Déjà vu

Dr. Judith A. Klinghoffer is a senior research associate in the department of Political Science at Rutgers University, Camden. She is the co-author of International Citizens' Tribunals: Mobilizing Public Opinion to Advance Human Rights and the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East: Unintended Consequences.

If you like the service HNN provides, please consider making a donation.


Far Eastern Economic Review




TCS:Tech Central Station



The end of the semester is always hectic, so I have not written much. I suspect my readers do not mind for they are busy too. In any case, let's pray that the unpleasant alert will not mar the good news we have been getting recenly. It looks as if with the capture of Saddam, the turn around of Kaddafi (note he has committed himself to democratic reforms!), the renewal of accomodating noises made by Musharaf not only towards the West but even towards India, and the rethink that is taking place in"old Europe" we can say that we are approaching a tipping point. We deserve it. If only the democratic party came aboard and stopped hoping for the failure of the American enterprise. It is not only morally abnoxious but also politically suicidal. Sad.

Happy Holidays.

Posted by Judith at 6:00 P.M. EST


The Jerusalem Post writes:"Here's a question that must confront every decent Briton this week: If Libya can do it, why not the UK? We are referring, of course, to Libya's recently announced decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear program. And we are paraphrasing a headline in The Guardian, which asks, 'If Libya can do it, why not Israel?' In fact, both questions are equally apt, and both merit a similar response. Israel's nuclear option is a function of the failure of the non-proliferation regime, not a source of that failure. Israel is seeking to defend itself, not threaten any other nation. It is the refusal to make a distinction between types of governments, between rogue regimes and those threatened by them, that is the main structural impediment to a successful nuclear non-proliferation regime. Israel, as the country perhaps most threatened by nuclear proliferation, is not just taking a convenient diplomatic position when it says that its preference is a nuclear-free Middle East. In Israel's case, what is needed is to make the region in which we live a less threatening place, in which case we would gladly go the way of those free nations that need no deterrent force, and can invest their limited resources in plowshares, not swords. Until then, if the UK and France need nukes in Europe, we surely need them here."

Posted by Judith at 6:00 P.M. EST


These are interesting Flash “shows” of current terrorist acts and Israel's origins. Excellent for class room use -

“The New Anti-Semitism and the Islamic Expansionism”: Click 1 History in a Nutshell”: Click 2 “Nutshell Two”: Click 3

Posted by Judith at 6:00 P.M. EST


I wish I understood the reason the US intelligence agencies are so anxious to prove that Atta could not have met with the Iraqi consul or more widely that there was not connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Here is Edward Jay Epstein's careful summary of the issue:

It is pure invention that the U.S. government has any record or any evidence that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 8th. 2001

The FBI only has records for April 4, 2001 that show that Atta and his roommate Marwan Al-Shehhi checked out of the Diplomat Inn in Virginia Beach and then cashed a check for $8,000 from al-Shehhi's SunTrust account. The next record of Atta is April 24th, when he is stopped by policeman in Coral Springs, Florida.

Between those 20 days, there was only one eyewitness sighting of Atta : a Czech intelligence (BIS) watcher identified him as meeting with al-Ani in Prague on April 8th.

The FBI claims that a cell phone Atta had used was used to make calls to Florida in April. But of course a cell phone is not unique to a single person and that cell phone could have been used by his roommate. So, as Tenet testified, there is no evidence precluding Atta from going to Prague under an alias on April 4 (with$8,000) and returning April 9th.

Posted by Judith at 6:00 P.M. EST


I'm now working on a book about liberal Arabs, meaning those who struggle for democracy, human rights, and moderating reforms in the Arab world. When I tell people this the usual response is that it must be a short book.

Actually, there is a lot of material. What is astonishing, though, is how few people are represented, both among these advocates and the number of those supporting them. It is startling--but typical of Middle East studies--that in an era when the U.S. government has made supporting democracy in the Middle East its main priority and key theme in the Iraq war, there has been no comprehensive survey or assessment of this faction.

Equally startling is how weak the liberal forces remain. There is no great liberal theorist or reform advocate who galvanizes people in the Arab world, no major original book which provides a manifesto for moderation, and no powerful political party or movement pushing for democratic change. Outside of Kuwait, there is arguably no organized liberal grouping at all. Though some Western observers--motivated both by wishful thinking and beliefs that a moderate triumph is inevitable--magnify each individual action, there just isn't that much to talk about.

This reality does not detract from the heroism of reform advocates. On the contrary, it makes their courage even more impressive because the odds against them are so stupendous. Yet it seems more realistic to call the liberals an endangered species rather than an ever-growing wave of the future.

Indeed, I would suggest that contrary to what many people are saying the following remarkable fact is true:

Middle East has been more effective at exporting authoritarian and extremist thought to the West than the West has been in exporting democratic thinking to the Middle East.

Look, for example, at the global wave of anti-Semitism; the wacky views of the region held by so many in Europe and America; the intellectuals who apologize for terrorism; media coverage which becomes increasingly bizarre; radical Islamist activities in Europe; and the way that Middle East studies are taught in university classrooms.

Who is having more impact on whom?

But back to liberal Arab intellectuals. I don't want to list here all the Arab world's political, economic, and social disasters of the Arab world in the last half-century. One should not have to be a genius to see how the existing systems and dominant ideologies--both radical Arab nationalism and revolutionary Islamism--have failed. Equally, the region's poor performance of the region compared to others and its falling behind in almost every index for measuring progress have been amply documented.

And what is the alternative response? A few hundred, at most, Arab intellectuals writing columns and op ed pieces with devastating critiques of these problems and a much larger degree of private muttering about how rotten the situation is for the Arabs today. Yet this compares to powerful regimes with giant armies and massive Islamist movements with many tens of thousands of followers.

Why is this so? Some of the reasons are apparent: for example, the strength of repression and relative lack of democratic experience in the Arab world (though a half-century ago there were many elected parliaments there). Nationalism and religion were often forces pressing for democracy in the West while in the Middle East they are aligned against it.

But if you want to know the secret of why this situation persists it is due to the real WMD (Weapon of Mass Deception) in the Middle East: xenophobic demagoguery. That's a fancy phrase meaning teaching people that everything is the foreigners' fault. It is the systematically exploited hatred of the West in general and of Israel and the United States in particular that is the most effective tool of the Arab regimes and their Islamist opponents.

The problem is not that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be solved (though that would be a wonderful thing) but that those in power--and that goes for the Palestinian leadership as well--will not let it be resolved. Such an outcome would be too politically dangerous for them.

As for the liberal Arab critique of all this, it is as fascinating to read as it is frustrating to write. As the liberal columnist Ridha Hilal put it in March 2001,"The calls for democracy and economic prosperity disappeared in favor of the slogan: 'No voice should rise above the voice of battle,' a slogan that returns to our life as if we are forever doomed to wallow in the mud of violence, dictatorship and poverty." (Translation by MEMRI)

Or to sum it up even more dramatically, there is a popular song written by an Egyptian entitled,"Better Saddam's Hell than America's Paradise." Nationalism and religion trumps democracy and higher living standards. And even in Iraq, where the dictator is overthrown, the old mental and structural system does not disappear so easily or quickly.

Although I do talk periodically about how regional problems, including the Israel-Palestinian conflict, can be solved, readers frequently ask what politicians should do based on the assessments I give in this column. Answering those questions has a place. But the most important point to make repeatedly is this: a lot more harm has been done in the last quarter-century by leaders thinking these issues were too easy rather than too hard to resolve.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST P>


Just when we begin to despair, ARAB NEWS publishes this article. Here are some snipets:

The jubilation in Baghdad put the Arab media to shame. America, for this brief moment at least if not for longer, is a liberator and not an occupier. I can’t help being smug, since what I saw gave me back some confidence in the possibility of justice in this world. I had almost lost hope. It took George Bush to give me that back. I don’t agree with him on many things, and while many Americans share my stand, I’ll give the man his due. He will go down in Arab history as the liberator of Baghdad, even if the whole mission in Iraq comes to nothing more than this.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


Thank G-d. It is a day to rejoice. We deserved it and so do coalition forces, Iraqis of good will and our resolute President. He did not have an easy time recently but he bore it with great dignity. I think we can and will trust him with our lives another four years.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


On August 19, 2002, Iraq announced the death of arch-terrorist Abu Nidal. No one mourned him and his death was perceived as a concilliatory gesture by Saddam. If the new document unearthed by the Iraqi governmental coucil is to be believed, and I think it is, NOW WE KNOW. Lori Milroy and the Chechs were right. Saddam was behind 9/11 just as he was behind the first bombing of the trade center and the bombing in Oklahoma City.

Poor NYT, only today it tried to put that"bogus" connection to rest.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


Only the 68 generation could have been stupid enough to believe that Europe has not only forgiven but also forgotten. How could Villepin and Ficsher not realize that nothing could frighten Europeans (especially Eastern Europeans) more than a Franco-German-Russian entnete. They like to talk about American hubris, but only super-hubris could have made Schroder forget that it is American presence that makes Germany paltable to the rest of Europe.

This is not a total defeat. But a United Europe needs the US support. Germany and France jumped the gun and paid the price. Germany should have learned from Japan.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


Japan may not have atoned publicly for its W.W.II transgressions, but it understands just how nervous she still makes her Asian neigbors feel. So, first she demonstrate what a good and trustworthy American ally she is and then embarks on quest to enhance her influence in Southeast Asia. The 1000 her 'cool' prime minister is sending to Iraq, are an excellent investment in Japan's future. Bravo.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


I urge you to try to catch the new History Channel documentary on Nazi Guerrillas. The brutality with which the remnants of Hitler supporters were supressed by Russians, French, British and Americans (the order is deliberate) is unimaginable today. Yet, the looting, attacks on collaborators, supply lines, occcupation soldiers and judges continued for three years. We should have studied the matter before we went into Iraq.

More interesting was the allied decision to downplay the terrorism to avoid creating martyrs. I wonder if we could ask the papers not to publicize every bombing.

Ultimately, the allies won because the Germans had enough war.

If the following article be believed, so do the Iraqis.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


The last thing most Iraqis want is to continue to fight for Saddam. Indeed they resent those urging them to do so. The most pertinent part in this report from Bagdad is

"We did not bring the Americans and the British here," a member of the Iraqi Governing Council told me."It is not us who did so. We did not want them. Saddam brought them here. Many Arab and other countries tried to prevent the war but they all failed to stop the United States. Saddam's forces, which he used to oppress the Iraqis, failed to prevent the occupation... We find it odd that some people, for their own reasons, want the Iraqis to live in a state of constant war for Saddam -- to go to war against Iran, then against Kuwait, then against the United States. Everyone who has accounts to settle with the United States wants the Iraqis to settle these accounts. Where were all these people when Saddam and his henchmen were burying the Iraqis alive? Who is to avenge the Iraqi people, who is to avenge the crimes the ousted regime committed against millions of innocent people? We do not want Iraqi society to be militarised again. We will not allow the henchmen of Saddam, who are regrouping, to tyrannise Iraqis once more."

"Those who carry out the sabotage operations are not Iraqis. They are foreigners who come from outside Iraq," a taxi driver told me. It is a common assumption among Baghdad residents that the attacks are mounted by Iranians and by Arabs from beyond Iraq."They come from across the borders to sabotage Iraq. It is not in the culture of Iraqis to blow themselves up. It is not in our culture to kill our compatriots. The man who did such things was Saddam Hussein, and the people who do this now are his accomplices and supporters."

15,000 marched agaist the sabateurs. More need to do so and often.

Posted by Judith at 11:00 P.M. EST


It took a while but the Bush administration seems to be learning China's method of securing allies - using foreign business partners as lobbyists. Anytime the American administration hints at taking any steps to play hard ball with China, American businessmen descend on Washington pleading China's case.

The Bush administration sent Powell begging to Europe and got nada. This time, it gave Baker some serious ammunition. Don't be fooled by the good cup bad cop game, the argument reported bellow in Canada - is taking place all over Europe. French and German businessmen are on the phone telling their governments,"I told you so." Unfortunately, in the Middle East, countries like Egypt still get a pass (despite leading the anti-American band wagon in the Arab world) but, then, can their contractors be serious candidates for primary contracts?

'I told you so,' Klein tells Ottawa Lack of support for Iraq war costing Canada now, premier saysThat was the title of Edmonton Journal story -

Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whom Martin replaces this Friday, downplayed the impact on businesses, saying not many Canadians want to go to Iraq today because it is too dangerous. Firms from all countries are able to become subcontractors. Klein said he warned of the economic risks, earlier this year, if Canada did not support the Americans. The position of the U.S., he said, should figure into Ottawa's decisions about international affairs."I can say it right now, I told you so, that was one of the risks," Klein said."From a political perspective, I can understand the U.S. being miffed ... . I'm speaking for Canadian companies -- I would say to the U.S., 'I can understand your hard feelings.'" Washington appeared Wednesday to soften its position as President George W. Bush phoned the leaders of France, Germany and Russia and promised to"keep lines of communication open" to discuss which countries would be allowed to bid, a White House official said.

Posted by Judith at


Join The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Worldwide Campaign To Make Suicide Bombings WHAT IT REALLY IS -- A Crime Against Humanity.

Read More and Sign the Petition

Posted by Judith at 1:00 P.M. EST


Unable to speak out freely, they vote with their feet. The number of Afghanis and Iraqis seeking political asylum in Europe has dropped 20%. The present may leave much to be desired. But now they have HOPE. If we trust them enough to empower them with the vote, and do not listen to their callous elite, they will change the Middle East.

Today's NYT descirbes that the obligatory carping aside, businessmen are delighted with the new business environment,"no import taxes or bribes, and no fear of government officials suspicious of his foreign dealings." The Christian Science Monitor describes the flood of Iraqi professors returning home. The decade long Iraqi brain drain is over.

Nothing will stop the criticism which is the by product of free speech than a new target in the form of an ELECTED government.

Posted by Judith at 1:00 P.M. EST


Even the minimal power they possess in Iran apparently sufficed for Iran to chose the path of reluctant accommodation instead of the path of confrontation. Note the following:

Meanwhile, Iran is pursuing an effective presence in a number of multilateral venues on popular issues such as the environment and the dialogue of civilisations.

"In short, Iran is trying to appear as a new country that combines its Islamic style with modern state practices and values," said one observer."So far it has succeeded and time will tell whether or not it will take further steps in this direction."

According to Vice President Abtahi, Iran will have no alternative but to keep walking this path, not only because confrontation would be unwise but because"this is the way the Iranian people want to walk and there is no going back".

Posted by Judith at 1:00 P.M. EST


In the meantime, lets listen to the advice of liberals like the prominent Egyptian sociologist Saadeddin Ibrahim who has been calling on the US to make its aid to Arab countries, particularly Egypt, conditional on the national adoption of democratization measures. At the minimum, the US which sends 2 billion dollars a year to Egypt should deduct from that sum the money government appointed editors spend on the printing of anti-American and anti-Semitic diatribes.

Posted by Judith at 1:00 P.M. EST


Finally, we must not forget that the best students of these ideologues are alienated Muslim students living in Europe. They are the ones making their way to Iraq, ready and willing to blow up themselves, coalition members and Iraqi"strangers." After all, their families or friends are unlikely to be amongst the victims. The American commander may be right, their may be only 300 of them, but they are the ones most difficult to deter. So, please, do not ignore them. Advertising the relationship between the"foreignness" of the terrorists will unite the Iraqis against them and make their capture easier. This may disappoint their intelligentsia, but I am sure that the last thing the Iraqi people want, is to become the central battle ground in the war of civilizations.

Its time to speak truth to the Iraqi people.

Posted by Judith at 1:00 P.M. EST


For decades Arab intellectuals pilloried American foreign policy for putting its need for oil ahead of its democratic ideals in the Middle East. But when America takes up their challenge, their response is best summarized by this cartoon. It it Asharq Al-Awsat depicts a bald Middle East as having no use for the" comb of democracy" being offered by the United States.

America is learning what post Oslo Israelis have learned. Arab intellectuals are too attached to their anti-American and anti Semitic hatreds to take"yes" for an answer. They care nothing for their people whom they readily make into the hostages of terrorists and tyrants for the sake of holding on to their"Dream Palace."

Posted by Judith at 2:00 P.M. EST


"Hindu Nationalist Party Makes Unexpected Gains in India Vote" is a headline in today's NYT. What was the reason for the"unexpected" victory? The answer according to the editor of The Indian Express is that this was India's first"quality of life election." For apparently, to get reelected the Indian Nationalist Party"seriously avoided Hindutva (Hinduness) as an issue". In a democracy, the leaders depend on the people and the people are pragmatic and push to the center. Moreover, it should be noted that this pragmatism was reflected in the Party's foreign relations. For just as it was Nixon who went to China, it was Nationalist Vajpayee who not only went to China but also sought to improve his relations with Pakistan while attempting to solve the terrorist issue in Kashmir by building a fence (sounds familiar?) along the line of control.

The behavior of Erdogan's Islamic party parallels that of Vajpayee. Erdogan, too, wants to be reelected. So, his rejection of terrorism is fierce and his push to become an EU member unrelenting. Indeed, the recent terrorist attacks may be the help he needed to achieve his goal. At least that seems to be the message of Josca Ficsher's solidarity visit.

"Illiberal democracy" is not the problem. The bureaucracy's distrust of the people is. The US should trust the Iraqi people but stay in Iraq to insure that it will not replicate the Palestinian (and Nazi Germany's) experience of one election, one time. The Iraqi wish for peace and prosperity will do the rest. Sorry, if I begin to sound like a broken record but leaders must be made dependent on the people because they are less ideologically motivated than their elites.

Posted by Judith at 1:00 P.M. EST


Is it possible that the ease with which Germany and France ignored the EU stabilization pact convinced Putin that he has nothing to lose by making the environmentalists happy? After all, not living up to signed commitments is an acceptable behavior in Europe. It is a small wonder that the Europeans do not get excited when Saddam, the Ayatollas or the North Koreans fail to abide by their international commitment. These leader merely follow the European example.

If Europeans remain hostile to American efforts to democratize the Middle East, it is because they are doing their best to bureaucratize Europe. As I heard Anatol Lieven argue at a Carnegie instititue discussion. Modernization does not mean democracy, human rights or private property. It means bureaucracy and infra-structure. That is the reason that as Delcan Galney argues in a recent FPRI.org paper, EUROPE'S CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY is A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY. Why? Because

The draft constitution represents the political bureaucracy's attempt to consolidate its hold over the decision-making process in the EU, which affects Europeans' daily lives in fundamental ways. Should it come to pass, the constitution would call for a presidential head of Europe, in the role of the president of the European Council, who will have global recognition as president of the Union, in whose election the people will have no say. Their vote and opinion are neither required nor desired.

Posted by Judith at 9:30 P.M. EST

THE LIES OF GENEVA by Shlomo Avineri

Shlomo Avineri is a loyal laborite political scientist who spent years working as senor diplomatic advisor to labor governments. He supported Oslo. He obviously does not support Geneva. Here is the reason why His most convincing argument is

A careful reading of the document shows that in the matter of the refugee problem and certain other matters Israel will in effect be placed under the supervision of an"implementation" group and a commission comprising not only the U.N., the U.S., Russia and the European Union, but also the Arab states. In effect, Israel will cease to be a sovereign country regarding substantive matters and will turn into a kind of international mandated territory. It is clear why this is not being told to the public.

Not only the Arab refugees will be entitled to compensation, but also some Arab countries - for the expenses they incurred in"hosting" the refugees since 1948. The Israelis public has not been told this. It also has not been told that the agreement speaks of developing"appropriate ways of memorializing the [Arab] villages and communities that existed before 1949."

Who would by a used car from these people? Not I.

Posted by Judith at 9:30 P.M. EST


"The UN is just as oppressive to Muslims as the US and UK" insist the Islamists. Here is the nub of their argument:

It is also flawed, as some of the left have argued, that we need a greater role for the UN in Iraq. In addition to the US and the UK, the other veto carrying members of the Security Council all have chequered histories when it comes to dealing with the Islamic world. At the same time that the US and the UK lose hearts, minds and other body parts through the use of F16s, laser guided missiles and oppressive checkpoints, the Russian President carries on his unprecedented butchery in Chechnya. The French who opposed the war, not only oppress Muslim women for wearing the headscarf, but their colonialism and the use of repression in North Africa still lives fresh in recent memory. All the permanent members of the Security Council share the same philosophy to foreign policy that the US and the UK have - the achievement of their national interests and those of their respective corporations. The UN is no honest broker; its credibility is in tatters following the Iraq war, and its sanctions in the 1990s killed more than half a million Iraqis, most of them young children. There are certainly no white knights on the UN Security Council!

Posted by Judith at 9:30 P.M. EST


The US refuses to admit that its Iraqi troubles originate in Syria for fear that the American people demand action. But the editor of Kuwaiti Daily argues that Syria's Secret Service is Behind the 'Iraqi Resistance.'

Why is Assad willing to risk all? Because argues on reporter

The [current] Syrian regime has no place in a changing [reality]... Anyone who desires power... and regional status at the international level must [first] possess power at the domestic level. Is the Syrian regime strong in its own country? Tyranny and repression by police and the secret service are not considered signs of power. If Syria imagines that brutality and ruling by apparatuses and domestic terror qualify it to take on a regional role, [it is mistaken]. In this era of liberty... these are no longer recognized as qualifications for [legitimate rule]. Is the Syrian regime economically strong? Has it built a common denominator - even with a single Syrian citizen - such as creating employment opportunities or safeguarding human dignity...?

Posted by Judith at 9:30 P.M. EST


Their is a wierd parallel between the intelligence community denial of a connection between an Iraqi connection to Oklahoma City and the first and second WTC bombings. The person the Checks insist Atta met is in America hands. Is it possible he was a double agent and hence the CIA insistant denial? After all, the fear that admitting a connection may force the President to overthrow Saddam no longer exists.

Posted by Judith at 9:30 P.M. EST


The good news from Samara is that the US army stopped being exclusively reactive. It has never cleared Samara and in the past, it has not only tried to complete its mission but has also be known to retreat. This time it made the enemy pay a price.

That's good but that is ALL. Samara is still an unliberated enemy ground. Why? because reporter found all over town graffiti warning that the"houses of those collaborating with the enemy will be destroyed." Mahmoud Muhammad, the American appoint chief of police told the Financial Times,"Were the French happy under the Nazis?" He is afraid either afraid or extremely hostile, in either case, he should be fired. It is one thing to point out the inevitable problems of living under the rule of others, it is another to compare the Americans to the Nazis. Even the Bremer administration should have some red lines. But more importantly, can you imagine what it would be like to hold caucuses in Samamra? Only a dim bureaucrat could have put together the"selection" chart printed in the NYT. It is not difficult to imagine the bullets which are sure to fly around those daring to participate in the cumbersome process.

Ayatolla Sistani is right. Elections may not yield desirable results but the anonymity of the voting booth is bound to help. At least, those elected will feel dependent on the electorate. Those selected are bound to be viewed as merely"semi-legitimate," undermine liberals by demonstrating that the US still fears real Arab democracy and help Islamist and tyrants who argue that the real Arab choice is between their own bastards and American appointed bastards. Those selected are sure likely to resemble Mahmoud Muhammad, fearful and dependent on thugs with guns.

I do not worry that the US will not stay the course, it is an elephant, it moves laboriously slowly but it has demonstrated time and again that it will stay the course. Those who assume the Bush's defeat will end the American commitment to the democratization of the Middle East are as wrong as those Cubans who believe that a new, more amenable American policy is in the offing. Note, Hillary Clinton's demand for more troops for Iraq and Afghanistan. At issue is merely the cost to the US, the Middle East and the world. As in all wars, the shorter, the cheaper.

In other words, the selection process is bound to make the"long, hard slog" unnecessarily, longer and harder.

Posted by Judith at 11:30 P.M. EST


Thank God for the internet. The EU refused to publish this report. Luckily both the European Jewish Congress and Daniel Cohn-Bandit put it on their website. Unfortunately it confirms what we all know.

Some commentators discuss the possible influence of the mass media on an escalation of anti-Semitic incidents. The question at issue is whether this escalation was merely an agenda setting effect of the daily media coverage of the violence in the Middle East or whether the reporting itself had an anti-Semitic bias. – The Jewish communities regarded the one-sidedness, the aggressive tone of the reporting on Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and references to old Christian anti-Jewish sentiments as problematic. – The country reports (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) list some cases of anti-Semitic arguments or stereotypes (cartoons) in the quality press, but only very few systematic media analyses are available. Anti-Semitic reporting can mainly be found in the far-right spectrum of the European press. – One study of the German quality press (see country report on Germany) concludes that the reporting concentrated greatly on the violent events and the conflicts and was not free of anti-Semitic clichés; at the same time this negative view also applies to the description of the Palestinian actors. The report on Austria identified anti-Semitic allusions in the far right press. – Observers point to an “increasingly blatant anti-Semitic Arab and Muslim media”, including audiotapes and sermons, in which the call is not only made to join the struggle against Israel but also against Jews across the world. Although leading Muslim organisations express their opposition to this propaganda, observers assume that calling for the use of violence may influence readers and listeners.

Posted by Judith at 11:30 P.M. EST


A few years ago Turkey got fed up with the Syrian aid and comfort to Kurdish terrorist and it not only gave Syria an ultimatum but placed a serious number of troop on the Syrian border. Syria relented. This time Turkey did not have to repeat the excercise. Syria turned over 22 terrorists.

Shouldn't the US learn something from the Turkish experience?

Posted by Judith at 11:30 P.M. EST


The Egyptian media gurus are unhappy. Their monopoly of putrid anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism is being challenged. Press Wars tells the story in the manner reminiscent of a nation story about the rise of FOX news. Fortunately, it does reports the shockingly"heretic" positions of the new weekly:

I am not being treasonous to my Egyptian values," Adeeb said,"if I come out and advocate modernisation and enlightenment in order to help us get rid of our psychological complexes. We cannot stop thinking or coming up with real Egyptian initiatives for reform just because it coincides with what the West or what Americans or anybody else is saying."

Adeeb said the paper was"examining national causes, and serving the idea of reform. We believe in reform, we are calling for reform, and we find liberal ideas to be the right objective."

Does this include presenting pro-American and pro-Israeli ideas, especially regarding sensitive issues like the American occupation of Iraq and normalisation with Israel?"Everybody is welcome to offer his ideas," Adeeb said,"and we will talk to everyone and anyone. The issue is not who you are talking to, but what you are talking about, and how you are conducting your dialogue."

"Normalisation is not against any law. We have a peace treaty with Israel, and diplomatically, we have embassies. Common sense tells us that we have three possibilities: either they are our enemy; or we are neutral; or friends. In all three cases, you have to understand what they are doing. And understanding is not adopting views," said Adeeb.

memri.com has similar good news. We are making progress.

Posted by Judith at 11:30 P.M. EST


Too few headlines about the capture of yet another terrorist enabler.

Posted by Judith at 11:30 P.M. EST


I rarely include my postings on h-diplo in the blog. But this one I think is of general interest -

Someone asked:"Can this generation learn from the Philippines and Indochina, the perils of a new war in the Middle East?"

This is my answer -

This is the generation of 9/11 that just like the generation of Pearl Harbor has learned the perils of inaction and is rediscovering the importance of distinguishing between the shortcomings of democracy and the evil brought about by tyrants possessed of a virulent ideology. I have recently came across a fascinating book called Conscript Europe written by Randolph Leigh (Eisenhower wrote the preface to his following book) in 1938. It is described in the back cover thus:

This book shows how utterly alien the whole European Concept of today is to the American ideal - how futile it is to try to search out any nation there which embodies enough of our philosophy to justify re-rescuing it.

It is not any-British, though it shows England's oligarchy in the acts of despoiling its own lower classes and reducing much of Africa and Asia to peonage.

It is not anti-French, though it describes France's decay under her post-War mendicancy and under her dissolving social discipline. It is not pro-German, though it shows why Hitler's hard rule is possible and how it may remake Europe.

If this book must be classified as pro or anti anything in Europe, it might be said that it is anti the whole predatory pack now dominant there - even in Holy Albion.

What is striking in this"isolationist" book is the inordinate harshness with which Leigh judges the democracies as compared to his refusal to enumerate the sins of what he calls dictatorships. There is no entry for concentration camps,"people's courts," anti-Semitism, brain washing. In other words, Leigh showed the same disinterest in the atrocities of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini as the opponents of the Vietnam war showed in the atrocities of Chinese, North Vietnamese or Soviet dictatorships and the same disinterest that the opponents of the war in Iraq show in the atrocities of the Baath, the Taliban or the North Korean Communists.

Leigh ends his book with a chapter called"If Germany wins" in which he ignores Hitler's racist ideology and ridicules the French and British argument that"only 'seasoned' democracies can be trusted to exercise a tolerant despotism over lower civilizations - at a price." Indeed, he predicts that France will conquer and rule Belgium in the same manner that Germany will conquer and rule Poland or the Sudeten land. It ends thus -

A ruthless policy of German expansion, therefore, carried to the point of approximate satisfaction without any serious loss to a single great power might reduce the number of European nations, or major nations and their satellites, to only ten or so. Out of the situation, ironically enough, there might come a revival of the League of Nation, or a United States of Europe on the model of the old Briand dream. Fewer and fatter nations might federate enough to find a way to increase European trade, genuinely reduce armaments and lower taxes.

But, at best, it would be a costly federation and temporary peace. Once thoroughly restored and refreshed, Europe would go back to her great passion - - free-booting at home and abroad.

Clearly, designating Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, as evil and an imminent danger was deemed as unsophisticated in the nineteen thirties as so designating Mao, Ho, Pol Pot was in nineteen seventies or Saddam, Bin Laden, Khameini and Kim is today. Pity.

Posted by Judith at 5:30 P.M. EST


For those of you who question the purpose of the Israeli security fence, here is the answer.

Posted by Judith at 5:30 P.M. EST


I am becoming an optimists. The EU powers that be are failing in their attempts to hide the decade old problem of Muslim anti-Semitism. It's an old story that was meticulously supressed. Not so easily anymore.

Posted by Judith at 5:30 P.M. EST


If the driver of a car loaded with explosives is only a"terrorist" who is a bone fide terrorist? Reuters relativism apparently knows no bounds.

Posted by Judith at 5:30 P.M. EST


A friend of mine sent me the address of this site . It answers the sad question. Personally, I hope that it will not be needed for too long. But as long as this ruthless war goes on - it sadly is.

Posted by Judith at 5:30 P.M. EST


I do not like to repeat myself. But the evidence mounts. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Jordan do not want to see a secular Shia lead Iraq. Why? because the sole justification of blocking democratic reforms in their monarchies amounts to"apre moi - le deluge." So our sons and daughters are dying in Iraq and today Leslie Gelb even recommends dividing Iraq. This is from The Man Who Would Succeed Saddam published in the Washington Post.

The debate over Chalabi has divided the administration dramatically. Some people maintain that the solution for Iraq is"as simple as ABC -- Anyone But Chalabi."

"I have never seen such personalization of policy," says Richard Holbrooke, former U.N. ambassador and former assistant secretary of state."It has created the impression of a dysfunctional family," one senior administration official admitted.

And the politics become more Byzantine every day. So intense is the division that a very senior administration official suggested that some of his colleagues had allowed their feelings to hurt the war effort:"Some people seem to be more eager to block support for Chalabi than to mobilize every possible source of opposition to Saddam," he said."That is one of the reasons there were not more Iraqis mobilized in the free Iraqi forces when the war began."

Really shameful.

Posted by Judith at 5:30 P.M. EST


Listening to the BBC and reading the papers left me feeling like Alice in Wonderland. Turkish officials and the media united in blaming Turkey's good relations with the US for the burst of terrorism on its land. BUT let's not forget the facts. Before the Iraq war Turkey was forced to choose between the EU and the US - French foreign minister flew to Ankara to deliver the message personally. The Turkish government chose the EU. It refused to permit the US to use Turkey as a base for attacking Iraq from the North. For America this meant a longer war and, more importantly, a war which failed to subdue the Sunni Triangle. Much of the current trouble in Iraq is due to that Turkish decision.

It was only after a visit to Europe put into question the French-German promise to treat Turkey like a Christian state and let it join the EU that the Turkish government decided to mend its fences with the US with a conditional offer to sent Turkish troops to help in Iraq. Of course, sending Turkish troops to Iraq was as culturally sensitive as sending German troops to Bosnia. But, then, no one asked the Serbian population of Bosnia. In any case, Bosnia has long since emerged as the European base for Al Qaeda. Iraqis were asked and to Turkish relief said no. In other words, Turkey is not attacked because it cooperated with the US. Like Saudi Arabia, it was attacked despite the fact that it has NOT cooperated. But, if the truth is recognized it will be Bush and Blair who will be vindicated and not the protesters and that is too bitter a pill for the Bush hating media to swallow. My heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. NO, they did not deserve this.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


Some things never change. These include the American policy demanding that Israel will do nothing to change the status quo in a way which will cause the Arabs to pay permanently for starting a war against Israel. Israel does best when it fails to listen. The US needs to prove its worth to the Arab world by constraining Israel. The easier Israel is to constrain, the more radical American demands.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


The CIA and State Department love"their bastards." Collin Powell objected to the complete overthrow of the Taliban asking"who will we negotiate with?" The Northern alliance and poor Masoud, not the Taliban, was the CIA's real nemesis. The two agencies downplayed the capabilities of the Northern alliance and did their best to delay arming them. They lost their cool when the Northern alliance marched into Kabul. DESPITE them, Afghanis were liberated by Kabul.

The two"know nothing" agencies (the intelligence failure was not limited to the issue of WMD but also to the poor Iraqi infrastructure!) join in their hatred of the Iraqi patriot who wished to enlist American help in overthrowing Saddam. I do not know Ahmad Challabi but when I read repeated, unending warnings not to let him"emerge" as the Iraqi leader because the average Iraqi resents him -- this after I have been assured time and time again that most Iraqi have never heard of him, I begin to wonder. The minutes of a May 17, 2002 meeting between an official from the Near East Bureau and the office of the Inspector General official in which it is the reported the"NEA would appreciate any assistance (to help) shut down the Iraqi National Congress." See Joel's Mowbray's Dangerous Diplomacy, p. 141).

Challabi is a smooth secular Shia with plenty of experience in negotiating the corridors of power. We could do worse. Bremer highhandedness has alienated many Iraqis and prevented the rise of natural leaders. Remember the self-appointed Baghdad mayor. Bremer's men swatted him like a fly. Only the religious leaders who had their own security people and were protected by their lay following escaped the Bremer put down. It is a small wonder that the religious leaders have gained power and the secular Iraqis are united in their resentment of the American administration. Read the patronizing reports advocating that Iraqis be"permitted to make their own MISTAKES." The idea that they actually may know better, does not even cross either the reporter's mind or the mind of the American military or civilian administrator.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


By the way, there is no more contradiction between a Muslim State and democracy than there is between a Christian, Hindu or a Jewish State and democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and Britain like the Scandinavian countries have official religions. The important thing is to secure equal treatment of all the citizens of the state. That can be accomplished by conditioning their membership in international organizations on that principle not to mention reminding Muslim countries that they have diasporas. Muslims cannot continue to demand equal treatment in the non-Muslim world if they do not demand the same for other religions in Dar al Islam.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


Finally, forgoing elections, though not forgoing the writing of a constitution (many democracies do not have them) means giving up on democracy. Giving up on democracy means losing the war in Iraq and proving to Muslims young and old that Bush was not serious about the Iraqi people. It will also mean that Bush will lose the next elections just as his father did after returning Kuwaiti to its version of"Louis the 18th." It was the economy stupid because the Gulf War may have nourished the American body but failed to nourish their soul.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


Can UN and Red Cross hypocrisy be trumped? The same international"humanitarian" organizations which routinely condemn measures designed to protect Israeli citizens from terrorists (security fence, check points, closures) as" collective punishment" are the worst offenders of them all.

Kill a French UN refugee agency worker and the agency responds by"pulling foreign staff out of large swaths of southern and eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday in the wake of the killing of a French worker, a decision that could affect tens of thousands of Afghan returnees."

Kill a few Red Cross workers and they not only run from Iraq and Afghanistan but they seek to get into the good graces of the leftist-Islamist coalition (The"Antiimperialista" organization's Internet campaign asks people to send"10 Euros to the Iraqi resistance") by withdrawing from the West Bank. Why? Not in order to force Yassir Arafat to use the billions he embezzled from international community donations to the Palestinian people. Oh, no. In order to force Israel (as the"occupying" power) to pay for the feeding of the Palestinian who suffer from the war declared by Arafat on Israel. Do note that prior to the second Intifada, the West Bank and Gaza enjoyed a record economic boom.

As you can see from the article When the Red Cross is the target.

"But steering a course between capitulation to attack on one hand and manipulation by occupiers on the other is difficult", writes Francisco Ray Marcos after describing the efforts of"the humanitarian community" to keep its neutral position by chastising not terrorists who use ambulances as missiles but those who fight terrorists.

He is wrong - So called humanitarian organization have long succumbed to manipulation by tyrants and terrorists.

After all, who was the single individual who was permitted to address the UN with a GUN in his hand but archterrorist Yassir Arafat?

This holiday season make sure YOUR money does not go to terrorists!

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


Yes, I know. Iraq is going badly. But we finally identified the problem and following months of denial, are beginning to take some sensible steps to improve matters. I thought the American bombings were over the top, but to my surprise and to the surprise of the BBC reporter who interviewed her, an Iraqi woman, whose windows were shattered, was delighted. Finally, the Americans showed Saddam's loyalists that they can respond, she remarked.

Meanwhile, the strategic war on terror is going well - the war on terror moved to the Middle East and Al qaeda is loosing the Moslem hearts and minds. Apparently, Muslims, like Christian, Jews and Hindus do not like to seeing the body parts of their brethren flying through theri streets.

Of course, in the Bin Laden's home country an Islamist party is organizing.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


Max Boot's is right to recommend a closer working relationships between American and Iraqi security forces. But before expressing my delight with the administrations's decision to trust the Iraqis, may I suggest using our mega bombs on ammunition dumps. Why precisely are we guarding those dumps instead of bombing them? The notion that are soldiers should die in order to save the dumps for future Iraqi army use is beyond comprehension.

By the way, both CIA and the American armed forces are routinely underestimating the capabilities of local forces. Remember how the CIA dragged its feet in arming the Northern alliance in Afghanistan? Our refusal to believe the documents we captured which detailed Saddam's plan to continue fighting a guerrilla war is costing us dearly.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


The European Union refused Turkey's request to include the terrorist group which bombed the synagogues in their list of terrorist organizations. It worried about their human rights. But, then, of course, it's not their fault. How dare Turkey permit Jews to have synagogues in Istanbul? Don't they know the importance of appeasing terrorists.

That is the French postion as reported by Barry Rubin in a letter he sent to friends:

Recently, an Israeli colleague explained to a European audience that it overstated the ease of"solving" Middle East problems. A French military official sneeringly attacked him, making clear his detestation for anyone so foolish as to believe in the"brutal" notion that force determined the course of events in the world. What was needed, he explained, was peaceful diplomacy and the willingness to make concessions.

An American participant asked how, in light of this philosophy, he explained that France had intervened 47 times by military force in Africa without ever seeking a UN resolution. The official looked so angry that I believe he would have punched the American in the face if he had not just made a speech extolling pacifism.

Pity, their efforts were not appreciated by Taliban who murdered the French young woman in Afghanistan today.

Yes, neither UN mandate not NATO immune from Jihadist"resistance."

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


"Afghan women make political gain" because"at least 64 women will be part of next month's national assembly, which will shape the country's constitution". Not bad, if I say so myself. For more click here

"The vital voice of Iraqi women" is also heard in the land and by the American officials. Iraqi women are also writing books like"The Daughter of Iraq" detailing their experiences under the Saddam regime though a world busy condmening the US for liberating them would rather not listen.

I know, I know. Everything is not all better. But as I noted in an HNN article

Bush Jr., went to war to fight terrorism and not to force the Muslem world to treat their women as fellow human beings. The war is far from over and victory is not yet assured. Still, it has already become clear that if the American war in Afghanistan is going to be considered a just war, it is going to be because it enabled Afghani women to claim their place in the sun. The demise of the Taliban meant that Afghanis turned on their television and saw a woman anchoring the news. It also led Laura Bush to become the first First Lady to give a presidential radio address, committing the only superpower to the promotion of the rights of women. Hence, a call for the expulsion of women from intellectual, economic and political life will be tantamount to the espousal of slavery, racism or anti-Semitism. A subject once debatable, is now self evident.
Of course, just as with anti-Semitism, vigilence is of essence.

In the meantime, in Quenteen Peel's exemplar of democracy, "Seven Iranian women in the southwestern city of Shiraz were sentenced to 50 lashes each for undermining strict Islamic codes during the holy month of Ramadan, a hardline paper reported Saturday."

In Jordan relatives ar entitled to kill female relatives who"dishonor" their families by dating a man of which the family disapproves. This enlightned Queen Nur Americans love to faun over is NOT leading the charge for a change in the law!

Its time feminists stopped their" crime of silence" on the treatment of Muslim women.

Posted by Judith at 9:30 P.M. EST


US Secretary of State congratulates Yossi Beilin for trying to undermine his own democratically elected government's foreign policy. Imagine Jimmy Carter cutting a deal opposed by the Bush administration with the North Korean Secretary of information in Paris and having Putin send him a letter of congratulation and encouragement.

Thomas L. Friedman argues that the"house of Sharon and the House of Saud" need each other. I will set aside the ludicrous idea that the House of Saud can legitimize anything in the Moslem world. The more important notion is Friedman's contempt for democracy apparent in the manner in which he equates the elected and reelected Israeli prime minister with an autocratic king. But, then, both are"Progressives" who apparently do not believe in democracy because the people refuse to follow their recommendations as to the"right" people to elect or the"right" policies to follow.

In today's Financial times Quentin Peel gives the Palestinian authority (where Mahmoud Abas, the former prime minister, left politics because he was afraid for his life and said so publicly!) and Iran (where the people have decided to stop voting after realizing that their votes meant nothing) as examples of the right kind of democratization in the Middle East.

Their ideal is the democratically deficient European Union where elites wine, dine and rule without paying any attention to the will of their people. After all, democracy was as alien to much of Europe as it is today to much of the Middle East. It was brought there by American guns! On their own Europeans preferred to kill each other and, most especially, kill Jews.

In fact, just as the Moslem Middle East refuses to accept a Jewish state in their midst, Christian Europe refuses to accept Muslim Turkey in their Midst. Muslims know it and are angry.

Europeans try to deflect that anger towards Israel and the US, blaming one for the Palestinian misery (caused in part by the Arab and European support for their self appointed billionaire leader named Arafat) and the other for the lack of democracy in the Middle East. But, alas, post 9/11 America is no longer willing to accept that role and does not even force Israel to accept it. It is a small wonder that Europeans, like the Middle Eastern tyrants, consider them threats to peace.

After all, Jews have been the chosen sacrificial lamb in Europe for generation. It was DeGaulle who told Eban before the Six Day War that Israel had a case but her existence did not merit endangering the world with a world war. A Jewish state which refuses to be sacrificed is a threat to peace. And Diaspora Jews like Friedman and Soros (whose power and notoriety can also be said to inflame anti-Semitism) who try to redirect European anger towards their Israeli brethren help to legitimize the European anti-Semites.

The real parallel is between the House of Friedman, the House of Powell, the House of Peel and the House of Saud. Democracy is an anathema to them all and paying ransom to murderers their one size fits all solution.

With friends like these, who needs enemies!

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


Egyptian newspaper complain that the American ambassador interferes in Egypt's internal affair. Why? because he complains about their post 9/11 conspiracy theories and their glorification of suicide bombers. Click here to read all about it and remember - Mubarak appoints all the editors!

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


The recent bombing in Riad ignited a fierce debate in the Islamist world. Terrorist groups like Hammas who depnd on Saudi largesse condemn the bombing while others support it because Arabs who live in countries which supported the war on Iraq "deserve to die" in the same manner that people who live in the West do.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


As I mentioned in my last posting I have noticed a troubling feature of the Iraqization process- Sunnis soldiers/policemen who distance themselves from the coalition forces. In other words, with a few pointed attacks on" collaborators," the guerillas have achieved their objectives. I wonder how much the recent guerilla successes owe to good guerrilla intelligence and how much of that comes from"our" Sunnis. (The idea that Bremer is delaying turning over additional power to the governing councils to assure greater Sunni representation is beyond my comprehension - but, then, Bremer, Powell and Tenant are all unfortunate examples of the Peter principle. They have been promoted beyond their competencies which amounts to keeping the media happy and fabulous networking. - Sorry, criticizing individuals is not my usual cup of tea).

Back to my main point - what should be done? Simple - no American humveas, helicopters or anything else in Iraq (or at least in the Sunni triangle) should move without Iraqis on board. Closeness will make the hearts of the two forces grow fonder as will sharing the risks along with the benefits.

Similarly, oil revenues should be shared by the Iraqi people through checks sent by the oil ministry to Iraqi families. Not charity but profit sharing. Once the economy recovers, taxation, including on those revenues, should pay for the running of the Iraqi government."Walking around" money to our friends create vicious tyrants like multi-millionaire Arafat. George Schultz supports this idea - so it cannot be economically unfeasible. Let's give Iraqis a reason to support the Red White and Blue.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


If you wish to hear the unofficial voices of the Arab world, do not look for them in the NYT or on the BBC. Go to and read the truthful words of Editor of the Kuwaiti Daily Al-Siyassa: The New Iraq Will Be 'the Beacon of Freedom, Democracy, and Respect to Human Rights in the Middle East'

He ends his article thus:

"Those who talk about American occupation in Iraq are themselves occupying their countries. They are the colonialists of their peoples, using secret services, agents, whips, jails, and torture dungeons whose walls are smeared with the blood of innocent victims. [When we hear these people] we should remember that no one is a better authority on modesty than a prostitute…"

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


The identification of a problem must predate its solution. Tikkun finally admits that leftist anti-Semitism is the problem. Its worth reading.

It identifies 10 anti-semitic manouvers: Anti-Semites who wish to become proficient in the art of the longest hatred can do so by following some or all of the following ten maneuvers:

1. In times of trouble, blame the Jews (or Israel).

2. Say that Jews are no longer victims of anti-Semitism because they are economically privileged (i.e. all Jews are rich and rich Jews are worse than rich gentiles).

3. Pander to racist stereotypes such as: Jews are arrogant, money-grubbing, power-hungry, self-interested, narrow-minded, clannish, cheap, showy, schemers and plotters who seek world dominion, and religious vampires who drink the blood of non-Jewish children, etc.

4. Remain silent about anti-Semitism even if you recognize it, or better still, react contemptuously when Jews bring it up.

5. Use ideology to mask Jew-blaming, i.e. point to Jews as the"leaders" (and true culprits) of whatever bad thing you hate that you think threatens you, e.g. capitalism, communism, imperialism, terrorism, Bushism, AIDS, you name it (Jews are currently being blamed for all of these).

6. Always judge Jews by a double standard, i.e. if Jews are not better than good, they are worse than bad, e.g. if Israel is racist, it doesn't deserve to exist.

7. A particular variant of the last step, but worthy of its own enumeration: Jews in power are more blameworthy and vile than gentiles in power.

8. Excuse acts of violence against Jews on the basis of one ideology or another, i.e. they have it coming to them.

9. Hold Jews everywhere responsible for the policies of the Israeli government, i.e. if you're Jewish, you're personally responsible for Ariel Sharon.

10. And last but by no means least: blame Jews for anti-Semitism e.g. even the Holocaust is our fault. Or, better still, deny that anti-Semitism exists or ever did, e.g. there was no Holocaust, the Jews made it up so that they could come to Palestine and oppress Arabs while plotting to take over the world.

It includes the following suggestions to fight the old-ne disease:

1) face the fact that Israel is under threat;

2) move beyond ideological reflexes and think beyond the boxes of Left/Right, pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian, etc.;

3) as Jews, learn to be more tolerant,"less rigid and rageful towards one another";

4) be fair to Israel;

5) form Jewish-Christian alliances;

6) form alliances with Palestinians;

7) restore campus civility;

8) fight"the Big Lies" (the Jews killed Jesus, Jews control Wall St., Jews own the media);

9) honor the dreams of peace.

Posted by Judith at 4:30 P.M. EST


It is hard to belive that has not be so long since Kissinger wrote a book asking whether the US needs a foreign policy. Now, we hardly have time for domestic policy. But then as everyone knows that(except some staff members of the Senate intelligence committee) when the house burns it is not the time to reorganize the furniture.

Yesterday, George W. Bush did what he should have done a year ago but thought too risky. He told the American people that we are at war to regain our freedom and domestic tranquility. Our strategy is to democratize the Middle East. As Kasparov, the world's best chess player pointed out, Iraq is a difficult battle field since it is a triangle surrounded by three terror abetting states - Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. Losing is not an option and internationalization is a fantasy. UN will bug out and NATO is not doing a better job in Afghanistan. The faster we pacify Iraq, the less likely it is that the shooting war will have to expand.

To win we need to treat the Sunni triangle as a battlefield, not a courtroom. At the moment we are not doing so and no one knows that better than the Sunni security service members who told French television that it is not their job or intention to fight the pro Saddam forces (yes, this is a line taken directly from the PLO playbook) and that those forces know that. Note the decline in the attacks on American trained Iraqi forces.

In a letter to the NYT Gary Sick argues that victory does not justify"morally hazardous" means. I could not agree more. But there is a difference between actions which are"morally hazardous" at war and actions which are"morally hazardous" at peace. By ignoring that difference during the Cold War, the Carter administration to which Sick belonged, abandoned the Iranian people at their time of need (no, the Ayatolla was not ELECTED) and ushered in decades of military strife in the Middle East and Central Asia. Now that is what I call a REAL"morally hazardous" action!

Posted by Judith at 1:30 P.M. EST


Another"morally hazardous" action is trying to stop Canadian-American cooperation in tracking down suspected terrorists by blaming the torture of a suspected terrorist in Syria not on Syria but on Canada and the US. Would critics have preferred holding the man in Guantanamo Bay?

Let's face it. To protect our civil liberties we, as a society, can afford to free rapists and murderers. We cannot afford to free terrorists - We did so after the first trade center bombing (not only did we not hold Iraq responsible for that bombing but as the NYT revealed yesterday we did not even insist that it turn over the perpetrators) and we got the second trade center bombing - 9/11. The price is too high!

Posted by Judith at 1:30 P.M. EST


In the 1930s Hitler was the number one enemy. So, the West was silent as Stalin used the (anti Semitic) Moscow trials to consolidate his rule. Today Islamism is our number one enemy and Putin is about to use (anti-Semitic) Moscow trials to consolidate his rule. Pity the long suffering Russian people. They have only just began to breath again.

Posted by Judith at 1:30 P.M. EST


Click here for a useful site which gothers the latest information available about international terrorism.

Posted by Judith at 1:30 P.M. EST


Well, its sad to say, but the trouble the Saudis are having with AL Qaida is not all bad. After years of financing havoc in other countries, they are beginning to reap at home what they have sowed elsewhere. 9/11 did nothing to alter their modus operandi. This type of occurance makes us all safer. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


Bosnia was a mess but one of the unspoked reasons Americans helped Jihadists in the Balkans was to demonstrate to Moslems that the US is not their enemies. Serb claims of Al Qaida involvement was dismissed. This is how the Bosnian Moslems are repaying NATO:

Bosnia Connection: Global Information Systems (GIS) sources, stationed in Sarajevo report that Bosnian-based Islamist terrorists are involved with anti-Coalition efforts in Afghanistan. The NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) is reportedly aware of the linkage and conducted a raid of a Tuzla military barracks in September 2003. A surface-to-air missile (SAM) that brought down a helicopter in Afghanistan may have come from Bosnia. Several SAMs were seized in the aforementioned raid. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


There is a determined effot in the American media to ignore the wider fallout from the Vietnam war. The pundits elsewhere are more forthcoming. Note this Russian Russian perspective. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


There are people who can combine practical leadership, idealism, personal courage and unflinching logic. David Ben Gurion was such a man and Nathan Sharansky is such a man. Just read his recent article in Commentary P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


Sorry for the belated answer. I just noticed Steven Vinson's question. I place"occupation" in quotation marks because the sovereignty of the regions known as"West Bank" and"Gaza" are unsettled. They were part of the Ottoman Empire. Then part of the British mandate. UN partition envisioned those regions as part of a Palestinian state. But the Palestinians refused to accept it. So, Egypt governed Gaza and Jordan governed the West Bank (of the Jordan) from 1948-1967. Israel has governed them since. In other words, the legal status of both the lands and their citizens are ambiguous. Had Israel made the residents of these regions into citizens, she would have been closing the door to a possible Palestinian state. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


Here I go again with advice. We are winning everywhere except in the Sunni triangle and the reason is the same as it was in the beginning of the war. Then, I wrote: Watching southern Iraqis scramble to first grab hold of a box of American rations and then shout their loyalty to Saddam made me very uncomfortable. This is a movie I have seen once too often, and it never ends well for the U.S.

America tries to achieve its goals by capturing the"hearts and minds" of Arabs by showering them with goodies and promises, and once again it fails. That strategy is doomed not only because past betrayals have hardened Arab hearts, but because acting upon the heart's desires to begin with is the luxury of the strong. The weak (and those who need to be fed and freed are by definition weak) know that their survival depends on their minds — which is why those southern Iraqis were perfectly willing to kowtow to Saddam even as they took food from us. Like other Middle Easterners, the Iraqis now believe that American material largess is as unconditional as U.S. promises of protection are suspect. American success depends on convincing them otherwise. ( for the rest Click here: here

The Sunni minority see themselves as the losers they inevitably are. Cooperation with the US bear no benefits only dangers. On the other hand, non cooperation gets former members of the security forces rehired. Why exactly, should they cooperate? May I suggest redirecting American largesse to the North and South. No reconstruction should take place in the center. Neighborhoods in which coalition enemies swim should be punished with curfews not bribed with bridge openings which end up costing American lives. Schools in Sunniland should be closed until the security improves and family members of Baathists should be treated as suspects. In other words, its time to treat friend and foe differently.

The same is true about those who help the terrorists. The tale tell signs of Hizballa are clear to anyone who remembers that it was the Hizabala which perfected the"art" of blowing up humvies. Sending Israel to bomb an empty camp in north of Damascus is a joke even worse than a Clinton bombing which rearranged the sand in Afghanistan. Asked how active is Iran in the Iraqi guerrilla war, Rumsfeld said"active!" What happened to the Reagan doctrine? Why not unleash the"Mujahedin Al Kharq?"

In other words, Bush has been playing defense and American forces are hunkering down in Iraq - this is a losing formula if we have seen one and if we lose Iraq, we are going to squander the benefits accrued by the war. Bush has warned that if other nations do not act, the US will act. Other nations failed to stop the American led coalition from acting in Iraq, so"other nations" including France, Germany and China stooped acting as"free riders." That is what Tony Blair must have meant when he noted that"Iran's recent climbdown over nuclear cooperation was a direct result of the war in Iraq". The same can be said about North Korea. It would be so sad to blow it all on an incompetent counter-querrilla strategy. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


This is Debka's take on the subject. I do not vouch for its complete veracity. But it seems to have some interesting info. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


This article by John Simpson illuminates Saudi fear that they have lost their strategic importance to the West. Let's hope they are right. This is the type of relationship that cannotsurvive the light of day. P>

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


Mort Zukerman cannot remain silent any longer, so he wrote the pertinent "Graffiti on History's Wall." I have nothing to add except my profound sadness.

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


I know I have previously shared with you my immediate response to the Malaysian premier speech. Unfortunately, listening to a most informative lecture given by Professor Menahem Ben-Sasson on Jewish and Muslim relations refocused my attention on the prepostreous claim that Jews invented socialism, Communism, human rights, and democracy,"so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others.""Flattery will get you everywhere" writes Saul Singer in today's National Review ignoring the unfortunate fact that for Mahathir as for his fellow Muslim leaders the demand for equal rights regardless of religious belief amounts to an attack on basic Islamic tenents. Christians, Jews, not to mentions Hindu idolators should not be treated as equals. They should be treated as second or third class citizens made to pay additional taxes and humbled while so doing. The degree to which Muslim states followed these strictures varied. Even today, Jews cannot buy land in moderate Jordan, Christians cannot be seen praying in Saudi Arabia and the Copts in Egypt suffer from numerous legal disadvantages.

I could go on. Suffice to say - Just as Muslim law does not accomodate easily gender equality, it does not accomodate easily religious equality. Mahathir did not intend to complement Jews, he intended to taint those (including Muslims) who wish to see democracy and respect for human rights flourish in Muslim lands.

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


It has been only a few months since Burns and Jordan admitted that reporters paid dictators for access with good press. Neil MacFarquhar's reporting from Syria and Egypt and Elaine Sciolino reporting from Iran demonstrate that not only do they continue to do so shamelessly but they share the dictators' anti American agenda. Click here: Syrians Gamely Tackle the Latest Western Import: Golf Poor rich Syrians. Given the unreasonable pressure from the US to stop aiding and abetting Jihadists, isn't it wonderful they can enjoy a few hours of golf? Syria, like Saddam's Iraq (by the way according to Pollack, Bashar and Qusai were great friends!), reminds me of the Collingswood boys starving in plain site. But do not count on the NYT to expose the painful truth or write a word about the Syrian OCCUPATION of Lebanon!

Click here: Arab World Is of Two Minds About U.S. Involvement in Iraq In Cairo, MacFarquhar reports about Egyptian papers attitude towards the American presence in Iraq without mentioning that the editors are appointed by the government and are heavily censored. Senior officials do not have to say much, they leave the job to their puppet press. Egypt has been ruled for decades by a man who unlike his predecessors is afraid to nominate a vice president. Here is a topic for a visiting reporter.

Click here: A Change of Heart in Tehran? Is It Time to Talk? Elaine Sciolino pay for access by blaming the US for everything that is wrong in Iran and contrasting European sensitivity with American bluntness without noting that it was fear of American action and a which to remain players which led Europeans to Teheran. Most glaringly, Sciolino recommended saving the hide of Iranian clerics without mentioning their support for terrorists who no longer kill only Jews but also Americans!

To read that"A commission in Iran's reformist-held parliament accused the hardline-run judiciary Tuesday of grave irregularities in the arrest and killing in custody of Canadian-Iranian photographer Zahra Kazemi, you need to Click here: IranMania News

If Americans do not know much about foreign lands, it is because foreign correspondents do such a dishonest job when pretending to inform them!

Posted by Judith at 8:30 P.M. EST


Dan Pipes is right. Mahathir's antisemitism is not an exception but the rule. But, as I have demonstrated in my article"Blool libel" it is far from new. What is rather encouraging is that it is finally getting the attention it deserves. What is also getting exposed is the antisemitic aspects of the anti-war, anti-globalist movement. Phillip Gailey exposes that connection in the St. Persburg Times.

Here are some pertinent lines:

It would be wrong to suggest that the antiglobalization movement has been hijacked by anti-Semitic forces, but, as Strauss writes,"it helps enable anti-Semitism by peddling conspiracy theories." Some of the conspiracy theories would be laughable if so many people didn't believe them. For example, the Canadian-based Center for Research on Globalization sells books that claim the 9/11 terrorist attacks were"most likely a special covert action" to"further the goals of corporate globalization." People who believe that will believe anything, including the garbage about Jews being the hidden hand controlling the global economy.

It is disturbing that so few leaders of the antiglobalization movement have spoken out against the ugly displays of anti-Semitism within its ranks."The very same antiglobalization movement that prides itself on staging counterprotests against neo-Nazis who crash their rallies links arms with protesters who wave the swastika in the name of Palestinian rights," Strauss writes.

Posted by Judith at 3:30 P.M. EST


Well, the king of Morrocco deciced its time to free the kingdoms women. Good Job.

Of course, as we all know freedom turns women into hussies. At least that is the message of The Daily Telegraph. It reports:"Home abortions soar in Iraq as unwanted pregnancies rise." And you thought getting rid of Saddam was a good thing?

Posted by Judith at 3:30 P.M. EST


I am planning a longer piece on this topic but the growing disconnect between reality and perception on our progress needs an immediate correction. It is important to recognize that we are making enormous progress.

A 1. Jihadists, Moslem anti Semites and radical clerics no longer operate under the radar screen.

2. The international civil society no longer blames all the world's illS on Western transgressionS but begins to notice the villainy of tyrants. Note recent reports about the North Korean Kulag.

3. The UN reports on the Arab world are providing moderate Moslems with much needed ammunition against Islamists and their own autocratic governments.

4. They cheered Mahathir's speech not only because of its anti-Semitism but also because he said that the Islamic Culture of Death is INEFFECTIVE.

5. How much pressure is on al Qaeda now? Enough for an Egyptian Islamist lawyer by the name of Montasser el-Zayat to argue in a recent interview with AFP that al-Qaeda is dead. Zayat was imprisoned between 1981 and 1984 for belonging to Jamaa Islamiya, and has played an intermediary role between Jamaa and the government, when the group called a halt in 1998 to a wave of violence which claimed around 1,300 lives in the 1990s. Zayat who claims to be in e-mail contact with al-Qaeda's number two, an Egyptian named Ayman al-Zawahiri, argued that the group was destroyed during the war in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States because"They no longer (have) the territory on which they were based, the (Taliban) government which supported them has been overthrown and the money they had in their hands has been frozen." Zayat went on to attribute Osama bin Laden's recent tapes to the al-Qaeda leader's wish"to reassure his friends and supporters that he is still present" amid rumors about his fate. Zayat acknowledges that al-Qaeda leaders can still spur"angry young people" into staging attacks worldwide but argues that those attacks are no longer coordinated." Indeed, the only reason Washington does not declare victory argues Zayat is"to justify their so-called war on terrorism." In other words, Zayat would like to explore ceasefire possibilities.

B. By going to war in Iraq, the American Gulliver reaped the ropes the Liliputions so carefully tied around it and the world knows it. Hence - 1. The Security Council resolution is passed 15 to0. Compare it to Resolution 1284 passed in 1998 after the Clinton administration made a major compromise to try and rebuild Security Council consensus and agrees to ease significantly the sanctions on Saddam only to have FRANCE, RUSSIA, CHINA AND MALAYSIA abstain!

2. It is the Chinese foreign minister, not Jimmy Carter, who read the riot act to the second member of the Axis of Evil - North Korea. Moreover, American relations with China, Japan and South Korea are excellent.

3. It was not Jimmy Carter but the foreign ministers of Germany, France and US ally Britain who went to Teheran to read the riot act to the third member of the Axis of Evil.

Now its not the time to rest on our laurels. Our sons and daughters are still dying and our enemies are surely busy reconfiguring their strategies. we have a long, hard slog ahead and hubris is the fastest road to defeat. Still, let's not lose by permitting our opponents TO throw enough sand in our eyes to obstruct the vision of our real progress.

Posted by Judith at 3:30 P.M. EST


Here I go again. But the American paper of record never ceases to amaze me."Palestinian Group Executes 2 suspected of Aiding Israel" reads the headline. Wow! I thought. Finally the NYT exposes the"rule of law" prevalent in the Palestinian Authority. I even ignore the subheading"Israel plans to build 300 new houses in the West Bank." I am past being agitated by the paper's repeated equation of murder with home building. I am glad that they finally focused the light on the similarity between Saddam's Iraq and Arafat's Palestine. Then comes the shocker -"Such attacks often draw little attention (why?) but the gunmen responsible for this shooting sought to publicize their deed both beforehand and afterward." No analysis of the gunmen's wishes follows. Merely a recitatation of the"gunmen" accusations. In other words, the reporter admits that the paper followed the Palestinian gunmen wish to have their first 75 murders covered up, the NYT followed their wishes and to publicize number 76 and 77.


Posted by Judith at 3:30 P.M. EST

Site Meter

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 12/22/2003

I noticed the comment that the only organized moderate Arabs were in Kuwait (http://hnn.us/articles/1366.html#12170301), and I wonder if Israeli Arabs qualify as "liberal" in the democratic, modernizing, rights-oriented sense? Perhaps they're not inclined to be emissaries of modernism to the rest of the Arab world, but it seems kind of short-sighted not to consider them.

Radical Equivocator - 11/26/2003

In your reference to the Palestinians, you make the statement:

"She must believe that all people in this democracy ought to have equal citizenship rights."

What you're missing is that Yasir Arafat doesn't agree. His tactic of holding them in perpetual statelessness and inciting terror attacks with the hope of Israeli *re*-occupation serves his political philosophy: To avoid any final settlement that doesn't threaten Israel's existence.

"Citizenship," no citizenship, rights in the Western sense are simply beside the point in his mind and in the acquiescence of his apologists. Surely you're not one of them?

jon lacey - 11/9/2003

first finding these web site is a blessing, and give my best to walter williams, now as a construction worker in 1969,in kisamaayo somalia, living along with 14 other americans workers and being held hostage, it amazas me to see liberals in responsiable positions and after seeing the brutality of the war lords, in all these middle east countries, yet liberalism continues to blame the president, but the worst thing is thinking we as conservatives are such idiots to believe the unbelievable, watching levin on fox today was a good example.
why do liberals think we are dumb, by the way both meet the press, and abc program did not have any thing of any consequences to say on there programs, like the memo to dems
thanks for your time
jon lacey ex seabee

Steve Vinson - 10/22/2003

There's one thing I just don't get. Well lots of things but let's concentrate on just this one. If Judith Klinghoffer doesn't think that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied (which I gather she does not, since she habitually puts the words "occupation" in quotation marks), then she must regard it as all part of Israel. And naturally, she considers Israel a democracy. Therefore, it must trouble her that millions of her fellow Israelis are denied citizenship rights because of their ethnicity. She must believe that all people in this democracy ought to have equal citizenship rights. Right? Or am I missing something?

Jonathan Eric Lewis - 9/12/2003

This is a great weblog. As a former graduate student in history who ditched academia because of all the idiotic, far-left, anti-American garbage, I am very proud to see this website.

Daniel E. Teodoru - 8/24/2003

I can only weep at Ms. Klinghoffer's "Jewish geograhy"-- a term used by young Brooklyn NY Jews in the 50s (yes, Jews once upon a time did live in Brooklyn!!) to indicate a parochial inside-the- ghetto mentality where everyone knew everyone else and was so absorbed in the localitis intricacies as to be blind to the outside world-- as she makes herself look like a Likud Ghetto Homecoming Queen who knows not how to talk to outsiders. Instead of arguing her case, she simply assumes that if it come from a Likudnik it must be prophesy and if challenged by any goy it is anti-semitism. As one questioning her one can only feel like Gallileo before the Pope-- I hope my deodorant holds up to the fearful stress.

Fact is that waving social science PhDs at people to validate hasbara only proves how meaningless are social science PhDs because they decive those who have them into thinking that, in the minds of us plebians, "PhD" means: knows everything. But those of us who know well the freak show university from where her degree was aquired can only demand that something more akin to her book-- so well argued and such good analysis-- be the standard for what she writes here. I have seen Klinghoffer hold her own with the PhDs at conferences and admired the way she kept proving that a PhD in history is no substitute for brains. Pretty soon, the professorial echo could be heard from the reverberating sound of their voices inside their empty heads as they insisted "this is it!" Peppy Ms. Klinghoffer would then shine a ligth into one of their ears to prove how it exited via the other without distortion. I could only cheer on her Socratic devastation of academic sophistry. Then came Sharon and somehow she decided that it would be bad form to show any higher IQ than the killers, crooks and liars in his Cabinet. So she gives us a jamais vu that she misnames deja vu.

Come on, Judy, we may not all agree with you, but that does not mean that we are stalking the ovens. We want peace for a smaller but integrated Israel, not another Holocaust-- as do most Arabs and Israelis. Can we expect you to get back to your usual level of intellect after Sharon goes to jail for embezelment and personal corruption?

Daniel E. Teodoru - 8/23/2003

Israel was made of some Europeans who didn't like how their fellow Europeans treated them (rightly so) and so they decided to invoke a tale of 3000 years ago to provide in depth historical continuity to their idea that they could begin anew, making their religion a secular nationality and together create a Jewish nation. The problem is that for a very long time people had been living on that land, so they had to be removed, for it is a law of Newtonian physics that no two bodies can occupy the same space. AS a rabbinical investigation commission sent from Vienna to examine Palestine concluded: "The bride is beautiful but she is already married to someone else." This the father of Zionism, Herzl, himself, had to recognize. Despite his view that the non-Jews of Europe laugh at Zionism, Herzl, Weitzmann and the Ziomist leaders that followed, sought to align with the European imperialists in the hope that by being useful to the colonial powers, according to historian Tom Segev, they might be granted land at the expense of the indigenous locals. Hence, to this day, despite the global shame over European imperialism, only Israel justifies its existance on the basis of a promise made by the imperialists, the Balfour Declaration. It is this Jewish identity with European imperialism that has made the "Jew" a hated individual in the Arab world. It would seem that had the Zionists joined the Arabs as fellow Semites seeking independence from the Europeans, they might well now be leaders of the Middle East instead of a regional parriah. Unfortunately, a narrow self interest made that impossible, for the Zionists were always a small minority of the Jewish population, most of which wanted assimilation in the West instead of a desert nation on the Middle East. Concequently, the Zionists had to deceive Europeans into believing that they spoke for the Jews of the continent and deceive the Jews that the Europeans accepted them as the leaders of the Jews and had accepted their "Jewish solution" for all Jews. This endless march from one subtrifuge to another left the Zionists in an endless sea of myths, deceptions and lies. Despite the world's sympathy after the Holocaust and universal horror over how much Jews suffered, the Zionist leaders continued to resort to deception and subtrefuge because what was offered them was always far less than they deemed absolutely necessary. At the same time, Israel, a parriah in its own region, never achieved economic self-sufficency. It remained, therefore, totally dependent on massive European and American support, whether to exist in its own territory or to expand even further. And always, the problem was what to do with the people who were there before these European Zionists came to take the land?

It is said that when you put six Jew in a room you get seven opinions. This is meant as a compliment, indicating that Jews are in the habit of tireless intellectual analysis. But one has trouble running a nation on such a characteristic. Concequently, unity of mind has to be faked. This is particularly difficult given the tremendous debate amongst Jews, Zionists and Israelis. Always pleaguing the varigated Jewish mind is the question of what to do with the people living there whenever Israel expands. There are indeed all sorts of "Jewish" views on this issue, the Zionists' being only a few of many. And among the Israelis there are also many views. Still, the more militant the view, the more the semblance of unity of mind is deemed necessary. For example, Jabotinsky represented a very small minority amongst the Zionists. His "iron wall" thesis argued that the Palestinians are as nationalist as the Zionists. Therefore, it might be necessary to elimiante brutally half the Palestinians in order to freighten the other half to accept whatever the Zionists offer them. While Jabotinskyism has been rejected by most Israelis, the popular Israeli reaction to Palestinian suicide bombing has brought to power in Israel a Jabotinskyite, Ariel Sharon; one that even went to South Africa to study apartheid techniques as a solution to dealing with the Palestinians. He sees no other solution, because the Israel he deems essential is one three times its present size, needed to settle the world's Jewsih population (most of which he wants to move to Israel by 2020). However, it seems that more Israelis are moving out of Israel than Diaspora Jews moving in, making for a reverse aliyah. And, absent the Palestinian terror by means of suicide boming, most Israelis, it seems, would prefer a small Israel next to a Palestinian state if that means peaceful integration of both into the Middle East. In truth, no matter what they say, most Israelis see themselves as a part of the Middle East more than of Europe. But Sharon has chosen to use the same methods to corale Israelis and Zionists into his right-wing Jabotinskyism that Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League (an organization supposedly dedicated to fight all prejudicial isolation in American society) to fight against Jewish "assimilation" in the Diaspora. Both tell Jews that we non-Jews hate them. To stop Jews from becoming a part of American society and Israelis from seeking integration in the Mideast, both also invoke the Holocaust, warning that only through self-isolation in a Greater Israel can they survive. Only by coming up with evidence for this threat to survival atmosphere can they scare Jews and Israelis from looking for a way to integration and acceptance. Yet, given America's incredible generocity towards Israel, it is hard to get Jews and Israelis to choose Sharon's Jabotinsyist solution over the Bush roadmap, particularly since most Jews and most Israelis support the Bush roadmap. So, in practical terms, this is their approach: Firstly, they claim that THEY are the Zionism, that THEY are the only ones who have the right way for the future of Israel and the Jews. Any Jew who criticisez them as frauds and violent violators of Jewish tradition, they defamme as "self-hating Jews"; any non-Jew who criticizes them, they call an anti-semite. All in all, desperate not to be exposed as merely beneficiators of a sad and terrible temporary circumstance, global terrorism, they ink the waters of debate with insults and lies. But insults and lies so transparent and stupid as to shout at you that they must think us all: "dumb goyim"!

A typical example of such deceptions that one sent to me recently, is a supposed quote from Martin Luther King: "You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews- this is God's own truth." Well, is the converse true? Pat Robertson seems to be very anti-Jewish, as many Fundamentalist Christians seem to be, and yet, they are die-hard Zionists. What does that say?

Why quote King, anyway? If you insist that I am an anti-Jew if I am an anti-Zionist-- something which even old "anti-assimilationist" Abe Foxman refuses to accept-- why not put it to the test of debate? Why quote a man so many Jews used to call "anti-semite" because he didn't enthusiastically get entanged in the Soviet Jewry Inc. Project?

To put such "evidence" before me, says less about me and more about the sender...for that sender, I must be a "dumb goy," otherwise such transparent sophistry would not be foisted on me in the hope that it would persuade.

It is said that Americans have no sense of history. It is said that for them the horrors of the past are only jounalistic reports because their nation was blessed by abundant fortune, and not troubled by self-deception leading to devastation as was perenially the case for Europe. While this may be only partially correct since the Civil War, Americans nevertheless have aquired a desire to learn from history since the end of WWII. They are therefore not stupid and naive. Therefore, dismissing their critical judgement on the basis that they are "dumb goyim" is a dangerous thing to do by those who claim to speak for a nation so dependent on the US. Many Americans go through college and all are exposed to American and World history and therefore look for analogous lessons from history. For some of us for whom Facism and Communism are recent experiences, the power of propaganda as an easy know-nothing way to polarize people is a strong memory. We remember that for those totalitarians we were those "dumb Americans" that know nothing and can be easily manipulated. When the Jabotinskyites ply us with similar slir propaganda that is so odious as to shout out, "dumb goyim!"-- even though the words were never uttered-- we cannot help but recall the most recent historical lessons about propaganda we learned from combating Fascism and Communism. We will turn off to those who so desparage us. And it would be a terrible shame if brave Israel were the victim of the turning off of our American generocity in an angry reaction to these attempts at manipulating us.

I have many misgivings about what Europe and the Zionists did in the Middle East. But I am as much a Zionist as I am a Palestinianist. BOTH must grow viable and secure together, for the peoples of BOTH lands know no other home. The Zionists of yesterday who invaded the land of Palestine are now burried under it along with the Palestinians of their time. Both today's Israelis and Palestinians are people born on that soil. Both must work together for the next generation that will also be born on that soil. To say this, does not make me an "anti-semite" nor an "anti-Zionist" nor an anti-Arab. It makes me a PRO-SEMITE who wants to help turn history around byprofiting from all its lessons. I am, therefore, NOT a "dumb goy" who can be deceived by propaganda because I am a caring goy who wants to see peace and prosperity and studies the history of the region with passion towards that end.

Daniel E. Teodoru

Hayabusa - 8/20/2003

Pipes is an Arab and Islam hater, and an apologist and enthusiastic supporter of Israeli state terrorism and crimes against humanity. He is also the originator of on-campus Nazism in the service of Israeli interests. Not one cent should go to this bigot or any organization that he is a member of.

Alex Bensky - 7/30/2003

Oh, yes, the attacks and foiled attacks are solely the work of renegades who reject the peaceful policies of the PA, and over which the PA can exercise no control.

Dream sequence:

(Scene: airliner cabin)
Wild-eyed, gun-toting Israeli: This is the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of the Land of Goshen! Take us to Tel Aviv!

(Scene: press conference in Jerusalem)
Ariel Sharon: My government is totally against such acts of terrorism and piracy. But as for these uncontrollable renegades (shrugs), when people feel frustrated and helpless, what else can they do except hijack airplanes and murder civilians? If the Palestinians weren't so intransigent...

(Cut to: any Western newspaper editorial):
Although of course this newspaper condemns the acts of terrorism by Israeli renegades, these acts only show why the Palestinians must make more concessions to satisfy the Israeli street.

(Cut to: the UN Security Council)
Council chairman: By unanimous vote, the Security Council calls on the Palestinians to cease responding to Israeli acts of terrorism, which only feed the tragic cycle of violence.

That's this week's dream sequence. Come back in a week for the next fantasy, on roughly the same order of likelihood, wherein Lucy Lawless shows up on my doorstep and asks if she can come in and get out of these wet clothes.

R. Piper - 6/21/2003

Klinghoffer's peddling of pro-Israeli propaganda without any consideration of either the other side or historical facts is laughable.

Jeremy Freedman - 5/9/2003

Hey Bassoon,
An Islamicist is someone who wants to kill or force you to adopt his religion of piece. Are you mentally retarded or living in the middle of the Gobi Desert?, because your ignorance is overwhelming.

bausson - 4/15/2003

Good afternoon Mme Klinghoffer,

If I quote you (from "dangerous generalization"), islamist are "those who seek tu use the faith to accomplish extreme political goals", I am surprised. Is this a dictionary definition ?
As far as I know, an islamist is a muslim who want to share the knowledge of his religion to foreigners, as would do a catholic for instance.
I did only met pacific islamist during my life shared between France, Portugal and Maroc.
So, unless you would be kind enough to give us the sources for your definition of islamist, I shall keep the idea that associating islam and fury is a dangerous generalization.

Sincerely yours,
Sebastien Bausson

ephraim schulman - 4/15/2003

April 15, 2003
I have made it a point to stay out of the affairs of Israel because it is such an embarrassment especially to American Jews ( this is an understatement ). Ms Kinghofer continuously refers to the "butcher of Bagdahd" but she totally ignores the butcher in Israel. Although Israel proclaims loudly to anyone gullible enough to listen that it is a democracy the fact is, that it is not a democracy. Throughout the history of the Jewish people they have been discriminated against in what ever society they found themselves. And now ,having achieved a government it discriminates against the Palestinians. Such hypocrisy.
Ephraim Schulman

Judith Klinghoffer - 4/10/2003

When you use "Islamist fury", are you refering extremist actions ? Absolutely. I distinguish between Moslems (vast majority of the people belonging to the faith) and Islamist (those who seek tu use the faith to accomplish extreme political goals)

If it is the case, do you imply that France and Germany are looking forward to sacrifice the US in order to defend themselves ? Not looking forward, just looking out for themsleves in not a particularly attractive or effective manner.

By the way, the sentence as it is seems to associate islam and fury, which is a dangerous generalization.
Perhaps so, but the evidence for it surrounds us.

bausson - 4/9/2003

Good afternoon

Just one question from one of your sentences:
"Paris and Berlin may hope to deflect Islamist fury towards the US" (from RUSSIAN NAVY DEMONSTRATES PRESENCE 04-05-03).

When you use "Islamist fury", are you refering extremist actions ? If it is the case, do you imply that France and Germany are looking forward to sacrifice the US in order to defend themselves ?
By the way, the sentence as it is seems to associate islam and fury, which is a dangerous generalization.

Thank you for your atention,
sebastien bausson

Judith Klinghoffer - 4/7/2003

Much appreciated. I will do my best not to disappoint.

Ken Heineman - 4/6/2003

Glad to see you on board. HNN needs your informed, reasoned voice. You'll get the hang of hotlinks soon enough. Keep on blogging!

BG - 4/5/2003

the first line of my last post didn't show up.

BG - 4/5/2003

"No, it purports to replace a dictatorial regime with a democratic one."

Like the one in Afghanistan?