Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Indyk and the myth of PLO’s cancelled covenant

Indyk and the myth of PLO’s cancelled covenant

By David Bedein

JERUSALEM (IRNA) – Martin Indyk, is now  the mediator between Israel and the PLO in negotiations that have continued in deadlock for the past six months

Indyk’s record with the PLO should be examined.

Indyk is the one of the people paved the way for Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population.

In 1994, the respected journalist, Haim Shibi of Yediot Aharonot reported that in 1987, Indyk lobbied more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War.

Indyk oversaw every step of the Oslo process with that precise policy in mind – Israel giving up  land that is vital to her defense.

Indyk, during his stint as US ambassador to Israel. did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so, obfuscating the fact that the PLO never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state.

In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant calling for Israel’s eradication was finally canceled.

On April 24, 1996, the PLO convened a special session of its Palestine National Council (PNC) to consider the subject of the PLO covenant cancellation.

The Israel Resource News Agency (IRNA) dispatched a Palestinian TV crew to cover that session, which turned out to be the only crew that filmed the event.

Our film crew brought back a videotape that showed a lively discussion, the conclusion of which was to Arafat’s suggestion that the PNC simply create a committee to “discuss” the subject. We  rushed a VHS copy to Ambassador Indyk for comment, but he did not respond to that request for comment.
Instead, he chose to ignore the decision of the PNC session.  He issued a report to President Clinton and to the U.S. Congress that the PLO covenant had been canceled.

As a result of Indyk’s false report, The US definition of the PLO as a terrorist organization was waived in 1996 -  not canceled-  enabling the PLO to open up an official office and lobby in Washington, DC, the nation’s capital.

Arafat was given  a red carpet greeting at the White House on May 1, 1996, and the PLO was only then allowed to open an office in Washington, and that office has remained open ever since..

However, on May 2, 1996. Hebrew University Professor Yehoshua Porat, a former leader in Peace Now who ran on slot 13 on the left wing Meretz party ticket in 1992,an expert in Palestinian studies and fluent in  Arabic, convened a press conference in which he shared protocols of the PNC session and the videotape which proved Arafat never canceled the PLO covenant.

Yet  the damage was done. Thanks to the obfuscations of Martin Indyk, Arafat and the PLO received United States diplomatic recognition and official aid from the U.S., which continues to this day.

In December 1998, President Clinton, finally convinced that Indyk’s 1996 covenant report was wrong, arrived in Gaza, accompanied by Indyk, where they asked for a show of hands from Arabs who identified themselves as members of the PNC as to whether they want to cancel the PLO covenant and make peace with Israel. The real answer, however, they got the next day. Arafat’s personal spokesman, Yassir Abed Abbo, told the media that the PNC had, of course, not canceled any covenant. Yet there is more.

In September, 2000, Dr. Uzi Landau, now a senior minister in the current Israeli government, who served then as the head of the Knesset State Control Committee (the equivalent of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs), took the unusual step of filing a formal complaint against then-United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

Landau quoted the September 16, 2000 report in the Guardian of London that “the U.S. Ambassador to Israel yesterday urged Israel to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians.”

Mr. Indyk said: “There is no other solution but to share the holy city… ” and Landau also noted that Ambassador Indyk was similarly quoted by the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz.
Landau went on to say that “the timing of the speech and the political context in which it delivered leaves no room for doubt that Ambassador Indyk was calling on the Government of Israel to divide Jerusalem. Indeed, the Guardian correspondent described the remarks as ‘a sharp departure from Washington orthodoxy in recent years.’”

Landau, who later served in a ministerial post in the Israeli government that negotiated sensitive relations between the U.S. and Israel, mentioned in his letter to Clinton that he wished to “strongly protest Ambassador Indyk’s blatant interference in Israel’s internal affairs and democratic process… I am sure you would agree that it is simply unacceptable for a foreign diplomat to involve himself so provocatively in the most sensitive affairs of the country to which he is posted. If a foreign ambassador stationed in the United States were to involve himself in a domestic American policy debate regarding race relations or abortion, the subsequent outcry would not be long in coming… Ambassador Indyk’s remarks about Jerusalem are an affront to Israel, particularly since he made them in the heart of the city that he aspires to divide. By needlessly raising Arab expectations on the Jerusalem issue, rather than moderating them, Ambassador Indyk has caused inestimable damage to the peace process…

Landau added  that “this is not the first time that the American Embassy in Israel has interfered in our internal affairs. In February, I wrote to you in the wake of media reports that Embassy officials were lobbying Israeli-Arab leaders regarding a possible referendum on the Golan Heights. My fear is that such interference in Israel’s affairs is rapidly becoming routine.”

Landau concluded his letter to Clinton with a “request that you recall Ambassador Indyk to the United States.”

 Two months later, in early November 2000, Arafat’s Second Intifada terror campaign was getting underway, Indyk was strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Arafat’s forces. Indyk remarked that what the Israelis had to do was to get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, such as Hamas, Tanzim gangs and the Islamic Jihad diplomatically. He did not mention that Arafat’s own Force 17 bodyguard, Preventive Security and other Palestinian Authority forces were also responsible for a considerable portion of the violence. Indyk never wanted to hold Arafat responsible when Arafat’s forces carried out terrorist activities

In late November 2000, when Israel issued a “white paper” on intercepted intelligence from Arafat’s headquarters that showed documentary evidence that Arafat and his mainstream PLO gangs were indeed facilitating the campaign of terror, Indyk made a special trip to Jerusalem to demand that the Israeli government withdraw  that report. Indyk had just reported to the U.S. Congress that the Palestinian groups organizing the terror campaign were NOT under Arafat’s control.

Eight months later, on May 21, 2001, in an address to Ben Gurion University, Indyk continued to take the position that Arafat and the PLO were the “U.S. colleagues in the War on Terror by telling Israel: “What you do is you get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, Hamas, Tanzim gangs, the Islamic Jihad and you get the Israeli government to hold back the Israeli army while he does so. But that requires a great deal of energy and commitment on Arafat’s part — in very risky circumstances to take on the very angry Palestinian street — and that requires a great deal of restraint and forbearance on the part of the government of Israel.”

Indyk’s legacy remains that he opened the door for US recognition of Arafat and the PLO, when he did not tell the truth to the American government about the PLO covenant, which was never canceled. Thanks to Indyk’s testimony  18 years ago, the PLO is live and well and ensconced in DC,.
The US law that defines the PLO as a terror entity remains on the books.
Preceding provided by Israel Resource News Agency, which is affiliated with the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem

Islam's Tenuous Connection to Jerusalem

Islam's Tenuous Connection to Jerusalem

Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran and Mohammed never set foot on Its soil.

Eli E. Hertz

Mark Twain wrote that Jerusalem had “become a pauper village.
Despite 1,300 years of Muslim Arab rule, Jerusalem was never the capital of an Arab entity, nor was it ever mentioned in the Palestine Liberation Organization’s covenant until Israel regained control of East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Overall, the role of Jerusalem in Islam is best understood as the outcome of political exigencies impacting religious belief.

Mohammed, who founded Islam in 622 CE, was born and raised in present-day Saudi Arabia and never set foot in Jerusalem. His connection to the city came years after his death when the Dome of the Rock shrine and the al-Aqsa mosque were built in 688 and 691, respectively, their construction spurred by political and religious rivalries.

In 638 CE, the Caliph (or successor to Mohammed) Omar and his invading armies captured Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire. One reason they wanted to erect a holy structure in Jerusalem was to proclaim Islam’s supremacy over Christianity and its most important shrine, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

More important was the power struggle within Islam itself. The Damascus-based Umayyad Caliphs who controlled Jerusalem wanted to establish an alternative holy site if their rivals blocked access to Mecca. That was important because the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, was (and remains today) one of the Five Pillars of Islam. As a result, they built what became known as the Dome of the Rock shrine and the adjacent mosque.

To enhance the prestige of the ‘substitute Mecca,’ the Jerusalem mosque was named al-Aqsa. It means ‘the furthest mosque’ in Arabic, but has far broader implications, since it is the same phrase used in a key passage of the Quran called “The Night Journey.” In that passage, Mohammed arrives at ‘al-Aqsa’ on a winged steed accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel; from there they ascend into heaven for a divine meeting with Allah, after which Mohammed returns to Mecca.

Naming the Jerusalem mosque al-Aqsa was an attempt to say the Dome of the Rock was the very spot from which Mohammed ascended to heaven, thus tying Jerusalem to divine revelation in Islamic belief. The problem however, is that Mohammed died in the year 632, nearly 50 years before the first construction of the al-Aqsa Mosque was completed.

Jerusalem never replaced the importance of Mecca in the Islamic world. When the Umayyad dynasty fell in 750, Jerusalem also fell into near obscurity for 350 years, until the Crusades. During those centuries, many Islamic sites in Jerusalem fell into disrepair and in 1016 the Dome of the Rock collapsed.

Still, for 1,300 years, various Islamic dynasties (Syrian, Egyptian and Turkish) continued to govern Jerusalem as part of their overall control of the Land of Israel, disrupted only by the Crusaders.

What is amazing is that over that period, not one Islamic dynasty ever made Jerusalem its capital. By the 19th century,

Jerusalem had been so neglected by Islamic rulers that several prominent Western writers who visited Jerusalem were moved to write about it. French writer Gustav Flaubert, for example, found “ruins everywhere” during his visit in 1850 when it was part of the Turkish Empire (1516-1917). Seventeen years later Mark Twain wrote that Jerusalem had “become a pauper village.”

Indeed, Jerusalem’s importance in the Islamic world only appears evident when non-Muslims (including the Crusaders, the British and the Jews) control or capture the city. Only at those points in history did Islamic leaders claim Jerusalem as their third most holy city after Mecca and Medina. 
That was again the case in 1967, when Israel captured Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem (and the Old City) during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Oddly, the PLO’s National Covenant, written in 1964, never mentioned Jerusalem. Only after Israel regained control of the entire city did the PLO ‘update’ its Covenant to include Jerusalem.

Let Abbas Resign!

Let Abbas Resign!

There are excellent reasons to welcome Abbas' resignation, except that even he didn't take his threats seriously.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The "Palestinian Nation" is an imaginary entity. Is there a "Syrian Nation"? An "Iraqi Nation"? A "Libyan Nation"? A "Sudanese Nation"? They are all virtual creations of colonialism.
Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the PLO, has threatened that Mahmoud Abbas, the self-titled President (!) of the Palestinian Authority (PA), is going to resign and return the keys of his kingdom to Israel, forcing Israel to take charge of security, education, water, electricity, sewage, health, sanitation and transportation in all of Judea and Samaria.

He seems to think that he is frightening somebody, even though his threats are no more than the squeaks of a mouse that roars.  

No one should be upset about these threats - for several good reasons:

First of all, Abbas does not seriously intend to act on his threat. Except for one instance in the history of the Arab world, Sudanese General Abdel Rahman Suwar al-Dahab who kept his promise to resign in 1986 – no Arab leader has ever resigned unless his successor is a family member.

Last year the Emir of Qatar resigned and gave the reins to his son. The resignation of an Arab ruler in favor of someone who is not his son is totally opposed to Middle Eastern culture where familial considerations trump every other factor – economic, nationalistic, power-wielding, administrative, legal and democratic.

The second reason is that if Abbas resigns and puts an end to the PA, how will his two sons, Yasser and Tarek, continue stealing the millions of dollars sent annually  by the US and Europe for the "poor Palestinians"? How will the secret network of companies they created so as to get part of each dollar and euro that reaches the PA continue to exist?  

The Arab world is long aware of the PA's corruption and is therefore willing to give it promises, commitments, hugs and kisses – but no cash. The US and European governments, who don't ask questions and don't understand this simple fact, continue to inflate the bank account balances of PA top officials.

However, the deeper reason that Abbas is not going to resign is the fact that if he does, he will burst the "Palestinian State" soap bubble with his own hands, causing the entire world to realize that the whole "Palestinian Nation" myth is a bad joke that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) managed to "sell" to a naïve world which believed it for way too long.

Almost seven years have passed since the Hamas movement fired the first bullet at the soap bubble called "a contiguous Palestinian State" when it overthrew the PA's regime in Gaza, murdered the PA security (security!) personnel in cold blood - with the few who survived finding refuge in Israel. The Jewish State handed them over to Ramallah unharmed.

It is easier today to understand that the "Palestinian Nation" is an imaginary entity.  Is there a "Syrian Nation"? An "Iraqi Nation"? A "Libyan Nation"? A "Sudanese Nation"? They are all virtual creations of colonialism coupled with a small number of local intellectuals with no real ties to the populations involved.  The people themselves remained, for the most part, faithful to tribal, extended family (hamula), ethnic, religious and community loyalties.

The modern Arab state failed in its most crucial mission – that of sowing roots in the hearts of the public, of becoming its primary object of identity and of convincing the public to exchange traditional frameworks for those of the modern state.

The current situation in the PA is not fundamentally different from that in the rest of the Arab world; and there is hard proof of this similarity. There is an accepted rule that when a population has a national consciousness based on the feeling of a collective, individuals are willing to sacrifice their time, strength, assets and even their lives – if necessary – for this collective. They volunteer their services and do not ask tp be recompensed for what they do for the collective.

Did the fighters of the French Resistance who risked their lives to fight the Nazis in WWII do so for money? And the Haganah fighters? The Etzel? The Lehi underground? They all acted for the goals of the collective, and since that collective really existed, they achieved a tangible and real goal.

The PA is just the opposite. People serve the PA for as long as they can count on receiving a monthly salary, which is why the PA is in need of billions of dollars in donations yearly. Without those payments, nary a worker would give his time to the PA – let alone his energies, assets and certainly not his life.  PA civil servants are not volunteers; the system is rife with nepotism  and other corrupt means of giving friends and cronies well-paid positions.

The only glue keeping the hamulot (extended tribal families) together in Judea and Samaria is hatred of Israel and the struggle against the existence of a Jewish state. It explains why the PA media continue to incite against Israel,  as hatred for Zionism is the only commonality in the Palestinian experience and defines the PA's raison d'etre.

The Angry Americans 

The Americans were extremely upset by Abbas' empty threats to resign. They and the Europeans have invested millions in creating the institutions for a functioning Palestinian Authority – actually, in enlarging the bank accounts of its leaders, their friends and cronies – and are not able to handle the thought that all this investment is going down the drain. Nor can they admit to themselves that that investment is already down the drain. They are attempting to resuscitate the dead political body called "A Palestinian state in progress" despite all the signs that show that there isn't the faintest possibility that this entity will ever arise, for a simple reason: the Palestinians do not want a state because they fear that as soon as they have a state the world will put a stop to the flow of donations to which they have developed a severe addiction.

The Americans are threatening to stop the donations right now, knowing full well that money is the most important element in creating a "Palestinian Nation" on which to base another "Palestinian State" in Judea and Samaria. They are putting all their efforts into this endeavor, despite the fact that they have no means of guaranteeing that this additional state will not turn into another Hamastan modeled on the one that was established in Gaza.  It might come to pass by having "Democratic elections", such as those that took place in January 2006, or through a violent takeover like the June 2007 one that took place in Gaza.

Behind the scenes, the Americans are happy about the renewed talks between Hamas and Fatah, despite their defining Hamas as a terror organization. Both organizations are bankrupt: Hamas is bankrupt economically as a result of the closing of the smuggling tunnels from the Sinai to Gaza and Egypt's punitive measures. The PLO is ideologically, administratively and governmentally bankrupt. That is the basis of the current talks between the two groups taking place in Gaza and the worse their situations are, the better the chance for them to reach an agreement, as they seem to have done.

The Americans – and some weary Israeli souls – feel that the split between Ramallah and Gaza gave the Israeli government a good reason not to make any progress in negotiations, as anything Ramallah signed with Israel would not obligate Gaza.

However, the PLO-Hamas talks are simply another round of efforts to unify the Palestinian arena and it is highly doubtful that any agreement reached is going to last. This has happened several times in the past, when the PLO and Hamas talked and talked, negotiated endlessly, reaching agreements that were never carried out.

Israel's Interests

Anyone who can see realizes that a Palestinian state on the hills of Judea and Samaria will pose a strategic threat to Israel, putting 80% of its population under constant threat of Katyusha, Kassam and other missile barrages that no fence can stop.

No one can guarantee that what happened to Gaza will not recur tenfold in Judea and Samaria. And Israel must take it as a given that any agreements signed with Abbas will not be honored by his successors who will come up with a thousand reasons for not doing so– especially if Hamas wins a majority of parliamentary seats.

It is in Israel's interest to bring the PA to a state of total collapse, so that on its ruins the Eight Emirates Solution can be brought about. One Emirate already exists in Gaza and another seven separate Emirates must arise in Judea and Samaria: Jenin, Tul Karem, Shechem (Nablus), Kalkilya, Ramallah, Jericho and the Arab part of Hevron. Israel will have to remain in the countryside to ensure that there is no possibility of contiguity between the Emirates.  The local hamulot will control their cities, providing each with legitimate and recognized power to rule, in contrast to the PLO approach.

The world will not accept this Israeli solution easily, but with regard to Abbas' resignation and the dismantling of the PA, Israel must act exactly the way Defense Minister A-Sisi did when he toppled Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi  against the wishes of the USA (which is still demanding Morsi's  reinstatement). Sisi acts in line with Egyptian, not American, interests. Israel must do likewise.

The government of Israel must  recognized that  the dissolution of the PA is a national mission and begin an international and local  public relations campaign to advance the idea of the Eight Emirates. It should form a governing body for Judea and Samaria during the interim period between dissolving the PA and establishing the Emirates.

The international crisis developing in Europe and the increasingly loud sounds of war, will allow Israel to act in line with its own interests with a certain degree of freedom, as the world's attention will be focused on the Ukraine and the relations between Europe, the USA and Russia.

And Israel must be prepared for an airlift to save Ukraine's Jews, before it is too late. The burning of a synagogue is a loud and clear warning.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014


THIS IS A RECENT EXAMPLE OF THE DANGEROUS KABBALAH CENTER CULT.....STAY AWAY!!!! Kabbalah-following financial adviser eyed after elderly widow 'with dementia' gifts $600,000 to charity run by the controversial religion

Read more:

A financial adviser closely connected with Kabbalah has been making financial decisions for an 87-year-old widow who friends say has some form of dementia.
John E. Larkin, who has been Susan Strong Davis' financial adviser for many years, has reportedly told the widow and one-time socialite to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a charity connected to Kabbalah.
The expenditures of the controversial Kabbalah Centre, which is the home base for the activities of the mystic Judaism branch of the religion, have been under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service for some years.
Controversy: A Californian socialite has donated millions to the religion though she has no known affiliation with is an is thought to have dementia
Controversy: A Californian socialite has donated millions to the religion though she has no known affiliation with is an is thought to have dementia
Given Mr Larkin's close ties with the Kabbalah Centre, and Mrs Davis' recent donations, the IRS is looking carefully at suspicious incidents.
Mr Larkin, 64, has been a devote follower of the Kabbalah Centre for a decade, and though he is not under formal investigation by the federal tax agency, the Berg family who leads the Centre are under suspicion for tax evasion. 
    The case of Mrs Davis is unusual because the few friends she has- including three neices who live out of state- all say that her mental capacity to make decisions is severely depleted.
    'She definitely has some sort of dementia,' her niece Viki Brushwood told The Los Angeles Times.
    'I don't know if it's Alzheimer's or what. She is somebody who is not making decisions anymore,' she said, reflecting on her last visit with her aunt in December.
    She, or someone close to her, has certainly been making significant decisions recently.
    The paper said that property records show that she has borrowed millions of dollars to build a luxurious 4-bedroom house on the Beverly Hills estate that she bought from Mr Larkin.
    She also gave $600,000 to charities run by the Kabbalah Centre, to which her friends and relatives said she has no known personal ties.
    She was the biggest donor to the charity, called Spirituality for Kids, in 2006. She beat out Madonna, who has long been the pop-culture figurehead for the church.

    Read more:


    Also see this article..

    The Only Viable Option

    The Only Viable Option

    George Orwell: "To survive it is often necessary to fight and to fight you have to dirty yourself."

    Att'y Steven M. Goldberg

    Certainly there is no moral principle that requires Israel to coddle people who yearn for its destruction and who celebrate the murder of Jews.
    Although it was not his intent, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has done Israel an enormous favor.  Specifically, by obsessively pursuing the "peace process" to its unavoidable dead end, Kerry has demonstrated that the two-state solution is, and has always been, a mirage

    For 90 years the international community's best and brightest, far more capable than Kerry, have attempted to craft a territorial compromise to allow a Jewish state and Arab state to divide the land allocated to the Jews by the League of Nations in its Mandate for Palestine.  The results have always been the same: violent Arab rejection of any formula that would allow a Jewish state to exist in any borders.

    The reason, of course, is that the heart of the problem is not a territorial dispute.  Instead, it is religious and existential.  The Arab world considers all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be holy Muslim land, and it would violate Islamic law to allow an infidel Jewish state to exist in any portion of it, no matter how small.

    History teaches that this is a zero-sum game.  There will be either a Jewish state or another Arab state on the land; there will not be both. Kerry's desperate, pathetic failure is just further proof of this reality.  
    With this undeniable truth in mind, what can Israel do to assure that it will be the prevailing party in this life-or-death conflict?  One alternative to the two-state solution, propose by Naftali Bennett, calls for Israel to annex Area C, which would incorporate the most heavily populated Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria into the borders of Israel and the fewest Palestinian Arabs. 
    Although this has the practical appeal of being a significant first step, and would effectively prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, this proposal creates a myriad of practical problems, including the defense of a byzantine border and developing a workable relationship with the areas outside of the newly created borders. Further, this half-measure will provoke the opprobrium of the international community as surely as the annexation of all of Judea and Samaria but without the territorial benefit.

    Another alternative is to annex all of Judea and Samaria and to offer citizenship to all the Palestinian Arabs who reside there.  This would provide Israel with greater geographic depth and appear to moot the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state that is denying equal rights to the Palestinian Arabs.  It is premised on the notion that the demographic time bomb is overstated and that Israel can successfully absorb more than 1.6 million Arabs without saddling itself with a crushing economic burden and losing its Jewish and democratic character.
    That premise, however, is rooted more in wishful thinking than in historical evidence.  Even if adding the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria to Israel's citizenry means that "only" 33% of Israel's population is Arab, such a sizable minority of hostile citizens will likely create problems that will cripple the Jewish state. The Arab war on Israel will take on a new aspect, i.e., a civil war inside Israel itself.  Further, even a relatively small voting bloc of Jewish leftists, when added to the 33% hostile Arab vote, can wreak havoc with Israel's electoral system.
    So again the same nagging question: what can be done?  
    The answer is to react strategically and proportionately to the political escalation being orchestrated by the Palestinian Authority.  If Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts demand Palestinian independence, the Israelis can give it to them--in spades.  Israel can immediately terminate all aid whatsoever not only to the Palestinian Authority, but also to the Palestinian Arab population.  That would mean no money, no electricity, no water, no food, no medicine, no patronizing of Palestinian Arab business and no employment of Palestinian Arabs.  Let the newly declared Palestinian state provide for its people.

    To ameliorate the consequences of these measures, Israel can offer generous financial incentives to individual Palestinian Arab families (and Israeli Arab families) who elect to emigrate. A healthy cash position will make a Palestinian Arab family a welcome addition to another Muslim state. This humanitarian alternative will provide a powerful answer to the howls of outrage that might otherwise come from the international community as a result of Israel's actions.  
    The Palestinian Arabs will have a viable option to live in peace and prosperity, just not in the homeland of the hated Jews.

    For those who doubt the fairness of responding to the unilateral actions of the Palestinian Authority in such a decisive manner, this one question should serve as a cure.  If the tables were turned, how would the Arabs treat the Jewish minority among them?  
    We know the answer to that question.  The Arabs provided it when they massacred the Jews in Jerusalem in 1920, in Jaffa in 1921 and in Hevron in 1929. The Arab world threatened to annihilate the jews before the Six Day War of 1967, and Hamas proudly declares its genocidal intentions towards the Jews in its charter. 

    As for the "moderate" Palestinian Authority, its continuing hero-worship of vile terrorists who murder Jews demonstrates convincingly how it would treat a vulnerable Jewish minority.  Indeed, Abbas has made clear that any Palestinian state would be judenrein and all Jews living in Judea and Samaria would be ethnically cleansed.  To the extent the international community would tolerate forcibly expelling Jews from their homes in a Palestinian state,  it has no standing to criticize Israel for taking actions to convince Palestinian Arabs to emigrate voluntarily.
    Transfer is not a fascist plan.  Winston Churchill advocated it, and the Allies implemented it after World War II, when they sliced off part of Germany, allocated it to Poland, and forcibly expelled millions of Germans west of the Oder-Neisse line.  Turkey and Greece also exchanged populations.  Transfer has eliminated or greatly reduced violence between hostile ethnic groups in the past, and it will do so if Israel adopts such a policy with regard to the Arabs within its borders.  Certainly there is no moral principle that requires Israel to coddle people who yearn for its destruction and who celebrate the murder of Jews.
    Implementing such a policy is not easy. Severing ties with the Palestinian Arabs will cause hardship and will be condemned by sanctimonious anti-Semites around the world.  Nevertheless, it is a powerful and non-violent response to the increasingly aggressive actions of the Palestinian Authority.  It will provide the Palestinian Arab families with a humanitarian option of relocating in relative prosperity. Transfer has historical precedents, reduces bloodshed and is much more humane than the measures to which the Jews have been subjected when left to the tender mercies of the Arabs.
    Encouraging voluntary transfer will be messy, but for Israel to survive, it has to fight, which means getting its hands dirty.  Dirty hands are nothing compared to the bloody hands of Israel's enemies.

    Who Will Be There For Israel?

    Who Will Be There For Israel?

    Talmudic Sage Hillel the Elder had timeless words for us to take to heart. Obama paraphrased them, but missed the most important phrase of all.

    Mark Langfan

    “If not now, when?  And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?”

    Those were the timeless words of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Hillel, paraphrased, added to and ironically invoked by President Obama to ambush the Jewish Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, on his trip to Washington DC earlier this year.  They are more ironic than ever after the terrorist ambush of Officer Baruch Mizrahi, father of five, several hours before the Passover Seder.

    Obama cited Rabbi Hillel to mock the 'nettlesome' stubbornness preventing Netanyahu from acceding to Obama's vision the "inevitability" of "peace," and the creation of a PA terror state in Judea and Samaria. Obama, however, skipped the real wisdom of Rabbi Hillel's maxim, the phrase immediately applicable to Israel: "If am not for myself, who will be for me?"  

    Transposed to Israel's current predicament, the question becomes, "If Israel is not for Israel, who will be for Israel?"  After the "best-friend-Israel-ever-had" went "poof,"  we are all forced to face the ugly truth. Obama and Kerry don't have Israel's back, unless it is with a knife.  But, Obama has Iran's back. And, Israel is all alone (except for, maybe, the "moderate" Sunnis, whatever that implies).

    The media reported that Netanyahu was "deeply disappointed" by Kerry's "poof speech" in which Kerry blamed Israel alone for the breakdown of talks.  I have one question: When would Israel like to be "deeply disappointed" by the fact that Obama wants Israel eradicated: before or after Israel gives up defensible mountains of Judea and Samaria that overlook Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Before or after more freed terrorist murderers encourage others that there is nothing to lose (and a stipend from Abbas to gain) by killing Jews?

    If Obama and Kerry stab Israel in the back now in a collegial Senate hearing, how would Obama and Kerry betray Israel when the Palestinian Katyusha rockets fly from Kalkilya in the PA state into Tel Aviv, or Palestinian terrorist mortars from the "liberated" Temple Mount pound into the Israeli Knesset? 

    What would Kerry or Obama would do to protect Israel: Zero. No, I strike "Zero," they would vote against Israel in the UN.

    So the issue is Rabbi Hillel's first question in the paraphrased maxim: "If Israel is not for Israel, who will be for Israel? The problem is that the Israelis themselves are not for the Israelis. Forget about American Jews!  Forget the Jewish diaspora!  Look at the suicidal Jewish members of Knesset.  For example, Meretz’s Zahava Gal-On just likened PM Netanyahu, Liberman, Bennett, Lapid to the Haggadah’s 4 brothers — except instead of the wise, wicket, simple and childish sons of the Haggadah, she opines that three are wicked and ‘one doesn’t know how to quit.’

    And how about Israel's "Justice Minister" who threatens Israelis with BDS instead of fighting it?  How long would anyone keep a lawyer who spent all his waking hours working on how to destroy your case and win the case for your opponent? But, Israelis actually voted for Tzipi Livni, enabling her to capture a position like "Justice Minister."  It's Chelm.

    How can American Jews be for a "defensible Israel" when a right-of-center Israel government's Justice Minister isn't for a "defensible Israel"?  And on top of that, Livni hysterically expounds that a "defensible Israel" is a "bi-national state."  

    Is Israeli PM Netanyahu for a really "defensible Israel"?  Did Netanyahu defend Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon, when Ya'alon accurately called Kerry a "messianic, obsessed" person who doesn't understand Israel's defense needs?  No, Netanyahu attacked Ya'alon for telling the truth - that the "Emperor had no clothes and was delusional."  Netanyahu criticized Ya'alon by saying "sometimes we should talk less, and act more." 

    "Talk less" about publicly defending Israel's defensive needs??  That's exactly Israel's problem.  How do you "talk less" than nothing?  No Israeli official is publicly explaining in the official name of the State of Israel why Israel needs Judea and Samaria to defend itself.  From Netanyahu's and Israel's deafening silence, any rational person would conclude that Judea and Samaria are not important for Israel's survival. 

    All the Israeli Nobel science prizes in the world and billion-dollar start-ups in the world won't make a damn bit of difference if Israel - whether willingly or by force - creates an Iranian-terror-state in Judea and Samaria which can rocket Israel to "Kingdom come, 'Obama's' will be done.'

    Perhaps I should properly rephrase, transpose, and repeat Obama's Talmudic question:  If Israel is not for Israel, who will be for Israel?  And, if not you, Mr. Prime Minister Netanyahu, then who?  And, if not now, when?  For, if Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't explain the truth now about Judea and Samaria's critical defensive importance to Israel, when will he ever explain the truth?

    An Open Letter To The World.

    An Open Letter To The World.

    Dear World,

    It appears that you are hard to please. I understand that you are upset over us here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry and outraged. Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset over us. Today, it is the brutal repression of the Palestinians; yesterday, it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph, and who therefore, live, upset you most extraordinarily.

    Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we the Jewish people upset you. We upset a German people, who elected a Hitler and we upset an Austrian people, who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations - Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, Romanians.

    And we go back a long, long way in history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki, who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders, who on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us. We upset, for centuries, a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through Inquisitions. And we upset the arch-enemy of the church, Martin Luther, who in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit.

    It is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you - in a manner of speaking - and establish a Jewish State. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, and disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you and thus love you - and have you love us? And so we decided to come home, to the same homeland from which we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.

    Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you and your Pogroms and Inquisitions and Crusades and Holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state, we continue to upset you.

    You are upset that we repress the Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset.

    Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel. In 1920, 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered hundreds of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron in 1929.

    Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots in 1936-39? Was it because of Arab upset over 1967? And when you, World, proposed a U.N. Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a Palestinian State alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that upset stomach caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then?

    The Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given them for their state - attempted to drive the Jewish State into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "idbah-al-yahud" - "Slaughter the Jews!" that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy Israel.

    What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today - but we should not "repress" them. Dear world, you stood by the Holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction.

    And since we know that the Arabs-Palestinians daily dream of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world, well - think of how many times in the past you bothered us.

    In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.

    Bav Mair Kahane (Z"L)
    May G-d avenge his blood.

    Monday, April 28, 2014

    Eight Things Holocaust Survivors Need You to Know

    Eight Things Holocaust Survivors Need You to Know

    By: Debbie Callahan

    Dying at an alarmingly fast rate (nearly one per hour in Israel), Holocaust survivors, some of the last first-hand witnesses to the atrocities committed during World War II, will soon become just another memory, and their words left to just mere paragraphs in text books. So many have been unable to share their traumatic stories, but for those who have, their reason for doing so is clear. They speak for those who died and can no longer speak for themselves, and they share some powerful messages. Among them are the following:

    1. The Holocaust really did happen.

    With the passage of time, fewer and fewer people are left to testify about life and death in the camps at the hands of the Nazis. Therefore, the more removed people become from this time in our history, the more unbelievable the event of the Holocaust becomes. Who in this generation could imagine such events ever being allowed to transpire? Surely, according to our younger population, someone could have and would have stopped such madness. To make matters worse, Holocaust deniers insist and work to prove that these crimes were never committed. Even American chief prosecutor Robert Jackson, during the Nuremburg Trials, worried that "unless record was made … future generations would not believe how horrible the truth was." Little distresses Holocaust survivors more than hearing these people negate every atrocity that they lived through, while watching their loves ones and friends die at the hands of the Nazis. Although those involved tried to hide their crimes, Germans kept meticulous records. Some survivors have even received copies of their records from Germany in recent years. For example, there are records of Dachau inmates available online. Stripped of family, friends, education, and freedom, Holocaust survivors need you to know that this did, in fact, happen, and never forget that it did.

    2. The number of victims is not exaggerated, and if anything is understated.

    Another theory out there is that Holocaust survivors exaggerate the events of the Holocaust to play the role of martyr and use it to advance the interest of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. This trend, somewhat newer than denial, is known as distortion. Believers of this distortion theory insist any of the deaths were as a result of Nazi policy, but of only starvation and disease. They do not believe that gas chambers existed anywhere. Those who do admit to chambers of any sort, state that they were only used for disinfecting purposes to fight off the disease carrying lice. Yet, testimony of Rudolf Hoess, once commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp 2, claims otherwise. He clearly admits that gas chambers were indeed used for killing there. Holocaust survivors need you to look at and listen to the evidence for yourself. Research the Nuremburg Trials and go to the website for The United States Memorial Holocaust Museum, among other places, where access to such records is readily available. They want to make sure that you are not easily swayed by Deniers, Distortion theorists, or "Holocaust Revisionists." Just look at and listen to the facts.

    3. One of the greatest crimes of the Holocaust was that of indifference

    To witness any injustice and do nothing about it is tragic. Unfortunately, this happened far too often during the time of the Holocaust. From individuals to the leadership of many countries, inaction aided Hitler in his quest for domination. This is a lesson that needs to be heeded today. When people stand by and accept the injustices that they see, it is as if they are saying that they accept what the perpetrator is doing, as if they accept it. It was true in Hitler’s time and true today. For example, in the case of school bullies, if students watch bullying in action and say nothing, it continues, and the bully has what seems like an accepting audience. If those witnesses just said something like, "That’s not cool," and walked away, even if it is a friend, the audience is removed, and things could change. Granted, Hitler was not an easy man to stop, but certainly more lives could have been protected and saved had differences been tolerated, anti-Semitic attitudes changed, and immigration quotas been lifted to show that his methods were not approved of nor accepted.

    4. No one should be judged for being different (whether it is race, religion, color, or anything else.)

    Most survivors who share their stories intertwine a common theme within their personal testimonies. They tell their audiences about the dangers of judging others, and plead for an end to discrimination, prejudice, or hatred based on race, religion, color, or any other difference. They understand better than almost any other group of people alive today where these attitudes can lead when left unchecked. Unfortunately, the Holocaust did not put an end to these behaviors, and the battles against them must still be fought today to prevent further atrocities. Survivors need people to understand that if they can change these attitudes, lives will be saved.

    5. Anti-Semitism still exists.

    For every Holocaust survivor who tirelessly travels to speak to audiences of tens-to hundreds, there are people who show up and protest what they do. Harassing these often eighty to ninety year-old elderly educators, they criticize and demean the survivors, downplaying their experiences and tragic losses. They are frightened to go to speaking engagements at times, because of some of the hatred that they must confront. They must endure pain all over again as insults are hurled at them and they are accused of making up the very tragedies that they must live with every day. Imagine knowing your parents, seven year-old brother, and nine year-old sister were taken away and gassed in Treblinka, only to have people accuse you of making that up and criticizing you simply because of your religion or other differences. Witnesses need you to know that they still have to fight these battles, and they want you to help educate others of the dangers of these attitudes.

    6. Never take your education for granted.

    Those young Holocaust victims who were fortunate enough to survive often lost their chance of getting an education. Long before many of them were taken or forced into hiding, they were stripped of the privilege of attending school. As just one example, one survivor was no longer allowed to go to school shortly after the German occupation of her village. At that time she was twelve years old. When she was fifteen, she was taken to a labor camp. Following three and a half years in labor and concentration camps and a death march, she was liberated in 1945. From there, since she had no home to return to and her parents had been killed by the Nazis, she had to spend another four years in a displaced persons’ (DP) camp in Germany. She feels that with so many years of her life taken, she lost her chance at an education, and there is a tone of bitterness in her voice when she discusses it. She gets quite frustrated at those who throw away their chance at an education or those who do not take it seriously and waste time in school instead of learning. The message of many in her situation is, please don’t take your educational opportunities for granted.

    7. Not all Germans were bad

    Regardless of the horrific stories told by survivors, most will tell you that not all Germans were bad, not even all Nazis. Some survivors attribute their existence today to one or more of them who helped them by providing food, advice, or protection. They not only acknowledge this publicly, but their heartfelt gratitude is evident as they speak. Even in the face of anti-Semitic actions of some, they have not forgotten those who once could have been, but instead, took great risks to do the right thing.

    8. Research before casting a vote

    Although Hitler became more radical with time, and the Nazi’s policies intensified to align with their need and purpose, the attitudes and intentions were never secret. In Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, he made the plan to rid Germany of Jews was clear. The methods may have changed over time, but the goal was there all along. Had more people read his book, written while he was in jail for a failed coup of the government, perhaps fewer would have supported him. This is another lesson for today’s world. Do not without researching a candidate’s policies for yourself. Anyone candidate can be a charming orator. Don’t buy into the propaganda and advertisement. Research the issues, former votes when relevant, and political stance for yourself.

    Any chance to listen to a Holocaust survivor speak should be treated like a treasured gift. After hearing one, you should feel a responsibility to pass on their lessons to future generations. It is really all they ask of you. Don’t let their stories die. Do not let the truths of the Holocaust become watered down with the passing of time. These amazing people survived despite incredible odds and lived for an important purpose to bear witness to the atrocities that can come from hatred, intolerance, and indifference. Elie Wiesel, famous survivor, writer, and peace maker, once said, "When you listen to a witness, you become a witness." Become that witness and educate the next generation to preserve history and prevent its reoccurrence.

    Listening to and watching a Holocaust survivor share his or her story can be life-changing. They spend their lives reliving the same nightmares to educate future generations. They ask only that you continue that mission when they no longer can.

    About the Author: Debbie Callahan is an eighth grade English teacher and college adjunct instructor of Writing. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in English Language/Literature, a Master’s Degree in Education, and is in A.B.D. status for a Doctorate in Teacher Leadership. Recently, she has returned to her true passion of freelance writing and editing, while writing two books of her own on education reform and a memoir of a Holocaust survivor.

    © 2014 The Jewish Press. All rights reserved.

    Islamic Fascism: the Nazi Connection

    Islamic Fascism: the Nazi Connection

    By Gary Aminoff

    Many people buy into the premise that the World Trade Center attack on September 11 was a result of some misguided foreign policy of the United States. Others believe that Islamist terror attacks began in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s as a result of something that we, as a country, have done to provoke such an attack.

    When confronting an enemy it is helpful to know what it is that drives him. The U.S. and the West need to realistically look at the true motives of Islamic terrorists in order to properly confront them. I will show that Islamic Jihad is not motivated by any specific policies of the U.S. or the West, but instead is principally motivated by a fanatic, obsessive hatred of Jews, and that Islamic Jihad was, and continues to be, strongly influenced by the Nazis.

    Despite common misconceptions, modern Islamic Fascism was not born during the 1960s, but during the 1930s. Its rise was not inspired by the failure of Nasserism in Egypt, but by the rise of Nazism in Germany, and prior to 1951 all of its campaigns were directed, not against Western colonialism, but against the Jews.

    It was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: it was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas.

    While British colonial policy contributed to the rise of Islamic radicalism, the Brotherhood's jihad was not directed against the British, but focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews.

    Membership in the Brotherhood rose from 800 members in 1936 to over 200,000 in 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted a major campaign in Egypt, and it was against the Jews, not against the British occupiers. This campaign against the Jews, in the late 1930s, which established the Brotherhood as a mass movement of Islamic Jihadists, was set off by a rebellion in Palestine directed against Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia. That campaign was initiated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.

    Al-Husseini was extremely impressed with Adolf Hitler and his anti-Jewish rhetoric. In 1941 he visited Hitler in Berlin. He was so enthralled with Hitler and the Nazis, and their plans to exterminate the Jews that he decided to remain in Berlin. He lived there from 1941 to 1945, recruiting Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. He was very close to Hitler. Husseini's best friends were Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

    He convinced Hitler that he would be able to persuade his Muslim brothers in the Arab world to carry out the extermination of Jews in the Middle East, just as the Nazis were doing in Europe.

    In November, 1943, In appreciation of the work that al-Husseini was doing in exterminating Jews, Himmler wrote him the following telegram:

    "To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory. Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

    In his memoirs after the war, Al-Husseini noted that "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews." The answer I got from the Fuehrer was: 'The Jews are yours.'"

    The Muslim Brotherhood organized mass demonstrations in Egyptian cities during the late 1930s under the slogans, "Down with the Jews", "Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine", and the like. Leaflets called for a boycott of Jewish goods and Jewish shops, and the Brotherhood's newspaper, Al-Nadhir, carried a regular column on "The Danger of the Jews of Egypt."

    The Brotherhood's campaign against the Jews in the 1936-1938 period used not only Nazi tactics, but also significant Nazi funding. As the respected Norwegian historian Brynjar Lia recounted in his monograph on the Muslim Brotherhood, "Documents seized in the flat of Willhelm Stellbogen, the Director of the German News Agency in Cairo, show that prior to 1939 the Muslim Brotherhood received financial subsidies from the German Legation in Cairo. Stellbogen was instrumental in transferring these funds from the Nazi regime to the Muslim Brotherhood."

    From August 1938 through the end of the Second World War, Amin al-Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and from fascist Italy, which he sent to Egypt and Palestine. From Berlin, al-Husseini played a significant role in inter-Arab politics.

    At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood became the first organization to propagate, in modern times, the archaic idea of a belligerent and violent jihad and the culture of longing for death. In 1938, Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood's charismatic founder, published his concept of Jihad in an article titled "The Industry of Death." He wrote: "To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, Allah gives proud life in this world, and eternal grace in the world to come."

    This slogan was enthusiastically taken up by the "Troops of God", as the Brothers had begun to call themselves. As they held demonstrations in the late 1930's in Cairo, marching in fascistic formation they would sing: "We are not afraid of death, we desire it. Let us die to redeem Islam"

    The death cult that became a hallmark of modern Islamic Fascism was laced with Jew-hatred from the very beginning. This attitude sprung not only from Nazi influences but it also drew directly on Islamic sources.

    First, Islamic Jihadists considered, and still to this day consider, Palestine (that includes present-day Israel)  to be an Islamic territory (Dar al-Islam), where, according to the Koran, Jews must not run a single village, let alone a state. At best, in their view, this land should be Jew-free (Judenrein); at the very least Jews there should be relegated to subservient status (dhimmi) and should live under Sharia law. The existence of a Jewish State in Dar al-Islam contradicts the word of the Koran, which is why Muslims are so intent on destroying Israel. So long as Israel exists in Dar-al-Islam, the precepts of the Koran are not being fulfilled. There are a lot of passages in the Koran and in the history of Muhammed and his conquests that give justification to Islamists for the killing of Jews.

    In 1946, the Muslim Brotherhood made sure that the Grand Mufti, who was then being sought as a war criminal by both Britain and the U.S. was granted asylum and a new lease on his political life in Egypt.

    Al-Husseini had been a close ally of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazis. In addition to directing Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans during the Second World War, he had been personally responsible for blocking negotiations late in the war that might have saved thousands of Jewish children from being exterminated in the gas chambers.

    All of this was known in 1946 by both Britain and the U.S. Nonetheless, both chose to forego criminal prosecution of al-Husseini in order to avoid hurting their relations with the Arab world. France, which was holding Al-Husseini, deliberately let him go at the request of the Arab League.

    For many in the Arab world, what amounted to amnesty for this prominent Islamist who had spent years broadcasting Nazi propaganda to the Arabs was seen as a vindication of his actions. The Arabs started to view Al-Husseini's past with pride rather than with shame. Escaped and wanted Nazi criminals now flooded into the Arab world where they knew they would have sanctuary.

    The Muslim Brotherhood's unconditional solidarity with Al-Husseini and with his Nazi compatriots now in the Middle East led to anti-Jewish riots throughout Egypt and the Middle East just months after the liberation of Auschwitz. In 1946, Yugoslavia requested extradition from Egypt of Amin Al-Husseini for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The Egyptian government refused to release him.

    After the war, Al-Husseini used his recently acquired Nazi methodology to implement his vision of a Middle East free of Jews. Belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy had migrated from Nazi Germany to the Middle East, where it survived and flourished.

    An especially striking example of its continuing influence is the charter adopted in 1988 by the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, now known as Hamas. In this Charter, the following language appears: Hamas defines itself as the "spearhead and the avant-garde of the struggle against World Zionism." "The Jews," the charter explains, "were behind the French Revolution, and the Communist Revolution. They were behind World War I and World War II. There is no war anywhere without the Jews having their hand in it."

    In 1930s and 1940s Europe, the sheer absurdity of the claims made against the Jews by the Nazis made it difficult for educated Europeans to take them seriously. In the Arab world, when the Islamists make the same absurd claims, they are taken very seriously.

    Western understanding of Islamic Fascism fails when, instead of acknowledging the fact that Jew-hatred in the Middle East had reached epidemic proportions well before September 11, and that New York was considered the center of World Jewry by Islamic Jihadists, it advances the claim that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies.

    When the 9/11 Commission report stated that Osama Bin Laden's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies, the report gets history wrong. Understanding the real motive for Islamic Jihad, and explaining it to the American people, is important if we are going to effectively confront Islamic Fascism.