Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - RACHEL1958

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Hizballah Targeting Civilians With Rockets Meant to Kill and Maim
By Julie Stahl Jerusalem Bureau Chief
July 25, 2006

Haifa, Israel ( ) - Hizballah rockets are not accurate but they are deadly - designed to inflict maximum damage on civilians. And had Israel not been so prepared, those rockets would be exacting a higher civilian death toll in Israel than they have so far, experts here are saying.

Warning sirens sounded in Haifa again on Tuesday as more rockets hit the city. Over the last two weeks, Hizballah has fired more than 1,200 rockets at Israel, killing 17 civilians and wounding hundreds of others.

Michael Cardash, deputy head of the Israeli Police bomb disposal unit, said Hizballah is launching a variety of rockets at Israel, including an enhanced 122-millimeter Grad rocket made in China and a 220-millimeter rocket made in Syria.

The rockets are packed with 30,000 to 40,000 ball bearings designed to inflict maximum casualties when they explode.

"Anti-personnel" rockets packed with ball bearings are the most lethal kind, experts said. And it is these rockets that have been landing in Haifa.

Even from a distance of 100 meters (300 feet), the balls can go through cars, said one bomb disposal expert. In fact, it happened on Sunday: an Israeli motorist in Haifa was killed when his car was struck by the ball bearings, police sources said.

Human Rights Watch, a group that usually criticizes Israel, earlier suggested that Hizballah's firing of rockets packed with ball bearings into civilian populations was a "serious violation of international humanitarian law and can constitute war crimes."

Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, also said, "Hizballah's use of warheads that have limited military use and cause grievous suffering to the victims only makes the crime worse."

Dr. Eran Tel-Or works at the trauma center of Haifa's Rambam Medical Center, where many of the people injured in Hizballah rocket attacks are taken for treatment.

Dr. Tel-Or said the ball bearings, exploding at great force, act much like bullets. Because of the "aerodynamic shape" of the ball bearings, they have much higher energy than the shrapnel that flies from the rocket itself, he said.

In Lebanon, some 390 people have been killed in Israeli bombing raids, compared with the 17 Israeli civilians killed in rocket attacks. That has prompted some of Israel's critics to complain about Israel using "disproportionate force."

But experts say there's a good reason why Israel's civilian death toll is so much lower than Lebanon's: "We were prepared for the rocket attacks," said one bomb disposal expert from the Israel Police.

Israelis already know not to gather in large crowds. Many private homes have built-in security rooms and other buildings have public shelters, he said.

Without the shelters, many more people would have been killed, he said.

Hizballah's deliberate targeting of civilians "has to be contrasted with Israel's attempts to limit the damage in Lebanon," said the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Israel repeatedly has said that it is trying to avoid civilian casualties, giving up the element of surprise in its bombing raids in order to warn civilians to flee areas that are Hizballah strongholds.

"Israel has, as it always has, tried to strike a balance between its primary obligation to protect its citizens from attack and a self-imposed obligation to do as little harm to innocents in enemy territory as possible. Would that it were the standard on both sides," JINSA said.

General / Utah visitor says Israelis need support
« on: July 28, 2006, 01:50:40 PM »
Utah visitor says Israelis need support
Firsthand: Utahn sees a heavy toll Israel pays
By Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune

An hour after Katyusha rockets rained down on Haifa on Tuesday, J. Laura Green stood beside a fresh crater in an apartment building courtyard.
    One building wall was scarred with thousands of pockmarks, the result of 20,000 ball bearings packed into the rocket - a signature of a Syrian weapon, officials told her. Anyone within 100 feet of these exploding rockets, she learned, is "totally filleted" by the pellets.
    Looking up, the Sandy woman saw blown-out windows, the destroyed interiors of people's homes and, hanging from balconies, the remains of banners bearing Israeli flags. A couple sifting through the wreckage of their apartment heard voices in the courtyard. They looked down from where their window once stood and called out to Green and the others, ''Am Yisrael Chai'' - ''The people of Israel live.''
    Recounting this moment over a rented cellphone in Tel Aviv late Tuesday, Green began to cry.
    The director of the United Jewish Federation of Utah was one of 68 American Jewish leaders, representing 25 states, who participated in an emergency solidarity mission to Israel this week. Green arrived in Israel on Sunday, and through the mission's end late Wednesday, the delegates met with officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the family of a soldier kidnapped by Hezbollah, children who have been evacuated to youth villages, and humanitarian workers. In two phone calls to The Salt Lake Tribune this week, she gave an account of her visit.
    The wife and parents of kidnapped soldier Ehud Goldwasser sat down with the group Wednesday. Goldwasser, 31, was serving the last day of his 30-day reserve duty when Hezbollah kidnapped him. His wife of just 10 months, Karnit, wanted the delegates to know her husband, her soulmate, the man she had fallen for nine years ago. She spoke of his love for nature and mountain biking, his penchant for adopting homeless animals, his studies in environmental engineering. His fate remains unknown because Hezbollah has refused requests from the International Red Cross to see him, but Karnit and Goldwasser's parents are staying close to home, hoping for good news. Meantime, Karnit's parents are crisscrossing Europe trying to secure help from world leaders.
    "You could hear audible sobbing in the room," Green said of the meeting. But Karnit quieted them with this: "Please, we don't want your sympathy. We want your strength."
    Strength is what Israel needs right now, officials told the delegates.
   While other wars, of which there have been many, were against specific governments and countries, this is a fight against world-recognized terrorist organizations - Hamas, based in Palestinian territories, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's a war unlike any Israel has fought before, Olmert explained.
   On July 12, Hezbollah guerrillas crossed into Israel from southern 

Lebanon, kidnapping two soldiers and killing three others. Israel is responding aggressively with continuous airstrikes and a ground incursion into Lebanon.
    Since that retaliation, Hezbollah has launched more than 2,000 Katyushas into Israel, officials told the delegates.
   All of this came on the heels of Hamas crossing from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel and kidnapping an Israeli soldier on June 25.
   Since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, more than 1,200 Kassam missiles have been fired into Israel by Hamas, officials told Green.
    Israelis, which left both regions (Lebanon in 2000) in the hopes of achieving peace, have run out of patience, Green said. "People need to understand that Israel is fighting for its survival against enemies that are sworn to its total destruction."
    Beyond learning about the current crisis, a central part of the solidarity mission was to explore humanitarian efforts, where dollars sent to the newly established Israel Crisis Fund 2006 go.
    Green spoke of ORT, an organization that's monitoring the psychological impact of displacement. More than a million Israelis - Jews, Arab Muslims and Christians, and Druze - have evacuated their homes. She marveled at volunteers with the Jewish Agency for Israel who are feeding and caring for the elderly.
   She outlined work of the Joint Distribution Committee, which is gathering toys for children who are among hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in bomb shelters and bunkers.
    So far, 9,000 Israeli 9- to 15-year-olds, of all faiths, have been evacuated from shelters and taken to the Jewish Agency's youth villages in the central part of Israel. The American delegates visited one village of 700 children, many of whom are recent Ethiopian Jewish immigrants.
    Green said the Americans communicated with the children with smiles, arts and crafts and eventually dance, as Ethiopian folk songs blared from an electric organ.
   "They all look healthy, their smiles are beautiful, their eyes are bright," Green said. And while the kids are just learning Hebrew, she added, ''they've learned 'Shalom,' they've learned 'Am Yisrael Chai.' ''

General / David Duke is a malignant narcissist.
« on: July 11, 2006, 06:22:00 AM »
David Duke is a malignant narcissist.

He invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and the trappings of power further exacerbate this. Real life authority and David Duke`s predilection to surround him with obsequious sycophants support David Duke`s grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience.

David Duke's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as 'victims of persecution'.
Duke fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, and mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.
Duke is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Duke became a distorted version of Nietzsche's 'superman'.

But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral. In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things 'natural' - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to, as 'nature' is not natural at all.

Duke invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.
In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.

Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.

Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the 'old ways' - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon David Duke like (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.

Minorities or 'others' - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is 'wrong'. They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are 'decadent', they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are narcissistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenseless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.

This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a malignant narcissist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.

Duke prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - Duke having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. 'Earth shattering' and 'revolutionary' scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.

It is important to understand that the use of violence must be ego-syntonic. It must accord with the self-image of David Duke. It must abet and sustain his grandiose fantasies and feed his sense of entitlement. It must conform David Duke like narrative. Thus, David Duke who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite - is highly unlikely to use violence at first. The pacific mask crumbles when David Duke has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, and the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, David Duke strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. 'The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)', 'they don't really know what they are doing', 'following a rude awakening, they will revert to form', etc. When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail, David Duke becomes injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred. This primitive defense mechanism is called 'splitting'.

To David Duke, things and people are either entirely bad (evil) or entirely good. He projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. Duke is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country, etc. The 'small people', the 'rank and file', and the 'loyal soldiers' of David Duke - his flock, his nation, and his employees - they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated - is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of David Duke. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.

Comment: Live and breathe for the preservation of his own lifestyle at the expense of others. Real ethical role model this one is.

Officials warn of rising anti-Semitism as victims of Polish pogrom remembered

Original article:
By Maja Czarnecka Updated: 05/Jul/2006 14:25

KIELCE, Poland (AFP)--- Hundreds of people gathered in the southern Polish city of Kielce Tuesday to remember the victims of Poland's worst post-WWII pogrom, and were urged to stop any resurgence of anti-Semitism.

The wail of a siren cutting through the warm summer air signalled the start of a solemn ceremony in front of a white and grey stone monument to more than 40 Jews, who were mercilessly slaughtered here 60 years ago.

"The sound of the siren has reminded us of what happened here 60 years ago," Kielce mayor Wojciech Lubawski told a crowd of hundreds gathered for the ceremony to remember the massacre.

Kielce erupted in a frenzy of hatred after a rumour was spread that a Jewish family had held a Christian boy in a cellar overnight.

The rumour soon turned into anti-Semitic hysteria, with tales that Jews needed to have blood transfusions from Christian children to survive or used Christian blood to make matzos, unleavened Jewish bread.

At Tuesday's ceremony, Henryk Tkacz, 82, pointed to a two-storey building at 7 Planty Street, where most of the massacre took place in 1946.

"I saw terrible things, a Jewish woman thrown out of a window," he told AFP.

"She didn't die, so she was beaten to death," he added.
Tkacz, like many others in Kielce, had run to Planty Street when he heard that something was afoot 60 years ago.

"We couldn't understand what was going on, what the Jews had done that was so awful that the army and police were also against them," he told AFP.

But today, he understands what provoked the tragic events of that day.

"It was anti-Semitism, pure and simple, that pushed the mob on."

"Today we meet in a peaceful place and peaceful time for Poland but on this day 60 years ago, Kielce was not peaceful," said the head of the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad, Warren Miller.

Ethnic hatred still alive

"We note with sadness that the ethnic hatred seen 60 years ago in Kielce has new believers around the world. As anti-Semitism is embraced once again, so it must be confronted yet again and it must be defeated," Miller warned.

The Kielce pogrom happened a year after the end of WWII, in which six million Jews died in the Holocaust, more than half of them from the country's once vibrant Jewish community.

In the months following the massacre, up to the end of 1946, almost 150,000 Jews left Poland. Many of them went to Palestine to take part in building their new homeland. They knew that only a sovereign Jewish state can guarantee their safety," Israeli ambassador to Poland David Peleg said.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski called the Kielce pogrom an unjustifiable and shameful crime.

"This was a huge dishonour for Poles and a tragedy for the few Jews who survived the Nazi Holocaust," he said in a message read out at the ceremony in his absence.

"Nothing can justify this crime.

"In a free, democratic Poland that upholds the law, there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, which are met with justified repulsion," he said.

Comment: Considering the new Polish attitude I feel any new bigotry in Poland will be seen as ubcool. ~ Kreplach


General / Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees
« on: July 10, 2006, 05:21:42 PM »
b]Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees:
International Law and Humanitarian Considerations[/b]

When Israel was created in 1948, Arab states and Arab Palestinians attacked the Jewish community in Palestine and the Jewish state, vowing to "drive the Jews into the sea." They lost the war however, and some 725,000 Arab Palestinians fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Thousands of Jews were displaced from areas conquered by the Arab forces as well, and some became refugees for a while.In December 1948,  UN General Assembly Resolution 194 called for return of refugees who were willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Jewish refugees, including refugees from Palestinian Arab areas and hundreds of thousands of others expelled from Arab lands, were absorbed into Israel and did not claim refugee status. Arab refugees were placed in camps.

Palestinian Arabs claim that any peace agreement with Israel must allow the descendants and families of these refugees, numbering about 4 million, to return to Israel. This is the position adopted at present (2006) by the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmud Abbas, enunciated in the "moderate" Palestinian Prisoners' Document and presented as well by Palestinian negotiators at Taba in 2001: In the Palestinian  "compromise" proposal, all refugees would return to Israel gradually. Jews would became a minority in their own state. Return of the refugees would put an end to Jewish self determination and the Jewish homeland, yet Arab Palestinians and their supporters insist that this solution is "justice" demanded by international law. Here, we examine the legal and humanitarian considerations behind this claim.

Rights of Refugees under Resolution 194

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 was passed immediately following the assassination of UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte by Jewish extremists. Bernadotte had asked for return of all Arab refugees (but not Jewish refugees) and was going to recommend removing large areas of the Israeli state and returning them to the Arabs. The resolution reflected in part, UN anger at Israel for having allowed the assassination, but it did not reflect Bernadotte's recommendations in full. Section 11 referred to the refugee problem:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Notable in this wording, is the fact that a "right of return" was not mentioned, and the reference to "refugees," rather than "Arab refugees"  and "governments," rather than the government of Israel. This implies that the framers had in mind the rights of Jewish refugees in Palestine as well, and would also be applicable to Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries as a result of the conflict. The number of Jews were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries because of the conflict is about equal to the number of Arab Palestinian refugees.

Bernadotte had recommended a much stronger resolution, but his reference to a "right" of return was rejected. The original wording of his report included this wording:

`the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date`¦ and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return`¦`

(Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, UN Doc. A/648 (18 September, 1948)

As this wording was rejected, the framers of resolution 194 apparently rejected the notion of a "right" of return. Likewise, reference to "Arab refugees" was omitted. It could not have been accidental.

All Arab states voted against Resolution 194, because it did not establish a `right of return,` and because it implicitly recognized Israel. Arab governments and Palestinians  continued to reject resolution 194 until 1988. In that year, Yasser Arafat made a speech Recognizing Resolution 242 and implicitly accepting resolution 194. Until then, Arab Palestinians were officially not willing to "live in peace with their neighbors." Arab governments are still unwilling to repatriate or compensate Jewish refugees, nor is such a solution contemplated in Palestinian peace proposals.

To deal with the refugee problem, the UN created the UNRWA agency, which was thought to be a temporary measure until a permanent resolution of the refugee problem could be effected. Because Arab states refused any constructive solution, the "temporary" solution became permanent.

Resolution 194 is not International Law

Resolutions of the UN General assembly are not binding in international law, and therefore resolution 194 does not establish any principle of international law. Palestinian Arab advocates point out that Israel agreed to accept resolution 194 as a condition of its admittance to the UN, under Resolution 273. However, Israel accepted the resolution under its own interpretation. In any case, Resolution 273 is likewise a resolution of the General Assembly and therefore not international law.

Status of the Palestinian Refugees in International Law

Advocates of the Palestinian cause claim support from international laws and conventions applicable to refugees in general. However, examination of refugee conventions shows that precisely the opposite is true. For example, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, states:

This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

That excludes Palestinian refugees who are receiving aid separately from the UNRWA. The same convention states:

E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

Palestinian refugees in Jordan have obtained Jordanian nationality. About 1.5 million such "refugees" are included in official UN tallies of Palestinian refugees.  Numerous Palestinians living in the United States have obtained United States citizenship, but claim "right of return." None of them would be eligible for refugee status under ordinary international law.

The convention does not mention a "right of return," but only mentions that refugees may not be forcibly returned to a country where they are liable to persecution.

In their treatment of Palestinian refugees, Arab states do not generally respect provisions of the treaty dealing with economic rights of refugees:

Article 21. Housing

As regards housing, the Contracting States, in so far as the matter is regulated by laws or regulations or is subject to the control of public authorities, shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances.

Article 22. Public education

1. The Contracting States shall accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to nationals with respect to elementary education.

2. The Contracting States shall accord to refugees treatment as favourable as possible, and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, with respect to education other than elementary education and, in particular, as regards access to studies, the recognition of foreign school certificates, diplomas and degrees, the remission of fees and charges and the award of scholarships.

Article 23. Public relief

The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.

In Lebanon, the entire responsibility for education and housing of Palestinian refugees is placed on UNRWA. Refugees are confined to the UNRWA camps insofar as possible, and given as little assistance as possible in integration within Lebanese society.

No international convention deals with the status of  third generation refugees or "refugees" by intermarriage. This case is unique to the Palestinians.

A search of the Internet for terms refugees "Right of Return" will display exclusively or almost exclusively Web pages that deal with Palestinian refugees. "Right of Return" is never discussed for Germans expelled from the Sudetensland or Silesia in 1945, for Poles who fled the Soviets when they annexed parts of Eastern Poland, for Russians who fled from former Soviet Republics upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Right of Return was discussed but never implemented in solution of the Cyprus problem. Return of refugees is being implemented in part in breakaway parts of former Yugoslavia, but in these cases there is no doubt that the returnees are willing to recognize the existing government and "live in peace with their neighbors." The claim that Right of Return is a universally applied principle of international law has now basis.

Palestinian supporters claim that the right of return is recognized in international in human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights However the applicability of these provisions to Palestinian Arab refugees is in doubt.

According to  Article 12(4) of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

 "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

To whom does the article apply? Stig Jagerskiold, an early interpreter, wrote:

"This right is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right.  There was no intention here to address the claim of masses of people who have been displaced as a byproduct of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries.  Whatever the merits of various "irredentist" claims, or those of masses of refugees who wish to return to the place where they originally lived, the Covenant does not deal with those issues and cannot be invoked to support the right to "return."  These claims will require international political solutions on a large scale." (Freedom of Movement, in The International Bill of Rights 166, at 180 (Louis Henkin ed., 1981).

 Likewise, another expert has noted:

 "There is no evidence that mass movements of groups such as refugees or displaced persons were intended to be included within the scope of article 12 of the Covenant by its drafters" (Horst Hannum, The Right to Leave and Return in International Law and Practice (1987) p.59)

Return is no longer practical

The Arab Palestinian refugee problem has been deliberately perpetuated by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters for almost 60 years, after which time there is no practical way to return the original refugees, many of whom are no longer alive. Their descendants have married non-Palestinians and non-Arabs, so that many of the people claiming "right" of "return" were never in Palestine, and are descended from people who were never in Palestine. It is highly doubtful that such persons are entitled to "refugee" status under international law.

Israeli actions to ameliorate the refugee problem

Israeli attempts to resettle refugees outside the camps were blocked because of objections of Arab states.

Israel has allowed more than 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program. Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property. As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed. Claims were settled for more than 200,000 dunams of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunams of replacement land had been given in compensation. No compensation has ever been paid to any of the more than 600,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were forced to leave and abandon their property.

Malicious Intent of the Right of Return Claim

The claims to right of return as a "just" solution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be viewed in the light of the intent of the claimants. This intent has been announced repeatedly and openly: To destroy Jewish self-determination and the state of Israel

The post-war Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, stated:

... in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly `“ the intention is the extermination of Israel. (Al-Misri, 11 October 1949, as quoted by N. Feinberg, p109)

Similarly, Egypt`s President Nasser stated:

If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist. (Neue Zuercher Zeitung, September 1, 1960)

A Fatah Web site states:

To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state. (

To this end, Arab governments and Palestinian groups have acted in bad faith to prevent a solution to the problem.  Ralph Galloway, formerly director of UN aid to the Palestinians in Jordan, stated:

The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don`t give a damn whether the refugees live or die. (Ralph Galloway, UNRWA, as quoted by Terence Prittie in The Palestinians: People History, Politics, p 71)

While decrying the plight of the piteous refugees supposedly victimized by Israeli aggressors, Arab governments have caused the UN to pass resolutions that decried Israeli attempts to resettle refugees in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Any effort by Israel to improve the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip or to give them new homes outside the refugee camps, was met with UN resolutions with wording such as this:

1. Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly by the opening of the thirty-fifth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above. ( UN A/RES/34/52(A-F) 23 November 1979 )

As noted above, the most conciliatory position of the Palestinians, presented in the Taba in 2001 negotiations, called for actual return of all Palestinian refugees over an extended period. This would have the effect of destroying Israel as a Jewish state, gradually if not immediately. Other proposals are more drastic in their effects. Thus, the intent of pressing right of return claims is certainly to destroy the Jewish state, in violation of several provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law.

The right of self-determination, guaranteed in the UN Charter, is reiterated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article I, Part I, opens the convention with the following declaration:

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The right to self determination is recognized universally, by Palestinians as well, as a jus cogens - compelling law, that takes precedence over other considerations. The right of self-determination was the basis of creation of the Jewish state of Israel, and was cited in the debates leading to the UN partition decision. It is absurd for Palestinians to claim the right to a state under this provision, while at the same time claiming that "justice" demands the "right" of return, which would prevent the Jewish people from exercising their own right to self determination, and would result in destruction of a member state of the UN.

Ami Isseroff

See also  BACKGROUNDER: The Palestinian Claim to a `Right of Return`

And Why shouldn't Palestinian Arabs have the Right of Return?

Comment: In 1948, approximately 630,000 Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

In that same era, approximately 630,000 Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to brutality, persecution and pogroms.

Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of 100 million worldwide refugees since World War Two, these Arabs are the only refugee group in the world that has not been integrated into their own peoples' lands.


General / The Arab Lobby versus the Israel Lobby
« on: July 10, 2006, 04:29:01 PM »
The Arab Lobby versus the Israel Lobby

By now the media and the Web are full of the reports of the influence "nefarious" Israel Lobby, which have appeared in every major journal, together with insistent whining that this "secret" story cannot be published anywhere because of the nefarious workings of the Israel Lobby. So everyone knows that the "Zionists" are all powerful, and that the "Zionists try to shut up anyone who "dares to tell the truth" about our "secret cabal." Less well publicized is the extensive lobby of Arab countries and Palestinians, who together spend far more money on lobbying and influence buying in the US and in other countries then do Israel and the Zionist organizations. Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (and in the past, Iraq of course) spent billions in direct lobbying, endowment of "Middle East" and "Arab studies" institutes and on groups like the American Iranian Council. The Palestinians fund groups like Sabeel, the Palestinian Solidarity Movement and the Neturei Karteh. Big oil companies also lobby the US government to protect their interests in the Persian Gulf. The result is that US has spent far more money in propping up the rickety Gulf regimes than it ever spent on Israel. Long before the Iraq war, the US Seventh fleet in the Gulf and US soldiers in Saudi Arabia were costing US taxpayers as much as $10 billion a year according to Fuad Ajami. You don't hear about it in any studies, because most of the people who should be reporting on such influence are themselves direct or indirect recipients of Arab largesse. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The Arab and Muslim lobby in the US is far larger and more sinister than the Israel lobby. It is more sinister because the Arab countries, unlike Israel, were and are working to spread anti-US sentiment and anti-Democratic ideas, while commentators like John Esposito kept explaining to the American public that Islam is democratic, and that Islamism would evolve into democracy.

An article by Maurice Ostroff highlights some of the doings of the Arab lobby:

In a note in his diary, former President Carter disclosed how, in 1977, the Arab lobby pressured him while he was involved in the negotiations between President Sadat and PM Begin. He wrote about Arab Americans "They have given all the staff, Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, and others, a hard time.`

After the 1967 war, the Arabian American Oil Company ARAMCO established a fund to present the Arab side of the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives warned Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco that American military sales to Israel would hurt U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize U.S. oil supplies.

In 1973 Mobil published an advertorial (an advertisement written in the form of an objective opinion editorial) in the New York Times, promoting Arab interests. In July, the chairman of Standard Oil of California (SOCAL then, Chevron now) sent a letter to the company's 40,000 employees and 262,000 stockholders asking them to pressure Washington to support "the aspirations of the Arab people." The chairman of Texaco called for a reassessment of U.S. Middle East policy.

When the October 1973 War broke out, the chairmen of the ARAMCO partners sent a memorandum to the White House warning against increasing military aid to Israel. ARAMCO has maintained its public relations campaign since 1973, and has become involved in occasional legislative fights, such as the AWACS sale,

... On July 19, 2005 The Hill, a newspaper about the U.S. Congress, highlighted the activities of Fred Dutton, former Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and special assistant to President Kennedy. It reported that one of Dutton`s chief chores since 1975 had been to serve as a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia. In that role, he sought to persuade Congress to approve two major arms sales to the kingdom.

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 Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In 1978, he helped BCCI acquire First American Bank. Clifford as chairman, reassured the Federal Reserve Board that there would be no control by BCCI, which he also represented, but ten years later, evidence disclosed that BCCI did indeed secretly control the parent company of Clifford's bank. BCCI had in the meantime been accused of fraud, drug money laundering and bribing bank regulators and central bankers. It was reported to have $20 billion in assets shortly before its shutdown, but liquidators were unable to find many of its assets.

Chances are, you never knew all that, or any of the other things revealed in that article about the Arab lobby. I know I didn't. That is because there are lots of people who are interested in making certain we don't know.

Ami Isseroff

Comment: "As Kreplach once said, "Your car runs on oil not Jews." "

General / CIA Hid Key Info on 9/11 Thugs
« on: July 10, 2006, 03:21:41 PM »
CIA Hid Key Info on 9/11 Thugs

by Derek Rose
New York Daily News
July 3rd, 2006

Perhaps another piece of the puzzle for those still wondering why CIA chief George Tenent received Bush's profuse thanks and the Medal of Freedom instead of 30 to life in Leavenworth. - Ed.

The feds bungled a key opportunity to possibly nix the 9/11 terror plot, it was reported yesterday.
An Arabic-speaking FBI agent had requested information about a Jan. 5, 2000, Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia, but the CIA never turned it over, The New Yorker reported.

The ambitious FBI detective, Ali Soufan, was so upset when he eventually got the information - after 9/11 - that he vomited.

Soufan, who had been investigating the 2000 attack on the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole that killed 17 sailors, realized the two plots were linked.

"And if the CIA had not withheld information from him he likely would have drawn the connection months before Sept. 11," The New Yorker reported. The intelligence Soufan had sought showed that a one-legged jihadi named Khallad - a key Al Qaeda lieutenant linked to the Cole bombing - had attended the Malaysia meeting where the Sept. 11 plot was hatched.

According to the magazine, the CIA also learned in March 2000 that Al Qaeda operative Nawaf Alhazmi was in the United States, but the CIA never alerted the FBI. Alhazmi ended up on the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon.

The CIA may not have told the FBI about Alhazmi and another Qaeda operative, Khalid Almihdhar, because it hoped to recruit them as spies, according to the article.

"Two Al Qaeda guys living in California - are you kidding me?" FBI supervisor Kenneth Maxwell told the magazine. "We would have been on them like white on snow: physical surveillance, electronic surveillance, a special unit devoted entirely to them."

The CIA wouldn't comment on specific allegations but said it had improved its processing and sharing of intelligence.

"CIA's focus is on learning and even closer cooperation with partners inside and outside government, not on public finger-pointing, which does not serve the American people well," the agency said in a statement.

Comment: The Jihadists would never knowlingly serve infidels. Thanks again Kreplach!!!

Egyptian TV Promoting Anti-Semitism and Child "Martyrdom"
Tuesday, July 4, 2006 / 8 Tammuz 5766

As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak portrays himself as an honest broker in the Middle East, recent Egyptian TV programs inculcate Arab children with Jew-hatred and the desire for Jihad death.

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din appeared on a children's program on Al-Nas television on June 21, 2006, and told a story from Islamic tradition in which a Jewish woman tried to poison Muhammad. After telling the story, in which the prophet of Islam is miraculously spared, the sheikh took a call from a child viewer (all video and translations provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) ):

"Ruqaya, what did you learn from today's show?" the sheikh asked the child.

"I learned that the Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal...."

Sheikh Al-Din interrupted the caller, shouting, "Allah Akbar!" Turning to the children in the studio, he instructed:
Say Allah Akbar! What did Ruqiya say? The Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal. May Allah give you success. We want mothers who teach their sons Jihad, the love of Allah and His messenger, sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and love for the countries of the Muslims. Loving the country of the Muslims. May Allah bless you, Ruqaya. That is the most beautiful thing I have heard - that the Jews are the people of treachery, betrayal, and vileness.

Click "play" to watch the video clip
click here if video does not appear

An earlier episode (June 15, 2006) of the program for children on the same television station promoted death in the course of Jihad against "infidels."

The host of the program, Sheikh Muhammad Nassar of the Egyptian ministry of religious endowment (pictured above), invited the children to "listen to a very beautiful story to learn about the courage of a child, and how, when a child is brought up in a good home, and receives proper education in faith, he loves martyrdom, which becomes like an instinct for him. He can never give it up."

Nassar goes on to describe and praise the insistence of a 15-year-old boy to join the Islamic war against the Byzantine Empire, how that boy was killed in battle, and what miraculous events surrounded his burial. He also explained the holiness of the Jihad warrior killed by enemies of Islam and praised the boy in the story because he sought his death in Jihad.

"He died happy," the sheikh told a studio audience of children and the child viewers at home.

Click "play" to watch the video
click here if video does not appear

Comment: Mubarak tries to co-opt the "hate Jews with Medeval Myths" phenomenon by allowing it on TV. His strategy is to give it an outlet subverting any underground control of it. But its an old Arab tactic of pointing to the Jews hoping they will forget their own powerlewssness in Egyptian politics very much like Roman "Bread & Circuses" ~ Thank you again Kreplach!!!

General / Hijacking Jesus
« on: July 10, 2006, 10:12:33 AM »
Hijacking Jesus
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch | July 10, 2006

The cartoon in the July 6 edition of Al Quds depicts a Palestinian and an Iraqi being crucified on the same cross. This expresses a common Palestinian motif, found in both text and cartoons, that depicts Palestinians as Jesus, and Jesus as a Palestinian. [See below for more cartoons of Palestinians on cross like Jesus.]

`Brother from Iraq, Relative from Palestine`

[Al Quds, July 6, 2006]

Palestinian historical revisionism
Historical revision is a backbone of Palestinian political and academic behavior, as the leaders attempt to create a separate "Palestinian Arab" history and identity for themselves, distinct from the general Arab and Islamic history. "Palestinian" Arabs are a very recent creation, and did not exist before the advent of PLO terror in 1965. Note, for example, that under UN resolution 194 in 1948, refugees were not called "Palestinian Refugees," relating to a national identity, but were called "Palestine Refugees," referring to geography - from where they came.

Jesus was Palestinian, the Palestinians are Jesus
One aspect of this attempt to create a Palestinian history is to present Jesus, who according to Christian scriptures was a Jew (Judean) living in the land of Judea-Israel, as a Palestinian. (In fact the name was changed to Palestine 136 years after Jesus' s death as part of Rome's plan to cut the Jews' ties to their Land of Israel.)

Jesus has even been presented by Palestinians as the "the first Palestinian Shahid `“ Martyr for Allah," [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 17, 2005] applying to Jesus Islamic theology that evolved centuries later. On a culture program on Palestinian TV, a Palestinian artist depicted Israeli soldiers arresting Jesus, and explains that Jesus symbolizes the Palestinians.

The following are some of these examples identifying Jesus as a Palestinian:

1. `We must not forget that (Jesus) Messiah, may peace be upon him, is Palestinian, the son the Mary the Palestinian, who is sanctified by hundreds of millions of believers in this world.`
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 18, 2005]

2. "It was quite natural that the Palestinians rose to save their sanctuaries [in Nazareth] without anyone thinking there is a difference between a Christian and a Muslim`¦ since in the Palestinian situation, the lord Messiah [Jesus] and his mother [Mary] are both Galileans and Palestinians `¦"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 9, 2006]

3. `The Palestinian Galilee village of Kfar Kana takes pride in the fact that in [the village] the Palestinian Messiah succeeded to turn water into wine.`
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 14, 2004]

Jesus is likewise defined as a Shahid (Martyr for Allah):

4. ``¦And a child from the De`haisha refugeecamp will shout: `Yes, we have won, just as the prophets and [Jesus`] Apostles won,` and the shahids will cry, `˜We shook the palm trees alongside Lady Earth and the lady of the people, the Virgin Mary, and with her son the first Palestinian Shahid.`
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 17, 2005]

The flip side of turning Jesus into the Palestinians is the turning of Palestinians into Jesus.

5. `Muhammad [Al Dura, child who was killed by undetermined gunfire] ... a tiny sleeping Jesus...`
[Al-Quds, May 25, 2001]

6. During a culture program, a Palestinian artist depicts Israeli soldiers arresting Jesus, and explains that Jesus symbolizes the Palestinians.

Pic from web and link from web

Artist: "Our struggle today against the other side is an eternal one. It can be said that it started 2,000 years ago and continues until today. I demonstrate this through the figure of Jesus`¦ The Israeli soldiers are wearing army uniforms while Jesus has nothing except for the truth. When they searched him at the entrance of Jerusalem, they found a stone, a piece of bread and fish and he was cuffed. This is the Palestinian from the beginning of the struggle until the end."
[PA TV, July 21, 2000]

Misappropriating Jesus into Palestinian Islamic tradition allows the image of the Crucifixion to become a Palestinian symbol, which they then use to portray themselves and other Muslims as victims of Israel.

The following are additional examples of this visual motif:

1. Palestine is Jesus

[PA Website]

[Text on woman: "Palestine"
Al Hayat Al Jadida supplement-Intifada, Dec. 11, 2000]

Al Hayat Al Jadida, April 15, 2001]

2. Israeli and U.S. shells targeting Palestinians represented by the cross

[PA daily supplement, Dec 14 2000]

3. Another attempt at defining Palestinians as the modern dayJesus. Palestinians killed by Israel is called "repeating history" of Crucifixion.

[Al Hayat Al Jadida, May 9 2001]
Pope: Praying for Mid-East peace
Sharon: `What do you think about repeating history?`

Comment: In the case of the Palistinians they made sure to attack from two fronts regarding their claim on Israel- it is Muslim land conquered by Muhammad and it is their land because they are decendents of Jesus. Turnspeak is Ok in Arab tradition. You don't have to understand just to yell loud enough.
There are enough idiots on the left who will buy into it.


Israel: The Most Disputed strip of Real Estate on Planet Earth!

In a Nutshell... Animation Showing Israel in Relation to the Arab/Muslim Countries.
Click HERE

Please go to source and check out the rest. Thank you!!!

Comment: The facts concerning Israel have always been distorted such as making Palestinian Arabs innocent as blown snow! Thank you again Kreplach!!!   :-*

General / The Guilt-Free Soldier
« on: July 10, 2006, 07:28:25 AM »
The Guilt-Free Soldier
New Science Raises the Specter of a World Without Regret

by Erik Baard
January 22 - 28, 2003

illustration: Richard Borge

A soldier faces a drab cluster of buildings off a broken highway, where the enemy is encamped among civilians. Local farmers and their families are routinely forced to fill the basements and shacks, acting as human shields for weapons that threaten the lives of other civilians, the soldier's comrades, and his cause in this messy 21st-century war.
There will be no surgical strikes tonight. The artillery this soldier can unleash with a single command to his mobile computer will bring flames and screaming, deafening blasts and unforgettably acrid air. The ground around him will be littered with the broken bodies of women and children, and he'll have to walk right through. Every value he learned as a boy tells him to back down, to return to base and find another way of routing the enemy. Or, he reasons, he could complete the task and rush back to start popping pills that can, over the course of two weeks, immunize him against a lifetime of crushing remorse. He draws one last clean breath and fires.

Pills like those won't be available to the troops heading off for possible war with Iraq, but the prospect of a soul absolved by meds remains very real. Feelings of guilt and regret travel neural pathways in a manner that mimics the tracings of ingrained fear, so a prophylactic against one could guard against the other. Several current lines of research, some federally funded, show strong promise for this.

At the University of California at Irvine, experiments in rats indicate that the brain's hormonal reactions to fear can be inhibited, softening the formation of memories and the emotions they evoke. At New York University, researchers are mastering the means of short-circuiting the very wiring of primal fear. At Columbia University one Nobel laureate's lab has discovered the gene behind a fear-inhibiting protein, uncovering a vision of "fight or flight" at the molecular level. In Puerto Rico, at the Ponce School of Medicine, scientists are discovering ways to help the brain unlearn fear and inhibitions by stimulating it with magnets. And at Harvard University, survivors of car accidents are already swallowing propranolol pills, in the first human trials of that common cardiac drug as a means to nip the effects of trauma in the bud.

The web of your worst nightmares, your hauntings and panics and shame, radiates from a dense knot of neurons called the amygdala. With each new frightening or humiliating experience, or even the reliving of an old one, this fear center triggers a release of hormones that sear horrifying impressions into your brain. That which is unbearable becomes unforgettable too. Unless, it seems, you act quickly enough to block traumatic memories from taking a stranglehold.

Some observers say that in the name of human decency there are some things people should have to live with. They object to the idea of medicating away one's conscience.

"It's the morning-after pill for just about anything that produces regret, remorse, pain, or guilt," says Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, who emphasizes that he's speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the council. Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. "That's the devil pill," he says. "That's the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That's the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn't work, what's scary is that a young soldier could believe it will."

Are we ready for the infamous Nuremberg plea?"I was just following orders"?to be made easier with pharmaceuticals? Though the research so far has been limited to animals and the most preliminary of human trials, the question is worth debating now.

"If you have the pill, it certainly increases the temptation for the soldier to lower the standard for taking lethal action, if he thinks he'll be numbed to the personal risk of consequences. We don't want soldiers saying willy-nilly, 'Screw it. I can take my pill and even if doing this is not really warranted, I'll be OK,' " says psychiatrist Edmund G. Howe, director of the Program on Medical Ethics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "If soldiers are going to have that lower threshold, we might have to build in even stronger safeguards than we have right now against, say, blowing away human shields. We'll need a higher standard of proof [that an action is justified]."

The scientists behind this advance into the shadows of memory and fear don't dream of creating morally anesthetized grunts. They're trying to fend off post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, so that women who've been raped can leave their houses without feeling like targets. So that survivors of terrorist attacks can function, raise families, and move forward. And yes, so that those young soldiers aren't left shattered for decades by what they've seen and done in service.


Combat and psychoactive chemicals have always been inseparable, whether the agent was alcohol or a space-age pill. A half-century after Japan hopped its soldiers up on methylamphetamines during World War II, the U.S. has pilots currently in the dock for mistakenly bombing Canadian troops while using speed to stay awake. When Eric Kandel, the Nobel laureate in medicine who works out of Columbia, was asked if his genetic exploration of fear was funded by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, he quipped, "No, but you're welcome to call them and tell them about me."

Imagine a world where the same pill soothed victims and perpetrators alike. Henry David Thoreau advised, "Make the most of your regrets; never smother your sorrow. . . . To regret deeply is to live afresh." Without remorse, there would have been no John Newton, a slave trader who found religion during a harrowing storm at sea and later became an abolitionist; he's best known for penning "Amazing Grace."

For doctors, the drugs would present a tricky dilemma. Most people exposed to traumatic situations don't end up with PTSD, but there are few means of knowing on the spot who might need treatment much further down the line. Researchers say that for the medicines to be effective, patients would need to take them soon after the upsetting event. The temptation for physicians might be to err on the side of caution, at the cost of curbing normal emotional responses. Victims might be eager to avoid lasting pain, wrongdoers the full sting of self-examination.

"The impulse is to help people to not fall apart. You don't want to condemn that," says Kass. "But that you would treat these things with equanimity, the horrible things of the world, so that they don't disturb you . . . you'd cease to be a human being."

The very idea of PTSD has been attacked as a social construction, a vague catchall that provides exculpation for the misdeeds of war. But researchers are trying to prevent the onset of a disease, not change the social circumstances that bring it about. James L. McGaugh, a neurobiologist at U.C. Irvine whose study of stress hormones and memory consolidation in rats is one of the cornerstones of the effort, acknowledges the ambiguities but comes out swinging in defense of his work. "Is it immoral to weaken the memory of horrendous acts a person has committed? Well, I suppose one might make that case. Some of your strongest memories are of embarrassments and of the guilty things you did. It doesn't surprise me at all that people would wake up screaming, thinking of the young children they killed in Vietnam," McGaugh says. "But is treating that worse than saying, 'Don't worry if your leg is shot off, we've got penicillin and surgery to prevent you from dying of infection'? Why is it any worse to give them a drug that prevents them from having PSTD for the rest of their lives? The moral dilemma is sending people to war in the first place." 

Nevertheless, fellow fear researcher Dr. Gregory Quirk of the Ponce School of Medicine, in Puerto Rico, is troubled by how his work might be used if it progressed from studies of rats to therapies for humans. He argues that fear isn't created and degraded in the amygdala alone, but is also unlearned in the prefrontal cortex, which in PTSD patients is only weakly active. Quirk thinks a physician could stimulate those areas with magnets while patients view the images they fear, and could thus restore balance to the mind. With that same method, he says, firemen could stave off episodes of life-threatening panic. "Certainly the military might be interested in something like that," he says. "If this would be used to go against fear that's important for survival or morality, I would have a problem with that."

There are reasons to believe our military would covet mastery of Quirk's technique in humans. People at war dehumanize their enemies to make killing more palatable. Now, in the war on terror, our modern cultural taboos against torture are fraying. Put yourself in the room then. The commission of heinous acts, even deliberate torture, can also visit lifelong torment on perpetrators who aren't hardwired very well to be sadistic. The sounds of screaming?a primordial alert that mortal danger is near?trigger those damning hormones even in the torturer.

And couple Quirk's magnetic manipulation of the brain with this: "One of the horrible things I discovered after the Gulf War was that, because of the coeducation of wars, as it were, male soldiers were given extensive desensitization training to make them able to hear women being raped and tortured in the next room without breaking," Kass says. "It's a deformation of the soul of the first order. I cannot speak about it without outrage."

But a trauma-born irrational aversion to necessary war?pacifism in the face of an expanding evil?isn't healthy either. "Such emotions can blind us as well as make us wiser," says Howe. "It's possible that these kinds of drugs would help patients see in a clearer way." On the flip side, could anyone possibly maintain that Ahab was a better captain for not having been chemically mollified after the white whale bit off his leg?


An uncomfortable reality is that war isn't an aberration; it has a very codified place in our culture. We agree through treaties to normalize it. We demand punishment for soldiers who violate those treaties, though more often those from the losing side. But we don't deny them medical treatment. And one needn't have committed a war crime to feel wracked by sorrow. "In my dreams I meet six Vietnamese people I murdered. Whether they had a gun on them is irrelevant," says Romo, who, as a 19-year-old lieutenant, served as a platoon leader in the 196th Light Infantry Brigade in 1967 and 1968. His ticket home was as a body escort for his similarly aged nephew, who served in the same unit. "I returned to the United States on my nephew's dead body," he says.

Romo and veterans like him have taken it upon themselves to use their experiences to teach peace. But veterans torn apart by PTSD don't have a choice about being Exhibit A in the case against war. "When you see what can happen to a young person, it passes on in a very real way, not in a history-class sense, that reality of what war and blood really is," he says. Who are we to impose this emotionalalbatross on soldiers? As a nation, we elect our leaders. It seems unjust to make veterans a special class to suffer for our sins in wrongheaded wars, or pay a continuing price for victory in the "good" ones.

"That's a heavy burden to put on people to preserve the morality you're talking about," says Dr. Roger K. Pitman of Harvard University, who's leading the propranolol study in people fresh from car accidents. "By that same logic, if you could make a lightweight bulletproof garment for soldiers we still shouldn't do it. For moral reasons we ought to make them able to be shot, to preserve the cost of war, the deterrent to war. But we work to prevent our soldiers from being shot, and I say there are mental bullets flying around there, too."

There's another context to be considered as well, McGaugh notes, one that was made clear by the recent demand from representatives Charles B. Rangel of New York and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan that we reinstate the draft to address racial and economic inequities. "Who are our soldiers?" McGaugh asks. "They are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Very few of their daddies go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton."

But PTSD doesn't result solely from war. When Kass first heard of McGaugh's research, at a presentation in October, he had a far more intimate horror in mind: rape. "At fraternity parties they'll be popping Ecstasy at night and forgetfulness in the morning," he growls.

The victim would be an obvious candidate for an anti-trauma drug. Would dulling her emotional memories of the event help her to endure the lengthy, perhaps humiliating, pursuit of justice through the courts, or would it rob her of the righteous anger she'll need to persevere and perhaps the empathy to later help other victims? The rapist is part of the equation too. If his victim stabbed him in her own defense, no doubt he would be bodily healed. No physician could refuse to treat him. "If such a person had PTSD stemming from the circumstances of the act, he could be a candidate [for therapy]," Pitman says.

How much of our remorse do we have a right to dispense with, and how much exists in service to others, a check on our worst impulses? "Each experience we have changes our brain and in some sense alters who we are," says Dr. Joseph E. LeDoux of NYU, who studies emotional memory. "The more significant the experience, the more the alteration. We have to decide as a society how far we want to go in changing the self. Science will surely give us new and powerful ways of doing this. Individuals may want more change than society wants to permit."


Comment: The sterile technology of war whether it be missile, bomb or land mine. Thanks again Kreplach!!!

Iran`s President Calls for Unification against Israel and Zionism

 8 July 2006 | 17:15 | FOCUS News Agency 

Tehran. Iran`s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on all Islamic states to join efforts against Israel and oust the Zionist regime, AFP reported.
`The major problem of the Islamic world is the existence of Zionists. That`s why, Muslims have to pull themselves together and solve the problem. The existence of such a regime presents the greatest threat nowadays`, Ahmadinejad said before officials at a conference on security in Iraq.

Comment:Take away the word Zionism out of our vocabulary. What's that gonna prove and how is that gonna change the circumstances?

You might be able to take Zionism from the people but you will never be able to take the people from Zionism. It's embedded, engraved in their hearts and souls.

General / Why are Jews so Powerful?
« on: July 09, 2006, 05:51:46 PM »
Why are Jews so Powerful?
By Dr Farrukh Saleem, Jang (Pakistan) 20/6/06
Jun 22, 2006, 09:47

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas, five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa. For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Ever wondered why?

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish. Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew. Sigmund Freud -- id, ego, superego -- the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew. So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.
Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has enriched the whole humanity: Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine. Alert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine. Gertrude Elion gave us a leukaemia fighting drug. Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B. Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease). Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.
Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission. Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism). Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias). Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill. George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye. Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development). Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.
Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 15-dozen Nobel Prizes while only three Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims (other than Peace Prizes).
Why are Jews so powerful? Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip. Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor. Peter Schultz, optical fibre cable; Charles Adler, traffic lights; Benno Strauss, Stainless steel; Isador Kisee, sound movies; Emile Berliner, telephone microphone and Charles Ginsburg, videotape recorder.
Famous financiers in the business world who belong to Jewish faith include Ralph Lauren (Polo), Levis Strauss (Levi's Jeans), Howard Schultz
(Starbuck's), Sergey Brin (Google), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Donna Karan (DKNY), Irv Robbins (Baskins & Robbins) and Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).
Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew. So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Alan Greenspan (fed chairman under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush), Joseph Lieberman, Madeleine Albright (American secretary of state), Casper Weinberger (American secretary of defence), Maxim Litvinov (USSR foreign Minister), David Marshal (Singapore's first chief minister), Issac Isaacs (governor-general of Australia), Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian PM), Barry Goldwater, Jorge Sampaio (president of Portugal), John Deutsch (CIA director), Herb Gray (Canadian deputy PM), Pierre Mendes (French PM), Michael Howard (British home secretary), Bruno Kreisky (chancellor of Austria) and Robert Rubin (American secretary of treasury).
In the media, famous Jews include Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Barbara Walters (ABC News), Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Henry Grunwald (editor-in-chief Time), Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post), Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive editor, The New York Times), and Max Frankel (New York Times).
Can you name the most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world? The name is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world. Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.
At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by wining seven gold medals. Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker are all Jewish.
Did you know that Harrison Ford, George Burns, Tony Curtis, Charles Bronson, Sandra Bullock, Billy Crystal, Woody Allen, Paul Newman, Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Ben Kingsley, Kirk Douglas, Goldie Hawn, Cary Grant, William Shatner, Jerry Lewis and Peter Falk are all Jewish? As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers, Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, Oliver Stone, Aaron Spelling (Beverly Hills 90210), Neil Simon (The Odd Couple), Andrew Vaina (Rambo 1/2/3), Michael Man (Starsky and Hutch), Milos Forman (One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest), Douglas Fairbanks (The thief of Baghdad) and Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.
To be certain, Washington is the capital that matters and in Washington the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Washington knows that if PM Ehud Olmert were to discover that the earth is flat, AIPAC will make the 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his discovery.
William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?
So, why are Jews so powerful? Answer: Education.

Comment: Education!!! Hey, hey, hey!!! What else could it be?

General / Tough!
« on: July 09, 2006, 06:00:07 AM »
by Steven Plaut
June 29, 2006

Quick, take a fast current events quiz:

1. Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, how many innocent Palestinian civilians have been intentionally murdered by Israel?

2. Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, how many innocent Israeli civilians have been intentionally murdered by the PLO, the Hamas and their affiliates?

Now, if you have been relying on the mainstream media, you will be forgiven for not knowing the correct answers to those two questions. The correct answer to the first question is: "Zero"; and the correct answer to the second question is: "All of them."

That's right. Not a single innocent Palestinian has been intentionally killed by Israel during the past two decades of intifada violence. But every single one of the hundreds of Jewish civilians killed was an intentional act of Palestinian murder.

Sure, plenty of guilty Palestinians have been killed, and these include murderers, leaders in terror organizations, rank-and-file terrorists, and people setting up rocket launchers to fire at Jewish civilians. And sure, there have also been innocent Palestinian civilians who were killed or injured when the Jews shot back. These are people who were killed in the same Israeli anti-terror operations necessitated by Palestinian terrorist aggression and atrocities.

There is a fundamental difference, however, between Palestinian civilians getting killed in anti-terror operations and reprisals by Israel, and Israeli civilians who are killed by Palestinian Islamofascists. The Palestinian dead are unintended collateral damage from operations aimed at stopping rocket attacks and other terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. True, Israeli anti-terror operations are not so "surgically exact" that only guilty terrorists get killed in them. I am quite sure that if and when such a precise military technology is invented, for killing only guilty terrorists when they hide among innocent civilians, Israel will be the first country on earth to adopt it. However, until then, when Palestinians intentionally target and murder Jewish civilians, innocent Palestinian civilians may suffer the consequences of Arab terror.

Jewish civilians, however, are always the target of Palestinian terror. Israeli soldiers hurt by the terrorists are generally the unintended collateral damage.

Israel suffers from a fundamental strategic problem, which damages its ability to defend itself; namely, the fact that modern Hebrew does not have a linguistic equivalent to the American slang expression, "Tough!" True, it has some words for "what a shame," but they do not quite convey the same meaning. As a result, Israeli politicians generally fail to respond to whines from the world about Palestinian civilians getting hurt in counter-terror operations by saying, "Tough!"

There has never been a war in which only soldiers get killed, and there does not exist a weapons technology that allows military strikes to take place in an exact manner where no civilians near military targets ever get hurt. Such surgical precision is all the more impossible when terrorists intentionally hide within and behind civilian populations. International law recognizes the rights of countries at war to attack terrorists and even soldiers when they are hiding among civilians, even when such attacks produce civilian deaths. International law assigns blame for those deaths to the belligerents who use the civilians as their "human shields".

When Palestinian civilians are killed by an Israeli shell, then the moral responsibility for those deaths rests squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian terrorists who necessitate Israeli return fire. These are the same terrorists who have fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israeli civilian areas, even after Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip. These are the murdering Islamofascists who have turned the Negev town of Sderot, well inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, into the Israeli equivalent of Guernica, under daily bombardment. Sderot's low-income civilians live in bunkers, afraid for their lives.

Don't want Palestinian civilians killed when Israel shoots back? Simple. Stop the rocket attacks on Sderot. Don't like Israeli reprisals? Simple. Stop the terror atrocities committed by Palestinians against Jews.

You want Palestinians to move about freely without being searched at checkpoints? Simple. Stop the campaign of bombings, suicide mass murders and atrocities by the Palestinians. When the Palestinians stop murdering Jews, no one will have to check their cars. When Palestinian ambulances no longer carry explosives and murderers, no one will stop them for inspection.

You want the Palestinians to earn decent wages, have a comfortable life? Simple. Suppress Palestinian terrorism. Stop Palestinian rocket aggression. Then, they can even hold day jobs in Israel if they want. They are welcome to shop in Israel and get Israeli medical treatment.

But as long as the terror continues, don't expect Israel to respond by turning the other cheek and abandoning self-defense. Don't like it? Tough!

Don't like civilians getting hurt in wars? Then don't start wars of terror and aggression against Israel.

The Bash-Israel lobby keeps coming up with new forms of political aggression against the Jewish state. The newest goes something like this: Until Israel is technologically capable of killing terrorists hiding in the middle of cities full of civilians without a single Palestinian civilian being injured as "collateral damage", then Israel should be coerced into adopting a policy of Quaker pacifism, under which it does not respond or retaliate at all to terror atrocities.

In other words, by demanding that Israel only implement 100% pure military tactics, which no other army on earth has ever adopted, the Bash-Israel lobby is, in effect, really insisting that Israel stop defending its own civilians altogether, that Israel should become the first nation on earth to adopt such pacifism as its military strategy. Israel must be disarmed, while terrorism must be rewarded. And if Israel dares to shoot back, then it becomes the aggressor. By the same logic, Britain and the US were the real aggressors against Germany in 1944.

Such disingenuous demands for utopian purity in military operations, even when they come from Israel's own Leftists, are little more than a demand for unconditional Israeli capitulation to terror. Indeed, the only permissible defensive strategy such people are willing to allow Israel to follow is such capitulation.

Let us stop with the rhetorical pretenses and affectations. People who are "only" outraged when Palestinian civilians are unintentionally hurt by Israel, but have nothing to say against the mass rocket attacks on Sderot, are naked anti-Semites. They consider Jewish children legitimate targets of Arab aggression and Islamofascist terror because they hate Jews. In reality, they do not care a fig about Palestinian civilian casualties. Such casualties are merely delightful propaganda tools that can be exploited to demonize the Jews.

There is only one effective way to prevent Palestinian civilian casualties, and that is to stop Palestinian terrorist aggression against Israel. But that is the one solution to the problem that the modern day pogromchiki, including academic Brownshirts, will never support.

Comment: There have been many lists of casualties made up showing the large amounts of people who were killed were Palestinians but never is their a mention or breakdown of those who commited SUICIDE.

General / Is Extreme Racism a Mental Illness?
« on: July 08, 2006, 07:29:54 PM »
Is Extreme Racism a Mental Illness?


It can be a delusional symptom of psychotic disorders

Alvin F Poussaint, Professor of psychiatry1

1 Harvard Medical School and Judge Baker Children's Center 3 Blackfan Circle Boston, MA 02115

The American Psychiatric Association has never officially recognized extreme racism (as opposed to ordinary prejudice) as a mental health problem, although the issue was raised more than 30 years ago. After several racist killings in the civil rights era, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have extreme bigotry classified as a mental disorder. The association's officials rejected the recommendation, arguing that because so many Americans are racist, even extreme racism in this country is normative`”a cultural problem rather than an indication of psychopathology.

The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index.1 Therefore, there is currently no support for including extreme racism under any diagnostic category. This leads psychiatrists to think that it cannot and should not be treated in their patients.

To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.

Extreme racists' violence should be considered in the context of behavior described by Allport in The Nature of Prejudice.2 Allport's 5-point scale categorizes increasingly dangerous acts. It begins with verbal expression of antagonism, progresses to avoidance of members of disliked groups, then to active discrimination against them, to physical attack, and finally to extermination (lynchings, massacres, genocide). That fifth point on the scale, the acting out of extermination fantasies, is readily classifiable as delusional behavior.

More recently, Sullaway and Dunbar used a prejudice rating scale to assess and describe levels of prejudice.3 They found associations between highly prejudiced people and other indicators of psychopathology. The subtype at the extreme end of their scale is a paranoid/delusional prejudice disorder.

Using the DSM's structure of diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder,4(p329) I suggest the following subtype:

Prejudice type: A delusion whose theme is that a group of individuals, who share a defining characteristic, in one's environment have a particular and unusual significance. These delusions are usually of a negative or pejorative nature, but also may be grandiose in content. When these delusions are extreme, the person may act out by attempting to harm, and even murder, members of the despised group(s).

Extreme racist delusions can also occur as a major symptom in other psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Persons suffering delusions usually have serious social dysfunction that impairs their ability to work with others and maintain employment.

As a clinical psychiatrist, I have treated several patients who projected their own unacceptable behavior and fears onto ethnic minorities, scapegoating them for society's problems. Their strong racist feelings, which were tied to fixed belief systems impervious to reality checks, were symptoms of serious mental dysfunction. When these patients became more aware of their own problems, they grew less paranoid`”and less prejudiced.

It is time for the American Psychiatric Association to designate extreme racism as a mental health problem by recognizing it as a delusional psychotic symptom. Persons afflicted with such psychopathology represent an immediate danger to themselves and others. Clinicians need guidelines for recognizing delusional racism in all its forms so that they can provide appropriate treatment. Otherwise, extreme delusional racists will continue to fall through the cracks of the mental health system, and we can expect more of them to explode and act out their deadly delusions.

Comment: As bourne out by scientific research. When mental illness affects one life negatively thats mental illness. Thank you for the comment Kreplach!!!

General / Zionism in Brief
« on: July 08, 2006, 06:37:39 PM »
Zionism in Brief

Zionism is the belief in a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people, in Israel.

Zionism is the Jewish people's instantiation of the human right of self determination.
No more, no less.

Some people do not believe that Jews deserve human rights - we call them antisemities. Anti-Zionism, i.e. being against the existance of the homeland for the Jewish people and spreading hate about Israel is considered to be antisemitism under the European Union definition of antisemitism.

Inspiration for Zionism

Before Zionism there was a Kingdom of Jewish people where Israel now stands. In it's center stood Mount Zion, Jerusalem, The Temple. In 586 BCE the Babylonians invaded and the Jews were sent into exile for the first time. It is here that Zionism, the longing to return to Zion begins.

"By the waters of Babylon there we sat and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres... How can we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land ?" (Psalm 137)

The desire to return was both to Israel in general and to the temple in particular: "If I forget you O Jerusalem , may my right hand forget its skills" (Psalm 137:5)

The Jews returned and life continued until the Romans invade. In 70 CE Rome destroyed The Temple. The Jews revolt against Roman rule. In the Bar Kochba revolt of 132-135CE Roman forces killed an estimated half a million Jews. In 136CE an atempt to erase Judaism from the globe was made. A Pagen temple was erected where The Temple has stood, the Jews were exhiled from their homeland (becoming refugees), and part of the land was renamed Palaestina to ensure people forgot about the Country of the Jews.

Zionism continues

Zionism, the Jewish longing both to return to their homeland and for self determination i.e. to be a nation like any other, continued. Jews maintained a connection with Israel, a few lived there and many went to the Holy Land when they though they were reaching the end of their life. Zionism continued as a dream of the Jewish people until the modern State of Israel was established in 1948. Zionism today is about strengthening the connection between Israel and the Jewish people, and protecting and promoting Jewish cultural. Zionism today continues the tradition of supporting Israel by providing aid for those who need it and to improve the environment.

Attacks on Zionism and the need for Zionism

Some try and make Zionism out to be something different, usually borrowing from such classic antisemitic texts as "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a Russian forgery used to inspire pogroms, and then reused by the Nazis and more recently by Arab states to spread hate of the Jews). Unfortunatly these people are still intent on destroying Jewish culture and the Jewish people. People have been doing this through out history. The Jews usually moved to escape persecution. In todays global world this is no longer possible. The only defense is education so the public know the facts and are not yet again incited to hate of the Jews. The final safety net is the existance of Israel - a country that has since it's foundation been a safe haven for Jews being persecuted around the world. From Ethiopia to Russia, from the expulsion of Jews from Arab states in 1948 to the extraction of the last few Jews in Iraq today... Israel has consistantly welcomed the Jews home in times of crisis.

Zionism History - A detailed history

Self Determination for the Jewish and Palestinian peoples

Israel's thoughts on self determination for the Jewish an Palestinian peoples, as express in the debate on Self-Determination of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel) said the story of the modern State of Israel was to a large extent the story of defending the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland, and the right to live in peace and security. Israel respected the right of her neighbours, the Arab States and the Palestinians, to self-determination. Israel expected equal and mutual recognition, not only of the de facto existence of the State of Israel but of her right to self-determination. Israel recognized more than 20 years ago, in the framework of the Camp David Accords negotiated in 1978, the Palestinians` right to self-determination. The Oslo Peace Process was in fact both a recognition and a realization of the Palestinian's right to self-determination. It was only through such a process that both Israelis and Palestinians could hope to realize their legitimate rights to live side by side in peace and security.

At Camp David in July 2000, these issues had been discussed and an agreement with Israel's Palestinian brothers had been so close. An agreement would have given genuine expression to the aspiration of both peoples to live peacefully side-by-side. Unfortunately, as the record clearly showed, it was the Palestinian Authority's leadership's choice not to consummate these negotiations, neither at Camp David nor later at Taba in January 2001, but instead to resort to a course of continuous violence in order to force Israel's hand to make further concessions, contrary to every agreement negotiated and signed between Israelis and Palestinians. Agenda item No.5 on self-determination must not be a cause within the Commission for continuous attacks on Israel and its policy. Israel`s position remained that self-determination must be achieved through direct, peaceful negotiations between two sides.

Comment: Credible resources for Zionism and Israel CLICK HERE

General / Does Israel Have a Right to Exist?
« on: July 08, 2006, 05:37:01 PM »
Does Israel Have a Right to Exist?
By David Meir-Levi | April 6, 2005

A friend of mine asked me how I would answer the following question: "By what right does Israel exist?  Why does the world need such a hell-hole of a country, an apartheid-racist-war-mongering-Jewish theocracy?" I suggested that she consider the question as an opening for a conversation about the "right to exist" rather than as a challenge to Israel's character or to its right`”or lack thereof`”to exist.

The Arab Rejection of Israel

The last 65 years of Arab hate-speech, hate-preach, and hate-teach make it pretty clear that some significant part of the Arab world really does not want Israel to exist. That same segment really does the best it can to end Israel's existence, with 65 years of terror war punctuated by 3 major attempts at invasion, conquest, and destruction. The rhetoric of annihilation and the diatribe of genocide match the actions of these same Arab states, whose commitment of massive resources to the destruction of Israel is an implicit rejection of Israel's right to exist.

In a similar vein, 20 years ago, when Arafat agreed to recognize the state of Israel, his doing so was acclaimed far and wide as a great concession. Only a few had the perspicacity to point out that acknowledging the existence of a state that already existed was no great concession to anything except reality.  However, since Arafat continued to run a terror war against Israel and proclaim his desire to destroy Israel, his "concession" about Israel's existence was nothing more than a superficial bid to gain support in the USA. His continued psychotic desire to destroy Israel was an implicit rejection of Israel's right to exist.

Mahathir Mohammed, former Prime Minister of Malaysia, indirectly raised the same issue in his speech last year when he claimed that 1,300,000,000 Moslems worldwide could surely defeat Israel with its mere 6,000,000!  Since the Arab goal in defeating Israel is the annihilation of Israel, Mahathir's assertion that Islam's worldwide "umma" ought to be able to succeed in this goal is a very clear challenge to Israel's right to exist.

Implicit in the proliferation of vitriolic hate education in almost all of the Arab (and some parts of the non-Arab Moslem) world is the denial of the targeted victim's right to exist.

There is indeed a significant part of the Arab world, and some in the non-Arab Moslem world, who want Israel and its 6,000,000 Jews destroyed. The commitment to this demonic goal is an expression of the belief that Israel has no right to exist.

No Nation Has the Right to Exist

In my opinion, Israel has no right to exist. And that is because, in reality, no country in the world and throughout all of history has a right to exist.  No country in the world exists today by virtue of its 'right'.  All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction.

Take Tibet, for example, and Israel for the opposite example.

Tibet did nothing to threaten or anger China. No aggression, no threat of aggression. But in 1950, China invaded Tibet and ended Tibet's existence as a nation. The world did nothing (except create some bumper stickers). As with all nations, Tibet had no right to exist. It existed only as long as it was not attacked. When it was attacked and could not defend itself adequately, nor garner support for its continued existence from the world's family of nations or from the world's governing body, it ceased to exist.

The same would be true of Israel, except that Israel has defended itself adequately. Israel's continued existence is not by right, but only by its ability to defend itself against the Arab and Moslem world that seeks her destruction. And if it were ever unable to defend itself, it would soon share Tibet's fate. Or worse.

In the final analysis, no nation has a right to exist. No nation exists because of any right. Nations exist because they can defend themselves from those who want to destroy them. Therefore, the question itself, "what right does Israel have to exist?" is a bogus question.  It is misleading in its intention.  So let's examine the question from the vantage point of its intention.

The Origin of Nations

With only one known exception (Tibet, Bhutan and Nepal are possible exceptions to the analysis which follows, but that is not known for sure) no country ever came into existence by virtue of any right to exist, or any right to come into existence from some previous non-nation status.

All nations throughout the world and across history came into existence by virtue of their ability to conquer some other country or people or tribe or indigenous inhabitants. Violence, murder, war, rapine, conquest, massacres, burning, looting, pillaging, and sometimes even genocide:  those are the costs of nation creation in the real world, throughout all of history.

The only known exception to this gallery of historical horrors is the modern state of Israel. Israel came into existence by virtue of:

a. its ability to buy land with the help of world-wide Jewish and Christian Zionists

b. its ability to reclaim deteriorated waste land

c. its ability to organize itself in its pre-state existence into a viable well-governed cohesive society with a developing and expanding economy and an effective defensive force.

d. its ability, via lobbying and political leveraging, to get the world governing body to vote it into existence

In sharp contradistinction to the manner in which all other nations have been created, Israel came into existence by legal, peaceful, constructive processes.

A Mechanism for Destruction

Despite the fact that Israel is the only country in world history that came into existence via peaceful, legal, constructive means and by majority vote of the world governing body, Israel is the one and only country whose right to exist is challenged.

But, no matter how bad Israel may be, and even if the worst of Israel's detractors were correct in their horrific description of Israel's failings as a nation, Israel is certainly no worse than many countries throughout the world with disastrous records of human rights abuses, aggression against neighboring countries, social and religious and gender apartheid, oppression of minorities.  And in reality, Israel's track record in these areas is far better than that of most countries.  So however bad Israel may be, the fact still remains that it is the only country in the world to ever have come into existence peacefully and legally.

So why pick on Israel? Because the question has nothing to do with an inquiry into Israel's rights or lack thereof. It is simply a mechanism for the launching of an anti-Israel diatribe. Its real purpose is to open an avenue of attack, to bash Israel, de-legitimize her, denigrate her; and ultimately to justify the Arab world's desire to destroy her.

In the absence of any inquiry into the right of infinitely more reprehensible societies`”Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Mauritania, Sudan, inter alia, come to mind`”why condemn Israel as a rogue state with no right to exist?  Why not start with the worst offenders?

Why de-legitimize Israel for a conquest (which actually did not happen, but that's a different article) that was far less destructive than that of the Arab states whose Jihad in the 7th to 9th centuries racked up tens, if not hundreds,  of millions of casualties and destroyed four ancient civilizations (Byzantine, Coptic, Sassanian, and Berber).  Why not start with the most horrific of conquerors? Because the purpose of the question is to attack Israel and justify those who attack Israel!

The bottom line is that if you think Israel has no right to exist, you are right. And I'm sure that Hitler would agree with you wholeheartedly.


If you can defend your people, you have a state.

General / Remember What Happened Here
« on: July 08, 2006, 04:56:38 PM »
Remember What Happened Here
Gaza is freed, yet Gaza wages war. That reveals the Palestinians' true agenda

Israel Invades Gaza. That is in response to an attack from Gaza that killed two Israelis and wounded another, who was kidnapped and brought back to Gaza ...which, in turn, was in response to Israel's targeted killing of terrorist leaders in Gaza...which, in turn, was in response to the indiscriminate shelling of Israeli towns by rockets launched from Gaza.

Of all the conflicts in the world, the one that seems the most tediously and hopelessly endless is the Arab-Israeli dispute, which has been going on in much the same way, it seems, for 60 years. Just about every story you'll see will characterize Israel's invasion of Gaza as a continuation of the cycle of violence.

Cycles are circular. They have no end. They have no beginning. That is why, as tempting as that figure of speech is to use, in this case it is false. It is as false as calling American attacks on Taliban remnants in Afghanistan part of a cycle of violence between the U.S. and al-Qaeda or, as Osama bin Laden would have it, between Islam and the Crusaders going back to 1099. Every party has its grievances--even Hitler had his list when he invaded Poland in 1939--but every conflict has its origin.

What is so remarkable about the current wave of violence in Gaza is that the event at the origin of the "cycle" is not at all historical, but very contemporary. The event is not buried in the mists of history. It occurred less than one year ago. Before the eyes of the whole world, Israel left Gaza. Every Jew, every soldier, every military installation, every remnant of Israeli occupation was uprooted and taken away.

How do the Palestinians respond? What have they done with Gaza, the first Palestinian territory in history to be independent, something neither the Ottomans nor the British nor the Egyptians nor the Jordanians, all of whom ruled Palestinians before the Israelis, ever permitted? On the very day of Israel's final pullout, the Palestinians began firing rockets out of Gaza into Israeli towns on the other side of the border. And remember: those are attacks not on settlers but on civilians in Israel proper, the pre-1967 Israel that the international community recognizes as legitimately part of sovereign Israel, a member state of the U.N. A thousand rockets have fallen since.

For what possible reason? Before the withdrawal, attacks across the border could have been rationalized with the usual Palestinian mantra of occupation, settlements and so on. But what can one say after the withdrawal?

The logic for those continued attacks is to be found in the so-called phase plan adopted in 1974 by the Palestine National Council in Cairo. Realizing that they would never be able to destroy Israel in one fell swoop, the Palestinians adopted a graduated plan to wipe out Israel. First, accept any territory given to them in any part of historic Palestine. Then, use that sanctuary to wage war until Israel is destroyed.

So in 2005 the Palestinians are given Gaza, free of any Jews. Do they begin building the state they say they want, constructing schools and roads and hospitals? No. They launch rockets at civilians and dig a 300-yard tunnel under the border to attack Israeli soldiers and bring back a hostage.

And this time the terrorism is carried out not by some shadowy group that the Palestinian leader can disavow, however disingenuously. This is Hamas in action--the group that was recently elected to lead the Palestinians. At least there is now truth in advertising: a Palestinian government openly committed to terrorism and to the destruction of a member state of the U.N. openly uses terrorism to carry on its war.

That is no cycle. That is an arrow. That is action with a purpose. The action began 59 years ago when the U.N. voted to solve the Palestine conundrum then ruled by Britain by creating a Jewish state and a Palestinian state side by side. The Jews accepted the compromise; the Palestinians rejected it and joined five outside Arab countries in a war to destroy the Jewish state and take all the territory for themselves.

They failed, and Israel survived. That remains, in the Palestinian view, Israel's original sin, the foundational crime for the cycle: Israel's survival. That's the reason for the rockets, for the tunneling, for the kidnapping--and for Israel's current response.

If that history is too ancient, consider the history of the past 12 months. Gaza is free of occupation, yet Gaza wages war. Why? Because this war is not about occupation, but about Israel's very existence. The so-called cycle will continue until the arrow is abandoned and the Palestinians accept a compromise--or until the arrow finds its mark and Israel dies.,8816,1209965,00.html

Comment: The question is; who will end this cycle of revenge? Bush cannot continue acting as if the US role in this conflict is unimportant but this can't happen until each side looks beyond revenge toward a solution and until today's leadership does, tomorrow's suicide bomber won't.

General / Swedish credibility as frail as IKEA furniture
« on: June 15, 2006, 04:27:17 PM »
Swedish credibility as frail as IKEA furniture

And now message to all the Swedish boycott lovers, that always scream and chants their hate for years against the victims of terror. The ones that instantly rush and lend their names in public calls and urgings of boycotting democracies under terror attacks. We have found a new industry you can boycott.

2006 is election year in Sweden. In early April, Swedish Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz squashed an investigation into calls from the Stockholm Grand Mosque to `kill the Jews`. In his opinion, such statements should be seen against the background of the conflict in the Middle East, rendering them entirely permissible.

Later the same month Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström declined to withdraw an entry visa to Hamas leader Salah Muhammad al-Bardawil or to have him arrested upon entry `“ even though Sweden is a signatory to the pan-European decision to brand Hamas a terrorist organisation. Bardawil and his associates will be visiting Sweden in early May under the full protection of the Swedish authorities.

And now Cabinet Secretary Hans Dahlgren announced that Sweden has withdrawn from a European peacekeeping exercise. The explanation: `the participation of the Israeli Air Force has changed the prerequisites of the exercise.` Swedish Defense Minister Leni Björklund goes further: Sweden pulled out because Israel is a state `that does not participate in international peacekeeping missions` `“ in other words, if you`re not already in the club you have no right to try and lend a helping hand. Of course, the Defense Minister is entirely wrong `“ nothing unusual in Swedish diplomatic circles `“ because Israel sent a peacekeeping force of policemen to Fiji in conjunction with that country`s elections. Perhaps accuracy is not the Defense Minister`s strong suit.

In an election year when the votes of Sweden`s 400,000 strong Muslim electorate easily outweigh those of the country`s mere 16,000 Jews, the Swedish Social Democratic administration obviously considered it worth the half million or so kronor it has already spent on its 10-month preparations for the joint exercise to drive home its desire to attract more votes.

Sweden`s latest in a long line of questionable decisions could scarcely have come at a more indelicate point in time `“ almost coinciding with Holocaust Remembrance Day in memory of the millions exterminated on an industrial scale in a Europe unwilling to work together to stop tyranny and encourage coexistence and loyalty. Today Sweden is doing what it did sixty years ago `“ turning its back on those in need and siding with the force it sees as likely to win. This is perhaps the right time to remind ourselves that it was high-quality Swedish ore that powered Nazi Germany`s war machine.

It is perhaps also the right time for people of conscience to vote with their wallets and give Sweden`s IKEA, Volvo and Saab a wide berth. There is no Swedish product that cannot be replaced with an alternative from a democracy with moral values.

Ilya Meyer
Gothenburg, Sweden

Boycott is so much fun, now the Muslims in Sweden also threaten to boycott the democracy if their demands of invoking Sharia laws is not obeyed. And that is just the beginning. Sweden, you have seen nothing yet.

Comment: Sweden, should have been boycotted when they banned Kosher meat.

General / Cartoons and Oil
« on: June 15, 2006, 03:26:06 PM »
Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Cartoons and Oil

It was insensitive and inappropriate for the Danish and Norwegian press to print political cartoons that were disrespectful of Muhammad, in particular, and stereotypical of Muslims, in general.

We Jews know how painful, and dangerous, such images can be, especially since the Arab press has been filled with vicious anti-Jewish cartoons for years now. And not only the Arab press: To give just one example, in 2003, a British paper printed a cartoon depicting Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian child as a city burned in the background. The cartoon won the newspaper's annual political cartoon society competition. Israel is still waiting for an apology from the paper's editor. No violence. No riots. Not even cartoon comebacks attacking Anglican belief or British history in the papers. And not because we couldn't do so, but we wouldn't do so.

(By the way, are we Jews the only ones who see the hypocrisy and villainy in Iran's plan to run a Holocaust cartoon competition to get back at Denmark? Do you think it is because Denmark was one of the few countries to save almost all of their Jews in the Holocaust?)

But the real question is why are we shocked that the Arab world has broken out in riots, destroying an embassy, killing at least four (as of the time of this writing)? According to an NPR report, the rage was consciously fanned by Denmark's Muslim clerics, who distributed throughout the Muslim world not only the cartoons in question but also much more graphic and offensive cartoons and coupled them with hate-inciting propaganda. If no one in any of our Western intelligence agencies knew what was going on, we are in more trouble than we think. Jack Bauer, where are you when we need you?

Another real question is why isn't the world more shocked at this Muslim rioting, shocked enough to demand more from our Arab allies to quiet the tide (or has it become impossible for them to control the mob-inflamed monster they created)?

Maybe it is not only a question of intelligence but a question of Western ambivalence. We read in Ethics of the Fathers, Nittai the Arbelite said, "Consort not with the wicked." But that is what we in the West have done by continuing to support the nations that support the schools and mosques that train the Muslim on the street to hate us (both as Jews and Westerners).

Ultimately, Western ambivalence will continue until we free ourselves from the temptation and stranglehold of Arab oil. For that we need a much more aggressive energy policy than the one President Bush unveiled in his State of the Union speech. We need a combination of tax incentives, stricter mileage standards on autos (the technology for which is now achievable), and a Manhattan Project on serious alternative energy sources like solar, rather than pork-barrel programs like ethanol that will use more energy than it creates. As we also read in Ethics of the Fathers, Hillel used to say, "If not now when?"

Comment: One picture can sometimes be deadlier than a thousand words. -- Tom Gross

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10