Malice Aforethought
When Panorama Accused Sharon

June 4th, 2006

On July 10, 2001 The Jerusalem Post generously gave Fergal and Keane space to defend themselves and BBC against what they described as unwarranted attacks on their search for truth in their Panorama documentary. I will quote several items from their article:

“Our film is not an attack on the prime minister of Israel or the State of Israel. It is an investigation into a massacre and war crimes.”

However, the making of this accusatory film was far from an unbiased search for the truth. On the contrary it was a search for evidence to support their preconceived conclusion.

The facts of the tragedy are not in doubt. Phalangists (Christian Arabs) had suffered innumerable killings, maiming, torture and deprivation at the hands of the Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon. Now they grabbed a window of opportunity to exact their revenge. They did so in the barbaric fashion to which both sides had become accustomed.

However, that was not the story the film-makers wanted to tell. Their biased objective was to lay total responsibility for a war crime on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as “the man who ultimately ordered the Phalange into the camps.”

To suggest that Sharon gave this order is absolutely unsustainable. On the contrary Israel’s Kahan Commission of Inquiry, established to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the massacre, did not find Sharon had ordered the Phalange into Sabra and Shatilla. The BBC only had fragmented and mostly Arab information – the commission had an abundance of evidence.

It held “Israel was indirectly responsible because it had not anticipated the possibility or extent of Phalangist violence”. Nevertheless Sharon was subsequently barred from serving as Defense Minister again. Not because he ordered a massacre – but because the commission held he should have known it could happen.

“BBC Panorama has a tradition of investigative journalism which holds that no political leader is above scrutiny, however powerful.”

Nonsense, guys. You made the film then awaited the right opportunity to show it. Your patience, if not your foresight, was rewarded when Sharon became a political leader. Now you had him and set about his crucifixion based on Panorama’s exalted mission:

“For nearly 50 years BBC Panorama has been investigating the use and abuse of power around the world. It is a mission which upholds the best traditions of public service broadcasting. Our film The Accused was a proud example of what Panorama does best.”

Wait a moment guys, where was that fine 50 year tradition of investigative journalism when Syria’s President, Haffaz Assad almost destroyed Hama? Allow me to quote:

“For 27 days starting from February 2nd 1982, the Syrian forces put Hama under a siege, shelled the town with all kinds of artillery, then Hama was ravaged by military and special forces, and its civilians severely punished. The estimated victims range between 30000 and 40000 civilians including ladies, children and elderlies.

“15000 civilians were considered lost since then and had never traced back. Thousands of civilians were obliged to desert the town, as one third of Hama had been completely destroyed. Many mosques, churches and historical buildings were left in rubble as a consequence to the government’s artillery bombardment.” (Footnote link below.)

Where was Panorama’s fine tradition of investigative journalism in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon killing 635 and wounding 2,500? (UN estimates). Shouldn’t this have made as great a documentary for Panorama’s great tradition? How come BBC Panorama did not investigate this abuse of power?

And in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In that eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed in the worst single battle of Lebanon’s Civil War. Where was Panorama’s best tradition of public service broadcasting then?

Surely Haffaz Assad, the late Syrian President, was the political leader directly responsible for all that carnage? What a fine killing documentary his story would have made for Panorama.

Holding you to the sanctity of your historic mission how could you have overlooked these mass murderers? Were their massacres above your fearsome scrutiny?

Saddam Hussein, Eichman, Khomeni, Bin Laden, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Petain, Kenyatta, Suharto, Pinochet, Barbie, etc, etc.

Did you investigate the 30,000 “disappearos” who vanished under direct orders of Argentine’s military? Have you made accusatory documentaries about those responsible?

If the BBC were to rank massacres over the last 60 years, highest to lowest, the Phalange massacre (about 800) would be close to the bottom of the list. By elevating Sharon to the top the BBC has clearly demonstrated its bias, giving him disproportionate priority on its investigative agenda.

“The Accused is not a film just about Sharon. Notably, the notorious Phalange leader Elie Hobeika was confronted by the program.”

Guys, this is far from the truth. The entire film is about Sharon. He is The Accused, not Hobeika – who organized and carried out the massacre. Hobeika himself was apportioned a mere cameo appearance in your film.

“There is no anti-Israel bias in the BBC.”

This is unsustainable. The majority of BBC documentaries covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are pro-Palestinian. I can only recall one documentary where BBC gave Israel good marks – for archeology.

{} {} {}

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:jy3chMPWDcs:www.shrc.org/english/99reports/
18021999.htm+Syria+Hama+Massacre&hl=en

The Apartheid Label –
Israel Must Get Rid Of It

June 3rd, 2006

September 3, 2004. Updated June 3, 2006

“Like animals they wanted to kill us . . .”

Palestinian apartheid racists cannot abide even a handful of Jews, let alone a few thousand. The Jerusalem Post reported (Aug. 29/04) how Israeli soldiers had to rescue 3 Israeli garbage truck drivers from certain lynching.

They had accidentally strayed into the Kalandiya refugee camp outside Ramalla. Here they “were confronted by hundreds of Palestinians who threw bricks, metal rods, and stones . . . and attempted to force them out of the trucks to set them on fire.”

“We didn’t think they would attack us like animals, they wanted to kill us. I was covered in blood” said one driver.

This was by no means the first time Arabs had killed defenseless Israelis found in areas controlled by their terrorist-enforcing Authority. Because so many do behave like bloodthirsty animals, Israel’s security chiefs continue to warn Israelis to keep out of any area under PA control.

Gandhi’s Unmitigated Chutzpa

Gandhi’s recent criticism of Israel is peculiar. He is quite blind to the stark Judenrein apartheid in the autonomous Palestine Authority areas that stare him in the face. So he does not point a finger at Judenrein, apartheid in Jordan for example. Nor to the Judenrein regimes of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Kuwait, Qatar and others.

Many had viable Jewish communities until 1948 when they were forced to flee for their lives. Some 700,000 made their way to the Jewish State. In the process these states achieved their Judenrein objective – and also stole their property and possessions. (Allah be praised.)

If Ghandi is so committed to human rights abuses surely Sudan deserved to be Mr. Gandhi’s top priority in our region? Surely a moralist of his purported standing has something important to say to the Janjaweed Arab speaking Sudanese Muslims who have reportedly slaughtered well over two hundred thousand (and counting) of their fellow Sudanese in Darfur? In a one-sided war largely about territory and booty? And has resulted in some two million helpless, homeless refugees (and counting) ?

Israel’s Effective Anti-terrorist Barrier

When Israel decided to erect its anti-terrorist barrier the Arabs laughed at this stupid idea. They danced in the streets and gleefully handed out sweets when their terrorists still succeeded in carrying out suicide missions to the glory of Islam.

But as Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier lengthened it slowly but surely became more effective in keeping Arab terrorists out. No longer was barrier something to laugh at. It was beginning to severely interfere with terrorist plans to murder and create mayhem in Israel’s crowded buses and shopping malls.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) moved quickly to stop this latest Israeli menace which no longer left their civilians as exposed to Palestinian murderers as before. Galvanized into action they mobilized their PR resources to fight Israel’s latest threat to their hitherto successful suicide bombing campaign (which conventional wisdom had judged could not be defeated).

Apartheid Badge Pinned To Anti-terrorist Barrier

With uncanny PR insight the Palestinians latched on the emotive ‘apartheid’ word and launched their campaign to bring down the “apartheid wall”. Having attaching this false apartheid label they appealed to the nations to prevent Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier inching its way across the landscape.

The PTA charged that the barrier had nothing whatever to do with Israel’s security. Its real purpose, they claimed, was a deceitful “land grab”. ‘Colonialism’ and ‘Bantustan’ were thrown into the apartheid mix to strengthen their attack. Their apartheid campaign quickly resonated worldwide.

False TV Images And Reports

Images of a looming, frightening wall were constantly aired on world TV giving the sham impression that the wall ran all the way. Israeli response that the wall would only represent a mere 4 per cent of the barrier’s length when complete was drowned out by deceitful headlines.

Thus did the ‘fence’ word become a public relations disaster for Israel. And a priceless gift to the PTA as they joyfully castigated our life-saving security barrier as an inhuman “separation wall . . . apartheid wall . . . Berlin wall”.

By now Israel too had emerged as an “apartheid occupying” power, with all the horrible characteristics of the South African pariah state which had ruled its non-white population so unjustly for more than 50 years. The apartheid comparison was effective, but false from top to bottom.

The appellation of the apartheid libel to democratic Israel must be one of the most despicable news-speak oxymorons of our day. But its effectiveness, especially among the anti-Semites of this world, cannot be sidelined.

Unexpected Research Resource

Many will remember the shocking silence that greeted the appearance of Israel’s 36 athletes as they entered the stadium on opening night of the Athens’ Olympics. And will also recall the thunderous applause which greeted the single Palestinian athlete for whom the rules were changed to permit a non-state to participate for the first time.

One might argue that the Olympic audience did not represent a true sample of world opinion. But that would be fudging the truth. On the contrary, 70,000 spectators from nearly all nations of the world are as good a sample as any respected Opinion Researcher could possibly select for polling purposes.

And when 90% or more give thumbs down to Israel and thumbs up to “Palestine”, there’s no point debating error percentages. From a PR viewpoint the murdering Palestinian terrorists have become the world’s darling victims. It is surely clear that the democratic Jewish State has been targeted for delegitimation.

How Did We Sink So Low?

The answer must be seen in Israel’s PR failure to win hearts and minds in the war of words and images which takes place 24/7 in the world’s media. Specifically in TV media because its reach is so vast and all embracing. And also because of this medium’s ability to profoundly stir emotions. This is what makes TV inherently 100 -1000 times more powerful than print media. (Actual statistics not known.)

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Israel has lost the TV war of words and imagery to the Palestine Terrorist Authority.

Our spokespersons are frequently outmatched by the PTA in all PR aspects: in what they say, how they say it, and in their frequent appearance on network TV. The terrorists are always ahead of Israel in the images they supply the networks. Their lies are aired long before Israel is ready (after proper investigation) to present its truth. By then the world has already made up its mind.

We Cannot Afford To Lose The War Of Words

Remember the massacre at Jenin that never was? By the time Israel confirmed the low accurate body count, the hugely exaggerated lies about a massacre of Palestinian had already taken root. In spite of Israel’s UN proven figures Arab lies was accepted history.

This is a dangerous situation which dare not be ignored. If we have learned anything from the recent past it is that we cannot afford to lose the PR war of words. Palestinian lies must be exposed, fully, forcefully and repeatedly. On network TV, the most powerful opinion forming medium. And in every other forum where the big apartheid lie is published. {} {} {}

How UNWRA Perpetuates
Arab Refugee Status

May 16th, 2006

January 16, 2005. Updated May 16, 2006

When in 1947 the UN decreed the partition of the Promised Land into an Arab and Jewish State, Israel accepted and declared its renewed sovereignty. The Arab inhabitants did not take up the UN offer. Islamic racists, they wanted it all – without Jews.

When the British departed in 1948, Arab armies from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, which had assembled in preparation for that day, invaded to wipe out the nascent Jewish State before it could get going. Much to their disappointment, surprise and chagrin they were defeated by Israel’s untrained and poorly armed rag-tag defenders courageously fighting for their very existence.

The Arab League insisted that the Arab refugees in the neighboring Arab states be herded into refugee ghettoes, not to be absorbed by the countries to which they fled. Only Jordan permitted their integration. The Arab League successfully pressured the UN to support the refugees – to provide for all their needs. The saga of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, UNWRA, had begun.

UNWRA’S Role In Perpetuating The Refugees

Permanent life in the refugee towns and villages is funded by UNWRA to care for the Arab refugees, seemingly forever.

Not because the original refugees live forever, but because their progeny inherit their “coveted” refugee status. This by the UN’s simple wizardry of defining the children born outside so-called Palestine, also as refugees. Because of UNWRA’s charity these children will probably never work their whole lives through.

But that’s not all. Little known is the fact that refugees living in Gaza and the West Bank too, are cared for by UNWRA, courtesy of the donor nations of the UN! Refugees in their own land – there’s a thing.

Their children, for no one knows how many generations, will continue to claim refugee benefits courtesy of the Islamic UN vote. They too will be refugees for all generations, from a “Palestine” they never knew. Because when you have a huge voting bloc of 56 Islamic nations at the UN, there’s no knowing what absurdities can be perpetrated – at others’ expense.

This unique definition is what accounts for the fact that 650,000 voluntary refugees in 1948, has blossomed into a registration of 4.1 million by December 2003, according to UNWRA’s 2004 Report.

Palestinians Live On Charity Of The Nations

Of the 4.1ml, 1.1million are in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. UNWRA has housed, fed, clothed and educated them for the last 57 years. Paid for by the donor nations of the world. The meanest donors to the Palestinian cause, you may be surprised to learn, are the Arab nations. (See evidence in the Annexure below.)

Refugees in their host Arab countries have not received citizenship rights even though they may have lived there for 57 years. Jordan is the only Arab country where the refugees were accepted into the general population.

Nothing was more natural. Were they not, after all, joining their brothers, speaking the same language, sharing the same culture, having the same history, bowing to the same God?

Jordan indeed, is a “Palestinian” state in all but name. “Palestinians” make up 70% of their population. Why then must the Johnny-come-lately-West Bankers have another “Palestinian” state abutting the same Jordan River? [Yet the United Nations have not made it possible for a truly ancient nation like the 20 million Kurds of the Middle East to have a state of their own.]

How soul destroying it must be to be forced to live on the charity of the nations for 57 years – and counting. It certainly makes nonsense of conventional wisdom that it is better to teach a person to fish than to feed him with a fish someone else has caught. This simple philosophy however, is anathema to UNWRA.

Why Did The Arabs Flee In 1948?

The overwhelming number of Arabs heeded urging of Arab leaders to get out of harm’s way for a short while, to allow their brothers – the armies of the neighboring Arab states – to wipe out the Jews of the new State.

Understandably and confidently, the Arab states believed the small 650,000 Jewish community would quickly be overcome by their 5 well organized and equipped neighboring armies. Plus units from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Plus a local militia of several thousand armed “Palestinians”. All saw Israel as an asset-rich prize, which would be defeated in a walkover.

The Arabs fled with high hopes buoyed by the promise they would soon be returned after the Jews had been slaughtered or driven into the sea. All would be the richer for Jewish wealth, infrastructure, homes and personal booty.

In his ‘Recollections’ [Page 83, Covenant Communications Corp 1970, Geneva.] David Ben-Gurion briefly and lucidly recalls why the Arabs fled:

“. . . in 1948 it was the Arab powers and not the Jews who exhorted the local Moslem population to leave their homes and their land. We asked them to stay and help us build a modern country. Those who left did so far more in fear of Arab threats of reprisal against ‘disloyalty’ than of their Jewish neighbors. In confidence they emigrated across the frontiers to the Arab nations which had demanded they come. They ended up in the foul conditions we know of.”

Why Did The British Want The Arabs To Win?

Incredible as it must have sounded so shortly after the genocide of the Jews of Europe, the publicly announced aim of the Arab armies was the genocide of the 650,000 Jews of Israel. No country cried “stop!” None came to its aid.

On the contrary the supply of military equipment to Israel was embargoed. Moreover there was clear evidence that Britain left much of their military equipment and ammunitions to help the Arab cause.

What made the British prefer to see the Arabs win, knowing the Arab war plan was Jewish extermination?

Regrettably, whatever it was then still persists today. Anti-Jewish bias is pervasively evident in Britain today as ever it was. The BBC with its immense power to influence people keeps smearing Jews, Zionism and Israel – interchangeably – without pretense of balance or objectivity.

Britain’s abandonment of its UN Mandate represented the first step in its loss of Empire.

Annexure:

• 55 of the 192 UN nations contributed, Including the EU nations which contributed as a bloc.

• Only 12 Arab of the 22 nations in the Arab League contributed. A total of $16,329,961.

• No Arab nation is included among the 7 top givers contributing over $10 million each.

• The Grand Total for 2003 was $438,140,969.

{} {} {}

Can Jews Dominate
World Politics and Finance?

May 15th, 2006

January 31, 2005. Updated June 21, 2006

A group of Russian nationalist MPs have recently called on the prosecutor-general to ban all Jewish groups, blaming them for provoking anti-Semitism and ethnic hatred.

A letter, signed by 20 members of the Duma, accuses Jews of dominating politics and the world of finance abroad and underwriting a war on Russian patriotism at home. (Reported by Julius Strauss in the Telegraph 26 Jan. 2005)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/26/nhol226.xml&sSheet=
/news/2005/01/26/ixhome.html

You’d have thought these 20 Duma Deputies were concerned with Jews dominating politics and finance in Russia. But no, this apparently was not their complaint. They called on the prosecutor-general to punish all Jewish groups in Russia . . . because Jews dominate politics and finance abroad! Don’t you find that incredible?

There’s pressure from Russian authorities to have this statement withdrawn. I hope that happens, but whether it does or not, analysis of this anti-Semitic nonsense is still necessary. We must always refute and expose anti-Semitic lies.

Jews Must Be Amazing

Jews are some 13 million in a world of 6,379,157,361 (according to the CIA World Fact Book 2004) living in 192 countries. So our 13 million, over 10 million of whom live in Israel and the US, dominate world politics and finance?

What’s with these racist anti-Semites? If their allegation were not the height of anti-Semitic balderdash surely the Guinness Book of Records should have given us title-page ranking by now?

Just How Great is Jewish Political Power?

Consider, for example, the well known political “power” of the Jewish/Israel lobby in the United Nations. Then think of the annual deceitful resolutions proposed by the Muslim nations against Israel. Year after year these anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel resolutions are passed with enormous majorities. With only Israel, the US, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands voting against.

That’s as good as Israel’s indomitable world political clout gets. A more miserable example of political power in world politics is hard to conceive. Yet all kinds of anti-Semites are convinced of the truth of this tommyrot of Jewish power. What’s missing, of course, is the evidence. But who needs truth when a doctrine of lies works so well for born and bred Jew-baters?

Islam’s Aim Of World Domination

Remember that eminent ignoramus Mahathir Mohamad, the Malaysian Prime Minister, who last year accused Jews of ruling the world (no less) and compelling nations to fight their (Jewish) wars by proxy? Such utter rubbish. Especially when you consider that while Israel would have been among the first to join the American led coalition against Iraq, it was the only country in the world not permitted to do so!

How strange that Iran and other countries of Islam which openly, repeat openly, proclaim their combined aim of world domination under their renewed caliphate, ruled by Sharia Law, which will return western culture to the year 700 . . . how come this threat does not arouse as much hatred as the anti-Semitic bullshit in the stupid ‘Protocols’?

The Poison Of ‘The Protocols . . .’

Absurdity was never good enough reason to eliminate Jew hatred. The current Russian absurdity is no more valid than the notorious, century old Russian forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (1905). Philip Graves, a London Times journalist exposed this forgery in 1921. In a series of articles he revealed sections taken verbatim from a French political satire “Dialogues in Hell” by Maurice Joly (1864).

‘Protocols’ was first published by the Russian secret police to influence Tsar Nicholas into blaming the Jews (the world’s favorite scapegoat then and now) for Russia’s turmoil. Some sources say the secret police themselves composed the forgery.

‘The Protocols’ continue to stoke the fires of anti-Semitism to this day and has done us immense harm. Anti-Semites refuse to let it die. These days it is reprinted and enthusiastically distributed by Arab nations to demonize Israel. Our so called peace partner Egypt is heavily engaged. So is Syria. So is Iran, which has actually announced its agenda to fulfill Hitler’s cowardly Jewish genocide. But Iran won’t have it that easy. For unlike the Jews of Europe the Jews of Israel are not defenseless.

Can Jews Dominate World Finance?

Anti-Semites believe that Jews are so powerful in financial matters that they can bend the economy of the world to benefit Jews specifically. Moreover that Jews in high places are engaged in a secret conspiracy to bring this about. But why on earth would any intelligent anti-Semite fear such a bunch of losers as the so called “Elders of Zion” with nothing to show for pursuing their preposterous chimera for 100 years?

What rational person can possibly believe that Jews could possibly control world finance – so that they alone benefited – while the rest of the world did not? How can anyone believe that a group of Jews can dominate world finance? Such claptrap. But how evil and monstrous to try to pin this dangerous drivel onto us!

Tsunami Wave Of Market Forces

Market forces and supply and demand are the economic realities that shape the ebb and flow of the economies of individual countries and groups of nations. Like a tsunami wave these factors overwhelmed the 70 year old Soviet communist economy. It also forced communist China to adopt capitalist techniques and methods – as a result of which they are set to become the world’s greatest industrial power. Already a financial colossus, China is likely to be the world’s top exporting nation in the next decade.

Infantile Fantasies

How on earth can any group of Jewish individuals dominate such titanic economic forces? How insufferable is the paranoia of anti-Semites who strive mightily to keep alive a conspiracy of boogeymen that never happen and never will happen. Compelling us nevertheless, to constantly refute their poisonous infantile fantasies.

How can Jews, however intelligent, educated and smart they are alleged to be, play a dominant role in the turbulent sea of world economics? More to the point, why would smart, intelligent, highly educated Jews even consider pursuing such an uneducated, unintelligent, truly nonsensical idea?

Are Jews Fomenting War on Russian Patriotism?

As for the Duma’s allegation that Jews are fomenting anti-Russian patriotism, the only thing that can be said in its favor is that this is a new one. If only we understood how this is being done and, specifically, how will it benefit Jews if Russians were less patriotic?

If anyone in Russia is provoking racism, ethnic hatred and anti-Semitism these days, it is this group of ignorant Deputies, manifestly guilty of the crime of anti-Semitism by spreading totally unfounded and false allegations.

{} {} {}

Israel Did Not Kill
Mohammed al Dura

May 4th, 2006

March 10, 2005

The Jerusalem Post briefly mentioned (Feb 25, 2005) the comment of French journalist Daniel Leconte – one of the few to have examined the complete, unedited footage in which the child Mohammed Al Dura was allegedly killed by Israeli soldiers, 30 September, 2000.

You may well recall that footage – it had the world in uproar. Israel, the world’s favorite scapegoat and whipping boy had been caught red handed. Israelis hung their heads in shame especially when an army spokesman lamely admitted Israel might have been to blame.

The world’s media had a real Israel hate fest . . . indeed the damage to Israel’s reputation cannot be undone. It was only much later (far too late) after the army properly investigated the matter that it concluded Israeli soldiers could not have fired the lethal bullets.

Shot in the back

Thus it was only on Nov. 28, 2000, that Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia stated at an international press conference in Tel Aviv:

“. . . the Al-Durrah’s were hit by a volley of bullets whereas the IDF soldiers were firing only single shots and did not use automatic fire. Jamal Al-Dura told reporters from his hospital bed in Jordan immediately after the incident, that his son had been shot in the back. This would mean that he (the boy) was shot by Palestinians who were on the eastern side of the wall.”

Daniel Leconte, who saw what the army did not, was more specific. He stated:

“The only ones who could hit the child were the Palestinians from their position. If they had been Israeli bullets, they would have been very strange bullets, because they would have needed to go around the corner.”

It never happened

I was personally exhilarated by Leconte’s conclusion because after I had somewhat recovered from the trauma of seeing that awful TV clip time and again for the next two days, I had come to the same conclusion. I had suddenly realized something was wrong with the TV story and penned the following in my article of Oct. 2, 2000:

For the boy to be killed by an Israeli, the bullet would have had to do a quick U turn after it passed the concrete container behind which they (the boy and his father) were sheltering! Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s physics permit this. It is impossible. It never happened.”

So What Did Happen That Tragic Day?

“I was one of millions watching when they were both seemingly hit – the son killed and the father wounded. I couldn’t believe Israeli snipers would target this hapless couple simply because they presented an easy target. And yet there it was, apparently live on TV. Seeing is believing – or is it?

“The world saw the scene time and again. The brave father holding his petrified little boy to his back to save him from being killed. Shielding his son from the bullets that might come. Protecting him with his body.”

The Brave Father Shields His Son

“Facing the Israeli shooters (though we are not shown any soldiers) we see the father holding his son to his back, fiercely shaking his right hand at the shooters in a desperate attempt to stop them firing his way. Screaming or cursing, threatening or begging. Viewers couldn’t hear but his message was clear: “Don’t shoot us!”

“However, no fire was being directed at the father because no bullets hit his face or torso. Neither did we see any bullets hitting the front of the concrete container behind which father and son were crouching. Any bullet hitting the concrete would have left a mark and created a spatter of concrete dust. Nothing of the kind was seen.

“It didn’t matter. Within seconds it was over. The son was dead and the father wounded. How terribly, undeniably sad. And how sad too, that at that moment, Israel’s image was the blackest it’s ever been.”

But How Could They Have Been Shot In The Back?

“Only later did it suddenly dawn on me that if the bullets which killed Mohammed Al-Dura, and wounded his father, had come from the front – from where the Israelis were supposed to have been – how come they were shot in the back?

“The front, where the TV clip intimates the Israelis were positioned, is clearly evident from the father’s hand and his pointed fingers. Remember, he clutches his son to his back with his left hand, protecting him with his upper body. At the same time he uses his right hand to gesticulate angrily to the Israelis in front of him.

“If the boy had been held to his father’s chest the father would have taken all the bullets in his back. The father would have died, not the child.”

Evidence of Nahum Shahaf
Related by Amnon Lord

Veteran Israeli columnist, Amnon Lord, wrote a definitive report entitled “WHO KILLED MUHAMMAD AL-DURA?” for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. (Jerusalem Letter No. 482, 15 July 2002.)

He describes the many months’ exhaustive investigation of Nahum Shahaf, a physicist in Israel’s defense establishment who has contributed significantly to the Israel’s defense capability. Here are relevant excerpts:

“Nahum Shahaf was among the leading developers of pilotless light aircraft and video instrumentation. Shahaf investigated the damage done by the Iraqi missiles in 1991 and concluded that part of the damage was caused by Patriot missiles. His work on the Muhammad Al-Dura affair was much more complicated. Shahaf accumulated and analyzed all available material connected to Al-Dura’s death.

“The raw videotape shows that the Palestinian television photographers themselves were part of the events, and that by the time their edited material was received by European, American, and Israeli news editors or networks, it was already in such a format that all that was needed was to add a few anti-Israel comments.

”The IDF investigation . . . was completed in January 2001 and reported that the cause of death of the child was not known. The IDF report also stated that no unedited film exists showing who shot the child. Furthermore, the father’s testimony, that Muhammad was hit in the back, does not square with the claim that he was shot by IDF soldiers.

“Gen. Yom-Tov Samia, head of the IDF Southern Command . . . said ‘there was no Palestinian cooperation in the investigation, and they were not willing to allow an autopsy to be conducted’.”

“A German television inquiry on Shahaf’s conclusion, determined that Muhammad Al-Dura was not killed by IDF gunfire. Rather, the Palestinians, in cooperation with foreign journalists and the UN, arranged a well-staged production of his death.”

Amnon Lord’s complete article is available by following this link: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp482.htm

“Three Bullets and a Dead Child”

Lee Kaplan, Contributing Editor to FrontPage Magazine.com described (September 7, 2004) the German documentary produced by Journalist/Filmmaker, Esther Schapira. Here are relevant excerpts from Kaplan’s article:

“Esther Schapira, a documentary filmmaker in Germany has produced a remarkable film that reveals more than ever how the Palestinian Authority has used children to advance its goal of attacking Israel in the world media.

“Schapira’s documentary shows . . . how a Palestinian cameraman engaged in film manipulations as well as how a French television station created a propaganda moment for Arafat’s Palestinian Authority.

“Some film outtakes even show shots of the boy and his father positioning themselves as if for a visual bite when they easily could have exited the scene with the other Palestinians present.

“Through exhaustive interviews with the Israel Defense Forces and through forensic studies, the film reveals how it was impossible for Israeli soldiers to have shot Mohammed al-Dura.

“Forensic reports made by the Palestinians further show that whoever shot the boy would have to have been in the Palestinian camp—that is if the boy and his father were ever really shot at all.

“But make no mistake: this is an objective film. It shows how the Israelis could not have killed the boy and does so without being preachy or taking sides.”

Doreen Carvajal in the New York Times
and The International Herald

Doreen Carvajal is another veteran journalist who involved herself in resolving the “Who killed Mohammed Dura” puzzle. Her exclusive article for the New York Times and The International Herald was published February 7, 2005, entitled:

“Photo of Palestinian Boy
Kindles Debate in France”.

The following are abbreviated extracts from Ms. Carjaval’s detailed investigation. (Subheads mine.) Links to her original article are provided at the end.

French Investigation

“Pierre Rehov began filming his revealing documentaries after concluding that the Al Dura tapes were faked. There is now a court case in France on this story. At the center of this dispute is the state-run television station France 2. and its Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin.

German Examination

“In 2002 Esther Schapira released her German documentary, “Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?” to address lingering questions about whether the boy was killed by Israelis or Palestinians.

“In preparation for her 2002 documentary Schapira tried unsuccessfully to see a master copy of the tape. She was astonished when France 2 did not share it because European stations commonly exchange material. ‘If there is nothing to hide,’ she said of France 2’s initial reluctance, ‘what are they afraid of?’”

“Richard Landes, Professor, Boston University studied the day’s full footage from other Western news.

“‘We could argue about every frame,’ Landes said. But after watching the scenes involving Muhammad al-Dura three times, he concluded that it had probably been faked, along with footage on the same tape of separate street clashes and ambulance rescues.

“‘I came to the realization that Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes,’ he said, calling the footage ‘Pallywood’ cinema.’

“‘Manipulation of news is nothing new – the Palestinians have made it a specialty, filming staged moments at every opportunity, for future use.’

France 2, TV Channel:

Did Muhammed Really Die?

“Because questions had been raised, France 2 decided to show the original 27-minute tape to The International Herald Tribune.

“When Mr. Leconte and Mr. Jeambar saw the full footage, they were struck that there was no definitive scene showing that the boy had died. They wrote, however, that they were not convinced that the scene was staged, but only that (the) ‘famous ‘agony’ (scene) from the montage does not exist’.

“To counter (continuing) criticism France 2 called a news conference and prepared a frame-by-frame folder of photographs, including blow-ups to respond to skeptics who argued that blood was not visible.

“But critics like Luc Rosenzweig, a former Le Monde reporter and radio host, want an independent medical expert’s opinion.

“This has emboldened critics like the Metula News Agency and Philippe Karsenty, who runs a small, Paris-based media watchdog group – and one of the station’s intended legal targets; along with Media-Ratings, have called on (France 2 executives) Ms. Chabot and Mr. Enderlin to resign.

“’We will offer 10,000 euros to a charity chosen by France 2 if the chain can demonstrate to us and a panel of independent experts that the Sept. 30, 2000, report shows the death of the Palestinian child,’ said Mr. Karsenty, who has urged French officials to start an inquiry.” http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=Main&ID=56556

www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/business/ worldbusiness/07video.html?pagewanted=2&oref=loginboth

The Wall Street Journal Nov. 26, 2004

Headlined “The Mythical Martyr”, Stephane Juffa follows through on the France 2 episode, pivotal to the whole mystery since this news agency is the sole owner of the original 27 minute long video footage. I quote:

“France 2 distributed the dramatic coverage free of charge to the global media. What turned these images into a modern blood-libel against Israel was the voice-over of Charles Enderlin, the France 2 correspondent in Jerusalem.

“Even though Enderlin was not in Gaza when the alleged killing happened, he told viewers with great confidence that the ‘shooting comes from the Israeli position.’”

“He Was Not Shot By Israeli Soldiers” — James Fallows

This was the conclusion drawn by James Fallows, a national correspondent for The Atlantic and author of “Breaking the News” (1996) and other books, in his intensively detailed article “WHO SHOT M0HMMAED AL-DURA”, May 2003.

Fallows has probably written the most objective and complete report (6528 words) on the Al Dura case to date. His is the most serious study I have read. Here is his conclusion:

“Whatever happened to him (Mohammed al-Dura), he was not shot by the Israeli soldiers who were known to be involved in the day’s fighting – or so I am convinced, after spending a week in Israel talking with those examining the case.

“The exculpatory evidence comes not from government or military officials in Israel, who have an obvious interest in claiming that their soldiers weren’t responsible, but from other sources.”

“The research has been done by a variety of academics, ex-soldiers, and Web-loggers who have become obsessed with the case, and the evidence can be cross-checked.”

Fallows deals fully with the possibility that the whole episode may have been staged by Palestinians to win a propaganda victory. (Though they probably had little advance understanding of just how great a propaganda victory their staged depiction would turn out to be.)

A link is provided below for readers who want the full story. To avoid reader fatigue I provide only brief excerpts of Fallow’s evidence below:

“Early in the morning of Saturday, September 30, a crowd of Palestinians gathered at the Netzarim crossroads. TV crews, photographers, and reporters from many news agencies, including Reuters, AP, and the French television network France 2, were also at the ready.

“Because so many cameras were running for so many hours, there is abundant documentary evidence of most of the day’s events – with a few strange and crucial exceptions, most of them concerning Mohammed al-Dura.

“To watch the raw footage is to wonder, repeatedly, What is going on here? In some scenes groups of Palestinians duck for cover from gunfire while others nonchalantly talk or smoke just five feet away.

“At one dramatic moment a Palestinian man dives forward clutching his leg, as if shot in the thigh. An ambulance somehow arrives to collect him exactly two seconds later, before he has stopped rolling from the momentum of his fall.

“Another man is loaded into an ambulance – and, in footage from a different TV camera, appears to jump out of it again some minutes later.

“Jacki Lyden said on NPR’s Weekend All Things Considered that the boy had been “caught in crossfire.” She then interviewed the France 2 cameraman, Talal Abu-Rahma, who said that he thought the Israelis had done the shooting.

“Bullets had not been recovered from the boy’s body at the hospital, and the family was hardly willing to agree to an exhumation to re-examine the wounds.

“From the one location where Israeli soldiers are known to have been, the only way to hit the boy would have been to shoot through the concrete barrel.

“But photographs taken after the shooting show no damage of any kind on the side of the barrel facing the al-Duras – that is, no bullets went through.

“That the concrete barrel lay between the outpost and the boy, and no bullets had gone through the barrel – could be confirmed independently from news footage.”

The above puts paid to the story floated much later, that father and son were shot from the front. That is to say that the bullets had gone through the concrete container into their torsos! {} {} {}

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YEgIrDZ-XwkJ:https://www.taranto.com/Israel/presentations/al-dura.txt+%22+MOHAMMED+AL-DURA+James+Fallows%22&hl=en

Did Judas Betray Jesus?
Or
Did Christianity Betray Judas?

May 3rd, 2006

April 25, 2006

Authentic letter confirms trustworhiness of Judas

“Christians wrote letters and memoranda and other documents, but the oldest one to survive if it is authentic, as it appears to be -is a letter from the Church of Jerusalem to gentile Christians (Acts 15:23-29), about the year 47.

“The apostles and the elders, bretheren, to the gentile bretheren in the Vicinity of Antioch and Syria and Cilcilia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons coming from us have disturbed you with words, unsettled your minds (although we gave them no instructions) it has seemed good to us in assemby to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their lives form the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no burden except these necessary matters: for you to have been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from fornification.” Robert M. Grant, Professsor of New Tesatamet and Early Christianity The Formation of the New Testament, 1965 (Page 15) Hutchison Universal Library

New Testament Lied about Judas

The Judas story was plainly a Christian episode fabricated by writers, embellishers and editors many decades after the event. By persons whose objective was to blur Roman responsibility for the death of Jesus, and to pin it on the Jews.

However, they were too ignorant of Jewish religious practices and customs to get it right. Their accusations, consequently, are evident, even preposterous.

Judas is hated as the betrayer of Jesus – even though Jesus made it unmistakably clear that the Temple police knew him very well and could have arrested him any day of their choosing. All four Gospels quote Jesus making this important statement.

Matthew writes: “Then . . . Judas went to the chief priests and asked ‘What will you give me if I betray Jesus to you?’ They counted out 30 silver coins and gave them to him.” (Matthew 26:14-16.)

Since the priests knew where to find Jesus whenever he prayed in the Temple why would they have needed anyone to “betray” him? Why would they have paid Judas 30 pieces of silver for a totally unnecessary service?

Indeed, since Judas must undoubtedly have known that the priests knew where to find Jesus at prayer in the Temple, why would he have offered to supply information which was public knowledge – and expect to get paid for it?

Given this background how can we posssibly believe Judas would even have propositioned the priests? For Judas must have known that the priests knew where to find Jesus if they wanted him. And if by some quirk Judas did not, that would not alter the fact that the priests knew. Jesus said so in all four Gospels. Let us examine the Judas story in each.

Matthew’s Gospel 26:14. About 77 A.D.

“Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I betray him to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him.”

Matthew not only mentions the amount of the bribe but states Judas was paid in advance. (How exceedingly strange.) Matthew goes on to describe how Judas kissed Jesus to identify him to the arresting officers.

Matthew 26: 55-56

55. “And Jesus answered and said unto them, are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?”

56: “I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.”

While it is unclear to which scriptures Jesus refers, it is entirely clear that the priests knew who he was and could have arrested him any time of their choosing. There was obviously no reason for the priests to employ Judas to betray him.

Matthew (or more probably his later editors and embellishers) has Judas repent his betrayal and attempt to return the 30 silver coins. The priests refuse to accept the money. Thereupon Judas hangs himself. However, their clumsy fabrications are illogical and do not hold water.

Because Jesus’ words in Matthew 56 above, completely undermine the validity of the crude betrayal plot pinned on Judas.

Mark’s Gospel. About 72 A.D.

Mark, writer of the first Gospel, was not a disciple of Jesus. He was a disciple of Peter. Here is his version of the Judas episode.

Mark 14: 10-11

10: “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.”

11: “And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.”

Mark does not mention 30 pieces of silver and its payment. He does not say Judas tried to return the money. Nor that he hanged himself.

Luke’s Gospel 92 A.D.

Luke was not a disciple of Jesus. He never saw him in his lifetime. He is a disciple of Paul (who was not a disciple of Jesus). Luke’s authenticity is third-hand. Nevertheless Luke was something of an historian and the single most prolific contributor to the New Testament.

Insofar as the Judas story is concerned he follows Matthew except for significant differences.

Luke 22: 47-48

47: “And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.”

48: “But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”

One must wonder why the historian in Luke omits mentioning the 30 pieces of silver and Judas’ attempt to return it. Why does he not mention that Judas hanged himself? We don’t know. But it raises the strong suspicion that these aspects did not in fact occur in Mark, nor in Matthew’s original Hebrew manuscript.

Moreover Luke does not say Judas kissed Jesus, only that he drew near to kiss him. In this Luke differs from Mark and Mathew.

Jesus repeats the fact, in Luke 22: 52-53, that the priests and Temple police knew him and could have arrested him any day he preached there.

John’s Gospel, 100 – 110 A.D.

It is not known whether John, last of the Gospel writers, is John, Jesus’ disciple. With certain omissions John follows Mark and Luke in the story of the betrayal.

After supper Jesus and his disciples retire to the brook of Kidron. John does not have Judas come here with a large number of persons armed with swords and staves. No motley crowd, no “multitude”. He is instead accompanied only by a small group of Roman soldiers and some Temple guards.

However, the presence of the guards is not tenable since there was no love lost between the Romans and the Jews. They were enemies. The Romans, therefore, would not have lowered themselves to ask for Jewish help to make an arrest, nor in fact did they need it. This insertion is clearly intended to implicate the Jews in Jesus’ arrest.

Contrary to Jesus’ repeated prophecy, Judas neither identifies Jesus nor betrays him with a kiss. Jesus simply asks the soldiers who they are looking for. On being told “Jesus of Nazareth” he immediately responds “I am he.”

John does not mention the 30 pieces of silver; nor Judas’ attempt to return the money; nor Judas’ remorse; nor his subsequent suicide.

Since John obviously relied on prior sources to compile his Gospel (in addition to his own creative contribution) it can be assumed that this information did not exist in these sources in his time.

From this we can safely deduce that the segments regarding the betrayal episode were inserted into Mark, Matthew and Luke after John wrote his gospel.

Lack of credible motivation for Judas’ “crime”

Casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the Judas episode is the complete lack of credible motivation.

Money could not have been the incentive since Judas was the trusted treasurer of the disciples. If there was any suspicion that he was a dishonest person he would not have been accepted as a disciple in the first place. Nor, obviously, would he have been made treasurer of the group.

Indeed, if it was only money Judas was after, he could have simply taken it from the group’s purse. It was unlikely anyone would have known the difference. However, according to Mark, Matthew and Luke, he did not steal from the community’s purse.

John, or his later embellishers, writing 100 to 110 years after Jesus’ death, does indeed accuse Judas of being a thief. (John 12: 6)

This cannot be true – no other gospel evidence supports this. Yet even if we are to believe it is true, it would merely emphasize the fact that Judas was never in need of 30 pieces of silver.

Judas was to all intents and purposes a respected disciple who completely accepted Jesus’ teachings. He was as hopeful as were all the disciples, that Jesus was the long awaited messiah who would bring about the downfall of Roman tyranny and redeem the Jewish nation.

Yet the New Testament would have us believe that Judas would actually have prevented the salvation of the Jewish people and its freedom from the Roman yoke . . . in exchange for 30 stupid silver coins!

To suggest that this was Judas’ motivation is fiction of low degree. Only writers ignorant of the depth of Jewish longing for the messiah could postulate it. The Gospel accounts fail to provide any credible motivation for Judas’ alleged betrayal.

The Seder and The Last Supper

Thirteen Jews had come together to celebrate the Passover “Seder” – and all four Gospels transformed this event into the Christian Last Supper. None describes the Jewish Passover Seder. Items:

• Jesus refers to eating bread with his wine, but being the night of Passover, bread was forbidden. Only the unleavened bread we call ‘matzo’ was permitted.

• Missing is the quintessential element, namely that God had ordained an annual commemoration of that momentous time when He freed the Jews from Egyptian slavery.

• Missing is the pivotal Passover commandment in Exodus 13: 8-10 “And thou shalt tell thy son . . .” the story of how we were slaves in Egypt for 400 years. And how we were freed by the mighty hand of God and brought to the land of Israel.

• Missing are not only the sons of the disciples but their fathers, mothers and daughters too. No female is present!

• The Passover Seder however, was a family affair. It was a time for retelling the story of our freedom from slavery and for celebrating with a festive meal. We have kept this tradition for some 3,400 years.

The New Testament narration of Judas as betrayer has been the direct cause of the death of millions of Jews at the hands of faithful Christians. It is a shameful history based on a preposterous fabrication which distorts the truth about Jews in the time of Jesus. How sad that so many Christian ‘soldiers’ continue to march to the sound of that false drumbeat.

{} {} {}

BBC Reporter Expresses
Solidarity With Palestinians

May 3rd, 2006

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review BBC Governance Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London, W1U 4AA United Kingdom israelipalestinian.review@bbc.co.uk

Gentlemen:

On October 24, 2001 I wrote the following letter to the BBC:

“BBC reporter expresses solidarity with Hamas

“The Jerusalem Post reported today (24.05.2001) on a Hamas gathering to honor journalists “for the special role they have played through their cameras, pens and skills, as well as through their rare courage and daring by their joining the nation struggling fiercely against the enemy.”

“The Post quoted senior BBC correspondent, Faid Abu Shimalla, speaking on behalf of the journalists, as having said:

“despite the pace of current events and the sensitive circumstances applying to journalists and media organizations, which are waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.”

“Though Shimalla seems to have let the cat out of the bag, the BBC’s response was puerile if not disingenuous. Saying they were unable to locate the Web site does not mean the site doesn’t exist.

“More to the point however, BBC should surely have asked Shimalla directly whether she’d been correctly quoted. And, specifically, did she include BBC among the media organizations working shoulder-to-shoulder with Hamas?

“Isn’t essential that the BBC knows which news-distributing organizations are masquerading as Hamas fronts?”

Yours etc.,

Why The “Right of Return” Is A Wrong

April 3rd, 2006

Get Out Of The Way!

Here’s the situation. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled Palestine, mainly at the urging of the Arab armies poised to attack Israel in May 1948.

The armies instructed local Arab leaders to get villagers and their families out of harms way – to leave the field open for their military to achieve their war aims.

Genocide, Then Loot And Booty Aplenty

Arab war aims were simple: to exterminate the Jews of Israel and to wipe the one day old Jewish State off the map. It wouldn’t take long, they assured the locals. Meanwhile they had better get out because once the war had started there was no way Arab tanks, artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns and sky bombing could distinguish between Jew and Arab.

They had to get out for their own safety. When it was over they would return to loot and booty aplenty. Enriched by Jewish homes, shops, factories, cars, agricultural implements and farms. Everything the Jews had owned personally and communally.

It was an exciting prospect and the Arabs didn’t need much urging. They would have done the exterminating themselves if only they could. Over the years they’d indulged in many small operations, successfully killing and maiming numbers of Jews. For the past many months they had indeed been very active.

Arab Final Solution

Killing Jews is mandated in the Koran and enthusiastically encouraged by their religious leaders, the mullahs and Imams. Local Arabs strongly supported the combined final Arab solution for the infidel Jews – a mission actively approved by tribal leaders, sheiks, muktars and muftis. Some thousands of the locally armed Arabs remained to fight with the invading Arab armies to help in the killing of Jewish soldiers and civilians.

It is necessary to reiterate that those now still alive – and their progeny – who now want to exercise what they ingeniously call their “right of return”, continue to be our mortal enemies. They wanted to exterminate the Jews in 1948 – and still do. They have not repented. They still lust to wipe our Jewish State off the map. Their children and grandchildren are raised to fulfill the blood-thirsty culture that “the only good Jew is a dead Jew.”

Daily Regimen Of Hatred And Revenge

Kept in appalling conditions the so called refugees* have depended on the charity of the United Nations. The Arab nations contributed surprisingly little to their upkeep. Fed with a never ending diet of anti-Jewish hatred and animosity, the original aims of these refugees have not changed in the slightest. (*So called because the vast majority were born into this status by a UN resolution.)

Jewish genocide still has the greatest appeal to the Arabs who now want to return to Israel. Only now their numbers have increased from an estimated 600,000 to some 3,500,000. Some put the figure even higher.

Compensation For Failed Genocide?

These folk want to come back to where they claim they lived before. The ones who wanted us dead then still want us dead now. The ones who couldn’t manage to do it themselves and had made way for their Arab brothers in arms to undertake wholesale Jewish murder and mayhem.

Now they want us to compensate them for having failed to exterminate us! They cry and bleat their cause incessantly the world over, as if we are responsible for the failure of their genocidal war.

“Right Of Return” To The State They Hate

The simple truth is that the Palestinian Arabs failed to exterminate us even with the help of the armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. Why did they prefer refugee status rather than return to the West Bank conquered by Jordan, and Gaza, conquered by Egypt? Why did Jordan and Egypt not give them their “right of return” when they ruled these territories from 1948 to 1967?

Why didn’t the Arabs ask, clamor, march, demonstrate and shout in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank? Not only for their so called right to return, but also for their own state? The simple answer to this apparent puzzle is that they did not yet know they were a nation! (Yet today they claim, without shame, that their nationhood in this part of the world goes back to time immemorial.)

In fact the notion that they might be a nation only surfaced when the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat took command of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) in the 1960’s. That’s the real extent of “time immemorial”.

Sponsors of the Road Map now want to compel us to welcome back our unrepentant killers and their hate-imbued progeny. To introduce a blatant fifth column into our country with no loyalty whatever to the Jewish State, detesting its flag, abhorring its anthem and hating its people.

Commemorating Their Annual Nakbah

They want Israel, the Jewish State, to compensate them for their historic failure to exterminate us. A failure they commemorate as their Nakbah – their catastrophe, now an annual day of prayer and mourning. And of not forgetting.

They grieve for having failed to exterminate us, but what do they continue to pray for? Not the welfare of the Jewish State but for its downfall and elimination from the world’s stage.

Who If Anyone Should Pay Compensation?

Should Israel help them? Hell no! The original refugees (those alive today are estimated at about 200,000) were active accomplices to premeditated mass murder. They were part of the plan to kill the Jews and share the spoils, the loot and property. In courts of justice they would be found guilty of a criminal conspiracy to actively aid Jewish genocide.

Don’t Delude Yourselves

You have taught and instilled Jew hatred into your communities for over 50 years. Your thirst for Jewish blood has not in any way been quenched. You know this, but we know it too. You are deluded if you think Israel will allow a thoroughly satiated Jew-hating community like yourselves to settle in diminutive Israel, the promised land of the Jewish people.

Jews Not For The Taking

Nor would we allow you to become full citizens – so you could outvote us in a generation. So you could be empowered to destroy the Jewish State by democratic means. And impose your will upon us . . . 7th century Shariah law, forced conversions to Islam and economic slavery. If not large scale massacres, extermination, and exile.

No way! {} {} {}

Divestment –
The Great Presbyterian Hoax

March 16th, 2006

Revised May 20, 2006

Presbyterian Churches have stepped up their campaign (originally launched in June 2004) to divest from 5 US companies targeted for doing business with Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported (Oct.30, 2005.) that they had started campaigning in Canada for their counterparts to divest from the same 5 companies.

Aside from being surprised that the church appears to be so heavily invested (reportedly to the tune of $7.5 billion) my reaction is “so what”? Let them go ahead and divest all they like –the sooner the better.

Because, in disposing of their shares the church does not hurt any US or Israeli company financially. Divestment simply means that shares change hands. Sellers must sell their shareholdings to willing buyers; in this case buyers who presumably don’t follow the Presbyterian agenda. In the process Israel loses a badmouthing enemy and gains many friends. Goody!

What Is The Presbyterian Record On Tibet, India, Asia, Africa etc?

  • Did the Presbyterian church fight for Tibetan human rights when the Chinese occupied their country and mercilessly subjugated their people?

  • Did the church ever intervene in centuries old Indian apartheid which so cruelly subdues some 300 hundred million ‘untouchables’ to this very day? What about their human rights?

  • Did the Presbyterians exert pressure on the Muslim/Arab nations of North Africa and the Middle East who have persecuted their Christian and Jewish minorities for centuries, down to the present time?

  • Did they divest for the human rights of the dispossessed native American Indians?

  • How about the human rights of the “occupied” and dispossessed Aborigines of Australia? And Maoris of New Zealand?

  • Currently, what interest has the Presbyterian Church shown in the horrendous slaughter of African tribesmen in Darfur (Sudan) where a genocide is in progress? Perpetrated by Arab Janjaweed militias bent on murderous ethnic cleansing?

Why Aren’t The Presbyterians Divesting?

It doesn’t take 2 years to divest. In practice, you simply call your broker and instruct him to sell all your holdings in Caterpillar, Motorola, United Technologies, ITT, Industries and Citygroup. In days or perhaps a week of two Presbyterian honor would have been upheld. Their shares would have been sold and their money safely banked.

But no shares whatever have been sold! And you know what? None might ever be sold according to an Arutz Sheva report (Oct. 14, 2005) quoting Reuters:

“The Presbyterian Church has not yet carried out its decision to get rid of investments in targeted companies, and a church spokesman told Reuters that “we’re not in a hurry.” He explained that divestment only is a last resort, depending on whether Israel carries out further expulsions of Jewish residents from Judea and Samaria.”

Of course, nothing of the kind was mentioned about “last resort” or expulsions of residents from Judea and Samaria when the campaign was launched.

Was Divestment Just An Astute PR Campaign?

Embarrassing as it may be, it seems the Presbyterians have been motivated by the Palestinians to become involved in an astute Public Relations campaign excoriating Israel.

The Presbyterians did not in fact intend to divest in the foreseeable future. But they are engaged in keeping their media fest going. Google provides over 150,000 references at this time. Anyone involved in PR must admire this remarkable achievement.

Presumably the Presbyterians will continue to issue PR statements for as long as they can keep the media hooked on this non-event of a story.

Hoist By Their Own Hoax?

One reason they have not divested is that dividends and share prices have been good – and perhaps the trend for 2006 looks good too. Losing money by divesting is not, I believe, a Presbyterian principle. There is however, a serious ethical dilemma.

Is it right to sell shares in such untouchable companies, so worthy of Presbyterian indignation . . . to unsuspecting buyers?

Should honorable believers sell tainted shares to Christian buyers? Indeed to anyone?
{} {} {}

Divestment –
Why Did The Anglicans
Get Cold Feet?

March 12th, 2006

After beating the big bass drum of divestment from US companies profiting from sales to Israel, specifically Caterpillar Inc, the Anglican Church seems to have gotten cold feet.

Not knowing how to get out of the mire of their own making they appointed an Advisory Panel to study their decision and to report back.

Church Owns $4.4 Million Stock

The panel has done so and has urged against pulling investments “to break financial ties with companies linked to Israel’s control of Palestinian territories”. Specifically, the Caterpillar company in which the Church holds some $4.4 million stock.

We are not told why the advisory panel offered that advice though we may guess that it came in time to stop the church making a right fool of itself.

Selling Stock Does No Harm

Because selling their stock does not harm Caterpillar in any way. Their stock would be purchased by new buyers – that’s all that happens. We may presume the new buyers would not share the church’s anti-Israel stance. Some might even be pro-Israel.

So how would it hurt Israel if the church sold its stock? I can’t for the life of me figure that out. Nor, I imagine, can the church.

Building With Bulldozers

Caterpillar bulldozers are generally employed in construction and revamping the environment. Israel certainly used them to build many new roads in the areas of Arab habitation. And no doubt those 7 universities it built for the Palestinians. Plus a hospital or two, surely the airport in Gaza, schools and a whole lot more.

Does the church in its muddled thinking believe it is essential to use a Caterpillar bulldozer to raze a house? Of course not. Israel has previously used tanks or just plain old fashioned dynamite. However, the Caterpillars are safest in this usage.

Could Israel could buy Caterpillars from several countries in Europe or nearer still from Turkey? Even if they did cost 5% or 10% more. You can bet your shirt on it.

Human Rights Factor

John Reynolds, the chairman of the advisory group, said his panel “could find no compelling evidence that Caterpillar is, or has been, complicit in human rights abuses.”

So the motivation of the church was its strong opposition to countries which abuse the human rights. That sounds like an above board reason for which the church might well be entitled to applause.

Selective Discrimination

But not however, when Israel is the only country selected for condemnation while the human rights violations of so many other countries are ignored. When we alone are chosen for special treatment, Mr. Reynolds and fellow Presbyterians, that’s when we recognize the poisonous arrow of anti-Semitism.

The Tibetan Comparison

Compare China’s conquest of Tibet and its brutal ongoing occupation and extinction of Tibetan identity, culture and religion. What was the nature of the Anglican church’s protest against the Chinese grievous abuse of Tibetan human rights?

Correct me if I suggest, wrongly, that what happened in Tibet and which continues there unabated, was like water off your church’s back. You turned your cheek away from their human rights.

But the gall of those uppity Jews in Israel who demolished the homes of maybe 100 or 200 suicide murderers, who had killed hundreds of our fathers, mothers, boys, girls and babies . . . and wounded and crippled thousands more, why that’s another kettle of fish. Jews are not permitted to react to the abuse of some hundreds of Palestinian murderers and their family of accomplices. It was ok however, for the Chinese to abuse the human rights of six million Tibetans.

Where The Cap Fits

There are no perfect countries. There are scores of countries however, with flagrant records of abuse far, far worse than those for which Israel stands accused. Palestinian allegations always avoid admitting that Israel has any right to defend herself against terrorists whose collective purpose is, without deviation or variation, the death of Israelis, by murder most foul.

Natan Sharansky has defined modern anti-Semitism by its three features: the application of double standards, demonization and delegitimization of Israel.

Regrettably, this cap fits the heads of the Anglican church. {} {} {}

The Arabs Fled in 1948 –
Why Didn’t The Jews?

March 8th, 2006

March 8, 2006
Updated July 22, 2009

The Arabs have long comforted themselves with the myth that they had no alternative but to flee for their lives in 1948. The facts of history show otherwise.

After the British announced their intention to rescind their mandate over Palestine, the small Jewish community numbering a mere 650,000, declared their acceptance of the United Nations partition resolution and announced the State of Israel.

A War Of Extermination – Like The Mongolian Massacres

The Arabs however, refused the state offered to them and decided to vanquish the Jews with the eager help of their brothers in Egypt, Syria,Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. The Arabs of the Mandated territory of Palestine constituted yet another army. All were convinced of their ability to exterminate large numbers of infidel Jews and cause the rest to flee.

Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha, confirmed their jihad’s war aim. “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”, he said.

Arab Leaders Urge Arabs to Flee

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”

Above is just one of many similar quotations recorded in a thoroughly researched article by Mitchell Bard, published in the Jewish Virtual Library.

The Booty And The Glory

The scantily dressed Jewish women would be raped, kept as sex slaves, sold or killed. Children would be forced to accept Islam. Men who survived the war would be killed.

With the Zionist enterprise dead there would be rich booty for all. The Arab nations would once more bask in the glory of Arab honor and victory. Allah would be vindicated and the fathers of the deserts of Palestine would reign supreme.

Fighting A War Without Guns

In 1948 Israel had to face Arab forces of 160,000, excluding Arab naval andAir forces. Israel’s arsenal was sparse and comprised 5,607 hand guns, 10,264 submachinge guns, 6,436 machine guns, 21,886 rifles, 682 light mortars and no field cannons. It certainly looked promising for the Arabs since the Israelis were heavily outgunned – as shown in this Wikipedia table:

 IDFArabs
Tanks1 w/o gun40
Armored cars (w/cannon)2200
Armored cars (w/o cannon)120300
Artillery5140
AA and AT guns4220
Warplanes074
Scout planes2857
Navy (armed ships)312

The Arabs Fled – Why Didn’t The Jews?

But things did not go well for the Arabs despite their plethora of arms and intense motivation. Large numbers obeyed the call of the Arab armies to get out of the way and to return when the war was over. Many made for the surrounding Arab countries from whence they had come. Others fled the battle areas as civilians have done for centuries when armies around them clashed.

You’d have thought the Jews would be the ones to flee such unequal odds, especially in the face of Arab cruelty and the threats of extermination. But the Jews stood their ground and fought off the far more numerous enemy, better trained, better armed, and better equipped. They fought with their backs to the wall for their lives, their families and their ancient homeland. It was the Arabs, the majority of whom were recent arrivals, who fled back to their original lands. They had no attachment whatever to Palestine. To think that the Palestinians now claim they have 3 to 4 million so called refugees wanting to return is the height of irresponsibility. The figures are non-sensical.

The Legend of Deir Yassin

Unable to face the shame of their defeat the Arabs resorted to lies to account for their transparent military failure and their spectacular refugee migration.

One of these lies was the so called “massacre” at Deir Yasssin” where 100 Irgun members attacked armed terrorists in this village atop a strategic hill.

Menachem Begin, the Irgun commander at that time, subsequently wrote: “We had 4 killed and nearly 40 wounded. (Our) casualties were nearly 40 percent of the total number of the attackers. The Arab troops suffered casualties nearly three times as heavy.” An intense fight certainly, but not a massacre.

How Many Arabs Fled?

As to the number of Arab refugees, highly exaggerated figures were claimed. However, in 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the mandated area of Palestine. A 1949 Government of Israel census enumerated 160,000 Arabs living in the country after the 1948 war. By this calculation no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. (Jewish Virtual Library)

A report by the UN Mediator arrived at an even lower figure — 472,000, and calculated that only about 360,000 Arab refugees required aid. (JWV)

The Arabs, who had largely migrated from neighboring Arab states, fled back to them. The Jews who loved their homeland stayed and fought for their country, backs to the wall.

Warring Arab Nations Responsible And Accountable For Refugees

While the Arabs have whined ever since about “the right of return” for their refugees, we must not forget that Israel lost over 6,000 killed in a war where the unabashed Arab aim was to exterminate hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Israel has no intention whatever of accepting the “return” of 3 or 4 million Arabs, the majority of whom were not even born here.

In any event this would be political suicide for the Jewish State. And even physical genocide given the fact that this is Hamas’ declared intention. No Arab state has protested this evil policy. None will lift a finger to prevent it.

Israel is not responsible for the Arab refugee problem. The Arab states which urged them to get out, and whose armies lusted for another Jewish genocide, are.

Theirs is the guilt: Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the Palestinians themselves. They caused the problem – they must solve it. They alone must bear the painful consequences of their malevolent, ill-fated plan.
{} {} {}

ANNEXURE:

“Were the Palestinians Expelled in 1948?” By Efraim Karsh (Copyright Commentary, July 2000)

In a seminal article, political and military analyst, Prof. EFRAIM KARSH summarizes, in excruciating detail, the hurried departure of nearly all Arab residents from Haifa.

Karsh writes, “ . . . in 1947, there were 62,500 Arabs in Haifa; by May 1948, all but a few were gone . . ..”

“All did so voluntarily, refusing to heed repeated appeals by the Jewish authorities to stay and live as equal citizens in the new State of Israel. A large number who may well have stayed were prevented from doing so by their leaders.”

“ . . . documents show that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of these hostilities, and even before the UN’s November 29, 1947 partition resolution.” (My italics.)

“ . . . by mid-December 1947, some 15,000-20,000 people, almost a third of the city’s Arab population, had fled, By early April 1948, according to Rashid Hajj Ibrahim, the head of the National Committee, the city’s Arab populace had dwindled to some 35,000-40,000.”

“By the time the final battle. . . was joined (on May 15) . . . the number had fallen (to) about half the town’s original community . . ..”

Karsh reports a conversation between Arab leaders and British commander General Hugh Stockwell. The leaders told him: “Of the 30,000-plus Arabs still in Haifa, only a handful wished to stay. Perhaps the British could provide 80 trucks a day, and in the meantime ensure an orderly supply of foodstuffs in the city and its environs?”

“Within a matter of days, only about 3,000 of Haifa’s Arab residents remained in the city.”

Karsh gives these reasons for the Arab flight from Haifa:

• “disheartened by the desertion of their local military leaders”
• “petrified by wildly exaggerated accounts of a Zionist atrocity at Deir Yassin”
• “the Arab Emergency Committee used scaremongering as a major weapon” (to motivate their exodus)
• “some Arabs received written threats that, unless they left town, they would be branded as traitors deserving of death”
• “they were told they could expect no mercy from the Jews.”
“Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Murad of the National Committee, warned a large group of escapees who were about to return to their homes, that if they did so they would all be killed”
• “that the Jews spared not even women and children.”
• “On the other hand . . . the Arab Legion had 200 trucks ready to transfer the Haifa refugees to a safe haven, where they would be given free accommodation, clothes, and food.”

Thus were hundreds of thousands of hapless fellow-Arabs deceived into leaving their homes and becoming refugees.

Ben Gurion’s Recollection

In his ‘Recollections’ (1970, page 83) David Ben-Gurion recalls:

“. . . in 1948 it was the Arab powers and not the Jews who exhorted the local Moslem population to leave their homes and their land. We asked them to stay and help us build a modern country. Those who left did so far more in fear of Arab threats of reprisal against ‘disloyalty’ than of their Jewish neighbors. In confidence they emigrated across the frontiers to the Arab nations which had demanded they come. They ended up in the foul conditions we know of.” (Italics mine.)

Why Is Bush So Nice
To Palestinian Terrorists?

January 29th, 2006

In his first speech after 9/11 (Sept. 20, 2001) the President set the tone and the detail for his Bush Doctrine:

“We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.”

President Bush has been on record time and again since 9/11 emphasizing that his administration will wage an uncompromising war against international terrorism which had cost the lives of thousands of Americans even before the Al Qaeda onslaught.

That single act of inhuman terrorism killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers. It brought the US face to face with terrorism on its own soil. It was to be expected that the sleeping giant would awaken to deal with this new peril. It did.

“By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.” Pres. George Bush

The US invaded Afghanistan, the host country, and smashed the Taliban. It is still seeking Omar Bin Laden, the so called spiritual leader of Al Qaeda.

Would the US make peace with the Taliban? With Al Qaeda? With Bin Laden? You must be joking. Why then does the US prevent Israel from meting out justice to Palestinian terrorists for their inhuman attacks on Israeli civilians? Why are we being forced into an untenable peace with a terrorist organization?

The President has made a score of speeches reiterating his anti-terrorist doctrine, praising freedom, democracy, and urging reform. He speaks to all nations, but specifically to the Islamic nations, and especially to the Arab states.

“Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

Al Qaeda is among the names listed on the US register of Terrorist Organizations. Seven Palestinian Terrorist Organizations appear on the US list. Nor are those that don’t appear unworthy; but State seems reluctant to add more. Notably the six additional “factions” (13 in all) which attended the Cairo Conference, March 16/17. All belong on this list.

The Popular Resistance Committees, for example, is not on the US list, yet it was second only to Hamas in launching rocket attacks against Jewish settlements in Gaza and communities in southern Israel. How come this nefariously dangerous group is not listed on State’s roster?

Abbas tried hard in Cairo for a ‘cease fire’ but could not get it. He had to settle for “calm” or admit defeat. “Calm”? That’s a new one from the Palestinians, never at a loss for inventive terminology.

“Factions” is another euphemism. All 13 factions are bona fide terrorist groups who have actively carried out, or attempted, killing operations aimed at Israelis. Civilians for the most part.

Their terrorist identity is not arguable – since if these groups were not actively engaged in murder and mayhem – what need of Abbas to invite them to a conference to persuade them to “cease fire”?

In his carefully considered 9/11 speech introducing the Bush Doctrine, the President specifically singled out countries which harbor and facilitate terrorism. Thus –

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” (My italics.)

President Bush never excluded the Palestinian regime from his doctrine. Why then does he give them a free pass?

How come Bush supported the corrupt and thoroughly discredited Arafat regime with hundreds of millions of US tax dollars, while restricting international funds being raised and transferred to other terrorist organizations?

Why does President Bush reward the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority, exceptionally, with his political support?

Why did he prevent Israel from defeating the Palestinian terrorists whose mission was, and still is, Israel’s elimination?

Why does Bush urge release of Palestinian terrorists held captive by Israel while he keeps a tight hold on Taliban and other American captives in Quantanamo Bay?

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush

Does the Palestine Authority continue to harbor Arab terrorism? It certainly does. Nor will Abbas (so he has stated) use his 40,000 plus police force to collect terrorists’ weapons and disband their infrastructure. (As required by the Road Map.)

On the contrary, and horrendously, Abbas plans to execute 17 or more collaborators charged with giving Israel information to prevent pending terrorist attacks, or for having fingered some of Israel’s most wanted terrorists.

Does the PA support terrorist organizations? Yes, absolutely. Abbas took the heads of the PA’s 13 terrorist groups along with him to talk cease fire in Cairo.

Abbas negotiated with these terrorists for a cease fire. But he could not get it, so he settled for “a period of calm”, whatever that might mean. Yet he collected unjustified dividends in return – the release 500 mostly ‘failed murderers’.

It is instructive to remember that failed suicide terrorist Richard Reid, known as the “shoe bomber”, was sentenced to life plus 80 years for his attempted murder. He did not have blood on his hands – to use that quaint Israeli expression which presumably might exonerate someone like Osama Bin Laden.

Abbas is not satisfied with what he got when Israel handed over Jericho. He wanted many more prisoners released; both those who succeeded in killing and those without so called blood on their hands. (Unlike the US, Israeli justice is regrettably satisfied with nominal jail sentences.)

“We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.” President George Bush

One must wonder why the Bush administration supported the transfer of Jews out of Gush Katif. Why should he not have supported a Jewish enclave remaining in Gaza? Does the President not realize that he champions the racist, apartheid, Judenrein policy of the PA?

Afghanistan was named a state that sponsored terror. So were Syria and Iran. How come State overlooked the Palestinian Terrorist Authority?

“So Israel must freeze settlement activity, help Palestinians build a thriving economy, and ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable . . ..” President Bush

President Bush calls for Israel to help the Arabs establish a viable State. But Israel would be unwise to leave the homes, shops, factories, businesses, public and communal buildings, agricultural hothouses etc, in Gush Katif (Gaza) as a contribution to the new State’s viability.

There is the grave danger that this unjustified gift to the Terrorist Authority will be the greatest motivation to continue agitating for everything Jewish in Samaria, Judea (the so called West Bank) and the Golan.

Such a gift to a people who have killed so many and wounded and traumatized tens of thousands more (a great many crippled for life) is unwarranted generosity.

Self-preservation demands that whatever territory Israel gives up, all assets above ground must be destroyed to avoid inflaming the Palestinians’ insatiable greed for the fruits of victory. Gush Katif may be their first triumph. Judea, Samaria and the Golan are next on their menu. Let us not whet their appetite.
[] [] []