Friday 7 December 2007

A Jewish State - No negotiations.

The one clear truth that came out of Annapolis was that Israel is still waging a war of survival, and of it's independence.

Cut away the pomp and circumstance of the occasion, cut away the ranks of dignitaries, cut away the official statements of good intent, and you are left with one undeniable truth.

The Palestinians, backed by the Arab world, refuse to accept Israel as the Jewish state.

Ehud Olmert raised this issue prior to Annapolis. It was the right thing to do.
An unremoveable cornerstone of Israel's existence, for which there is no negotiation,is the recognition that Israel is the eternal home of the Jewih people.

Yet, this statement somehow got lost in the fine words and promises for a better future that disappeared in the thin winter air of Maryland.
Not the Palestinian President, nor any of the distinguished leaders, could bring themselves to accept the Jewish nature of the state of Israel.

In fact, Mahmoud Abbas, his fellow Palestinian leaders, and the Arab leadership, have gone so far as to deny any Jewish historic rights to Israel.

So, I echo the question raised by the learned scholar, Bernard Lewis.
What is this conflict about?

Is it merely about borders? Is it about the reduced size of Israel? Reduced to allow the creation of yet another Arab nation - Palestine?
Or is it really about the existence of Israel itself?

If it is about a border dispute with relating issues to be solved, then it is possible that a solution will be found.

If, on the other hand, the issue is about the existence of Israel, or the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, then this is clearly not negotiable.

There can be no compromise between existing and not existing. No Israeli Government can negotiate whether Israel can, or cannot, exist as the Jewish state.

Thursday 1 November 2007

And you thought Egypt recognises Israel ?

So you thought that Egypt had signed a peace treaty with Israel years ago
and everything was hunky dory? Wrong!
Read this news item...


(ANSAmed) - CAIRO, OCTOBER 9 - Organisers of the Cairo International Film Festival have rejected an Israeli production and threatened to boycott any Arab moviefest that breaks a taboo on admitting films from the Jewish state. Organisers of the Cairo event, which opens on November 27, have loudly opposed an application by Eran Kolirin's "The Band's Visit", a fictional tale of an Egyptian police band that gets stranded in Israel. The film ultimately ends in a warm exchange between the two populations, and Kolirin has said his production, which won praise at the Munich and Cannes film festivals, sends a strong pro-peace message. But Cairo Film Festival vice president Soheir Abdel Kader saw otherwise: "It is out of the question that an Israeli film plays here," he said, as reported Middle East Online. The Israelis applied for a place at this year's 31st edition of the Egyptian festival - whose motto ironically is "to advance understanding through the language of art between all the peoples of the world" - through the event's representatives in Germany, who Kader said will now be wiped from the festival's contact list.

A solid "anti-normalisation" front exists in Egypt's cultural circles which reject collaboration or contact with Israeli artists or intellectuals, despite a peace deal signed between Egypt and Israel in 1979. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to fuel anger in Egyptians who believe the US-sponsored peace deal changed Egypt's role from regional heavyweight to mediator whose decision-making power is largely defined by Washington. "We regret to hear that the film has not been accepted in Egypt for political reasons without consideration for its artistic merit," Israeli embassy spokesman Benny Sharoni said. (ANSAmed)

The cultural society of Egypt, those you would expect to be the more liberal, educated, open minded, can't even bear to allow an Israeli movie that has been lauded at various film festivals to be shown in Egypt. Even when the subject shows Egypt and Israel on friendly and positive terms...

Is there any hope with this type of mindset in the Middle East ?

Saudi Chutzpah.

While noisy protests took place outside, the Royal Family and the political heads of Britain fawned themselves at the feet of the Saudi king.

True, English oil interests entitle the British Government to show deference to the source of their massive investment. True, the British have a regal sense of courtesy and hospitality.
The dhimmi attitude adopted by the British heirarchy, however, was a painful sight for sore eyes.

Here we had King Abdullah visit the British capital and lecture the British about not doing enough to act against terrorism.
This is the king from the country that exported the September 11th terrorists. This is the king that promotes the export of Wahhabism that radicalises Muslims worldwide and turns them against the West. The Saudi kingdom has been unable, or unwilling, to rein in the threat of this virulent strain of Islam that generates itself from the heartland of Saudi Arabia, the spiritual centre of the Muslim world.

Saudi Arabia has been promoted as a timeless culture and Westerners have been encouraged, including by the Queen, to appreciate this desert kingdoms heritage and traditions.

What culture? What traditions?
The beheading of men, often after unfair trials and torture? The shooting of women? The honour killings?
Perhaps it is not a trivial matter that women are not even allowed to drive in saudi Arabia. What about equal rights for women in that country? When will that occur, if ever?

The king may portray his country as an open and tolerant society. But where are the churches and synagogues? Where is the freedom to worship - if you are not a Muslim?

And as for me, living and working in Israel. What would happen if I arrived in Saudi Arabia waving my Israeli passport?
It would be a toss up between being deported or arrested.

Wednesday 31 October 2007

Religious comparison 2007.

This year Islam's and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
During that period, Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries ... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.

Monday 22 October 2007

Who needs Israel?

Who needs Israel anyway?

By Pat Boone

Many Western and European political leaders, having heard the deprecations and the determination to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, from the likes of Palestinian Yasser Arafat, Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and so many other power brokers in the region have come dangerously close to deciding that little Israel is the "thorn in the side" of world order.

The next logical thought is: "Who needs Israel? Let her be erased, her people dispersed (or whatever), and the Middle East can settle comfortably into a harmonious Islamic community of states. Problem solved!"

What folly. What suicidal blindness. I just returned from a momentous event in our nation's capital. An organization called Christians United for Israel, or CUFI, convened 4,000 people from all 50 states in several days of briefings and strategy sessions, culminating in an exhilarating, rousing rally in the D.C. Convention Center featuring Jewish leaders and top Christian ministers celebrating the things we hold in common and the spiritual bonds that unite us. The next day, several thousand of the participants fanned out over Washington and Capitol Hill, lobbying virtually every representative and senator on behalf of Israel and its sovereignty.

Why? Couldn't we all see this is an exercise in futility - an unnecessary bother that we'd all be better off if Israel didn't exist? No, we all see clearly that the world needs Israel - The whole world. What do I mean? Consider:
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can make claim to an astounding number of society's advances in almost every direction!
· Intel's new multi-core processor was completely developed at facilities in Israel.
· In addition, our ubiquitous cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in the little land.

· Voice over Internet Protocol (V0IP) technology was pioneered in Israel.
· AirTrain JFK the 8.1-mile light rail labyrinth that connects JFK Airport to NYC's mass transit is protected by the Israeli-developed Nextiva surveillance system.
· Bill Gates calls Israel, "a major player in the high-tech world."
· Most of Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel;
· The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel;
· Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the U.S. in Israel;
· In addition, with more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of high-tech companies in the world apart from the Silicon Valley.

Get this: Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25 percent of its workforce employed in technical professions, Israel places first in this category as well! It goes on and on.
The Weidman Institute of Science has been voted "the best university in the world for life scientists to conduct research." Israeli researchers have:
· Discovered the molecular trigger that causes psoriasis.
· Developed the Ex-Press shunt to provide relief for glaucoma sufferers.
· Unveiled a blood test that diagnoses heart attacks ... by telephone!
· Found a combination of electrical stimulation and chemotherapy that makes cancerous metastases disappear and developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer!

· Designed the first flight system to protect passenger and freighter aircraft against missile attack.
· Developed the first ingestible video camera so small it fits inside a pill used to view the small intestine from the inside, enabling doctors to diagnose cancer and digestive disorders!
· Perfected a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with congestive heart failure, synchronizing the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.
These are only a few of Israel's recent contributions to the welfare of the world. There are just too many to list here. Water shortage, global warming, space travel, anti-virus, anti-smallpox, blood pressure, solar power, paralysis, diabetes, data storage these and hundreds more are being addressed by Israel's scientists. They're pioneering in DNA research, using tiny strands to create human transistors that can literally build themselves and playing an important role in identifying a defective gene that causes a rare and usually fatal disease in Arab infants!


· Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin;
· It has the largest number of startup companies globally, second only to the U.S.;
· It is No. 2 in the world for venture capital funds, financing all these advances;
· Its $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined;
· Moreover, Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
· In addition, while it maintains, by far, the highest average living standards and per-capita income, exceeding even those of the UK, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth, relative to its population. It is truly an unparalleled marvel of our time.

So, what's the point of all this?

Simply that the very idea of eradicating or even displacing Israel from its historic home is suicidal to the rest of the world, not just her Arabic neighbors. Though there are ominous biblical consequences pronounced on those who "curse Israel," there are also wonderful blessings promised those who "bless" her and we're seeing those real, practical, humanitarian blessings proliferate around the world, blessing all humanity.

Stop just for a second and imagine a world today that never knew Israel. And then go further: Given their living standards, ideologies and attitudes toward all who dare to disagree with them, imagine what our world would be like if Israel's enemies held sway. Would you rather live in an Iran, Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan? Or an Israel?

Who needs Israel? Let's be honest. We all do.

Sunday 21 October 2007

...And we will be asked to put our security in the hands of Abbas..

News has just broken that Israel's Shin Bet uncovered a plot to assassinate Ehud Olmert during an August visit to Jerico to meet Palestinian President Abbas.
Israel's elite intelligence and security unit, Shin Bet, obtained information of a planned attempt on the life of Prime Minister Olmert set for 6th August. Two of the plotters were apprehended by Shin Bet field officers.
Israel then transfered the intelligence to the Palestinian Authority whose forces promptly arrested the three remaining members.
All five confessed to their involvement in the attempted terror attack against Israel's leader.
What was surprising was that they were all members of the Palestinian Authority security forces selected to guard the Israeli Prime Ministers motorcade in Jerico.

However, the most startling news was that Israeli border police apprehended two of the potential assassins, two months later, at a checkpoint near Jerico.
When Israel complained to top Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qurei (also known as Abu Ala), he assured Israel that all the suspects were still in custody.
However, on Friday October 19th, it became clear that they had, indeed, been released by lower ranked Palestinian officials.

It is clear, heading to Anapolis, that Mahmoud Abbas cannot control the Hamas element of Palestinian society. It is now obvious, as we approach this vital upcoming meeting, that he does know and cannot control what is going on inside his own security force.

...And Israelis are being asked to put our destiny, and our fate, in his hands ??

Sunday 7 October 2007

Is a Palestinian state the burning issue in the Middle East.

So they are trying to convince you that a Palestinian state is THE burning issue in the Middle East.

Certainly it takes up more time in the United Nations than any other world crisis.
More resolutions have been passed condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinians than, say, Ruanda, Darfur, Burma, and all the other trouble spots that are REALLY in crisis.

More committees have been set up, more personnel employed, more money spent, by the United Nations on the Palestinians than any other cause worldwide.
The Europeans have been pumping money, diplomats, media attention, at the Palestinians than anyone else.

Christian NGOs have been putting much of their resources into the Palestinian territories. This despite the fact that Palestinians have been persecuting and murdering their fellow Christians. (More of this in a future article).

All of this without any noticeable progress. Where has all the money gone?

And is the Palestinian problem really the focus of attention in the Middle East?
Is the creation of a Palestinian state the main issue for all their so-called supporters in the surrounding countries.
Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the one matter that is causing anguish in the local Arab world?

Let's look around the region and examine what is going on...

Lebanon has a major internal conflict between the secular and Christians who are a withering population valiantly trying to hold out against Islamic Hizbollah, and the murderous Syrians who seem determined to execute any politician who speaks up against them.

Iraqis have to get their act together. Everyone knows that they will continue to kill each other when the Coalition forces pull out.

Who would wish to be the leader of Egypt with their population explosion, their abject poverty, the internal threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaida sneaking into the Sinai region. They can't even maintain a stable four mile border with the Gaza Strip due to the corruption of their border guards. Their internal political and economical problems are a double headache that is not going away any time soon.

Like Egypt, Jordan has a peace agreement with Israel. They would love to develop strong economic ties with Israel but with a security eye on their internal Palestinian and Muslim population they are hindered from acting too boldly. Al Quaida has made the occasional forays into the Hashemite Kingdom and Abdullah sits on a shaky throne.

Syria tries to shows its muscle by causing grief in Iraq and in Lebanon. It is acting in an ambivalent manner with Israel. Its close links with Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah, and other insurgents and nuisance makers, makes it a doubtful partner for peace talks.

The Saudis are playing a dangerous game of stoking up the Wahhabi brand of Islam that creates radical terror while sucking up to the American administration.
The bloated royal family look anxiously at its population who, one day, could rise up and, in a fit of home grown radical Islam, remove the fat cats.
And what do you think will happen once these troublesome dudes, who hate the West, get their hands on the oil tap?

Iran, despite the recent "Let's make love" pronouncements of the little Tehran tyrant
is a danger not only to the region but to the whole world.
Yes, he protests too much that Palestinian is his reason for being, but this is a pretext for putting his proxies in place throughout the region. He is playing a much wider chess game, with Israel as his first pawn to take off the board.

Oil, a growing water shortage, over population, poverty, increasingly fractious populations, external pressures and threats, all occupy the mind of local leaders far more critically than the Palestinians.

If diplomats would tell you the truth they would tell you that regional leaders really can't stand the Palestinians.
They have used them as a third party to have a go at Israel. But, increasingly, they have become despairing of the Palestinian leadership, both past and present, who have proven themselves corrupt, weak, ineffective, to make use or value of the huge help and support they have been given.
They have despaired at the missed opportunities they have been offered.
They are frustrated now that the Palestinians have become fractious with a sizable section not willing to find a solution save for the elimination of Israel.

Despite what you've heard, most neighbouring countries can't stand the Palestinians.
Just look at recent history. Jordan, when on that Black September, King Hussein had enough of Arafat's meddling and threw them out. Or Kuwait, who expelled their Palestinian workers after they sided with Saadam Hussein in his invasion of their country. Or in Lebanon, with its recently terminated blood bath, when Lebanese forces cleared out a Palestinian terror group who had challenged the local militia. And surely Egypt must look at Hamas activities over its' border with Gaza with some trepidation.

Now come the latest revelations that the Palestinians actually decided to reject statehood over objections from within their organisations and submitting to external Arab pressure.
Certainly Arafat turned down a generous offer of nationhood with massive concessions given to him by Ehud Barak at Camp David and backed by President Clinton.
Clearly, even the Palestinians are not in a hurry for a state of their own - unless it replaces Israel, of course.

So, is the Palestinian issue the main event in this region?

With the exception of Iran, absolutely not!

Friday 5 October 2007

The poignant and perfect answer to the lies of Ahmadinajad... SHIRI NEGARI.

I am sure that future articles will return to the petty Iranian tyrant who returned home to Tehran fresh from his successful tour of New York and South America.

For now, I wish to close my current concentration on his lies and deceit on a sad and poignant note.

I came across the picture in this article. It made me pause. I looked at the lovely face of SHIRI NEGARI and shed a tear of sadness and frustration.

SHIRI was killed on 18th June, 2002. She, along with another eighteen people, were blown up by a Hamas terrorist (funded by Iran) on a Jerusalem bus.
She was aged 21.

I am sad and frustrated.
Sad at the hateful policies of Ahmadinajad and his Islamic fanatics that killed this delightful girl through their Hamas proxy.
Sad in the knowledge that they see no crime in seeking her out for death. On the contrary, it was a holy and glorious mission.
Sad that nothing Ahmadinajad said at Columbia University, or in the United Nations, pointed to a desire to reach a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis, save that Israel must cease to exist.
On the contrary, all his comments expressed a desire to terminate the Jewish state of Israel and to kill other innocent Shiris, if that is what it takes.

Ahmadinajad would have you believe that he is a friend of the Jewish people but an enemy of Zionism. That enmity killed SHIRI.
What Ahmadinajad is saying is that many more Shiris will been blown up, and massacred, in the name of this mans' Jihad, if Israel does not voluntarily liquidate itself.

I weep for Shiri. I am sad for her family. I am also frustrated.
Frustrated against an impotent world that refuses to face up to his threats. Frustrated at a cynical world that submits to this evil mans' will. Frustrated at a university that allows him a stage to espouse his views. Frustrated at an international community that pays lip service at imposing sanctions, yet does nothing. Frustrated at an appeasing world that refuses to bring this man, and his evil regime, to justice.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Sadly, at Columbia University, good men did something. They gave this killer a platform.

I am frustrated that Columbia University gave its stage to Ahmadinajad in the name of free speech, but will not give those who represent his victims the same stage.

As the message says under SHIRI's photograph, SHIRI would like to speak at Columbia University, but Ahmadinajad made sure that SHIRI would never speak again...

Thursday 4 October 2007

The Israel lobby? What about the Arab lobby?

With the publication of the book 'The Israel Lobby' by renowned academics Professors Mearsheimer and Walt the notion is out there that Israeli pressure groups have had a major effect in coloring American foreign policy to the detriment of the US.
The learned couple would have you believe that Israeli and Jewish lobbyists are the most powerful influence on the US Administration.

My friend, Maurice Ostroff, has partially answered the claims made by these supposed researchers in a rebuttal entitled 'Academic Freedom and Sloppy Research'.

Mearsheimer and Walts findings fail on two counts. One of incorrect assertions. The other is the failure of what the did not include in their book. This, perhaps deliberate, omission is the most dangerous of their faults. It leaves the reader with the impression that Israeli and Jewish leaders have an unrivalled access to policy makers in Congress and in the State Department.
This is wrong. The biggest investment in lobbying power has, for a long time, been invested in the rich hands of the Arabs, led by the Saudis, and the other oil interests.
Against this powerful force Israel can never successfully compete.
However, the small voice of reason and democracy is trying to make itself heard.

by Maurice Ostroff

The much discussed articles and latest book by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, attacking the Israel Lobby, are glaring examples of misleading by omission of vital relevant data.

Of course there is no objection to academics expressing unpopular opinions, but it’s scary to realize that some university students are being taught by mentors who, in their public pronouncements and publications, exhibit shockingly low standards of scholarship and even ignorance. Even when they don’t write in the names of their universities, serious readers are entitled to expect a minimum standard of objectivity and intellectual honesty from tenured professors.

The website of Students for Academic Freedom pinpoints one of the most egregious sins of a growing number of academics in its slogan: "You can’t get a good education if they’re telling you only half the story".

Too many opinion-makers mislead by telling half the story; deliberately omitting all relevant information that may contradict their preconceived opinions. The much discussed articles and latest book by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, attacking the Israel Lobby, are glaring examples of misleading by omission of vital relevant data.

In response to a letter I sent criticizing their articles published last year, I received an 81-page paper from Professor Mearsheimer, titled "Setting the record straight: a response to critics of The Israel Lobby” (which I will refer to in this article as their response paper). In it, the authors admit that being fallible human beings, their work contained a few minor errors. Let’s take the example of one of their central claims – that pressure from Israel was critical in the US decision to attack Iraq in March 2003 ­ and let the reader judge whether this is merely a minor error.

If they had done a modest amount of research they would have learned and disclosed that contrary to their allegation, Israeli officials had warned the Bush administration against destabilizing the region by invading Iraq.

This information was available to the professors. In an interview with the Mother Jones blog, Professor Walt emphasized that he and Mearsheimer relied heavily on both Israeli sources and Jewish newspapers like the Forward. And in the Forward of January 12, 2007, Yossi Alpher, an adviser to former PM Ehud Barak, confirmed that prior to March 2003, Israel PM Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq and that AIPAC officials in Washington told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the United States deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq.

This refutation of the professors’ allegation has since been confirmed by Lawrence Wilkerson, a former member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff as reported by ISP.

Was this a minor error?

In the interview with Mother Jones, Professor Walt explained that as he and Mearsheimer aren't investigative reporters and have a day job, they weren't in a position to spend a lot of time interviewing people in Washington. This statement possibly encapsulates the underlying weakness of their publications. Far from being in-depth products of original research by academics from prestigious institutions, they are a rehash of carefully selected extracts from the writings of others, mainly new historians like Noam Chomsky and Benny Morris, whose methodologies have been severely criticized by authoritative historians.

It is almost amusing to note how in their response paper, the authors praise Benny Morris as a respected historian when he expresses views they accept, and then reject his views when they don’t serve their purpose. Having served in the Israel army during the 1948 war, I have challenged from personal knowledge some of the conclusions Morris derived from his interpretation of archived documents, and I absolutely challenge M & W’s third and possibly fourth-hand views on this subject.

In their March 2006 article, the professors wrote: "Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better-equipped and better-led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence." It is difficult to understand the reason for inserting this bit of totally irrelevant disinformation into a paper about the Israel Lobby.

Those of us who were there in 1948 know that Israel was invaded by five armies in a Holy War to drive us into the sea. The Arab armies included the British-trained Jordanian Legion, the well-equipped Egyptian army, navy and air force and the armies of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. And we know how desperate and badly equipped we were. We remember how rickety old trucks were converted to homemade armored vehicles nicknamed sandwiches, because the armor comprised timber between two steel plates. (See photo.)

We know that our total population of only 600,000 included women, children and the elderly and that, tragically, 6,000 were killed in the War, not to mention the seriously wounded. We know that many of our troops were untrained newcomers, who had survived the death camps, only to be thrown directly into battle.

In their response paper, the professors go to great lengths elaborating on remarks by Ben Gurion and others indicating that they had hoped for a greater area than allocated under the 1947 partition plan. But they ignore the fact that Israel nevertheless reluctantly, but unconditionally, accepted the partition resolution while all Arab states rejected it outright. There would be no Palestinian refugees today if they had accepted instead of immediately declaring Holy War, with the publicly proclaimed intention of driving the Jews into the sea.

Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades," and the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini echoed, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

The professors ignore how Israel reacted to Arabs who stayed neutral in 1948 – such as the village of Abu Ghosh. In an article in the Jerusalem Post in 1997, Sam Orbaum quoted Mohammed Abu Ghosh as saying, "What we did, we did for Abu Ghosh, for nobody else. Others who lost their land, hated us then, but now all over the Arab world, many people see we were right. If everyone did what we did, there'd be no refugee problem . . . And if we were traitors? Look where we are, look where they are."

Incredibly, their strong prejudices prevent the professors from acknowledging not only Israel’s attempts to negotiate peace, but also the infamous three no's response of Arab leaders in Khartoum in August 1967: "no peace, no recognition of Israel and no negotiation.”

The professors’ claim that US policy towards Israel is a main contributor to America's terrorist problem deserves critical examination. In November 2002, Alex Alexiev, in an article published by the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), pointed out that Riyadh, flush with oil money, became the paymaster of most of the militant Islamic movements, which advocated terror. In its aggressive support for radical Islam, even the most violent of Islamic groups, like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, receives Saudi largesse. He claims that official Saudi sources indicate that between 1975 and 1987, Riyadh's "overseas development aid" averaged $4 billion per year, of which at least $50 billion over two-and-a-half decades financed Islamic activities exclusively. The SAAR Foundation alone, which has been closed down since 9/11, received $1.7 billion in donations in 1998.

Compared to these numbers, the miniscule Israeli PR budget is laughable.

It is incredible that academics discussing external influences on USA policy ignore the dramatic stranglehold of OPEC, the blatantly monopolistic cartel which threatens not only the US, but the world economy. This stranglehold began with the Arab decision to use oil as a political weapon in 1973 when the price was $2.60 per barrel. After October 1973, when the Arab members of OPEC imposed their oil embargo against the West, the price quadrupled to about $12 by January 1974 and is now soaring to $80. All this, while, believe it or not, production costs average about $6 per barrel for non-OPEC producers and $1.50 per barrel for OPEC producers (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May/June 2005).

By focusing on one lobby only without placing it in the context of the prevailing phenomenon of the numerous lobbies that are an essential part of the Washington scene, this work cannot be regarded as a scholarly study, but rather as a subjective, no-holds-barred political attack.

Dozens of interest groups spend billions to convince politicians to pass or oppose particular laws. Any study of the Jewish Lobby cannot avoid comparison with Arab influence on Washington, which is indeed harmful to American interests.

But the professors claim: “There is no well organized and politically potent Arab Lobby and little evidence that US politicians ever feel much pressure from pro-Arab groups.” This categorical statement in their response paper is mind-boggling. It indicates either inexcusable ignorance or deliberate suppression of information about the many Arab lobbyists who have had, and continue to have, intimate access to US presidents.

In an article in Harpers magazine of April 17, 2007, John R. MacArthur wrote about Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan:

When he wasn't entertaining congressmen and spreading good cheer through his highly paid lobbyist, Fred Dutton, Bandar was busy making friends with, at first vice president, and then president, George H.W. Bush, and by extension with Bush's son, the future president. This personal relationship with the Bush family has served Bandar and his family very well, as documented in Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000.

Now, according to Seymour Hersh, Bandar has virtually joined the Bush administration as a shadow cabinet member. In a March 5, 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” Hersh writes that Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser, served as Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them.

The organization Axis Information and Analysis (AIA), which specializes in information about Asia and Eastern Europe, has rated Prince Bandar as the most influential foreigner in the USA. As head of the Saudi embassy in Washington in 1983, he was an important participant in backstage intrigues, clandestine negotiations, and billion-dollar deals relating to US interests in the Middle East, with broad links among high-ranking officials in the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. Bandar's father, Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, was a leading figure in the ruling dynasty, which decides the extent of military cooperation with the United States. AIA has publicly stated that it was Bandar Bin Sultan who initiated the first Gulf War in 1990-91, by pushing President Bush the elder to start the military campaign against Iraq.

In an obituary to Clark Clifford (October 11, 1998), the New York Times spoke of him not only as a key adviser to four presidents, but also as a powerful lobbyist for Arab sources. In his memoir, Counsel to the President, Clifford wrote that he advised clients:

What we can offer you is an extensive knowledge of how to deal with the government on your problems. We will be able to give you advice on how best to present your position to the appropriate departments and agencies of the government.

Clifford, a paid lobbyist, made about $6 million in profits from bank stock that he bought with an unsecured loan from the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

In an interview on Democracy Now, Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, spoke of Bandar’s influence. Referring to the fact that the 9/11 Commission said it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001, Unger said that if you look at Prince Bandar’s body language in photos of him and President Bush, this is not a guy standing in awe of the President of the United States. This is a guy who is visiting his friend's son, and he’s sort of lounging on the arm of a big armchair by 9/13, two days after 9-11. And suddenly, flights began going out.

Unger tells of Saudis investing as much as $800 billion into American Equities, not only in massive blue chip companies but also into companies that weren't doing so well, but were linked to powerful politicians.

He also speaks of at least $1 million donated to each presidential library, emphasizing that the Saudis give to Democrats and Republicans alike:

Prince Bandar has been quite frank. If we give to our friends after they get out of office, the people in office will get the message.

The Saudis are fabulous at public relations. If you look at their whole campaign over the last 30 years, they spent $70 billion on propaganda. It's the biggest propaganda campaign in the history of the world, more than Soviet communism at the height of the Cold war. Immediately after 9-11, Bandar hired Burson Marsteller, the huge American public relations firm.

In the knowledge that the above information is readily available, would a first-year student, let alone a tenured professor, earn a passing mark for submitting a paper claiming that there is no well-organized and politically potent Arab Lobby and little evidence that US politicians ever feel much pressure from pro-Arab groups?

The Lies of Ahmadinajad (Part 3)

YouTube - Ahmadinejad's lies - Part 1

"We Love all Nations! We are friends with the Jewish People!"

Yet another lie straight from the mouth of the man from Tehran..

(courtesy of MidEast Truth).

The Lies of Ahmadinajad (Part 4)

Ahmadinajad loves the Jews. It's only Israel he hates.

This is the impression that the Iranian leader wished to make in his Columbia University address.
As with his other remarks it is a blatant lie.

The Iranian litany of anti-Semitism is long and well recorded. It has been activated by threats, terrorism, and death.

Ahmadinajad's perverted world view is deeply based on anti-Semitism. It is his reason for being. It is what colours his past, his character, his beliefs, and his future actions.

One only needs to go back to his impressionable years when his political and theological views were founded in the passionate Iranian Revolution of his spiritual and political leader, Ayatollah Knomeini who said on 13th April, 1963, "I know that you do not want Iran to live under the boot of the Jews!" Later that year, Khomeini called the Shah of Iran "a Jew in disguise."

Ahmadinajad was a young activist for Khomeini as the Islamic revolution sought to take over Iran.
Khomeini's biographer, Amir Taheri, wrote that the Ayatollah was convinced there was a Jewish conspiracy to "control everything" and to "emasculate Islam".
He channeled his anger towards the Jewish state of Israel. Among his theological students was a young Ahmadinajad who looked up to the Ayatollah as a hero.
Khomeini's inflammatory statements included "Israel does not want the Koran to survive in Iran." "It is destroying us." "It is destroying you and the nation." "It wants to demolish our trade and agriculture." "It wants to grab the wealth of the country."

Ahmnadinajad was imbued with the accusatory link between Jews and Israel.

After the Six Day War in 1967, Khomeini, who was not yet in power, wrote that "The Jews wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world."
In 1977 he wrote, "The Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite."
Two years later Ayatollah Khomeini was the unchallenged leader of the Iranian Revolution.

Mohammed Hassan Rahimian, a representative of the Iranian Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who stands even higher in the Iranian hierarchy than Ahmadinajad, said on 16th November 2006, "The Jew is the most obstinate enemy of the devout. The main war will determine the destiny of mankind. The reappearance of the Twefth Imam will ead to a war between Israel and the Shia!"

Again one can see the twisted link between hatred of the Jew and of Israel. They are intertwined to create a political and theological hatred that is nothing less than potent anti-Semitism with Israel as the first victim.

Ahmadinajad devoutly believes that an Armagedon must occur to herald the arrival of his Messiah, the Twelfth Imam.
It would be the fulfilment of his religious obligation to assist in bringing about this glorious day. And what better place to create the mushroom cloud than over the Jewish state which, in his eyes, is an abomination and an insult to Islam.

However, this lethal anti-Semitic rage of the Iranian Republic of Iran lashed out in a rather strange direction in 1994.

The Argentine government recently released details of its investigation into the bombing of the Jewish Community Centre in Buenos Aires in Argentina on March 17, 1992, in which 85 people were killed and more than 200 were wounded. That bombing was conducted by Iranian intelligence services, with Hezbollah playing a key role in its execution.

The decision in principle to strike at the Jewish community center was made in August 1993 at a meeting chaired by Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Other participants included President Rafsanjani, Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian, Khamenei's intelligence and security adviser, Muhamed Hijazi, and the country's foreign minister at the time, Velayati.

The meeting was convened because it was to be the second major explosion in the Argentine capital after the Israeli embassy bombing 18 months earlier. Israeli intelligence believes the reason Buenos Aires was chosen a second time was because of a deterioration in relations between the two countries at the time.

Intelligence Minister Fallahian was given responsibility for the job. To back up the mission, Khamenei issued a fatwa instructing him to undertake the mission. Fallahian ordered the mission be given to the Overseas Operations Unit of the Hezbollah, headed by Amad Amiad Maghnieh, with Iranian intelligence providing full aid and cooperation. That Hezbollah unit was also responsible for the embassy bombing. Hezbollah found the suicide bomber, Baro, a Hezbollah man, who arrived a few days before the bombing. A few hours before the bombing, Baro called his family in Lebanon, telling them he was going to be unified with his brother, who was killed in a car bombing attack on Israeli soldiers in Lebanon in 1989.

The Iranian foreign service provided much of the diplomatic cover for the operation. There was an unusual number of Iranian couriers coming in and out of the country before the bombing, with some staying longer than usual in Argentina, and there was a dramatic increase in telephone traffic between various Iranian elements in Argentina and Iran in the days leading up to the bombing.

Arrest warrants have been issued by the Argentine authorities against Rafsanjani and others to stand trial for this crime against a Jewish target.

Ahamadinajad tries to be more sophisticated than his now dead spiritual leader. He does not say that 'Jews' are conspiring to rule the world. That would expose him as a blatant anti-Semite.
Instead, he tries to be clever and say that 'Zionists' have for sixty years blackmailed Western Governments, and that 'Zionists' control the banking, financial, cultural, and media sectors of the world.

Ahmadinajad uses the word 'Zionist' with exactly the same meaning and intensity as Hitler poured into the 'Jew' as the incarnation of all the world's evil.

As with Hitler, Ahamadinajad is driven by an raging anti-Semitism of genocidal proportions.

Thursday 27 September 2007

The Lies of Ahmadinajad (Part 2)

Ahamdinajad lies about women in Iran.

"The rights of all human beings should be respected!"

"Freedom in Iran is genuine freedom!"

"Women are respected in Iran!"

These are just three of the statements made by the Iranian President as he stood before the students of Columbia University.

They were not received by the laughter and jeers that met his remarks about Iran being a 'gay-free' country.
They were, however, equally untrue, and equally dangerous remarks.

Ahmadinajad criticised those who "violate individual freedoms in their own people."
Yet, very few tyrants violate individual freedoms in their country as much as Ahmadinajad and his religious cohorts in Iran.

Only women who have escaped the tyranical regime in Tehran can freely disclose the oppression suffered by women in this Islamic republic.
Family honor killings are justified according to Islamic Sharia law. But regional and state legislated public executions are also permitted against women.

In Iran, a man's indiscretions may go unpunished. But a woman's indicretions carry the risk of family killings or even state-ordered executions, including public stoning to death.

The attached picture depicts an Iranian woman being buried alive prior to being stoned to death as a standard Islamic religious practice in Iran.

The aim of Columbia University of inviting Ahmadinajad was nothing more than one-upmanship on other campuses. They claim it was done in the name of free speech. However, this exercise in academic ego will have dangerous repercusions inside Iran and in the region.

Giving him the stage, and a worldwide audience, has been a dangerous disservice to those who oppose this perverted petty dictator.
Allowing him the freedom of speech has played into the hands of state-run Iranian TV who can now edit his speech and falsely project this oppressive tyrant as a world statesman to his own people.

Columbia University has set back the internal revolt against this man's tyranny for many more years to come.

The Lies of Ahmadinajad (Part 1)

The Lies of Ahmadinajad (Part 1)

President of Iran, liar, murderer of Iranian women and boys, arch-terrorist, Ahmadinajad declared publicly, in his
disgraceful Columbia University address, that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

You know why ?

Because he hangs them all !

This picture shows two Iranian boys, aged 18 and 16, just prior to their execution.
Their only crime ? Being homosexual.
This execution took place in the Iranian city of Maashad.

Ahmadinajad is not only a gay-basher. He is a gay-murderer.

Expose Ahmadinajad for the lying, deceitful, murderer that he is…..

There is more to follow on the record of Ahmadinajad. His lies at Columbia, and at the United Nstions, will be exposed, piece by piece, in all their gruesome detail in The View from Here.

Barry Shaw
The View from Here

Wednesday 26 September 2007

Ahmadinajad adored..

Did you hear it at Columbia University during the UN "Invite a dictator" week?
No. Not the speech by President Ahmadinajad of Iran, the honored guest of this
revered hall of learning.

I mean the cheering that greeted his remarks. The applause in response to his pearls
of wisdom. The thrill when he invited Columbia students to come to Iran and visit his universities.

Yes. There was a moment of light humor when he denied that there were no homosexuals in Iran. The impressionisable students in the hall thought this was funny. An attempt at humor by this little runt.
He didn't tell them that gays are hanged in Iran. That wouldn't have gone down so well with the kids looking for another hot hero.

They seemed to take in the message that Iran was a progressive country which rewarded women with advancement.
Perhaps somebody needs to tell them that women are subject to honor killings, and have been known to be stoned to death for indiscretions.

True. Some students did not really believe him when he said that the Holocaust did not take place. But they are willing to buy his line that more research is needed into the subject. After all, what is higher education if not to advance the learning process? And, hey, maybe we'll discover that the Holocaust wasn't as bad after all.

The theory given by this little narrow-eyed dictator that Israel, together with America, is the root of all evil and must be eliminated was not greeted by boos, but by silence.

That's because it echoes the line being put by the liberal left in America, as they try to appease all the Muslims of the world that they feel have been offended by Bush.

So, hey, maybe this guy is right. Maybe we and Israel have gotten up the nose of all the peoples of the world, and we need to correct our wrongs - even if that means sacrificing Israel.
So let's hear it again for the little guy from Tehran!

The peanut brained students of Columbia and their envious brothers and sisters of Yale, Harvard, and all the other faculties of political correctness are feeling good today.
They have allowed someone from another world to come to their country and publicly shown why and how America is wrong.

I heard one girl student explain to a TV reporter that the only thing that she didn't agree with was his comments about the Holocaust. That's all. She did not question anything else that he had said. Or not said.

So three cheers for Ahmadinajad and Columbia for allowing free speech its day! They really showed the world that they are up for a reasoned dialogue with people who uphold a different world vision.

Didn't anyone tell these stupid students, headed by their idiotic, publicity or fund seeking leaders, as they applauded this dangerous petty dictator - soon to be with a nuclear missile - that this wasn't a dialogue.
It was a monologue - and there were many in the audience, and around the world, who watched his speech and bought into the line that Ahmadinajad was selling..

It wasn't the speech that upset me. It was the applause.

Friday 21 September 2007

A Hostile Entity.

So now Israel is getting it in the neck for declaring the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip a hostile entity.
Israel is being aggressive and provocative, they say. It's a declaration of war, said Hamas.
Well let me throw some light in the darkness of this particular tunnel. No. Not the tunnels that Hamas have been digging to smuggle weapons, explosives, and terrorists from Egypt into their territory. I mean the darkness of the tunnel of ignorance that makes intelligent people blind.

Let's go back a bit in time. Israel withdrew it's forces from the Gaza Strip. They not only withdrew their forces. They also physically removed tens of thousands of civilians who had made the desert bloom, had brought employment to Israelis and to Palestinians, had developed beautiful villages and townships, and handed over to the Palestinians a profitable infrastructure for them to begin to develop their future state.

Israel separated from the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip is NOT occupied territory.

What did the Palestinian population do with this gift? They destroyed it.
They brought in tractors and bulldozers and leveled the agricultural facilities left for them to grow their vegetables. They converted schools into terrorist training camps. They burned down and destroyed the synagogues.
They dig tunnels to import money, weapons, explosives, and to smuggle Palestinians for terrorist training in Iran. They have launched terrorist raids. including suicide attacks into Israel. They have kidnapped Gilad Shalit who is still being held hostage in Gaza.

Worse still, they used the fields to fire rockets into Israel. Thousands of Kassam rockets have been fired into Israel. Over seven hundred have been launched this year alone. Fifteen Israelis have been killed as a result of this rain of rockets.

Despite this relentless and obsessive violence against Israel, these Palestinians who elected a terrorist organisation to lead them, insist that Israel continue to provide them with electricity, water, medical attention, and to allow them freedom of passage to visit their family in Israel.

Where in the world, when in history, did an enemy launch a war against another nation yet insist that the victim give them power supplies, feed them, and answer all their medical and humanitarian needs?

This, to me, is like an abusive and violent husband who constantly beats his wife. The wife applies and receives a divorce. Yet the violent husband continues to abuse his ex-wife.
Or, as someone put it to me more crudely, it's like someone comes and craps on your doorstep and then knocks on your door and demands that you give him toilet paper.
There are people in this world that would insist that we not only give him toilet paper, but that we also give him a cup of coffee and, if we don't, we will be committing a crime against humanity.

Enough of this bullshit.
Since we withdrew from Gaza the Palestinians have pursued us with increasing violence.
They try to blow up the power station, yet insist that we continue to provide them with the electricity supply they are trying to destroy.
They try to kill us, yet insist that we give their ill or wounded proper medical attention.
They close the Erez crossing, yet insist we continue to supply foodstuffs and other goods.
They wanted an end to the occupation. They got it. They wanted us to go back to 1967. In the Gaza Strip they got it. Yet they continue their hate and violence against us instead of developing as a peaceful neighbour.

In Gaza there is not only a border with the Zionist enemy. There is also a border with their Arab neighbour - Egypt. Egypt, and all the other Arab countries, protest how much they support the aspirations of the poor Palestinians.
Fine! Let them. Let the Palestinians approach all these rich Arab countries for help and support
if their condition is so bad.

If it is possible for Egypt to allow thousands of tons of explosives, weapons, manpower, and money to pass from Egypt to the Gaza Strip through the border crossing and through the tunnels, it should be possible for Egypt to supply them with electricity and with water, and allow the poor Palestinians into Egypt to receive medical attention.

As long as whoever is in charge of the Palestinian population declares that they want to dstroy the Zionist enemy, as long as Palestinians vote for these terrorists who wish to kill Israelis and destroy my country, they will be perceived as a hostile entity.

Makes sense to me.

Thursday 20 September 2007

Something more serious than life and death..

Usually this blog will deal with matters of survival and life and death.
Occasionally, we will deal with matters more serious than that. Football, for instance.
That's soccer to all our American readers.

If there is one thing that will distract Israelis from the vital daily dose of danger and
gorgeous Israeli girls (the latest image remake for our Ministry of Tourism), it's football.

One wife berated her husband who was glued to his TV screen during the recent Israel-England game.
"Sometimes I think you love the Israeli football team more than you love me!"
Without looking up from the screen he retorted, "I love the England team more than I love you!"

Israelis do have a passion for football, and they idolise the English Premier league.
Israeli players, such as Yosi Benayoun and Tal Ben Haim, and young Ben Saar, have found success in England, playing for teams such as Liverpool, Bolton, and Chelsea.
Recently, Avram Grant, the ex-Israeli national team manager, was invited to join Chelsea as Director of Football by the owner, Roman Abramovitch, much to the distaste of manager, Jose Mourinho.

Now, following poor results from Chelsea, the charismatic Mourinho has left this leading football club under a cloud, and Israeli manager, Avram Grant, has been given the chance to prove himself big time.

Yom Kippur is a time of contemplation and 'heshbon nefesh', soul searching.
Avram Grant will be using this weekend to take stock of his new opportunity. He faces a daunting task and will need to pray real hard.

Grant will hardly have time to break his fast before planning the Chelsea line-up for their vital Sunday game against the mighty Manchester United at the famous Old Trafford stadium.

For Grant this may feel like a second circumcision. Facing an upbeat and rampant United with a depleted Chelsea squad, despondent about their failing early season results will be as painful, for Grant, as a 'brit mila'.

Grant may be Abramovich's favoured man for the job but Abramovich wants results and, if Grant cannot deliver, he will quickly follow Mourinho out of the door at Chelsea.

Thursday 13 September 2007

The View from Here

Subject: Syria's nuclear target.

Immediately after Israel's 6th September aerial intrusion into Syria it was clear that a sensitive target had been attacked.

What was strange was the news blackout. Both from the Israeli and the Syrian side.

Syria has been expressing it's anger and has threatened to bring Israel to the Security Council of the U.N. But, to do so, Syria will be required to submit details and evidence of their charges against Israel – and that they do not want to do. Why? What are they hiding?

Israel is keeping tight-lipped about what happened in early September. Clearly their aerial attack, possibly backed with elite ground troops, went after a specific target that the Israeli military deemed to be hot. It was a target that the Syrians do not like admitting that they possess.

It is likely that the target was a secret nuclear facility in the northern part of Syria. Although information has not been forthcoming, and Israel has not admitted any action, Syria and Iran received a clear message from this Israeli attack.

Facts relating to the reasons for the Coalition war against Sadaam Hussein's regime have also been in short supply.

Claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction have been refuted and leading politicians have been denounced for using this as the reason to launch the assault against the Iraqi regime.

However, it is known in Israeli intelligence circles that most of Sadaam's chemical and biological stockpiles found its way into Syria. Over the years, Israel has been keeping an eye on the import of nuclear materials and equipment supplied to Syria by the North Koreans.

Evidence is shrouded in secrecy. However, something major prompted Israel to act last week. The result has been that the top Israeli echelon have been smiling this week, while the Syrians have been hopping mad.

Barry Shaw
The View from Here