Obama Critique

It is obvious for those who know me personally, read my comments and postings on Facebook and read many of my blog posts, that I am not a great fan of President Obama. It is true that I approve of very little that this President has done and that I had issues with him, even while he was a candidate for President during the 2008 campaign season.

At that time, it was not only his inexperience that I felt made him unqualified for the office of the most powerful person on this planet, but also some aspects of his background that I found suspect. (No, I am not a birther!) Similarly, I felt that it was enlightening when he refused to reveal certain information from his past, including college records and his thesis and was also unconvinced that he had listened to sermons of the Reverend (I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, but had never heard antisemitic or anti-American utterances from him.

I have also not been unaffected by the fact that President Obama has not stopped campaigning since taking office and has been significantly less than transparent in his Presidency (although he promised to be the most transparent administration ever), or that he has speechified so much during these past 21 months that I cringe whenever I hear his voice. While it disturbed me that he was less than honest when he spoke about the healthcare monstrosity that he sought to pass (No! Pediatricians do NOT perform tonsillectomies, so they cannot decide to forgo antibiotic treatment of a child’s ear infections in favor of surgery to get more money from the insurance company! And No! A medical doctor who treats a patient’s diabetes cannot earn more money from the insurance companies by performing a foot amputation. SURGEONS perform amputations not internists.), opined that the Boston police acted when he knew few details about what really happened, and gave a ‘shout out’ to someone during the first press conference that he gave after the Fort Hood terrorist attack, that is not the point of this critique.

It may surprise some, but I actually do not have much of an issue with the large number of vacations that President Obama has taken (except for his December 2008 Hawaii vacation that made things a bit difficult for us when we were there). The job is extremely stressful, and downtime is essential for anyone who holds this office. Indeed, a President never has a true vacation. How can he? The country still has to function and the President must always stay in contact and be apprised of everything that is happening in the country.

My critique of the President’s actions involve his attitude (and the attitudes of many of the liberal ‘elites’) towards the American electorate, many of whom voted for him in 2008. This attitude towards the electorate was obvious even during the campaign when Obama noted that:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In other words, they are religious, racist, xenophobic gun fanatics and that explains their opposition to Democrat principles.

His latest reflections on the electorate include further negative observations about the country that elected him and that he serves.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country’s scared.”

So, Americans who do not support Obama’s policies are not opposed to them because they do not believe in them, but because they are too afraid and therefore, intellectually incapable of comprehending that these policies are wise.

This came on the heels of the President’s reasoning that the opposition by the electorate to his massive healthcare overhaul was caused, not by their opposition to his policies, but his failure to sufficiently communicate the positive aspects and rationale of the health care law that he advocated, despite the numerous speeches that he delivered on the subject and the many rallies that he held in support of this legislation. In other words, we are too stupid to see the wisdom of the plan that was so obvious to him and his allies in Congress.

How can Obama tell Hispanic voters in an interview on Univision, that they need to vote to help defeat the ’enemy’? He specifically said to Latino voters:

“We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

It is not acceptable that the President of the United States thinks that it is appropriate to call a significant part of the citizens of this country the ‘enemy'. He was elected and was sworn in as President of the United States to serve ALL of the citizens and not just the Democrats, or others who think like him. It is further unacceptable that the President has tried to separate Americans on racial, political, ideological and economic lines. It is also very troubling that he cannot accept that the electorate can hold opinions different from his and still be intelligent. (He subsequently admitted that it was a mistake to use the word "enemy' and admitted that he should have used the word 'opponent').

The postracial President? We are not blue states or red states, but one United States? Not at this time. Not with this President.

Op-Ed Contributor - An End to Israel’s Invisibility - NYTimes.com

Following is an excellent op ed piece by Michael Oren. It is factual in nature and has a lot of citations that can be researched.

Op-Ed Contributor - An End to Israel’s Invisibility - NYTimes.com

An End to Israel’s Invisibility
By MICHAEL B. OREN
NEARLY 63 years after the United Nations recognized the right of the Jewish people to independence in their homeland — and more than 62 years since Israel’s creation — the Palestinians are still denying the Jewish nature of the state. “Israel can name itself whatever it wants,” said the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, while, according to the newspaper Haaretz, his chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that the Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Back in 1948, opposition to the legitimacy of a Jewish state ignited a war. Today it threatens peace.

Mr. Abbas and Mr. Erekat were responding to the call by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, enabling his government to consider extending the moratorium on West Bank construction. “Such a step by the Palestinian Authority would be a confidence-building measure,” Mr. Netanyahu explained, noting that Israel was not demanding recognition as a prerequisite for direct talks. It would “open a new horizon of hope as well as trust among broad parts of the Israeli public.”

Why should it matter whether the Palestinians or any other people recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people? Indeed, Israel never sought similar acknowledgment in its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Some analysts have suggested that Mr. Netanyahu is merely making a tactical demand that will block any chance for the peace they claim he does not really want.

Affirmation of Israel’s Jewishness, however, is the very foundation of peace, its DNA. Just as Israel recognizes the existence of a Palestinian people with an inalienable right to self-determination in its homeland, so, too, must the Palestinians accede to the Jewish people’s 3,000-year connection to our homeland and our right to sovereignty there. This mutual acceptance is essential if both peoples are to live side by side in two states in genuine and lasting peace.

So why won’t the Palestinians reciprocate? After all, the Jewish right to statehood is a tenet of international law. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 called for the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people” in the land then known as Palestine and, in 1922, the League of Nations cited the “historical connection of the Jewish people” to that country as “the grounds for reconstituting their national home.” In 1947, the United Nations authorized the establishment of “an independent Jewish state,” and recently, while addressing the General Assembly, President Obama proclaimed Israel as “the historic homeland of the Jewish people.” Why, then, can’t the Palestinians simply say “Israel is the Jewish state”?

The reason, perhaps, is that so much of Palestinian identity as a people has coalesced around denying that same status to Jews. “I will not allow it to be written of me that I have ... confirmed the existence of the so-called Temple beneath the Mount,” Yasir Arafat told President Bill Clinton in 2000.

For Palestinians, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state also means accepting that the millions of them residing in Arab countries would be resettled within a future Palestinian state and not within Israel, which their numbers would transform into a Palestinian state in all but name. Reconciling with the Jewish state means that the two-state solution is not a two-stage solution leading, as many Palestinians hope, to Israel’s dissolution.

Which is precisely why Israelis seek the basic reassurance that the Palestinian Authority is ready to accept our state — to accept us. Israelis need to know that further concessions would not render us more vulnerable to terrorism and susceptible to unending demands. Though recognition of Israel as the Jewish state would not shield us from further assaults or pressure, it would prove that the Palestinians are serious about peace.

The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the refusal to recognize Jews as a people, indigenous to the region and endowed with the right to self-government. Criticism of Israeli policies often serves to obscure this fact, and peace continues to elude us. By urging the Palestinians to recognize us as their permanent and legitimate neighbors, Prime Minister Netanyahu is pointing the way out of the current impasse: he is identifying the only path to co-existence.

Michael B. Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the United States.

David Harris: Letter from a Forgotten Jew

Here is a link to a letter from David Harris of the American Jewish Congress, describing the Jewish refugees caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do not hear much about these people, although they numbered greater than the Arab/Palestinian refugees that we hear about ad nauseum. Why? Because, unlike the Arab refugees who have settled for generations in refugee camps living on the goodwill of other people in the world, constantly blaming Israel and being used and abused by their Arab brothers, Jewish refugees from countries such as Libya, Iraq, Morocco,etc were absorbed by Israel and began to live productive lives. Those who settled in countries other than Israel also acclimated themselves to their new homes and began to live productive and successful lives. The Arab refugees and their brothers should learn from the Jews and stop living on handouts and blaming others for their misfortune.

David Harris: Letter from a Forgotten Jew

EXCLUSIVE 1sthand Account of Achille Lauro Hijacking from US Navy Corpsman

25 years ago, Palestinian terrorists hijacked a cruise ship in Egyptian waters. Shortly after they hijacked the ship, they shot Leon Klinghoffer, a 69 year old American Jew, who was in a wheelchair and dumped his body overboard. His crime? Being American and Jewish. Never forget! Here is a link to a first hand description of the incident from a US Navy corpsman on a nearby ship.

EXCLUSIVE 1sthand Account of Achille Lauro Hijacking from US Navy Corpsman

Antisemitism and the Media- Part II

In my previous post, I wrote about the obvious antisemitism that is displayed by the world media when Israel’s attempts at self defense are reported. In what other ways does the media show its’ bias? The mainstream media responds differently to expressions of anti-Semitism from people on the left and the right. In the past few years, two prominent Hollywood personalities have made clear expressions of anti-Semitism. The two proponents of these anti-Semitic feelings were treated very differently by the media.

Mel Gibson, a religious conservative, uttered offensive antisemitic remarks when he was apprehended during a traffic stop. He was drunk at the time, but that was not accepted as an excuse. He was lambasted by the media for his comments, and deservedly so. The entertainment industry followed suit and expressed its’ disapproval of Gibson’s comments and the rest of his bigoted activities that evening. There are indications that his career has never recovered from these and other racist remarks.

Contrast this with the media response to antisemitic comments uttered by Oliver Stone. During a recent interview with the Sunday Times, he claimed that Jewish control of the media encouraged Hollywood to focus on the Holocaust and also prevented the media to put the rise of Hitler in Germany in correct context. He also claimed that Israel had adversely affected American foreign policy for years and stated that Iran was not as bad as it was being portrayed. A few days later, he made a half-hearted apology for these horrendous comments. What did the media do? Not much. Did his career suffer? Not really.

Why? I contend that the difference in the liberal media’s treatment of Mel Gibson’s and Oliver Stone’s anti-Semitic remarks stems from the fact that Gibson is a religious conservative and Stone is a liberal progressive, who espouses many of the ideas that they themselves support. Among those ideas, it is fashionable among the Hollywood liberal elite to criticize Israeli policy (in a way that can only be antisemitic as well), and blindly supporting the Palestinian narrative without accurate knowledge of the facts on the ground. (As an example, let me remind you of the Time article that I recently wrote about on this blog.) They act as if Israel is huge and strong like Goliath, while the Palestinians and other Arabs are little Davids. The liberal media continues its’ blind support of the ‘downtrodden’ Palestinians because it is populated by lazy individuals who continue to advocate the progressive/liberal nonsense that ignores the size and population difference between Israel and the 50+ Arab/Muslim nations. Reality is not changed by laziness.

Antisemitism and the Media- Part I

Antisemitism seems to have become mainstream, nowadays. Anti-Israel sentiment is dismissed by those who espouse it, as mere policy disagreements with Israel and its actions. However, this anti-Israel sentiment rises to the level of rank antisemitism when a double standard is employed by Israel’s critics. These critics seem to expect more from Israel than what would be expected from other countries in a similar position.

Israel has been bombarded with thousands of rockets from Gaza, since the unilateral withdrawal that took place in 2005. After this unilateral withdrawal, the Palestinians destroyed structures and greenhouses that were left in usable condition, and then elected a terrorist organization to govern in Gaza. Thousands of rockets then began to rain down on Israel, from positions deep within Gaza and from areas closer to the border with Israel.

In response to these rockets, Israel is has been encouraged to utilize restraint and not to respond militarily. Israel’s leaders exercised enormous restraint for an inordinate amount of time until December 2008 when they launched Operation Cast Lead into Gaza to rout out the terrorists launching these attacks and to destroy their firing positions. World leaders and others who criticize Israel and claim that the Gaza campaign was disproportionate should ask themselves what their responses would be if faced with attacks launched against their civilians from enemy territory. Would they permit such egregious behavior towards their own citizens without responding in kind? I highly doubt it. But Israel is expected to absorb such attacks without reacting.

This double standard has been more pronounced recently in the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla incident. Israel has placed a blockade on Gaza that is permissible under international law, to prevent the importation of goods and supplies that could be used by Hamas and other terror organizations to construct smuggling tunnels and produce other items that can be used against Israeli civilians. In an obvious attempt to run the blockade, the Free Gaza movement organized the flotilla. Everyone knows that activists on the Mavi Marmara attacked the Israeli commandos (the video clearly shows this), but Israel is still accused of using disproportionate force, In addition, members of the media and the international community conveniently forget that Gaza also shares a border with Egypt, which participates in the blockade of Gaza, along with Israel. Much of the media also did not accurately report the story of this altercation, and in fact, some media outlets (specifically, Reuters) altered photographs of the incident to obscure the fact that many of the activists on the Mavi Marmara were armed with deadly weapons. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Reuters has altered photographs in an attempt to implicate Israel in unethical and inappropriate behavior. Photographs of Beirut during the 2006 Lebanon war were altered to infer that the damage to Beirut was much greater than it actually was.

I doubt that this will be the last time that Reuter’s unethically does this.

A Biased TIME Article and My Response

Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace

I am writing in response to the article in cover story of the September 13, 2010 issue, entitle “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace”. From the photograph on the cover, to the article itself, I have never read a more outrageous piece of journalistic tripe, in my life. The article is merely an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic diatribe that has somehow found legitimacy in what used to be a respected magazine. Most of the article claims that Israelis (the vast majority of whom are Jewish) are concerned only with their creature comforts and making money and are not interested in the peace process, but then ends with the statement that they cannot help but be involved. The ‘author’ of this article has refuted his basic premise and, on his own, has revealed his article to be a waste of four pages, a cover photo and the time of anyone who took the time to read it.

This article also perpetuates the age-old stereotype of the Jew who cares only about money and nothing else. I thought that we had moved past such ugly stereotyping, especially in a mainstream publication, but I was mistaken. For this author, and the editor of Time to believe that Israelis do not care about peace merely because 2 1/2 years have passed since the last terror attack (that is before the 2 attacks this week that killed 4 people and were meant to derail the peace process) is also demeaning. Does he really believe that a population that has sustained terrorist attacks for years, and has suffered so many wars that have killed so many of their sons, fathers and brothers do not care about peace? What type of aliens is he portraying Israelis (and other Jews) to be? Does he truly think that they are less traumatized than the United States is after the terrorist attacks of September 11th?

Karl Vick reveals his profound and complete ignorance of the mind set of Israelis, as well as a deep denial of the facts on the ground. In a nation where not one person has been left untouched by terrorism, where every soldier’s death is felt personally, where military service is mandatory and expected for all young adults and where many older adults remain in the reserves and perform military reserve duty on a regular basis, they all care deeply about peace. This is a country whose entire population mourned when the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev (the two IDF soldiers whose kidnapping by Hezbollah sparked the 2006 Lebanon war) were returned by Hezbollah in July 2008. This is a country whose mothers send their sons off to fight for the country’s very survival and whose fathers fought in previous wars. This is a country that was torn apart when 50,000 of its’ soldiers were mobilized to remove 8,000 of its’ own citizens from their communities and homes in 2005, in the name of peace. Many of these wounds are still open today, five years later, and many of these displaced residents are still suffering today.

Israelis have always squeezed as much pleasure and joy from their daily lives as possible. They go out to cafes, clubs and restaurants during the week, and seek respite at the beach after a day of work. They work hard, create, invest, innovate and yes, even make money. Why have they always done this? Why do Israelis (and Jews, historically) engage in these behaviors that Mr. Vick, in his ignorance, says reveals that they do not care about peace, but are concerned only with making money, sitting in the sun and living their lives as Californians do? It is because they do not know what tomorrow will bring. It is because they have suffered through numerous wars and countless terrorist attacks that they live life with gusto, use their creativity and try to get the most out of life. It is the Israelis’ zest for life that has sustained them for decades that this ‘journalist’ sees as a sign that they do not desire peace.

Does he really think that the Palestinian question is far from Israelis’ minds when they have to go through security examinations every time they enter a mall, or a restaurant, or an office building? Does he truly think that they are unconcerned with Palestinians when thousands of rockets have flown from Gaza after Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, instead of the Palestinians constructively using the structures and greenhouses that were left intact?

How about a more rational explanation for what he sees as indifference? Perhaps Israelis are tired of the peace process because they have seen very little in return for the significant concessions that Israel has made. No matter what Israel does, she is the object of the world’s disdain. Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza and received rockets in return fired by Hamas and its’ compatriots. Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Hezbollah established strongholds in Southern Lebanon allowing it to attack and murder Israeli soldiers and kidnap two of them. Israel had to fight another war against Lebanon in 2006 and was again pressured to leave before the job was finished, leaving the relatively useless UN in charge. Hezbollah has since rearmed with more rockets that have a much longer range and again reestablished itself near Israel’s northern border. Even the ‘moderate’ Palestinian Authority, the supposed negotiating partner for peace, expresses one view to the Western world, while continuing to perpetuate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment by teaching their children to hate Jews and that all of Israel is occupied land, and by honoring and commemorating Palestinians who have committed terrorist attacks and murdered innocent Israelis.

This biased piece of what Time assumes passes for journalism has prompted me to cancel my subscription to your magazine. I will try to convince as many people as I can to follow suit and cancel their subscriptions to your rag. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Two great opinion pieces on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (Round 105?????????)

George Will

George Will-The ‘two-state’ delusion

-'Twas a famous victory for diplomacy when, in 1991 in Madrid, Israelis and Palestinians, orchestrated by the United States, at last engaged in direct negotiations. Almost a generation later, U.S. policy has succeeded in prodding the Palestinians away from their recent insistence on "proximity talks" -- in which they have talked to the Israelis through American intermediaries -- and to direct negotiations. But negotiations about what?

Idle talk about a "binational state" has long since died. Even disregarding the recent fates of multinational states -- e.g., the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia -- binationalism is impossible if Israel is to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people. No significant Israeli constituency disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: "The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders."

Rhetoric about a "two-state solution" is de rigueur. It also is delusional, given two recent, searing experiences.

The only place for a Palestinian state is the West Bank, which Israel has occupied -- legally under international law -- since repelling the 1967 aggression launched from there. The West Bank remains an unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate, the disposition of which is to be settled by negotiations. Michael Oren, now Israel's ambassador to the United States, said several years before becoming ambassador:
"There is no Israeli leadership that appears either willing or capable of removing 100,000 Israelis from their West Bank homes. . . . The evacuation of a mere 8,100 Israelis from Gaza in 2005 required 55,000 IDF [Israel Defense Forces] troops -- the largest Israeli military operation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War -- and was profoundly traumatic."

Twenty-one Israeli settlements were dismantled; even the bodies of Israelis buried in Gaza were removed. After a deeply flawed 2006 election encouraged by the United States, there was in 2007 essentially a coup in Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas. So now Israel has on its western border, 44 miles from Tel Aviv, an entity dedicated to Israel's destruction, collaborative with Iran and possessing a huge arsenal of rockets.

Rocket attacks from Gaza increased dramatically after Israel withdrew. The number of U.N. resolutions deploring this? Zero.

The closest precedent for that bombardment was the Nazi rocket attacks on London, which were answered by the destruction of Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities. When Israel struck back at Hamas, the "international community" was theatrically appalled.

A senior cabinet member -- Moshe Yaalon, strategic affairs minister and possible future prime minister -- says "our withdrawals strengthened jihadist Islam," adding, "We have the second Islamic republic in the Middle East -- the first in Iran, the second in Gaza: Hamastan."

Israel's withdrawals include the one that strengthened the Iranian client on Israel's northern border, in southern Lebanon. Since the 2006 war provoked by Hezbollah's incessant rocketing of northern Israel, Hezbollah has rearmed and possesses as many as 60,000 rockets. Today, Netanyahu says, Israel's problem is less the Israel-Lebanon border than it is the Lebanon-Syria border: Hezbollah has received from Syria -- which gets them from Iran -- Scud missiles capable of striking Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. A leader of Hezbollah says, "If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Because upward of a million immigrants have come from the former Soviet Union, today one-sixth of Israelis speak Russian. Israel has Russian-language newspapers and television. Russian Israelis are largely responsible for Avigdor Lieberman being foreign minister. Yoram Peri, professor of Israel studies at the University of Maryland, says these immigrants "don't understand how a state that can be crossed in half an hour by car would be willing to even talk about relinquishing territories to its seemingly perpetual enemies." These immigrants know that Russia's strategic depth -- space -- defeated Napoleon and Hitler.

Netanyahu, who is not the most conservative member of the coalition government he heads, endorses a two-state solution but says that any West Bank Palestinian state must be demilitarized and prevented from making agreements with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. To prevent the importation of missiles and other arms, Israel would need, Netanyahu says, a military presence on the West Bank's eastern border with Jordan. Otherwise, there will be a third Islamic republic, and a second one contiguous to Israel.

So, again: Negotiations about what?


Abbas has other ideas - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews


Abbas has other ideas
Op-ed: Palestinians don’t want direct talks to succeed, as they prefer one-state solution
Mordechai Kedar

Anyone familiar with the sly way of thinking characterizing the current Palestinian leadership knows the truth: Following the show in Washington, they shall find a way to thwart the direct negotiations.

Netanyahu scares them, mostly because of his political ability to secure an agreement. He has no meaningful opposition on the Right, and Kadima is just waiting for a sign from him to join the government, embrace him, and support him should the Right quit the coalition. The Palestinians fear exactly that – because they cannot finalize such deal.

The first reason for this is the refugee problem. Any Palestinian or Arab leader who says something that is interpreted as any kind of concession on the right of return – which would bring millions of Arabs into Israel – knows that he shall immediately be accused of treason, and Hamas will have a field day with it.

Indeed, the education systems in the Palestinian Authority and in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan continue to perpetrate the notion of return in every possible way.

Moreover, the PLO leadership fears that in the case of an agreement that would include “an end to the conflict” and “no more demands,” it will find itself mixed up with Syria and Lebanon, which are interested in getting rid of the 1948 refugees and their descendents. These two countries may even sabotage an agreement by expelling hundreds of thousands of them to Palestine – this is the last thing the Palestinian leadership wants.

The second reason is Jerusalem. Under the leadership of a rightist Israeli government, partitioning the city appears to be an impossible mission, and the Palestinian leadership cannot present its public with a deal that would include less than the dream outline by Arafat: “One Palestinian state with the holy Jerusalem as its capital.”

Living at world’s expense
Another reason is economic. For some years now, the Palestinian Authority has been making a good living off public and government funds from Europe, the US, and the Arab and Islamic world. This has reached the point where Palestinian per capita disposable income is double that of Egypt’s.

The PA leadership fears that the moment an independent Palestinian state is declared, donations would dry up, as the world will expect the Palestinians to start supporting themselves just like any other independent state. The Palestinians, who got used to living at the expense of others, cannot bear to think about the day where they’ll have to make a living on their own.

Finally, instead of an agreement it does not want, the Palestinian leadership sees an alternative. More and more voices, both Israeli and Arab, are calling for a one-state solution, which will be democratic and enable both people – the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Palestinians – to coexist in line with an agreed-upon arrangement, as is the case in Belgium.

Oddly enough, the one-state solution is endorsed in Israel both by the extreme Right, which still clings to the notion of the Greater Israel, and by the radical Left, which has no problem sharing a home with the Arabs, as long as everyone thinks that it’s being enlightened and liberal.

However, it appears that the one-state solution is to the liking of someone else: The Palestinian leadership, as this would spare it the need to concede something in writing.



In one state, the life of Palestinians would be better than today, as they will enjoy civilian rights in a modern state. And if at one point the Jews decide to run away (taking this modern state along with them,) this too would be a blessing – that way, they would gain the entire land without a deal and without concessions. So why enter negotiations?

Dr. Mordechai Keder, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University

More Mosque madness

Here is a link to another good article on this topic. The author opines that had those responsible for rebuilding Ground Zero done thier jobs appropriately, this would never have been an issue.

I cannot disagree.

Blame George Pataki for the Ground Zero mosque mess--John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes

THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE IS BELOW

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes
By Richard Z. Chesnoff


A Nazi propaganda film is finally being screened worldwide --- more than half-century after being shot. A 31 year-old Israeli is responsible

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Aside from Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps, nothing epitomizes the horrors of the Holocaust more than the infamous Warsaw Ghetto.
Surrounded by a barbed wire topped 10 foot high brick wall, it was into this tiny corner of the Polish capital that the Nazis herded up to 400,000 Jewish prisoners at a time; systematically starving them with barely 181 calories of rations per day, leaving them to die of hunger or disease or simply leaving them to languish while they unknowingly awaited shipment to Hitler's gas chambers.
It was here too that in the spring of 1943, a small band of heroic Jewish fighters launched a desperate uprising against their Nazis captors, a battle that ended only when the overwhelmingly powerful German forces leveled the ghetto and reduced it to rubble.
Yet barely a year before, In May 1942 -- two and half years after the Warsaw Ghetto was established and shortly before the Nazis sent the Ghetto's first 300,000 Jews to the extermination camp of Treblinka -- the Reich dispatched a crew of German soldiers to film Jewish life in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Their perverse propaganda goal: to record for posterity examples of the religious practices and "sub-human culture" of the soon to be eliminated judische Rasse, everything from a circumcision ceremony to a burial service; from the extreme poverty of the many to the supposed lack of concern of those few Jews who still had some assets.
Parts of this nefarious Nazi propaganda film were heart wrenchingly real; the Nazis had no compunction about showing Jews suffering. But other parts of it were carefully staged, a German Potemkin Village movie honed for propaganda and construed to discredit the Jews.
Horrifying snippets of it have appeared over the years: a starving child dying on the streets of the Ghetto while other Jews walk by or still others dine on meals at well stocked restaurants that never existed' Nazi appointed Jewish Ghetto police brutalizing fellow Jews.
Yet mysteriously the Nazis' propaganda film was never finished. For more than 50 years, the silent, unedited reels lay hidden in a secret East German film archive in boxes marked simply, "The Ghetto."



Then along came Yael Hersonski, a young Israeli documentary maker whose own grandmother had survived the Warsaw Ghetto. After gaining access to the long abandoned footage via the current German government, Hersonski wrote and directed A Film Unfinished, a staggering 90 minute documentary of the atrocities of life in the Warsaw Ghetto as filmed by the Nazis themselves. It is presented in America by the New York distributor Oscilloscope Laboratories .
Two-thirds of the 31 year old Hersonski's film consists of the original Nazi propaganda footage - including out-takes. The rest is comprised in part of the wrinkled faces of a handful of Warsaw ghetto survivors grimly watching an actual screening of the film and offering commentary (some clearly remember the Wermacht cameramen at work). Using an actor, Hersonski has also re-enacted the actual post-war testimony of one of the film's original German cameramen (now deceased).
But in this viewer's mind, the most fascinating parts of the unfinished film are its out-takes which at times clearly show the cameramen themselves caught in the shot or demonstrate how scenes were staged, then re-shot to produce a "better" anti-Semitic result.
A Film Unfinished has already won well deserved international plaudits It was the 2010 Sundance Film Festival Winner for World Cinema Documentary Editing, the 2010 Hot Docs Winner for Best International Feature and a prime selection at Germany's 2010 Berlinale.
Hersonski's "A Film Unfinished" opens today 18th in New York at The Film Forum (209 W. Houston Street) and Lincoln Plaza (1886 Broadway), on August 20th It premieres in Los Angeles at The Laemmle Royal and in Encino, California at Laemmle Town Center. This will be followed by a national run of the film.
For some obscure reason, the Motion Picture Association of America - which lets our youth be bombarded by meaningless entertainment and violence - has decided to give A Film Unfinished an R rating because of "disturbing images of Holocaust atrocities, including graphic nudity," the latter in a Nazi-coerced scene of young women in a ritual bath.
The rating, which prevents anyone under 17 from watching the film unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, will not block the commercial screening of the film. But it will prevent the film from being shown in high school classes as an educational tool, to the particular disappointment of its creator Yael Hersonski who looks barely 17 herself and says she made it "not only for now but for future generations."

Ground Zero Mosque Revisited

Sometimes, I really wonder whose president, Obama is. So many of his actions and opinions strike me as counterintuitive. He has joined Mayor Bloomberg, and now, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in supporting the right of those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, while marginalizing those among us who are concerned for our future.

President Obama announced his support for the mosque at its' current planned location last Friday night, during and Iftar dinner commemorating the Islam holy month of Ramadan. This comes on the heels of his June 2009 speech from Cairo reaching out to the Muslim world, in which he stretched the facts and stated that the United States was one of the larger Muslim country and greatly exaggerated the Muslim population in this country, as well as the apparent contributions to this country that were made by Muslims.

The President apparently felt that the majority of citizens in the country who are opposed to this mosque needed a Constitutional Law lecture on the separation between Church and state. In his opinion, the citizenry of this country who put him into office, are too stupid to understand the political elites' reasons behind their touted policies unless it is explained to them in simple English, whether it is the health care monstrosity, the immigration debate, or the mosquestrosity at Ground Zero.

Now, Nancy Pelosi has weighed into the debate by suggesting that the financing of those opposed to the Ground Zero mosque should be investigated. It apparently has not dawned on her that the nearly 70% of Americans who oppose this mosque are united in their opposition to this 'house of worship' and are coming together to oppose it of their own volition.

It is very disturbing that the political elite is completely ignorant of the true face of fanatical Islam and the significance that this mosque, should it be built, will hold for these fundamentalist Muslims. The significance of the mosque is even more clear considering the name of the proposed mosque and Islamic center, discussed in a previous post. Perhaps, these political elites need to be lectured by everyday Americans and their constituents about the realities of life in a post 9/11 world. They need to educate themselves on Sharia law, Jihad, the goal of a worldwide caliphate and the risks that people in the West face, and the true face of Islam.

Surprisingly, one of the only rational political voices concerning this issue is that of David Patterson, Governor of NY State. This is probably the only time that he has made a rational contribution to the political scene, in his offer of land in another part of New York for the purposes of this mosque. The fact that this offer was refused confirms the true intent of the imam of the mosque; that of constructing a mosque that would overlook Ground Zero, where the infidel Americans were defeated, or to use another person's words, a trophy mosque.

Should the improbable happen and the plans for construction of this mosque continue, then what? Will the developers even find construction workers, union or non-union, to build the mosque? Will the grassroots opposition (or in Ms. Pelosi's words, the Astroturf) mobilize to prevent the mosque from proceeding further? Only time will tell.

Holocartoons

This is a link to a very sick Iranian web site that mocks and denies the Holocaust, while perpetuating many nasty and abhorrent antisemitic stereotypes. It is a sarcastic look at this tragedy and seeks, once again to denigrate the Jewish people and the horrible tragedy that occurred during World War II. Look at this site and check your humanity at the door.

HoloCartoons

Back from Vacation......Back to Work.. The Cross-Border LAF-IDF skirmish.

*SCROLL BELOW FOR UPDATE*

The cross-border Lebanese Armed Forces- Israeli Defense Forces incident occurred last Tuesday, August 3, and involved the obviously planned attack of Israeli troops who were clearing trees and brush on Israeli territory. The vegetation was being cleared by Israeli troops to improve the visibility for forces patrolling the area. After notifying UNIFIL troops of the planned maintenance work, the IDF was asked to delay the work until UNIFIL could prepare for the incident. They also apparently notified the Lebanese Army.

It is obvious that the commanding officer of the Lebanese in the area planned this attack and used the time to prepare to launch this illegal attack. What other reason can there be for the presence of journalists with these Lebanese forces? In the attack that left Lt. Colonel Dov Harari and wounded Captain Ezra Lakla, one of these journalists was killed in the incident, while another journalist was wounded. There are even some claims that there were camera crews in the area of the attack, that further support the suggestion that this attack was planned.

The UN supports the Israeli claims that the troops were operating in Israeli territory. The facts clearly indicate that the Israelis were operating 50 meters (which is more than one-half a football field) from the blue line that was established as the border between Israel and Lebanon after Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2002. UN support is surprising in itself, given the usual UN knee-jerk reaction to condemn Israel on any occasion in which Israel must defend herself, no matter how extreme the provocation has been against Israel and her security interests.

Unfortunately, the immediate response of the Obama administration was for both sides to exercise restraint. The NY Times and the AP, as well as other media outlets also were neutral in their reporting of the incident, seemingly inferring that somehow Israel was to blame for this sniper attack on its' soldiers on sovereign Israeli territory. Such neutrality would be encouraging if it were to extended to other situations, instead of their being permanent players in the 'blame Israel' game.

In the aftermath of this incident, the US Congress has blocked $100 million in 2010 military assistance to Lebanon that has already been approved, but not yet disbursed. Apparently, Israel can count on the US Congress and the American people to act appropriately in most situations and in defense of our most staunch ally in the Middle East, even though we can seemingly not count on our President and his administration. These funds are being held up for a number of reasons, including clarification of the attack, ascertaining if the LAF troops were using American supplied arms when they launched this attack, and clarifying the role of Hizbullah in the Lebanese Armed Forces. 2011 funding may also be held up pending the outcome of these investigations.

Thank you, Congress.

*UPDATE*

Further evidence that this attack was preplanned is evident from the article below.

Border Clash: A Case Study in Reuters Photography

In this article, the presence of no less than five Reuters photographers at the Israeli-Lebanon boarder during what was just supposed to be Israeli vegetation maintenance is very suspect. It is obvious that something different was expected at that time. Furthermore, the presence of these photographers put them at risk and this was the sole responsibility of the Lebanese military and those who invited the civilians into the area.

A correction to the post above: The decision to delay distribution of the $100 million aid package to Lebanon was made just prior to this attack, in light of the increased involvement of Hizbullah in the LAF and the concern that arms provided would be used by the LAF to attack Israeli soldiers, a key US ally.

Playcott- Jethro Tull Gets It Right.

This article needs no comment from me, except to note that it is refreshing when entertainers use their brains instead of reflexively reacting to world-wide incidents without apprising themselves of the facts surrounding an event. It is usually a knee-jerk reaction for many performers to react to events involving Israeli protection of its' security interests to then call for boycotts of Israel and to refuse to perform in Israel. How wonderful it is, then for Jethro Tull to honor its' contractual obligations and perform in Israel as scheduled, instead of canceling performances as Elvis Costello recently did. Kol Hakavod to you, Jethro Tull and specifically to Ian Anderson.

While some musicians are boycotting Israel, others like Jethro Tull aren’t. Maybe our “playcott” campaign is working after all?
by Jewlarious.com Staff

Is it possible, that maybe, just maybe somewhere in the collective internet subconscious things we do/say/write can actually have some small positive effect on others? Ya, probably doubtful. But maybe.

As was widely reported (i.e. here), after the recent Flotilla debacle, a few musicians such as the Pixies and Elvis Costello cancelled their scheduled concert dates in Israel. These musicians were being suckered in by the dark side. But fortunately, cyberspace struck back.

Cyberspace struck back.

Rob Eshman of the Jewish Journal, while clarifying that neither Meg Ryan nor Dustin Hoffman boycotted the Jerusalem Film Festival, gave Hollywood agents and managers an easy to use 3 step test when asked by their clients if they should boycott Israel. Like cooking rice, but easier. He writes.

1. 1. Are your facts correct? The Middle East crisis is a cesspool of misinformation. Breaking news stories are the most susceptible to lies and spin. The initial reports following the shooting of Muhammed al-Dura, the so-called massacre at Jenin, even the flotilla raid all proved exaggerated, misleading or false. Before you decide, make sure you get the facts.

2. 2. Are you being fair? Israel is an imperfect democracy. But poll after poll shows its people want to reach a just resolution to its problems with the Palestinians, and numerous Israeli governments have tried. For all its flaws, Israel doesn’t come close to the levels of social and political oppression, injustice, occupation, resource theft or cruelty that is common in Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Syria or Egypt — to name a few. The American invasion and occupation of Iraq killed more innocents in seven years than Israel ever would or could — but no one’s boycotting the Staples Center. Why single out Israel?

3. 3. Are you being effective? Once you are informed and you put Israel’s transgressions in perspective, by all means take the right action — speak out. But speak out against extremists and fanatics on all sides. That’s the real battle here: between fanatics on all sides who want to perpetuate hate and deny the other side’s rights, and moderates on all sides who want a better future for their children. The band Jethro Tull donated proceeds from a concert to groups that bridge gaps between Jews and Arabs. Use your platform to support the many people in Israel fighting for a just solution. The artistic, musical and film communities are at the forefront of this struggle — your support for them can really make a difference.

In addition to Eshman, the highly influential editorial staff of Jewlarious called out the boycotters here and suggested that instead of using the effective “buycott” technique where pro Israel activists encourage people to actively buy Israeli product, supporters should employ a “Playcott” for musicians who continue to show support for Israel and all around good sense.

So… maybe the internet was listening.

British indie Rock band Jethro Tull and its band leader Ian Anderson have come down firmly on the side of the good and the just by stating that J-Tull will indeed be stopping in Israel during the band’s upcoming tour. Sadly, the number of people who do the right thing these days is dwindling by the minute, so when they do the right thing, we’ve all got to stand up and cheer. Way to go Jethro! Your son in law would be very proud (that’s Moses for anyone wondering).

Ian Anderson’s statement is so sensible that we’ve included it in its entirety below:

Having performed concerts in the Middle East region many times over the last few years, I am well aware of the ethnic and religious tensions existing, not only in the countries concerned, but in the broader international diasporas representing the various groups and their interests.

Having long maintained the position that culture and the arts should be free of political and religious censorship and a distance kept between them, I took a decision in February of 2009 that any future concerts in Israel by me or Jethro Tull would result in charitable donations to bodies representing the development of peaceful co-existence between Muslims, Jews and Christians, and the fostering of better Palestinian/Israeli relations. A number of potential charitable beneficiaries have now been identified and are under consideration.

I speak only for my own share of concert profits here - I am not about to tell the rest of the musicians or crew what views they should hold or what to do with their remuneration. Nor do I feel pressured by human rights groups, national interests or any individuals to perform or not to perform in Israel or anywhere else. I make up my own mind in light of available facts, with my own experience and a sense of personal ethics.

To those who tell me I should "boycott" Israel (or, for that matter, Turkey or Lebanon), I can only point out that on my travels around the world I am continually reminded of atrocities carried out historically by many nations who are now our friends, and it serves to strengthen my resolve that some degree of peace and better understanding may result from my and other artists' professional and humble efforts in such places. If I had the opportunity to perform today in Iran or North Korea, hell - I'd be there if I thought it would make a tiny positive net contribution to better relations.

It's a long time since Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and the firestorm of Dresden and I hope that, one bright day sometime in the future, it will seem a long time since the blockading of the supply flotilla to Gaza and the bombing of Israeli citizens by Hamas and Hizbolla.

So, I decided many months ago not to profit from my work in this troubled region and hope that interested parties on all sides will understand and respect my decision and resolve. The details of recipients of my charitable donation will be posted for the benefit of the doubters, as usual, on this website later in the year.

Ian Anderson, June 2010.

Playcott

The Immigration Conundrum

Comprehensive immigration reform.

This term is used by most Democrats and other liberals as shorthand for some kind of amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants, excuse me, I mean undocumented workers, without securing the border. This is preposterous and will only worsen things in the future. Amnesty to illegal immigrants was previously granted under President Reagan in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The major provisions of this act legalized certain illegal aliens who had been continuously unlawfully present since 1982. It also enacted sanctions for employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers, and was supposed to increase enforcement of U.S. border security. It did not solve the problem of illegal immigration and will not solve it if passed in another form. What it did was convince some immigrants who were here legally to claim that they were illegal, so they could expedite their citizenship applications and save money in the process. Amnesty for illegal immigrants would simply be rewarding these lawbreakers for breaking the law. How fair is that to law abiding US citizens and legal immigrants.

Today, we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants in this country who drain the coffers of our state and federal governments because of increased health, education and other costs. The financial burden of illegal immigration has contributed significantly to the fiscal problems that currently hound the state of California, other states and the federal government.

In response to lack of action on the part of the federal government and the worsening of the situation in the border state of Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 into law, on April 23, 2010.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf. Much has been said by this law, by both its’ proponents and opponents. It seems that many opponents of this 19 page law, including our President and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are spreading falsehoods about the law and have not even read this very short law.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

The law is very clear, despite claims to the contrary by our President and other opponents, that a person cannot be stopped for nothing while just going out to get ice cream for his kid. There must exist some kind of lawful contact; which means that the police officer must have a law enforcement related reason to detain a person other than suspecting that the person is an illegal alien. These could include a traffic violation, shop lifting or the suspected violation of another law BESIDES SB1070.

It is also very clear that the law prohibits racial profiling by arresting officers in enforcing this law. Factors other than race, national origin and color MUST be used to arrive at a reasonable suspicion that the person detained is in the country illegally. To prevent racial profiling, the state of Arizona has provided a video that imparts the correct and proper enforcement of this law to the various law enforcement agencies in Arizona that are charged with enforcing this law. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/01/2010-07-01_arizonas_antiillegal_immigration_law_sb_1070_comes_with_howto_enforcement_video_.html.

Similarly, contrary to incorrect assertions, a valid driver’s license or other valid form of government issued identification is sufficient proof of legal presence in the U.S. if the issuing agency must first evaluate the applicant’s proof of legal residence in the U.S. No other papers are necessary to prove one’s legal presence in this country.

Now, when I go somewhere, and am required for whatever reason to provide identification, I provide my driver’s license. Imagine that! Me, a natural born citizen of this great country, of non-Hispanic origin with green eyes, fair skin and blond (ahem!) hair having to provide proof of my identification. Wow! Some racial profiling there! Everyone over the age of 18 must provide proof of identification in certain circumstances, not just people suspected of being in this country illegally. If you want to board an airplane, you have to show ID. If you want to open a bank account, you have to show ID. If you want to use your credit card you have to show ID in most places. What is wrong with having to prove that you are who you say you are when you are stopped by law enforcement for breaking some kind of law? Is that any less important than proving who you are when you use your credit card? I see absolutely nothing wrong or prejudicial about that.

One of the main reasons that I hold this view on immigration is because of my family's history. My father is a Holocaust survivor who was liberated from the concentration camps at the age of 17. He had no close family left except for a cousin who was a few years older. He waited two years for his paperwork to clear until he could immigrate to the United States. Two years while he further put his life on hold, waiting to start over in this great country. I am certain that none of these illegal immigrants were in as dire circumstances as my father. Most have come here for economic reasons and send most of the money that they make 'back home'. They pay no income taxes, because they do not have Social Security numbers, and they drain health care and other resources without paying into the system. By sending money that they have earned out of the United States they are causing more of an economic drain on the country.

This has got to change or this country is in serious trouble.

Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?

Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

When was the last time the United Nations Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians?

How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the US and Canada that call themselves "pro-Palestinian" remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?

The plight of Palestinians living in Arab countries in general, and Lebanon in particular, is one that is often ignored by the mainstream media in West.

How come they turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?

And where do these groups and individuals stand regarding the current debate in Lebanon about whether to grant Palestinians long-denied basic rights, including employment, social security and medical care?

Or have they not heard about this debate at all? Probably not, since the case has failed to draw the attention of most Middle East correspondents and commentators.

A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers.

The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most of these correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from a series of humiliating restrictions.

Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs.

Can someone imagine what would be the reaction in the international community if Israel tomorrow passed a law that prohibits its Arab citizens from working as taxi drivers, journalists, physicians, cooks, waiters, engineers and lawyers? Or if the Israeli Ministry of Education issued a directive prohibiting Arab children from enrolling in universities and schools?

But who said that the Lebanese authorities have not done anything to "improve" the situation? In fact, the Palestinians living in that country should be grateful to the Lebanese government.

Until 2005, the law prohibited Palestinians from working in 72 professions. Now the list of jobs has been reduced to 50.

Still, Palestinians are not allowed to work as physicians, journalists, pharmacists or lawyers in Lebanon.

Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country. In the past, Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were even entitled to Israeli citizenship if they married an Israeli citizen, or were reunited with their families inside the country.

Lebanese politicians are now debating new legislation that would grant "civil rights" to Palestinians for the first time in 62 years. The new bill includes the right to own property, social security payments and medical care.

Many Lebanese are said to be opposed to the legislation out of fear that it would pave the way for the integration of Palestinians into their society and would constitute a burden to the economy.

The heated debate has prompted parliament to postpone a vote on the bill until next month.

Nadim Khoury, director of Human Rights Watch in Beirut, said, "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long and the parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."

Rami Khouri, a prominent Lebanese journalist, wrote in The Daily Star that "all Arab countries mistreat millions of Arab, Asian and African foreign guest workers, who often are treated little better than chattel or indentured laborers…The mistreatment, abysmal living conditions and limited work, social security and property rights of the Palestinians [in Lebanon] are a lingering moral black mark."

Foreign journalists often justify their failure to report on the suffering of Palestinians in the Arab world by citing "security concerns" and difficulty in obtaining an entry visa into an Arab country.

But these are weak and unacceptable excuses given the fact that most of them could still write about these issues from their safe offices and homes in New York, London and Paris. Isn't that what most of them are anyway doing when they are write about the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Mideast Dispatch Archive: A nice new shopping mall opened today in Gaza: Will the media report on it?

Mideast Dispatch Archive: A nice new shopping mall opened today in Gaza: Will the media report on it?

I Will Survive Dancing Auschwitz full version

Some people may find this video offensive. I am not one of them. As the daughter of a holocaust survivor who is now 82 years old and suffering from Alzheimer's disease, I find this video life affirming. My father never wanted to return to Poland after the war to reveal his family history to his children. Now that is lost forever. My father did have a wonderful and successful life despite having gone through the horror of the Holocaust and that in itself is life affirming. He married, raised three children and now has 7 grandchildren and started and ran a very successful business.

This past April, my son participated in the March of the Living. As part of this program, the participants recreate the path of the death marches and march from Auschwitz to Birkenau; many wrap themselves in the Israeli flag. This, in itself, is life affirming and has caused me to choke up from the range of emotions that were evoked in me. There are speakers and other demonstrations, including flyovers by the Israeli Air Force.

All of this says to the Nazis,"despite what you tried to do to the Jewish people, we are still here, still thriving and still successful." It also tells the millions of Jews who were murdered by the Nazis that those Jews who survived and those who follow them will never forget them and will continue to thrive and live full and successful lives. It tells those victims, that, although they have died, the Jewish people go on, and they have not died in vain.

It does not belittle the tragedy of the Holocaust. It demonstrates to the world at large, to those who were murdered and those who murdered them, that the Holocaust does not define us. It reveals that the victim mentality will not limit us. We are still here and will make our presence felt; through the characteristics that have always defined us; empathy, charity, a love of education and contributions to the well being of the world.

AM YISRAEL CHAI!

Only Israel - by Yedida Freilich

This is a wonderful and touchingly sad video of a song written by 2 Israelis and sung by their daughter. It seeks to explain why Israel is singled out from every country in the world, despite the amazing contributions that it has made to Western civilization. It examines why Israel is the only country in the world that has to justify its' actions when it clearly acts in self defense and even has to fight for the simple national right to self defense. It answers the question of why Israel is always subject to world condemnation when truly horrific events are going on around the world, and other countries are not condemned for these acts. Pass it on.

Fighting the Stealth Jihad-Update

In an article on the Fox News Web site, published on July 2, the author describes a curious situation in which people from different parts of the country, people who have different educational, ethnic and economic backgrounds and people who adhere to diverse religions who are united in their opposition to the construction of mosques or Islamic 'cultural' centers in their communities.

FOXNews.com - Controversy Surrounds Construction of Mosques Across U.S.

I have previously posted on the mosquetrosity that is being planned near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, in the shadow of where the Twin Towers once stood until they were brought down by Muslim extremists on September 11, 2001. Recent polls confirm that a majority of New Yorkers oppose the Cordoba House, with both 66% of Jews and white Catholics and 60% of Hispanics opposing this center. One main reason for this opposition is the revelation that the imam for this planned center has known terrorist ties.

I have also described the situation in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Staten island where an abandoned convent may be sold to a Muslim agency for further development into a mosque. In this situation, neighborhood residents discovered that the Muslim American Society was behind the planned purchase.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has reported that the MAS is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an organization that has existed for over 100 years, and whose goal is to spread Islam and Shariah law throughout the West. According to the IPT, this goal is facilitated by the purchase of existing mosques or of land to construct new mosques in the West. The MAS then ensures that the 'right' imams are affiliated with the mosques so that they can disseminate the desired message to their congregations including the desire to spread Islam and Shariah law throughout the non-Muslim world.

Spokespeople for the MAS adamantly deny these allegations and deny any association with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas or support of terrorism. Directors of this organization also deny that they have a goal of establishing worldwide Shariah and spreading Islam. They contend that their only goal is to establish mosques and provide for Muslims in their communities.

I propose that this statement is untrue. I contend that those who deny this aim of the MAS and any association with the Muslim Brotherhood or support of Islam are engaging in the practice of taqiyya, or deception, which may be practiced against non-believers in situations that include wartime. See here How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War. Extremist Muslims and their supporters do believe that they are fighting a war, a global Jihad. In that light, most would feel justified in deceiving non-Muslims. Who can forget the depictions of the 9-11 hijackers patronizing bars and strip clubs all the while planning horrific attacks against innocent civilians on our soil, all in the name of Islam? That is the only proof that is needed that this practice exists. Those who think that this opposition is racist in nature are ignorant of the underlying practices of Islam as it was intended to be practiced. It is not a religion of peace as many claim, but has as its' goal the re-establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate.

This nationwide 'opposition' is encouraging. We need to continue opposing the spread of Islam and Shariah law in the so-called name of political correctness. We need to continue fighting the takeover of our country, of our world, by a political system that has yet to move out of the 7th century, that subjugates non-believers, that abuses women and children and that will be the end of freedom as we know it.

The Free Gaza movement

In this post are documents posted by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center obtained from briefings before the flotilla as well as from computers aboard the Mavi Marmara after it was boarded by the Israeli Navy. These documents confirm that the members of the movement knowingly supported Hamas in defiance of US law. These documents include the goals of the flotilla and potential scenarios. Following are some interesting excerpts from these documents.

a. The goals of the flotilla: the goals of the flotilla as defined in the document are clearly political, contradicting the public image of “humanitarian support” which appears in the legal briefing. The “minimum goal” is to “generate a lot of media about the blockade on Gaza” and the “situation of Palestinians in Gaza”. A secondary goal is “taking legal/political action, including jail stays, to push foreign governments to do more than make statements, but to take punitive action towards Israel.” Elsewhere in the document, the goal is said to be generating media coverage and putting pressure on Israel.......

...e. Potential scenarios for the voyage: the document analyzes several “defensive” scenarios, based on a premise that is the fundamental guideline of the flotilla: “We will not turn back. The only way for Israel to stop us is to use force” (from a sub-chapter titled “Mission Strategy”). The scenarios raised in the document can be summarized as follows:

1. Aerial boarding (of soldiers): the document examines how boarding can be prevented. One of the methods mentioned is putting obstructions with sharp points on the deck, making it too dangerous for the soldiers to board (note: the behavior agreement distributed by Free Gaza to its activists prior to the launch of the flotilla says that the activists shall not use verbal or physical violence and that the mission was designed to support the “non-violent resistance of the Palestinians”. The inside document makes it clear that the term “non-violent resistance” is open to interpretation that may change the non-violent and “defensive” resistance into a violent and offensive one, which was what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara).

2. If IDF soldiers do manage to board the ship, the Free Gaza activists were to focus on two areas: the wheelhouse and the engine room. The document says that the wheelhouse had to be made “impenetrable”, which would require replacing glass with bullet-proof glass, replacing doors with steel doors, and adding locks.

3. Using a tugboat to prevent the ship from coming to Gaza. In that case, the ship would try to outmaneuver the tugboat and reach the Gaza Strip, even though its chances of success were unclear.

4. Opening fire (by IDF) or using explosives to neutralize the ship. Free Gaza’s “defensive option” for that scenario was putting VIPs on the cargo ship's deck (hoping their presence would deter the IDF soldiers).

5. Blocking the cargo ships while giving the passenger ship permission to proceed. In that case, the question was whether the mission was worth continuing with only the passenger ship. The decision was to be made only after the launch of the flotilla.

The Free Gaza movement

So much for 'peaceful' activists.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the Imam

Don't let this happen at Ground Zero. Spread the word. Oppose the Cordoba House 13 story Mosquestrosity that is being planned near Ground Zero!

See my post from June 5th for more information about this planned mosque.

New hit song for Palestinian children: When we die as martyrs - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

This video just shows the sick depths of the 'peaceful' Palestinians. There will be NO peace until they stop teaching their children to hate Israel and all Jews in general.




New hit song for Palestinian children: When we die as martyrs - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

2010 TOP TEN ANTI-ISRAEL LIES PDF.PDF (application/pdf Object)

This is a brochure published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. It provides ammunition against the most common lies about Israel and the current climate of antisemitism in the world.

2010 TOP TEN ANTI-ISRAEL LIES PDF.PDF (application/pdf Object)

Help for the Stealth Jihad from On High?

It was very disconcerting to learn that the Stealth Jihad has a chance of being facilitated by some in the highest arenas of power and by others who aspire to the same high office. In a recent Supreme Court decision, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, in a 6-3 decision the court upheld the constitutionality of a law that prohibits the provision of material support to foreign organizations that have been declared terrorist organizations by the US State Department. This prohibition extends to the provision of any service, training, expert advise or any other kind of help. This law was originally passed in 1996, was amended by the Patriot Act after the September 11th attacks as well as in 2004. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K4B420100621 To see the text of the Supreme Court decision, please click on this link. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf

Some startling information about Supreme Court nominee, Elana Kagan, has also come to light that is incongruous with her apparent position on gay rights. Senator Jeff Sessions revealed apparent inconsistencies in Ms. Kagan's support of gay rights in a speech on the Senate floor on June 16. Apparently, while the nominee prevented military recruiters from operating on the campus of Harvard's law school during her tenure as dean because of her opposition to the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, she did not go on record as opposing a center for Islamic Studies and Sharia Law that was established with a gift from the Saudi royal family. This seems inconsistent with her stance on gay rights because Sharia law calls for severe punishment or the death penalty for homosexual behavior. More troubling was her personal involvement with the establishment of an Islamic Finance Project at the Harvard Law School in 2003. This project's purpose was to encourage Sharia Compliant Finance, a banking system that does not charge interest, but also prohibits providing financing for projects or plans that do not comply with Sharia law. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney062210.php3

Kagan's and Harvard's Islamic Finance Project was also instrumental in encouraging the United States government to endorse Shariah Compliant Finance. This is the most troubling aspect of Kagan's involvement in the Harvard project. Shariah Compliant Finance or (SCF) is yet another method by which the Islamic fundamentalists are waging Jihad against the West and trying to destroy Western civilization while establishing the global caliphate that is its' goal.

SCF dates back to the 1940s when it was introduced by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its' goal was to support Jihad by diverting funds known as Zakat and purification to terrorist organizations, masked as non-threatening Islamic charities. Interest cannot be charged in SCF, but a 2.5% Zakat fee is exacted from both the borrower and the lender and is diverted to these charities in a usually untraceable manner. The exact amount of money that eventually ends up in the coffers of these 'charities' is not known, but may be in the billions of dollars. This is extremely concerning since SCF was the method by which the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were financed. Those devastating attacks cost only half a million dollars to carry out. The extreme concern should be the devastating jihad and terrorist attacks that can be waged with billions of dollars. After 9/11, the US Treasury Department, in conjunction with other federal agencies, uncovered many rings of illegal financing of terrorist organizations. Much of this financing takes place under the radar and will be difficult or impossible to uncover. For this reason, we should all be concerned about this nominee's record on supporting an organization that prvides ACF and her general attitude toward Shariah law.

http://www.redcounty.com/shariah-compliant-finance-america

We are already in the cross hairs of the worldwide Jihad. We should not make it easier for the Jihadists by permitting those in our highest positions of power to either support or to be blind to the stealth jihad that threatens us all.

The Three Terrors - Eng Sub

THIS IS AN AWESOME VIDEO. WATCH, ENJOY AND SHARE.

BETTY

Flotilla Choir presents_ We Con the World (LatmaTV Mirror).avi

This video was recently reuploaded. It can be accessed again. Enjoy and spread it around.

A couple of videos on the flotilla to Gaza

Following is a video clip from a German TV investigation of the passengers of the Mavi Marmara and the mission and intent behind the Gaza 'peace' flotilla. How interesting is it that it is German TV that conducted this?



This next video raises a question that many people want answered. Americans (including, hopefully many of the American Jews who voted for this president)are concerned by the response of this administration to the actions that were necessarily taken by Israeli commandos against the terrorist passengers on the Mavi Marmara. This just adds to the concern about the President's continued appeasement of the Muslim world and outrageous demands being made ONLY of Israel. We are trying to understand why our elected President honors and appeases our enemies, while apologizing continuously for American actions, and distances our country from our long-standing allies. Who knows? Whose side is he really on?

Speech by Geert Wilders- Dutch politician and director of Fitna, the movie.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/14505

Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands

Speech at the Four Seasons, New York

September 25, 2008

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.