Larry's place

As already explained the British used the Jordanian government and its armed wing the Jordanian Legion as a proxy to exercise its interests in the coming regional shift of power in 1948. The case with the British in Egypt was even more damning. When the British left Egypt they left intact a supply of heavy and light weaponry along with training advisors to teach the Egyptian army how to use them. This tilted the balance of power severely in the direction of the Arab states during the war of 1948. [1] Egypt alone, if properly trained and with a well disciplined army could have defeated the Jews without the help of any other Arab army. The problem for the Arab states was not Israeli military dominance as historically argued. In the remaining months of 1947 until July 1948, and the end of the first truce, the Jews were severely handicapped and in a serious weakened position militarily. It was Arab incompetence that won the war for Israel not, Israeli superiority. By all customary military standards Israel should have lost the war in those first few weeks, absolutely no later than June 1.

There is the incident of Israel shooting down five British fighters at the beginning of 1949. On January 1, 1949, Egyptian war ships appeared off the coast of Tel Aviv, and fired on the city. On January 2, 1949 an enemy plane, presumably Egyptian dropped three bombs over Jewish Jerusalem. As a result Jewish forces launched a retaliatory raid on El Arish which was the Egyptian staging point for all military operations inside Palestine. The British used the incursion into the Sinai as a pretext to invoke a 1936 agreement in which they were obligated to defend Egypt in case of invasion. Ben Gurion was warned by the British and promptly ordered all Jewish forces removed back behind Israeli lines. By January 3, 1949, all Israeli forces had been removed from Egyptian soil [2] On January 7, Israel shot down five British flown spitfires, killing at least one pilot and taking another prisoner because their aircraft crashed inside Israeli lines. [3]

I agree with Shlaim’s analysis of the Jewish side that he offers in this section.

The heroism of the Jewish fighters is not in question, nor is there any doubt about the heavy price that the Yishuv paid for its victory. Altogether there were 6,000 dead, 4,000 soldiers and 2,000 civilians, or about 1 percent of the entire population…It is true that the Yishuv numbered merely 650,000 souls, compared with 1.2 million Palestinian Arabs and nearly 40 million Arabs in the surrounding states. It is true that the senior military advisors told the Political leadership on 12 May 1948 that the Hagana had only a “fifty-fifty” chance of withstanding the imminent Arab attack. It is true that the sense of weakness and vulnerability in the Jewish population was as acute as it was pervasive and that some segments of this population were gripped by a feeling of gloom and doom. And, it is true that during the three critical weeks, from the invasion of Palestine by the regular armies of the Arab states on 15 May until the start of the first truce on 11 June, this community had to struggle for its very survival.

It would be hard not to acknowledge the above truisms about the ’48 war since these are all established facts but, Shlaim sticks one sentence in this paragraph almost as if he were trying to sneak it in. Right after the ellipses of the above quote, Shlaim says “ Nevertheless, the Yishuv was not as hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned as the official history would have us believe.” I would argue this as hyperbole.

Military generals always think in terms of the other side’s strengths and weaknesses. It is not for them to speculate on how the enemy might utilize those strengths and weaknesses only that they possess the potential for using it. In assessing Arab strength the Hagana command had to consider that they might go up against everything the Arabs had to offer in their war of liberation. Nobody really knows how many Arab soldiers actually fought in the war of 1948. Estimates range from 20,000 to 65,000 depending on the time period we are talking about. “The Hagana… could draw on a large reserve of Western trained and homegrown officers with military experience” (p. 181). Shlaim is talking about the 4000 or so soldiers that the British trained to fight at the end of World War II, known popularly as the Jewish Brigade and did see some action in Sicily. [4]

[1] Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2002, p. 15. Pollack lists the Egyptian heavy armor as a battalion of British made Mark VI and Matilda tanks, sixteen 25 pounder guns, a battery of eight 6-pounder guns, a medium machine gun battalion, more than thirty British made Spitfire fighter planes, and four Hawker Hurricane fighters with twenty American C-47 transports which mechanics had made into crude bombers. The Israelis on the other hand had fewer than 900 light mortars, 85 antitank weapons, five “ancient” artillery pieces and four tanks. The Egyptians alone held a huge military advantage over the Jews in this area.

[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),FRUS. Vol VI, p. 605
[3] FRUS Vol. VI p. 627.
[4] Refer to note 9

Schlaim critique: first bone of contention: British policy at the end of the mandate, Pt 2

2010-07-27T13:51:00.000-07:00

Between November 29, 1947 and May 14, 1948 Shlaim contends that traditional Zionist historiography’s “central charge is that Britain armed and secretly encouraged her Arab allies” p.179. Shlaim credits others like Ilan Pappe with “Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” along with his own “Collusion across the Jordan” to smash this particular myth.

Actually the official records of State in both Great Britain and the United States show an England having a very hard time cutting loose the apron strings that held British imperial territory in the Middle East together for the previous half century. The record clearly shows that while there might have been some well founded trepidation on the part of the Yishuv of British motives, the fears of Jewish expansionism seems to have dominated British thinking during this time almost as much as the possibility of Soviet involvement which both England and the U.S. were loathe to accept. Shlaim’s thesis, minus the Marxist inspired psycho-babble, in “Collusion” was probably well founded. The Jews were not fools. If they could increase their chances of survival by eliminating a major military player like Abdullah, then they would do it. This is what drove Ernest Bevin, Britain’s foreign secretary, and the architect of British involvement, especially with Abdullah during that time, to push for a greater Transjordan. This in turn probably pushed the Yishuv into this victim mentality and led to a mistrust of Transjordan’s motives for an agreement. However, Shlaim rejects any notion that England supported the Arab side even though early British apologies allude to that fact. For example, Glubb discusses a meeting with Bevin where the secretary states categorically that he “did everything he could to help (the Arabs) them. [1]

Although Shlaim does not like to admit it, British interests in 1948 were in fact very much with the Arabs and not with the Jews. While there is no evidence to show that the British tried to stop the Jewish state from coming into existence after the UN partition vote on November 29th , one can build a very strong case that the British did financially, militarily, and politically helped the Arabs, and although unsuccessful, this was designed to protect British interests which were perceived to be in direct conflict with nascent Israeli interests.

Bevin insisted that Abdullah’s legion not take their war into Jewish territory, as Shlaim asserts. But British soldiers fought with and commanded the legion during their entire campaign of 1948. For all intents and purposes the Jordanian legion commanded by John Bagot Glubb was a proxy British force in the Middle East and for that reason the evidence shows that Bevin was extremely concerned for its existence and the only thing preventing the Jews from infringing onto British interests in the area according to Bevin’s thinking. The rank and file of the Legion were mostly Arabs, but the officers were British. Some were actually seconded from the British army into the legion. These men were not withdrawn from Legion duties until after May 14, 1948. [2] Weapons were still being delivered to Transjordan as late as May 28th of that year. [3] The English subverted U.N. restrictions which drew consternation against Israel for violating, by insisting that they were only fulfilling commitments made prior to the United Nations embargo to arm the Middle East. [4]

Shlaim relates the Februray 7, 1948 meeting between Abdul Huda, Transjordan’s prime minister, and Secretary Bevin which gave the green light to the legion to move into the Palestinian allotted areas and secure the land for the Kingdom. This in effect wiped out any chance for an Arab state in Palestine and created what Bevin had labeled a “Greater Transjordan.”

“Bevin also warned Jordan not to invade the area allocated by the U.N. to the Jews” p. 179. This shows according to Shlaim that Britain supported the idea of a Jewish State while not supporting the idea of an Arab state. What Shlaim does not tell us is that it would have been tantamount to diplomatic suicide for the British to circumvent the U.N. decision to create a Jewish state in Palestine given its tense relations over the issue with the U.S. position in respect to U.S. public opinion. England certainly did not see the creation of a Jewish State as satisfying British interests in the area and might very well have prevented a Jewish state from coming into existence had the U.S. not been so adamant to allow international law to take its course.

The British also used their forces in a failed attempt to take back Jaffa after Arab forces had been defeated by Menachem Begin’s IZL. Like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was suffering casualties on a daily basis because of the sniping coming from Arab Jaffa. The IZL claimed that the British had colluded with the Arabs to create a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem to cut the proposed Jewish State in two and thereby seal its fate. Therefore, the Haganna agreed to allow the Urgun to take the city. [5] In the ceasefire agreement, between the British and Jewish forces, they both backed off to neutral areas with a no man’s land in between and faced each other down until the British left Palestine on May 14th.. The British involvement in Jaffa was a direct order coming from HMG.

[1] John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957, p. 180

[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts), (FRUS) Volume V, Part 2 (1948), p. 1066.

[3] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2 page 1071. In this report from Lovett he mentions that Britain is supplying weapons to Egypt, Iraq as well as British proxy military force in the Middle East, the Jordanian Legion.

[4] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2, Note 4 page 563
[5] H.Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion, London: New Brunswick Publishers, 1996, p. 302. I should point out that Boyer Bell’s sources for these accounts rely heavily on personal memoirs and interviews with participants from all sides. There is an index in the back of personal interviews and notes on the memoirs. This is what Shlaim is arguing in this piece which he claims is not valid history writing. For more on this and a Jewish view on Jaffa see, Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, New York: Vintage Books, 1982, p.36.

1100 illegal alien violent offenders in the Maricopa County jail. Does anyone care?

2010-07-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

1100 illegal alien violent offenders in the Maricopa County jail. Does anyone care?

SB 1070 in the hands of the court now

2010-07-25T14:22:00.000-07:00

SB 1070 in the hands of the court now

A critique on Avi shlaim's "the debate about 1948" Part 1

2010-07-24T10:54:00.000-07:00

The following is a critique of Avi Shlaim’s Historiography of the 1948 war, “The Debate About 1948” first published in The International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27, No.3, (August 1995) p. 287-304 and more recently in “The Israel/Palestine Question: Rewriting histories, edited by Ilan Pappe, Routledge, 1999, which this article uses as its reference.

After spending some time outlining what he calls the “old” history and briefly summarizing the litany of 80s publications exposing Israeli myths and counter myths about the country’s hallowed beginnings, he cites six “bones of contention” that traditional and “New Historian” researchers fundamentally disagree on. They are (1)“Britain’s policy at the end of the mandate, (2) The Arab-Israeli military balance in 1948, (3) the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, (4) the nature of the Israeli-Jordanian relations during the war, (5) Arab war aims, and(6) the reasons for the continuing political deadlock after the guns fell silent.

It is these bones of contention Shlaim concludes that divide the world of Zionist historiography into those that know and those that think they know. Why Shlaim chose those particular six is curious. As “bones of contention” many more issues can be debated than what is listed here. How about Israel’s settlement policy, it’s claim to water in the Levant’s tributaries, racist policies against Palestinian Israeli citizens, the claim to Jerusalem and all the conflict that has caused over the decades, and Jewish interests in general colliding with Palestinian interests. In a conflict this old, brewing with hatreds and long time scores not settled there are too many “bones of contention” to settle on only six. One has only to take his pick, and that is what it seems that Avi Shlaim has done in “The Debate.”

While admitting indirectly to such playful managing of the historical evidence (p. 174*) he concludes that earlier historians were not qualified to write the history of the 1948 war because “Most of the voluminous literature on the war was written not by professional historians but by participants, by politicians, soldiers, official historians, and a large host of sympathetic chroniclers, journalists, biographers, and hagiographers” and should therefore be rejected. (P. 173). There is good reason for Dr. Shlaim to reject this kind of evidence which will be argued throughout this piece because most of it is diametrically opposed to what Dr. Shlaim is promoting here.

It is interesting that Shlaim’s quote above about the Israeli favored histories on the war of 1948 is not too different from Avraham Sela’s description of the literature coming from the Arab side of that war in those first few years after the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab history of 1948 according to Sela who revels in it, is almost exclusively the kind of history that Shlaim wants to reject. Sela describes it as a “large number of first-person accounts, textbooks, memoirs, diaries and polemics.” This can only suggest that most primary source material on both sides during that time came from these kinds of sources. Without it we would have almost no history at all. Does Shlaim suggest that we should disregard Walid Khalidi’s work on “The Fall of Haifa” or his “Documents of the ’48 Conflict” published in The Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 27, No.3,(Spring, 1998) p. 60-105? I doubt that even Shlaim’s admitted Marxist leanings (p. 189-190) would allow him to disregard such important historical information on the Arab perspective of 1948. It is precisely the Arab history of this time that Schlaim and others draw on to indict Israel’s founders of fabricating Israel’s early history. Could there be a double standard here?

Historical accounts after the war are “not history in the proper sense of the word.” P.172-173. I would argue against professor Shlaim’s assertion here. They are most certainly proper historical accounts, if for no other reason than they are the only sources of that war coming from that time period. That in itself makes them primary and vital to the historical record. Because they were decidedly Israeli or Arab centric, depending on the source you are reading, does not preclude that they are not valid. To reject any written material on any historical event even if it happened yesterday, simply because there are no official documents on which to draw the history, is absurd. The opening of Israeli political and military documents in the 1980s does not invalidate these sources, they only add another important dimension to the debate. Personal histories, eyewitness accounts or even partisan evaluations which lead to “sacred texts” of nations’ beginnings are every bit as important as released military documents in the 1980s.. Ben Gurion’s memoirs for example, offer a partisan view of the leader of Israel’s arguments and justifications for Israeli actions during the war. As the author, he has the inherent right to exclude or include any material that he wished. Is Ben Gurion’s point of view of no importance to the history? Under Shlaim’s present argument it would appear that it is.

Another avenue of history that often seems to be forgotten about this war is the British contribution. Shlaim is not the only historian guilty of this. This seems to follow the New Historian pattern of rewriting Israel’s beginning history. There were many British anti-Zionist apologies for the Arab disaster of 1948. However, they are rarely if ever referred to in modern historiographies on the war. And, that methodological tactic is present in this Shlaim piece. I can only assume that he does not because as an admitted leftist he is not comfortable with the motive of the British and its underlying imperialistic desires over the Middle East during that time, more than he is desiring to show sympathy with the underdog oppressed, persecuted Palestinians. E. O’Balance, Erskine Childers, John Baggot Glubb and others published a British view as to why the Arabs lost are all rejected by Shlaim as bonafied histories. Shlaim does see fit however, to quote A.J.P. Taylor a British Marxist who, unencumbered by Western capitalist influences, wrote a revisionism on the causes of World War II, and is remarkably similar to Shlaim’s thesis on “the Debate”.

No matter how much Avi Shlaim remains true to his Marxist ideology it does not give him license to rewrite history. It is the job of every historian to be as honest as they can otherwise the history they write will be meaningless. With that in mind Shlaim’s bones of contention might be valid but his perspective is suspect here. To me, a more accurate statement about these bones of contention are not so much between “old” and “new” historians, but between Marxist and the more traditional western style democratic influenced historians.

9-11 mosque protest in New York is creating mosque protests in other American cities

2010-07-23T08:43:00.000-07:00

9-11 mosque protest in New York is creating mosque protests in other American cities

The problem with liberal Jews in the Democratic Party: an editorial

2010-07-21T20:50:00.000-07:00

The problem with liberal Jews in the Democratic Party: an editorial

My Life inside the Muslim Students Association

2010-05-29T10:07:00.000-07:00

I went back to school after many years of being out to get my degree. I majored in history with a focus on the Middle East and with a particular interest in studying Islamic history. So I took a lot of those kinds of classes where I came in contact with many of the Muslim students at my institution.

I was usually the one dissenting voice in the classroom when it came to things like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war on terror, and the clash of civilizations. Being right after 9-11 we were all so very sensitive on both sides about what the course of the future should bring.

Since I was older it was easier for them to just right me off. After all what do older people know, right? When you’re in early twenties you think you know everything, and political radicals of all kinds well, that’s even worse.

What was that saying attributed to Churchill about liberal thinking? If you’re not a left winger at twenty you’ve got no heart, if you’re still a left winger at forty, you’ve got no brains. Or something like that.

So, I gained a bit of a reputation among leftists and Muslims as being a combination O’reilly devotee and idiot. Ok, fine.

While taking an Islamic history class on the Ottoman Empire 15th-20th century, I saw a poster on the wall of the classroom asking for membership in the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

I am reasonably sure that the MSA has a national directive to collect for Islamic charities during their meetings. And, as we have seen through several well researched, published accounts that many times this money ends up in the hands of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other al-Queda like organizations, for the express purpose of killing Jews and Christians.

As despicable as that is, they are still allowed to operate under the freedoms granted to them in this country,

I already knew of their activities from the displays and activism they utilized on campus, but still, I would fantasize how cool it would be to be a fly on the drapes during their meetings listening to them wax eloquent about everything from how they are being persecuted as Muslims to what kind of degrading spectacle they can come up with to offend Jews in the community.

As much as I would have liked to have been part of those discussions, I knew that could never be, because my face, if not my name, was too well known to be able to move around an organization like that without being spotted, and then ousted.

However, after giving it some more thought my name was a bit more obscure. Professors would sometimes call on students without saying anything and sometimes it was “Larry,” or “Mr. Hart.” With my name on one of their rolls it still would be difficult to put together who I was unless you were actually looking for it.

After all I didn’t know every Muslim student as the Muslim population in L.A. is quite large and the local campuses sport a sizable population of Muslim students. In order for my name to be spotted it would probably have to be one of the students, or professors who were also sympathetic to Muslim causes, I actually had interaction with. While that was not impossible under the right circumstances it wouldn’t be likely either.

I would be more invisible if I could just get by with my name, even for a little while.

I decided to sign up for the email list just to see what might happen. Email was beginning to get very popular around the turn of the century and universities were using it extensively. I couldn’t attend meetings or functions but with the advance of email at the time I might be able to get a few tidbits of information that way.

I took a fatalistic attitude toward the whole situation, if they busted me, they busted me. Being on an email list is not all that big a thing. Let’s be honest, receiving an email newsletter once a week or so, would not constitute a breech in their security or anything. I thought it would be fun and I would deal with any repercussions if it came to that.

Because I was still an arms distance away from what might have been even more revealing, the kinds of information I received I was not ground breaking. I couldn’t go to the FBI with it or anything like that.

It wasn’t as good as actually getting next to these people up close and personal but so what, I really didn’t want to get any closer to them then they would allow me to anyway.

During my tenure as a name on their email list I received messages on a weekly or semi weekly basis. Most were about upcoming social events, movies they acquired with an Islamic theme, and discussions that would go on at the university from time to time, some political and some technical concerning living arrangements, food preparation, especially Halal, and alerts about cars parked illegally etc.

But, in between all of this mundane twenty-something nonsense I also remember the following items that may be of interest. The quotes are in quotes because that is how I remember them, but it was several years ago so I might not have the actual wording correct.

Once they sent out an email memo reminding all MSA members to bring their favorite anti Zionist picture, story, or video so they could incorporate it into the national MSA anti-Zionist/free Palestine week. They added as a qualifier “remember, showing Zionism as evil is paramount. It is the only way to convince Americans to support the Palestinian struggle.”

Another time they repeated a memo from National MSA headquarters or some other national overseeing agency, (I can’t remember which) asking members to promote the idea of Islam being a “religion of peace” on their perspective campuses. Playing off a president Bush comment and using it to further the idea that 9-11 was not committed by Arab Muslims.

By the way the anti-Zionist week I mentioned showed evidence that it was Jews who brought down the twin towers, not Mohammad Ata and his gang.

Another time they urged MSA members to enroll into Jewish study courses for the express purpose of monitoring those classes for both sympathetic and non sympathetic Jews, so they could line up who is their enemy and who isn’t.

I’m pretty sure I was labeled an enemy.

All toll I was on the mailing list for about eight months before I was discovered. I don’t know who recognized my name or how it happened. No one ever said anything to me, but I was quietly removed from the list. I wrote to inquire why I was not receiving their messages anymore and they never answered. I guess “the jig was up.”

Groups like the MSA, CAIR, The American Muslim Council, The Muslim Public Affairs Council, and others give the outward appearance that they are community based organizations working toward the betterment of the Muslim community.

Well, if you consider the completion of Jihad, the establishment of Sharia law through Dar el-Harb (the world war) as betterment of the community then that would be an accurate statement.

In reality these are mostly front groups who advocate sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely to further the cause of Jihad in the United States. Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers. But, many, more than you would think an acceptable number are sympathetic toward the suicide bomber’s goals.

They all really need to be watched more closely than they are currently.

The Muslim Students Association in particular might be the most subversive and influential politicized group on campus since the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) almost succeeded in radically changing a generation of young people in the 1960s.

It is extremely important that those of us in the west who want to protect our freedoms that we be aware of these groups, their intentions and believe what they are saying and then act accordingly.

And, especially impress this on your children who are attending university.

Los Angeles water shortage: is it necessary

2010-04-20T08:46:00.000-07:00

I'm angry and this article shows it.

Los Angeles is currently under some very strict water rationing controls because of severe drought conditions resulting from low rain fall totals over the last several years. At least that is what City Hall is telling us.

Uh-huh…

In addition several months ago Los Angeles experienced a series of water main breaks at such an alarming rate that it raised enough concern to look into possible causes. At the time the question was raised on whether the current DWP water restrictions could have anything to do with so many serious breaks and subsequent water damage to the community. The head of the Department of Water and Power at the time David Nahai stated that such a notion was “absolute nonsense.” A report released today April 14, 2010, shows that is exactly what happened. Mercury.com http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14880218?nclick_check=1
reported “pressure fluctuated in the city's 7,200-mile water system, straining aging and corroded cast iron pipes until they burst,” commented “University of Southern California civil engineering professor Jean-Pierre Bardet, who led the team of scientists and private-sector analysts.” We’ve lost billions of gallons of water in the process and have spent millions of dollars fixing the problem.
Who’s fault is that? Did we even need water rationing?

Although rain fall totals were slightly under normal over the 2008-2009 season there was no reason to impose water restrictions. Charles Fisk, a meteorologist at Point Magu Naval airbase in Ventura County shows on his website http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ that most of our rainfall during the 2008-2009 season occurred by the middle of February and was by that time less than an inch under normal. Over the previous three rainy seasons we had one the previous season that was like this past year, one poor enough that it did warrant drought conditions, and one that recorded the second highest rainfall in the history of the city since they began recording those kinds of statistics back in 1877. http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm

If we take the previous several years of rainfall and compare that with the last time we had real drought conditions during the 1990s it is clear that much higher rainfall totals currently than the last time have led to the same institutionalized rationing. In the 1980s Los Angeles experienced six out of seven years of drought. The one year that rainfall was above normal was only two inches above. Finally in May of 1990 Mayor Tom Bradley called for water rationing in an attempt to conserve what was by then precious water sources. This was after six years of lower rainfall totals. Water reservoir totals were way down. It was justified then, it isn’t justified now.

The fact that we are experiencing so many breaks has to make some people wonder. I am not an expert on these matters, but you don’t need to be to understand a possible correlation with a review of some of the standard data available on the Internet. Confirming that we really didn’t have rainfall totals over the previous several years to call for drought conditions and therefore install mandatory water rationing a year ago , is definitely suspicious. A desperate set of politicians from the Mayor in collusion with the Department of Water and Power and the City Council have secretly and nefariously imposed water restrictions on a major metropolitan community that did not need it.
As of November 2, 2009 44 serious pipe bursts had occurred in the Los Angeles water system. The result of the Mayor and the City Council decisions has cost the city billions in resources and dollars—dollars the city of Los Angles cannot afford to lose.
Why would they do this?
The level of deceit and dishonesty in this matter is beyond comprehension. In my opinion the city leaders instituted this program of rationing to be able to set up a revenue base from violations that would help in their current budget problems. That is inexcusable. And, if that is not the reason, then they should be made to tell us the reason. The Mayor, his council and all those connected with this sham should be investigated. Elected politicians should be recalled, appointed bureaucrats should be fired without their severance or pensions for their civil service.
By the way, David Nahai is no longer the head of the LADWP, probably seeing the writing on the wall he resigned last fall, to take some other international water running job. That should not save him. He should be penalized through his pension the same as every one else, no matter where he is now.
We don’t have to take this from these guys. They work for us. They answer to us. And, our answer to this incident should be, Your fired, get out!

Confessions of a Conservative Jew

2010-04-09T06:48:00.000-07:00

Written in response to the onslaught of articles from the Left claiming that the Tea Party is anti-Semitic in nature and for that reason needs to be stopped

There it is, right in the middle of the picture, in pure bright colors, flanked by American flags and contrasted by a deep blue sky in the background. A protest, a democratic ritual, a grass roots staple, nothing more American than that, right? Wrong. The sign states a common canard that develops understandable stomach lumps in one small but very significant group of Americans. It would be absurd if it didn’t have such dangerous historical implications. But, there it is, right in the center of the picture and it reads as clear as day, “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds (sic).”

Jews have to be a little uneasy with this kind of statement. As a conservative Jew I am ashamed that this and other photos of certain anti-Semitic slogans are taking any part in a movement that I am highly proud of as an American. Smacking of the 100 year old “protocols of the Elders of Zion” it has no place in American political discourse. Yet, the companion article to this photo makes T-Partiers appear everyone out there is anti-Semitic. But, that is not the case. Of course, liberals, like Glenn thrush of Politico.com who is responsible for the above, would have you believe that because of a handful bigoted slogans, anti-Semitism is running rampant through T-Party thinking. Why?

There is a rash of liberal journalists running interference for the administration because the T-party is beginning to have an impact on American thinking. Their numbers are huge. The demonstrations across the country are very impressive. With the hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part and the millions more supporting them from their homes, businesses and schools, represents the most frightening reality to liberals, that America is waking up from their dream state of November 2008 and they want their country back. So, liberal media, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party is working hard to show that the T-party is not as American as apple pie, but rather something dark, sinister, and hateful, among other things—anti-Semitic.

According to Rob Eshman, the editor in chief of the largest Jewish newspaper in the second largest Jewish population in the world, Los Angeles, devoted his entire column the week of the health care vote trying to discredit the Tea Party influence by insisting that anti-Semitism is the pillar of the movement. He pointed out that Rahm Emanuel had received some hate mail signed with a swastika. He used Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” axiom to show that Americans are going along with this without question. He seemed a little disappointed that after the meteoric rise of the movement to such gargantuan proportions that no single charismatic leader has risen to take charge reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis. He quoted James Bessor from another widely read Jewish periodical “almost all the political scientists I talked to said, the insurgent movement also includes elements that are likely to scare the heck out of Jewish voters. “

What elements? Where?

Conservative and Independent Jews are indeed worried about anti-Semitism but not at Eshman’s and Bessor’s assertions. Understanding that there are a few crazies in the movement which need to be exorcised and put down is not worrisome. Anti-Semitism in the tea party is an anomaly which is being dealt with the way anti-Semitism should be dealt with in a free human rights respected society. For Liberal Jewish voters, the kind that Eshman, Bessor, Thrush and others are speaking for in their hysteria need to be more worried than we conservatives. Anti-Semitism in the Democratic party which is broad and extensive unfortunately has never been checked and now in the beginning of the 21st century has an un-relinquishing grip on the party. It is the ugly little secret that liberal Jews never want to talk about much less do anything constructive to combat it.

This animus toward Jews is propelled mainly by three sources very much entrenched in party workings, the extreme Left wing, the African American community and certain Muslim and Arab groups.

Historically, the pull away from Jewish interests in the Democratic Party can be traced directly to the 1972 platform where they endorsed recognition of Palestinian rights at a time when terror was the Palestinians only negotiating tool. Unchallenged, that cancer has continued to grow over the last four decades turning the Democrats from a party of American inclusion to a prioritize cluster of elite groups underpinned with anti-Semitism.

Aside from its sheer dishonesty and a refusal to face facts and understand history, Jewish liberal hypocrisy on the matter is unforgivable. Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post describes an isolated disgusting poster at a T-Party rally which has nothing to do with T-party politics. The text reads “Uncle Sam Reminds You: KEEP PAYING TAXES. The ongoing extermination of Palestinian Children Can't be Done Without Your Help.” Insinuating through Holocaust imagery that American tax dollars going to the State of Israel are used to murder children is an outright lie that is never challenged by the liberal Jewish left, when leftist demonstrations use the same imagery. Leftists have forever tried to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, claiming that political statements concerning Israel and its survival struggle with the Palestinians are legitimate and should be separated from the Nazi like real anti-Semitism of the right wing. Yet, here Linkins uses it to show anti-Semitism running rampant through T-party motivations.

Can Liberal Jews do anything to reverse this trend? Getting rid of this ugliness is highly unlikely at this point. The time for that is long since past. The only way to purge this viciousness would be to challenge these groups for party supremacy and then remove their constituents from any positions of power they hold. That is not possible at this time. That would destroy the foundations of what the party is, I don’t think even Liberal Jews want that.

What they have done instead with these articles is to draw a moral equivalency between the two major American ideologies thereby diffusing any complicity in the crime. After all, if anti-Semitism exists equally on the right and the left then the issue seems to cancel each other out as criteria for supporting Jewish causes.

Taking the low road and not standing up to this threat when it was possible to do so will cost the Jews as it has at other times in history. European Jewry followed somewhat the same course in Western Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries. We all know how that ended up.

Well, there is one thing they could do, and I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention it here. Here is my constant message to my Jewish brothers and sisters. Leave the Democratic Party now. It is the conservative thought in this country which now holds the key to our salvation and our freedom. You need to realize and embrace it. It is the only way to continue to flourish and take advantage of the freedoms we are given here.

For some reason I cannot see journalists like Eshman and Linkins or politicians like Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel making those kinds of courageous changes. I just don’t think they have it in them.

It is right that these isolated placards that show an anti-Semitic bent in T-party demonstrations be exposed and put down as quickly as possible. There is no room for that in this country. We do not need to redefine freedom; we just need to extend it to all who are willing to fight for it. It appears that the T-party is just such a group, and this is definitely within Jewish interests. As Jews we need to stay on course, keep freedom alive, and keep America strong.

The Day the Jews Control the Town

2009-12-30T09:07:00.000-08:00

Did you ever see “Christmas Time for the Jews,” that Saturday Night Live short by Robert Smigel? It’s a three minute claymation skit of Jews who seem to have their way on Christmas because all the gentiles are home drinking eggnog with their families. It’s very funny, complete with references to Seinfeld, the Daily show and Fiddler on the Roof played by non Jews. Catch it on Hulu.com and you’ll appreciate this piece all the more.

Like most Jews I view Christmas as a day off, and I look forward to it. Like the song says it’s a time I can do just about anything I want. I can go to the movies, eat at restaurants and walk the malls relatively free of people. Or, if I want, I can choose to stay home, watch videos, order pizza and vegetate on the couch for the day.

In the past few years I have been hearing about a program that sponsors Jews who want to work for Christians in vital jobs that cannot be abandoned even on Christmas day. Each year as the attack on Christmas from the left grows larger I continue to look at this option as a possible means for me to satisfy two desires. One, to show my support for Christians celebrating Christmas as a Jew who is appalled at the Left’s attack and the Jewish role in that campaign, and two, it appears to me that such a selfless mitzvah probably will not go unnoticed in this world or the next.

I googled “Jews who work for Christians on Christmas.” I got all kinds of hits, from white supremacists accusing Jews of killing Christ, to Jews being warned not to celebrate Christmas. In the middle of all this was an article from last year in Boulder Colorado that caught my eye, a group of Jews working for Christians on Christmas. Perfect! I wrote the author and asked him to give me more information. Maybe he could help me find the same group here in L.A., where I live. Not thirty seconds after I sent the query, it came back undeliverable.

Dead end.

I wrote to the Jewish Journal here in Los Angeles. Rob Eshman, their editor wrote me back and put me in touch with a guy who then put me in touch with Temple Israel in Hollywood.

Temple Israel sends Jews, like me who want to do something constructive on Christmas, to the United Methodist Church on Hollywood and Highland. They sponsor a Christmas dinner for the homeless. It’s a noble and worthwhile way to spend Christmas as a Jew.

And, that’s ok, but I was looking for something different. I wanted to work for someone, so I could physically feel myself doing a mitzvah for a complete stranger—a one on one exchange of goodness for happiness. I work for him or her and they go home to have Christmas with their family. The thought of that was very appealing.

So, I kept looking.

I called the Jewish federation, the Valley Alliance, and the Jewish Community Center thinking maybe they might know something.

Nothing.

I was running out of options here.

I had to accept the possibility that there was no group, at least not any more. Luckily, I had an ace in the hole. I work as an onsite home owners association manager at a local condominium project in Marina Del Rey. We have guards at our gates 24/7, and, Christmas is no exception.

Bingo! A vital job that cannot be abandoned, not even on Christmas. The only difference, it wasn’t anonymous. Going somewhere to relieve someone who is a total stranger was more in line with my thinking. But, they were no where to be found and this was a pretty cool second best.

Since Christmas falls on Friday this year, our post commander Michele would be faithfully sitting at her post on Christmas morning and would not be excused until 3:00 in the afternoon.

When I asked if she had to work that day, in complete resignation she said, “yes, I do.”

I thought about it awhile. I didn’t want it to appear self serving since everyone knows me there and would undoubtedly ask why I was running the gates that morning, (which I never do) and deliver the praise of such an act.

Decision making time.

This is it, I do it here, or I don’t do it.

I approached Michele with the idea, and of course, as a new grandmother she was ecstatic. I told her to clear it with her company and since I spoke for the homeowners association on such matters everything else would be in place for me to work for her.

While sitting in the guard shack that day, I kept thinking I could be home right now, watching some old Seinfeld, and have “the daily show reruns, running through my head” (straight from the Saturday night Live skit), But then there was Michele, spending the day with her family and that beautiful grand daughter of hers.

It never hurts to practice a little plain goodness in your life. “The day we control the town” was for me this year, a day of real thanksgiving and brotherhood. Because of me, one Christian woman enjoyed a memorable day with her family, was eternally grateful for that opportunity and gave me a sense of self worth that I don’t often enough get to experience in my life. I’m not sure why, but somehow, by the end of Christmas day I felt a little more connected to my own Jewishness. It was good to give something back. It was a good day.

Are We Too Late?

2009-12-24T07:40:00.000-08:00

The United States continues to stall for time in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Consequently, Iran appears to be exploiting American weakness to have the resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the region. President Obama, coming off a disastrous policy decision on the Afghanistan problem, is following up with the same hesitant, restrained, indecisive pattern of ineffectiveness which has now put the west on the defensive against a growing Jihadi tide. And, this situation has our allies in the region, especially Israel, very worried because Obama at present is not risking the existence of the United States. He is using Tel Aviv as its minor’s canary to see how far he can stretch out the Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.

On December 19th Debka File reported that the Obama administration forced Israel to abandon any plans of direct action against Iran until the president has the opportunity to play out his hand at a diplomatic and peaceful solution. After all of Obama’s earlier tough talk at the United Nations last October in reality he is taking a much softer approach.

Our enemies are laughing at us

I would like to blame this on Obama’s Left wing agenda but the previous administration did the same thing. Like the Bush administration before him, he sends the wrong messages hoping the madman of Tehran will take them in the spirit in which they are given, as friends and colleagues on the world stage.

Wasn’t that what Chamberlain was hoping for at Munich in 1938?

Achmadinijad sensing American restraint on the issue demanded in Copenhagen last week “everything is possible, but not in a climate where they threaten us…those days are over.” Consequently, Obama is trying to appease Achmadinijad, telling him that America wants to make nice, even at the expense of the Israelis.

The president is hoping for another year to resolve the issue. But, Debka’s military sources say that it will be too late by then, Iran will have the bomb sometime in 2010. Israel will lose its strategic edge, and who knows what will happen after that. Does anyone really think that the Obama administration does not realize this is doomsday for Israel if they continue on this present course?

Like pulling an unloaded gun on a bad guy Obama made tough statements that America’s patience is running thin and that “tougher sanctions are imminent.” But, then, the administration acquiesced further this week with three measures all designed to appease. The first was a temporary shelving of a prior congressional approval to penalize American companies doing business with Iran. But last week John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, announced that he “needs more time to consider the bill.” The second, the government announced a six month delay in deployment of the bunker buster bomb specifically designed for the Iranian strike, even though it is ready now. And third, Israeli journalists briefed by Obama administration officials have produced articles from those briefings that implore the Israeli electorate to get used to the idea of living with a nuclearized Iran.

Iran’s answer to the Obama acquiescence: the test firing of a new missile which can penetrate both Israeli and American defenses.

The time for talk is long over.

This kind of dialogue might have been constructive back in 2003 when Iran announced its re-initiation of its nuclear program. Once Iran had threatened Israel, and other American allies in the region, a plan for slowing them down should have been envisioned. Now, they have missiles which can hit Tel Aviv, advanced weaponry that nobody is really sure if it can be defended against, and an extra six years to build its defenses and strike capabilities in the event of an attack.

If Obama had the beitzim, he would have counted the last administration’s talks with the Iranian government as a failed negotiation and made direct plans either with or without Israel’s help to stop Iran from turning the world in a dangerous direction. But, sadly, he doesn’t, and therefore cannot do what is right. The West better get real serious about the Iranian situation soon. Time is running out fast.

The question for the Netanyahu government is simple but essential. Does it continue to rely on a weakened United States, led by an untested administration, one that cannot seem to recognize real evil in the world, and holds to the firm belief that it is possible to negotiate with it? Can it allow this kind of diplomatic brinkmanship to decide whether Israel lives or dies? Can Israel realistically put its survival in the hands of anyone else other than itself?

For Israel there is no choice, it would have been easier earlier but it has to remove the threat now at whatever cost. Not to will increase the possibility of a diminished Israel, in a region with enemies already bent on its destruction and the constant fear that at anytime, the worst enemy of the Jews since Adolph Hitler has got his finger on the button and is just waiting for an excuse. And, as we have seen previously, to Achmadinijad and his supporters, that excuse is the very existence of the Jewish state.

A Call to Educate: Confronting Anti-Israel Bias on College Campuses

2009-12-08T08:26:00.000-08:00

On November 14th I attended a talk by Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University in Boston, at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. The subject was on the disturbing growth of Anti-Zionism on campuses and the relentless pursuit of defining the State of Israel as “evil” while recognizing that the Palestinian people deserve to have a home where Israel now stands. As someone who has experienced this phenomenon first hand as an older student returning to the university after many years, I jumped at the chance to hear what he had to say. I was not disappointed.

Because the university is where the best, the brightest, and the most influential reside, Dr. Reinharz pointed out that certain “Arab governments have figured out that the university is a good place to propagate their views.” These can cover a wide range of interests not the least of which is the demonization of Israel and advocating its demise. Convince a clip talking, bow tied, Ivy league prof, to condemn Israel and people will listen. A perusal through published theses, dissertations and journal articles show a preponderance of anti-Israel bias. Some of these papers are so malicious that it is hard to find the scholarly points that the writers are supposed to argue. Still, they are passed on by thesis committees and are published as books; end up in newspaper articles, in historical documentaries and of course, text books that grade school students learn from.

“Often to be progressively liberal today means to be anti-Zionist.” One of the great contributors to Israel’s demonization on campuses is the growth of the Left. The political Left wing, unbelievably potent in most history, English and political science departments, views the State of Israel as a tool of American imperialism, a colonial outpost of European Jews which have no right to be there. They basically hold that 1948 was a great mistake. Allowing the Jews to create a homeland in Palestine never should have happened. They defend a moral equivalency between terrorism against innocent Jews and what Israel does to defend against it. They support a two state solution, not as an end to the conflict, but as a punishment for Israel because of perceived crimes as an occupying power. This perception of Israel runs very deep in the academic community. Speakers on campuses supporting terror against Jews are allowed under the guise of free speech, and actions against Jewish students and offensive anti-Semitic slogans during anti Israel demonstrations are not discouraged.

The advocacy of the Left has no place on the university campus. Dr. Reinharz was clear on this point, “universities should not be in a position of supporting advocacy groups.” As Jews we are particularly sensitive to this matter because the “advocacy” promoted here is the destruction of Israel, and the Jewish return to a non sovereign status in world affairs.

So, what do we do about it? Professor Reinharz had several good suggestions.

The careful administration of endowments is very important. Funding in small amounts and getting to know the faculty Dr. Reinharz insists is key in understanding how your money is spent. “You cannot demand what to teach with the money you are giving them, but you can minimize the risk of it going to anti-Israel causes.” Talk to department heads, ask them how they will they teach classes associated with your endowment. Read the catalogue to get a feel for the classes and what is taught in them. While sitting there listening to him I thought of a couple more on my own. Before you endow read the schedule of classes for that particular semester. Research the department heads and the professors teaching the classes. Reading their curriculum vitae is an excellent way of determining how a particular professor leans politically and whether that leaning affects what he or she teaches.

The professor also called for the establishment of Israel Study Centers. Study centers are interdisciplinary programs run by the university to further study on a wide range of subjects. Study centers dedicated to Israeli culture, sociology, history, politics etc., can be great educating bases for compiling scholarly arguments among the world’s academics about the problems in the Middle East.

Birthright, a program that completely subsidizes young Jews to Israel, provides an excellent source of education by providing first person looks into what is happening on the ground. Of the many programs that are available to send young Jews to Israe, Birthright ranks at the top of the list in popularity. For a two week trip, air fare, and accommodations including meals are all paid for in full. Spending cash is up to the individual. While those two weeks don’t provide a lifetime of education on the Arab Israeli conflict they at least give young people some time on the land itself. They become connected, and form lifelong attachments with the State of Israel. Even the most erudite professor would have a hard time disseminating misinformation to someone with this experience. Birthright Israel is an important step in turning this problem around. It would be wise to expand on this program to be able to send more young people to Israel than is now possible.

The problem of anti-Zionism on college campuses is one that is not going away, it’s getting worse. Even with Jewish involvement, it provides a springboard for an anti-Semitism that has not been seen in the world since the Nazism of the 1930s. One has only to experience an on campus demonstration against Israel’s existence to understand its virulent nature. Dr. Reinharz provided some excellent ways to begin to reverse the tide. It’s time the Jewish community concerned with Israel’s survival get involved and channel their power to produce some balance in the university. Anti-Zionism nurtured by the Left and Palestinians bent on destroying Israel have had a head start but they haven’t won. Let’s get to work.

The option no one wants to think about

2009-11-16T09:13:00.000-08:00

Published in the Jerusalem Post, December 2, 2009. you can find it at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243055252&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel at one time was the world leader in combating terrorism. Military colleges studied how it performed the Entebbe raid of 1976. People marveled everywhere at their courage at storming a children’s house on Kibbutz Misgav Am in 1980 and killed all five terrorists before they could kill the remaining children. They launched a successful commando raid against a particular terrorist in Lebanon where they stole into the night, killed him and then went back out again, without losing a man, a perfect surgical strike. Israel is responsible for mandating that terror can never be negotiated with, knowing that once you go down that path it is slippery slope to surrender and defeat.

But, Israel has been languishing in recent years, consumed with the same political correctness that is politically drowning the rest of the Western world facing a terrorist threat. They just don’t seem to have what it takes to deal the proper blow to the terror in its midst. The debacle in Lebanon in 2006 and again missing the golden opportunity to cut the head off of one of these snakes in Gaza last year, Israel appears like the rest of us, doomed to live with terror until it either destroys us or burns itself out in a hundred years or so. Of course, waiting it out means that a lacerated nation will be scarred for who knows how long after that.

Enter the Sri Lankans. I think they have an answer. And, I think Israel should listen to what they have to say. Sri Lanka used to be just like Israel. They had a perennial terrorist problem with their Tamil minority. For almost thirty years, organized bands in that community terrorized the Sri Lankan nation to the point where the country could not evolve. Navin Dissanayake, Sri Lankan Minister of investment Promotion claims that they “could have been another Singapore if it had not been for that war.” Terrorism, in Sri Lanka, as it did in Israel, held that country from progressing forward which would have been good for Sri Lanka and good for the world.

The Tamil Tigers , sometimes referred to by its long name, The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) resemble Middle East terror groups. Actually, it is more correct to say that Middle East terror groups resemble the Tamil Tigers as they are the innovators of many of the terrorist techniques that have been utilize by Israel’s enemies. They invented the suicide belt and perfected the suicide bombing attack, turning it into a tactical device. They were the first to use women and children in these attacks. And, they have been accused of using their own innocent civilians, as human shields in their confrontation with Sri Lankan government forces. They are a vicious crowd and were implicated in the assassination of Ragiv Ghandi of India in 1991. As we all know, Palestinians have imitated these tactics with a devastating brutality against innocent Jews.

The Sri Lankans more or less lived with this horror since 1983. Then 9-11 happened and a new dynamic promoted by President Bush and the United States gave the Sri Lankans a new outlook. With a new administration elected on the promise of stopping the LTTE permanently, they embarked on a full scale military assault on Tamil positions which by 2007 held almost one fourth of the country, mostly in the north. They sent their army, a much stronger army than the Tamil tigers, into Tamil occupied territory and began to take back town by town, going street to street in some cases from their enemies. While doing this they killed anyone who resisted against them.

Jehan Perera of the Sri Lankan Peace Council said that “This government has taken the position that virtually any price is worth paying to rid the country of terrorism.” The price paid was indeed a heavy one. Many innocent people died. The Sri Lankan government regrets in the strongest terms the killing of innocent civilians but most government officials believe that they made a conscious choice of that “price” and that the alternative status quo was just not acceptable any more.

It was bloody and dirty, and they took a lot of criticism for it, “The U.N. Estimates that during the final months of fighting in Sri Lanka at least 7,000 Tamil civilians were killed and at least 13,000 were injured.” But, they also wiped out the scourge of terror that was choking the life out of their country. They did not stop until total victory was declared last May. Today, Sri Lankans can once again walk the streets of their cities, visit the marketplace, and conduct business without the threat of being murdered in such a way that not even their loved ones can identify their bodies. It is a new dawn and a new day for Sri Lanka.

Israel can take a real lesson from this experience. The threat facing the Jewish State from the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon is no different than the north of Sri Lanka and coastline into the south that the Tamils occupied before the Sri Lankan army began their elimination war against them.

The time has come to admit there might not be a solution to the Palestinian problem. But, there is a way to end it. The next time that terror forces Israel to take a military stand this option should be considered. Israel must realize that there will be no peace with an intransigent enemy that refuses to act in good faith. Palestinian rejectionist actions, and Iranian backed Hezbollah threats to their existence will never be placated, and they will never stop until Israel is destroyed. Once the population of Israel realizes this unfortunate reality, there is only one way to end it. Israel must take the Sri Lankan initiative and move into these areas one by one, corner, and envelop all armed resistance, and then kill it off.

Bending over backwards to make peace with the Palestinians has proved fruitless without Israel submitting to national weakening measures. It’s time to make the choice of a better life for all. More than sixty years of living with this is enough. When they have completely wiped out the enemy, a new dynamic will rise. Without the Muslim thuggery of holding their own people back, there will be nothing to stop them from negotiating a genuine peace with Israel. There might be a Palestinian, a Lebanese, a Syrian, maybe even an Iranian partner to draw up a peace which will transform the Middle East from a place of hatred and bloodshed to a prosperous community of nations which will work together making the daily lives of their individual citizens better.

No more Gilad Shalit's

The Parting of the Red Sea

2009-11-06T09:08:00.000-08:00

Thanks to a very passionate letter by Jon Voight urging liberal Jews to stand up for themselves I was inspired to write the following piece. Now that it is written I don't know why I waited so long to do it.

As a conservative Jew I have been trying to figure out for a long time why the Jewish Left continues to serve in great numbers in the Democratic Party. I use to think that it was foolish for these Jews to place such high value on liberal causes since they long ago stopped having any advantage to our people. I left the Democratic Party myself in the 80s, disgusted by the reluctance of liberal Jews to speak out on their own behalf while the rest of the Democratic Party honed its Palestinian platform and condemned Israel for defending itself.

Until recently Jewish participation in the party was more or less irresponsible. Now, in a post 9-11 world that stubbornness to see only a moral equivalence in the Middle East conflict and not condone the right of Jews to defend themselves against a murderous enemy, has become more dangerous than foolhardy. Politics has changed and our interests in the 21st century reside on a different political plane than it did for our fathers and grandfathers. Old enemies have become friends and long standing political allies have become our enemies. Left wing Jews need to calculate the difference, swallow hard and make the move to insure our own survival.

As the Democratic Party moves further away from protecting Jewish rights whether here or in Israel, the Jews in that movement do little to counter the growing hostility. Left unchecked at the beginning of the 21st century, it’s as though the Left has finally uncovered its European anti-Semitic roots and is reveling in it. With Israel as a focus, Left wing Jews have largely ignored these signs. it is disturbing that they think as long as they leave their Jewish concerns at the door they will continue to be accepted as part of the perceived great liberal democracy experiment of 20th century America.

Jews who are troubled by what they see in their own camp on the Left remain silent. One of the professions where this problem is so prevalent and so influential is in the University. Scholars are respected, esteemed, almost anointed with the task of giving us the proper view of looking at the world around us. We count on them to get it right. For decades that institution has been overwhelmed with Left wing thinking and published positions. Liberal Jewish professors are afraid to say anything to their colleagues who talk of a weakened Israel as the first step to forcing that country into oblivion as the only means for peace. They eat lunch, socialize and have to work with these people every day. It is easier to remain silent than to defend Jews whenever or where ever they are being maligned. The fear of being ostracized as a scholar is so strong that they will allow their own people to be characterized as evil no different than the blood libels in Europe centuries ago. Their silence is despicable.

At present too many Jews are repulsed and slightly confused by right wing thinking, the Republican Party, conservative support for Israel, and the non Jewish right’s standing with the Jewish people’s struggle against Islamic terror, juxtaposed by their own political allies on the left who seem exactly the opposite. Consider this: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, former President Bush and Sara Palin are four of the most despised people on the democratic heavily Jewish left. All four of these individuals are conservative, ideologues for the Republican platform, and are also staunch supporters of the state of Israel and condemn without question Hamas terror. I defy you to name even one American non Jewish leftist who will categorically support Israel and unequivocally condemn terrorism against innocent Jews. You can’t. You can’t because I don’t think there is one leftist thinker or politician in this country today who will do that. Some pay lip service to it but none will unequivocally state it.

What must be so confusing to Jews on the left is that while their own non Jewish allies are moving increasingly to accept and advocate terror as a means of resistance against Israel and re-establishing old anti-Semitic canards reflecting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the two most hated institutions on the left, the political Right, and the Christian Church are moving in the opposite direction with an intolerance toward anti-Semitism and recognition of the Jewish struggle to survive in Israel.

There is no ambiguity on the right of center in American politics. Its purpose concerning the Middle East is clear. Israel has a right to expect to remain free and is obligated to defend itself against any entity that seeks to undermine that freedom. Israel might just be our most important ally in the war on terror. Most right wing thinkers hold that opinion and realize that Israel is on the front line of this fight and we need to support its actions in protecting itself and its citizens.

The other most feared icon of the Jewish Left, the Church, has moved continually and directly to an acceptance of Jewish life as equals. Both the Catholic Church and non Catholic Christians have over the last 50-60 years changed their attitude 180 degrees concerning Jews and their relationship to Christians. The Jewish State and other Jewish causes are at the forefront of their political demands. It is in fact, the 70 million strong Christian evangelical movement in this country which has single handedly backed American support for Israel. The Christian community, the very backbone of America , has taken it upon itself to make sure that Israel remains safe with American power.

The Left insists that it is the “right wing” Jewish lobby which creates America’s seemingly unbreakable ties with the Jewish State. But logic dictates that cannot be true. Jews are not numerous enough to influence anything concerning Israel. The Left argues that Jewish money behind AIPAC, twists the arms of congress people to vote in favor of Israel on any number of issues. In fact, money used for that purpose plays a much smaller role than the religious Christian constituency that stands behind their representatives and insists that Israel receives our help. Left wing Jews must find it in their hearts to accept what is true. Christianity might have been our enemy in the past but that is not the case anymore. We have a powerful ally in those groups. We all should accept their apologies for passed transgressions and join them in their campaign to insure Israel stays strong. They deserve our loyalty and our thanks.

It is not the Left that holds the secret to our success anymore, it is the Right. We can no longer count on the strategy and political legacy of our fathers and grandfathers. The time has come to leave that part of our heritage behind. As hard it is may seem liberal Jews need to take a deep breadth, open their eyes wide and recognize who our enemies and friends really are. We need to join with those who will stand with us in our hour of need, who will be there to back us up as we move further into an uncertain future.

We Jews need to reassess our own political history. Ask yourself this question. Do we want to continue to snuggle up to those who will destroy us? The Left in the 21st century is no different than the right in the 20th. Left unchecked it will continue to move toward more vicious attacks on Israel, on Jews, on the Jewish religion and on all of us. We need to put our faith in those who have proven that they are our friends and allies in all matters political. Not to do this will continue to choke our culture, intimidate us to see Israel at fault, and tempt us with universal acceptance if we just leave that Jewish/Zionist world behind. No longer can Jews protect themselves as our fathers did by siding with the left of center philosophy. Our future and our safety has shifted to the right and we need to recognize and embrace it.

The Red Sea has been parted; all we have to do is cross it.

The Problem with Hybrid Cars

2009-08-26T14:10:00.000-07:00

The love affair with hybrid cars because they are so economical and use so much less gas is not a cure all for our energy problems. In fact, if we become lulled into believing that it is we could be spelling our own doom. I wrote this after the "New" General Motors announced they have broken through with an engine that will get literally hundreds of miles to a gallon of gas. Written August 2009.

General motors leaked recently that the Chevrolet Volt will spearhead their new line of cars in 2010. Rising up from the ashes like a Phoenix, the leaner, meaner General Motors has taken a cue from the Obama administration putting its hopes of success in green technology. The Chevy Volt, an experimental model for many years has been dusted off, reengineered and is now ready for mass production. Bragging that it will leave Toyota’s Prius behind and will produce an unbelievable 230 miles to a gallon of gas, it will cost around $40,000. Well, even with that price tag getting 230 miles to a gallon, the car will pay for itself in no time. This has to be good news.

Has the technology finally come to a point where we can start to wean ourselves off foreign oil? I mean after all, if Americans can actually build cars that will now give hundreds of miles to a gallon of gas our troubles are over. Happy days are here again. But, let’s look at this a little closer. What happens three, five, ten, twelve years down the road when virtually 90% or more of the cars on the road are getting at least 100 to 200 miles to a gallon of gas?

When we start to buy less crude, the oil producers will be forced to adjust. If they continue to pump at the present volume the price will fall. If they pump less volume to keep pace with the new demands their revenues will still fall. Under this new reality how will countries like Iran be able to maintain their present growth in their weapons procurement program, including nuclear? My guess is that new prices will have to be set for the volume they are pumping. The alternative is to return to second class status, one that is not threatening, cannot destroy Israel or finance terror against Americans around the world. And, it’s not just Iran. Our so called friends in the region will face the same problem. Saudi Arabia is not going to allow its country to turn back into the sand dune it was in the 1950s. The gulf states will do everything they can to retain the wealth they have accumulated during the last three or four decades.

If the world reduces its need for their oil they will adjust both volume and price to meet present geo economic conditions. In other words they are going to raise the price commensurate with cars getting 200 miles to a gallon of gas. We have a history of this strategy. Past fuel efficiency programs have not produced lower prices at the pump. The oil producers historically responded by controlling the volume and thereby raised the demand to keep the price high. We are paying more now in 2009 and using less gas than in 1970 and with this coming spike in technology it will only get worse, much worse.

Hybrid technology creates a potentially explosive problem for us and our oil consuming allies. In five to ten years time we could be looking at $500 a barrel for crude. Cars will require smaller gas tanks because we will not be able to afford to fill them up. But since they get over 200 miles to a gallon they will still be able to travel more than a thousand miles on a single tank of gas even though gas tanks will only hold four or five gallons . Hybrid technology will not solve our problem of lowering prices at the pump and using less fuel to go farther.

We need another approach. Here’s an idea. Let’s take the Kennedy inspiration about going to the moon and develop an entirely new technology not dependent on fossil fuels at all. I don’t know how long that will take, but for the sake of argument let’s say Obama really gets with the Kennedy spirit and sets the goal that by the close of the next decade, before 2020 we will have something in place that will take us off foreign crude for good. Americans have lots of ideas about alternative forms of energy, we hear about them everyday, fusion technology, liquid hydrogen, and all kinds of schemes to convert water to gasoline. All right maybe some of these are hair brain but among the American entrepreneurial spirit is a new technology waiting to supplant a crude based world. The automobile, incandescent light, radio, T.V. computers, motion pictures, penicillin, vaccines for some of our most dreadful diseases, and within 66 years of the invention of flight putting a man on the moon are all American inventions. If you had said to the average person in 1900 that within a few decades people will be flying as their most common form of traveling long distances you would have been laughed at. There is no reason why we cannot find an alternative for fossil fuels, and in a reasonable period of time.

Think of it. No more dependence on foreign oil. We won’t need their stinking oil. Without the money to finance it, Muslim terror will cease to exist. They can hate us but if they can’t reach us they can’t hurt us. Europe will no longer be looking down the barrel of ultimate destruction from a nuclear Iran. Israel will become safe for the first time in its history. Maybe without this growing emergence of Muslim power peace will be attainable between Jews and Arabs. We can stop the flow of economic power from the west going to our enemies, and potential enemies. With a cheaper, cleaner, more efficient fuel we will regain our industrial strength because it will be more economical to produce our industry here rather than China or other overseas ports. And that will mean jobs and lots of them.

We live in a dangerous time and we might not have ten or eleven years to work on a new technology to bring us out of this decline. We have enemies in the world that relish our decline and do not want to see a re emergence of American power. Therefore, we should not wait to reach our goal to end this exchange of economic power from us to the Middle East. In addition to launching the search for an alternative to a crude driven economy, I suggest we immediately reopen our oil industry here in the southwest United States as a part time measure to regain the edge we had after World War II. Rebuild those oil wells across Texas, California and Alaska and wherever else modern oil drilling technology can take us. Let the wildcatters loose on the North American continent. Pump as much oil as we possibly can. That will drive down the price and stop dead in its tracks the rising power of oil rich states. Those who remember when gasoline was .40 a gallon, it can be again through the next decade. Reopening the domestic oil industry would create jobs, real jobs that people can once again feel good about themselves. The Obama administration would all but insure itself a second four years. It’s just a win, win, win situation for everyone concerned, except our enemies.

But, that is not to be. Both Obama and General Motors are toasting each other on their somewhat instant success. The Chevrolet volt gets 230 miles to a gallon of gas and the existence of America remains uncertain for the future.

Deir Yassin remembered

2009-01-05T10:58:00.000-08:00

When discussing the Israeli Palestinian dispute, some Palestinian supporters who like to point to a history of Jewish abuses against innocent Arabs over the last six decades sometimes refer to a particularly infamous battle during the War of 1948 that took place in a small town on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Hwy called Deir Yassin. For many reasons, not the least of which concerns political infighting between the major factions of the Israeli body politic, Deir Yassin has taken on a life of its own over the last 61 years.

Deir Yassin has been called a “massacre” by Palestinian and Arab groups as well as Leftist commentators in the West. It might be considered a “massacre” but no more than the Haifa Refinery massacre on December 30, 1947, and the doctors and nurses massacre on the road to Hadassa hospital on Mount Scopus, on April 13, 1948, or any of the other massacres that became part of the fighting history of Israel’s War of Independence. These other “massacres” have long been forgotten by most people accept for the few historians that deal with the course of this eighteen month war. This is not the case with Deir Yassin.

Deir Yassin was one of many towns and villages that had to be cleared during Operation Nachshon, the overall operation to open the road to besieged Jerusalem in April, 1948. Not to take action on this road would mean giving up on Jewish Jerusalem, which was as unthinkable then as it is now. The Jews of Jerusalem had been besieged since January, with no electricity, food, water, or any of the other vital necessities of life. People in the Jewish quarter of the city were literally starving to death. Without the opening of the road to allow convoys of supplies to enter the city, it was almost a certainty that Jewish Jerusalem would fall to the enemy. For this reason, Ben Gurion ordered 1500 Haganna troops to take part in the operation, the largest of its kind up to that time in the battle for Palestine in 1947 and 1948.

The Israeli military has long been the dominant force in the Middle East. No Arab army has been able to defeat it. A foregone conclusion for so long, that it’s hard to believe that the history was ever anything but total Israeli domination over its neighbors. But, this was not always the case. Before the start of the 1948 war it was very tenable on whether the Jews could defeat the Arab enemy and established their state by the time the British would leave in May. The belief that the Jews were in a dire strait and faced the very sobering possibility of defeat began to take shape almost immediately after the partition vote on November 29, 1947 and did not abate itself until June of 1948 when it became clear that by the end of the war a Jewish State of some kind would emerge intact. Operation Nachshon was part of the push to change this dynamic and many towns, including Deir Yassin along that stretch of road were fought over and won by Jewish forces. In discussing the beginning of this realization in March of 1948 Benny Morris, a prominent historian on the expulsion of the Arabs during Israel’s war of Independence wrote:

“The toll on Jewish life and security in the battle of the roads and dire prospect of pan-Arab invasion had left the Yishuv (community) with very narrow margins of safety. It could not afford to leave pockets of actively or potentially hostile Arabs behind its line. This was certainly true regarding vital roads and areas such as the Jerusalem Corridor…when the Yishuv faced, and it knew it faced, a life and death struggle. “ (p.236, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge, 2004.)

Depending on the source any where between 300 to 600 Arab towns and villages were destroyed during the eighteen months of war in 1947-1948. Why does Deir Yassin stand out among all of the others? Why is this remembered and the other villages are not, at least from the Israeli Left? The answer to this is simple. Although massacres were common during that war the Left in Israel, politically signified at that time as the Mapam party had a stake in making an issue out of the Deir Yassin battle. As independence approached, their influence over the Yishuv began to wane. Their reactions were to lash out at the now growing middle of the road leadership, led by David Ben Gurion, and attempted to subvert it by making accusations of improper and immoral acts against the enemy. Deir Yassin was the perfect model to make this stand for several reasons. First, this town was singled out to be fought with primarily LEHI (Sternists) and ETZEL (Begin’s Urgun) forces in a Haganna sanctioned attack. LEHI and ETZEL were the ideological enemies of the Mapam. Second, by indicting the Haganna as sanctioning the operation and allowing these “barbarian” groups to “murder, rape, pillage and steal,” they believed that they could make criminal any political belief to the right of the extreme Left in Israel. Third, they saw this whole incident as an opportunity to oppose the Yishuv’s shift toward American and British democracy and away from Stalinist Russia.

The Palmach, the armed wing of the Mapam, was, like ETZEL and LEHI not opposed to establishing a state by force, and indeed took part in many militant operations before May 14,1948. But, Mapam never indicted Palmach, only those groups that were their ideological opposites and only because they lost favor and support from the people as a political force. Although Mapam has long been disbanded and the Palmach like ETZEL, LEHI and Haganna have all been melded into the IDF, the extreme political Left still uses this tactic today. Deir Yassin, according to the Left, is one of a long line of accused abuses by the Zionist movement.

Today, it is mostly forgotten that Deir Yassin was an ugly battle among many ugly battles of that war which were fought hard by both sides and perpetuated the deaths of many innocent people both Jewish and Arab. But, as this story lingers now into the 21st century, it is apparent that Deir Yassin is a cause celeb against Israel’s motives during the War of Independence, and that the Arabs for whatever reasons needed to be defeated, did not deserve to be tortured and massacred in such a manner. Through propaganda and emphasizing Israeli brutality it is mostly lost on history that the Jews with their proverbial backs up against the wall fought hard to survive and won their state motivated by liberty rather than motivated by domination over a lesser equipped Arab minority.

After the War of Independence Deir Yassin was so touted by the Left it was of course picked up by the Arab propaganda machine sometime in the late 1950s and the two groups joined in an unholy alliance against a common enemy that exists until this very day. It is one of the rallying cries to show the “barbarous” nature of the Israeli occupation forces. It is still taught in universities across the English and Arab speaking world as the proof that Israel needs to be punished for its actions. The calls for this punishment range from a much weaker diminished Israel to its complete annihilation and in its place an Arab Muslim state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

If we are going to be fair, when considering the place of the Deir Yassin battle it must be looked at in the context of the time, the desperation of one people to quite literally survive the conflict and the total incompetence of the other side in trying to explain why they lost that war so badly. The fact is that Israel’s war of Independence was a war not unlike most wars in that the human tragedy factor was very high on both sides. Probably more on the Jewish side simply because the Arabs had the opportunity to flee to the safety of bordering Arab governments and the Jews didn’t. The Jews, unlike their Arab counterparts, had to make their stand in Palestine and no where else. Consequently, many innocent Jews, without guns in their hands died in this endeavor. However, this is never indicated by the Left or for the obvious reasons by the Arab side. As Morris explained in the above quote in April of 1948, with the survival of the coming Jewish State, the very lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men, women and children hung in the balance. And, it did not become clear that the Jews would survive at all until the first truce went into effect on June 9th, 1948.

Deir Yassin was awful. But, so were many of the battles fought during that time. We should be cognizant of that and urge our leaders, professors, journalists and historians to reflect that fairness in their reports on this history. It is time we set the record straight.

Democracy in the Crosshairs

2008-12-25T18:12:00.000-08:00

The recent spate of poor sportsmanship on the part of the gay agenda and the politicians that support them in the view of overturning the passage of Proposition 8 cannot stand. The following is a thought piece exposing the radical Left in California politics and their attack on American democracy.

Since the passage of prop 8 a number of prominent California politicians have called for the California supreme court to overturn the voters at the ballot box and rule Prop 8 unconstitutional and re install gay marriage as legal in the State of California. The issue here is no longer about whether you support the right of gay people to marry or not. This has gone way beyond that. The issue now is the protection of our democracy.

Governor Arnold Swarzenegger, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Attorney General Jerry Brown, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa among others have supported this call. These politicians argue that how can we accept the will of the people if the will of the people is wrong. The only problem is who is deciding who’s right and who’s wrong. That is why we have elections to make these decisions. But, apparently some of our most prominent and powerful politicians think otherwise. This subverts the whole meaning of democracy, and dangerously puts us on a road toward totalitarianism. Have California’s leaders lost their minds? I would argue that a democracy only works if the will of the people can be supported.

It should be remembered that this has already happened once. In 2000 the voters voted by a huge margin the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The California State Supreme Court then overturned the will of the people and ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional. Now the voters have once again spoken and these activist judges want to do the same thing again. And, the same court, back by a minority constituency and these influential sympathetic politicians are planning to stretch our liberty beyond acceptable limits. Yaroslovsky, Newsome and the rest are saying that the voters of California are not entitled to decide their own fate.

It is not as if they don’t know what they are doing either. They bring historical perspectives to the argument trying to convinced constituents that there is nothing to fear from subverting a democratic majority vote. If they truly believe gay marriage is a civil right and not and not necessarily a social acceptance, then they should support an initiative to put the issue on the next ballot. That would support the democratic process, and once again support the will of the people, at the proper place, the ballot box. If democratic forces do not stand up to this insidious aversion to our freedom, we will lose little by little that which makes us the greatest experiment in individual liberty the world has ever known.

What will be next, the right to be able to practice only “some” religions? The Mormon people might have a thing or two to say about that one. The right to express yourself as long as it doesn’t oppose the prevailing left wing view, like taking your life in your hands because you are an outspoken religious Jew or Christian in West Hollywood? How about speaking against acts of lewdness during the annual gay pride parades in the various cities across the United States? Is this the world that you want to create? Where will all this lead us?

In 1933, a minority government subverted the will of the people in Germany and this led the world into one of the darkest moments in the history of Western civilization. I doubt that our venerable California politicians would support what the Nazis did during the 1930s and 1940s however, there are some striking similarities between the actions of both groups. The manhandling, vandalism and violent acts perpetrated by those who can’t accept defeat, the gay agenda and their supporters, smacks of brown shirts rampaging down the streets of Berlin busting windows and rousting innocent defenseless Jews. The Nazis started off as a small splinter group of the German Freecorp after World War I and it took many years of agitation before they gained national prominence. The rise of Hitler, and National Socialism eventually catapulted them into the position of removing all opposition and taking their revolution beyond their borders.

Mayor Villaraigosa and the rest of the California political left wing cabal would serve the people much better if they would use their position to quell some of this growing tidal wave of hatred.

In 1917 with the overthrow of the Kaiser the Russian people opted for a democratic form of government to lead them out of the war with Germany and to a brighter future. However, plagued by constant agitating violent and committed Marxist minority, with tactics not that much different than we have seen in the days and weeks since the passage of Prop 8, the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky failed within six months time. What replaced it were 75 years of totalitarianism and the murder of millions of innocent people and the enslavement of millions and millions of others. The Communists did not start out with that kind of power in Russia. They began many years before as a handful of idealists who pictured a “workers paradise” by overthrowing the Russian czarist system.

Granted these are extreme measures that come at the end of the fight rather than at the beginning as the Prop 8 anger has shown us. But, that is what we have to look forward to if we allow this crowd to continue this fascist attack on the democratic process. The writing is on the wall people. No matter how they sugar coat it, we now have elected officials calling for the end of democracy and the beginning of elitist rule, by insisting that the will of the people sometimes needs to be subverted in order to get what “they” think is right.

If politicians think that the people are not smart enough to make informed decisions at the ballot box then those politicians need to be removed from power. What they should be doing, they are not. They should be educating the people better on these issues. They should be doing a better job at legislating laws that protect us in the first place. And, they should be taking stock in themselves because they are failing on these first two counts so miserably. I repeat. Remove them because our democracy is at stake if we don’t. All who love liberty and want to stand up for the ideals that this country and all other democratic countries need to petition their leaders not to take the road of aberrant politicians.

To the gay agenda that supports these politicians I can only say the following. This is not the way to freedom. This will only bring disaster upon our lives and the lives of our children. Stop vandalizing Morman Temples. As long as freedom of religion is still a right in this country, allow those religions to practice without harassment. Stop manhandling little old ladies who cannot poke you in the nose when you push them around because…well…because they are little old ladies. That is so cowardly. And you need to halt this ugly dirty business of taking us back to the time of Macarthyism, blackballing pro prop 8 people out of Hollywood. These actions put a really ugly tinge on your organizations.

Will the opposition to the passage of Prop 8 drop this fascist identity and begin to use the system as the system is designed, or will we just have anarchy in the streets? I don’t know maybe Thomas Hobbs was right. Maybe life is meant to be “nasty, brutish and short.” That is, if these politicians and their supporters have anything to say about it.

A Few Laughs But a Lot of Tears

2008-11-22T17:47:00.000-08:00

[[[[[[[[[[[[The following is my rebuttal to Rob Eshman’s attempt at satire, but failed to disclaim that when he published in the Jewish Journal during the week of November 14-20^th. Satire or not, this still validates my argument that we are spending far too much time on this issue at the expense of some very serious, complex problems in our world today. For the text of Eshman's op ed go to http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/it_cant_happen_here_20081111/]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

I always seem to come away from Rob Eshman’s editorials asking more questions than getting answers. I guess I should be thankful that at least he isn’t a teacher in LAUSD. You would think with all the serious problems we have in this world, and moving ever closer to a collapse of Western civilization either through enemies seeking to destroy us or through our own devises financially, or maybe a combination of both, that even the hardest to convince would let the lesser issues go, but it is just not to be.

Somewhere in the world while you are reading these words someone is planning your demise. There is a malevolent entity scheming ,preparing, rubbing its hands together, waiting for the right moment to strike, just when we would be the most off guard.

It is quite possible, that Rob Eshman and his Left wing collaborators have provided that spark to light the fuse. (“It Can’t Happen Here,” November 14-20.) Gay marriage is a small insignificant issue. We are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing it. Gay people have already been given the same rights as heterosexual people through a series of passed laws that define their co habitation with one another, namely civil unions. But, Eshman as inane as it was, used his bully pulpit this week to strike fear into Jews saying that the passage of Prop 8 will bring on an Anti-Semitism never before experienced in our society.

Stratfor reported this week that Mexican drug cartels are now stockpiling large caches of advanced weaponry and they are using them against us. The warning signs are clear. The open southern border policy of the United States continues to deteriorate and now the drug cartels seem to have the intention of taking over that border by force.

Eshman’s convoluted logic draws some warped juxtaposed analogies. I couldn’t help thinking as I struggled to get through this embarrassing attempt at sounding an alarm that he was trying to compare and contrast the Right’s genuine fear that legalized gay marriage will lead to the legalization of currently considered aberrant behaviors, like incest, or NAMBLA. Eshman’s laughable contra-action, a movement in 2012 to make illegal, marriages between Jewish men and Jewish women.

This week Iran said it successfully tested a two-stage solid-fuel missile with a 1200 mile range, fully capable of hitting Tel Aviv. That is bad enough conventionally but how much longer until it can carry a nuclear payload?

Of course, he doesn’t name the source that’s giving this information. I wonder if Eshman or his staff that interviewed this nameless, faceless, unknown threat to the Jews he refers to only as “the organizer”, made a point of telling him that a ballot initiative preventing Jews from marrying other Jews is not necessary because Jews already are marrying outside their faith on their own at alarming numbers.

Israel just spent the week in bloody exchanges with the Gazans over…well… over nothing, probably just hatred of Jews and Israel.

Eshman instead reaches deep into the recesses of Jewish fears that the remnant of anti-Semitic Christian Europe will once again rise up to prevent Jews from practicing their religion by not allowing them to marry each other because “the organizer” believes this violates his rights and forces him to honor the Jewish choice of marrying each other. What?

The real anti-Semitism in this country has already begun its drive to force Rahm Emanuel to step down from his job with the unfortunate comments made by his revisionist father in Israel this passed week. That didn’t take long.

Eshman claims that the Prop 8 support coalition “feels the wind at their backs” and the momentum is building to move on to get the Jews. That is utter nonsense. Yes on Prop 8 people are under attack and are in no position to go on any offensive, whether it’s the Eshman argument in this article or any other. They are too busy hunkering down to protect themselves in the face of the most fascist inspired display of post election disregard for democracy that I ever seen in my lifetime in this country. I expect that kind of thing coming from the West Bank, not from West Hollywood. This is what we really should be fearing, not the passage of prop 8, but the totalitarianism of the elitist minority not to accept the will of the people. Rob Eshman and his allies on the Left should do the right thing and call off those dogs while there is still a chance to do so before somebody gets killed over it.

The election is over. It’s time to return to the business at hand, insuring the ushering in of the smooth transition of power of one administration for another. A foundational underpinning of the democracy we all cherish is where we should be focused at this moment. The next administration is going to have a full plate on January 21^st and we all need to be ready for it. I really hope that Rob Eshman returns to that mindset next week. He can choose any of the topics I mentioned here or go to another one of his choice. There is no shortage of important issues to be dealt with in this dangerously changing world of ours.

The Obama Khalidi Connection

2008-11-22T17:44:00.000-08:00

A letter to the editors at Jewish Journal bringing out the shameful omission of Obama's connection with an enemy of the State of Israel.

I was shocked and disturbed that the Khalidi controversy was not covered in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal this passed week. Khalidi, the somewhat infamous but mostly unknown self described enemy of the State of Israel, is a very distinguished and admired professor, first at the University of Chicago and more recently of Colombia University in New York. He has an articulate manner of anti Israel bias that has wooed Jewish intellectuals, professors, and apparently journalists in the English speaking world to his way of seeing things. Could that be what is going on with the Jewish Journal?

Not a mention in this week’s Journal. But, that is not surprising, as the paper that broke the story The L.A. Times, is mum about what else they know about an infamous dinner engagement in 2003 when Obama broke bread with some of the worst terrorist sympathizers this country has to offer. The guest list probably read more like the hounds of Hell rather than a distinguish list of intellectuals, democratic politicians, college professors, and of course our future president. The Times has become part of the story since they will not release a tape of the dinner. Anyone who is familiar with the murderous tendencies of Israel’s enemies can guess what is probably on it. No wonder they will not release it. Can any clear thinking person who understands the simplicity of right and wrong sit while that was going on? One can only wonder how a future president of the United States can sit through so much hate and not walk out. Yet he did. And, he is about to become our commander and chief and the Jewish Journal can say nothing? Both The Times and the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles has enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Since the Journal has more interest in satisfying a political agenda than protecting its own, I have a few more questions. What will this portend for us as a people in an Obama administration? Can we expect Khalidi and others like Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, et al., to be invited to state dinners at the White House? Would the Journal be silent about that also? Could we be possibly looking at an end to the “Special” relationship between Israel and the United States begun 50 years ago by John F. Kennedy. Can we expect from the Obama “change” mantra the rape of Israel and its bloody violent death? If that happens in an Obama administration who do we blame? Obama? Khalidi? the Reprublicans?

Now, for the answers. We can blame ourselves because we have seen fit to keep silent from the warning signs. I hate to be so cheesy as to make Holocaust references but the last time we ignored signs like this was during Hitler’s rise to power. As the powerful and influential in the German Jewish community took out full page adds in the papers siding with Hitler’s National Socialism and writing off his threats to do away with Jews by saying “he would never do that, Germany cannot survive without its Jews.” Once again we are going like lambs to the slaughter. Does this silence mean the Journal believes that an Obama administration will live up to its campaign promises concerning Israel even though the writing on the wall is somewhat different. The State of Israel is in danger in an Obama administration. And, the Jewish Journal will not print the information.

I would call this cowardly but somehow that just doesn’t seem right. It is treasonous that a newspaper, with an almost exclusive Jewish readership, would choose to turn its back on a growing threat to Israel. In other words the Journal has now cross the line and no longer considers itself a Jewish community newspaper but a Democratic Party rag. Where is the courage in that?

An Open Letter to Mona Eltahawy

2008-11-22T17:21:00.001-08:00

A response to Mona Eltahawy regarding “ Fear of an Obama Planet Grips Some Americans,” From the Jewish Journal, July 16, 2008. For the original Eltahawy article go to http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/fear_of_an_obama_planet_grips_
some_americans_20080716/

Mona,

Let me qualify myself so you don’t write me off as some online right wing kook. Well, you might but you should know anyway that I, like Obama, and you, have traveled. I have also lived abroad. And, I have family in several countries. I might add, in case you want to use it against me under your breadth also have numerous friends all over the globe. The difference is that I do not share your vision of your so called “Obama world.” Here’s why.

I would strongly disagree with your friend and dinner partner during that mystical night in Mumbai a few weeks ago when he “turned to (you) and proclaimed ‘Americans are inherently stupid.’” For someone whose country was torn apart because Hindu and Muslim could not find common ground to live together, I think he should hold his tongue. As far as Egypt is concern, that is certainly no bastion of freedom and equality either. I’ve been to Cairo, Mona, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Americans are not perfect but at least we struggle with the questions of modern humanity, and because of that strive to solve some of those perplexing problems that face us as a world community. As far as I can see Egyptians and Indians have done none of that.

It is people like Sanjay and that Sri Lankan woman, who because of her noisy eavesdropping couldn’t help but join in, that creates all the hate in the world. You and your friends Mona, are small minded people who cannot see the bigger picture of all the good that America has done and the sacrifice that Americans have made on your behalf. It appears that you had a real good laugh over the ignorant questions whether Egypt had fresh fruit or Sri Lanka had bread. Mona, while your dad was growing up did he think that the streets of America were lined with gold?

You may be an expert on Arab and Muslim issues but you don’t know Americans very well. Ignorance of one’s people I guess works both ways. Americans who oppose Obama do not fear him because he is black. That is so typical of the bigoted, intolerant narrow thinking that regards us as “stupid.” First, You might just get that “Obama world” you seek, as he has an excellent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. If that happens that means that many of the same people who voted for George Bush in 2004 will have to vote for Obama in order for him to win. How do you explain that? I look forward to you answering that question in November in these pages. Second, the problem that some Americans have with Obama is not because he is black, it’s because of his politics. I know this is something that you and Sanjay might not understand but the vast majority of us do vote for people on that basis, not because of who they are, the color of their skin, the religion they believe in, or where they come from. I will remind you that this is America and are we are a free people. Free to vote for and choose the government we wish. I don’t think that exists in the Egyptian state system, does it?

Instead of asking your high browed, stuck up architect friend about Americans why don’t you ask the Africans whose lives have been saved because of the simple Mosquito net which was set up and mass produced American style, with the direct help of the Bush administration and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives because of its success. Or, why you are at it, ask them about that peanut butter substance, profiled on 60 minutes several times, the most recent a couple of weeks ago, that is literally saving lives of countless children who otherwise would die of malnutrition and starvation. Or, how about the Americans that sacrificed their lives in trying to help the Somalis during the now famous “Black Hawk Down” incident? Have the Indians or Egyptians done anything like that lately?

Americans do a lot of good in the world. They feed the hungry, clothe the naked and medicate the sick. Trillions of hard earned American dollars, the same Americans you think are so “stupid,” go into providing these programs. Americans give and give and give some more. Forget about Egypt and India, have any non white European countries practiced that kind of humanitarian effort lately? The Saudis? The Kuwatis? They certainly have the money, what have they done?

Frankly, I don’t know why the Jewish Journal puts up with your kind of hatred. You don’t have to be a “right winger” to love this country. Especially, for us Jews who after centuries of wandering have finally found a home that treats us as equals. And, without America and the clear righteous thinking of American, white, European descended Christians, it is questionable whether Israel would be celebrating its 60^th birthday this year. Again, these are the same Americans you had such a good time laughing about at your little dinner party in Mumbai. You might just get that “Obama world” that you are not able to vote for. But, remember this, this is not Egypt, a president must answer to his people, and even the radical principles of leftists like Obama will not bring this country down.

Just another Stupid American

Jihad in America

2007-09-15T09:13:00.000-07:00

A response to Brad A. Greenberg's article in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in May of 2007. Greenberg's article can be found at www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17734

The Pew research center recently published a survey on Muslims in America with some startling results. Some I have spoken with looked at this poll and decided that American Muslims are for the most part well adjusted and committed to the American dream. While the survey indicated this might indeed be the case for many, maybe even a majority, the disturbing fact is that it also showed that along with the positive Muslim contribution to American society comes with it an evil which hides beneath the surface of that community, waiting like a jackal, watching, calculating, looking for just the right moment to strike.

It is paramount that Americans do not ignore the dangers that the survey clearly outlines.

No one really knows how many Muslims live in America. Estimates range from two to eight million. But, the statistics from this poll were all based on that low figure. So for our purposes we will use the low end of the estimate.

26% of American Muslims under the age of thirty think suicide bombing is justified in some situations. Let me re-write that so we can all be clear. One in four American Muslims under the age of thirty think that suicide bombing is OK. If you take the time to do the math 26% roughly works out to a bare minimum of 200,000 individuals in America who would potentially support, advocate and might even carry out suicide attacks inside our own country.

Ahmed Billoo is a twenty two year old American Muslim student, who looks about as normal as any other twenty-two year old American. He grew up in an upper middle class home, is respectful to his parents and plays soccer with his friends on weekends. Just like your kid or mine, right? Wrong. Ahmed Billoo supports Jihadi movements around the world. And, while he stops short of advocating using Jihadi techniques himself, he supports others who use it to obtain their objectives. He says depending on the situation, taking one’s life in the name of Jihad while murdering innocent people at the same time is the ultimate sacrifice for Islam and it is a blessing to take innocent people with you when doing it.

Billoo was the focus of an article in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal in which the author Brad A. Greenberg chose to smooth over Billoo’s unsettling comments. Since Billoo hasn’t actually killed anybody himself that we know of, his comments might be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless Billoo’s philosophy is apparently a growing trend among Muslims here in the United States. Greenberg asked Islamic expert Daniel Pipes to explain the phenomenon. "What you have is a low-wage jihad taking place, but people are not paying attention to it. These sentiments are seething, and at any time might erupt." Are we in danger? Dr. Pipes thinks we are.

Billoo, probably sensing the discomfort Americans might have reading his words, softened his position of excusing suicide bombing. "Muslim or not Muslim, we all fear death. Blowing yourself up is not something everyone can do or something that everyone has the courage to do. I'm not saying we should all go around America doing that;” and then qualifies the admission by saying that “Palestine is a different situation.” In other words it’s not Ok to kill Americans, yet, but at this time it is perfectly acceptable to kill Jews. Aside from the fact that killing Jews smacks of twentieth century brutalities we don’t need to go into here, how long I would ask will it be until Billoo’s type will think it is in the American Jihadist’s interest to start murdering Americans on the same scale it now indiscriminately murders men, women and children inside the State of Israel?

I contacted Daniel Pipes and asked him to elaborate on the comments he made in the article as to how the Billoo archetype could happen in a free, affluent America, whether Muslim or not. Pipes did not think that lifestyle had anything to do with the commitment to Jihad which makes it all the more dangerous. “It’s no surprise, given the power of radical Islam and the statistics we have from the UK ; that this rage and bellicosity is unrelated to sociology (poverty, age, etc.).” After all, we now know that the 9-11 killers were not driven through politics but through religion. The obvious conclusion to Dr. Pipes assertions is that Ahmed Billoo, and all like him are exactly the kinds of Muslims we should be taking a hard look at. Why are we not doing that?

Some have argued moral equivalencies while discussing the merits of this poll. Moral equivalency always seems to make an appearance in discussing the rights and wrongs of the Muslim world. We who live under the Christian Judeo concept which has brought democracy and freedom to all who are willing to struggle for it need to send a statement to those who make such equivalencies, that it is not acceptable to plan, target or execute acts of war which deliberately murder innocent women and children. The Achmad Billoo’s of the world need to be condemned, not tolerated.

I shudder at the day when America and the rest of the West rejoices with the Muslim world dancing and throwing candy in the streets at the brutality that has become to be known as Jihad. The beheading of journalists on the Internet, the blood sport of blowing up pizza parlors, indeed the wholesale slaughter of 3000 Americans while innocently sipping their morning Java must never be accepted as "just warfare." Taking a glass-half-full approach to the Pew Research findings dangerously flirts with such notions. This survey is a wakeup call. We must turn this around before it is too late. Not to will be end of history as we know it.

The World According to Yitzhak Rosenstein

2007-05-27T11:10:00.001-07:00

A fictional story about an Israeli father and son. With homage to James Michener, the historical references are true but the people in the story are completely fictitious. Those familiar with the history of the State of Israel will appreciate the candor of the story. I hope you enjoy it.

By Ya'cov Rosenne

Yitzhak had survived Hitler's ovens and in 1943 was one of the survivors of the Sorbibor breakout. He spent the rest of the war fighting with partisans, confounding the Nazis, hurting and killing them whenever he could. All the time he spent in this situation he began to think about Palestine. He had wanted to go there since he was a child. He had decided that if he survives the war he would make his way to and help build the Jewish homeland. In 1945 the war ended and he found his way to a Haganna headquarters in Warsaw. They told him of an underground railroad that was sneaking Jews into Palestine under British noses. Code name: Bricha. That is how Yitzhak got into Palestine.

When he arrived he settled in the Carmel section of Haifa. There were so many Polish Jews there. He was able to survive with his Yiddish until he learned enough Hebrew. The Bricha system outfitted him with papers and a new name. He went to work at the oil refinery, the only refinery in Palestine. While he worked there he got interested in politics. He rose to be the representative of the refinery for the Haifa Workers Council, the arm of the Histadrut in Haifa. Yitzhak made many friends there. He was very likable. Both Arabs and Jews grew to respect Yitzhak’s leadership. There was harmony among the workers of Haifa. Everyone pulled together. It was a good thing.

Then the partition vote in November of 1947 gave the Jews a legitimate right to a small piece of the Palestine Mandate. The partition designated two states out of Palestine one Arab and one Jewish. The Jews accepted. After 2000 years there was going to be a sovereign Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Arabs did not accept and began immediately attacking Jews in the streets and in the country side. Overnight people who were friendly now were enemies. During the month of December 1947 things were very bad for the Jews. They did not expect such a violent reaction from their Arab neighbors. They had miscalculated. This cost the Jews dearly during that month. On a cold morning at the end of December, the Arab military contingent in Haifa led by Mohammed Hamad al-Huneiti, attacked the refinery. Yitzhak and his friends fought bravely but did not have many weapons. Yitzhak was one of the few survivors. Forty-one Jews died that day. It was an ugly scene after it was over. Bodies and body parts were strewn all over the refinery floor where the battle took place. After they killed the Jews, the Arabs took large knives and mutilated the bodies. It was awful.

Yitzhak, undaunted by this display of barbarism by Haifa's Arabs knew deeply in his heart that they could live together as they had been, side by side after the Jewish State would be declared. Even though partition had included Haifa as part of the Jewish State the Arabs were not going to go quietly. The Jews then decided to take the city by force. For two months, fighting raged in the streets between the Haganna and the Arab forces. Yitzhak took up his old partisan stance and did his fair share of heroics. But at meetings he always emphasized the importance of relaying to the Arabs after they were defeated, to stay. To continue working along side their Jewish neighbors. The Haifa Workers Council responded to Yitzhak in positive terms. Out of 12 men only one was insistent on letting the Arabs go.

In mid April Yitzhak accompanied Moshe Carmel and Mordachai Makleff, the Haganna commanders of the Haifa forces, to the offices of General Stockwell, the British mandating authority over Haifa. Stockwell had called a meeting between the Jewish and Arab leaders to see if he could stop the fighting. Now that the Jews were taking the upper hand he knew he may have a chance for a cease fire. The Arabs rejected the terms. Stockwell, was beside himself. He felt the terms were fair. He pleaded with the Arabs to change their minds. They refused. Once again Yitzhak was not deterred by this intransigent reaction from the Arab leaders.

Yitzhak's call to keep Arab integrity intact in Haifa spread through the community. Haifa's Jewish mayor called out to the Arab residents that if they accept the terms of surrender they would be welcomed to stay and help build the city together. They received only negative responses. The Jews continued to take the city by force. Arabs fled in terror from Jewish reprisals for the brutal attack on the refinery back in December. Yitzhak, called an emergency meeting of the Haifa Workers Council. Even as Arabs poured out of the city the council delivered pamphlets. One last ditch effort to try to persuade the Arab population to stay. Most of them unfortunately did not.

For years afterwards Yitzhak blamed himself for not trying harder to persuade the Arabs not to leave. He lied awake at nights running the events over and over again in his mind. What could he have done differently? He was always an advocate of trying to reconcile with the Arab states. To work for peace now was the only answer to Yitzhak's guilt.

In 1952 he befriended an Arab leader from Abu Ganeim on the eastern side of Lake Kinneret. He worked with this man for six months in hopes that they could together once again bring peace to their two peoples. Then Arab hooligans murdered the man. They carved into his chest a Magan David to show the man was a traitor. Yitzhak could not believe that the Arabs had once again destroyed their own hopes for regaining their self respect. Over the years other individual Arabs were killed the same way for the same reasons. In 1962 while Yitzhak was visiting some friends in the North during Tubish'vat, he was downed by a terrorist's bullet.

His life was ended by the people he had worked for the last twenty years to save. It was an ironic end to such a giving life. He loved Israel. Saw it as the redemption of the Jewish people.

He was a good man
He was my father.

I love you Abba,
Ya'cov

Who Will Be For Me?

2007-05-21T12:23:00.002-07:00

A depressing explanation on the state of illegal immigration during the 2008 presidential campaign. With the field of candidates it appeared that saving the sovereignty of this country was in definite jeopardy. Written in May of 2007.

In a recent exchange with a friend he told me that he was supporting politicians like Joe Lieberman, Rudy Juliani and John McCain because of their tough stance on the Jihadi threat. The following is how I answered him:

There is another major issue confronting us as Americans that needs to be addressed and that is the border issue. Next to the coming clash with Islam this is probably the single most important issue on the table for Americans. At least two of the three mentioned above are full on "open borders" guys. I am not sure what Lieberman's position is on illegal immigration but the other two are clearly not seeing the danger to our sovereignty. And since both of them are presidential candidates it is important that they understand what is at stake if they continue to count on the present Gerorge Bush coarse if one of them are elected.

Recently though I've begun to see some chinks in the armor of their positions. Traveling around the country, especially in Iowa where they will kick off the primary campaign, people have been clamoring for a clarification on this issue. Clearly, Americans, not just here in southern California, are beginning to demand that something constructive be done with this situation before it is too late. And, the politicians are beginning to listen. McCain has backed away from joining Ted Kennedy this year in an amnesty bill. I read Juliani is also beginning to soften his stance on blanket amnesty now that he is getting a taste of the frustration that Americans are feeling on the problem.

If you are waffling on the issue and really don't think it is as important as the jihadist issue I would urge you to consider the following. Open borders to the south will mean that anyone can come into this country undetected. For all we know they are already here from the Bush policy since 9-11. There are reports that Hizbollah and al Queda are setting up safe houses and underground railroad routes to enter their scumbag soldiers into our country with the help of the Mexican Mafia, and other like underworld gangs. Furthermore, if the rest of the country becomes like Southern California south of Santa Barbara to the border we will become a different country. Have you been to Maywood, Cudahy or Anaheim lately? We will quickly lose our ability to defend ourselves. And, leave ourselves open to attack from the bigger enemy, Jihadist Islam. Can you imagine Mexico as the world's protector of Western Judeo Christian values?

It is imperative to look for and support candidates who have clear cut policy positions on these two issues. It doesn't matter what party you are affiliated with, there are open and close border advocates in both parties. I believe that this is going to be a two issue presidential election, terror and the wide open southern border. Terror has to be first that much is clear, but I would urge you to seek out candidates who are strong on fighting both terror and illegal immigration before backing any candidate for any office in 2008.

Larry

The American Nazi Party 1970

2007-05-21T12:23:00.001-07:00

A true story of an experience I had as a young man. Some of this is embellished to make the story more interesting because my life was so pitifully boring during that time, but most of it is true. Originally written in the early 1980s, I hope you like it.

Recently I was reminded of some memories of a personal experience with the "American Nazi Party" I would like to share with all of you. The year was 1970. I was working while in college at a record and music store in downtown Los Angeles. Growing up in that city I never really came into contact with real live "Nazis" before. But it was no secret to the Jewish community and others that they had their Southern California headquarters located in Glendale. For those of you who are not familiar with the Los Angeles area, Glendale is a small incorporated city adjacent to L.A.

Anyway there was very little warning, not like what you have today. Around lunch time the street became buzzing with the fact that the Nazis were going to march right down Broadway and past my store. I have to point out here that this area was heavily traveled by immigrant groups. The most prevalent being, even for 1970, were the Mexicans. That part of downtown catered to the people of East L.A. Every where you walked you heard the blaring of Mariachi Music (indigenous folk music to Mexico). The smell of Mexican food wafted down the street and attacked your senses, sending images of Mexican culture, surrounding you at every turn. Spanish was heard frequently. I myself had to be bilingual to work in the store that employed me. It was a bit unusual as most of the employees of this area were from the "Barrios." How a nice Jewish boy from Pico/Robertson ended up working there is another story. But I digress. There were all the other minority groups there too. Asians, Blacks and of course our own people who usually were the proprietors of most of these shops that lined the blvd.

Upon hearing this news my skin began to crawl, I became tense, I had a feeling that trouble was looming ahead. When I was young, I was volatile, passionate and always ready for a fight if the cause was just. I had the feeling that I always get, just before the pugilist inside gets the better of me. I was scared that something awful was going to happen. Around 1:30 PM the little Armenian kid from the cigar stand next door came running in yelling "Larry, here they come. There coming down the street, come on, come on!" The owner of the store, who was a Holocaust survivor, was standing at the counter opposite me. I dropped what I was doing and started to walk to the front of the store. Our eyes met and locked. He did not say anything and never spoke about it afterward but I felt as if he was giving me his blessing to go and do what was necessary. He knew I was a Jew. He knew I could handle myself, as on more than one occasion I had bodily thrown out the local riffraff that was making trouble in the store. For that split second I felt a connection, a kinship, with our people who too late, fell into the Nazi grasp and were not able to do enough about it to make a difference. The ghosts of that past were urging me on through this one man's eyes who I am sure if he had been younger and healthier would have joined me on that walk out to the front of store.

When I came out the door, I looked down the block which was filled with people as it always was. About a block away rising over the sea of humanity several red flags were bobbing slightly up and down in a standard rhythm. As they came closer the "Swastika" was plainly in view. A familiar lump appeared in my throat. They were closer now, I could see them clearly. The were all dressed up in Brown shirted uniforms complete with the "Swastika" armband. They looked authentic all right. Right down to their spit and polish Jack boots which they were strutting in the goose step that was a trademark of the German Army. What was coming down the street in color I had seen many times before in black and white in the newsreels as they would bully there way down busy German streets before they came to power. It was Kafka-esque to be sure. As they came closer I could see their faces. The front of the line was where they strategically put the biggest guys. If there was violence they wanted these big, ugly looking red necks up there where they could hopefully crack enough heads to get them through any trouble that might arise. This one guy I remember was marching down the street with a smile on his face like he was enjoying the whole thing. He was just waiting for someone to make a move. That's what he was there for.

They were now about three or four doors away. I would say there was probably between 25 or 30 of them marching two by two. They carried placards with the usual racist stuff that you would expect the Nazis to incite with. Most of it was against Mexicans and other Spanish speaking people. Since this was an area that catered to Latin culture they thought it would be a good idea to have lots of insulting stuff about Mexicans. Oh, and of course I saw at least two signs about us in there. They couldn't have a march anywhere without saying something about the Jews.

They were close enough now that I could see the pimples on their faces. The scars of previous fights and the beads of sweat that were beginning to show on some of them. As they approached my muscles tightened and my fists clenched. I had decided that if trouble started I was going to go after "Smily" in the front of the line. The laws of the street say to always go after the biggest ones first. You always better your odds that way. Usually when things would get to this point, I would be concentrating too hard for me to hear anything else other than my own breathing. But something stopped me.

I heard the crowd shouting back at them. There was a groundswell of anger being directed right at them. It suddenly dawned on me that I was not alone. There were many people out there that hated what I hated. And they were expressing it in a way that only Latin tempers can do. It was beautiful. I fell back and relaxed. I let them pass because I knew they were going to have to end their little exhibition soon or they would be terribly outnumbered from the people on the street. With each step they took the crowd seemed to get louder and moved closer to them. They passed me without incident but as they were going by I saw real fear from the guys who were pulling up the rear. One young man in his early twenties seemed genuinely scared as his eyes kept darting back and forth as if an attempt to watch every move the crowd made. That was quite a contrast from that big, ugly smiling redneck they had in front. The irony of how fast the scene went from something the Nazis could control and remain confident to one where they looked intimidated and scared, is something that sticks in my mind to this day. That guy on the end looked like he would have rather been anywhere else at that moment other than in that line.

About twenty yards past my store bedlam broke. I saw the flags with the "Swastikas" go down first. Fists were flying every where and people were screaming. Non combatants were running from the scene to avoid possibly getting hurt. Every single one of the Nazis went down. None of them escaped at least minor injury. I did not partake in those activities as I was content to be a spectator. I was just too amazed that so many people could get so pissed off at one time at the people who were my mortal enemies. There were old ladies and people in wheel chairs getting into it. It was really a sight. The LAPD had their work cut out for them in breaking it up. The Nazis were taught a lesson that day. They were sent back to Glendale licking their wounds, like the dogs that they are. Its too bad some of them didn't die.

I learned something that day too. The Nazis will never be able to gain any kind of foothold here in America. Americans are just too smart for that. I believe that as long as we keep our democratic principals, groups like the KKK, the Nazis, and the Aryan Brotherhood will always remain small and at the very outskirts of our society, lest they get their butts kicked.

Amy Klein's Passover Message

2007-05-21T12:23:00.000-07:00

A rebuttal to an article published around Passover time in the Jewish Journal, April, 2007. For the complete text of Ms. Klein's article "Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles" go to:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/freeing_the_slaves_in_
los_angeles_20070330/

Her picture shines at the top of the page, unassuming, kind, gentle completely unthreatening. The article begins by explaining the horrible conditions of how this deserving young woman was forced to endure an undeserving living condition when she first came to the United States. She told of the loss of a child back in Mexico because she “didn’t have the money to save her.” She promised herself that would never happen again and that her three surviving children’s lives would be different from now on. With typical unwavering rugged individualism that is so admired in American culture, she came determined to make that change. Unfortunately her plans didn’t work out. She hooked up with some ner-do-well who outfitted her in a sweatshop in some dingy unsafe factory setting in downtown Los Angeles. She was not allowed to go and come as she pleased. She was at the complete mercy of her handler. She earned pennies on the dollar to what others earned doing relatively the same work. A faceless coworker took pity on her and slipped here a phone number one day. This was the beginning of her way out. With the cunning of a natural human soul yearning to be free she eventually convinced her overseer to allow her to go to church. Instead, she went directly to a phone booth and called the still nameless, faceless hero. She was out, and she never looked back!

This is a paraphrased account of Amy Klein’s “Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles,” published in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in March, 2007. It is during Passover time when Jews remember how it was to live as slaves in Egypt. Ms. Klein’s portrait of modern day slavery was meant to bring the feeling home for Jews remembering the humbleness of their origins. If any one isn’t free, are any of us free? That is pretty heady stuff for Jews to assimilate, especially during Passover time.

The young woman showcased in the article was commended for her determination, strength of character, and the ability to endure against, what was apparently, all odds. Her name was Flor and Ms. Klein labeled this a story of modern slavery. Americans in general are particularly sensitive about slavery in their country since they fought a war over it 150 years ago with ramifications that still reverberate through American life. Flor made it out, but how many remain? That is the question that Ms. Klein wanted to convey to the Jewish community during the Passover holiday.

Those are good questions and they should be looked into but there are so many problems with the tenor and direction of this story I hardly know where to begin with this critique. Let me start by asking some questions. Is this really slavery as we have come to know the word? Flor was not taken from her home forcibly, she came of her own free will. In other places where slavery is a confirmed problem, like the Sudan for example, slavery is a brutal, vicious condition that cannot be denied. Iabolish.org writes that in the Sudan,

--------militiamen destroy villages and take their pay in human booty. Grown men are shot, but women and children are the marauders' most prized reward. Forced labor without pay, severe beatings, acute hunger, forced religious and cultural conversion, rape, and ritual female genital mutilation are grim realities for the tens of thousands of children and young mothers now in bondage.-----------

Yes, Flor was treated unfairly but her experience doesn’t reflect the inhumanity described above. She was forced to work long hours, and I’m sure her treatment was a crime but, again is this slavery? Slaves aren’t generally paid for their work but Ms. Klein indicated Flor received pay, even though she was cheated out of some of that money which only adds to the crime already committed. “Her trafficker wrote up her pay stub for only a few hours' work and made Flor sign it.” Slaves in the Arab world , as they were historically here in the United States and elsewhere, are never paid for their work.

Were any black people interviewed for this story? I think the black community might have a problem calling this “slavery” the same way Jews might have a problem with the ease of how the word “Holocaust” is used in today’s lexicon. “The Israelis are committing a holocaust against our people (The Palestinians).” Yasser Arafat, 2003.

Ms. Klein seems to be selective in her condemnation of the problem. “Traffickers sell slaves to Europe, Israel and, increasingly, to North America.” It is entirely suspect that the Arab world is left out of this equation. I only used the Sudan as an example above, but a relatively easy Internet search will reveal that slavery in the Arab world is wide spread and strong. And it exists in its most barbaric forms. Almost every international human rights group lists slavery in the Arab world as a huge problem. I can’t believe that this was just some editorial oversight. It is noteworthy that only the west is mentioned as a proponent of modern day slavery. We here in the free world allow the worst form of human bondage imaginable. And, that according to Ms. Klein is embodied in Flor’s story. Outrageous!

But, Ms. Klein, in her mind set wanted to draw attention to the problem, but the solutions she gave naively will not solve it. She does not identify the real source. Instead she by passes it and blames the problem on Western values. If we want to eliminate American slavery as exposed by the Flors of the world then we must attack the problem at its source. That is the runaway, chaotic, anarchy that exists on the Southern open border of the United States. There are so many serious cultural and legal issues arising out of our de facto open border policy that Flor’s predicament is only the tip of the iceberg. The increase in crime across the board and our inability to combat it is seriously eroding the quality of life in this country. America, in certain microcosmic areas is beginning to show signs of disintegrating. Southern California is one of those examples that the rest of the country can look to if they want to understand exactly how serious this problem has become. One only has to study the siphoning off of revenue to other social services to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves to understand the desperate situation in education, health care, police and fire, road building and repair. All social, political and economic services are affected by this problem. Illegals coming from south of the border just like Flor cover a large portion of that population.

I wondered, as I was reading, why there was no mention of racism. Surely in an anti Western accusation such as this there has to be room for racism. It just wouldn't be complete without it. Did Ms. Klein forget to include it? I fully expected to see it sometime before I finished the article. And, then I come across this, “Flor's trafficker is a cousin of the mayor of her hometown.” One can only imagine the field day that Ms. Klein would have had if Flor’s trafficker would have been white. It would have increased the length of the piece at least three paragraphs.

Ms. Klein points to several Los Angeles politicians who are working hard to see that Flor and all others like her are to be set free. “On Jan. 11, (Councilman Eric) Garcetti, Councilman Tony Cardenas and LAPD Chief William Bratton gathered with other officials to announce the declaration of National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.” What a pompous gathering that must have been. Those three gentlemen are part of Ms Klein’s America that says we do not need to be concerned about illegal immigration. They support special order no. 40 which forbids police from investigating a criminal’s immigration status. They support legislation which promotes and continues to strengthen an already out of control sanctuary policy for L.A. They refuse to do anything about the problem usually citing it as federal government responsibility. That’s the George Bush government that claims "they only do the jobs that Americans won’t do." I wrote to all three cited in the article asking for clarification and none would respond to my query. I don’t know if they are just plain cowards or they actually share some hidden delight in watching American sovereignty disintegrate with each passing year.

There was more than one crime committed in this story. First, and foremost, the innocent young woman named Flor should have never gone through this kind of treatment. The people involved on both sides of the border should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second, and maybe the more insidious of the two, is the continuing denial of the political left in this country that refuses to acknowledge where these kinds of problems originate and their hijacking of the political process to keep them hidden.

This article has less to do with slavery than it does an unwilling population to have the courage to stand up and say that is enough. It certainly holds no positive reflection for Jews at Passover. We should not be proud as Klein’s article is meant to make us feel, we should be ashamed that we have allowed this to happen. We should be slightly fearful that it is getting worse, not better. Amy Klein’s article has a maligning seditious ring to it. It confirms a continuing slide into chaos and cultural disorder. Remove the possibility of open southern borders and you will clear up at least 95% of this problem almost immediately.

Ms. Klein could have chosen to write about the real horrors of slavery in the Islamic world, the brutal capture of human beings treated no better than animals, the death and the stench of oppression. That would have been a real Passover message. All would have benefited from such an article. Instead she chose to write something that would satisfy left wing thinking, filled with progressive psychobabble with politically correct distortions and revised truths. Only a few misguided people who have lost their sense of freedom somewhere along the way, can read Ms. Klein's article and shake their heads yes and say to themselves, “now I can have meaning to my Passover Seder.”

Some are Willing…Some are Not

2007-04-09T11:35:00.005-07:00

A review of a lecture I attended which was of interest to all Americans. I submitted this as a freelanced piece to the Jewish Journal in February, 2007.

Monday night (Feb 5, 2007) marked the beginning of the sixth annual Public Lecture Series at the Gibson Auditorium in Universal City, Los Angeles, sponsored by the University of Judaism. The theme of the evening was the role of America in the 21st. century as viewed by three of America’s most reliable allies. A panel of past presidents and prime ministers expressed their views for the future with America leading the free world. Ehud Barak of Israel, John Major of England and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, spoke individually at first and then in a panel discussion conducted by a moderator. .

The emergence of China, the world economy, and the spread of democracy was discussed. But, judging from applauses the most important topics to the audience was how the United States would lead Western Civilization in the War on Terror. Barak and Major were predictable in their assessments of terrorism and its spreading influences like the Islamization of Europe. This is a little disconcerting about Major since he identifies himself as part of the conservative party in England. Barak, since he is Israeli no matter what his political leanings are you wouldn’t think he would be so willing to take such a chance on his own country’s survival by desiring to enter into a peace treaty with people who are sworn to destroy it.

In fairness they both expressed concern about the state of world affairs but held out for a bright future, emphasizing diplomacy and conciliation. Major was insistent that Europe could face a crisis later because of Muslim integration, but for right now” it is ok.” I was beginning to squirm in my seat. This is in light of recent reports that Mohammad is now the number one baby naming choice in Major’s own country. (I wrote this before the exposure that week of a Jidhadi plot to kill a British soldier home on leave from Iraq). The protégé of Maggie Thatcher, the former Prime Minister remarked that when the time became right, European leaders would somehow stop the Islamic "Anschluss." And, assuming they could do that at some point in the future, then what? Could they reverse it? When, I thought, would John Major believe that the Muslim presence in Europe would be at that point when politicians would have to intervene and do something.

Barak kind of echoed for the Middle East what Major saw for the immediate future of Europe. He still believes that peace on some level is possible with Israel’s surrounding neighbors within the near future. He sidestepped the question of grading the Israeli government’s performance in the Lebanon war last summer, refusing to comment on the basis that he was personal friends with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. I get the impression that Barak is one of many Jews who are perfectly willing, however naively, to hand our enemies the rope so they can hang us with it.

Aznar was different. He remained the one bright light during the evening. He held that the Islamist threat must be confronted now. The fight against terror should never be backed away from. He was very supportive of Israel not only with its struggle against terror but its ability to survive in a climate of so many seeking to destroy it. He was full of sound bites but that's ok I like what he had to say. He said, "If America is the best hope, then Israel is the last hope." He told the Israelis in the audience that they are not the problem, "the problem is elsewhere."
You may remember Aznar. As president of Spain he was one of the more enthusiastic supporters of the Bush coalition in Iraq. He was in office the day of the Madrid bombing that killed 191 people in 2004. Three days later, and some say because of it, he lost reelection to the Socialist Zapatero, who promptly withdrew the Spanish troops from Iraq. An embarrassment to Spain and a huge victory for the terrorists, the Madrid bombings was further proof to the enemy that the West has no will to fight. Aznar stands in the doorway of that notion. He believes that the United States will have to take the lead if Western Civilization has a chance to win the War on Terror.

I felt like I was watching Churchill in 1936 demanding that England and France go in and disarm Hitler’s rearmament. Almost everyone alive during that time whether in government or not, had vivid memories of the World War I catastrophe and wanted to avoid war at all costs. Churchill took a lot of ridicule for this stand. But, as we know from history a few years later he was the sole world leader protecting Western Democracy from a totalitarian abyss. I hope Aznar returns to government in his country. It gives me hope that there are still world leaders that realize what we are up against. I thought the Spanish were cowards after the Madrid bombing controversy. Now I know that is not true. There is at least one man who is not, Jose Maria Aznar certainly has my support.

Two State Solution, Then and Now

2007-04-09T11:35:00.004-07:00

Written in rebuttal to Rob Eshman's editorial in the Jewish Journal sometime around the beginning of 2007

Twenty years ago the idea of a two state solution to settle the Middle East conflict was not acceptable even though the extreme political left at the time said that it was. The problem then is more or less the same problem now; the Arabs just don’t want it. At a Peace Now sponsored 1980s rally at Roxbury Park in Los Angeles, three speakers who will be familiar to you for other reasons, Richard Dreyfuss, Betty Friedan, and Yael Dayan argued the merits of creating two states west of the Jordan River. Today some would say that those speakers were correct, even visionary, because that radical proposal of the 1980s is now mainstream thinking. Touché!

Here’s what’s wrong. Opponents back then objected to the two state argument for three main reasons. One, however noble their intentions, Jews calling for a two state solution showed the Jewish community as weak at a time when it should have closed ranks and remained strong. Two, if Israel somehow negotiated the agreement with a dishonest Arafat it would not bring peace. It would only act as a stepping stone to the Palestinians’ ultimate goal, the destruction of Israel. Three, it wasn’t that a two state solution was not a reasonable end to the conflict but, its timing was off. In the event that a negotiated peace could not be achieved as was suspected by Peace Now, their alternative was to just depart from the territories as an Israeli MK told me in a conversation in 1985. A nation that surrenders land taken in a war it did not start, cannot be interpreted in any other way other than complete defeat. Most of world Jewry could not accept such terms for Israel’s future in the 1980s.

The two state solution, then as now only works for Jews. The democratically elected leadership in Palestine, Hamas, are not interested. They insist that in any peace agreement Israel must literally cease to exist. There are several ways to achieve this, through violence and bloodshed, forcing Israel to take in several million Palestinians who claim refugee status, or simply by just negotiating away the first Jewish homeland in two thousand years. It doesn’t really matter to Khalid Mashaal and company how it happens as long as it happens. And, the Palestinians are counting on the Western Left to help make that happen. Just as it forced its self-promoted idea of a premature two state solution in the 1980s, the Arab world along with the Western Left now believe that current Left wing views can once again become Israeli policy someday. The destruction of the Jewish State is on the table and it’s coming unless we do something to stop it.

The modern day equivalent to Richard Dreyfuss’s 80s involvement in a two state solution are left wing Jews like Tony Judt and Tony Kushner. Both men advocate Israel take some of the steps that Hamas insists on in order to create peace. One can only speculate on why they would advocate forcing Israel into life threatening, compromising positions. Judt’s and Kushner’s position today are considered valid and attainable because Richard Dreyfuss’s unpopular speech twenty years ago has now become a fait accompli to the Arab Israeli conflict.

Didn’t I read somewhere that Tony Kushner believes that Israel was a mistake and should never have been created? But, he is a proud Jew and loves Israel. This is who the Left relies on to keep their finger on the pulse of the future. For those of you who don’t know, Tony Kushner was one-half of the writing team of Steven Spielberg’s indictment of Israel’s war on terror, the movie “Munich.”

Admittedly, Judt and Kushner are the lunatic fringe of Left wing politics. But, like Dreyfuss and the others, they are Hollywood types who have a certain amount of influence in these matters. And, like that rally in the park in the 1980s we would be fools to write off Judt and Kushner just because they represent the extreme of Jewish left wing thinking.

The Left regards the pullout from Gaza in 2005 as a great victory because of their advocacy in the 1980s. Before the post Zionist activists pat themselves on the back for taking responsibility for planting the seed of extricating Israel from Gaza, they should ask themselves if they actually think that Israel is better off now since they vacated Gaza. Is there any more peace on that border than there was before they pulled out? Is Israel any safer, more secure? Maybe they should ask the parents of Gilad Shalit that question.

Studying the issue, the accused right seems to be the more visionary of the two philosophies. Most of the world wide Jewish community have perennially argued against the leftwing agenda, labeling it accommodation, conciliation, acquiescence, and surrender by insisting that what would happen in the 1980s was exactly what happened in the middle of the first decade of the 21st. century. In the 80s the opponents argued that the Palestinians would never accept the Jews as an equal peace partner, that withdrawal from a territory either through negotiation or unilaterally, would embolden the enemy and that to practice this agenda could potentially mean the destruction of Israel. Two out of three of those scenarios have definitely proved true. If the rest of us are diligent in opposing the extreme left the third will never come to pass. Still every once in awhile you read an article or hear something on NPR celebrating the disturbing connection between Richard Dreyfuss “courageously” positing a two state solution back in the 80s and that Judt’s and Kushner’s prediction of a smaller more diminutive Israel might be in the offing in the near future.

Calling for dialogue with an entity that has no intention of settling the dispute peacefully can only work against the safety and security of Israel. The answer is usually that the objective is to bypass Hamas and negotiate directly with Fatah. Assuming that America and Israel can pull that off and undermine the elected government in Palestine, what makes anyone think that a second time might prove any different than the disaster at Camp David in the summer of 2000? I’m sure that Shalom Ackshov and other left wing groups in Israel think there is an opportunity to negotiate a real peace with Abbas. But, Fatah contains groups within its ranks who are just as violence orientated against Jews as Hamas. What the Left, Jewish and others need to realize is the sad truth that there are literally very few people in the Palestinian territories who want to end this conflict as much as Israel. In other words there is no one to talk peace with on the other side. There is no one home in the Palestinian peace camp and the lights are off for now.

We all want peace, but peace must be real, not one sided and only used as a jumping off point for the ultimate goal, revenge for 1948 and beyond. I am not Judt or Kushner so I shudder to think that such a scenario can come true. Peace is not possible at this time, that much is clear. What Jews need to do is to come together; hunker down, protect ourselves and expect more war before there will be peace. We must wait for the Palestinians to tire from all this bloodshed and in the meantime take our lumps and build our security. When this phenomenon finally burns out in a hundred years or so, then we might be able to come out into the sunshine and build the kind of two state solution that will work for everyone, not just for Western Civilization’s extreme leftwing or the Arab Muslim world, but for those who love Israel as well.

The Moral Equivalency Factor

2007-04-09T11:35:00.003-07:00

Israelis killing Palestinians, and vice versa
Is 'moral equivalency' really so wrong?
By Henry Siegman, HENRY SIEGMAN is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations and a visiting professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The response is to his editorial in the L.A Times, June 18, 2006.

Professor Siegman argues in this piece that Israeli retaliation to Palestinian terror does not move the peace process forward. He makes several assertions to support his argument, however, the reasoning here is flawed and more often than not one sided, tilted in favor of exactly what Palestinian terrorism wishes for, the complete cessation of Israeli defense of their homeland.

The professor asks in his title “is moral equivalency really so wrong?” It is not so much wrong as it just doesn’t exist in this conflict. There is no moral equivalency between what Hamas does in the name of “ending the occupation” and what Israel does in response. A missile killing a known serial murderer in his car which also unfortunately takes the life of his children is not equivalent to a brainwashed, blood thirsty, vengeful, young man who would blow himself up at a kids party, a religious gathering where many children are present, or a dolphinarium.

The professor presents no scientific evidence that what the Israelis do promotes more terror and therefore is morally equivalent with what the Palestinians do. So, I would argue that Israeli retaliation is just as likely to reduce the violence level as to raise it and therefore, serves to protect Israeli lives. It is morally justified to kill 45 terrorists in Jenin because they can no longer kill any innocent people. And, if in that process seven innocents also die, that is the collateral damage that we all must accept as an unfortunate part of war. That is not the same as targeting innocent civilians specifically. If retaliation saves even one Jewish life then Israeli policy is worth it. After all, the primary purpose of a nation-state is to protect its citizens.

”Palestinians insist that, like the Israelis, their objective is not to kill innocent civilians but to end a crushing occupation that is now in its 40th year. Killing civilians is seen by some of them — immorally and stupidly — as a means to that end.”

I would like to know which Palestinians have said this. I have never heard that proclamation. On the contrary Palestinian actions do not support the above statement. Consider these examples:

1) Suicide bombs are packed with all kinds of nails and tacks so that even if they don’t kill everyone they stand a good chance of inflicting human casualties causing undo suffering.

2) When the Palestinians blew up Sbarro’s pizza parlor back in 2001 or whenever it was, they erected a side show shrine in the West Bank, complete with twisted metal, broken glass, and mutilated body parts some of which were small, obviously symbolizing the slaughter of small children. The people paid money to enter the display and cheered at what they saw, until an embarrassed American State Department forced Arafat to remove it.

3) Half of the 1000 or so Jewish deaths are of children under sixteen, which Palestinians seem to revel in.

4) When two young boys, ages twelve and thirteen, happened to wander into enemy territory without warning a couple of years ago, they were found in a cave so mutilated that their parents had to identify their dead bodies through dental records.

Does this sound like a people who regret the violence that they are forced into?

How many Arab children are among the 3500 casualties that the professor sites for Palestinians? Moreover, how many of those are trumped up casualties which are not truly the work of the Israeli military? The events that inspired this editorial began with a so called errant Israeli missile which supposedly landed on the beach in Gaza and killed a number of people including small children. But, the Israelis have raised a very strong case that the explosion which killed those unfortunate people was actually the work of Hamas trying to set booby traps for Israeli commandos who have used that very beach before to land and launch raids against terrorist activity. The Palestinians have a history of using their own incompetence to blame Israel.

The professor argues that Israeli strikes cannot be justified unless the strike has the ability to move toward a final settlement to the conflict. In the absence of diplomatic negotiations Israeli retaliations will never end Palestinian terror, therefore, they offer a morally inadequate solution.

While Israeli retaliations may not contribute to the end of the conflict something can be said for their effectiveness as a policy. I wonder if the professor would agree that at the very least the Palestinians are thrown off balance with Israeli counter attacks. They might even be running a little scared which might make them a little more timid in carrying out attacks against Israel. That in itself would save lives, and therefore, makes retaliations morally acceptable.

Take for example the killing of the leader of Hamas, Sheik Achmed Yassin in 2004. A month later Israel targeted his successor Abdel Aziz Rantisi and killed him while driving in a car in the Gaza Strip. The next leader coming to power would not reveal his identity to the international community because of fear that Israel was only a step away from having him join his predecessors. Thus, he could not obtain the stature of the two before him and remained incognito until he was safely ensconced in Damascus. His name is Khaled Meshaal and if the Israelis could get to him I am sure they have a missile with his name on it. Playing this kind of hardball sends a message to the Palestinians that they cannot deny. If any Palestinian contributes to the planning, and execution in full or in part in the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in Israel they will be targeted for elimination.

Israel accepts that it is destined to experience continued terror into the future unless one of two things happen, the Palestinians come to their senses and seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict, or Israel unilaterally takes some kind of action which will guarantee the security of its population. The Israelis are running out of patience. They will not wait forever. That is why you are seeing in small steps the unilateral withdraw of Israel from Palestinian claimed land and the definition of permanent borders in the presence of the barrier currently under construction on the West Bank. The professor argues that there is a “vast disproportion between Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli ‘mistakes’ and Israeli casualties from Palestinian terrorist assaults.” He uses the example that Kassam rockets have not killed anyone, but Israeli air strikes kill Palestinians on a daily basis. So, Palestinian incompetence matched against Israeli efficiency equals brutality on Israel’s part. That is patently absurd.

If Israel waits until one of those rockets actually kills somebody will they be more justified in retaliating? It is morally outrageous to suggest that Israel not retaliate on that basis. As a nation state it has the imperative to protect its population from attack. Even if some in the Israeli body politic believe that Israeli retaliation does not diminish terror against their state they have the obligation to respond. And, when they can, take the initiative to disarm the terrorists by force, whether that means blowing up a bomb factory, taking out a publicly up front killer, or launch limited commando raids into the territories to keep the Palestinian militant stature off balance.

The professor insists that collateral damage in Israeli counter attacks are not justified on any level. This suggests that Israel cease retaliation for Palestinian terror against its population. It is unconscionable to tie Israel’s hands in such a manner. The only thing this accomplishes is that it gives the Palestinians carte blanche to do anything they want to Israel without fear of punishment. As long as they refuse to come to the negotiating table in good faith, which is part of their agenda anyway, they are protected against Israeli retribution. The professor’s assertion implies that if Israel stops retaliating that will somehow convince the Palestinians to negotiate rather than murder. Why can’t people see that it is not Israel’s borders that are bloody, but Palestine’s?

The professor seems to think that it is a simple matter of democratic politics that will change the situation. He implies that only since the Labor Party was voted out of office in 2000 that Israel decided not to negotiate. I would remind the professor that the Labor party took the negotiations as far as it could go in 1999. Ehud Barak thought he had a workable formula for both sides. But, he was wrong, Arafat refused to budge on a final settlement. And, Barak would not give up anymore. He conceded later that the people of Israel had given way on many painful concessions, and Arafat could not give way on even one, accepting a fair settlement for both sides. I wonder what the professor would suggest the opposition do, that Barak and his party did not? Even President Clinton, Ehud Barak’s ideological equivalent, thought that Arafat turned down a reasonable settlement on the total issue.

The professor asserts that it is “Ariel Sharon’s unilateralism, embraced by his successor, Ehud Olmert,” which is the stumbling block to peace. But this is incorrect, Even now as this is being written, Prime Minister Olmert is looking for ways to try and negotiate with President Abbas, but his hands are tide as long as Hamas, who intends on destroying Israel, remains the party in charge in Palestine. The unilateral moves Sharon implemented and Olmert will follow through with is not an “avoidance” of peace but a measure to secure the Israeli population in the event that peace will not be obtained. It is not what the government of Israel desires but in the absence of any real peace partner, “unilateralism” might turn out to be the only alternative. The government of Israel will make its people secure either through peace or unilateral measures, but it will be secure.

The prospects for peace have been on the table for six years. All the Palestinians need to do is to renounce its campaign to kill off the Jewish State and accept its terms. I agree, terrorism cannot be defeated, but Israel can make its own population safe, thus the reason for unilateral moves, building barriers and so forth.

I am surprised that the professor thinks his argument so weak that he must go back in history to find a parallel between the Jews and suicide bombers. Because he cites Israel’s pre-state underground as an example showing how Jews are just as barbaric as Palestinians, there are several things you should know which the good professor has conveniently left out of this assertion.

The killing of innocent civilians in Palestine did not begin with the Irgun. Palestinian Arabs were killing innocent Jews as early as the 1880s when some hearty European Jewish pilgrims began to set up working settlements in Palestine. The Jews finally responded in 1903 with the formation of Ha-shomer, the forerunner of the Haganna. Arab terror took a decisively violent turn after World War I and Jews were attacked time and time again. However, The Haganna always had a policy of defensive restraint, and continued that policy until its dissolution after Israeli independence.

After riots and continuous attacks in Jerusalem, Hebron, and many other Palestinian cities and hamlets through the 1920s and into the 1930s, a few Jewish defense force members grew tired of not taking the attack to the enemy. The Irgun, formed in 1932, was first devised to work against British occupation, and dealt very little with Arab terror. However, from 1936-1939, the Arab riots became so brutal against the Jewish population that the Irgun decided that the time was right to strike back.

The professor’s assertion based on a Benny Morris quote that it was Jewish terror that taught the Arabs how to be so murderously cruel apparently was just the opposite. It was the Arabs that taught the Jews how to kill with no mercy.

The professor would have you believe that the Irgun was widely accepted by the Yishuv (organized Palestinian Jewish community). In fact the underground was supported by a small minority of the population. The Irgun never reported more than 1500 members while the Haganna, with its policy of “restraint” contained around 6000 trained and equipped fighters along with maybe four or five thousand others who were mostly without weapons or special training. The Haganna received more support than any of pre-state Israel’s four main militia groups. It was the Hagana’s policy which followed into the IDF after Israel became a state.

While they were a force to be reckoned with in Jewish Palestine it is inaccurate to imply Irgun operations as having the support of the entire Yishuv. This is compared to a Palestinian population which sports a 60 to 80 per cent support for terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians. If the professor cares to dispute what I say, I would urge him to look at the voting results in the last Palestinian election. Where is the moral equivalency there, professor?

In conclusion, the professor makes some wild assertions that are not supported either by history or by current geopolitics. As long as the Palestinians refuse to negotiate in good faith, Israel will continue to defend itself and its population. The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of the people of Israel want a peace settlement, one that supports two free independent states, one Jewish and one Muslim. The vast majority of the Palestinian nation cannot accept a Jewish State along side its own. Therefore, the region will continue in this cycle of violence until Israel takes the necessary steps to safely separate itself unilaterally from the Palestinian in its midst.

Why is this so hard?

2007-04-09T11:35:00.001-07:00

This is a letter to the editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles where two different editorialists took a position that I had issue with.

It was interesting to read the opinion page this past week (January 19, 2007). Two articles by two regular contributors demonstrate a clarity about Israel, American Jews respect and admire. You would think they would know what the real scoop is, but it isn’t so. Both men, Judea Pearl and Larry Derfner write about Israel and the Palestinian dispute and like many other Jews just refuse to see the writing on the wall. Pearl feebly tries to inch the human race into accepting that Hamas really is capable of more than suicide bombers and Derfner writes that Netanyahu is a racist on the level of the same vile Western thinking as Jean Le Pen or Jorge Haider.

It is clear that both men just cannot see that the peace process, or at least what we use to call the peace process, is a complete and utter failure. Pearl struggles to weigh the possible Palestinian moves that might one day produce peace juxtaposed to the more ominous desires to bring and end to Israel. For example, he convinces himself and hopefully his readers that one of the very few lone voices of reason in the Palestinian realm, Sari Nusseibeh is really a spark to a much wider acceptance of Israeli existence. Nusseibeh, a truly courageous individual, has made few converts over the years and deals with death threats on a fairly consistent basis because of his views. Years of Nusseibeh’s influence has not produced results.

Hamas, with their blood thirsty platform whether they are in power or not, enjoy vast support from the Palestinian people. They have the blessing from the wider Arab world to destroy Israel if they can do it. It’s not peace Hamas is after, it’s murder and mayhem. Why is that so difficult for some to accept?

Netanyahu is not a racist, he is scared like the rest of us who understand that we better stand up to this enemy or it just might defeat us. And, defeat for us means the end of everything. We will not be Europe and Japan rebuilding after the war is over. There will be no Europe or Japan to rebuild. Unlike Derfner and Pearl, Netanyahu understands that if you want to climb into bed with a scorpion, expect to be dead by morning.

That Netanahu’s sound bited statement of his polices as finance minister produced a lowering of the Arab birth rate sent Derfner into unfair assumptions about Netanyahu’s intentions. To show how racist the comment was, Derfner asks the question what would Jewish reaction be if the policy in some other country were to clandestinely lower the birthrate of Jews? Are Jews part of an unrelenting effort to destroy the other countries they live in, in America, Canada or England? The question has no merit.

What Derfner defines as racism Netanyahu regards as necessary for Israel’s survival. He insists this war is far from over. Because he says the things we don’t want to hear, but deep down we know to be true he is condemned. He’s not a racist, he’s a survivalist. Israel lives in the thick of the growing Jihad menace and will need to defend itself in the coming months and years like it has never done before. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, presided over the most dangerous time in Israeli history, the first ten days of the state’s existence in 1948. He would roll over in his grave if he knew what kind of peril Israel faces in the near future. Its time we as Jews realize our responsibility. We must face this evil down as a community and stand as one because not to is to face the unthinkable.

I wish that both Pearl and Derfner were correct in their assessments. I wish I could have read those articles and thought to myself there is always a chance for peace. We just need to push forward and although it will take a long time it can and will happen. I wish the Palestinian people were more like our people in that they would be willing to forget old hatreds for the good of our children. I wish there were two states west of the Jordan River living side by side in peace. I wish all that were possible. But, you can’t deal with “wishes” in the Middle East, you must deal with realities. And, the realities are clear. After almost fifty-nine years the Jews are no closer to a settlement with the surrounding Arab population than they were when Israel became a state.

If responsible voices in the community like Pearl and Derfner continue with this pipe dream, that the Arabs will someday accept their Jewish cousins, and continue to condemn those who are ready to defend Jewish life as we know it as racists, Israel and its people (and that means all of us, because after Israel, European and American Jews will be next) will return to the old ways of begging the gentile for protection, and walking like sheep in a world that “tolerates its Jews.” That is of course, if there are any Jews left to tolerate.

A Clear and Present Danger

2007-04-09T11:35:00.000-07:00

The following is a review of the presentation of the film "Obsession" which I viewed in Los Angeles in March of 2007.

Sometimes with all the political fallout of the Iraq debacle we lose site of what is at stake in the war on terror. Because the country is so divided over President Bush’s ability to manage the war, the very real and serious problem of Islamic terror is often relegated to a foolish unimportance. As my brother-in-law told me the other night, “if Bush hadn’t gone into Iraq we wouldn’t be in this mess” somehow forgetting that it was 9-11, not George Bush that created "this mess."On Wednesday, March 14, the West Valley Jewish Community Center presented “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War on the West,” sponsored by the West Hills Chabad. Like a clarion call this film reminds us of the clear and present danger that confronts Western Civilization . After the movie one of the primary speakers in the film, Noni Darwish discussed with the audience in detail her pro American/Israeli position to this war. This is a film that every American should see.

Darwish, the daughter of the Egyptian Fedayeen commander in Gaza during the 1950s, spoke about the madness that is gripping her people. You could not help but admire her courage and her recognition of righteousness against all odds. Ms. Darwish has a price on her head, so the security to get into this presentation was very strict. She doesn’t waiver from her condemnation of the Arab world, her support for Israel or her love of democratic values. I have to admit, I was impressed. It’s not every day that you meet an Arab national speak about her respect for the Jewish state. Perhaps reality is never far behind because as Ms. Darwish spoke you got the distinct impression that she was very alone in this commitment, disowned by her family, her country and the religion that totally dominated her life growing up.

Meeting and talking with a real live hero like Noni Darwish made the evening exciting but the film stands on its own merit as a glaring example of the utter hatred that much of the Arab world and large swaths of the rest of non Arab Islam feel toward the west. Thanks to Al-Jizeera and some other like minded Middle East media outlets there are mounds of written and video evidence to support the film’s arguments.

The film argues that we are not taking this war seriously. Most of what is reported in the Arab world and in other places never seems to make it in the western media. Steven Emerson, a long time researcher of the Islamic threat said, “The amount of hate propaganda is far more extensive and pervasive than the attention that it receives in the western media.” This has to stop. We need to begin to follow the Muslim press, listen to what they are saying, understand what they are implying with their statements and analyze more closely their intentions. The films ultimate message: We face disaster if we don’t.

There is a violent movement to convert the entire world to Islam, to completely eliminate the Christian-Judeo world from the face of the Earth. Perceived western influences around the globe are targeted on a regular basis. Caroline Glick, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, makes the point that many countries in the world today have a problem with Islamic extremism on some level. And then to emphasize that statement the film shows a map of the world covered in red “X”s where Jihadis are on the rise, attacking, bombing and killing. As noted in one Palestinian children’s textbook, “this religion (Islam) will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighters.”

Several of the speakers in the film kept reiterating the fact that the West is in denial of this problem. Even in a post 9-11 environment people do not want to admit that there is a growing malignancy on the planet bent on our destruction.

The film is very clear not to condemn Islam as a religion and therefore claims that not all of the world’s Muslims are the enemy. But, it is clear that the Jihadi movement is at present very large and is growing with each passing generation. There are many Islamic leaders calling for the deaths of Jews, the destruction of the United States, and the defeat of the west, all the while being cheered on by thousands of onlookers, and supported by millions of others. There is no shortage of hatred in the Islamic world. The film implores us to recognize this threat and to begin to fight back in order to survive.

Most disturbing about this enemy is the chair squirming, undeniable connection of the Islamic Jihad movement to the rise of Nazism in Europe during the 1930’s. The two historical periods are so closely correlated that it is hard to comprehend how we could have missed its growth. It is as if we were so busy reminding ourselves in the last sixty years that we would never again forget the past in Europe that we did not see it creeping up on us again in another part of the world. The film shows that 19th and early 20th century European anti-Semitism complete with blood libels, threats against Jews, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are alive and well and flourishing within the Muslim world.

One of the historical parallels to Nazism is the connection between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolph Hitler. As disturbing then as it is now the film describes and verifies that Hitler and the Mufti agreed that the extermination of the Jews was central to the War’s aims. The Mufti, a radical fundamentalist in his own right, distinguished himself as one of the leaders who tried to prevent Jewish Zionism from establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine during that era. In exchange for his support Hitler promised him that would never happen.

In one especially chilling moment, Walid Shoebat, a reformed Palestinian terrorist and, who like Noni Darwish is shunned by his family, community and religion, explains the growth of Jihad as compared to the growth of Nazism. He says that Islamo fascism is far more dangerous than Nazism because of its religious components. Jihad makes war in the name of almighty God while Nazism made war for a man, Adoph Hitler. And, it exists in several countries not just one. Therefore, Shoebat concludes, that if we do not stop its rise we will be facing not one Nazi Germany but several.

The soul of Islam is at stake some western commentators have noted, indicating that the only way we can win this is for Islam itself to struggle with the question internally and repair it internally. In other words, we are your supporters but it is you who have to correct the problem. According to “Obsession,” and confirmed by Noni Darwish, the struggle is already over, Islam has been stolen by the Jihadi movement. The enemy is getting stronger and the decent Muslim who wants to live his life like we live ours is growing ever weaker. In fact, one gets the sickening feeling that Noni Darwish, and the other Muslim commentators depicted in the film, which courageously stand against the Jihadi enterprise, are lone puppies in a sea of wolves.

The danger to all of us is clear. Either we begin to get serious about this problem and take positive steps to end it favorably or we are going to lose. The very existence of Western Civilization is at stake and all the freedoms that we developed, struggled with and refined over the last 2500 years are in danger of being forcibly replaced by something very different. We must recognize that to do nothing and to continue to live in denial of this growing problem is a huge mistake. Unless you are willing to accept that your grandchildren before the end of their lives will be bowing down to Mohammad five times a day I would suggest that you begin looking at our involvement in the Middle East as a matter of survival not as a political football to be argued as Republicans and Democrats. It is not too late but we need to begin now or face a global confrontation of such huge proportions that it will dwarf World War II by comparison. The choice is ours.

A Simple Plea

2006-09-02T08:44:00.000-07:00

During the Lebanon war CNN reported that the United States had made it clear to Israel to be ready for certain concessions. Concessions? The outrage I felt was familiar. Who started this war? Why should Israel be forced into any concessions? But, here they were. The Americans wanted Israel to be ready to commit to a cease fire, be prepared for a prisoner swap for their kidnapped soldiers, and be prepared to give back some land as well.

Is this the way it’s going to be? Is this how the war on terror will be prosecuted in the future? If it is we are going to lose.

To force Israel to commit to a cease fire while Hizbollah was still standing, to accept another prisoner swap when they already said that no such deal would be entertained and to give Shabaa Farms to Lebanon when even the U.N says that it does not belong to Lebanon, constitutes a forced two pronged defeat for Israel, one at the hands of Hizbollah, and the other at the hands of Israel’s Western allies. However, I doubt the Arab world would see it that way.

Doesn’t the West realize the change that has taken place since 9-11? Although it may have been that way in the past, it isn’t just Israel that will pay the consequences of a defeat to terrorism any more. Any forced defeat of Israel is a victory for Hizbollah, Iran, and Islamic terror in general. A victory for terror means that all of Western Civilization pays.

And, we will all pay dearly.

An early cease fire enabled the enemy to use the time to rebuild. While you are reading this Hizbollah is preparing for a more lethal next round. It gave Muslim street cred to the likes of Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Achmadinijad, the Mussolini and Hitler of our time. It certainly was not in Western interests to make these guys appear bigger than life to their followers. In fact, it’s playing with fire when we know we are going to get burned. Pardon me for say so, but that’s stupid!

And, by the way, Israel is no less to blame for this travesty than the West. The government of Israel went right along with the U.S. proposal to end the war before victory could be claimed. They made huge mistakes and as time goes on we will learn more about them. The people of Israel are as outraged at their government as I am. They believe in growing angry numbers that Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party administration must go as a result.

Nobody wants innocent civilians to die. Images of loving family members in Lebanon wailing over their women and children and other obvious non-combatants is enough to make any normal person sick. Ok, war is an ugly thing, but if you are going to win, you have to have the resolve to do so. The United States, Israel and certainly not Europe failed to show the resolve necessary to complete this mission. I feel very bad for those people in Lebanon, but to be honest, given the choice of watching them crying over their dead loved ones and them watching me crying over mine, it may seem heartless to you, but I would rather watch them crying over theirs. Yet, I fear that if we do not start playing the kind of hardball necessary to win this thing, unconditionally, we are going to end up crying plenty for the people we love.

If you give the enemy the rope to hang you with, they will do it. Expect no mercy.

Even if you aren’t much of a fan of Israel or particularly fond of Jews or Israel, or both, you cannot honestly have liked the idea of forcing Israel to stop, that is unless you are MP George Galloway of England or people who think like that. The consequences for all of us are just too great.

A cease fire before Hizbollah was killed off has given them the opportunity to rebuild and become stronger, bolder and definitely more vicious. With the winning Hezbollah formula other Jew and Christian haters will of course be emboldened to strike against the West in any asymmetrical means available. They will spread their influence across the Western world and strive to bring Western Civilization to its knees. Intelligence analysts already admit that Hezbollah exists in the United States and Canada.

Next time allow Israel to finish the job.

This is not to say that the Arab Israeli conflict should not be addressed. Peace between Israel and its neighbors would benefit everyone but it is dead wrong to do it in the context of forcing a cease fire on Israel while it is engaged in destroying an enemy who delights in killing its citizens. Shabaa farms is a small disputed piece of territory and probably could be negotiated. It would be a tragedy not to let that issue take place when cooler heads are prevailing. There is no bigger definition of defeat than to do the Arabs’ bidding and force Israel to give the Shabaa farms to Lebanon.

If Israel wants to release some of its prisoners let it do it on its own time, not for any exchange of soldiers. The only effective way to have those soldiers released is to make it so painful that the Palestinians and Hizbollah would find it more in their interests to release them than to hold them. That can only be possible with the complete destruction of the enemy.

The enemy is on the assent and growing stronger every day. The West can ill afford battle losses at this time. With the growing alliances of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria, and the continuing specter of nuclear weapons ominously coming closer to reality, wouldn’t it be in our interests to begin approaching this problem pragmatically rather than politically correct? Allow…no, encourage and support Israel against the terrorists who wish only to kill Jews, Christians, and anyone else who believes in freedom. Only the complete defeat of this enemy will bring victory. We need to act now!

The Case Against Israel

2006-09-01T18:59:00.000-07:00

The following is a rebuttal to a review of Michael Neumann's "The Case Against Israel" that I found on Swans.com. Upon reading the review I could not allow it to go unchallenged. It is in a point counterpoint format. My comments are all in bold type.

Sir, In reading your review of “The Case Against Israel” I found myself squirming in my seat on several of the points you were making. I would like to converse with you on this subject and point out several issues you might not be aware of and if you are, perhaps you might see them a different way. I have read neither Dershowitz’s book or the one reviewed here which might work to our advantage because neither author will influence my comments. It is the ideology I detest not the particular person utilizing it. I appreciate the opportunity to express my interpretation of the history. I will answer in a point to point format. My comments will be written in the bold type you see here.

(Swans - December 19, 2005) The British essayist and novelist Edward Morgan Forster (1879-1970), author of A Room With A View and A Passage To India, wrote in his 1951 collection of essays, Two Cheers for Democracy, "I suspect that the only books that influence us are those for which we are ready, and which have gone a little further down our particular path than we have yet gone ourselves." Amidst the one hundred-plus books I've read on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, none fits Forster's sentiment better than Michael Neumann's The Case Against Israel. This is simply the most cogent, reasoned, and lucid argumentation I have ever read in support of a two-state solution to the century-old conflict. Short (220 pages); to the point but not in your face; impeccably researched with 26 pages of references including a list of 28 important works, 188 endnotes, and a full index; there is no stone left unturned and practically no issue left unexplained in this highly condensed, unadulterated, and coherent analysis.

> > The book's title should not mislead readers. Those who follow the horrific tribulations of that small real estate with its strategic and religious confluences will obviously recognize that the title is a play on, or a response to, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel (John Wiley & Sons, August 2003). The argumentation is by and large a refutation of Dershowitz's case though it is not a point-by-point rebuttal of the 32 questions Dershowitz attempted (poorly) to answer.

Was it? Like I said I never read that one, but from what I heard his arguments were rather sound. Those opinions came from people on the Left by the way.

In actuality, Dershowitz is only mentioned once in the entire book. Instead of rebutting a lawyerly discourse based on polemical diatribes, crass emotionalism, and the repetitive regurgitation of falsities, Michael Neumann focuses on what has been lost in our recent historical travails: reality-based analysis -- historical facts, formal logic, ethics, behavioral rationality, philosophy, morality, and politics (Neumann is a professor of moral and political philosophy at Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada). While he does not posit that he's an expert or historian, history is no stranger to him: his father, Franz Neumann, was the author of Behemoth: the structure and practice of national socialism, 1933-1944, the classic history of Nazi Germany. (And, for what

I don’t have Professor Neumann’s credentials, my father was a truck driver. In contrast to the professor’s background I am in fact an historian, I am currently working on my Masters thesis at California State University, Northridge. As an older student who returned to school after many years I have made a life study of the Middle East and the problems it has posed to our world.

it's worth, his stepfather was Herbert Marcuse.) > > Indeed, Neumann convincingly debunks the old canards, myths, and fallacies advanced by Dershowitz and the legions of Israeli apologetics: It is always interesting to me that for the Left any defense of Israel is an apology, but defense of the Palestinian is a righteous cause. Why can’t we just debate the issues without any sense of name calling or ad hominem attacks? The Zionist project was about redeeming the land or creating a "homeland" for the Jews, the bible says god gave the land to the Jews;

I disagree. The Zionists did not believe the land was theirs for the taking because of the biblical injunction that “God gave the land to the Jews.” God may have given it to the Jews but he did not give it to the Zionists. The Zionists simply looked around the world for the place that would be the most suitable to build a Jewish homeland. Although several sites were debated Palestine was the majority favorite. Why? Not because “God gave the land to the Jews” but because Palestine held the biggest connection for the Zionists for the following reasons.

1) Other than Europe and possibly the United States there were more Jews in Palestine than in any other region on Earth.

2) The Jews had maintained an unbroken physical existence on the land for the previous three thousand years.

3) Certainly by 1914 and probably before, Palestine was per capita the most densely populated Jewish presence in the world. The case for Jerusalem is even stronger:

4) When the Zionists began their enterprise in the 1890s the population of Palestine was around 100,000 people, total. In Jerusalem the Jews were the majority community between Muslims, Christians and Jews and had maintained that majority since the 1840s.

5) Several times over the previous millennia Jews held a majority in the city of Jerusalem. Because of several famines, war and several ethnic cleansings the Jews more than once lost that primacy. However, since they were the only people of the three great religions who maintained a constant flow of migration to Jerusalem from all over the known world since the fall of Rome in 476 CE, after every thinning of the population their numbers increased steadily until they once again became a majority. Consequently, every two or three generations the Jews would return as the majority community in Jerusalem. Without engaging in counter history it is formidable to speculate how many Jews might have ended up in Palestine if they had not been continually reduced by the calamitous ages.

6) Other than Jerusalem significant communities maintained a presence since the fall of the Second Temple (70CE) in Safat, Acre, Hebron, Jaffa and several other historical Palestinian cities. The Jews have an aboriginal connection to that area of the world. This can’t be said about any other piece of real estate on Earth. And, they have maintained that connection since the second millennia BCE. No other people can make this claim. Palestine was the Jews and the Jews were Palestine regardless of who else might have inhabited the place.

the Palestinians did not really exist

Well, there is no reference to Palestinians as a national entity of any kind in any reference before 1967. The fact is that they identified themselves as part of the larger Muslim community in the region. Every newspaper, every book, every collection of essays, at least in English, that I have read before 1967 doesn’t use the term. They distinguished themselves as Palestinian Arabs because the majority felt a connection to one of the surrounding powers, Jordan, Egypt or Syria.

However, the real question here is when did Palestinian Arabs begin to think of themselves as one people? I would argue that only after the Israelis changed the dynamic in 1967 did this happen. To understand this one must involve himself in Palestinian nationalist history. The evidence shows that the Arabs of Palestine were years behind the Jews in forming a national consciousness. The Jerusalem conference in 1931 was a watershed event for Palestinian history. It marked the first time that Palestinians actually came together to form a cohesive national charter. This puts the Arabs more than thirty years behind the Jews as they had done exactly that in Basle, in 1897. By the time of the Jerusalem Conference in 1931 the Jews had already established themselves as a nation within a nation in Palestine. They had a complete infrastructure in place, schools, hospitals, roads, civil administration and of course a military arm. The only thing lacking was the British refusal to leave Palestine and let them establish their country. History has shown that the Arabs have been playing catch-up ever since. Even their appeal to the English speaking world of their claims did not take place until the publication of George Antonious’ The Arab Awakening in 1938. I would add that even after 1931 the nationalist program in the Arab community failed to incorporate the rank and file of the Arabs of Palestine, whereas Zionism was all inclusive.

Something else you might want to look at was the their primary purpose. The Zionist movement was about establishing a country, Arab nationalism was primarily about preventing that, or after 1948 the destruction of it. The PLO Charter of 1964 (not any of the revised editions but the original) is remarkably devoid of any reference to establishing an Arab state in Gaza or the West Bank of the Jordan River. Its original goals were to destroy the State of Israel entirely. Why? There was no reason to “liberate” the territories since they were still under Arab control in 1964. Only years after its formation did the PLO demand an Arab State in the territories as well as the State of Israel proper. In other words, their nationalist agenda about establishing a country in the territories did not materialize until after the Six Day War.

(they're only Arabs), their actual state is
Jordan;

In 1922 the first official act of the British Mandate was to separate the Jews from the Arabs. They took the Palestinian mandated territory and severed it from the rest of Palestine creating an Arab state east of the Jordan River. Their purpose for doing that , Winston Churchill said, was to create an Arab kingdom out of the Palestine Mandate. The land west of the Jordan was then reserved to create the Jewish portion of the Mandate. The Zionists were furious at the decision but they accepted it because they had no choice.

they hate the Jews; they want to throw them to the sea;

A lot of people think that the “throw them into the sea” comment was some kind of Zionist propaganda and never happened. (The same way Arab propagandists insist that Arabs left Palestine during the 1948 war as a result of their “own leaders telling them to” was just Zionist drivel to put the blame on the victim.) The “throw them into the sea” comment” was real and was made in 1948 on the eve of the Arab invasion of Palestine By Azzam Pasha, the secretary general of the Arab League. (Habib Issa, in the daily US-published Lebanese newspaper Al Hoda, June 8 1951, New York). Yes, the Jews had a field day propaganda wise with the comment. But, can you blame them? The ending of the 1948 war was so monumental considering the Arab over confidence in May of 1948 and the huge victory snared by the Zionists by January 1949. In that six month period the Jews proved to the world that they were a force to be reckoned with. No observer of the Near East at that time gave Israel much of a chance of lasting even two weeks when the Arabs invaded. And, indeed the picture was bleak in that first week of fighting. But, thanks to backs-up-against-the-wall determination, a little luck, and a highly incompetent set of Arab armies, the Jews turned that around. They had earned the right to shove it back in their faces a little bit. We had the Nuremberg trials and the Jews had the “throw them into the sea” comment.

Arabs hating Jews is an interesting but complicated question. Historically Arabs did not hate Jews. But that is a relative statement because they were tolerated according to the laws of the Koran. True, Jews lived in the Islamic world with better results than Jews lived in the Christian world. But, that in no way excuses Muslim persecution of Jews and Christians under their control. The Jews lived under a set of restrictions called Dhimma. These laws “protected” Jews from a host of offenses, designed to accentuate the secondary nature of the non-Muslim in a Muslim world. However, the Jew in Israel is thought of quite differently than the Jew that was protected by the Koran. Dhimmi laws are out the window. Jews have proven that they can stand erect and meet the Muslim challenge head on. Consequently, Jewish nationalism constitutes a direct threat to the teachings of Mohammad. Muslims cannot justify Israeli dominance over the Arab world and the protection that Mohammad ordered his followers to practice. In their thinking to accept Jewish sovereignty in their realm would be to call Mohammad a liar. So, after almost sixty years of this the Muslim has now learned to hate the Jews. It is the Jews’ fault. They are the ones calling Mohammad a liar. (You think Danish cartoons are bad?). The State of Israel is in fact an affront to all of Islam. That is why you might be aware of anti Jewish beliefs coming from all over the Arab world, a phenomenon heretofore non-existent. It wasn’t always there, but it certainly is there now. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is almost unheard of in the western world but it does quite well in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq.

never did and don't want to compromise (they are jusqu'au-boutistes); they are terrorists; there is no moral equivalence between Palestinian and Israeli violence (the former is terroristic, the latter sheer self defense); Israel is a "beacon of light"

I see no point engaging in this polemic as it has been debated many times. I will only ask you if the Palestinians were to somehow stop their “resistance” against the Jews of Israel tomorrow, do you think that Israel would continue to perform “terrorism” upon the Palestinians? Indeed, would Israel have any reason to maintain an occupation any more?

(of democracy, Western values) judged by a "double standard"; critics of Israel are anti-Semites, etc.

> > The last point -- opposition to Israel is anti-Semitic -- is quickly dismissed by the author. First, he has already addressed the charge in a brilliant essay, "What Is Anti-Semitism?", published in The Politics of Anti-Semitism (CounterPunch/AK Press, 2004), also reviewed in these pages. Second, "since not all Jews are Israelis or supporters of Israel, to be against all Israelis or Israel, is not to be against all Jews." Third, most criticisms are directed against the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians, not the existence of Israel; and lastly, as he states, "[N]o doubt many anti-Semites oppose Israel, and do so for anti-Semitic reasons, and conceal their motives. [But] none of this is relevant to whether or not Israel is in fact in the wrong." "No doubt," he concludes, "many people opposed Japanese fascism for racist reasons. It does not follow that such opposition was mistaken." End of discussion. Michael Neumann shows little patience with irrelevancies and false arguments. >

I find little to disagree with what the author says above. It’s like someone who opposes gay marriage is not necessarily homophobic, or against illegal immigration is not racist against Mexicans. Certainly racists and homophobes would be against those issues but that does not disqualify well meaning, clear thinking people who hold the traditional idea of marriage as sacred and illegal immigration to be undercutting American wages and destroying the middle class. I understand that sentiment completely. However, it should be pointed out that anti-Semitism, although a component of the problem as the author explained, has never been cited as a lynch pin of the argument against Israel from the Zionist side. The Zionists are quite aware of the opposition against them. And, anti-Semitism until very recently was a relatively small part of it.

> Furthermore, he does not make a legal disputation against Israel but confines his attention to a "moral and political argument," in search of "what ought to occur in Palestine, what solution to the conflict should be adopted," and he relies on three widely accepted views in political philosophy: That "there is some basic right of self-defense that on occasion permits a violent response"; that "one group can't normally acquire the power of life and death over another group without their consent"; and that one is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of one's action whatever the intentions that motivated it. Then he lays out his claim in two parts and dispassionately demonstrates that the Zionists and Israel with their allies du jour have mostly been in the wrong in their dealings with the Palestinians, and that the end of the conflict necessitates the unilateral end of the occupation and the recognition of the Palestinian people within the sovereign borders of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. His case is not so much against Israel that it is in favor of a Palestinian state.

I think you would find that 80% of the Jews in Israel, indeed of world Jewry agree with this statement. There is no conflict here. You need to summon the Palestinians and hold them accountable the same way you do Israel and then we’ll see if we can get a universal desired result. If you, Professor Neumann and the rest of The Left can do that I think it will happen.

> > "The central fact of the conflict is that Zionists sought sovereignty in Palestine. From this, all else follows: the Arab response and all that came after." (emphasis in the book) "Israel is the illegitimate child of ethnic nationalism." These are the two statements that best summarize "Zionism and the Birth of Israel," the first part of The Case Against Israel. They are reinforced by a methodical, logical, and historical narrative. From the inception of the Zionist project in the late 19th century, Zionism was not about a safe heaven (the "saving Jews" advocacy

Oh but it was exactly about a “safe haven.” Many of the Zionist leaders in the beginning vocalized and wrote about the need to establish a Jewish homeland in response to the rise of political anti-Semitism in Europe.

1)“The world resounds with outcries against the Jews, and these outcries have awakened a slumbering idea.” (Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, first published 1896. New York: Dover publications, 1988, P. 69.)

2)“Anti-Semitism passed for centuries through history as inseparable companions. Like the Jewish people, the real wandering Jew, Anti-Semitism, too, seems as if it would never die. He must be blind indeed who will assert that the Jews are not the chosen people, the people chosen for universal hatred.” Leon Pinsker, Auto Emancipation, First published 1882 Internet address, http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/pinsker.html.

3)“The terrible oppressions and frequent migrations , which intensified immeasurably the personal anxiety of every Jew for his own safety…contributed to the enfeebling of the already weakened national sentiment.” Ahad Ha’Am, Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic: Basic writings of Ahad Ha’Am, New York: Herzl Press, 1962, P. 40.

I could keep going citing example after example of European Jewish leaders who saw anti-Semitism as one of primary reasons to find and establish a separate homeland for the Jewish people, but, you get the point. Anyone who thinks that anti-Semitism did not play a major role in the formation of the modern Zionist movement is badly mistaken.

line would come much later, in the ashes of the Holocaust, and is not even convincing, as Neumann shows), or having a "homeland," or redeeming

The pressure of the Holocaust after World War II I would agree hastened the coming of the State of Israel. But, even without the Holocaust I would argue that the Jews would have had their state eventually. It is hard to say when that might have happened. But, it is unmistakable for those of us who study Zionist history to believe that within the next ten, fifteen maybe twenty-five years after WWII the Jews would have fought for and won their state. If true, the influence of the Holocaust on the creation of the State of Israel is a mute point. It wouldn’t have angered the Arabs any less if the Jewish State had been created in 1950, 1960 or 1970. They will never be resigned to accept a Jewish sovereignty it what they consider Muslim land.

ancestors' territories -- all contentions that keep being rehashed to this day. It was about taking sovereignty over a foreign land, a land inhabited by a people who had no interest or reason to be dominated in matters of life and death by Jews. From Theodore Herzl to David Ben Gurion, Zionists were about creating a state in Palestine -- a state, with its monopoly on power, of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the Jews.

Well, after a thousand years of persecution everywhere they settled, the Zionist movement demanded that Jews take control of their own destiny. You might not like that fact but that is what happened. To call it “a state for Jews” is inaccurate and has nasty racist and fascist connotations. Arab proxies in the West have gotten a lot of mileage out of that canard. To this day Israel’s enemies insist that Israel is “a state for Jews.” They refuse to acknowledge the democratic process that exists there. Almost twenty per cent of the population of Israel is not Jewish. All have representation. And, if you take a survey of all of the non-Jews living in Israel you will find that they are by and large happy to be living there. Even Israeli Arabs apart from their concerns about their people in the territories, have found a descent life living under Jewish rule, and say so in the poles. The Muslims under Jewish rule are treated far better than the Jews were treated in the Muslim world. It is a running vibrant democracy, which simply has a Jewish majority. The only democratic difference between Israel and the United States, England, France and Germany is that it possesses a Jewish majority where those countries are Christian. This is what the original Zionists worked for. Indeed, the Zionists could consider this part of their desires for a future Jewish State a success.

It matters not whether the Zionists were enlightened socialists, or idealists, or racists. What matters is that a group of people, foreign to the land, wanted to impose their sovereignty through expropriation -- and we now know, through expulsion too -- on another group of people that inhabited that land.

I don’t know if those are your words or your interpretation of his but that is definitely a Palestinian way of looking at the history. The Jews were keenly aware of this "other people" that inhabited the land. As early as 1890 Ahad Ha-Am warned his fellow colleagues about possible abuses against Arab Palestinians in rebuilding the homeland. Many attempts were made to combine the Arabs into their Zionist fabric during the Mandate era but with only a modicum of success. For example, in the 1920s the Jewish labor unions tried to combine themselves with the Arab workers to form stronger worker demands. First in the railroad industry and then it spread to other industries. “The creation of an organized class force of Jewish and Arab workers in order to improve the workers’ situation and their working condition is a necessary condition of the survival of the cultured worker in these occupations.” “The Jewish worker now works together with the Arab worker in government enterprises, that is in countrywide, general enterprises, on equal terms.” David Ben Gurion, from Zachary Lockman, Comrads and Enemies: Arab and Jewish workers in Palestine 1906-1948, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996, p. 75.

Lockman’s book is a tour de force in the scholarly treatment of a well hidden fact of history. As part of their bi-national plan, the Zionists struggled to bring the Arab worker into the labor fabric of Palestine. With only moderate success the struggle was abandoned in 1948 because of the change of facts on the ground. The Arabs resisted this western concept of the Marxist worker unification. Like all other western concepts they viewed it as anti Koran western filth infiltrating into their culture. Lockman’s book was praised by the likes of Rashid Khalidi and Juan Cole, an indication of his entrenchment into the academic left. So, if it is not one of the “one hundred plus books” you have read on this subject you might want to take a look at it.

This, contends Neumann, was the first mortal threat to the Palestinians -- a threat they could not but oppose and resist through violent or non-violent means.

Only the Arabs viewed this as a threat. Let’s be clear, the non violence was practiced by the Zionists at this stage, not the Arabs. Because the Arabs felt so threatened violence against Zionist Palestine began almost upon arrival. By the turn of the century it became unbearable and the Zionists reacted in self defense. In 1903 the first Jewish defense force was developed in order to guard the few agricultural Jewish settlements which were being constantly bombarded by Arab marauders. They used defensive actions in protecting Jewish settlers.

By 1920 some Jews began to grow tired of not taking an upper hand in the violence perpetrated upon them. It was a small faction led by a man named Ze’ev Jabotinsky who first stood up to the Arab demonstrations and drew the attention of the authorities. Jabotinsky believed that unprovoked violence against Jews should be met with an equal or greater force of violence in response. As violence became a more common tactic for Arab frustration of Zionist successes in Palestine so did more people begin to think Jabotinsky had a point. However, that school of thought and their descendents never were in the majority in Israel until the 1970s. And, by then they had significantly toned down their advocacy of retribution against Arab violence.

In the meantime that first defense force created back in 1903 grew and eventually included the majority philosophy of self defense in the Zionist movement. Marked by measured responses, the Hagana formed in the early Mandate period. It was by far the largest of Jewish Palestine’s defense organizations. These two philosophies, Jabotinski’s and the Hagana, melded together when Israel became a state and developed the best army, man for man in the world. The threats that Arabs feel is the almost tactically perfect methodology of the Israeli army, an institution that they themselves were responsible for creating. It surely began in non-violence with the pleas from Palestinian notables to the European powers to stop the influx of Jews in Palestine, but the pleas were not heeded and blood began to flow as early as the 1920s. It went downhill from then on.

> > Neumann notes that at the very moment Europeans were turning their backs on ethnic nationalism that had been so devastating, Zionists were imposing their own ethno-nationalism in Palestine. The establishment of sovereignty by one ethnic group over another has quite logically -- and sadly -- led to the consequences that we've witnessed for so long. For him,

> > Zionism always was, despite strategically motivated denials and brief flirtations with other objectives [e.g., bi-nationalism],

No, that’s incorrect. Bi-nationalist Palestine, was anything but brief, at least for the Zionists, was the only avenue for statehood into the 1930s. It was strongly supported by Martin Buber and his students which carried a heavy intellectual wallop inside Jewish Palestine. But the Arabs would have nothing to do with it. About 1935 or so the leaders of the Yishuv abandoned bi-nationalism because of Arab non-compliance to the idea. Along with the arguments in Lockman’s book it was unthinkable that Arabs should give Jews an equal status with their own in any government in the Muslim world. Statehood put a further damper on the bi-national idea but it never died. The descendents of Buber’s students carried the torch right into the present day. If you do an Internet search I am sure you could locate some of them inside Israel. Understand I am giving a very brief synopsis of a very large part of political Zionist history.

an attempt
to establish Jewish sovereignty over Palestine. This project was
illegitimate. Neither history nor religion, nor the sufferings of Jews in the Nazi era, sufficed to justify it. It posed a mortal threat to the Palestinians, and it left no room for meaningful compromise. Given that the Palestinians had no way to overcome Zionism peacefully, it also justified some form of violent resistance.

Is this the author’s way of justifying the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, many of whom have been children under the age of sixteen? I sincerely hope not. I will leave the rest of this to your response.

> By 1948 the Jewish state in Palestine was a fait accompli, and its existence quickly earned international legitimacy. By the early 1970s, following Israel's wars (1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973) and the military supremacy of the Jewish state, the existence of Israel was assured and secured. But, this fait accompli was not enough for the Zionists. Sovereignty within the 1948 borders was a tactical step in the direction of wider ambitions that went back all the way to early Zionism: Greater Israel. In the next part of his exposé, "The Current Situation,"

The “wider ambitions” that you mention did not go further than Jerusalem. The Zionists did want Jerusalem but were willing to give up everything else except that. However, even with that burning desire to embrace the Jewish Quarter and the holy sites could have all been worked out if the Jews had not been forced into the continuing violence perpetuated on them by the Palestinians. What Israel sought in those early years was a comprehensive peace from the surrounding belligerent Arab states. Ben Gurion believed it was possible. History has proved him wrong on this point. The three prime ministers of Israel from 1948 until the Six Day War were more than willing to live with the situation “as is” if they could just get access to their holy places. However, the Jordanians reneged on that promise that was guaranteed by the 1949 armistice. Nevertheless the Jews extended a running offer that to my knowledge was never rescinded until after 1967, that Israel was willing to talk a comprehensive peace with any Arab country which was willing to come to the table without preconditions. The Arabs never took them up on it. Even the Lausanne Protocol in which Ben Gurion offered to take in 100,000 Palestinian refugees in 1950 yielded no positive response from the Arab states. What the Arabs did do was to put their faith in the gun and worked toward building a significant army to destroy the Jewish State, which is what led to the Six Day War.

Michael Neumann examines the second mortal threat to the Palestinians -- the continuation of the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and, even more threatening to their existence, the settlement of these occupied territories -- that has resulted in the predictable, and understandable, violence that continues to this day. >

The Six Day War resulted in further loss of land, with more humiliation from the dhimmi Jew. Instead of admitting defeat and trying to gain back precious losses through negotiation, the Arabs continued and stepped up their task in finding a cure for this Jewish disease.

> The policies undertaken by the Israeli governments (both Labor and Likud) following the pre-emptive Six-Day War in 1967 -- occupation and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza -- will quite possibly be recorded by historians as the single most damaging political calculation ever made by this small state.

Yes but you see what you are doing is exactly what the Palestinians have been doing to themselves. You are giving them a free pass for their culpability in their own situation. Without their intransigence, insistence that Israel be destroyed, and refusal to recognize the Jewish State in any way since the 1950s, regardless of what Israel might be guilty of, the situation might be different today. It is quite possible that the region could have been enjoying a peaceful coexistence for many decades by now. This is not all Israel’s fault, even those that criticize Israeli policies have to acknowledge that. However, from this review, I see no indication of that.

Their consequences have now become a threat
to its existence; not its physical existence, which is quite secure,
but its moral existence -- a threat to the moral fabric of Israeli society.

That is an internal issue. And, no matter how much the enemies of Israel try to externalize it the Israelis will deal with it in their own way. That’s part of being a free people I guess. They live in a dangerous part of the world. The surrounding culture would like to see them disappear. They know it and there is a price to pay for that. But, what good is morality if your dead? Some would argue that even in these most trying of circumstances, the escalation of hatred and violence over the decades, and the seemingly unending conflict that lies before them, the Israelis have somehow maintained a degree of moral values, egalitarian thinking, and trust in the future. But, I suspect the good professor is not one of them.

The opprobrium Israel faces in the entire world, with the lonely exception of the United States, to which one could add the Marshall Islands and Micronesia,

This also is not accurate. England, Germany, Italy, Spain, several countries in Africa, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, several more countries in South America and many others have reasonably good relations with the Jewish State. Yes, they have disagreements over the Palestinians and other issues but make no mistake these countries are strongly allied with the State of Israel. Israel has lost relationships with some countries because of the huge oil block the Arab world presents in the United Nations, but other than that Israel enjoys good relations with many of the 120 democracies in the world. It is hardly alone.

can only be traced to the implacable continuation of these policies. This young country so endeared and admired in the 1950s and 1960s even though it was born out of the expropriation,

You have now accused Israel several times of expropriating land from the indigenous Arabs of Palestine. All of this needs to be in the context of the time and in relation to how poor Arabs were traditionally treated by their Arab brothers. Several points need to be made here.

1) The Jews bought land from Arab landlords for exorbitant prices and then exercised their land owning rights and evicted the few peasants that had been living on that land.

2) It should be noted that the Arab landlords had exploited these peasants for generations.

3) Unscrupulous landlords living in Beirut and Cairo thought nothing of their fellow Arabs to sell the land from underneath them to the enemy Zionists.

4) Of the claims to the Mandate authority of Jewish expropriation of peasant land by 1935 there were only thirty five claims made against the Mandate. Granted not all of the fellahin petitioned the authorities for reimbursement because of ignorance to the system or other issues. But, since these claims resulted from land purchased by the Zionists in the 20s, the British finally closed the issue and the opportunity in 1935. I would submit from these facts that there wasn’t enough of these cases to make a difference. Unlike the claims made in Transjordan where thousands of fellahin petitioned the Mandate for reimbursement only thirty-five in Western Jewish Palestine is a curious differentiation in the numbers. (A. Granovsky, The Land Issue in Palestine, Jerusalem: Keren Keyemet Le Israel Ltd., 1936, p. 39.)

partial expulsion, and imposition of a foreign sovereignty over the remaining indigenous population, the Palestinians, has become an international pariah. The time has long passed since one could speak of "a land without people, waiting for a people without land," or, as Golda Meir stated in 1969, "It was not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."

You and the good professor might not like it but Golda’s assertion was true. There was no Palestinian people when the Jewish state was created in 1948. The United Nations tried to create one, but they refused. The Arabs of Palestine had a plethora of political governments to attach themselves to and they did so with great vigor. Palestinian nationalism was one of many political philosophies looking to gain dominance in the late 40s. The nationalist idea was rather elitist in nature and only advocated by the upper echelon of Western educated intellectuals. Being western, Palestinian nationalism naturally drew suspicion from the common Palestinian Arab.

> > It turns out that they did exist, were largely dispossessed, and became the subjects of an alien sovereignty; and they still exist, are still being dispossessed, and remain subjugated to a violent and humiliating occupation.

Ok, if they did exist then what was the purpose of the seven Arab countries taking part in the war against Israel in 1948? Were they there to help the Palestinians gain a homeland while destroying another? If you think that then you better read up on the history a little better. Each country that participated in that war was in it for its own selfish, imperialist interests. And Palestinian Arabs went right along with it.

The outcome could have been quite different. In the wake of the Six-Day War, the Palestinians hoped for an independent state and regarded the Israeli victory as a means to free themselves from Jordanian rule. This is not a well-known historical fact, but Neumann documents that for a short flimsy period the Palestinians felt that the Israelis were their liberators. The Palestinians let the Israelis know that they were ready to negotiate an immediate settlement to establish their own sovereign state alongside Israel.

That is very interesting. I did not know that. I am ashamed to say that I probably will not be buying the professor’s book any time soon, as I have already mounds of reading to do. But, if you wouldn’t mind I would like to know the source of this story. If it is genuine I would very much like to know why the Israelis did not take them up on it. I know that Israel was deeply disappointed that the Khartoum conference in August of 1967 came back with “the three no’s,” no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiation with Israel. So, it does not fit with the known history. Anyway, send it to me if you will. I would appreciate it.

Their calls were not answered or, to put it slightly differently, the answer was loud and clear. Israel annexed East Jerusalem and started its settlement policy.

Jerusalem is not and never has been on the table. As soon as the smoke cleared in June of 1967, the country began clamoring its government to at least make Jerusalem whole again. It is the eternal capital of the Jewish people as was even while it was run by the Arabs. Now, knowing that, would the Jews have ever invaded to take it back? That is hard to say. It would depend on how well the Jews were treated in reaching and accessing their holy places. But, given that Jordan would not allow Jews to enter that part of the city even though they were mandated to allow Jews to “The Wall” by the armistice agreement of 1949, I could see where an invasion might have been forth coming. But, who knows?

It's worth quoting a citation from a speech by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan:
> > This is what used to be called 'Jew after Jew'... It meant expansion, more Jews, more villages, more settlements. Twenty years ago we were 600,000; today we are near three million. There should be no Jew who says 'that's enough,' no one who says 'we are nearing the end of the road.' ...It is the same with the land. ...there will be complaints against you if you come and say: 'up to here.' Your duty is to not stop; it is to keep your sword unsheathed, to have faith, to keep the flag flying. You must not call a halt - heaven forbid - and say 'that's all; up there, up to Degania, to Musfallasim, to Nabal Oz!' For that is not all. > Which brings Michael Neumann to comment on "the comparison with fascist ideologies of 'blood and soil'"...and leads him to cover the deliberate ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that has taken place ever since, as well as the inevitable violent resistance from the Palestinians. Their only choice was, and remains, to leave the territories or to resist. What's so infuriating here, and well documented by the author, is that Israeli leaders have consistently acknowledged -- not so much in public, for it is yet another argument used in the propaganda war to appropriate the Occupied Territories -- the uselessness of these territories for the strategic defense of Israel. The Palestinians have no alternative but to resist, when Israel has an obvious one, recommended by many Israeli military experts: unilateral withdrawal.

One must be able to put themselves into the enemy’s shoes in order to understand their logic. Even for the nearsighted Left that is a requirement for a debate on the Middle East. Numbers in Israel are an integral part of its defense. Since the world population of Jews is less than one-tenth of one percent and the Arab world by the 1930s was united in preventing the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Zionists mapped out two strategies concerning their population. One, they would increase their numbers any way they could, not for military parity with the Arabs because that was impossible, but for creating a cohesive continuous Jewish unit in the country side to emphasize Jewish ownership of the land. And two, they would not just establish settlements but they would establish settlements strategically so in case of violence they would be able to defend themselves with the greatest force with the fewest number of people. For example, if you study Israeli settlements all over Israel including the occupied territories, many settlements are built on the tops of hills. It is common military strategy that in order to overcome an enemy maintaining the high ground is essential. This is what Dayan is talking about here. The Jewish people struggling to survive in a world that has them outnumbered at least 100 to 1.

> > Yet again, it is the Palestinians that are accused of violent actions and faulted for not resorting to non-violence. But, as Neumann convincingly establishes, "non-violence has never 'worked' in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason it ever will." His demonstration, using the examples of Gandhi (Indian independence), Martin Luther King (US Civil Rights), and South Africa (the end of Apartheid), may be resisted by the partisans of non-violence but I strongly recommend they read his analysis. A non-violent advocate myself, I must admit that Neumann makes a compelling case. Non-violence can only work when the powers-that-be are on the side of the struggle. Israel, evidently, has not been on the side of the Palestinian struggle for independence! It should also be noted that the Palestinians have gone through periods of substantial calm with little or no violence, to no avail. Suffice it to look at the current Israeli response to the non-violent resistance and demonstrations against the massive wall of separation that Israel is slowly completing. It does not make the news in the U.S. but its harshness is obvious to anyone who cares to look.

I couldn’t disagree more. Calling “Substantial periods of calm” as an experiment in non-violent political action is a joke. I think you are mistaking these quiet periods with exhaustion on the Palestinian side. They usually use the time to plan more rounds of attacks. The few non violent demonstrations that you do see are promoted by Israeli, American, and European groups. There are only token Palestinians that take part in them. It is unfair to characterize the Israeli Palestinian dispute the same as Gandhi, King or South Africa. There wasn’t near the level of violence perpetrated by those movements as there is among the Palestinian nation. The Israelis have been dealing with a constant barrage of this high level of terror for fifty-eight years. From commando style raids in the 50s, to plane hijackings in the 70s to suicide bombings today, all designed to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, Israel has been hard bitten into the realization that it must fight to survive. Nevertheless, like England the United States and White South Africa a majority of Israelis are willing to grant a peace in which two countries can live side by side in relative harmony, all “to no avail.”

> > So, we are left with the old hatred. "They" hate us...always have...always will. How, then, can we have a Palestinian state next door that will forever be Israel's enemy and never accept its existence? Neumann answers this old hogwash with the precision of a surgeon. Hatred comes from war. Hatred comes from occupation and from being treated worse than dogs. Hatred slowly rescinds with peace. And is not peace with Egypt (and Jordan) proof that the existence of the state of Israel is accepted by its former enemies?

Of this the good professor is correct. That is why, in the absence of any reasonable Palestinian partner, brought about by a nation whose hatred is so deep, the Israelis have decided to separate unilaterally. When the barrier is complete, the Palestinians will be left to make whatever kind of country they want. If they are smart they will move from the conflict and build a society that slowly will begin to take its place among the nations and in time the hatred will begin to slowly melt away or “rescind” as the professor says. It is the only chance for the Palestinians to make in this century what they so dismally failed to do in the last. However, my own opinion is that given the Palestinian “resistence” over the last half century I don’t think they are up to the task. But, I would love to say I am wrong on this point someday.

Even the latest bombastic comments originating in Iran cannot hide the actuality: Israel is a fully secured country whose legitimacy, within its 1948 boundaries, is a fact, fully recognized by the overwhelming majority of the world.

I will remind you that Iran intends to “wipe Israel off the map.” It holds no allegiance to any recognition of a Jewish State created in 1948. It is a bitter reminder to the international Left that Israel is not welcomed into the Middle East, only tolerated because of its military dominance. If any Islamic nation, Arab or otherwise ever thinks it can destroy the State of Israel, it will attempt to do so. Peace agreements in that part of the world will only hold as long as Israel maintains military superiority, extreme military superiority.

> > Neumann then turns his attention to terror and terrorism, which he dissects in both practical and moral terms. He also examines how Israel became an ally of the USA ("a child of the Cold War") and the role of US Evangelical Christians in the support of Greater Israel; why the alliance should end, for the benefit of all -- Israelis, Jews, Americans, Palestinians...

This is absolutely the worst idea the Left has ever come up with concerning the Middle East conflict. To cut off Israel’s lifeline, the military superiority it gets from primarily the United States, would bring the Middle East to the brink, and possibly a nuclear confrontation. As I said in my previous comments if the Muslims believe that Israel is in a weakened state, they will try to destroy it. I will stop here because I shudder to think of what would be the ramifications of this scenario. It frightens me so much I can’t even write about it.

-- and whether Israel is judged by a double standard, or "higher standard," as well it should be since, as the narrative goes, the country is deemed by its proselytizers a Great Beacon of Light.

> > But I can't get into his rationale further; this review is already too long.

Thank you.

I must confess that having a natural contrariant propensity, I was humbled by Michael Neumann as I could find nothing to object to in the case he makes. Perhaps he could have covered the importance of the West Bank aquifers in Israel's decision to hold tight to the Occupied Territories and colonize them; but I suspect he would dismiss this point as yet another irrelevancy that besieges this sorry state of affairs...and, darn, he would be correct. > > To close: I very much appreciate the even-handedness of Neumann's precise, thought through, and well-documented rationale. Very few people have the capability and the character to be intellectually relevant and to address this divisive subject so objectively. Yet, I sensed a subterraneous emotional thread in his faultless, short, yet exhaustive, dissertation: A call for justice. People from all backgrounds, Jews and non-Jews alike, are clamoring with quiet certitude: Enough is enough. A growing number of Israeli and Jewish people all over the world, including the U.S., are courageously raising their voices in favor of the end of the occupation. Michael Neumann is one of these voices. He deserves to be heard and widely disseminated. Please buy the book, read it, and if you feel like it, prove me wrong. >

I don’t know how even-handed his book is since I did not read it. However, I know many Jews who feel like Professor Neumann, I’ve debated them on a number of occasions and I can tell you that while the rest of The Left feels they are even-handed, the rest of world believes that what they are is extremely naïve. The Left would like to abandon Israel to what ever comes in the future. That is a future I care not to experience. Most of the Jews in Israel would die and those that are left would return to the second class nature that they experienced in the Muslim world for the previous 1500 years. We as a world community have passed that stage in history. The Jews have returned to their ancient homeland, no more persecutions, no more pogroms, no more holocausts, no more diasporas, and no more asking the gentile for permission…There is only freedom to look forward to.
Larry Hart

A Disproportionate Response

2006-08-31T08:38:00.000-07:00

An interesting turn of events took place during the first week of the war between Israel and Hizbollah in South Lebanon. A new addition was added to the canard lexicon launched against Israel. Israel’s response to Hizbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the murder of eight others on Israeli sovereign territory was characterized as “disproportionate.” That’s a new one. Usually Israel is referred to as committing all kinds of massacres, or as Arafat used to say, ma-sak-ras, with the accent on the second syllable. Hizbollah’s totally unprovoked terrorist act has tempered the Jewish hatred from the world. Or has it?

I was sitting and thinking about the best way to approach this subject. Should I argue that a “disproportionate” response was some sort of a variation on the same old accusations that Israel has faced almost as long as it has been alive? Or, was it something new, something better? Well, anything would have been better than the world describing Israeli actions to defend itself as criminal.

Let’s see, who could I criticize on this issue?

What about western reaction outside the United States? I could have lashed out at Russia and France for leading the charge of Israel’s “disproportionate” response? After all both countries have long histories of persecuting Jews. France and Russia, without the presence of the Holocaust, have by far the worst records of historical anti-Semitism. It’s understandable why France would condemn Israel, the country of Dreyfus, and the instigator of the 1840 blood libel almost forty years before the Germans began their climb of institutionalized Jewish hatred. Russia, being responsible for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Czar’s famous three-thirds formula for solving his Jewish question, convert a third, drive out a third and kill a third. Oh man, this is just too much easy pickens.

The United Nations with its Islamic block was surely in line to pass another General Assembly resolution condemning Israel for the three hundred innocent deaths it had caused from the almost two thousand sorties it flew in its bombing raids during the first week of the war. This might even be easier than France because this impotent, do nothing, feminized world body with about as much backbone as a slug is always too weak to do the right thing. However, for a brief moment I was pleasantly surprise. Leader Kofi Anan criticized Hizbollah for provoking Israel, which was a first in the Arab Israeli conflict. But, Anan couldn’t just leave it there, like a heroin addict with a bad Jones he couldn’t finish the statement without drawing on the moral equivalency factor. Excuse the paraphrase but it went something like this, “Hizbollah is the aggressor but Israel is using a ‘disproportionate’ response in its defense.” Phew! For a second there I thought he was going to stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself with no preconditions or reservations. Oh well, back to being the United Nations we all know and love.

Better still, I could take on the Arab League which for its own reasons had taken an historic middle stand on the issue. Only tacitly condemning Israel while putting most of the blame for the incident on its own Muslim brothers in Hizbollah. What? Is this the planet Earth? I can scarcely believe it. When was the last time the Arab League condemned a hostile act toward the State of Israel? Could you imagine the Arab League condemning Arab terrorists for the Ma’alot massacre of 1974, the suicide bus bombings of 1996 or Sbarros Pizza Parlor in 2001? The only thing they condemned was Israel’s response to those inhuman acts. And, here they are blaming the right people for a change. It’s almost as if they’ve grown up or something. Well, the something probably had more to do with being scared stiff of Shi’ite Iran’s growing dominance in the area, than actually supporting Israel’s rights. But, I’ll take it just the same.

Did a “more proportionate” response, presuming that Israel’s opponents get it, include a “proportionate” exchange of prisoners for Israel’s kidnapped soldiers? Three prisoners in Israeli jails for the two in Lebanon and the one in Gaza. When that finally happens I would love to get a look on the Arab negotiators’ faces when Israel demands that parity. After the historical “disproportionate” swapping of thousands of prisoners for one or two Israelis I am wondering if Israel’s enemies will call foul.

Are you confused by all this? Well don’t be because there are still players that take the same position on Israel that they always did, insisting that no matter what Israel does under any context is automatically branded as evil.

Thank God we still have Imad Mustapha, the Syrian ambassador to United States. He stood as a reminder that the Arabs still hated Jews with a passion. He like so many of his talking colleagues of the past engaged in diplomatic three card Monty, hiding the Arabs’ own evils while putting all the onus on Israel. The difference is that he stood pretty much alone at least in the American media. If this had been ten years ago I am sure there would have been many Arab diplomats, articulate in English showing themselves on the news shows, writing articles and taking on speaking engagements, explaining how Israeli policies are a cancer on the Middle East and must be excised if there is ever going to be peace. But, this is not 1996 and Mustapha is a lone spark in the wilderness of Jew bashing.

For the first time in many years I was actually optimistic about Israel’s standing in the world community. I smelled a change in the air. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Israel would become loved throughout the world, but it just might be that certain entities might be choosing the right side of history for a change. Once the winds of fairness blew their way I was hoping that even Russia and France would realize that the old regime positions don’t fly any more and would re-evaluate Middle East policies. I guess I was dreaming because it didn’t happen. I don’t think it will ever happen.

Unfortunately, it took a world wide effort of Islamic terror including 9-11, Iran’s version of Adolph Hitler and an American president, regardless of whatever else you may think of him, standing by Israel more than any other president since John Kennedy, to create this anomaly in the Middle East conflict. Of course, the way things go we were back to normal the following week, accusing Israel of atrocities, killing babies and spreading the aids virus. All right, one week of almost support from an un-supporting world in fifty eight years is pretty weak. It was short lived but it was nice while it lasted.

A Little Warmongering is Good for the Soul

2006-08-30T07:12:00.000-07:00

I hate to say it but I guess I’m a warmonger. At least, I think the label became popular through people like me. I never thought I would prefer war over peace but that day has come.

I’m someone who really believed peace was possible in the Middle East. I supported the Oslo accords against the better judgment of my settler friends. I turned my back on the fact that Israel became a more dangerous place to live in the late 1990s, in view of the coming “final status talks,” which I was sure would make it all worth it. I swallowed hard but also supported the pullout from Lebanon in 2000 and more recently from Gaza, all in hopes that Israel would be able to finally bring some peace and security to its people no matter what the Palestinians did. But, that's all over now. The Arab world has turned me into a warmonger. I’m now convinced that more war is necessary before peace is possible.

It’s hard to be a warmonger. But, this somewhat embarrassing stand is overruled by an overwhelming fear that the “Clash of Civilizations” that Samuel Huntington wrote about fourteen years ago is dangerously close to becoming a prophetic truth. In order to win the war over Islamic terror we are going to have to fight it, not only with bank records and wire taps but with guns and bombs and anything else at our disposal.

I did not support the ceasefire agreement—excuse me, the cessation of hostilities brokered by the United Nations over the Israel-Hizbollah war. We needed to encourage Israel to keep on fighting until Hizbollah was utterly and completely destroyed. But, apparently, thanks to the U.N., that will not happen.

Stopping Israel before they had a chance to disable Hizbollah is a huge strategic mistake in the war on terror. This coming disaster will not only affect Israel but everyone else involved in this war. There will be less peace and more war if we continue with policies that can only be interpreted by the enemy as weakness. Anything short of defining victory as the complete destruction of the enemy will spell defeat for us and victory for the terrorists.

U.N. Resolution 1701 does exactly that.

It does not allow Israel to finish the job it set out to do. It not only leaves Hizbollah in tacked, but they will emerge stronger and more lethal. They are looked at as heroes in the Arab world. And, more ominous for all of us, the strengthening of Hizbollah further raises the status of Iran in the Muslim world. Not killing off Hizbollah gives the enemy the opportunity to rebuild, to continue to spread their influence, to give a measure of confidence to like minded groups outside the sphere of the Islamic world in Europe or the United States. Essentially, Res. 1701 ties Israel’s hands, and gives Islamic terror a huge victory.

Resolution 1701 has many winners of which Israel and the United States and its allies cannot possibly be happy about.

1701 raises the international bravado of countries that actively work toward supporting terror against us. Achmadinijad of Iran and Assad the younger of Syria have taken a quantum leap towards the euphoric hope that they can indeed someday destroy Israel. Of course, lurking out of the shadows is Kim Jong-Il of North Korea who watches all of this with extreme interest. And the baby of the pact but he’s learning fast, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela knows this is good for him too, he just doesn’t know how yet.

It does not surprise me that Hassan Nasrallah, the not so amiable leader of Hizbollah, has accepted the cease fire and declared victory. I can understand why Nasrallah would support this resolution. He wants to stop Israel before it has a chance to complete its objective. What’s wrong with this picture: Hizbollah accepts a U.N. resolution in which the United States had a major role in writing. There is something definitely wrong with preventing Israel from taking the proper action to secure its Northern border and then allowing the enemy to use it to declare victory.

Does anyone really believe that the Lebanese army will be able to disarm Hizbollah now when it could not do it for the last six years? Even if they could, do they have the will to do it? I don't think so.

Continuing policies that oversee resolutions like 1701, which seek to appease rather than punish the bad guys will eventually lead to our defeat. In the catastrophic event that such a situation would ever occur I’m very sure that future historians would look at the political correctness of such policies as a deciding factor in the defeat of the West. I hope for a different future, that’s why I support getting serious about this war.

This is not 1956, 1967 or even 1982. Holding Israel back no longer serves American interests as it once did. We must realize that Israel’s fight is now our fight, their survival is our survival. Don’t we at least owe it to the State of Israel to back it up in its quest to help us with what we can’t or won’t do ourselves? Why is it so hard to realize that Hizbollah and all other Islamic fascists are the clear enemy of Western democracy? Why can’t we accept that?

We should be working more closely with the Jewish State, coordinating operations and planning future battles with the intent of removing the enemy that grows stronger every day, not throwing our weight behind U.N. Resolutions which result in the opposite.

Hizbollah and all groups like them across the Islamic world need to be destroyed, either with Muslim help or without it, but they need to be destroyed. Placating, negotiating, and appeasing will not work with an enemy who is committed to the death, our defeat. They intend to kill us and will not stop until they succeed, or until we kill them. That is what Israel wanted to do with Hizbollah. Now, with Res. 1701 it will not be possible.

Yes, I’m a warmonger. This U.N. resolution is a major defeat for Israel and the West. This is not the time for cease fires. This is the time to fight. I want Israel to ignore the United Nations Resolution 1701 and finish what we all know must be done. I want to survive. I want my kids to survive. Western Civilization needs to unite and defeat this enemy before it is too late. And, we can begin by killing off Hizbollah right down to their miserable leader.

Wow! That feels better.

Larry Hart