government in Madrid. After all, how is Mr. Kerry's foreign policy
different from Mr. Zapatero's?

In the meantime, the U.S. must prepare for drastically reduced cooperation
from Madrid, and start to plan for the departure of Spanish troops from
Iraq. Spain is no more a pillar in the war against terror, and Washington
had better get used to it.

Mr. Perez-Maura is assistant editor of the Spanish daily, ABC.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

1. What David Letterman SHOULD read out as this week's Top Ten List:

What to do with a Hamas "Spiritual Leader":

10. Send the pieces to Alpo.

9. Use the pieces as props in the Swedish Art Museum.

8. Enroll the carcass as a sociology student at an Israeli university.

7. Give it a job as commentator on the BBC or CNN. It cannot be any
less objective than the current ones there.

6. Run it is a viable alternative to Beilin in the next Yachad-Meretz
party primaries.

5. Find a Reform Rabbi willing to perform the wedding ceremony between
the Sheikh's carcass and the 70 virgins.

4. Let Mikey Lerner and his Tikkun crowd conduct a dialogue with the
carcass as a special issue of Tikkun on the pain and grievances of the

3. Mail the pieces special delivery to the British Foreign Minister, the
guy who thinks killing nazi mass murdering Islamofascist leaders is
"illegal". Tell him you want to make amends.

2. Mix the pieces with pork and turn them into pigskin to be used in the

1. One word - McNuggets.

2. Happy Yassin Day. Send Arafat to the 70 virgins also:

3. Tale of Two Bombings:

4. Cheering Jihad in San Francisco:
and also

5. Eurotrash:

6. Israeli Arabs demonstrate their loyalty and patriotism:

7. Noam Chomsky finds a Politician to endorse:

8. From the WSJ: March 23, 2004

The Fear Factor

March 23, 2004; Page A22

JERUSALEM -- Are Palestinians weeds? It would seem many people think they
are. Following Israel's assassination early yesterday morning of Ahmed
Yassin, spiritual leader of Hamas, the gist of international reaction was
that the strike would bring new converts to the Islamist cause and incite
a fresh wave of terrorist violence against Israel. In other words,
Palestinians are weeds: Mowing them down, as it were, only has the effect
of making them grow back stronger and faster.

There are moments (Monday morning was one of them) when I find myself
tempted by the metaphor. As I write, my TV screen is filled with images of
Palestinian mourners thronging the streets of Gaza, praising Yassin as a
martyr and vowing deadly vengeance. This looks like the reaction of an
emboldened people, not a frightened one. So what's the sense, in purely
utilitarian terms, of further Israeli attacks? Alternatively, what's the
sense of showing any restraint at all? If the weed metaphor is right,
either Israel should sue for peace on whatever terms the Palestinians
extend or it should resort to extreme measures like population transfer.
Anything else just fruitlessly prolongs a cycle of violence.

But of course Palestinians aren't weeds. They're human. They think in
terms of costs and benefits, they calculate the odds, they respond more or
less rationally to incentives and disincentives. And what makes us afraid
can also make them afraid.

This is a trite observation, but it's one Palestinians would rather have
us forget. Over 42 months of conflict, their strategy has been to persuade
Israelis that they, the Palestinians, are made of different stuff. Why
else the suicide bombers? Not because of their proven capacity to kill
civilians in greater numbers than any other weapon currently in the
Palestinian arsenal. That's only a second-order effect. The deep logic of
suicide bombing lies in the act of suicide itself. People who will readily
die for their cause are, by definition, beyond deterrence. By showing that
Israel's tanks and fighter jets are just so much scrap metal in the face
of the Palestinians' superhuman determination, they aim to disarm Israel

How does one respond to such a logic? It helps not to be fooled by it.
Again, allow me to make the trite observation that Palestinians love their
children too. To date, there has not been a single instance in which a
Hamas leader sent one of his own sons or daughters on a suicide mission. I
once interviewed a Hamas leader, since deceased, as he bounced his
one-year-old girl on his knee. Contrary to myth, this was not a man who
was afraid of nothing. Unsparing as he was with the lives of others, he
was circumspect when it came to the lives of his own.

Indeed, when one looks closely at just who the suicide bombers are (or
were), often they turn out to be society's outcasts. Take Reem Salah
al-Rahashi, a mother of two, who in January murdered four Israeli soldiers
at the Erez checkpoint on the Gaza-Israel border. In a prerecorded video,
Rahashi said becoming a shaheed was her lifelong dream. Later it emerged
she'd been caught in an extramarital affair, and that her husband and
lover had arranged her "martyrdom operation" as an honorable way to settle
the matter. It is with such people, not with themselves, that Palestinian
leaders attempt to demonstrate their own fearlessness.

In the early months of the intifada, this macho pretense was sustained by
the Israeli government's tacit decision not to target terrorist
ringleaders, for fear such attacks would inspire massive retaliation.
Yassin and his closest associates considered themselves immune from
Israeli reprisals and operated in the open. What followed was the
bloodiest terrorist onslaught in Israeli history, climaxing in a massacre
at Netanya in March 2002. After that, Israel invaded the West Bank and
began to target terrorist leaders more aggressively.

The results, in terms of lives saved, were dramatic. In 2003, the number
of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the
previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also
declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the
spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted assassinations,
including a failed attempt on Yassin's deputy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Wise
heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the Palestinians to
greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups agreed
unilaterally to a cease-fire.

In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number of
Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to about
700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian terror
groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they were
unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that had
provoked Israel's large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down business,
not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of the most
guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli soldiers and
Palestinian foot soldiers.

Now a few words about Yassin, the international reaction to his killing,
and the likely result for Israel. It may be recalled that Israel released
the good sheikh in 1997, after having sentenced him to life in prison,
with the promise that he would never again promote terrorism. This was
during the Oslo years, when serious people actually thought that such
conciliatory gestures served the interests of peace. Today, that is beyond
comprehension. At any rate, Yassin didn't keep his promise.

Meanwhile, assorted foreign ministers are in full throat against Israel.
"All of us understand Israel's need to protect itself -- and it is fully
entitled to do that -- against the terrorism that affects it, within
international law," says British Foreign Minister Jack Straw. "But it is
not entitled to go in for this kind of unlawful killing."

It would be interesting to know exactly what, according to Mr. Straw,
Israel is lawfully allowed to do in self-defense. Perhaps it would be as
well if the minister also reminded the Palestinian Authority of its
obligations, under the Road Map, to "undertake visible efforts . . . to
arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and
planning attacks on Israelis." But if Mr. Straw and his colleagues do not
do so, it is not from an excess of respect for the Palestinians, but
rather its lack. They will, after all, be viewing them merely as weeds,
not as humans capable of acting in their own best interests.

Mr. Stephens is editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post.

URL for this article:,,SB108000585017162510,00.html

On Regents and Reality
March 23, 2004; Page A22

Californians probably think racial preferences in college admissions ended
in 1996 when voters approved Proposition 209. But John Moores, chairman of
the Board of Regents of the University of California, says some UC
administrators have been manipulating the system and defying the law for
the past eight years. Last week Mr. Moores's fellow regents voted 8-6 to
censure him for expressing these views in a recent Forbes magazine opinion
piece. A medal is more like what the man deserves.

In his article, Mr. Moores details how Berkeley, the UC system's flagship
school, is admitting hundreds of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans with
SAT scores as many as 400 points below the whites and Asians who are being
rejected. This is because the liberals who run Berkeley, and their
enablers on the Board of Regents, all worship at the altar of "diversity."

They're more interested in some ideal racial mix on campus than in
matriculating students who are best prepared to do the work and most
likely to graduate. In the real world, Mr. Moores had the temerity to
write, this idealism translates into "kids who struggled with eighth-grade
math hav[ing] to compete with kids who aced advanced-placement calculus."

A Gray Davis appointee, Mr. Moores notes that university administrators
are perpetuating discrimination against high-achieving whites and Asians
through a policy known as "comprehensive review," which plays down such
objective criteria as grade-point averages and test scores.

Instead, the emphasis is placed on highly subjective "measurements," such
as an applicant's background and experiences, which mainly serve as
proxies for race and ethnicity. The result, writes Mr. Moores, "is an
admissions system that is impossible to audit and that offers a cover for
university administrators who don't want the media hounding them over
declining minority enrollment."

Enrollment of "underrepresented minorities" did fall off at Berkeley after
Prop 209 passed, but it rose at other campuses within the UC system, such
as Riverside, Irvine, Santa Cruz and elsewhere. By 2002 more of these
minorities were attending University of California institutions than
before the referendum passed. Moreover, because minority students are now
choosing schools suited to their academic abilities, they are better able
to compete and less likely to drop out.

Mr. Moores's efforts to expose Berkeley deserve praise, and the attempt by
his colleagues to silence him is all too typical of the closed liberal
mind. Racial bean counters are using taxpayer dollars to circumvent the
law and the will of the voters. And in the name of political correctness,
they're also doing a disservice to many college-bound minorities.

URL for this article:,,SB108000468053162475,00.html

Monday, March 22, 2004

Subject: Let them Caterwaul - It is Time for Celebration

It does not Matter what the Israel Bashers Now Say
By Steven Plaut

It does not Matter what the Israel Bashers Now Say

And it does not matter that it is much too little and much too late.

It does not matter that the anti-Semitic scum of the world is already
whining that the assassination of the Bloody Sheikh, the genocidal
Yassin, was "illegal" and an "obstacle" to peace. Any peace for
which the killing of Yassin is an "obstacle" is one that should be
prevented at all costs.

It does not matter that Israeli leftists, including Avraham Poraz from
the Shinui party, are already denouncing the killing of the sheikh and
would no doubt also denounce a targeted assassination of Hitler had they
been alive in 1943, or the targeted assassination of Haman.

It does not matter that the Sharon people are already trying to offset
the international heat by expounding the new "goodwill gestures"
they hope to make to appease Arafat and his stormtroopers. Gaza was the
Biblical military center of the Philistines, and Sharon is officially
pledged to recreating a center for Philistine barbarism there.

It does not matter that all those do-gooders and bleeding hearts now
caterwauling about Israel's "provocation" have long forgotten that
under Oslo it was the legal obligation of the PLO itself to assassinate
Sheikh Yassin, and that it was only in exchange for such an obligation
that Yossi Beilin and his sandbox crew promised to turn the West Bank
and Gaza over to the PLO in the first place.

It does not matter that even as Arafat is screaming his love for the
genocidal sheikh and proclaiming official PLO support for this his
beloved comrade in arms and for Yassin's program of genocide, the Left
is denouncing Israel's "act of terrorism".

It does not matter that Ariel Sharon showed cowardice in not also
mowing down the Hamas "mourners" marching in the Bloody Sheikh's
funeral procession.

It does not matter that the same people screaming how inhumane it was
for Israel to kill the mass murderer who happened to be confined to a
wheelchair never had anything to say about the Palestinian terrorists
tossing Leon Klinghoffer overboard.

It does not matter that the British Foreign Minister thinks
assassinating the nazi sheikh was an awful provocation, but cheered to
the skies when the sons of Saddam Hussein were dispatched and their
photos splashed on the network screens.

It does not matter that the media will quickly revert to its position
that Israel must be prevented from undertaking any action against
terrorism besides total capitulation.

It does not matter that this was the first act in well over a decade by
Israel that gave some credence to the slogan of "Never Again", a
decade otherwise characterized by craven cowardice and appeasement.

It does not matter that the same Bush administration and US media who
spent the weekend cheering because they thought the number two al-Qaida
leader had been killed in Pakistan are now suddenly all squeamish about
the killing of Arab Islamofascist terrorist leaders.

It does not matter that the Israeli political establishment is
maintaining a blind eye to the open identification with the Hamas and
its leaders by so many Israeli Arabs.

It does not even matter that Israeli super-comic Eli Yatzpen, well
known for his impression of the nazi sheikh, will now need to come up
with some new material.

It does not matter that Israel's Tenured Traitors are already turning
out their Op-Eds for the world newspapers who lease their services in
order to denounce Israel's "crime".

It does not matter that Yassin should have been killed decades ago and
that he would have been vaporized last year had not Ariel Sharon feared
using a heavy-enough bomb, one that might have produced "collateral

It does not matter that some Israeli Far Leftists were already
endorsing "negotiations" with the Hamas and so will now declare that
Israel has lost a golden opportunity to make peace.

Gaza is where the injured Samson took his revenge on the

The world politicians and the media may be bewailing this
uncharacteristic manifestation of Israeli courage. Let them. For, you
see, the very best commentary on the effects of the assassination of
this nazi sheikh is not on the BBC nor on CNN nor in the NY Times. The
best commentary is Chapter 15 of Exodus:

The Nations have heard of it and are enraged,
Panic and shuddering have seized the denizens of Philistine Gaza,
The leaders of Edom are frightened, while the champions of Moab
And the courage of the pagan Canaanites melts away.
Fear and Panic have fallen upon them.
For Your might arm crushes them like a stone, while Your people
proceed ahead.

By Michael Widlanski 22 March 2004
Yasser Arafat's Palestinian National Authority publicly embraced the
slain Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, leader of the HAMAS movement, as a "brother
warrior," following his fiery death by helicopter-borne Israeli

3. Online Media Translation Device Now Available

We propose installing an automatic online Middle East translator on
your machines to help you read the news.
Here are some examples:

Israeli Racism - Translation: When Israel builds a fence or
barriers to
keep suicide bombers and other terrorists from murdering Jewish children
and civilians.

Fighting against Racism - Translation: When Palestinians randomly
murder hundreds of Jewish civilians.

Crimes against Humanity- Translation: Defending the Lives of Jews

"Zionist Apartheid," - Translation: Any attempt at Preventing
Arabs from murdering Jewish children

Unilateral Action, as in the recent State Department statement
denouncing Israel's building a security fence - Translation: Israel
deciding unilaterally to protect Jewish children from being murdered.
(The PLO unilaterally deciding to murder 1300 Israelis since signing a
"peace accord" is not unilateral action that the State Department is
concerned about.)

Illegal Settlement - Translation: Anywhere Jews live

Obstacle to Peace - Translation: Israel defending its children

Nonviolent Protest against Occupation - Translation: Blowing up
civilian busses

Terrorists - Translation: People who kill Americans in New York

Militants and Activists - Translation: People who murder Jews

Anti-Racism - Translation: Moslems determined to destroy any non-Moslem
political entity in the Middle East.

Anti-Apartheid - Translation: Arabs randomly murdering Jews anywhere in
the world

Patriotism - Translation: Israeli Leftists fomenting mutiny in the
Israeli army

Peace Seeking - Translation: Israeli Leftists urging people around the
world to embargo and boycott Israel and Jews

Moderation - Translation: Agreeing with Arab extremists and fascists

Free Speech - Translation: Protecting the Right of Israeli Arab
politicians to demand openly that Israel be destroyed and all the Jews

Criminal Incitement - Translation: Any sentence with which Israel's
Extreme Left disagrees

Equality - Translation: Exempting Arabs from Israeli military

Sunday, March 21, 2004

1. The ACRI = Association for Civil Rights in Israel is an anti-dempcratic
extremist group that does NOT endorse free speech!

The ACRI, like Betselem, the Physicians for Human Rights, and many
other assorted splinter far Left anti-Israel pro-PLO groups in Israel,
pretends it is nothing more than a neutral human rights watchdog. This is
an Orwellian lie. The ACRI is an extremist anti-Israel group who only
cares about "human rights" when "defending them" is part of delegitimizing
Israel, such as in
It has never heard of a human right for Jews it wishes to defend, such as
their right not to be murdered by terrorists.

Think I am exaggerating? A few months back I approached the ACRI and
offered them an opportunity to defend free speech in Israel and prove they
support human rights for all, even for those who might disagree with their
leftist extremist ideology. As you know, I am being sued in a harassment
SLAPP "libel suit" by a leftist extremist lecturer at Ben Gurion
University because I dared to criticize his political opinions and his public
political behavior, such as his serving as human shield for Arafat while
Arafat was hiding in his offices the murderers of an Israeli cabinet
minister and other terrorists, all this to illegally interfere with an
Israeli military operation. This suit is clearly nothing more than an
anti-democratic assault on free speech by a leftist extremist who thinks
it is a crime to criticize him. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit
against public participation and SLAPP suits are anti-democratic libel
suits designed to suppress the free speech of one's critics.

SO I contacted the ACRI and asked them to take up my case and denounce
the Ben Gurion extremists's tactic of trying to use SLAPP litigation as a
bludgeon to supress free speech for non-leftists. There can be no clearer
opportunity for those who value free speech as a human right to denounce
such misuse of the courts as this case. I invited the ACRI to help defeat
this cynical move by the leftist extremist in question, Neve Gordon from
political science at Ben Gurion University.

In response I got a peremptory refusal from a spokesperson for the

So when excatly does the ACRI protect free speech?

Well, I will tell you when.

This past November saw a quiet but significant victory in Israel over
the treasonous Far Left. Some Israeli extremists were operating an
Israeli branch of the "Indymedia" web network, which is a network of
dozens of Marxist-anarchist web sites all over the world who devote their
days to the singing of praises of communism, terrorism, the International
Solidarity Movement of Saint Pancake, violence, and anti-Semitism. The
one operating out of Israel was famous for its posting messages praising
suicide bombers, denying the Holocaust, posting messages mocking Judaism
and the Bible and otherwise anti-Semitic harangues, not mere anti-Israel
pieces. Its managers claimed they did not pick the pieces and that it is
open web publishing where anyone can post trash,
but the fact of the matter is that
they regularly censored anything on the site that was PRO-Israel and
deleted it, leaving up the nazi screeds, this at .

In November they ran, alongside their other filth, a cartoon showing
Ariel Sharon French kissing Hitler. Some people were outraged and filed a
petition with thr Attorney General to shut the site down. It has been
successfully shut down ever since, evidently thanks to a court
order, although recently a new substitute site
just opened at (you might want to stop in to post
some pro-Israel material there to annoy them).
For months, ever since the original Israel Indymedia web site was shut
down, its URL carried a
message in English and Hebrew from this same ACRI protesting the shutting
down of this suicide-bombing-cheerleader web site. I guess the ACRI
supports free speech only for leftist traitors...

2. Can the Religious ACtion Center of the Reform synagogue movement be
far behind?:

3. Demand a Commission of Investigation into why ONLY 25 of these people
were wounded!:
More than 25 hurt during anti-fence protest near Dir Kadis

By Haaretz Service

More than 25 people were wounded, one of them an Israeli protester hit in
the eye, when IDF troops fired rubber bullets at Israelis and Palestinians
demonstrating on Sunday against the West Bank separation fence near the
village of Dir Kadis close to Modi'in, Israel Radio reported. An IDF
soldier was also said to have been injured in the scuffle

4. Shucks we thought he was a Jew:
Note how they thought he was a "settler" which in Haaretz parlance would
mean that murdering him is a legitimate form of protest. But under the
circumstances, Haaretz is really really upset! Because one of THEIRS got
murdered by the PLO!

5. Capitulation Chic: