Tuesday, December 31, 2013


by Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker  12-3--13
Daniel M. Zucker's Overview

Rabbi at Congregation Mercy & Truth, Pottstown, PA
contributing writer at GlobalPolitician.com
Chairman of the Board at Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East
Rabbi member at Rabbinical Assembly

contributing analyst-writer at International Analyst Network.com
Rabbi-Chaplain at United Jewish Communities of Metro-West
Contributing writer at World Defense Review
Rabbi at Temple Beth Shalom
Rabbi Chaplain at United Jewish Communities of Metrowest
Adjunct Professor at Long Island University
Rabbi at Congregation Beth Sholom

Jewish Theological Seminary of America
North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati
Hebrew UnionCollege-Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles
University of California, Berkeley

After four and a half years of the most inept administration of foreign policy concerning the Middle-East since a Georgia peanut farmer played a term as POTUS and managed to lose the late shah’s Iran as a valuable ally in favor of a theocractic tyrant who wished to drag his country and the region back to the seventh century, it would seem hard to display any increased ineptitude. But the events of the last several month have proven that the White House has outdone itself in demonstrating ignorance and its ability to promulgate rankly absurd policy. From Syria to Egypt and Iraq and on to the Palestine-Israel question and now to Iran’s nuclear bid, amidst lingering questions about Libya worthy of impeachment, the American foreign policy establishment as represented by the current administration has shown that it has no comprehension of who is friend and who is foe in that crucial region, or worse yet, doesn’t care. A more dangerous situation is hard to imagine.

Two and a half years ago when the North African revolutions began to spawn change in much of the Arab world and still seemed to portend a potential dawn of democracy, questions were raised about key players in the movements to overthrow Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saleh, and Assad. With the passage of time it has become clear that the Ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood) and al-Qaeda have been and continue to be major players in these revolutions and that the hoped-for Western-oriented secular movements were either illusory or vastly out-manned and/or out-gunned by the Islamists.
Despite the fact that none of the revolts led to an improved civil society or a boost to American and/or Western interests in any of the countries affected by the so-called “Arab Spring“, the administration continues to meddle in the area but without any apparent perception of the needs and concerns of long-standing allies or the threats—both potential and actual—that foes present to us and/or our allies. It seems that our policies are being dictated by a robot that has suffered a frontal lobotomy.
Let’s begin with Egypt—the largest and most important of Arab nations—a state that has been a consistant ally for more than three decades. Yes, Hosni Mubarak was a dictator, but Egypt has no history of non-dictatorial rule. And while the Ikhwan’s presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi was elected in a democratic election, he was amassing presidential powers that clearly spelled a return to one-party rule—in this case the Muslim Brotherhood. The counter-revolution launched by the Egyptian Army and the Tamarud Movement was a popular rebellion against Morsi’s rapid Islamization of Egyptian society. The inability of the U.S. administration to understand that General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was acting to prevent Islamic tyranny on a scale similar to that of Khomenist Iran and that a cut-off of foreign aid to Egypt under such circumstances was and is counter to American interests, is beyond comprehension. Instead of thanking al-Sisi for preventing another Iran, the administration sought to punish him. And given the ability of Russia’s Putin to jump in to replace American military aid, we are finding that a loyal ally is switching to the Russian camp. Fat chanch that that will help promote democracy in Egypt!
Having aided Islamists to topple the regime of Libyan strongman Colonel Muamar Gaddafi, we were taken by surprise on September 11, 2011 when Salafists attacked our consulate in Benghazi. And all that we have gotten since then is cover-up and obfiscation[i]. Acts and deeds that other nations deem reason for banishment from government if not jail time, have simply been ignored or hidden behind outlandish excuses[ii]. And Congress has been remiss in not pressing the investigation much harder and making public their findings.
Saudi Arabia is joining Egypt in its intense displeasure with the US—an attitude it shares with Israel currently—because of Washington’s increasingly feckless policy towards Iran.
What common denominator unifies most if not all of these headlines? Unfortunately, it appears to be the disarray and naiveté being demonstrated by our current government concerning the region and the way in which politics and negotiations are conducted there. In a word: Toto, Barack, and John Kerry, you ain’t in Kansas anymore!
The problems that are occurring in the region are not new. They are—in many instances old ones that date back over a thousand years. But whether recent or old, they are not solved by throwing at them a weak, Western-oriented logic or negotiating stance. Lee Smith, long time Middle-East reporter for the Weekly Standard and author of the astute 2010 book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, points out that in Arab and Middle-East politics, Marquis of Queensberry Rules are ignored and he who plays by them is at a distinct disadvantage. This point of Smith seems to be totally lost, or at least forgotten, by the State Department and the White House. Instead of projecting strength—which is 90% of the battle in Middle-East politics—our government is projecting weakness. And contrary to what may be the thinking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in the Middle-East, weakness doesn’t invite friendship; it invites and encourages disdain.
What seems to be causing such consternation among America’s traditional allies in the region—Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf Emirates (excluding Qatar), as well as Turkey—is the current American policy of pressuring allies and placating enemies. A policy of drawing red-lines in the sand—whether with Syria or Iran—and then continuously retreating—is doing nothing to inspire confidence. Other than Turkey—which, under Erdogan and the AKP has decided to go its own way in attempting to reconstruct the influence of the Ottoman Empire—all  of the afore-mentioned nations feel abandoned by Washington, and AKP-run Turkey doesn’t really care anymore, although it should as its economic bubble is about to burst.[iii]
The result of Washington’s inept policies is that Saudi Arabia is considering importing Pakistani nuclear bombs which it helped finance. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are all looking into beginning nuclear industries as is Turkey for that matter. Rather than bringing peace to the region, Washington’s retreat is causing a proliferation of nuclear programs which in such a volatile area is a recipe for disaster.
Ari Shavit, senior correspondent at Haaretz and a member of its editorial board wrote an op-ed on November 14, 2013 for Haaretz entitled “Lost cause in Geneva”[iv]  in which he indicates that the US is worn out and incapable of stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb. Shavit is a liberal and Haaretz is owned by the International Herald, an affiliate of the New York Times, so this is not the ranting of someone from Gush Emunim or the Hilltop Settlers’ Movement. Shavit reports that America’s Iran policy is simply to delay Iran’s nuclear breakout until just after Obama leaves office so that he can claim that it didn’t occur on his watch.   Israel’s current displeasure with Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry is only topped by the displeasure with these two as expressed by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. As Shavit puts it in the conclusion of his article when referring to 2014:
  1. “It’ll be fun, my friends. The Sunnis and the Jews are boiling with anger. Therefore, they are now holding hands and launching a campaign against the Christians and Shi’ites who are closing a deal in Geneva.”[v]
Israeli displeasure with the current administration hit the boiling point in the last couple of months due to four separate issues that came to light. First was the American confirmation on October 31st of Israel’s secret attack on Syria’s missile base near Latakia in which Israel destroyed Syria’s new advanced Russian-made S-125 antiaircraft missile launchers[vi]. Israel doesn’t announce its extra-territorial activities so as not to embarrass publicly its targets—thereby helping to prevent a face-saving act of retaliation that would be costly to both sides. Only a fool or someone trying to stir up trouble would break that code of silence. Mr. President: Which is it? Are you fools or are you deliberately trying to cause problems for an ally?
Israel’s second beef with Washington concerns US Secretary of State John Kerry. While in Jerusalem to meet again with Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Kerry announced that any breakdown in the peace talks—which he inferred was Israel’s fault for not acceding to Palestinian demands—would cause an outbreak of a third intifada. Kerry’s statement did little to bolster his claim to neutrality. As if that was not enough, a letter endorsing two Palestinian-Americans planning to participate in the 2010 running of the Gaza blockade—which incidentally included the infamous MV Mavi Marmara incident on May 31, 2010—surfaced during the Secretary of State‘s November visit with Kerry’s signature when he still was a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[vii] The sponsoring organization of the run of the Gaza Blockade and owner of the Mavi Marmara was the ?nsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri ve ?nsani Yard?m Vakf?[viii], a Turkish Islamist “humanitarian” group whose principal beneficiary is the “Union of Good”, which is designated[ix] as a Specially Designated Terrorist Group by the US Office of Foreign Asset Control and banned by Executive Order 13224. John Kerry either is a fool or was deliberately trying to cause problems for an ally. Either way, he shouldn’t be the Secretary of State.
Israel’s third point concerns America’s disinterest in confronting Iran in a serious manner. At the time that sanctions are finally taking a major bite out of the Iranian economy and tightening then stands the chance of causing Iran to cry “uncle”, Obama agreed to cut a deal that would slow the Iranian program but fail to halt it, in return for major sanctions relief of at least seven billion dollars and possibly as much as twenty billion. The interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran of November 24, 2013 fails to end its enrichment program. Israel and the world now know that America truly is a paper tiger at this time.
The forth concern of Jerusalem was the discovery that the United States had been spying on its ally, intercepting communications between then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak[x] in 2009 and 2010 as well as between Barak and his Chief of Staff, Yoni Koren.[xi]
Disconcerting at the very least was the discovery that the US secretly has been negotiating with Iran for nearly a year and a half.[xii] As Lee Smith reports[xiii], such a revelation demonstrates that the United States has become an extremely unreliable partner. Smith indicates that the current administration has betrayed the Iranian Resistance organization, MeK[xiv], the Syrian rebels, and the Israelis and is indeed intent on cutting a deal with Iran.[xv]
As Smith puts it, the current policy is to apply “Smart Power”, a phrase coined by Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense who authored a text by the same name in 2004. However, as Smith points out, Nye’s theories call for coalition building and careful projection of military power in order to accomplish goals and maintain American interests as opposed to the use of brute power to accomplish the same. The current administration claims to be using Nye’s theories, but in the Middle–East theater American power—whether soft or hard—is clearly becoming an illusion. In the year and a quarter years since the Benghazi incident, the US has bluffed and played the worst game of poker in a generation. And none are being fooled anymore. The Saudis, as Richard Miniter points out[xvi], feel that they have been betrayed by the American president.
One needs to ask why the United States has decided to flee the Middle East. Smith suggests that American energy independence now permits us to leave that troubled region[xvii]. But cutting a deal with Iran only makes sense—twisted as it is—if there is something to gain from it. Seeing as how the sanctions were beginning to pinch the Iranian economy so tightly that its collapse was possible next year, we need ask why the administration was willing to ease them in return for a vague promise to restrain enrichment. The only logical explanation is that Obama and his advisors fear Chinese expansionism and hope to turn Iran into an ally against the Red Dragon, so as to encircle and contain it.
The Obama administration has indicated for quite some time that it wishes to turn more of its attention to the Pacific and Far East[xviii].  Obama in his naiveté thinks that he is going to be a second Nixon, solving problems by courting Iran to counter China just as Nixon courted China to counter the Soviet Union. Rather than seeing that his appeasement of Iran is repeating Chamberlin’s mistake of 1938, Obama seems to thinks that he is Nixon in 1972. The problem is that Iran is a theocracy; Khamenei believes that Allah commands him to battle the West and spread the Shiite message. We are not dealing with Iranian nationalist expansionism but rather with Shiite fundamentalist millennialism. Khamenei, like Hitler, believes that his belief system is destined to rule the world. Allowing the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that Iran will now become a responsible world power; it means that worldwide terrorism will be going on steroids. Smith understands this fact as do the Israelis and the Saudis.
Instead of reining in our deficit spending habit so as to stop selling our country to the Chinese, Obama is trying to keep China dependent on its economic investment in America. Our children had better start studying Chinese if Obama succeeds in continuing his policies. But before we get too adept at Mandarin, we had better be prepared for dealing with nuclear threats from Tehran along with those from North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un.
Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching the public and its elected officials of the need to promote genuine democratic institutions throughout the Middle-East region as an antidote to the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. He may be contacted atcontact@ADME.ws.

[i] Newsmax Wires, “Mike Rogers, King Blast NYT Benghazi Report: ‘Misleading’”, Newsmax, December 29, 2013, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/king-times-benghazi-misleading/2013/12/29/id/544224.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] David P. Goldman, “The End of Erdogan’s Cave of Wonders: An I-Told-You-So”, PJ Media,December 27, 2013, http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/12/27/the-end-of-erdogans-cave-of-wonders-an-i-told-you-so/?singlepage=true.
[iv] Ari Shavit, “Lost cause in Geneva”, Haaretz, Nowember 14, 2013,http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.557934.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Joel Siegel, “Israel bombs Syria, targeting missiles shipped from Russia”, New York Daily News, October 31, 2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/syria-destroys-chemical-arms-equipment-day-watchdog-deadline-article-1.1502465.
[vii] Joshua Levitt, “Report: 2009 John Kerry Letter Backed Anti-Israel Gaza Flotilla Activists”,Algemeiner, November 13, 2013, http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/13/report-2009-john-kerry-letter-backed-anti-israel-gaza-flotilla-activists/. See also: Arutz Sheva Staff, “Report: Kerry Supported Gaza Flotilla Members: Arutz Sheva, November 13, 2013,http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173961#.Ur5McvRDuSo.
[viii] Staff, “IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation”, The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, May 27, 2010, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18108.
[ix] Press Center, “Treasury Designates the Union of Good”, HP-1267, U.S. Department of the Treasury, November 12, 2008,  http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1267.aspx.
[x] Staff, “Netanyahu says US spying on Israel ‘unacceptable,’ calls for ‘clarifications’”, The Jerusalem Post, December 23, 2013,  http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Netanyahu-says-US-spying-on-Israel-unacceptable-calls-for-clarifications-335901.
[xi] Reuters, “U.S., UK spies targeted Israeli PM, EU official: Snowden leaks”, Reuters, December 20, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE9BJ14Q20131220.
[xii] Julie Pace, “Vanishing adviser reappears as Iran policy player“, AP, The Washington Post, December 24, 2013,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/vanishing-adviser-reappears-as-iran-policy-player/2013/12/24/ad9fd050-6c72-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html.
[xiv] MeK= Mojahedin-e Khalq, aka PMOI, Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran
[xv] Lee Smith, op. cit.
[xvi] Richard Miniter, “Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by Obama’”, Fox News,December 27, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/27/saudis-lament-have-been-stabbed-in-back-by-obama/.
[xvii] Lee Smith, op. cit.
[xviii] Amitai Etzioni, “Obama’s Foreign Policy: Three Stages of Hope”, Huffington Post, January 17, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/obama-foreign-policy_b_2426868.html. Republished by the
The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at The George Washington University, October 1, 2013, http://icps.gwu.edu/2013/10/01/obamas-foreign-policy-three-stages-of-hope-2/.

Twisting Jewish Values to Promote False Peace
by Matthew Hausman (January 2014)

The following is the text of remarks delivered on December 8, 2013 at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts.

What’s going on here?
Some of your technology may be out of date, and this video may not play properly.
Have you heard the one about the old Jewish lady from Brooklyn who wants to visit a Hindu holy man in Nepal? Her friends tell her she’s crazy, but she saves her money, flies to Nepal and makes the arduous trip up the mountain anyway. When she arrives she’s told by a disciple that her audience will last only a minute and that she must limit her conversation to six words. Not easily intimidated, she insists on seeing the great master immediately. After being ushered into his chamber, she looks him straight in the eye and says the six words that most accurately convey her thoughts.
 “Sheldon, it’s your mother. Come home!”   
Unfortunately, there are many “Sheldons” in the Jewish world today – those who discard traditional values for non-Jewish belief systems they consider more relevant. Such are those who believe that forcing Israel to accept any “peace” is a Jewish imperative, even if that peace discounts Jewish nationhood, lends credence to a Palestinian national myth that has no historical foundation, and compromises her security and integrity as a Jewish Nation. 
The Oslo Process
In meeting with Palestinian terrorists in violation of Israeli law twenty years ago, Oslo’s architects validated an apocryphal national myth that is fundamentally anti-Semitic and contemptuous of Jewish history, and in so doing cast off traditional values in the pursuit of a progressive pipedream. 
Israelis on the left were instrumental in formulating the Oslo process, which began in secret without the knowledge of the Knesset. Their Palestinian counterparts were terrorists governed by a charter that called for Israel’s destruction then and still does today, although it was supposed to have been amended under the resulting accords.
Since that time, Oslo has come to dictate the quest for Arab-Israeli peace, even though it constitutes a profound threat to Israeli sovereignty and Jewish hegemony. Focused on validating Palestinian peoplehood, Oslo came to control the dialogue as if it had been the paradigm from the beginning. But at the time of its inception, Oslo was only the latest in a succession of resolutional frameworks after San Remo, the League of Nations Mandate, and U.N. Resolution 242, all of which had presumed the historicity of Jewish claims, not the ascendancy of a Palestinian nationalism that did not yet exist.
Indeed, until the mid-1960s, the Arab-Muslim world had refused to impute separate national character to Arabs who resided in Mandate lands before 1948, the majority of whom were immigrants or the progeny of immigrants with no ancient connection to the land. Palestinian nationality was invented later as a propaganda weapon for repudiating Jewish historical claims. 
The Palestinian Arabs have never seriously sought lasting peace with Israel, and their push in 2012 for upgraded U.N. status served only to illustrate their cynical contempt for both concept and process.
Article 31 of the Oslo Accords specifically states: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” The Palestinian Authority’s U.N. initiative violated this provision and arguably abrogated the accords. Although this breach was glaring, it was by no means the Palestinians’ first substantive violation. The PA has consistently failed to honor its obligations under Oslo, minimal though they have been compared to the demands placed on Israel. 
In contrast, Israel has honored her commitments, even when doing so has threatened her security and national integrity.
Israel granted Palestinian Arab autonomy in much of Judea and Samaria, permitted the PA to arm itself despite its continued involvement with terrorism, unfroze and transferred funds to the PA, and fueled a territorial economy that provides the highest standard of living in the Arab-Muslim world. She has also continued to service the utility needs of the area. As a recent concession to induce the Palestinians back to the table, Israel released a gaggle of jihadists and terrorists responsible for the deaths of many men, women and children – people with blood on their hands.
In contrast, the PA has failed to renounce terrorism, foreswear anti-Semitic incitement, or truly amend the language of its charter calling for Israel’s destruction. It has also stated repeatedly that it will never recognize a Jewish state.
Ever since the signing of the Interim Agreement of 1995 (“Oslo II”), the PA has been in perpetual breach of Article XVII (1a), which prohibits it from operating in Jerusalem and deciding “issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis.”
The PA breaches this provision daily by operating ministries and institutions throughout Jerusalem. These unlawful organizations include: the Palestinian Ministry of Education, which disseminates anti-Semitic and anti-Western educational materials; the Ministry for Jerusalem Affairs, which organizes and sponsors protests against Israel; the Ministry of Information/WAFA, an official Palestinian news agency that routinely publishes anti-Semitic material; and the Office of the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Holy Land, which prohibits land sales to Jews, denies the historical Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, rejects Israel’s right to exist, and sponsors sermons at the Al-Aksa Mosque calling for jihad and genocide.
The same hypocrites who accuse Israel of obstructing peace ignore the PA’s blanket disregard for a treaty that it officially endorsed. They denounce Israel for violating the accords, although she is the only signatory to have upheld her obligations.
The refusal of the Obama Administration and the European Union to condemn PA violations, and their willingness instead to reward the Palestinians for continuing acts of incitement, violence and terror, only reinforce the need for Israel to reject outside pressure in favor of alternatives that make better historical and strategic sense.
The Faulty Premise of the Two-State Solution 
The land-for-peace formula is flawed because it presumes that the conflict is about geography and can be resolved by the creation of yet another independent Arab-Muslim state. However, the refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist and the doctrinal prohibition against permanent peace with a subjugated people expose the concept as an exercise in taqiyya – religiously mandated dissimulation for the purpose of deceiving “infidels” and furthering the aims of jihad.
Many today believe that creating an independent state of Palestine will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and bring peace to the Mideast.  But this belief presumes that the Palestinian Arabs – not the Jews – were indigenous to the Land of Israel for thousands of years until their displacement in 1948, that the Jews are colonial occupiers, and that the conflict is driven by Palestinian Arab dislocation. 
However, it is the Palestinians who are historical latecomers to the Land of Israel. There never was a country called Palestine or an ancestral, native culture known as “Palestinian.” Culturally, Palestinians are indistinct from Arabs in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Only the Jews have had a continuous presence in and connection to the land since antiquity.
No amount of pretending that Palestinians are ancestrally indigenous can change the fact that they have no written history, traditional institutions, or archeological record in support of their claims. And yet many liberal and left-wing Jews persist in doing just that. 
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a dispute over the rights of Palestinians. If it were, Jordan and Egypt would have created a Palestinian state when they occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza from 1948 to 1967. However, there was no outcry for the establishment of a Palestinian state – either from the world community or from the Palestinians themselves – during the nearly twenty years of illegal occupation by Egypt and Jordan.
The inconvenient truth is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not about repatriating Palestinian Arabs to a land they never owned in the first place, but about destroying the Jewish State. Establishing a Palestinian state will not facilitate true peace because the ultimate objective of the conflict is the extermination of Israel and her people. The two-state paradigm is merely a stealth strategy in a continuing war of annihilation being waged against Israel by the entire Arab-Muslim world, and the creation of a Palestinian state is intended only as the first step towards achieving this malevolent goal.
The goal of destroying Israel has never changed, only the method for achieving it. Those who believe the PA has ever acted in good faith should review its charter, which refuses to recognize a Jewish State, or examine its officially sanctioned educational materials, which teach genocidal anti-Semitism and revisionist history to impressionable school children. 
Israel cannot survive as a secure Jewish nation by participating in a process imposed by outside powers that respect neither her sovereignty nor her historical validity, regardless of whether that process is being peddled by the Obama Administration, the European Union or the Saudi royal family.
If Israel continues to proceed under a framework that elevates the revisionist Palestinian narrative over Jewish history, she will compromise her security, sovereign integrity and continuity as the Jewish national homeland.
Those Jews who continue to support Oslo are either misguided (like many mainstream liberals and secular conservatives), or openly hostile to Israel as a Jewish state (like those in the progressive “pro-peace” movement).  But regardless of motivation, one cannot honestly justify a Palestinian narrative that denies Jewish history unless one rejects or ignores that history, or Jewish values, or both. 
The Palestinian narrative does not claim that Arabs coexisted or shared the land with indigenous Jewish people, but rather that all Jews are foreign to the Land of Israel and that the Temple never stood in Jerusalem.  Thus, it is based on rejectionism.
Those who support such a narrative and yet claim to be guided by traditional values are either acting out of ignorance or self-denial. 
The Erosion of Traditional Values
While the political left in Israel has been fairly marginalized as terrorism and rejectionism have flourished under Oslo, progressives and liberals in America continue to push it as the only valid resolutional paradigm. 
The sad reality is that many on the left would prefer that Israel not be a Jewish State at all; and they will tell you that in supporting such nonsense they are giving voice to authentic Jewish values. However, they are so divorced from Jewish tradition that they have no idea what truly constitutes authentic values.
Many secular liberals believe that Jewish values are synonymous with the progressive political agenda.  However, this perception ignores the disparity between traditional Judaism and many central tenets of the progressive canon.
Although Jews are free to support whatever political causes their consciences may dictate, they cannot claim that tradition requires them to endorse programs that conflict with Jewish law. Regarding marriage, sexual relationships, and personal status, for example, traditional Judaism is not liberal at all; and despite claims that progressive ideals are consistent with Jewish values, many elements of the progressive agenda actually conflict with the corpus of Jewish law from which these values arise.
An entire political agenda – whether liberal, conservative or libertarian – is not rendered consistent with Jewish tradition simply because some Jews support it. That would be the same as saying that violations of Halacha are consistent with tradition because many Jews commit those violations or support others who do.
Protecting the right to eat non-kosher food, for example, isn’t a Jewish value simply because many secular Jews don’t observe the dietary laws. Pork is still treyfe (nonkosher) regardless of how many Jews may eat it.
Likewise, one cannot say that a political program represents Jewish values simply because secular Jews support it.  Jews as individuals can support or oppose any of the hot-button issues upon which liberals and conservatives disagree, including gun control, same-sex marriage or abortion rights; but they cannot claim the approval of tradition where Jewish law conflicts with those issues or takes no position on them. 
Traditional Jewish Concepts of Justice and Compromise
The Torah portion of Shoftim in the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) deals with the appointment of judges in ancient Israel and, therefore, is associated with the concept of justice. Indeed, its most famous dictum is “tzedek, tzedek, tirdoph,” (“justice, justice shall you pursue”), which today is used to rationalize just about any outlandish demand made on Israel in the putative name of peace.
Secular progressives often claim that this maxim justifies any demands placed on Israel – no matter how onerous, unfair or unrequited. As with anything taken out of context, however, selected words may not reflect the whole truth.  
If progressives who cleave to this verse had basic knowledge of rabbinic text, they’d certainly know that the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit, 4:2) states: “The three are one and the same: if the law is upheld, there is truth and there is peace.”
But what is the Jewish concept of justice? Does it require peace negotiations with sworn enemies? Does it demand unilateral capitulation without assurances or the sacrifice of one’s needs in favor of those of one’s enemy? The answers to these questions are often influenced by material facts and circumstances and inconvenient political realities.
The repetitive phrase “justice, justice shall you pursue” is not merely a literary device. According to Rav Ashi (Sanhedrin 32b), the repetition of “tzedek” implies two kinds of justice: one based on the strict application of the law and the other on compromise and common sense. And according to Rabbi Bunim of Peshischa, this verse implies that the process of obtaining justice must itself be just.
That is, the ends don’t always justify the means, and the results should not be sullied by the methods.
These parallel constructions hearken back to the text of the Torah itself. The concept of “an eye for an eye” found in the Book of Vayikra (Leviticus), for example, was never literally applied, but instead formed the basis for requiring restitution by one who injures another. If one caused another to lose an eye, an ox or a sum of money, he was required to compensate the injured party for the value of his loss. It was this legal framework that took the concept of “justice” beyond a purely punitive and primitive application. What justice was there in blinding or crippling a person who injured another? Torah and Rabbinic law found greater justice in a system that provided compensation for the injured rather than the literal exchange of an eye for an eye.
The law also understood that individual results were often dictated by peculiar facts and circumstances. That’s why, according to Rabbenu Nissim, the kings in ancient Israel had authority to impose sentences outside the parameters of the law in order to preserve its spirit. After the monarchy was abolished, the courts reserved the authority to craft sentences accordingly if they determined that justice would not be properly served otherwise.  
Clearly, the Rabbis acknowledged the value of common sense in seeking justice.
Nevertheless, these concepts are frequently misapplied to the peace process. Whether achieved through strict application of the law or through compromise and common sense, justice neither condones nor requires unilateral concessions to the detriment of one party. Moreover, the law forbids engaging in acts that will be injurious to human life.
Supposed friends of Israel often argue that she should give up land, acquiesce to a dubious Arab “right of return,” and retreat to indefensible borders – all in the spirit of compromise as articulated in the Talmud. Incredibly, many left-wing Jews envision a two-state solution or a bi-national state stripped of its Jewish character. But such “solutions” are not sustainable under any formulation of justice, particularly when Israel receives no mutual concessions and the result would likely sacrifice Israeli lives. 
Furthermore, any solution that sacrifices Israel’s Jewish character is by definition inconsistent with Jewish values.
If Israel were to agree to a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, she would be left with a narrowed geographic waistline and a hostile population on either side that could launch attacks from opposing fronts. Israel has been the target of aggression since before her rebirth in 1948. More recently, she has witnessed the ascendancy of Hamas and suffered an unending storm of missiles since disengaging from Gaza.
Hamas refuses to renounce terrorism or recognize Israel’s right to exist, while the PA publicly refuses to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state – even after reengaging in negotiations forced upon her by the Obama Administration. Genuine peace – lasting peace – is not possible if Israel’s “negotiating partners” refuse to concede the legitimacy of Jewish historical claims. 
In agreeing to a two-state solution, Israel would be acquiescing to the creation of a hostile state where none had ever existed before, and would receive no reliable assurances in return. Such a resolution would only serve to weaken her, increase the risk of continued hostilities, and facilitate the ability to inflict Israeli casualties. This would not serve the cause of justice, but rather would trample certain aspects of Jewish law that are supposed to be inviolate.
Although the Rabbis taught that most commandments could be set aside in order to preserve life (“pekuach nefesh”), there are three that can never be suspended. Specifically, Jews are never permitted to engage in sexual immorality, bow to idols or commit murder (which necessarily includes suicide). Any plan that increases the likelihood of loss of life is incompatible with justice because it would necessarily transgress one of these inviolate prohibitions.
Also, inherent in justice by compromise is the need for all parties to give some ground to achieve a fair resolution.
Unfortunately, the proposed two-state solution requires only Israel to concede anything of value (i.e., land) for the creation of a state that never existed and a diminution in size that threatens her continued existence. So far, the Arab nations have refused to concede their ludicrous demand for a “right of return,” which is intended to destroy Israel as a Jewish state by displacing Jewish citizens with Arab “returnees.”
The two-state solution is actually seen in the Arab world as a two-phased solution. The first phase is the creation of a Palestinian state, while the second is the demographic annihilation of Israel through an influx of Arab immigration. The only thing Israel would receive would be the empty promise of “normalization” to be bestowed only after she has compromised her viability. But what good is the promise of normalization when coupled with a resolute refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state? It is in practice something less than real recognition. 
Verbal promises of even limited recognition must be measured against the Muslim concept of taqiyya, which mandates the use of artifice to deceive “infidels” into lowering their defenses in order to facilitate their ultimate defeat. In the absence of any sort of theological or intellectual reformation, such verbal promises are tantamount to no assurances at all. Because the proposed two-state solution would leave Israel with neither bargain nor benefit, it could not be considered just under any interpretation of the law.
In addition, the issue of Arab “refugees” and their “right of return” to Israel is not a matter of justice, but of subterfuge. Poll after poll shows that most Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, and this refusal is often reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas. They simply will not acknowledge the Jews’ history or their unbroken connection to their land, and thus won’t recognize the historical or legal underpinnings of the Jewish State. Instead, they demand acknowledgment that they occupied the land for hundreds generations, though this claim is demonstrably false.
If they can’t say it, they can’t do it. 
Unfortunately, the world community helps to perpetrate this fraud. The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), for example, defines Palestinian “refugees” as those who lived in the land for a minimum of only two years preceding the outbreak of hostilities in1948 and who reside in areas where UNRWA services are available.
In other words, refugee status was initially based on an ephemeral residency requirement that is inconsistent with the Palestinians’ claim that their ancestors inhabited the land for hundreds of generations. By defining refugee status thus while denying verifiable Jewish claims, Israel’s enemies show that they are not truly interested in justice by compromise. Their transparent goals are to obtain concessions without real consideration and to suppress any history that undercuts their creation myth. This dynamic does not bode well for true justice.
The Obama Administration seeks to enforce a two-state solution based on the Saudi initiative, and some left-wing Jewish organizations are complicit in advancing the charade. The Jewish concept of justice, however, does not condone threats to the safety of Israel’s citizens, the surrender of Jewish autonomy, or the risk of national suicide.
Justice does not require unilateral concessions without mutual exchanges. Those who claim that Torah justice and Jewish values are conducive to such nonsense either don’t know what justice is, or simply don’t care.
One could make a case for bold compromise only if all parties would agree to concessions that would put them on equal footing. But the Administration’s vision requires sacrifices only by Israel, and insists on linking the Arab-Israeli conflict to unrelated issues, such as the Iran nuclear program.
Under pressure from the Clinton Administration, Israel offered to give up most of Judea and Samaria, but her offer was rebuffed with an intifada. She then ceded all of Gaza, only to see it become a terrorist haven. Given the long history of Arab-Muslim intransigence, justice does not require Israel to make any further compromises. Instead, it demands meaningful concessions from the other side of the table, which have never been forthcoming.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4:2) states that “… if the law is upheld, there is truth and there is peace.” However, any attempt to force an unjust solution on Israel based on a false narrative will provide neither truth nor genuine, lasting peace. 
This applies to the recent interim agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Though AIPAC may have pronounced that the deal with Iran merely represents “a difference of approach” to curbing Iran’s nuclear desires and that Israel’s relationship with the U.S. is as strong as ever, such assurances belie an ignorance of history, traditional values and realities on the ground. They also ignore this administration’s disrespectful and duplicitous treatment of Israel over the last five years.
A genuine and lasting peace seems as unlikely today as in 1967, when the Arab world declared in Khartoum that there would be “no recognition, no negotiations and no peace.” Thus, if Israel is to survive into the future, she must not lose sight of the historical justification for her existence or the values that make her both a Jewish state and a vital democracy.

Matthew M. Hausman is a trial attorney and writer. As an attorney he represents the interests of individuals, business entities and nonprofit organizations in state and federal courts. His work has appeared in numerous publications and venues, including Israpundit, Israel National News/Arutz Sheva, The American Thinker, Canada Free Press, Hamodia, Connecticut Lawyer, and The New English Review. He is active in Jewish communal affairs, and has served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations and committees

Sunday, December 29, 2013


Then read the biographies of Israeli and Palestinian political leaders


 Born 21 October 1949 in Tel Aviv.

 Born 12 February 1942 in Mishmar HaSharon,
 British Mandate of Palestine

Born 26 February 1928 in Kfar Malal,
British Mandate of Palestine

 Born 30 September 1945 in Binyamina-Giv'at Ada,
British Mandate of Palestine.

 Born 1 March 1922 in Jerusalem,
British Mandate of Palestine.

 Israeli President in 1977-1982. Born 9 April 1921 in Jerusalem, British
Mandate of Palestine.

Israeli President in 1993-2000. Born 15 June 1924 in Tel Aviv, British
 Mandate of Palestine.


 Born 24 August 1929 in Cairo, Egypt

 Born April 28, 1955, in Jordan. He has the Jordanian citizenship.

Born in1948 in Bagdad, Iraq.

 Born in 1949 in Damascus, Syria.

 Born in 1945, in Cairo, Egypt. 

So, Israeli leaders, who were born in Palestine,
are ?Settlers or Invaders?.

 While Palestinian Arab leaders who were born
 in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Tunisia
 are ?Native Palestinians???? 

Saturday, December 28, 2013

In 2013, America Swapped Its Sledgehammer for a Scalpel. Here’s Who Won and Lost.

The Pax Americana is over in the Middle East, and now the jockeying starts to see who will come out ahead

 Lee SmithDecember 26, 2013 

With the end of 2013 comes the end of the American era in the Middle East. To call the last 40 years a “Pax Americana” would probably be overstating the case because, this being the Middle East we’re talking about, there was an awful lot of violence—from the Israeli-Arab wars, to the Iran-Iraq war, to the American liberation of Kuwait and invasions of Iraq, to scores of bloody terror attacks stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. But no one doubted that America was in charge, and everyone in the region could place bets accordingly and with a reasonable idea of what might be in store.

If you were a Middle Eastern leader allied with Washington, you got financial assistance, weapons, and a photo of yourself with the president. This last was perhaps most important of all, because what mattered even more than U.S. planes, tanks, and billion-dollar aid packages was the idea that someday, when times got tough, your pal in the White House—who also happened to be the most powerful man in the world—might bring down his mighty hammer on your behalf and smite your enemies.
After all, it happened to Saddam Hussein—twice. And who knows but that it might have happened to Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic Republic of Iran, too, both of whom had done virtually everything in their power over the past 10 years—and in the case of Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, and the taking of American hostages and killing of American servicemen—to identify themselves as America’s leading adversaries in the region.
But as these two examples show, times have changed. This was the year that America swapped the sledgehammer for the scalpel and reached out a hand of friendship to its enemies—leaving its friends to wonder what lay in store. For those actors who didn’t understand that the era of heroic U.S. engagement in the Middle East—everything from democracy promotion and big-ticket aid packages to “shock and awe” and regime change brought about by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops—has ended, 2013 was a particularly bad year.
Of these, the year’s biggest losers were the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Syrian rebels, and Israel. The MEK is the anti-Iranian regime resistance movement that the Clinton Administration listed as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 to curry favor with the 1990s model of the moderate Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami. In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the MEK complied with American requests to disarm, inexchange for which the Pentagon gave them protected-persons status. Nonetheless, starting in 2009 they came under repeated attacks from Iranian allies, including security forces affiliated with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. U.S. officials agree that Iran was also responsible for the most recent attack at Camp Ashraf on Sept. 1 that killed 50 MEK members, with another seven taken hostage. The lesson is, when the United States tells you to put down your weapons and not to take matters into your own hands, don’t listen.
The Syrian rebels believed that for all the setbacks and casualties they suffered the last year, at least there was the possibility that the White House might make good on its stated policy of seeking the removal of Bashar al-Assad—if not by military means, then at least by diplomatic and political pressure. After all, how could Washington maintain its standing in the Middle East if its adversaries and allies came to believe that the Americans were bluffers?
What the Syrian opposition didn’t see was that America was no longer interested in its own prestige in the region; what interested American policymakers this past year was getting out of the Middle East. First, the White House failed to make good on delivery of arms promised in June. In September it backed off on striking Assad after the regime used chemical weapons, and crossed President Barack Obama’s famous “red line.” Instead of punishing Assad, it moved instead to close down avenues of rebel support from Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Then the administration signaled that everyone will now just have to deal with Assad sticking around—because he is a good partner for containing Al Qaeda. The lesson? When the U.S. says it doesn’t bluff, don’t listen.
White House aides also reportedly came to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last fall in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign and asked him not to take matters into his own hands and bomb Iran. It turns out, as the Associated Press reported this week, that in July 2012, Obama aide Jake Sullivan was already in the midst of secret talks with Tehran, which ultimately led to the interim agreement announced Nov. 24, which effectively insulates the Iranian nuclear program from any future Israeli attack. The lesson there is, when the United States says it has your back, don’t listen.
Failure to learn the lessons the White House taught the region this year means that, at best, you will become perennial losers, like the Palestinians—powerless to shape your own destiny and dependent on the largesse of an easily distracted international community. While turning Israel into a helpless ward of America’s strategic relationship with Iran was hardly what Bibi Netanyahu had in mind for 2013, things can also get worse. As in the case of the MEK and the Syrian rebels, relying on Washington can also mean being slaughtered by your enemies, after giving up the freedom to respond in kind.
The fact that this year’s big losers—the MEK, the Syrian rebels, and Israel—were all on the wrong end of the White House’s two major achievements this past year says something about what Washington now prizes. The initiative to get rid of Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal and the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran that led to an interim agreement at Geneva are the products of a larger belief in what Democratic party strategists like Joseph Nye and policymakers like Hillary Clinton call “smart power”—a term first coined in the aftermath of the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.
What “smart power” means is that American policymakers should rely on international institutions, diplomacy, alliance systems, and intimate knowledge of other cultures, instead of relying on blunt instruments of warfare—that America should use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. That is, “smart power” was simply another way of saying that George Bush’s war in Iraq was dumb. Abjuring military force in favor of other alternatives—any other alternatives—would be, these people argue, a smarter way to go. OK. But then perhaps one should examine not the results of the Iraq war, which are mixed at best, but instead focus on how America’s use of this “smart power”—international institutions, diplomacy, social media tools like Twitter, and traditional American allies—all fared this year.
In its rush to make a deal with Iran, the White House ignored U.N. resolutions demanding Iran stop all enrichment activity and implicitly granted Iran the “right” to enrich—thus trampling on the international consensus, which is supposedly so crucial for American “smart power” to function. In country after country, U.S.-backed old allies and new allies alike were quickly overthrown by regimes that didn’t fear American retribution. America’s allies, like Saudi Arabia and Israel, discovered that being America’s friend meant being kept in the dark, lied to, and spied on – and being deterred from pursuing their own national interest.
If American allies miss the shadow of big brother standing behind them to ward off their enemies, the fact is that Obama’s scalpel—drone strikes, SEAL raids, small arms and humanitarian assistance, and spur-of-the-moment diplomatic deals—is much less sloppy and dangerous than swinging a sledgehammer. The first problem for American policymakers is that sometimes you need a sledgehammer, especially if your house is on fire.
The second problem is that Washington has yet to prove it’s very adept at brain surgery. The deal with Russia over Assad’s chemical weapons hasn’t stopped the Damascus regime’s killing machine from further devastating the country, which has in turn become the greatest training ground for jihadi fighters since the Afghan wars. The smart power, like clandestine operations, cyberwarfare, and sanctions regime, that were supposed to bring Tehran to its knees hasn’t stopped the Iranian nuclear weapons program—and it seems quite possible that the interim agreement with Iran won’t even lead to a permanent agreement, but merely to the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb under an American protective umbrella.
So, either smart power doesn’t work very well in the Middle East, or this White House doesn’t know how to use it. Or, maybe neither is the case—and the reality is, as I’ve argued before, that Obama believes the entire game has changed. Maybe Obama believes that energy independence has finally bought us freedom from a recklessly violent part of the world. Maybe he believes that a nuclear weapon will finally make the Iranian regime less volatile and more responsible and more open to the rest of the world, once it no longer has to worry about being toppled by domestic rivals, Israel or the United States.
Maybe Obama is right, and maybe history will see him as a visionary leader who understood the emerging geopolitics of a multipolar Middle East better than generations of American Cold War power-players, oil men, and cultural exceptionalists. In any event, if America’s allies in the region don’t learn the lessons of 2013 quick, 2014 will be an even more costly year for many of them.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

New Details of 2000 Ramallah Lynch of IDF Soldiers Revealed  
Virtual Jerusalem   Posted:12-24-2013

The Yediot Aharonot newspaper revealed Tuesday new details of the brutal murders of reservists Yossi Avrahami and Vadim Nurzhitz (z"l). The soldiers were lynched in Ramallah in October 2000.

The soldiers lost their way to their base on October 12, 2000, ending up in the Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled city of Ramallah by mistake. PA police forces took the two into custody.

Word reached local PA residents that undercover Israeli agents were being held in the building; some 1000 rioters reportedly gathered outside. THE IDF DECLINED TO TAKE ACTION TO RESCUE THE SOLDIERS; THEY WERE EVENTUALLY STORMED BY THE RIOTERS.

One PA terrorist, Aziz Salha, got to the soldiers first, where he brutally murdered them - stabbing, beating, and dismembering them along with other rioters. He famously then stuck his bloodstained hands out of the window of the room where the two were held, eliciting cheers from the crowd.

The crowd then dragged the bodies to a central square, beating them further before setting up a victory celebration. PA POLICE FORCES DID NOT ATTEMPT TO INTERVENE AND IN SOME CASES, PARTICIPATED IN THE BARBARISM. 
A few weeks after the murder, the victims families filed a claim valuing 64 million shekels against the PA to the Jerusalem District Court. The victims were represented by attorneys Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Roy Kochavi.

Now, transcripts of the terrorists' remarks recorded during those proceedings have been released for the first time.

Ra'ad A-Sheikh, a Ramallah cop spotted a red Ford Sierra approaching the station. He asked the soldiers what they were doing in the city.

"They told me they lost their way and they need to get to Beth-El," he said. Beth-El is close to Ramallah and is home to several central army bases in control of the Judea and Samaria region.

"I led the soldiers into the police station, after the crowds outside the station began pressuring me," he claimed.

The terrorist cop took the soldiers to the second floor of the station. "I took a length of iron pipe - about 25 centimeters or so - and went into the room where there were two reservists."

"I saw the soldier was alive and on his feet. I went over to the Russian soldier, and beat him with the tube I was holding in my hands. I then punched him in the head until the soldier began making gurgling noises."

PA policeman Tariq Tabesh also participated in the murder. "I saw a soldier on the floor, laying facedown, crying and saying things in Hebrew that I couldn't understand," he told investigators. "I hit him on the back three times."

Salha told investigators that he entered the fray after seeing a car with an Israeli license plate parked outside the police station. Israeli cars bear yellow license plates; PA cars bear white plates. 
Salha alleged that the crowd encouraged him to enter the station. "I saw an Israeli soldier laying there, on his stomach," he stated.

"I approached him and I saw a knife in his back right shoulder," he continued. "I took the knife from the back of the soldier and stabbed him in the back two or three times, and left the knife in his back. Others in the room continued to hit the soldier in the legs."

"After stabbing the soldier, I put my hand over his mouth to strangle him.
Aziz Salha proudly holds up his bloody hands
 I saw that my hands were stained with blood and my shirt covered in blood at the bottom, then went to the window and I waved my hands to people in the yard," he recounted.

"Then I returned from the window and saw the other soldier lying on his stomach in one corner of the room."

The trial against the terrorists is apparently still going, enraging the victims' families after over 13 years of waiting. Michael Nurzhitz, Vadim's brother, stated to the daily, "If I could sue the legal system [for taking so long], I would."

"As if it's not enough that the people who did this have not been punished for all that they did."

Aziz Salha was released in 2011, as part of the terrorist exchange orchestrated between the PA and Israel for Gilad Shalit.

Given the large number of people involved in the lynching, several of the participants have never been caught for the murders - or have been tried in court proceedings that have dragged on for equally as long.
Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner decried the length of the proceedings. "The Palestinian Authority has been exploiting its rights to a fair trial in order to conduct long discussions over nothing," she stated. 

via israelnn.com

VirtualJerusalem.com Editor's Note: 

I was living in Israel when this happened. When the news of the lynch was released, and aired on the TV (video below), the people in Israel collectively stopped. That is the only word for it. We surrounded the TV screens, watching the news in what was only disbelief. Even a country that is used to constant terror never expected such a thing.

They were two men who took a wrong turn in their own country, and what happened next will never be accurately portrayed by words. Cpl. Yosef Avrahami and First Sgt. Vadim Norzhich, both 33 years old, both men with families, were tortured and killed. At least, that's what was reported by the mainstream media.

What the mainstream international news neglected to mention at that time, was the actual story, and the fact that they were murdered in the center of the city to the delight of the chanting, cheering crowds. The fact that they had gone to Palestinian police for PROTECTION and were given this. The news also failed to report that their bodies were ripped open and hundreds of pairs of hands dug their fingers through these men's bodies, raising their bloody fingers with pride and enjoyment. Most horrifically, you were not told that children were not only present and watching, but encouraged to participate.

As the morbid spectacle continued to escalate, an RAI Italian news team that was onsite captured images of one of the soldier's heads being ripped off his body and tossed around like a soccer ball. (Not seen in the attached video.)

The footage was televised in Israel, which changed the already mournful atmosphere to one of bleak depression and utter hopelessness. You could see it in the eyes of every Israeli. Those weren't just our boys who were mutilated. We were mutilated right there with them.

Of course, these graphic images were not shown by a large portion of the world media, some choosing not to air it, simply because they were uncertain as to whether or not the viewing public could stomach it. Others bowed down to pressure, not wanting to paint the Palestinians in such a "negative" light. Later the option of airing it at all was removed entirely because of threats issued by the Palestinian terrorists. Horror and terrorism was given a generic label of 'lynch' and covered for two minutes in the evening news before moving on to some vapid entertainment story.

This happened 13 years ago. And still today, when I am around Israelis, be it in the States, or in Europe, or in Israel, and the word "lynch" comes up, we exchange a look. The atmosphere changes. Those of us who were there, who saw it, who felt what it did to Israel as a nation, now forever know what that word really means. 

Please note that the terrorist in the gruesome photo above was released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner deal. He was welcomed back with open arms, celebrations and honor. 

He will of course, do this again. 

Meanwhile, the world screams to boycott Israel. The word "apartheid" is thrown around as if its meaning is understood. It is perhaps easy for people who did not grow up watching such monsters, to point fingers at the country that has to live with these nightmares all the time.

Next time you are in a social setting, and someone is trying to paint Israel as a black oppressor, please share with them the story of Yosef and Vadim. Please share with them the testimony above from the mouth of the terrorist himself. Someone who proudly beats, murders, and dismembers a crying man on the floor who will never see his family again, but whose family will get to see his head thrown around like a soccer ball. This is the reality Israelis live with, and have lived with for a very long time.


After airing this twice, Italian TV apologized to the public, and removed it. 
The Hebrew reel in the video goes over the details of the lynch mentioned above, and shares some images of the families of the soldiers.