Steven Plaut

Friday, April 30, 2004

1. Sharon Threatens a Victory for Arafat, or, Here Come "Those

The question is no longer whether or not Ariel Sharon's "Disengagement
Plan" will pass the referendum on it to be held this coming Monday, but
rather by which gap the "plan" will be shot down by the Likud voters. The
polls in Israel are showing the opponents to the plan within the Likud
outnumbering the supporters by between 2% and 7%, and I have a month's
salary on a bet saying the gap will actually be in the double digits. All
this, in spite of the fact that almost the entire leadership of the Likud
has come out to back and support Sharon on the "plan", some albeit

In trying to stampede Likud voters into backing approval for his
"plan", Sharon is moving from desperation into Orwellism. Yesterday, in
Sharon's first major adventure into the netherworld of Orwellistic
Newspeak, he declared that a defeat in the referendum for his proposal
would be a "victory for Arafat". By inference, a defeat over Arafat would
consist, I guess, of expelling Jewish settlers from their homes and
handing over a judenrein Gaza Strip to the PLO in which it will organize
rocket factories, training facilities, and from which it will send out
countless suicide bombers.

And someone forgot to tell the Palestinians that passage of the Sharon
"Disengagement Plan" would be a defeat for Arafat. Palestinian Media
Watch, a watchdog group that documents the contents of the PLO's
controlled "Palestinian" media, issued a report that these media
unanimously view a passage of the Sharon "plan" as an enormous victory for
their "armed struggle" over the Jewish subhumans and a tremendous
achievement, a precedent for the dismantling of all of Israel (Haaretz,
April 30).

More importantly, this is actually the very first test in Israel of
direct democracy, and the very first time a ballot proposition has been
brought before even a PART of the electorate (only Likud voters are
participating in the referendum, which makes it easier for the lemming
politicians to dismiss it as a meaningless gesture). That fact may be
even more significant than the actual results of the vote. This could
open up incredible new possibilities, if it were to become the precedent
for future ballot propositions, in which Israelis actually get to say
what they want. Heaven knows where THAT could lead - maybe even to
accountability of court judges!

The fact of the matter is that every single time, without exception,
Israeli voters were offered an opportunity to vote for or against "Oslo",
they voted against it. And every single time that they voted AGAINST
"Oslo", the politicians then ignored the public will and carried out
"Oslo" appeasements and capitulations anyway. It all started when
Israelis elected Yitzhak Rabin, who ran on a platform declaring
unambiguously, "No Deals with the PLO," and then months later spat on the
voters and struck the Oslo "deal." By 1996, Rabin had been assassinated
by Yigal Amir, and Shimon Peres was beaten in the next vote handsomely by
Netanyahu. Netanyahu then ran for re-election and lost, but that was
because voting for him was no longer voting against Oslo. Netanyahu as
Prime Minister had out-Oslo-ed even Shimon Peres. In any case, Ehud Barak
won largely thanks to the Arab voters supporting him at the polls.

When Ehud Barak later ran for re-election, he was defeated in a
landslide by voters opposed to Oslo. Sharon was elected simply because
the public opposed "Oslo". When Sharon ran again, this time against
Amram Mitzna, Sharon trounced him by an even larger landslide. But, like
all those before him, Sharon then declared war on the Israeli voters who
had elected him to stop Oslo, and he re-dedicated himself to carrying out
large parts of the political agenda of the Israeli Left.

For twelve years, Israeli voters have been disenfranchised over and
over and over again. But they were not cowed by the cynicism of the
politicians, as the vote this coming week on the referendum will show.
Whenever they are given a chance, they show how thoroughly they reject the
"Oslo" program of "land for sound bytes".

The intellectual underpinnings for the "disengagement plan" are little
more than an insult to the intelligence. Supposedly the "disengagement"
will allow the PLO to "prove itself" and its intentions, to impose its
will and control over the Gaza Strip and begin "nation building", with US
and Euro support. But even if "testing" the PLO's intentions is still
regarded as something positive, even if we pretend we do not know what
those intentions are precisely, even if we think that allowing the PLO to
impose its will over the Gaza Strip is something constructive, there is no
reason whatsoever why such a "test" requires the expulsion of Jews who
live in the Gaza Strip. The Jews live in two small areas within the
Strip. Why can't the PLO impose its will on the rest of the Gaza Strip
where Jews do NOT live and THERE prove its intentions? Why can't removal
of settlements be withheld as a reward or bargaining chip for AFTER the
PLO is put to the test? Why can't advocates of removing settlements
propose that this be done as a reward for the PLO AFTER it has complied
and shown its peaceful intentions?

In other words, even if one believes in the thinking behind the
Sharon-Bush initiative for unilateral disengagement by Israel and the
supposed forcing of the PLO to demonstrate its commitment to nation
building, none of that logically requires immediate Israeli expulsion of
Jewish settlers, especially when the expulsion would be long BEFORE the
PLO complies with
anything at all and after it has violated every single punctuation mark in
every one of its past commitments.

And that logical fallacy is why
Sharon is about to get creamed by his own party constituents. The Left
will no doubt denounce Sharon for having planned to lose the referendum
all along to avoid making concessions to the PLO, and wouldn't it be
heavenly if they were correct. A much more realistic explanation is that
Sharon's referendum was a strategic attempt to take the prosecutorial heat
off himself and his family by appeasing the Israeli Left, which happens to
control the Attorney General's office, the Israeli media and the courts.

A victory over the "disengagement plan" will be an enormous victory
for Moshe Feiglin and his militant wing within the Likud (militant in the
very best sense of the term). Feiglin is already being demonized by the
Likud demagogic establishment, who are denouncing "those Feiglins" as
fanatics endangering the party. Moshe was the initiator of the anti-Oslo
Zo Artseinu movement in the 90s. He was railroaded before a court under
Netanyahu's reign and convicted of "sedition" because he and his people
blocked a traffic intersection. After doing community service, Feiglin
decided to take his fight to the innards of the Likud, challenging the
Likud leadership from within. He and his camp won a respectable minority
position within the party's central committee. While I have some quibbles
with Feiglin over some of his choices of tactics and positions, he is the
only truly consistent anti-Oslo activist-leader at this point inside the
Likud, although may well represent the rank and file far better than
Sharon and Ehud Olmert. Feiglin's people have led the battle AGAINST
Sharon's proposal in the referendum, and the defeat of Sharon's plan will
make Feiglin a much more significant player in the Israeli political

May we be blessed with many many more of "those Feiglins".

2. Yes by All Means - Assassinate Arafat! (writes a leftist columnist)
Yes, assassinate Arafat

As long as Arafat sets the tone, the stagnation will continue and there
will be no break in the cycle of violence. Arafat needs the occupation so
his corruption won't be revealed. Only his assassination will bring an end
to the occupation.
Yael Paz-Melamed

An old man, stuttering, so corrupt that he could easily be in the Guinness
Book of Records, a bristly beard adorning his face and a kaffiyah wrapped
around his head, is the man whose evil influence puts a dark cloud over
the lives of millions, both in Israel and Palestine. Yassar Arafat, the
man with nine lives who is directly and actively responsible for the
deaths of thousands of human beings, Israelis and Palestinians. Yassar
Arafat, the man who succeeds in rediscovering himself every time and
remaining relevant as if the world hasn't changed and time has stopped.
Yassar Arafat, the man who, if he isn't thrown out of here, or ousted, or
assassinated, will continue to let blood spill until he dies a natural

It's with a heavy heart that this writer puts pen to paper. Like all those
who believe that force isn't a solution to the problem, the only relevant
victory is dismantling settlements and establishing a Palestinian state,
and I am convinced that most of the burden needs to be carried out by
Israel. We're the strong party, we're the one that has the means to give,
but primarily because we are the occupier. We are controlling almost four
million people, who live without hope, without elementary rights of
freedom and respect.

This viewpoint hasn't changed. But reality, in contrast, has. Slowly, ever
too slowly, while creating injustice for millions of Palestinians, we are
nevertheless marching over the Palestinian people. In these hesitant
steps, all the while retreating backwards quite a bit, we have given up
the dreams of a complete State of Israel between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean, we understand the vast damage caused by establishing the
settlements and we have begun to speak in a language of compromise, and
even peace.

Oslo was the beginning of the process, afterwards came Camp David and Taba
and now the disengagement. Public opinion in Israel is starting to change,
the public is beginning to understand and internalize that only a
political solution will bring us the quiet we are asking for.

On the other hand, like the mythological phoenix, the anti-leader has
positioned himself. Abu Amar (Arafat) is doing everything in his power to
be hostile to his own people and to prevent any kind of solution. His full
involvement was discovered at Camp David. He got everything he couldn't
possibly have dreamed of the week before, all the while realizing that the
facts were closing in on him and he could no longer accuse the Israelis of
not following a course to meet him. So he began an armed Intifada which
quickly brought with it the terrorists and the suicide bombers. The lands
of Israel and Palestine are soaked in blood and there is someone

Every analysis of the situation, from every direction, reaches a dead end
because it's clear that as long as Arafat is in the picture, even if the
picture includes the destruction of the Mukata in Ramallah, the stagnation
will continue and the circle of violence will not be broken. There was
already Abu-Mazen, and now there's Abu-Ala, and tomorrow there will be
someone else, and there isn't any thought put to it. Yassar Arafat is
pulling all the strings to prevent forward moving action.

And in between, he continues to back suicide bombers and steal the money
Palestinians receive from the world, and in this way he builds up Hamas as
a social movement, not only religious one, and strengthens it. A situation
of peace and normalcy poses a threat to his regime, which is built
primarily on dictatorship and fear. Like whoever steals millions from his
people, runs the operations by night, in dark and shadowy rooms. He who
doesn't want normalcy cannot afford to have proper operations or even a
Although Israel plays right into his hands every time its response as the
occupier is unenlightened, it is still his fault in an obvious situation
like the light of a lighthouse during a stormy night. Arafat is the
disaster of the Palestinians, but he's also the disaster of the Israelis.
As long as he's here, no disengagement plan can put forth the desired

The left wing in Israel must support his disappearance from the political
map, even if it means assassinating him. The lack of ethics of such an
action is nothing compared to the lack of ethics of continuing an
occupation which cannot come to end while this is still an issue.

3. More of that deep scholarship at Tel Aviv University:

4. Not a spoof:

Robbers die trying to hold-up suicide bomber
27/04/2004 - 17:33:49

A Hamas suicide bomber blew up two armed Palestinians who tried to rob
him at gun point in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas claimed the ^Óstickup men^Ô worked for Israeli intelligence, while
Palestinian security forces said the two were ordinary thieves.

Rather than give up his explosives, the bomber detonated them, killing
himself and the two robbers near the border fence between Gaza and

Palestinian security officials said the the gunmen were criminals who
were involved in a car theft ring that brought stolen vehicles from
Israel to Gaza.

Hamas said the bomber was on his way to try to infiltrate into Israel,
accompanied by another Hamas member and a guide, when they were stopped
by the armed men.

The robbers forced the bomber to lie on the ground and tried to steal the
bomb, but the militant detonated it, killing all three. The other Hamas
man and the guide escaped.

There have been cases of rival groups stealing each other^Òs explosives,
but no group claimed the two gunmen, and their families did not go to the
hospital to take the bodies, indicating that the two were not militants,
who are revered in Palestinian society.

5. The "Zundelsite" is a web page by nazis and Holocaust Deniers. They
are groupies of convicted Canadian nazi and Holocaust Denier Ernst Zundel.

Here are some items by Neve Gordon, political science lecturer at Ben
Gurion University and the person who regularly writes that Israel is a
fascist, terrorist, apartheid country, that are carried on the Zundelsite
web pages:
(As for bizarre bedfellows, the Zundelsite also regularly carries the
articles by UFOlogist and inventor of conspiracy "theories" Barry
Chamish. See )

If you would like to tell the heads of Ben Gurion University what you
think of one of their faculty members publishing his articles on the
Zundelsite, noting his Ben Gurion University connection no less when he
writes anti-Israel propaganda, write to:

Professor Avishay Braverman
President, Ben-Gurion University
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
Fax: 972-8-647-2937

Professor Jimmy Weinblatt
Rector, Ben-Gurion University
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
Tel. 972-7-6461105
Fax: 972-7-6472945

Professor Avishai Henik
Dean of Social Sciences
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, P.O.B. 653
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
Tel: 972-8-6472945

with copies to
Lis Gaines
Vivien K. Marion
Executive Vice President
American Associates of Ben Gurion University
1430 Broadway, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 212-687-7721
Fax: 212-302-6443

6. Pre-Boarding for Arab Hijackers?

7. Mario Cuomo Scapegoats the Jews:

8. Get yours today:

Thursday, April 29, 2004

1. Against "Disengagement":

2. Prepare for the Katyushas:

3. Nobel laureate warns on anti-Semitism


BERLIN -- Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel warned European and North American
countries Wednesday that anti-Semitism is on the rise and fervently urged
them to keep "the poison from spreading."

The appeal by Wiesel, a survivor of the Auschwitz Nazi death camp, marked
the start of a 55-nation conference of foreign ministers called to debate
ways to fight anti-Semitism, including more education and stricter law

"Stop! Stop a disease that has lasted so long. Stop the poison from
spreading," Wiesel said.

Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 for his writings on the
Holocaust and campaigning against evil in the world, pointed to violence
against Jews and desecration of cemeteries in many countries.

"The Jew I am belongs to a traumatized generation. We have antennas.
yet, we are antennas," he said.

"If we tell you that the signals we receive are disturbing, that we are
alarmed ... people had better listen."

Foreign ministers from Europe and Secretary of State Colin Powell were
expected to address the two-day meeting, which follows a rise in
anti-Semitic incidents and attacks last year in France, Britain and
elsewhere in Europe.

Held amid extremely tight security, the gathering of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe is the third major conference in Europe
to address anti-Semitism in the past year.

Wiesel said it was fitting that the conference was taking place in the
German capital, where the Nazis developed their plans to destroy the
Jews. The venue is the German Foreign Ministry, a huge building that once
served as Nazi Germany's central bank.

"It is precisely because it takes place in Berlin that a powerful message
... should be composed here," Wiesel said, urging the leaders to send a
manifesto against anti-Semitism in all languages to everyone in the world.

He said he found "particularly contemptuous" comparisons of Israel's
toward the Palestinians to Nazi Germany's atrocities against the Jews.

Simone Veil, a Holocaust survivor who became a French Cabinet minister and
president of the European Parliament, said anti-Semitism has grown in
but the government has taken commendable steps to protect Europe's largest
Jewish community.

Still, Veil said, "It's less and less a good thing to be Jewish in France
have a Jewish name or even display a Hebrew letter."

An Israeli anti-Semitism watchdog group said last week that worldwide
incidents of attacks on Jews and vandalism against Jewish sites increased
percent in 2003 from the previous year.

The Stephen Roth Institute of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism said
France, Britain, Russia, Germany and Canada had the highest rates of
anti-Semitic incidents.

The conference's timing has focused attention on eight former Soviet bloc
countries joining the European Union on Sunday. Some say the eastern
European nations have lagged in tackling anti-Semitism.

"The anti-Semitic potential in the EU is going to get bigger," Salomon
the vice president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, said in the
Berliner Zeitung daily newspaper.

Jewish organizations urged the OSCE governments to devote more resources
fighting anti-Semitism, strengthen law enforcement, promote education
the Holocaust and appoint a high-profile official to ensure countries are
meeting their commitments.

Youths from large Arab communities in France, Belgium and other European
countries have been blamed for attacks on Jewish property and individuals
that have increased as violence surged in the Middle East.

German President Johannes Rau said it was important to distinguish between
anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, although he acknowledged that
"massive anti-Semitism" is behind much of the opposition to Israeli

"I know many friends of Israel who criticize Israeli policies toward the
Palestinians because they are greatly concerned about the state of Israel
and Israeli society," Rau said. "Friends have the right to be told openly
what others think about what they are doing."

But he said critics of Israeli policy had to temper their views - and
sometimes keep it private - with the understanding Israelis have lived
the founding of their state under a threat to their existence.

4. Letterman's ''Top Ten'' Chapter Titles for Bill Clinton's Book

Posted by the ChronWatch Founder, Jim Sparkman
Thursday, April 29, 2004

From the April 27 ''Late Show with David Letterman,'' prompted by the
announcement that former President Clinton's book will be released in late
June, the ''Top Ten Chapter Titles in Bill Clinton's Memoirs.'' Late Show
home page:

10. ''I'm Writing This Chapter Naked''

9. ''I Pray Hillary Doesn't Read Pages 6, 18, 41-49, 76 and Everything
Past 200''

8. ''Protecting the Constitution: How to Get Gravy Stains out of the

7. ''A Few of My Favorite Subpoenas''

6. ''From Gennifer to Paula to Monica: Why It Pays to Keep Lowering Your

5. ''1995-1998: The Extra-Pasty Years''

4. ''Kneel to the Chief''

3. ''What's the Deal With That Moron You Guys Replaced Me With?''

2. ''NAFTA -- Bringing America Into... Ah Screw That, Who Wants to Read
Some More About Bubba Gettin' Down?''

1. ''The Night I Accidentally Slept With Hillary''

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

What is so Great about Israel?
by Steven Plaut

Israeli Independence Day is just behind us. We spend so much time on
the mindless self-destructive insane side of Israel that we may tend to
forget the positive aspects of life in Israel. And there are ever so many
of those.

Here is a small list of some of my favorite things about life in Israel:

1. Israel is the only country in the world where people can read the Bible
and understand it.

2. Israel is the only country in the world where, if someone calls you a
?dirty Jew?, it means you need a bath (old Efraim Kishon quip, but still good).

3. Israel is the only country in the world where formal dress means a new
clean Tee Shirt, sandals and jeans.

4. Israel is the only country in the world where one need not check the
ingredients on the products in the supermarket to avoid ending up with
things containing pork.

5. Israel is a country where the same drivers who cuss you and flip you
the bird will immediately pull over and offer you all forms of help if you
look like you need it.

6. Israel is the only country in the world with Avihu Medina, Zohar Argov,
and Daklon (godfathers of ?Oriental Music?).

7. Israel is the only country in the world with bus drivers and taxi
drivers who read Spinoza and Maimonides.

8. Israel is the only country in the world where you dare not gossip about
other people on the bus in Mandarin, Russian, Hindi, Lithuanian, Hungarian,
Polish, or Romanian lest others on the bus understand what you are saying.

9. Israel is the only country in the world with northern European
standards of living and southern European weather. It is the only place on
earth with an Israeli spring, the most glorious time of year on the planet.

10. Israel is the only country in the world where no one cares what rules
say when an important goal can be achieved by bending them.

11. Israel is the only country in the world where a pisher like me can
once in a while get invited to give a talk at the parliament, or can get in
to speak to a cabinet minister.

12. Israel is the only country in the world where reservists are bossed
around and commanded by officers, male and female, younger than their own

13. Israel is the only country in the world with Eli Yatzpen (comedian).

14. Israel is the only country in the world where "small talk" consists
of loud angry debate over politics and religion.

15. Israel is the only country in the world with Jerusalem, even if
Israeli leftists would like to turn it over to the barbarians.

16. Israel is the only country in the world where the coffee is already so
good that Starbucks went bankrupt trying to break into the local market.

17. Israel is the only country in the world where the mothers learn their
mother tongue from their children (old Efraim Kishon quip but still good).

18. Israel is the only country in the world where the people understand
Israeli humor.

19. Israel is the only country in the world where the news is broadcast
over the loudspeakers on buses, where people listen to news updates every
half hour, or whose people are capable of locating Bosnia on a map of the

20. Israel is one of the few places in the world where the sun sets into
the Mediterranean Sea.

21. Israel is the only country in the world where, when people say the
?modern later era?, they are referring to the time of Jesus.

22. Israel is the only country in the world whose soldiers eat three
salads a day, none of which contain any lettuce, and where olives are a
food and even a main course in a meal, rather than something one tosses
into a martini.

23. Israel is the only country in the world where one is unlikely to be
able to dig a cellar without hitting ancient archeological artifacts.

24. Israel is the only country in the world where the leading writers in
the country take buses.

25. Israel is the only country in the world where the graffiti is in Hebrew.

26. Israel is the only country in the world where the black folks walking
around all wear yarmulkes.

27. Israel is the only country in the world that has a national book week,
where almost everyone attends and buys books.

28. Israel is the only country in the world where the ultra-Orthodox Jews
beat up the police and not the other way around.

29. Israel is the only country in the world where inviting someone "out
for a drink" means drinking cola or coffee.

30. Israel is the only country in the world where people who want to go
up in an elevator push the down button because they think this makes the
elevator come down to get them

31. Israel is the only country in the world with white almond blossoms in
January, purple "Judas Tree" blossoms in March, and crocus flowers in October.

32. Israel is the only country in the world where bank robbers kiss the
mezuzah as they leave with their loot.

33. Israel is the only country in the world with "Eretz Yisrael Music".

34. Israel is one of the few countries in the world that truly likes and
admires the United States.

35. Israel is the only country in the world that introduces applications
of high tech gadgets and devices, such as printers in banks that print out
your statement on demand, years ahead of the United States and decades
ahead of Europe.

36. Israel is the only country in the world that has the weather of
California but without the earthquakes.

37. Israel is the only country in the world where everyone on a flight
gets to know one another before the plane lands. In many cases they also
get to know the pilot and all about his health or marital problems.

38. Israel is the only country in the world where no one has a foreign
accent because everyone has a foreign accent.

39. Israel is the only country in the world where people cuss using dirty
words in Russian or Arabic because Hebrew has never developed them.

40. Israel is the only country in the world where patients visiting
physicians end up giving the doctor advice.

41. Israel is the only country in the world where everyone strikes up
conversations while waiting in lines.

42. Israel is the only country in the world where people choose which
books to read and which plays to see based on what they plan to discuss
with their friends in Friday evening "salon" get-togethers.

43. Israel is the only country in the world where hot water is an event
and not a condition ("in" joke; you have to live in Israel to figure it out).

44. Krembos.

45. Israel is the only country in the world where people call an attaché
case a "James Bond", and the @ sign is called a "strudel".

46. Kumquats.

47. The obsession with sunflower seeds.

48. The kumsitz on the beach.

49. The people who eat watermelon with salt or with salty cheese. The
wagons with horses that still sell watermelons on the streets, screaming
"watermelon on the knife", whatever that means.

50. Israel is the only country in the world where kids read Harry Potter
in Hebrew.

51. Hyssop (zaatar).

52. Where Memorial Day is actually a day for remembering and not buying
pool furniture at the mall.

53. Really really good bread!

54. Israel is the only country in the world where there is the most
mysterious and mystical calm ambience in the streets on Yom Kippur, which
cannot be explained unless you have experienced it.

55. Where kids can really sleep in a Succah because it will not rain on them.

56. Israel is the only country in the world where making a call to God is
a local call (old quip, still good).

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

1. This message is in the strictest of secrecy!

Honorable comrade and most merciful friend!:


Do you remember me?

I was the guy who single handedly rescued the Oslo "peace process" when I
abandoned my Right-wing Knesset faction with my buddy Alex and we agreed
to join Shimon Peres' leftist Oslo coalition in exchange for a
cushy cabinet post for me!

Yes, I am an ex-cabinet minister from the state of Israel. And as you
know, there are all sorts of funds missing from the Israeli Treasury, and
there are also unaccounted funds from my own drug smuggling business.
Those ecstasy pills are worth a fortune!

SO here is what I propose. I am stuck here in an Israeli prison, but my
friends will transfer to your bank account the tidy sum of 25 million
dollars if you just provide me with your bank account number, your credit
card numbers, and your PIN numbers for your account and credit cards.
And right after that my business colleagues will deposit into your account
a cool 25 million bucks, scout's honor!

2. From the Oy-Gevalt

3. Probing Columbia's Bias:

4. Jihad at NYU:

5. Please buy this watch and too it under a bulldozer:

6. Peace Partner:

Monday, April 26, 2004

1. Terrorizing Terrorists as peace plan:

2. "Dumb" Bush worse than Liberals?

3. A Picture worth a Thousand Words:

4. The PLO and the Holocaust:

5. No Comment:
Report: Wagner helped Vanunu in prison

Mordechai Vanunu, released after nearly 18 years in prison for revealing
information about Israel's nuclear program, endured many years of solitary
confinement with the help of Wagner's music, The Sunday
Times reported.

6. Can you imagine if Israel handled collaborators with the enemy like
this, you know - as part of becoming integrated in the Middle East?


A suspected Palestinian collaborator was executed Sunday evening in Kafr
Rima near Ramallah on the West Bank.

The suspected collaborator, Hassan Al-Azma, 29, was shot and killed by
members of Yasser Arafat linked Fatah Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

7. Likud McCarthyism? Funny, I cannot see anything here by which one
could understand that violence is being advocated nor do I see anything where
the guy called Sharon a nazi. Is the Likud adopting tactics used by Ophir

8. The "ALEF" chat list of leftist anti-Israel extremists continues to
operate under the auspices of the University of Haifa. This week the
following message was posted on it:
"I read with great interest the article of Alan Dershowitz in which he
made the legal argument that "it is proper to kill a combatant during an
ongoing war" and used it as a justification for the extra-judicial
killing of Rantisi, Yassin and others.
A perfect justification for the killing of Rehavam Zeevi, or any attempt
on the lives of Mofaz and even Sharon.
David Shaham"
The whole treasonous archive may be viewed at

If you think it is improper that treasonous open calls to assasssinate
Israeli leaders are posted on a chat list operated by the University of
Haifa, please write to the university authorities, at
President of the University of Haifa
and Rector of the University of Haifa

Prof. Aaron Ben-Ze'ev
Fax: 972-4-8342101

and outgoing Prof. Yehuda Hayuth
Fax: 972-4-8240281

Prof. Joseph Chetrit
Fax: 972-4-8288104, 8288152

by Dr. Steven Plaut

This week is Memorial Day in Israel and right after it is Independence
Day. I have believed for years that the best way to commemorate these days
is by turning them into a battle against the loss of perspective.
Memorial Day is the more troubling of the two days. The problem is that
Israelis have lost their sense of Jewish perspective to such an extreme
extent, and this becomes glaringly evident on Memorial Day. Israelis are
incapable of viewing their problems and that of the state within the
perspective of Jewish history, in large part because of the efforts of the
radically secularist Israeli Left, which dominates civil discourse, the
media, academia and politics, and seeks to detach all of Israel from
Jewish history and to deny any connection between "Israeli-ness" and

All of this is reflected in the whiny defeatism that dominates all
thinking about the losses of life by Jews struggling for Israel's
survival. It is blindingly apparent on Memorial Day.
First of all, the atmosphere of Memorial Day in Israel resembles that of
Holocaust Remembrance Day Yom Hashoah, in nearly all things: the same
siren, the same closing of cafes and restaurants, the same conversion of
the media into official mourners. The timing is also suggestive -
Memorial Day is a week after Yom Hashoah. If anything, Memorial Day is
the more dramatic of the two days, as there are TWO sirens sounded on
Memorial Day but only one on Yom Hashoah. And this is not because the
loss of soldiers is "more recent". The bulk of soldiers killed in
Israel's wars, far more than half, died in the 1948-9 War of Independence,
only 3 years after the end of the Holocaust.

The two juxtaposed days equate the Holocaust with a tragedy that is two
six hundredths its size. Second, all sense of proportion has been lost.
In ALL of Israel's wars, something like 21,000 soldiers and civilians
died, although thanks to the Oslo team the civilians have dominated the
death toll this past decade. These numbers are similar to the numbers of
Jews murdered every two days at Auschwitz at the height of its
"efficiency". In other words, had Auschwitz operated for only two days
longer than it actually did, the losses of Jewish life would have been the
same as all of Israel's military and civilians losses! The soldiers
killed in Israel of course died in valor, defending their people and

Here we are, about 60 years after the Holocaust, and the country is still
gripped with the Grand Oslo Delusion, still trying to "negotiate" with the
Palestinian Nazis instead of achieving total military victory over them,
afraid to follow the lead of the Americans in Fallujah. In 21st century
Israel, the fact that one or two soldiers got killed per week in Lebanon
was cause for total unilateral surrender to the Hizbollah and its Syrian
masters and for a panic-stricken retreat out of Lebanon to Israel's
"international border". Two deaths a week of soldiers in Lebanon, deaths
that indeed could have been prevented had the country's leadership the
courage to do so, were thought to be sufficient reason for abandoning all
rationality and determination, and for putting all of northern Israel
under threat of massive bombardment from Hizbollah rockets. On the other
front, Palestinians tossing rocks at soldiers in the1980s were sufficient
reason to adopt "Oslo" in the 1990s, where Israel imported an
Islamofascist terrorist army of its sworn enemies into the suburbs of Tel
Aviv and Jerusalem.

"Oslo" Israel is post-survivalist Israel, defeatist Israel, exhausted
Israel. "Oslo" was based on a total loss in the ability to reason
rationally, a total loss of historic proportion, a relinquishment of
reality for a make-pretend imaginary universe, and a complete loss in the
Jewish determination to survive as a nation. First and foremost, it was a
complete loss in Jewish self-respect and dignity in Israel. Here we had
the spectacle of Israeli leaders meeting, back-slapping and kissing the
same Arab fascists who murdered Jewish children and only yesterday denied
there had ever been a Holocaust, but at the same time insisting that if
there HAD been one - the Jews deserved it. The Israeli media continues to
be the occupied territory of Israel's extremist Left; the Independence Day
issue of Haaretz a couple of years back featured a banner Op-Ed by
columnist Akiva Eldar entitled "To the Glory of the States of Israel and
Palestine," and explaining that Israel will never be truly independent
until Palestine has pushed Israel behind its 1949 borders and liberated
East Jerusalem. He is not even the most extremist anti-Israel journalist
in Israeli journalism.

In Orwellian "Oslo" Israel, defeatism became the greatest form of
triumphalism, cowardice became the highest form of courage, and
McCarthyism was the greatest expression of democracy, at least in the
first few years after the Rabin assassination. In "Oslo" Israel, the
Zionist Left morphed into the post-Zionist Israelis for a Second

The Israeli military was as blinded by the loss in perspective as the rest
of the country. The military leadership has been McClellenist since 1992,
and was - if anything - ahead of the rest of the country in saying amen to
the Left's Vision of "Oslo" and backing the national suicidal ambitions of
the politicians of the Left. The military brass was louder than the media
in demanding a unilateral unconditional surrender of Israel in Lebanon and
relinquishing of the Golan to Syria. Military intelligence has never
quite gotten around to the point where it lets discovers that Yassir
Arafat is a genocidal terrorist and that there are no differences between
the Hamas and the PLO, if there ever were.

Meanwhile, even Ariel Sharon is trying to capitulate his way into
tranquility. Just what does he think the PLO-Hamas terrorists will do in
the Gaza Strip once Israel has ethnically cleansed it of Jews and
abandoned it?

2. Will the real Kerry stand up?,%20Who%20thinks%20Arafat%20is%20a%20"Statesman"%20or%20an%20"Outlaw?"

3. Defend the rights of trees!!:

4. America Hatred among the Arabs:

5. If Sharon resignes after losing the Gaza Disengagement Referendum,
maybe we can elect Aznar as Prime Minister?:

Appeasement Never Works
Wall St Journal April 26, 2004; Page A14

The decision by the new Socialist government to pull out Spanish troops
from Iraq is lawful. But it is also gravely irresponsible. It raises
Spain's risks and worsens our foreign relations. It alienates us from our
partners and allies and does not contribute to the foreign policy
consensus that had been promised to us by the new government. It suggests
also a lack of solidarity with the Iraqi people and is the best news
possible for those who attacked Spain on March 11.

Many of us in Spain feel ashamed about the withdrawal of our troops. And
many more of us are worried about the consequences of this decision for
our security, and for the defense of our liberties in the face of

The withdrawal decision, made on Tuesday, is wrong, even though it accords
with a campaign pledge. Promises can be made mistakenly and this is one of
them, because we are now worse placed internationally than before. Our
security has diminished. We are weaker, as is our alliance with the oldest
and most powerful democracies in the world. Weaker, too, is our alliance
with the majority of those countries that will soon become our partners in
the EU.

The Socialist government's decision has been a blow to the interests of
Spain and the free world -- because we are leaving the place where we most
need to be. We've withdrawn our presence, our collaboration and our
ability to influence events in Iraq -- a country that has suffered under
one of the cruelest dictatorships in history and which today suffers at
the hands of terrorists and of those nostalgic for the tyrant. The Spanish
government may have affirmed its commitment to Iraq's reconstruction, but
it is a commitment that is scarcely credible, as it flies in the face of
the facts. If the government wished to make a declaration of foreign
policy principles, it could not have chosen a worse moment. It is hard to
understand why so vital a decision was taken in such a hurry. Only
opportunism, linked to an election scarred by terror, can explain a
decision so far removed from Spain's interests.

The withdrawal of our troops is just what the terrorists wanted -- the
terrorists who attack Iraqis in Iraq, and those who attacked Spaniards in
Spain. They are the same. They want the same thing. They have the same
objectives, one of which, without doubt, was the withdrawal of our troops.
And now they have it. This is hardly the best step for us to have taken
after the attack Spain suffered on March 11. Our message to the world is
one of abandonment; we have also signaled the value of murder as a way to
secure political objectives. If Spain is weaker as a consequence of our
withdrawal from Iraq, the terrorists are now stronger. The government has
taken the path of appeasement, which history shows to be the worst way to
handle threats. Appeasement does not protect one from danger; instead, it
fortifies the danger itself.

The government has given us no explanations other than that it is
fulfilling an electoral undertaking. But if it has so much respect for our
citizens, it might have taken the trouble to explain to them what
alternatives are proposed other than that of a "commitment to Iraq's
stability" and to "fight on the frontlines against terrorism." If the
government wishes to strengthen democracy, its flight from its
responsibilities to the defense of liberty is not reassuring.

The Iraqis, for decades, have been unable to express themselves in free
elections. But we know, from several opinion polls conducted in the last
months, that they are aware of the need for foreign troops as a guarantee
of security against terrorism; and we know, also, of their desire for
power to pass into the hands of a representative national authority. It's
possible that the Socialist government, in withdrawing, is responding to
the will of a good proportion of Spain's people; but nobody can say,
without lying, that this is a friendly gesture toward the people of Iraq.
What we are saying to them is that they cannot count on us. We are saying
that we are not going to help them secure the liberties that we ourselves
enjoy -- and that we are not prepared to take the slightest risk for them.
Spain, too, had a transition to democracy -- luckily much more peaceful --
and we were grateful, then, to those who helped us from abroad. Now we
deny that same help to those who need it.

Yet we are not dealing here only with help for the Iraqis. We are dealing,
also, with security for our own citizens. The terrorists of March 11 did
not attack us because of Iraq. In fact, according to investigations, they
had begun to plot attacks in Spain as far back as October or November of
2002. If they later demanded our withdrawal from Iraq -- and from
Afghanistan, too -- it was no more than criminal opportunism on the part
of those who killed nearly 200 people in Madrid. And in spite of that --
even though this may not be the precise intention behind our withdrawal
from Iraq -- we are giving them the fruits of that opportunism.

Is Spain prepared to concede everything asked of her by those who would
use force, including her territory and her free way of life? And from whom
will we seek help if we are attacked again? These are the questions that
the Socialist government should have asked itself before taking so
irresponsible a decision.

In his inaugural address, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero
spoke of a ruptured consensus in our foreign policy. But by his decision
to withdraw our troops -- which is, I repeat, completely lawful -- he has
not only distanced himself from the European and Atlantic consensus, but
has done nothing to advance the cause of a consensus at home. He decided
to withdraw troops before listening to his Council of Ministers, and told
the press of his decision before he told parliament. And although the only
explanation he has given is that he is "honoring his word," he is not even
doing that, since he has not given the U.N. -- "or any other organization
of a multinational character," to use his own words -- the opportunity to
play a more active role in Iraq. Nor has he waited until June 30, the date
on which sovereignty passes to the Iraqis.

The government of Mr. Zapatero should not be taken by surprise if, in
future, Spain fails to secure essential support in the international
democratic community. When someone abandons his post, he cannot expect to
receive more support than he who remains. This factor should have been
enough to make the government think harder before taking its decision.

I believe Spain needs to show more solidarity with the countries that work
hardest for freedom across the globe, as well as with those who aspire,
after years under the yoke of dictatorship, to pursue their individual
liberties. I believe that Spain must adopt a foreign policy steeped in the
defense of our essential values, unlike that of the present government. I
believe also that our foreign policy must reflect the reality we face --
that of an international war against terror, a terror that craves the
abandonment of our posts. We will not make this terror disappear by
averting our gaze and fleeing from reality. Instead, we will find that we
face it worse prepared than before, and more insecure than ever.

Mr. Aznar was prime minister of Spain from 1996 to April 17, 2004.

URL for this article:,,SB108292758073392804,00.html

Or maybe the editors at WSJ?:
The Fallujah Stakes
April 26, 2004; Page A14

The latest news from the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah is that Marines
will now conduct joint patrols with Iraqis, as a way to regain control of
the city without a full-scale assault. Perhaps this will even work, but
it's also likely our enemies will consider it a sign of weakness and ramp
up their attacks there and elsewhere.

The judgment in Baghdad seems to be that the most important outcome at
this moment is that the coalition be seen to regain control of that city
of 200,000 in the Sunni Triangle. There's no doubt Marines could retake
the city by force, but the fear is that al-Jazeera and other anti-American
media would portray the campaign in the worst possible light and perhaps
prompt uprisings elsewhere in Iraq. So U.S. commanders and regent L. Paul
Bremer have cut this deal with Fallujah intermediaries for the joint
patrols, and U.S. forces can target the insurgents at a better time and
place. At least that's the argument.

We hope this doesn't represent a decision by coalition political leaders
to shrink from the military campaign that is inevitable. Sooner or later
the Baath remnants, jihadists and criminals who have used Fallujah as a
sanctuary have to be killed. They can't be bargained with, they can't be
reasoned with, because for them a peaceful transition to Iraqi control
after June 30 means defeat. If the estimated 2,000 or so insurgents decide
to allow Marine patrols, it will be because they have concluded it is
safer to melt away to kill Americans another day rather than fight to the
death in Fallujah now.

The killers facing Marines in Fallujah are those who melted away a year
ago as coalition forces closed on Baghdad. Rather than fight and die then,
they retreated to the Sunni heartland to regroup, rearm and organize the
murder of both coalition soldiers and the Iraqis who are cooperating with
us. The U.S. didn't pursue those Saddamists at the time, and it decided in
later months to let Fallujah more or less alone. We now know this was a
mistake, and the Marine presence is a recognition that the city can no
longer be tolerated as a terror sanctuary.

If nothing else, the Fallujah sanctuary repudiates the argument we've
often heard that the U.S. would have been better to "wait" to begin the
war last year. If we had, Senator Carl Levin and others argue, we might
have had the French on our side (sure) and the extra forces would have
made the fight easier. But delay would also have given the Baathists time
to organize this guerrilla-style warfare nationwide. Instead of fighting
them in Fallujah and Ramadi, as Marines now will, without the elements of
speed and surprise, a year ago U.S. soldiers might have had to do the same
in far more cities.

By the way, it hardly helps to have United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
publicly warning the U.S. not to defeat insurgents who are killing
Americans. He repeated again yesterday that "In this situation, there is
no military solution," and portrayed any U.S. attack in Fallujah as
unjustified. This rhetoric, amplified by al-Jazeera, will only make it
more likely that any offensive in Fallujah would be misinterpreted by
other Iraqis.

Mr. Brahimi is the man Mr. Bremer and National Security Council staffer
Robert Blackwill have sold to President Bush as the key to a sound
political transition in Iraq. But three times in the past two weeks he has
made public remarks damaging to coalition progress and U.S. interests in
the region.

He told French radio last Wednesday that, "There is no doubt that the
great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination and the
suffering imposed on the Palestinians, as well as the perception by the
body of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this
policy and the equally unjust support of the United States for this
policy." U.S. "poison?" Is Condoleezza Rice paying attention?

The danger with delay in Fallujah and Mr. Brahimi's comments is that they
will be interpreted by Iraqis as a sign that the U.S. is losing its
resolve and simply wants out. Perhaps caution in Fallujah makes sense at
this moment, but sooner or later the insurgents have to be defeated, and
at the point of a gun, not by diplomacy. If we're not prepared to do that,
Mr. Bush might as well order the troops home now.

URL for this article:,,SB108292722791992798,00.html

Sunday, April 25, 2004

1. While Limor Livnat is on the wrong side, in terms of Sharon's proposed
Gaza "Disengagement", she is doing FANTASTIC work in terms of calling
Israel's universities to order. Hence, I would like to suggest that you
send her a note of support, not for her overall career or position in the
Likud, where she has not been consistently anti-Oslo enough, but in the
important work she is doing to alter the behavior of the universities and
their support for tenured treason. There are many fronts, and on this
front she is leading the charge in the correct direction!

I suggest that you write her by fax, by hard copy mail, or email her
at these addresses:
Minister Limor Livnat,
The Knesset, Kiryat Ben-Gurion, Jerusalem 91950, Israel

Telephone 972-2-6753934

1. Congratulate her on her important Zionist work in denouncing
the tenured anti-Israel extremists at Israeli universities, and especially
those at Ben Gurion
University, who are supporting the enemies of their own country during
time of war.

2. Suggest to her that she launch a commission of investigation into
the politicalization of hiring and promotion and tenure procedures in
universities, under which leftists with ludicrous and laughable "academic
records" get
promoted and granted tenure as acts of political "solidarity" by other
leftists already in the system, in some cases on the
basis of their having published anti-Israel propaganda in anti-Semitic
and in PLO-controlled "journals", all misrepresented as academic research.

3. Inform her that Lev Grinberg is not the only anti-Israel extremist at
Ben Gurion University and that there are others there even worse than
Grinberg, including one in particular who denounces Israel as an apartheid,
fascist, terrorist state and who has endorsed the views of Holocaust Denier
Norman Finkelstein.

4. Suggest to her that she instruct the Budget and Planning Committee of
the Council on Higher Education to deduct funds from the fiscal allotments
to universities that hire and promote extremist anti-Israel
faculty members, or those engaged in anti-Israel sedition.

5. Suggest to her that Israeli law be changed to allow the firing of
faculty members with tenure if they engage in anti-Israel sedition, such as
by promoting insurrection and mutiny by Israeli military personnel, or if
they endorse
boycotts of Israel by overseas anti-Semites, or justify or support
terrorist violence against Israelis, or support the liquidation of Israel
as a Jewish state.

Many thanks!!

Meanwhile, Haaretz is suddenly worried about "pluralism and academic
freedom", at This from
the same Haaretz whose idea of pluralism is to operate a newspaper far
less pluralistic than was Pravda under Brezhnev. But note this sentence
in today's editorial: "There is no connection between her (Limro Livnat's)
protest and
Braverman's difficulty in raising funds for the university. This
difficulty derives,
they argued, from a similar protest of Jewish contributors, who are
uncomfortable with Grinberg's articles."
In other words, Israeli universities are feeling the pressure from Jews
around the world regarding the tenured traitors!

Speaking of pluralism, you may recall that a few years back Ben-Gurion
University hosted anti-Semite and pro-genocide Stalinist Noam Chomsky for
a speaking engagement. I remind you of Chomsky's opinions on Jews:

"By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of
the population... Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately.
Its raised, but its raised because privileged people want to make
sure they have total control, not just 98% control. Thats why
anti-Semitism is becoming an issue."

All very nice when rationalized as academic pluralism and free
speech. BUT the same Ben-Gurion University faculty who hosted Chomsky
later boycotted
Ariel Sharon when he spoke on the campus, and the Ben Gurion University
authorities later attempted to sabotage a lecture on the campus by Mort
Klein, the chief of the Zionist Organization of America. BGU
authorities have
also failed to speak up about the assault on free speech by Neve Gordon,
attempting to use Israeli courts as harassment instruments to suppress the
right of his critic (me) to criticize his opinions and public politcal
behavior, and has filed an anti-democratic SLAPP suit to suppress free
speech. No comment from Ben Gurion University chiefs. Some pluralism.
Some devotion to free speech.

2. Protest discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation! Will the
Reform synagogue's "Religious" Action Center take a courageous stand?
Straight couples say they were ejected from gay hotel in Key West

Friday, April 16, 2004

2004 Associated Press

(04-16) 12:53 PDT (AP) --

KEY WEST, Fla. (AP) -- Three heterosexual couples said they were turned
away from a hotel in this gay-friendly tourist destination because of
their sexual orientation, which would violate city law.

The six were vacationing with a gay couple and had reservations at Big
Ruby's in downtown Key West when the three straight couples were turned

"The manager literally said, 'We don't want you here,"' said Jim Pirih,
who had vacationed at Big Ruby's last year with his partner, Jason

The group, most of whom are from San Diego, was already settled in their
rooms Wednesday when the manager told the straight couples they would have
to leave, citing a policy of not allowing heterosexuals on the property,
Pirih said.

"He said he had to appeal to the majority, and the majority of guests
wouldn't want straight people there," Pirih said.

The six were allowed to stay one night, but had to check out Thursday
morning and were told they wouldn't be compensated for the inconvenience,
Pirih said.

Big Ruby's did not immediately return a phone message Friday.

Key West has a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination by sexual
orientation in housing and lodging. Violators can face a civil citation
and be fined up to $500.

Scott Fraser, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Community Center of
Key West, said any discrimination base on sexual orientation is wrong.

"Whether it's a couple turned away from a place of business because
they're gay, or a straight couple refused admittance because it's a gay
facility, socially and legally that's discrimination and equally as
unacceptable," Fraser said Friday.

2004 Associated Press

Saturday, April 24, 2004

1. Stalinist Noam Chomsky, personal apologist for the Khmer Rouge during
its era of genocide, has also openly promoted anti-Semitism. Consider the
following citation:

"By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of
the population... Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately.
Its raised, but its raised because privileged people want to make
sure they have total control, not just 98% control. Thats why
anti-Semitism is becoming an issue."

2. Seems a lot of people are angry at Ben Gurion University for the
leftist haters of Israel, anti-Zionists, and extremists on its faculty:

Haaretz Friday, April 23, 2004
Livnat livid B-G Univ. won't fire outspoken professor
By Anshel Pfeffer

Education Minister Limor Livnat yesterday stepped up her battle with
Ben-Gurion University over its continued employment of Professor Lev

As reported in Haaretz yesterday, Livnat has notified the university she
would boycott university events over the administration's refusal to take
action against Grinberg, who heads the Hubert Humphrey Institute for
Social Research. In an article published in a Belgian newspaper, Grinberg
accused Israel of carrying out "symbolic genocide" against the
Palestinians by assassinating Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Yesterday, Livnat told Haaretz that the response of University President
Avishai Braverman in both this case and a previous statement by Grinberg
was "completely unreasonable." When academics around the world are calling
for a boycott of their Israeli counterparts, she said, "we must set an
example. I don't consider it right for a university to hide behind
academic freedom" - Braverman's justification for his lack of action
against Grinberg. "This cannot turn into freedom to incite against and
harm the state. We are not talking about a political or party issue here;
this is a red line that has long since been crossed."

Grinberg's statement put Braverman into an uncomfortable position: On one
hand, he feels obliged to defend his lecturers' freedom of speech.
(English article abridged. Hebrew article mentions that the Organization
of University Presidents in Israel is meeting to discuss th eseriousness
of the harm being done to Israeli universities by the tenured traitors and
by th extremists on th efaculties at the universities, such as in the
massive threats in the United States and elsewhere to withhold support and
donations to universities employing such people. The Hebrew article is at

If you would like to tell Minister Limor Livnat what YOU think, here is
her web page, which includes her email address ( and
her fax.

3. The Nation is a far-left anti-Israel anti-Semitic political rag in the
United States, and regularly carries such illuminati as "Rabbi" Mikey
Lerner and Ben Gurion University lecturer Neve Gordon, a deep admirer of
nuclear traitor Mordecai Vanunu. Gordon's piece praising Holocaust
Denier Norman Finkelstein was carried by the rag, and I believe
Finkelstein himself sometimes writes in it.

The Nation does a hatchet job on Dan Pipes in its May 10 issue. Only
thing is, it shows how effective Dan is in getting under the skin of the
anti-Jewish Left:
Note the other articles by "Rabbi" Mikey and by Adam Shapiro
(founder of Rachel Corrie's ISM unbulldozed group) nearby.

4. As you know, Israeli UFO "researcher" and inventor of conspiracy
stories Barry Chamish was scheduled to speak before the neonazi Holocaust
Denial conference this week in Sacramento, except the German Culture club
there, which was to host the event, cancelled on them, insisting it had
not known who these people are when it agreed to rent its facilities.
Chamish agreed to speak at the conference, to be held on Shabbat no
less, claiming he was going to wow them with his personal charm and
convert them into Holocaust "believers". Take a look at this web site and
see if you think anyone can convert these maggots:
This one in partuicular will interest you - you think Chamish would have
turned him into a pro-Zionist?:
Since then, apparently the nazi organizers have been trying to
find alternative accomodations but as far as I can see, they have been

Nevertheless, some discussion has been going about on neonazi and
Holocaust discussion lists and chat boards, and I thought I would bring
you some citations I found.

One of the scheduled nazi speakers wrote:
"I wanted to see Mr. Chamish provided some time, since he could be
to be put out about the original cancellation. I intended to make him into
a Holocaust Denier with the irrefutable logic of my presentation and my
ability to cloud men's minds, by the way. However, since it has come to
light that "he said the JDL contacted him, and he gladly gave them full
copies of his speech AND! invited them to the conference," I am not so
it is such a good idea to have him there (see my earlier missive today
being threatened by Mr. Maniacal). Fortunately, it is not my call to make,
since it's a tough one. I'll support whichever way you fellows decide to
with this one. After all, I'm just a speaker - you guys are doing all the
heavy lifting."

The organizers of the event, the "Adelaide Institute" of nazis in
Australia, issued this comment:
" For example, Barry Chamish will possibly be a speaker and he is
one of ours, etc."

Conference organizers responding to someone from the JDL attacking them as

Subject: RE: [Fwd: Your resurrected hate conference.]

Mr. Maniaci -

You claim to be peaceful, then promise to have your
"good friend" Mark Wiles with you in Sacramento this
weekend to "renew (our) relationship?" The same Mark
Wiles from Nevada, the JDL free-range goon squad
enforcer and former lead henchman for the late Irv

Lessee now, that would be the relationship that
entailed Wiles' threatening my family and me with
physical harm, of course.... Interestingly,
Israeli Barry Chamish originally had
been on the agenda to provide the very dialogue you
disingenuously mention, from the point of view of
Jewish Supremacists like yourself, but your tactics
have prevented his attendance now. His stated
intention was to convince all attendees of the
incorrectness of our position. Even he is outraged at
your bullyboy methods, so reminiscent of the way that
Israel deals with the Palestinians.

You seek no dialogue. You seek only to shout down and
shut out. When you can't do that, then you and your
followers resort to death threats to little girls and
brazen physical violence. When that doesn't work,
your fellow travellers always have found that a bullet
to the base of the skulls of your enemies is most
effective, as so often demonstrated by you Jews
following the Bolshevik takeover in Russia last

Come on down, Mr. Maniaci. You and your fellow
travellers may kill our children as you have
threatened. You may even kill many of us, as you have
done so many times past and in lands distant. But you
will never break our spirit. You will never silence
us. You will never take our freedom.

Edgar J. Steele"

Friday, April 23, 2004

1. You may recall that a few months back, a bomb went off in Tel Aviv,
killing several people. At first it was presumed that this was yet
another manifestation of the success of the Oslo peace process and the
emergence of the New Middle East produced by Israel's Left and its Likud
collaborators. But then, surprisingly, it
turned out that the blast was an attempt at assassinating a leader of an
underworld Tel Aviv criminal gang, and the bomb was evidently placed there
by hired Belarusian hit men working for another underworld gang.

The incident brought to the focus the operations of criminal gangs in
Israel. Many of these gangs also operate casinos in Central Europe, in
Prague and Budapest and in Romania, and they have repeatedly tried to
murder one another, as part of trying to control those casinos and
related activities through murders of one another in Israel.

The bomb blast in Tel Aviv, which at last woke the police in Israel
from their slumber and indifference, was in fact an attempt to one
assassinate Zev Rosenstein, reputed by the press in Israel to be the worst
organized crime figure and head of the worst crime family in the country.

Maariv today reports that Gonen Segev, the ex-cabinet Minister who sold
out his country, his party, and his constituency when he sold his vote
and conscience to Shimon Peres for a fist full of silver, has in fact been
working for the Rosenstein crime family for years. When Segev was
arrested this week for trying to smuggle 25,000 ecstacy pills into Israel,
he was evidently working for Rosenstein, and carrying the dope for
Rosenstein's crime family.

This is the same Gonen Segev who single-handedly rescued "the Oslo
peace process" from parliamentary defeat, by betraying those who elected
him to stop Oslo, the political prostitute who
made "Oslo's" continuation possible. This is the man upon whom Shimon
Peres built his "New Middle East."

Do you think it is the right time for the Israeli Attorney General to
hang Gonen by the Gonads?

2. How dare he tell the truth about homosexuality!!:

The Selling Of Homosexuality
By Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D.
Homosexual behavior has always existed. It was accepted throughout
the ancient world, Roman emperors engaged in it, and the Jews were the
to forbid it.

Judaism`s prohibition of homosexuality, along with adultery, incest
and bestiality, was a fundamental part of the new code of sexual morality

"The revolution begun by the Torah, when it declared war on the
practices of the [surrounding] world, wrought [along with ethical
monotheism] the most far-reaching changes in history," says noted author
talk-show host Dennis Prager. "When Judaism demanded that all sexual
activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world."

About 150 years ago, some German sodomites coined the
scientific-sounding word "homosexuality," claiming that its devotees are
that way and therefore cannot help themselves. Other same-sex
embraced the Spartan creed which saw same-sex relationships as more moral
than the traditional man-woman marriage (a concept that became an
important part of Nazi ideology). Both groups` ideas were widely accepted,
and homosexuality became known in Europe before and after World War I
as the "German vice."

In this country, a similar campaign to legitimatize homosexuality has
created sweeping changes in public attitudes over the past thirty-five
years. In
1987 two gay activists, Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, described the
campaign`s tactics. They saw the campaign`s first task as desensitizing
public about homosexuality so that indifference to it, if not acceptance,
would replace the repugnance most people felt. Another tactic was to cast
gays "as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined
reflex to assume the role of protector." Still another was to talk "about
and gayness as loudly and as often as possible...[since] almost any
begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it."

After achieving sufficient public acceptance in a particular place, a
final tactic was to get "tough with the remaining opponents, [who] must be
vilified" by making "anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will
want to dissociate themselves from such types."

The AIDS epidemic has provided an important vehicle for the
effective use of the above-mentioned tactics. Sympathetic news reporting
sentimental events such as "AIDS awareness" gatherings, which evoke pity
for gays while obscuring the fact that it was the unimaginable level of
promiscuity that facilitated the spread of AIDS in that community, have
served to desensitize people to homosexuality, and even to win their
acceptance of it.

"Get tough" tactics by homosexuals against those opposing them have
been going on for years, almost always below the radar of the major media.
1997, for example, a Christian group at Harvard Law School scheduled a
meeting to mark "National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day." Its main
speaker was a now-married former homosexual, who, citing his own
experience, came to offer hope "for those homosexuals who desperately seek
a way to leave the lifestyle of self-destruction behind.

Posters for the meeting were torn down within a day at this bastion of
free speech, where so many of our top future judges are trained. They were
replaced by others maintaining, among other things, that opposition to
homosexuality is anti-Semitic. One new poster, imitating the original,
"For those struggling with Judaism, there is hope in the truth. You can
away (to the gas chambers)." Another read, "Open to the entire Harvard
Community. Except you, yes, the Jewish-looking kid...Non-Aryans will be
required to present proof of
non-mongrel ancestry for at least four generations."

At the meeting itself, gay activists thronged the entrance. Many wore
T-shirts or held signs demanding "Stop the Hate" as though the mere
suggestion that gays can change is in itself hateful. To these politically
correct law students, doubts that homosexuality should be eagerly
almost makes one a Nazi.

By now, the campaign to legitimatize homosexuality has succeeded in
getting most of the media, and much of America, to accept it per se. The
media-legitimization process began with the Broadway theater, spread to
movies and has finally reached television.

In April 2000, New York Times political correspondent Richard
Berke told the Gay Journalists` Association (whose very existence should
startling) that "since I`ve been [at the Times] there`s been a dramatic
shift: I
remember coming and wondering if there were...any gay reporters there or
whatever. Now it`s like, there are times when you look at the front-page
and...literally three-quarters of the people deciding what`s on the front
are not-so-closeted homosexuals."

Today, of course, the campaign to legitimatize homosexuality is
focusing on gay marriage. The time is long overdue to recognize, combat
reverse the fierce effort to legitimatize homosexuality in America.
stability rests on the faithful marriages and enduring families whose
structure Judaism was the first to define.

Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former clinical director at Kingsboro
Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn, has served as chairman of the Task Force
Religion and Mental Health, Commission on Synagogue Relations, New York
Federation of Jewish Philanthropies.

1. Killing terrorist chieftains is legal
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Apr. 22, 2004

I challenge Jack Straw to distinguish Israel's killing of Rantisi from the
targeting of Al-Sadr, Saddam's sons, or Osama bin Laden

The United States Army was recently given a highly specific military
order. According to the top US commander in Iraq, Lt. General Ricardo
Sanchez, the mission is to kill radical Shi'ite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

This order to target al-Sadr for extrajudicial killing is perfectly
legitimate and lawful under the laws of war. Al-Sadr is a combatant, and
it is proper to kill a combatant during an ongoing war unless he
surrenders first. It doesn't matter whether the combatant is a cook or
bomb-maker, a private or a general. Nor does it matter whether he wears an
army uniform, a three-piece suit, or a kaffiyeh. So long as he is in the
chain of command, he is an appropriate target, regardless of whether he is
actually engaged in combat at the time he is killed or is fast asleep. Of
course, his killing would be extrajudicial. Military attacks against
combatants are not preceded by jury trials or judicial warrants.

Al-Sadr fits squarely into any reasonable definition of combatant. He
leads a militia that has declared war on American and coalition forces, as
well as on civilians, both foreign and Iraqi. He is at the top of the
chain of command, and it is he who presses the on-off button for the
killings. Like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar Mohammed, he is a proper
military target, so long as he can be killed without disproportional
injury to non-combatants.

If American forces can capture him, they are permitted that option as
well, but they are not required - under the laws of war - to endanger the
lives of their soldiers in order to spare Al-Sadr's life. Indeed, unless
Al-Sadr were to surrender, it is entirely lawful for American troops to
kill him rather than to capture him - if it were decided that this was
tactically advantageous.

Although US commanders mentioned capture along with killing as an option,
it may well be preferable not to capture Al-Sadr, for fear that his
imprisonment would stimulate even more hostage-taking in an attempt to
exchange hostages for Al-Sadr. The order to kill or capture him may well
be a euphemism for "kill him unless he surrenders first" (as Saddam
Hussein did).

The world seems to understand and accept the American decision to target
Al-Sadr for killing, as it accepts our belated decision to try to kill Bin
Laden and Mullah Omar Mohammed. There has been little international
condemnation of America's policy of extrajudicial killing of terrorist
leaders. Indeed, the predominant criticism has been that we didn't get Bin
Laden and Mullah Omar Mohammed before September 11.

HOW THEN to explain the world's very different reaction to Israel's
decision to target terrorist leaders, such as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Dr.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the former leaders of Hamas. Surely, there is no legal
or moral difference between Yassin and Rantisi on the one hand, and
Al-Sadr on the other. Yassin and Rantisi both personally ordered terrorist
attacks against Israeli civilians, approved them in advance, and praised
them when they succeeded.

Each was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths and was involved in
ordering and planning more terrorist attacks at the times of their timely
deaths. They were terrorist commanders, just as Al-Sadr was. They were
both killed, along with their military bodyguards, in a manner that
minimized civilian casualties, despite the fact that they generally - and
unlawfully - hid among civilians, using them as human shields.

Israel waited until they, and their fellow terrorist guards, were alone
and then targeted them successfully. There was no realistic possibility of
capturing them alive, since they had sworn to die fighting; and any
attempt to extirpate them from the civilians among whom they were hiding
would have resulted in numerous civilian casualties. (Israel does try to
capture terrorist commanders in the West Bank, where it has large numbers
of troops on the ground; but it employs targeted killings in Gaza, where
it has a far more limited military presence.)

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the decision to target
Yassin, Rantisi, Al-Sadr, Bin Laden, or any other terrorist is tactically
wise or unwise, or whether it will have the effect of reducing or
increasing the dangers to civilians. But no reasonable argument can be
made that the decision to target these combatants - these terrorist
commanders - is unlawful under the laws of war or under international law.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was simply wrong when he declared
that targeted assassinations of this kind - specifically referring to the
killing of Yassin and Rantisi - are unlawful and in violation of
international law. And he knows it because his own government has
authorized the killing of terrorist leaders who threaten British

I challenge Straw to distinguish Israel's killing of Yassin and Rantisi
from the coalition's targeting of Al-Sadr, Saddam Hussein and his sons,
Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar Mohammed.

He could not do so. Any claims that Hamas is divided into military and
political (or religious) wings is belied by the fact that Yassin and
Rantisi both ordered the military wing of Hamas to engage in acts of
terrorism and approved specific murderous acts in advance.

If Straw cannot distinguish these situations, then does he disapprove of
the American policy of killing Al-Sadr? If British troops were to have
Al-Sadr - or, for that matter, Bin Laden - in their sights, would they
hold their fire because Straw has told them it would be illegal to pull
the trigger?

We have a right to know the answers to these questions, since American and
British troops are supposedly operating under the same rules of
engagement. Or would Straw simply (and honestly) say he is not applying
the same rules to Israel as he is to his own nation and its military

The international community cannot retain any credibility if it continues
to apply a different, and more demanding, standard to Israel than it does
to more powerful nations.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is The Case
for Israel.
This article can also be read at

2. Once upon a Likud of Principle? No longer:

3. Politically Incorrect Teddy Bears:

4. Nice piece on Conspiracy Nonsense:

5. Minor Correction: Evidently Gonen Segev, now in jail for smuggling
25,000 "ecstasy" pills (was it for personal use), is a pediatrician and not a
veterinarian. (Some web sites say he is a vet.)

6. Q: How do you feel about Gonen Segev facing oodles of years ion
A: Ecstatic.

7. Fini Badash, who had been a leader in the Tsomet party that Segev
abandoned to join Shimon Peres' governmenbt and push through "Oslo II",
was asked about Segev's bust for smuggling dope. He responded that anyone
capable of selling out their ideology and constituents in exchange for a
Volvo (the car driven by cabinet ministers in Israel despite Scandinavian
treaschery) should not surprise us when it turns out he is also willing to
smuggle dope.

8. New Jewish Liberal Cause: Encouraging Jewish childlessness:

9. Treason Chic and Vanunu:

10. More Treason Chic and Vanunu:
Eye On The Media: The meaning of Vanunu
Bret Stephens Apr. 23, 2004

Shortly before his release Wednesday from the Shikma prison in Ashkelon,
Mordechai Vanunu said one true thing: "I won. I'll be free. The gates and
the locks will be opened. They didn't succeed in breaking me or driving me
mad all these years in solitary confinement."

Indeed Vanunu has won. It isn't every ex-con who, after 18 years, walks
out of prison into the arms of a small army of supporters, including a
Nobel Peace Laureate, an Oscar nominee and a couple of British members of
parliament. It isn't every ex-con who gets respectful editorial treatment
in newspapers from Sydney to London. It isn't every ex-con for whom a
luxury seaside flat is arranged.

Ordinarily, this is the sort of treatment given to a serious political
dissident, a Wei Jingsheng or Natan Sharansky. That Vanunu should get it
as well suggests that, to his admirers, he stands in relation to Israel as
Sharansky stood in relation to the USSR.


WISDOM, WRITES essayist and critic Paul Berman, "consists of the ability
to be shocked." That's an ability that's been greatly dulled in Israel
over the past 42 months of outrage. But let's try again to be shocked,
starting with a piece by Ed O'Loughlin of the Sydney Morning Herald, which
I am told is a reputable paper.

The gist of his April 17 report is captured by the paper's editorial
summary: "Whistleblower's crime was to offend against Israel's unifying
creeds." Let's parse that.

First, "whistleblower." Earlier this week, Gerald Steinberg noted in these
pages that whistleblower "refers to individuals who go public with
information on corrupt practices and violations of the law, enabling the
constituted authorities to take over and hold the culprits accountable
through due process of law." Vanunu did nothing of the sort. Instead, he
"imposed his personal views on the elected officials and representatives
of the Israeli government," thereby violating "due process of law and the
core principles of democracy."

Steinberg's argument strikes me as unassailable. But the important point
here isn't verbal accuracy. It's journalistic balance. Given there's a
controversy over whether to describe Vanunu as a traitor or whistleblower,
why does O'Loughlin choose whistleblower? Great care is taken by the news
media to find neutral descriptors for people Israelis call terrorists and
Palestinians call martyrs. In Vanunu's case, no such effort is made.

So here's an open-and-shut case of bias in the first word of O'Loughlin's
article. Next: "Vanunu's crime was to offend grievously against Israel's
unifying creeds Zionism, Jewish identity and total loyalty to the
government on questions of national security." That is, Vanunu became
"involved with left-wing and pro-Palestinian causes"; converted to
Anglicanism; and leaked information on the Dimona reactor to the Sunday
Times. "The fact that he was due to obtain $US100,000 from a related book
deal and serialization deal make him doubly odious."

This passage marks O'Loughlin's departure from the realm of bias to
flat-out mendacity. Vanunu's crime, in fact, was to violate the terms of
his security clearance at Dimona. Terms he signed. This is nothing
strange: Every government on earth swears certain people to secrecy and
imposes high penalties, including lengthy jail sentences, for any breach.
The Jerusalem Post has obtained a copy of Vanunu's clearance, and we
reproduce and translate it alongside.

But nowhere is this detail mentioned in O'Loughlin's report. Instead,
Vanunu is described as a man who suffered mainly for rejecting the
political, religious, and military shibboleths of the Jewish state. Vanunu
didn't break Israel's law, you see. He rejected its anti-Palestinian,
anti-Christian, militaristic culture, and in Israel what you get for that
is long years in solitary.

Credulous Australian readers may be forgiven for believing this, but
O'Loughlin cannot be forgiven for reporting it. Pro-Palestinian views
forbidden? Please: This newspaper has a Palestinian columnist in Daoud
Kuttab and Haaretz regularly publishes the work of avowed anti-Zionists
such as Meron Benvenisti and Haim Hanegbi. As for religion, Israelis
freely dabble in everything from Buddhism to Baptism. As for militarism,
Israel has one of the most active peace movements anywhere.

It goes on. O'Loughlin writes that Vanunu was convicted of treason and
espionage "even though he made no attempt to provide his secrets to
foreign or hostile powers." How broadcasting those secrets publicly and
so to every foreign or hostile power differs from this in consequence if
not intent to Israel is not explained.

O'Loughlin also writes that Vanunu's years in solitary confinement were
"ostensibly on security grounds." Note ostensibly. What O'Loughlin omits
is that in his prison writings Vanunu rendered precise sketches of the
Dimona plant and, knowing he was being censored, wrote, "Don't worry, I'll
fill you in when I am freed."

SO MUCH is contained in O'Loughlin's article. It would have been less
egregious if he had bothered to explain the Israeli position or even quote
an Israeli spokesperson. But no such effort is made. The floor is Vanunu's

The same goes for much of the rest of the news media. Vanunu, The Guardian
editorialized this week, "may be a traitor to the Israeli state... but in
exposing a secret which needed to be told he has shown a higher duty to
wider humanity." The Financial Times says the remaining restrictions on
Vanunu's freedom "border on the sadistic."

A couple of points here. If an Israeli traitor is a hero to "wider
humanity" and therefore in a category with Oleg Penkovsky and Claus von
Stauffenberg, then Israel has no right to exist. As for sadism, it seems
curious that any truly sadistic state would have bothered to release
Vanunu at all, instead of arranging an accident in prison or executing him
outright. That Vanunu can emerge from prison as he did, despite being
detested universally by Israelis, the security establishment most of all,
testifies to the scrupulousness of the Israeli justice system, not its

The larger point made about Vanunu is that the West cannot demand the
wider Middle East to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction without
demanding as much from Israel. But the underlying assumption is that a
nuclear-armed Israel is neither more nor less a threat to the peace of the
world than, say, a nuclear-armed Syria. Do serious people actually believe
this? Well, yes. They also believe that if Israel disarmed unilaterally,
Israel's enemies would have no reason to seek WMD.

Even this argument is disingenuous: It isn't so much that Vanunu's
admirers want Israel to disarm so that others may follow; it's that they
want only Israel to disarm. Thus Vanunu, who in 1981 protested the
destruction of the Osirak reactor, now says he wants to see Dimona
destroyed just as Osirak was. And The Guardian, which claims in its Vanunu
leader to advocate a nuclear-free Middle East, editorialized in September
2003 that "Iran does have one deeply persuasive reason for acquiring
nuclear arms: national security." "Iran's fears are real," went the title.
Apparently, however, Israel's fears are not real.

ZEH HAFUCH, say Israelis: It's upside down. In the imagination of much of
the West today, Palestinian terrorism is a response to Israeli militarism;
Yasser Arafat is a democrat and Ariel Sharon is a strongman; and the Arab
and Muslim worlds only seek WMD to defend against aggressive Israel.

It is in this climate of moral inversion and reverse causality that a man
like Vanunu can emerge as a hero to right-thinkers everywhere. The rest of
us should think hard about what that means before the shock is absorbed
without being felt.

This article can also be read at

11. News from the Palestinian Newspaper published in Hebrew:

12. Why Mideast Instability is Good: