Saturday, December 20, 2008

Reeling from Madoff losses, Hadassah determined to recover

Longstanding Jewish philanthropic organization lost staggering $90 million when it fell victim to Bernard Madoff scam. In rare emotional plea, Hadassah president issues call to arms for immediate donations: ‘We've had to tighten our belt so much it hurts. But everything we do to meet the challenge is aimed at protecting our core mission of strengthening Israel and the Jewish people’ WASHINGTON – ‘Hadassah’ President Nancy Falchuk issued an urgent call for donations on Friday to America’s oldest Zionist philanthropic organization in the wake of the Bernard Madoff scandal. Hadassah announced earlier this week the organization’s losses stand at $90 million. Falchuk warned that the organization’s plight was “critical,” and called on both regular donors and non-members to help Hadassh pull through.

Numerous Jewish charity groups are among former NASDAQ Chairman Madoff’s victims.

In an impassioned online video campaign under the banner ‘Times Are Tough – But We’re Tougher,’ Falchuk calls on Hadassah supporters to help the group weather the difficult epoch.

“We've had to tighten our belt so much it hurts. But everything we do to meet the challenge is aimed at protecting our core mission of strengthening Israel and the Jewish people,” Falchuk says in the video.

“Protecting our mission and our values takes more than planning. That's why we need every member of Hadassah, and generous non-members as well, to be involved. This a critical moment in which your financial support is so urgent.”

Noting that Hadassah has been hit twice in recent times, with the global economic crisis already having taken its toll on the organization’s finances long before the Madoff scandal broke, Falchuk remains confident.

Recalling that the organization, founded in 1912, has triumphed over numerous difficult events in its history, Falchuk says: “Despite the substantial loss, I want to assure you of Hadassah's strength, sustainability and commitment,” Falchuk says. “We will get through this crisis because of the wisdom that is our inheritance, because of the fortitude of our leaders and members, and because our life-enhancing and life-saving programs demand it of us.”

Hadassah has already said the loss would not affect the building of a new multi-story complex at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem. The new medical center, to be named after Sarah Davidson, will cost $210 million - $75 million of which were donated by William Davidson, owner of the Detroit Pistons.

“I appeal to you directly, simply, humbly,” says Falchuk to supporters. “We need your IMMEDIATE support to continue our projects in Israel. To save lives every day. To educate the next generation that will lead Israel in the years and decades to come.

“Jews have endured for millennia. Hadassah has endured for almost 100 years. With your help, we will continue because times are tough, but we're tougher

US Postal Service won't send "any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" to overseas military post offices

Want to send your brother-in-law in Iraq a Bible? An ikon? A kippah? Some joss sticks? Forget it. All that is "contrary to Islamic faith." Qur'ans and other Islamic articles only, please. Sharia Alert from...the United States Postal Service: "Overseas Military Mail," from the U.S. Postal Service (thanks to Pamela):

Mail addressed to military post offices overseas is subject to certain conditions or restrictions of mailing regarding content, preparation, and handling. The APO/FPO table below outlines these conditions by APO/FPO ZIP Codes through the use of footnoted mailing restrictions codes (see the Restrictions page following the table). [...]


C. Cigarettes and other tobacco products are prohibited.

C1. Obscene articles, prints, paintings, cards, films, videotapes, etc., and horror comics and matrices are prohibited.

D. Coffee is prohibited.

E1. Medicines or vaccines not conforming to French laws are prohibited.

E2. Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith or depicting nude or seminude persons, pornographic or sexual items, or nonauthorized political materials is prohibited. [...]

Comment: Of course they reciprocate-!!

Friday, December 19, 2008

IDF faces stronger Hamas

Lull had benefits, but it also allowed Hamas to build up its military strength
Alex Fishman

Part 2 of analysis

The Gaza Strip lull also served as a platform for tightening the ties between Israel and Egypt. The Gaza crisis did not trickle into Egypt, and the Egyptians did not cave in to Hamas on the issues important to Israel, such as the opening of the Rafah Crossing or the release of Hamas detainees held by Cairo. The lull also allowed for the advancement of the Saudi peace initiative and the maintenance of polite relations with the moderate Arab world. It was no coincidence that Jordan's King Abdullah invited Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Barak to meet with him about two months ago. The possibility of ending the lull jeopardized, and still jeopardizes, the Jordanian regime's stability.

Part 1
The post-lull era / Alex Fishman
Alex Fishman offers insights into Gaza Strip truce and what we can expect the ‘day after’
Full Story
Thanks to the lull, we also got less airtime on television screens in Europe and the United States. This enabled the International Quartet to cling to a policy of boycotting Hamas and provided the US Administration with some quiet, so it could focus on affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The lull also enabled the IDF to prepare, formulate plans, and equip itself. However, the same cannot be said of Gaza-region residents. The time was not used efficiently for completing fortifications and preparing for the possibility of more communities coming under the rocket threat.

Army officials also believe that a clash on the Gaza front may prompt a second front in the north, so the lull spared us another violent round on two fronts, simultaneously and at an inconvenient timing.

Hamas doubled its rocket arsenal
The defense establishment, including the defense minister and army chief, see more benefits than drawbacks to the lull. However, the advantages are counterbalanced by the deepening Hamas hold on the Strip and the build up of the group's military capabilities.

At this time, Hamas possess a rocket arsenal that is double the size and range of what it had six months ago. Hamas has 8,000 to 10,000 rockets of various types. Six months ago, its rockets had a 20-kilometer (roughly 12 miles) range. Today, the group may be able to hit Beersheba.

Meanwhile, Gaza's defense system has been completed. It includes eight divisions and 16,000 armed personnel, as well as anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The quality of the defenses against Israel's armored forces has improved, and underground tunnels are much more secure. Toady, Gaza is home to tunnels extending for about 50 kilometers (roughly 30 miles,) improved bunkers, and better intelligence means.

Israeli officials expected that the lull would serve to advance negotiations on the release of Gilad Shalit. Yet this did not happen.

In summary, what the IDF could have done six months ago is much more complicated today. Therefore, there is no rush now. Or as the defense minister put it: The war won't run away.

Gaza Terrorists End Ceasefire

Hana Levi Julian Gaza Terrorists End Ceasefire

Gaza terrorists began the first official day after the end of the so-called "temporary ceasefire" early Friday morning with the usual barrage of Kassam rockets aimed at the western Negev. The attacks began at the usual hour, approximately 7:30 a.m., when Jewish children are walking to school and their parents and other adults are on their way to work, thus maximizing the chances of the missiles hitting civilian targets.

Two Kassam rockets exploded in the Eshkol region, fired by the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization.

A second attack soon followed, with the terrorist group also responsible for a Kassam rocket striking the Sha'ar HaNegev district.

No one was injured and no damage was reported in any of the incidents.

By 8:30 a.m., however, the attacks had escalated to include sniper fire, thus indicating the official end to the tahadiyeh, or temporary truce.

Gaza terrorists fired at farmers working near Kibbutz Nir Oz, east of the Hamas-controlled region. The targeted Jews were rescued by an IDF armored corps unit. Although a vehicle was damaged, no one was injured in the attack.

Eshkol Regional Council Chairman Chaim Yellin commented that sniper fire made it clear that Hamas had no intention of continuing the ceasefire, according to Voice of Israel government radio.

"The firing at farmers in the field is the final piece of evidence on the end of the 'calm'," Yellin said. "We have gone back to the situation of half a year ago."

What Bertelsmann Wants from Obama

John Rosenthal
Pajamas Media

Whereas President-elect Obama’s disclosure deal with Bill and Hillary Clinton has received close attention from the traditional news media, the president-elect’s own disclosure issues — notably, as concerns his financial relationship with Germany’s Bertelsmann Corporation — continue to be ignored. It is undoubtedly true that the books published by the Bertelsmann subsidiary Random House under Barack Obama’s name have sold extremely well. It is, however, equally undoubtedly true that Bertelsmann/Random House invested considerable marketing resources to assure that they would. The German corporation is thus not merely a passive beneficiary of the phenomenon that has come to be known as “Obamamania”; Bertelsmann/Random House substantially contributed to creating the phenomenon.In any case, Senate ethics rules expressly require members to reveal the financial details of book deals. In a 2006 column on “[1] Barack Obama and the Book Business,” Peter Osnos notes that Obama avoided having to comply with these rules by signing his Bertelsmann/Random House deal in the brief window between his election to the Senate and his swearing in.

As suggested in my earlier article on [2] Bertelsmann’s “Man in the White House,” the issue of Obama’s financial relationship to Bertelsmann is particularly troubling, since following the November 4 presidential election the Bertelsmann Foundation wasted no time in announcing that it had prepared a series of policy recommendations for the incoming president. Bertelsmann is no ordinary German corporation. Via the foundation and the foundation’s yearly budget of some €70 million, it is a major player in German politics and European politics more generally. The “synergies” between Bertelsmann and various agencies of the German government are numerous and obvious: so much so that Bertelsmann has taken on the trappings of a veritable state within the state. Consider only that [3] Bertelsmann’s “10th International Forum” in 2006 was held at the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Participants included German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

Bertelsmann’s “Trans-Atlantic Briefing Book” is available [4] here. Bertelsmann also refers to it as a [5] “European Briefing Book for Barack Obama”. The document sets out a “roadmap” for transatlantic cooperation during Obama’s first six months in office. In typical Bertelsmann style, the authors do not hesitate to speak on behalf of all of Europe and all Europeans. The tone of the document more closely resembles that of a Diktat laid down by a victorious power to a defeated adversary than that of a policy papers published by a customary think-tank. Although providing what are merely styled “recommendations,” the authors’ preferred register is in fact bluntly imperative. Thus the very first sentence reads: “Engaging with Europe is not an option” (i.e., not merely an option). The “Briefing Book,” we are told shortly thereafter, will identify “items that must specifically be addressed” (my emphasis) in the “short window” following the inauguration (p. 5).

The incoming president is given remarkably detailed instructions to be carried out within precise time-frames. For example: “Prior to entering office, the next U.S. president should call for a suspension and review of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)” (p. 57) or “The new U.S. administration … should begin a climate initiative by the end of President Obama’s first six months in office. They need to get started before the summer.” (p. 60). Also on “climate change,” the incoming president is advised to use his inaugural address or the State of the Union address to provide “commitments to an international regime with binding emissions targets” (p. 62). It will be interesting to see if he does.

The Bertelsmann “Briefing Book” devotes separate sections to seven “key issues”: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Economic Challenges, Climate Change, and the Middle East Peace Process. Perhaps more notable than those issues that made the cut is one that did not: terrorism. Indeed, terrorism is almost only ever mentioned in passing in the “Briefing Book” and when it does come up, it typically does so as someone else’s concern: that of the UK or Russia or, of course, of the United States. In the section on Afghanistan, for example, combating terrorism is mentioned as just one possible motivation for the international military presence in the country and one, moreover, that the authors persistently insinuate is regarded as dubious by “real” Europeans (i.e., everyone but the British). “European public opinion was never enthusiastic about joining a US-led anti-terror combat mission,” we are told (p. 16) — as if the very origins of the war in Afghanistan had faded into obscurity or somehow did not matter.

Only in the very last substantive sub-section of the “Briefing Book” do the authors get around to telling us that “Europe has taken on the counter-terrorism agenda” (p. 76). This wooden — and, in light of all the foregoing, unconvincing — assurance appears in a seemingly tacked-on “Special Note on The Long-Term Agenda.” Terrorism is there included in a list of “long-term foreign policy challenges,” which, however, are not deemed to be as “urgent” as the “key issues.”

This is to say that for Bertelsmann the purely hypothetical and obviously long-term “threat” of sustained global temperature increase is more urgent than the threat posed by the Islamic terror networks whose attacks have taken tens of thousands of lives from 9/11 to Mumbai’s 11/26. (Marc Sheppard has [6] noted at American Thinker that at a recent meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, Bill Clinton similarly downplayed the importance of terrorism as compared to global warming. That Bill Clinton would thus echo the Bertelsmann priorities is hardly surprising. After all, as documented in my [7] “Bill Clinton’s German Paymasters”, the former president’s personal wealth is largely a product of his collaboration with Bertelsmann.) Revealingly, the first time the “Briefing Book” mentions “longer-term challenges” (p. 6), terrorism is not even included in the list. “Outreach to the Muslim world,” however, is. With Iran reported to be on the verge of obtaining enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation is likewise relegated by the Bertelsmann Foundation to the ranks of the second-tier, “not-so-urgent” issues.

The Bertelsmann “Briefing Book” hardly makes for scintillating reading. Predictably, given the source, the background assumptions on the state of transatlantic relations are derived from the “grand narrative” of American misdeeds under the Bush administration that Bertelsmann’s own media have played a major role in propagating. (On Bertelsmann’s flagship German weekly Stern, for instance, see [8] here.) In lieu of facts and documentation, the “Briefing Book” makes due with the mind-numbing repetition of clichés. Thus, for example, we are told that “America’s image in the world has plummeted over the last eight year. … Policies affiliated with the Bush administration have grown into a spreading anti-Americanism…” (p. 6). It is as if the Bertelsmann authors could not think of any evidence that anti-Americanism might perhaps have been a problem already before the Bush administration. For example: the 9/11 attacks, the planning for which is thought to have begun in 1999 — and, as so happens, to have begun precisely in Hamburg, a mere three hours drive from Bertelsmann’s corporate headquarters in Gütersloh. The virtually total absence of the 9/11 attacks from the authors’ considerations is indeed striking. It is as if they simply never occurred. There is only one allusion to 9/11 in the entire document and, revealingly, this one allusion is to be found in a reference to a disposition of 9/11 Commission follow-up legislation that the EU would like to see canceled (p. 57).

To the degree that the authors make the pretense of offering any actual analysis, this mostly consists of pseudo-wonkish gibberish, with the tedious drone of meaningless phrases occasionally being broken up by some fantastically mixed metaphors. Thus, for example, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is said to have “found his footing in Washington” during the financial crisis and to have the opportunity in 2009 “to use this footing and cement his international reputation while it shines” (p. 11). Parts of the text appear, moreover, to have been composed by the legendary “Captain Obvious”: countries engaged in Afghanistan are, for instance, advised “to bolster what is working on the ground and fix what is not working” (p. 20).

But the real interest of the “Briefing Book” lies in the demands — or seemingly indeed commands — that are addressed to the incoming president. Given the status of the Iraq War as the cardinal sin of the Bush administration in the grand narrative, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is, needless to say, a high priority: the authors dub it “Americans’ top national-security priority” (p. 35). At the same time, however, they call into question the sustainability of the security advances achieved in Iraq and warn that “violence remains only a step away” (p. 39). Just how, then, it could be a “top national-security priority” to leave — and risk Iraq descending into chaos - is anyone’s guess. One is left with the impression that the point of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq must not in fact be national security, after all. It is rather to punish America for the Bush administration’s hubris in having invaded Iraq in the first place: notably, against German objections. If Iraqis must suffer so that America can get its proper comeuppance — then so be it…

The section devoted to “Economic Challenges” is particularly illuminating. It is clear that Bertelsmann wants the EU states to exploit the current crisis to impose a new regime of international financial regulation upon the United States. The U.S. is clearly designated as the culprit for the problems in international financial markets. These are said to have been “contaminated” by the U.S., which ought then to adopt European “best practices” in order to “guarantee that it does not re-occur” (p. 54). The vehicle chosen for achieving a new regulatory regime is the recently created Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC). “Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic must use the TEC as a forum to begin aligning economic regulatory practices quickly,” the authors declare (p. 55). “The next president should remember that the TEC was designed and developed under the leadership of the German chancellor during the country’s EU-Presidency in 2007,” they add in a not-so-subtle hint, “By giving the TEC a central coordinating role in trans-Atlantic economic cooperation, the next president will establish a reservoir of German goodwill.”

Bertelsmann-controlled media have, incidentally, been dutifully stoking the anti-market hysteria that has enveloped Germany in recent months. See, for instance, the Stern cover discussed [9] here, which bears the headline “Greed and Megalomania: How the Wall Street Bosses Squandered Billions and led our Financial System to the Edge of the Abyss.” Bertelsmann itself, as so happens, is privately owned. Given that the owners, the Mohn family, have jealously avoided exposing their business to the kind of public scrutiny and oversight that comes with a stock market listing, one may wonder if Bertelsmann’s crusade against financial markets is entirely disinterested. In 2006, the Mohn family bought back 25% of Bertelsmann shares from the holding company Groupe Bruxelles Lambert, in order to prevent the shares from going public. The move cost the family some €4.5 billion.

Americans would be well-advised to read Bertelsmann’s “Trans-Atlantic Briefing Book” carefully and then to consider how closely the actions of the incoming president follow the Bertelsmann playbook. In the end, one can be thankful that Bertelsmann saw fit to publish its demands.

Bertelsmann has provided Obama with the perfect opportunity to show Americans that he is his own man and that American interests are more important to him than the wishes of his German corporate sponsor.

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:
[1] Barack Obama and the Book Business:
[2] Bertelsmann’s “Man in the White House,”:
[3] Bertelsmann’s “10th International Forum”:
[4] here:
[5] “European Briefing Book for Barack Obama”:

[6] noted at American Thinker:
[7] “Bill Clinton’s German Paymasters”:
[8] here:
[9] here:

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Assault on Free Speech Update

An announcement from the UK Independence Party (thanks to Paul Belien):


It is with great regret that I have to announce the cancellation of the showing of the film Fitna at the meeting with Mr Geert Wilders MP today at 2pm.

I was informed of this decision today.

Nevertheless a press conference will take place at 2pm in room R 3.1 with Mr Wilders and myself.

The banning of this film is a direct attack on free speech. A parliament that constantly talks of freedom, democracy and tolerance has shown once again that these are empty words when it does not agree with what is being said. On the same day that the European Parliament awards the Sakharov Prize to the Chinese freedom campaigner Hu Jia the Conference of Presidents deny free speech to one of its own members.

The press conference is open to MEPs and their assistants as well as accredited members of the press.

Anyone who wishes to view Fitna before the meeting can do so by going to

Yours sincerely,

Gerard Batten MEP
UK Independence Party

Some comments: This past week there was a one day conference in Jerusalem on FACING JIHAD, with several expert speakers. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch was the m.c. The conference was sponsored by Prof.Dr. Arieh Eldad, Member of the Knesset. At present, head of the Hatikvah party. The Ariel Center for Policy Research cosponsored the event. Simon Deng, a former Sudanese slave was a surprise speaker.

During the session we saw FITNA, a film made by a courageous man from the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, a Dutch parliamentarian. I wonder just how much publicity this conference and the film have received in the States. Wilders' life has been threatened because of the film and he has bodyguards. His appearance at the Jerusalem Conference was astounding and he commented briefly on his life and about what compelled him to produce the movie - seeing what has happened in his own country with mass Muslim immigration.
The same has occurred in other European countries and will extend even further to the West including the U.S. Anyone who doubts this should learn the lessons that are being given us daily.

FITNA in Arabic means 'ordeal'. It shows - through direct quotations from the Koran that appear on the screen - how acts of terror, anti-Semitism, violence against women and gays, and Islamic universalism emanate from these teachings. The danger is to the whole free world - not only to Jews although it starts with us.

Enormous pressure is being applied to stifle any criticism of those who would impose their way of life on the free world. Banning the showing of FITNA is just one way of keeping us ignorant of what is in store for Western civilization. Those whose countries have already been caught in this web may be fearful of speaking out. Geert Wilders lives with this daily and stands tall (yes, he is also physically tall) in his efforts to warn those who still have a chance to prevent the spread of this totalitarian way of life.

Since the original email contained the name of the person who forwarded the article to me and I want to protect her privacy I am not sure that the links will work. LiveLeak put out the internet video or else one may go into Jihad Watch to look for the film. You many 'cut and past' the link just below. I urge everyone to see it and pass it on. Unfortunately, the EU Parliament is playing along with the demands that it not be shown. There must be a good reason - no? It may be proof that Europe has already been too impacted by the perpetrators of the 'world takeover'.

Some may think that 'it can never happen here' (wherever one is fortunate to still live in freedom) or that information like this is 'hate mail'. My advice -from working with such material with experts- is to take this all seriously now rather than regret the results later. It is based on fact - what is announced openly each day.
Please pass this on; I believe in 'united we stand' and with resolve we can - we must - prevent a global catastrophe.

(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

Unreal. Now we wait for something similar to happen in the United States, for the Federal or state governments, in some capacity, to ban the film from showing in public venues--under some overriding pretext that trumps the First Amendment, they'll say.
Posted by: John C at December 17, 2008 10:27 AM

Chickens. Yellow-bellied chickens.
Posted by: tanstaafl at December 17, 2008 10:45 AM

Maybe they just plan on having a multi-European country SHOE THROWING bash. Muslims throwing shoes at infidels perhaps?
I hear it's now in the book for the New Century Independent EU Approved Actions" for a peaceful and islamic tomorrow.

Chickens? yep, and traitors.
Posted by: sh007r at December 17, 2008 10:50 AM

No film portraying Christianity in a bad light would have ever been banned by the EU Parliament. This is pandering to Islam and Muslims pure and simple. How stupid. How cowardly. How transparent. Perhaps, though, this will invite even more contempt for the EU, a contempt which appears to be growing with each passing year among the ordinary folk of one European country after another.

Amidror Defends Jewish Home List

Hillel Fendel Amidror Defends Jewish Home List

Yaakov Amidror, head of the Public Council that compiled the Jewish Home’s list of Knesset candidates, says it need not fully satisfy the religious population of Judea/Samaria. He said that it was more important to have a fair balance between Ashkenazim and Sephardim on the list than to strengthen the Land of Israel camp.Speaking with Arutz-7’s Benny Tucker in sometimes biting tones, Amidror responded to criticism that the list is tilted towards the center and the former NRP, at the expense of the more Land of Israel-oriented former National Union party.

“The map of religious-Zionism does not run only between Beit El and Hevron,” Amidror said, “but encompasses much more than that. This is a list that has more residents of Judea and Samaria than from Petach Tikvah, Kfar Saba, Raanana, Netanya, and Haifa combined. It has a representative from Sderot, Hevron, Elkanah…”

“Politically, everyone on the list is from the center and rightward,” Amidror said, referring to the list of the religious-Zionist Jewish Home party.

“But the National Union was a bigger party than the NRP,” Tucker insisted, “and yet there are many more representatives of the NRP than the National Union.”

“I don’t know that Alon Davidi [from Sdero is an NRP member,” Amidror responded, “neither is Uri Ariel, and I don’t know the exact politics of Shuli Mualem, and certainly Rabbi Hillel Horowitz of Hevron is not.”

Tucker: “Rabbi Horowitz is in position #10, which is not considered a realistic spot to enter the Knesset.”

“More Important to Have Ethnic Balance”

Amidror: “Whether it’s realistic or not is dependent on the voters… But the public that you represent apparently knows all their politics, where they came from, etc. You are engaged in nitpicking; there is a very large public outside Yesha [Judea and Sama that must also be represented. I am happy, truly very happy, at the amount of non-Ashkenazim on the list – in my eyes, this is much more important than giving stronger representation to the more right-wing side in the religious public. In this way it is truly balanced – though maybe not the way A-7 sees it or expected.”

Tucker noted that there are not many people at the top of the list that can be expected to fight for the Land of Israel, “such as party chairman Prof. Hershkovitz who never even visited Gush Katif.”

Amidror did not like this question: “I think that to judge people by whether they were in Gush Katif or not is practically a primitive way of judging… You certainly must realize that you represent a very small minority, while this list represents a wide range of opinions in religious-Zionism… True, there is disappointment in Arutz-7, but this very disappointment symbolizes the forward push and bursting-out of religious-Zionism, and not just the narrow viewpoint of those who feel that the only thing that’s important is who visited Gush Katif and who did not.”

Percentage of Yesha Voters

Amidror then released a startling statistic: “Keep in mind that out of the 230,000 votes that the joint NRP/National Union party received last time, only 30,000 came from east of the Green Line [i.e., Yes.”

In fact, however, according to the Knesset website, the NRP/NU received just over 224,000 votes. Of these, 24,574 were from Judea, and 5,882 were from Samaria. However, the party received nearly 26,000 votes in Jerusalem, which has a wide pool of National Union voters. In addition, the Petach Tikvah area – which includes, according to the Knesset site, towns in western Shomron - had 34,519 NRP/NU voters.

“So we’ll have to see what these voters that you claim to represent will do this time,” Amidror continued, “now that our party has a strong right-wing representation.”

Tucker: “Doesn’t it appear logical to you that these voters will now be pushed to Aryeh Eldad or to other parties that appear to be more right-wing than the Jewish Home?”

Amidror: “First of all, nothing appears logical to me; everyone will vote for whomever he wants. I’m telling you what happened in the last elections, when the list was more to your liking. If this small minority wants to push its candidate, then they should vote en-masse and get Rabbi Hillel Horowitz [in place into the Knesset.”

AG: Preferment for Arabs Only

Gil Ronen AG: Preferment for Arabs Only

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said Wednesday that he opposes reverse discrimination – or corrective preferment, as it is known in Hebrew – for Hareidi-religious Jews in government service. At the same time, he is strongly in favor of such preferment for Arab citizens of Israel.. Mazuz spoke before a parliamentary subcommittee headed by Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi. The subcommittee is attempting to pass legislation that would give Arabs preferment in the process of hiring employees for government service. The legislation is being blocked by Hareidi lawmakers who want the preferment to include Hareidi Jews as well.

'Hareidis don't make an effort'

"I have my doubts, whether the Hareidis' problem is that they encounter obstacles, or that they simply do not make an effort to enter the civil service," Mazuz told the committee. "We already have Hareidis in the system and if there are obstacles blocking them from integrating, they are of a completely different kind," he opined.

Mazuz said he hoped that the Hareidi obstacle to the legislation would be removed in the next Knesset.

"I see tremendous importance in the government's active initiative regarding the integration of the Arab public into government service, as in all systems in Israel," Mazuz said. "The decision to grant them corrective preferment and designated posts was correct and necessary. When their starting point is so inferior, drastic action is needed to set the process in motion. We can decrease the intensity [of the interventio if the process becomes a part of the routine," he explained.

Arabs are 9 Percent of Civil Service

Mazouz said that there was already some "improvement" in the number of Arabs in civil service. The fact that the subject was on the public agenda has already led to an increase of 30 percent in the number of Arab civil servants and that they now comprise 9 percent of the workforce.

Mazuz said that the process of integrating Arabs had gained steam as a result of the "openness" generated by the Oslo process, but had suffered a setback after the Arab riots of 2000.

Mazuz said that he is also actively promoting Arabs within the judicial system. "In order for us to have Arab judges in the Supreme Court, there must first be enough Arab district judges -- and even an Arab district prosecutor, which we do not have at present," Mazuz stated.

Mazouz may have meant that he wants to see a Muslim Arab in the Supreme Court. There already is an Arab Supreme Court judge: Salim Joubran, a Maronite Christian. .

"The UN"

Arlene Kushner

Eye on the UN, headed by Anne Bayefsky, has put out an appeal with regard to the planned Durban II conference, scheduled for April 2009 in Geneva:

A 2008 U.S. State Department report on global anti-Semitism highlighted the malicious role played by the 2001 United Nations Durban I Conference. It was, in theory, intended to be an "anti-racism" conference. It was, in practice, anything but. The American and Israeli delegations walked out in protest, deeply disturbed that the conference was being hijacked by global promoters of hate. . The stated purpose of Durban II is to "further the implementation of the (2001) Durban Declaration."

The Durban Declaration declares that Israel, and only Israel, is guilty of racism.

Sitting on the planning committee for the Durban II conference are Chairman, Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya; Vice Chairman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran; and Rappateur, Raul Castro, Cuba.

Can you believe this? Believe it. Is any other information needed to understand what's going on?


The government of Canada has announced that it will not be attending the conference. Israel will not be attending. The Dutch foreign minister has said his country will not be involved unless anti-Israel statements are removed from draft texts: "It seems like the sole intention is to criticize Israel and condemn the West for slavery and its colonial history."

In November, when announcing that Israeli would not be participating, Foreign Minister Livni called upon the international community to also refuse to participate.

The US has not yet decided whether to participate. Eye on the UN is promoting action to encourage the US government to stay away. It is recommending this request be made of:

President-elect Obama at 202-456-1111,

Secretary of state-designate Clinton, at 202-647-4000, with e-mail via

Congressman Howard Berman, Chair House Foreign Affairs Committee, 202-225-5021, 202-225-4695, or fax (202) 225-3196.

Many persons of distinction lent their names to this appeal, including Bernard Lewis, Eli Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, Victor David Hanson, William Bennet, Norman Podhoretz and James Woolsey.

In the cases of Obama and Clinton, contact information provided by Eye on the UN is via the White House and State Department respectively. Please, convey your messages so that it clear for whom they are intended. I suggest also contacting your own senators and congresspersons. You can find their contact information here: Faxes are a most effective way to relay messages.


In some quarters the argument is being made that it's better to be at the conference in order to combat what's going on. In principle this sounds good, but where this conference is concerned, it would be impossible. If the US -- and a solid number of European countries -- were to decline to participate, the legitimacy of the conference would be undercut.

If you are a citizen of a European nation and are able to promote a campaign to get that nation to withdraw participation, please do!


Pity that a proposal made some while ago for democratic nations to withdraw from the UN and start their own organization never took off. The UN is a good idea that has gone seriously bad. Some of its agencies do constructive work, but it is, to a large extent, co-opted by corrupt, repressive, anti-democratic, and hateful forces.


Now, having seen the UN Security Council resolution -- # 1850 -- on promoting the Annapolis negotiations, I would like to return to that subject briefly.

I clearly am not pleased that Condoleezza Rice promoted this resolution as a way of firming up the "legacy" of the work she and President Bush have done with regard to Annapolis -- in essence saying that the way to continue to deal with the "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" is via this avenue of negotiations and not some other way (something that Olmert pretty much signed on to with the Annapolis Agreement, which referred to "vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations").

But neither am I as alarmed as some of the people I've been hearing from are. And I would like to explain why.

It speaks, as does the Quartet statement I analyzed yesterday, about the "irreversibility" of the bilateral negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis. The "irreversibility," as I've explained, refers to the process, not to specific content of negotiations. So...we're expected to keep talking.

But, we must note, the negotiations are referred to as "bilateral," which means between the two sides, and not with resolution imposed from the outside. There were no specifics dealt with -- something for which I am grateful. It doesn't talk about the need for Israel to withdraw from specific lands, or about the sanctity of Jerusalem to both parties or about justice for the refugees.


It does speak of a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side. But this is not groundbreaking. In 2003, there was SC resolution 1515, which endorsed the roadmap for a two state solution. In 2002, there was SC resolution 1397, which affirmed the vision of a region in which two states would live side by side, welcomed the contribution of Prince Abdullah (that's the horrendous Saudi plan), and called on both sides to cooperate in the Tenet plan with the aim of resuming negotiations towards a political settlement.

So, there's sort of a tradition here, with various plans that promote a two-state solution endorsed. So far, we don't have a two-state solution. Neither resolution 1397 nor 1515 imposed that upon us, and I believe neither will the current resolution.

We've been talking off and on for 15 years now. For the time being, seems we'll keep talking. I won't belabor what I said yesterday regarding the need to stand up for our rights and security within those talks.


Two things are of concern to me. One is that it calls on the parties to "refrain from any steps that could undermine confidence or prejudice the outcome of negotiations." This is not new language but it's troublesome. It's one thing to abide by agreed-upon rules. It's another to speak of "undermining confidence," which is very amorphous. What seems most likely is that the international community will be on us if we so much as breathe in Judea and Samaria or eastern Jerusalem.

But I have a response to this of considerable import: There is little that undermines our confidence in the sincerity of the Palestinians more than does the horrendous incitement that spews forth daily in the PA. It behooves us to be on top of them for that, make noise internationally about that (we've been far too quiet), and retort with that when we are accused of "undermining confidence." There can be no progress until they change the textbooks that call for jihad, etc. etc.

The second matter that causes unease is that the Security Council "Welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009." This is amorphous enough -- "in consultation with the parties" -- so that it may come to nothing. But a conference in Moscow would not be a good scene. This resolution was co-sponsored by the US and Russia and my assumption is that Rice signed off on this to get Russia, which is eager for such a conference, to cooperate.

The text of the resolution can be found at:


The Foreign Ministry, as might have been expected, responded positively to the resolution, putting an anti-Hamas spin on it, saying:

[The resolution] "delivered an unequivocal message to the Hamas terrorist regime in Gaza.

"The Security Council's statement that lasting peace can only be based on mutual recognition, ending terror and incitement, and committing to the two-state solution, is an endorsement of core Israeli principles for the peace process."

Livni additionally said that "the negotiations must be accompanied by parallel and uncompromising efforts against Hamas rule in Gaza and terrorist groups that target innocent civilians. Concern for security is the first and highest imperative."

This last suggests to me that she's setting the scene for something other than a "lull" with Hamas. The question of how we "negotiate" with the PA while we're fighting with Hamas remains to be seen.


Add Barry Rubin to the list of commentators who thinks Obama will be focused domestically:

"[The Obama administration] faces humongous problems at home and has gigantic ambitions to change America, for better or worse." This was Krauthammer's point precisely.


The escalation of violence from Gaza continues. Today 20 Kassams were launched and three people in Sderot were lightly injured.

see my website

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

How to deal with Gaza

P David Hornik

Israeli military commentator Alex Fishman writes that:

The Gaza Strip lull is breathing its last breaths. The two sides are approaching a large-scale armed confrontation with giant leaps – this is the conclusion of Israel's defense establishment as of Sunday night.

If anyone out there was fooling himself that there is still a possibility of a smooth shift from lull A to lull B, this slight hope dissipated Sunday. For the security establishment, the shift from the current situation to “other” situations – ranging from surgical strikes to the takeover of whole areas in Gaza – is a matter of hours to a few days.Fishman later allows that with the upcoming Israeli elections and the U.S. presidential changeover, it still may be a while before such an Israeli military operation begins. Indeed it seems hard to believe, still, that the current govt. would do it; and then the next govt. will be faced with the problem of instantly being perceived as warmongering and "extreme," with the Israeli left-wing media and political establishments all too eager to join the chorus and delegitimate Israeli self-defense in the name of delegitimating their domestic political opponents, who for them are the real and only enemy.

Nevertheless if at whatever point Israel does decide to stop leaving its southwestern citizens as sitting ducks and defend them--the most fundamental responsibility of governance--it should start by invading and totally reoccupying a couple of parts of Gaza, probably the Philadelphi Route (the Gaza-Sinai border where most of the smuggling occurs) and the northern part of Gaza. It should then announce a carrot-and-stick approach: make clear that Israel has now returned to Philadelphi and northern Gaza indefinitely, and will do the same to other parts of Gaza, including the whole Strip if necessary, if the rockets and terrorist aggression continue; whereas it will lay off the other parts of Gaza if the aggression stops. Make it a clear choice.

Admittedly, this takes a level of grit, Israeli unity, and resistance to world pressure that is hard to be optimistic about. However, it's rightly pointed out that, absent a tough, clear policy of this kind, the army will just go into Gaza and go out, the terrorists will recover, and the cycle will resume, with nothing achieved. Handing Gaza over to Fatah should not be considered for a moment as an option--transferring it from one terror organization to another one. NATO or other foreign forces should be considered even less. Fortunately the Israeli defense and even political establishment seems sufficiently aware of the debacle of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon not to consider this kind of further idiocy.

Norway - a paradigm for anti-Semitism


'I would like to take the opportunity to remember all the billions of fleas and lice that lost their lives in German gas chambers, without having done anything wrong other than settling on persons of Jewish background."

This is what Norwegian comedian Otto Jespersen said on Thursday 27 November on the country's largest commercial TV station. Much worse, however, is that the director of the station defended this expression of "satire." A week later Jespersen, in his weekly TV appearance, gave a "satiric" monologue of mixed anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks. He concluded by wishing the Jews a happy Christmas. But then as an afterthought, he said this was not proper as the Jews had murdered Jesus. Two years ago the same comedian burned pages from the Tanach in front of a TV camera, but this was no reason to terminate his employment. Jespersen explained that he wouldn't burn the Koran if he wanted to live longer than a week.

LAST WEEK, on four consecutive days, there were anti-Israeli articles in Norway's second-largest daily Aftenposten. The first called for a general boycott of Israel. The second promoted an academic boycott, falsely accusing Israeli physicians of participating in torture and the Israeli Medical Association of remaining silent about it. Any honest debater would have reported that Israeli hospitals routinely treat Palestinian children, some of whom express joy when suicide bombers kill Israelis. One wonders whether any other country would allow this.

The third article stressed the right to criticize Israel. This is a typical attack on a "straw man," as nobody denies this right. The fourth claimed that Israel is not a democracy. Only thereafter a pro-Israeli voice was heard.

Two years ago the conservative Aftenposten got international attention when it published an op-ed by Jostein Gaarder which until this day remains the vilest anti-Semitic article published in a European mainstream paper since the Second World War.

Whoever wants to understand how Jews might live in a future democratic Europe if no major counter-forces are mobilized should study Norway. Among parts of the elite there, Jew-hatred and rabid anti-Israelism intermingle. The country's population numbers only 4.6 million. The Jewish population, even before the war, was never more than 2,000. It now numbers 1,300, of which only 700 affiliate with the organized community. Yet Norway must figure prominently in any future history of post-war European anti-Semitism.

Norwegian anti-Israelis keep repeating that their anti-Israelism is not anti-Semitism. One only has to check their statements against the European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism to see that this is often untrue. Norway has a long history of anti-Semitism. In 1929 a great majority of its parliament voted to forbid shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter) - several years before Hitler's Germany did so. It is still forbidden, although hunters, including government ministers, can legally kill animals in as cruel a manner as they want. Last year Norway aimed to kill 1,000 whales, but succeeded in finding only 500. If all needs for kosher beef were met by local shechita, it would require at most several tens of cows annually.

During the war, the Norwegians were the ones who rounded up Jews and robbed them before shipping them off to Auschwitz. After the war, emergency help was given to what the Norwegians called the two "hardest-hit groups" - fishermen and residents of the northern part of the country. The Jews, however, were robbed further by the Norwegian democrats. During the restitution process, they had to pay for the administration of those of their assets recovered from the looters. About 10 years ago a senior Norwegian Nazi official proudly told a Jewish visitor that he had no regrets, and still had paintings and furniture taken from Jews.

In the new round of restitution in the mid-1990s, several authorities did their utmost to avoid paying. Berit Reisel, the only Jewish member of the commission of inquiry, states that she was threatened by chairman Oluf Skarpnes, a former Justice Minister. He told her that if she didn't go along with his proposed report, it would cost her dearly as far as her life and health were concerned. Reisel added that a few days later she was attacked on a street in Oslo.

AFTER THE beginning of the second intifada, several Jewish children were harassed in school. The aggression was supported by teachers on several occasions. Since then, the Jewish community has kept a low profile. When asked by the press, its leaders will admit there is anti-Semitism, but claim that critics overstate it. They usually remain silent on the anti-Semitic aspects of anti-Israelism.

Norwegian hate cartoons often mix anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. Some are straight-out anti-Semitic, such as one which appeared in the Labor movement daily Dagsavisen in 2003. It portrayed a Jew with a long beard reading the new Ten Commandments, including "murder, kill, liquidate, execute." During the Second Lebanon War, anti-Semitic incidents in Oslo were the most severe in Europe. The synagogue was shot at, the cantor was attacked on a main street and the Jewish cemetery was desecrated. The Jewish community's president Anne Sender was thereafter quoted in a European Jewish Congress report speaking of the considerable "atmosphere of intimidation and fear."

Anti-Israelism has been built up systematically in Norway by trade unions, media, some prominent Christians and politicians. The demonization is classic: major media report negative things about Israel while obfuscating or omitting Palestinian suicide attacks or declared genocidal intentions. The main counterforce is a small group of Christian friends.

NGO Monitor has analyzed how significant governmental development aid reaches NGOs engaged in political campaigning against Israel and in support of extreme Palestinian demands. The good the Norwegian government does, including subsidizing the rebuilding of synagogues in Poland, cannot be offset against the infrastructure of hatred it supports.

The writer has published many books, the most recent of which is Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel and the Jews, published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.

This article can also be read at

Prof. Falk, special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council, unwelcome in Israel

Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson)

As part of Israel's well established policy of constructive engagement in international scrutiny and dialogue, and its cooperation with various international mechanisms, Israel has welcomed in the past three years the visits of seven special rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council, one special representative of the UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
However, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories is particularly biased and distorted: not only is it the only Human Rights Council mandate not to have been revised and modified since 1992, it also dictates pre-established conclusions to the report, regardless of any real inquiry and findings by the Rapporteur.

The mandate also ignores all human rights violations by Palestinians, either against Israelis or against other Palestinians. Thus, the rapporteur is prevented from considering, even if he wanted to, the issue of Human Rights violations by Palestinians.
In the case of Prof. Richard Falk, beyond the imbalance inherent in his mandate, the bias is further exacerbated by the highly politicized views of the rapporteur himself, in legitimizing Hamas terrorism and drawing shameful comparisons to the Holocaust. In light of his vehement publications in the past, it is hard to square his appointment with the requirements of the Council's own internal procedures which call for the appointment of mandate holders who are impartial, objective and possess the quality of personal integrity.

Hence, Israel has made clear, that Mr. Falk was not invited, nor would be welcome in Israel, under his capacity as special rapporteur. Notwithstanding Israel's reservation, it has nevertheless facilitated Mr. Falk's visit to Israel in June 2008 under his personal capacity, in order to attend an academic event. However, this visit was abused by him for the purpose of presenting an imbalanced report before the Third Committee during the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly this year.
Mr. Falk's recent attempt to arrive uninvited under his capacity as special rapporteur, fully aware of Israel's clear reservation, stands in marked contrast to the Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, adopted in June 2008, which stresses the necessity of consent and coordination with the state concerned, and was therefore denied.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
16 דצמבר 2008

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

IDF Kills Islamic Jihad Leader

Hana Levi Julian IDF Kills Islamic Jihad Leader

IDF soldiers killed a 23-year-old Islamic Jihad commander Monday night when he tried to escape arrest in the Palestinian Authority-controlled city of Jenin.

Jihad Nawahada, commander of the al-Quds Brigades division in northern Israel was sitting in a Jenin street café when he was approached by IDF soldiers. Intelligence sources reported that Nawahada had been planning to carry out an attack on Israeli civilians within the next few days. Two of his brothers, also members of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, are currently serving prison terms for their role in terrorist activities.

The IDF said soldiers had planned to evacuate the injured terrorist to an Israeli hospital, but he never made it, having been mortally wounded in the shootout that ensued when he tried to escape. His body was turned over to the Red Crescent medical organization.

American-trained Palestinian Authority security forces arrested Nawahada earlier this year in an exchange of gunfire that sparked friction between the PA and Islamic Jihad, according to a report published in the Hebrew-language newspaper Yediot Acharonot.

IDF sources said that Nawahada returned to his terrorist activities immediately upon his release in September from PA custody. His fellow terrorists vow revenge for his death.

In general, the PA forces, which have received advanced training and equipment from U.S. military personnel at bases built for them in Jericho and Jordan, confine themselves to maintaining law and order during daylight hours. They rarely engage in counterterrorism operations, leaving that aspect of security enforcement to the IDF. .

Goldberg on media bias‏

Former television journalist and media critic Bernard Goldberg delivered the following lecture on November 14, 2008, as part of the most recent Restoration Weekend. -- The Editors.

I want to begin by reading you a newspaper clipping. I thought it might apply to the subject at hand, so let me read it to you. This was in this morning's paper, just by coincidence.

It said, "Dear Ann, I have a problem. I have two brothers. One brother is in television news, and the other was put to death in the electric chair for murder. My mother died from insanity when I was three years old. My sisters are prostitutes, and my father sells narcotics to high school students. Recently, I met a girl who was just released from a reformatory, where she served time for smothering her seventh-grade teacher, and I want to marry her. My problem is if I marry this girl, should I tell her about my brother who's in television news?" You get the point. Now, that letter at least has something to do with the subject at hand. This next one doesn't, but I've always wanted to tell it to a group, so here goes. I don't know if you've ever noticed that all the advice columns are written by women. There's a reason they don't let men write advice columns because there is one guy who does. His name is Robert. And here's the reason. This was a letter -- I read this in yesterday's paper. It's incredible, all this stuff.

It said, "Dear Robert, I hope you can help me here. The other day I set out for work, leaving my husband in the house watching the TV as usual. I hadn't gone more than a mile down the road when my engine conked out and the car shuttered to a halt. I walked back home to get my husband's help, and when I got home, I couldn't believe my eyes. He was in the bedroom with a neighbor lady making mad, passionate love to her. I'm 32, and my husband is 34, and we've been married for 12 years. When I confronted him, he broke down and admitted that he'd been having an affair for the past six months. I told him to stop or I would leave him. He was let go from his job six months ago, and he says he's been feeling increasingly depressed and worthless. I love him very much, but ever since I gave him the ultimatum, he has become increasingly distant. I don't feel I can get through to him anymore. Can you please help? Sincerely, Sheila."

And Robert writes back, "Dear Sheila, a car stalling after being driven a short distance can be caused by a variety of faults with the engine. Start by checking that there's no debris in the fuel line. If it's clear, check the Jubilee Clips, holding the vacuum pipes onto the inlet manifold. If none of these approaches solves the problem, it could be that the fuel pump itself is faulty, causing low-delivery pressure to the carburetor flow chamber. I hope this helps."

That's why men don’t write advice columns.

Now, David Horowitz asked me to speak today about bias in the news and how this bias manifested itself during the past campaign. So here's the short version. The media are hopelessly biased. Thank you. I hope you enjoy the rest of Restoration Weekend.

Okay, all right. Here's the slightly longer version.

The mainstream media, or the so-called mainstream media, is always going to have its thumb on the scale because it's always rooting for the Democrat over the Republican. But this year, it was different. This year, the media jumped the shark because this year, without any embarrassment, they embraced one of the candidates running for president. They took a politician – a politician from Chicago, no less – and deified him. They turned him into St. Barack.

This time around, they weren't content merely, merely, being a witness to history; this time, they felt that they had to make history because this time they had a noble cause – not just to elect a Democrat, not just to elect a liberal, but to elect the first black man in our nation's history.

I don't know that they feel just the same way. I don't know that they would've had all of that emotion if the first black man elected president of the United States were Michael Steele, for instance. When Michael Steele in 2006 lost the Senate race in Maryland, I don't remember one reporter talking about how history was thwarted. It's because Michael Steele, unlike Barack Obama, is a conservative. And as far as liberals in and out of the media are concerned, a black man who is a conservative isn't a black man; he's merely a conservative.

So, how did the media embrace "the one," as Oprah called him?

Well, there was the NBC news correspondent who, without any hint of embarrassment, said that it was tough to be objective while covering Barack Obama because he spoke so well.

There was the New York Times that ran a page one story during the campaign, suggesting that John McCain was having an affair with a Washington lobbyist, and they based this story on two unnamed former staffers who thought that "maybe, possibly, I'm not sure but I think he may have been involved with the woman" – and this made page one.

The New York Times published Barack Obama's op-ed on Iraq and told John McCain, a man who was running for president of the United States, that he had to rework his.

And then during the acceptance speech in Denver, the commentary was incredible. I mean people sounded as if they were thrilled just to be in the same city as Barack Obama.

David Gergen, whom some of my conservative friends call David Rodham Gergen, said that Obama didn't even deliver a speech that night. What he did was perform a symphony. He said – those were his exact words – "It was a symphony." He said, "It was slow at times. It was fast at times. It was intimate. It was a masterpiece." If you were sitting at home watching this kind of syrupy sweet commentary on television, you could get diabetes in your living room.

But all of this is small potatoes compared to the classic of all classics during the campaign, and that came from Chris Matthews, who – forgive me for telling you what you already know – that when he heard Barack Obama speak, he felt a thrill going up his leg. This is not political analysis. This is a man-crush.

A month earlier, after Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus, Chris Matthews went on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and said --and these are his exact words – "If you're actually in the room when Obama gives one of his speeches and you don't cry, you're not an American." I hope all of you right-wing bastards heard that, fascist pigs.

And before he was done with the Leno Show, Chris Matthews morphed from Mr. Hardball into Miss Winfrey, and he told Jay, "If you're in a room with Obama, you feel the Spirit moving." I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a room with Chris Matthews, even if he's only on the TV set babbling in the room, I feel something else moving: my lunch, moving from my stomach up my esophagus and out of my mouth.

The worst thing that MSNBC did was during its hard news coverage. During the day when Sarah Palin was being announced as John McCain's choice for vice president, they put up a graphic on the screen in capital letters that said, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" This wasn't on the Jon Stewart comedy news show. This wasn't on one of their lunatic primetime shows. This was during the day during their hard news coverage on what is supposed to be a real news network.

Jay Leno had the last laugh, though. He said that after the election, the Obama people were throwing a victory party at their headquarters, MSNBC.

There was so much other stuff, we'd be here for three years. But let me just tell you about one other thing.

There's a young man at CBS News who I'm sure you haven't heard of. His name is Jeff Glor, He's one of their rising stars. To the extent that anybody cares about anything that CBS does, he's one of the people in the future. He did a piece called "Five Things You Should Know About Barack Obama." You're going to think I’m making this up. When I read this, I thought the person who sent it to me was making it up, so I tracked it down. This is exactly what he said.

"In addition to enjoying basketball and cycling during downtime, Obama loves to play Scrabble. Obama's job as a teenager was at Baskin-Robbins, and to this day, he does not like ice cream. This is a man who plays to win. No matter what it is, whether it's the woman he wants to date or elected office or board games, there is an ambition there. There is a determination."

Folks, you can't make this crap up. Now, it isn't just what they said about Obama; it's also how hard the mainstream media worked to either ignore or, at best, downplay stories that might've hurt Obama.

Let’s take a few examples….

Do you think the media would've paid more attention if it were the National Rifle Association instead of ACORN that signed Mickey Mouse up to vote? That's a good question, I think.

Do you think the mainstream media would've shown more interest if it was John McCain and not Barack Obama who had a relationship, no matter how flimsy, with an unrepentant terrorist?

What if this unrepentant terrorist had bombed not the Capitol or the Pentagon but a black church or an abortion clinic no matter how many years ago it was?

What would the media say if on September 11, 2001, of all days, the New York Times ran a story in which this bomber said that his only regret was that he didn't do more? What do you think the media would say about all of that?

How would the media play the story if it had been John McCain and not Barack Obama who spent 20 years in a church with a right-wing bigot?

What if it was Sarah Palin and not John McCain, who before a cheering crowd of supporters, said that the answer to our economic problems is a simple three-letter word, jobs, and then went on to actually spell J-O-B-S?

Well, what do you think, as a very funny guy who looked like Joe Pesci said, what do you think the media would do if it was Sarah Palin and not Joe Biden who said that in 1929, Franklin Roosevelt got on television to reassure the American people when the stock market crashed even though FDR wasn't in office until 1933 and television wasn't introduced to the general public till 1939? How would the mainstream media have played that story? Do you think the might've portrayed Sarah Palin as a moron or worse, as a ticking time bomb? I think we all know the answer to that.

Part way through the campaign, speaking of Sarah Palin, right after she was announced, something very, very strange happened. A mental disorder spread through liberal America, including many American newsrooms. This disorder became known simply as PDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome. PDS was a lot like BDS, which was Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which liberals foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the name George Bush. Palin Derangement Syndrome was a lot like that.

A few examples of Palin Derangement Syndrome:

Mary Mitchell wrote in the Chicago Sun Times that Sarah Palin "makes me sick."

Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times that Palin was our "new Napoleon in bunny boots."

Wendy Doniger, a professor at the University of Chicago, wrote on the Washington Post's website, "Sarah Palin's greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she's a woman."

Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, wrote a piece for Salon, the online magazine, "What's the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

Also on Salon, somebody named Cintra Wilson managed to type these words as Palin Derangement Syndrome was eating away at her brain: "Sarah Palin has me and my friends wretching in our handbags. She's such a power-mad backwater beauty pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her, but in reality, I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism."

Now, you can Google it, as they say. The rise of Sarah Palin to PDS sufferers is akin to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Somebody, somebody, please, call Jerry Lewis. We need a telethon. We need to raise money to fight this terrible disease.

I have a theory as to why liberals in and out of the media hated this woman so much. What drives them nuts, especially liberal feminists, is that this white trash pro-gun, pro-life church-going woman who didn't go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton was and remains the most prominent talked-about woman in the United States of America. They hate that. They hate that. It wasn't supposed to be that way. The most prominent woman was supposed to be one of them, a liberal feminist.

There are more reasons that they hate her. Liberals, again, in and out of the media, they look at this woman and they say, what kind of woman has five kids? What kind of woman actually has a baby with Down Syndrome? What kind of woman lets her daughter go through with the pregnancy? What kind of woman is this?

And there's one more reason that they hate her, and Dennis Miller mentioned this the other day. Women hated her more than men hated her. Women hated her because she seems to be happily married and she's not neurotic, unlike so many liberal feminist women.

You know, what I've learned over the years, and this, again, has to do with liberal reporters but liberals, in general, they not only don't understand middle Americans; they don't want to understand middle Americans. They think that anybody who eats at a Red Lobster is committing a crime against humanity; anybody who flies the flag on the Fourth of July is a hopeless hayseed; anybody who bowls is a square. This wasn't about Sarah Palin at all. This was about them. This was their real pathology that they have no use for regular Americans.

Now, a few points as I wrap up because I know you guys have other things to do.

A few years ago, I spoke about bias in the news to a class at the American University, and after I talked, every question that I got was from deep left field from the students in the class. And then the professor said something at the time I didn't find especially interesting, but I did much later.

He said, "But isn't it the role of the media to effect change in society?" "Isn't it the role of the media to effect change in society"? I said to him, "Your change or mine?"

And he went silent because this supposedly intelligent guy, it never occurred to him that change comes in more than one package. The only change he thought was worthy of affecting by the media was liberal change.

Now, I put that out of my mind the way you try to put a lot of bad things out of your mind, but it came rushing back to me during this campaign because it occurred to me that's exactly what the media is doing. They are trying to effect change in society, their change, not your change, I guarantee you that.

As corrupt as the media was this time around the media did not defeat John McCain; Republicans defeated John McCain. George Bush, who strikes me as an eminently decent man, was an albatross around John McCain's neck. He got this country into an immensely unpopular war, and whether the surge works or not in the long run, and we all hope it does, the American people will not tolerate a war that goes on this long. John McCain was with Bush on that. John McCain paid the price.

The Republicans in Congress cost John McCain the election. In 2000, when they controlled not only both houses of Congress but when Republicans also controlled the White House, that's when Republicans sold out their conservative principles. They spent money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store. They were out of control. And what did our compassionate conservative president do? He didn't veto a single spending bill. He paid for that, and John McCain paid for that.

I don't want to perpetuate the civil war that is now going on in our ranks. Some people think Sarah Palin was a good choice; 91 percent of Republicans do. I'm not at all sure that if she, 100 percent of Republicans, she can get 51 percent of the vote. That is going to be up to all of you to decide as time goes on. Reasonable people on that score may disagree.

One final point, and I don't know why this bothers me as much as it does, but three days after the election, I heard two political journalistic heavy hitters, a fellow named Charlie Cook and another one named Stuart Rothenberg, on C-SPAN. They were at a seminar in Washington, and they both acknowledged that there was bias in the media during the campaign. They said, "Of course, there was bias in the media." And then Stuart Rothenberg said, "But it is what it is." And Charlie Cook jumped in and said, "Stu is right. It is what it is."

And this really troubled me in a way I couldn't put my finger on it, and then it hit me. What other kind of bias do intelligent, decent, reasonable people write off with, "It is what it is." Have decent people ever said, "You know, black people, they can't drink from that same water fountain as white people, but, hey, it is what it is." That's not how decent people talk, and that's why this problem is a problem because there are no people in mainstream journalism with the guts to stand up and say, "Maybe it is what it is today, but this can't go on any longer."

Well, I'd like to end on a more upbeat note. It has to do with something I read in the newspaper. It was one of those advice columns. This one was Dear Abby. I'm not making this up. I read this in the paper the day before yesterday. And then if there's time, I'd love to take questions.

It says, "Dear Abby, my husband is a liar and a cheat. He's cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It's so humiliating. Also, since he lost his job, all he does is cruise around and chew the fat with his buddies. He doesn't even pretend to like me and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?" signed Clueless. And Abby responds, "Dear Clueless, grow up and dump him. Good grief, woman, you don't need him anymore. You're a United States Senator from New York. Act like one."

Question and Answer Session

Unidentified Audience Participant: It seems that in the past, a lot of the bias that happened was unknowing, or at least blissful ignorance, on their part. You know, they care about certain issues, and it just so happens they care about the same issues as Democrats do. They have this feeling they like someone, so they try to be fair. Someone else, "Well, he's mean, and if he says stupid things, we know he's stupid, so it's okay for us to print it." But they try, in some sense, to be objective. They'd like to think of themselves as objective. What happened? Because it seems that they went in the tank, and they have no qualms about it. There's no shame.

Bernie Goldberg: I have long argued, and I continue to argue, despite what some of my conservative friends think, there is no conspiracy. Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, and in my day, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw never came in the morning, went into a room, summoned their top lieutenants, pulled the shades, dimmed the lights, gave the secret handshake and the secret salute, and said, "How are we going to screw those conservatives today?" It never, ever happened that way. And you know what? I wish it did because that is so outrageous. That is so unacceptable that nobody would tolerate it for two seconds.

What happens in reality is worse. What happens is there are so many likeminded people in the newsroom, they not only think alike; it becomes a group-think kind of thing so that they see conservative views as being to the right of center, which they are, and they see liberal views as middle of the road. They don't even know what liberal views are because of this bubble that they live in.

What made it different this time – despite the fact that they wanted Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale to win, it wasn't the same thing as this year because Walter Mondale was just another white guy and so was Michael Dukakis. This was different. They were on a mission. This was very important. Their cause, as I say, was noble, and they were going to do whatever they had to do to make this happen. And unlike in past years where they all denied their bias, you're right. The questioner was right. They acknowledge it. And you know why they acknowledge it in the end? Because they don't give a damn what any of you think. That’s why.

Unidentified Audience Participant: What I would like to know is there's such a contradiction here in the fact that the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times are almost spinning out of existence. Why is it that they had such a powerful effect on the election?

Bernie Goldberg: I don't know that they do have a powerful effect on – I don't think the media defeated John McCain. I think the media was as corrupt as the day is long, but I don’t think they defeated John McCain.

One of my friends in the room suggested maybe two or three points, but it wasn't enough to throw the election. I think people listen to this stuff.

A poll came out. It was a reputable poll. I think it was by Pew, the Pew Research Center, that said 90 percent of Republicans – the question was simply this – "Who do you think most reporters want to win the election?" and 90 percent of Republicans said they want Obama to win. But this is a statistic that should send chills running up the spine of any journalist with half a brain; 62 percent of Democrats and independents said the same thing. Now, if they don't have Republicans – we've already decided we don't trust them, but if 62 percent of Democrats don't trust them, that's a real problem because all they have, at least in theory, is their credibility. So I think they didn't put a thumb on the scale, but they put their big fat asses on the scale this time, and they wanted him to win, and they made no bones about it. But they didn't beat John McCain.

Unidentified Audience Participant: Two quick points. First of all, would you agree that the most important thing that the news bias shows up in is not how things are covered but which stories are covered?

That's number one. Number two, we all have our beef with the media. The Left has a different beef. They call the media the "corporate media," and they seem to think that the media reflects corporate interests and, therefore, they're never going to do anything except to make sure that GE is okay and everyone else.

Bernie Goldberg: Let me address that one. I've heard this a million times, and having worked at CBS News, which is part of a big corporation, for 28 years, this argument makes no sense at all for a couple of reasons. One, there's an assumption that the executives who run the companies that run the news divisions are conservatives. I don’t think that's true. Leslie Moonves at CBS plays golf with Bill Clinton. He's not a Republican. I don't know what Robert Eiger is at ABC. I do know that Jeff Zucker at NBC is no conservative – so the argument falls down there. But it also falls down because the corporate part of the company, whether it's Disney or Viacom or General Electric, they don't get involved in the news decisions. They just don't. You know, now, granted, the people at Disney don't have to send a memo to 20/20 to say don't do any stories about pedophiles at Disneyland. They know not to do stories about that. But on a daily basis, they just don't tell news people what to do. Jack Welch didn't even tell news people what to do, and he agrees with all of us.

Unidentified Audience Participant: History wouldn't indicate that journalists are going to self-correct, but I wonder if there's anything journalists like yourself on the right side could do to accelerate what's probably the historical response and the way human beings respond to not the president but the one, the messiah. Most messiahs don't come to a happy ending.

Bernie Goldberg: That's right.

Unidentified Audience Participant: And their mesmerized followers also don't come to a happy ending.

Bernie Goldberg: That's right.

Unidentified Audience Participant: And so I'm wondering what – how people like yourself could prepare the groundwork for the natural development of history.

Bernie Goldberg: It's a very perceptive point that most messiahs – it doesn't turn out the way they think it's going to turn out.

Frankly, I go on and comment on things that have already happened when I go on Fox, for instance. But I think there are going to be two reactions, two distinct and different reactions, if the Obama presidency goes south.

One group, the group that faithfully reads the New York Times and believes every word and lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and in Beverly Hills won't blame Barack Obama; they're going to blame George W. Bush; they're going to blame Halliburton; they're going to blame Bill O'Reilly; they're going to blame David Horowitz; they're going to blame everybody but the Obama administration.

The other group, the Middle American group, is going to look around and say, "What the hell is going on? Why didn't you tell us about any of this?" And, you know, I think it's very important that we have a mainstream media in this country, but when that happens, they will lose even more support, and at some point, David won't even want me up here taking about the media because it will be a waste of everybody's time, like who gives a damn what they think anymore.

Unidentified Audience Participant: Bernie, you said we were going to have to change the media's bias. Now, the TV channels depend on New York Times for the news.

How are you going to change the New York Times?

Bernie Goldberg: Let me be realistic here. I don't think anything's going to change. This is the only business I could think of that doesn't care what its customers think. I mean if they were selling shoes instead of news, they'd be out of business by now.

In Cronkite's last year, 1980, 75 percent of all the people with TV sets on during the dinner hour were watching one of the three network newscasts, 75 percent, three out of four Americans.

When Bias came out in December of 2001, it was down to 40 percent. Today, it's in the 30s. The New York Times is going to do whatever it wants to do, and the networks will continue to take their cues from the New York Times. If the New York Times went on strike tomorrow morning, Katie Couric wouldn't know what to put on the news tomorrow night. I mean that's how much influence the New York Times has. So, it isn't going to change. We just have to say, “Okay, I'm not going to say it is what it is because I’m not accepting it. I don't watch the CBS Evening News anymore.” At some point, at some point, there will be so few people watching it that the business guys are going to have to make a decision as to whether they want to leave it on the air or not. And check the stock of the New York Times. That's not doing so well, either.

Unidentified Audience Participant: Also, the Associated Press has a monopoly on the news.

Bernie Goldberg: Oh, yes. That's an interesting question. My first job, four days out of college was with the Associated Press. In those days, it was, "Just the facts, ma'am," kind of news organization. Now, they actually have a policy. It's not by accident. It's a policy that they want their reporters to inject what they call accountability journalism into pieces. Accountability journalism, in plain English, is opinion journalism. And I've read stories on the AP wire that are as biased as can be. Nobody would argue, but that's what they want.

So when the AP, which is 162-year-old organization, decides that objectivity is old hat, it's yesterday, it's not exciting enough, I'm telling you, there's not going to be much left of the mainstream media to throw over the side of the ship. They're doing it themselves.

But that's another point, if I could make it briefly. When they finally are so irrelevant that none of us really give a damn about them, you know who they're going to blame. They're going to blame all of us, that we somehow poisoned the well, that conservatives turned the public on them, but the final wound will be self-inflicted. They're doing it to themselves.

Unidentified Audience Participant: Could you comment on the media fairness doctrine, which has, to my knowledge, only been discussed on Fox? How can we, as private citizens, either combat this?

Bernie Goldberg: Well, as private citizens, what you have to do is get in touch with your representatives in Washington. But an interesting thing about the fairness doctrine, on Election Day -- everybody knows what the fairness doctrine is, right? It requires, under penalty of stiff fines and even loss of license, broadcasters to pretty much give equal time to liberal and conservative points of view, pretty much, not exactly but pretty much.

On Election Day, Charles Schumer, a very bright guy – got a perfect 1,600 on his SATs, you know, went to Harvard – was asked on Fox News on Election Day, "Do you think the government should be involved in dictating what content goes on a private enterprise like radio?"

And he said, "You know," – and he's talking about all of you, by the way – he said, "You know, the very people who want the government to step in and control pornography on the airwaves, these are the very same people that don't want the government to step in and demand fairness on the broadcast waves." And then he said, "And that's inconsistent."

I am never surprised when stupid people say stupid things, never. But this is a smart guy who said the most outrageous thing of the whole campaign, comparing conservative political speech to pornography. I mean he would say, "No, I didn't compare the speech to pornography; I just said that if the government has the right to control one, why doesn't it have the right to control the other?" And the answer is simple. Because a movie showing 19 people having sex on a dining room table is fundamentally different than people speaking about the most important social issues of the day. Chuck Schumer, Mr. Harvard, ought to know that, and his passion for consistency, where would that lead if we said, "Okay, fine, you guys win. Let's have a fairness doctrine," because a fairness doctrine applies to broadcasters, not just radio people.

You know when the three network anchors, ABC, NBC, and CBS, went over to Europe with Obama but they didn't go over with McCain, and he took three foreign trips, I don't think that's fair, do you? What are we going to do about that?

You know those polls that show there was overwhelmingly more negative coverage about McCain than Obama? Senator Schumer, do you think that's fair? Because I don't. You want a fairness doctrine to control the CBS Evening News or just Fox News because that, ultimately, is what this is about. It's not about consistency. It isn't even about fairness and balance. What it is about is crushing voices that we want to hear. That's what it's about.

Unidentified Audience Participant: Bernie, I'm wondering, you made the point that they don't give a damn what we think, and I live in Atlanta, and the AJC, for example, the local paper there, their circulation numbers are just plummeting like a rock.

What are the executives, even if they're conservative, what are they thinking?

Bernie Goldberg: I thought about this for a while, and then it's like a Sherlock Holmes thing. If it's nothing else, it must be whatever's left. There's only one thing that trumps money for these people, and it's ideology. I know it sounds simple, but that's the answer. They will go down with the ship, and I hope they do, by the way, before they change.

Unidentified Audience Participant: Thank you so much. I'm spooked by the news write-up a few weeks ago that the most skewed program, which I think on television is Olbermann, was the most lucrative. So I'm worried that the financial incentives are going toward pornography in journalism rather than toward more truth telling.Could you comment on that?

Bernie Goldberg: I spent my adult life in television, but I didn't run into Madame Curie there or Albert Einstein, you know? So what I'm saying is that if they could make money with a guy who tells the president of the United States to "shut the hell up" -- his exact words -- or questions whether the president of the United States is either "a pathological liar" -- his exact words -- or the idiot in chief -- they're going to do it, and they're not going to tell him to back off. If they tell him anything, it's going to be, "We checked the overnight ratings after you said the president was a pathological liar, idiot in chief." They went up a little because it's a niche market. It's everybody who hates Bush turned into MSNBC. They're going to continue to do it. That's a fact. They don't care.

Unidentified Audience Participant: But I really think we're doing a disservice to ourselves anytime we use the term "fairness doctrine" and don't couple it with "censorship doctrine." I think that because it's a matter of positioning and communication, I think it should be always, always, always, always labeled censorship doctrine, never fairness doctrine.

Bernie Goldberg: Listen, I have one favor to ask of all of you, and it's not what you think it's going to be. I am finishing up a book on how the media handled this particular campaign. I'm not asking you to go out and buy it when it comes out in January, although that would be very nice. My concern is that lots and lots of people know the arguments that I make in the book, so I ask you only one thing. Tell all your friends that a book is coming out very soon in January. It's about how this time it was different, and ask them to tell their friends. That's all I ask of you.

Thank you very much. Bernard Goldberg, a CBS News correspondent for 28 years, is the author of Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, and its sequel, Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite.

Letters to the Editor-LA Times

Dear Editor,

Eyad El-Sarraj is perfectly correct to complain that a catastrophe is taking place in Gaza. But I don’t imagine that his life would be worth a nickel if he gave the real reason. The responsibility for the shortages and instability is not Israel that could have retaliated in kind to the thousands of rockets launched at its communities instead of choosing to close the border. It is the belligerency of the Hamas government that as a proxy of Iran’s mad plan to wipe Israel off the map has officially chosen war with its neighbor. To then complain that Israel won’t treat Gaza’s sick or send more food or provide better electrical service is bizarre. There has never been another instance in history when one country at war demanded that the other country supply it with essential services. The final irony is that Israel left Gaza and turned it over to the Gazans. Instead of creating a functioning state, the Gazans saw Israel’s evacuation as weakness and shipped its exports (rockets and kidnappings to Israel) in hopes to force further evacuations.

Sincerely yours,

Monday, December 15, 2008

Fitna Moviemaker Warns West

Hillel Fendel Fitna Moviemaker Warns West

Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament who continues to receive Muslim death threats because of his anti-Islam film Fitna.

Wilders, who took part in the "Facing Jihad" conference in Jerusalem this week, goes nowhere without his bodyguards. “A lot of people do not like my political ideas about the threat of Islamic ideology," he explained to IsraelNationalRadio’s Yishai Fleisher, "and so unfortunately I have lost my freedom. This is the price I have to pay. The 15-minute film Fitna, which was screened at the conference, portrays the Koranic verses and teachings that inspire modern jihadist terrorism. Release of the video on the internet was accompanied by threats against Wilders, international debate about the limits of freedom of speech, and discussion of what Wilders called his “call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization."

Upon its release in March of this year, the movie was banned by the internet registrar Network Solutions. The video provider LiveLeak then screened it, but was forced to recall it by Islamic pressure after approximately one day. IsraelNationalNews/Arutz-7 then stepped in and hosted Fitna on its website, in order to “educate the Western world as to the dangers facing non-Muslims and Western democracies all around the world.”

The movie ends with a dramatic call for Europe to awake and defeat Islamic ideology, just as it defeated the threats of Nazism and Communism in the past.

The purpose of the movie, Wilders told Fleisher, “was to educate people in the Netherlands and around the world about what the Koran and Islam really stand for. So far, some 20 million people have seen it, so I hope I have been somewhat successful… What you in Israel face is not just a territorial conflict, but an ideological one, stemming from the fascist Kuran.”

As evidence, Wilders cites the recent massacre in Mumbai: “We saw that in a city of ten million people, the terrorists found the lone rabbi there and killed him, and separated the kafirs, the non-Muslims, from the Muslims and killed them. This is what we have to fight in order to preserve our Judeo-Christian culture, which I believe we should be proud of, and stop the biggest disease in Europe culture today: cultural relativism and political-correctness.”

Fleisher proposed that in addition to the Muslim threat, there is a political atmosphere that supports, justifies and protects the propagation of Islamic ideology. Wilders said: “Exactly. There are two big problems. One is Islam itself, and the second is the ruling elite. For instance, there was a recent poll in the Netherlands showing that 60% of the population feels that Islam is not compatible with democracy – yet at the same time, the government continues to let everyone in, subsidizing everyone, building more mosques, and acting as if Islam is just another religion. But it’s not a religion; it has religious symbols, but it’s actually an ideology.”

“The way for us to fight this,” Wilders said, “is that we need new leaders in Europe. We have no leaders; what we have today is a bunch of dhimmis who are selling out their own countries and their own identities. I am happy to see that other parties that are promoting these issues of immigration and Islamization are gaining momentum, so I hope that we will be able to work together against the [subservien of the European ruling elite.”

Fleisher: “Do you think we can win?”

Wilders: “We can, but we have very little time left. It’s five minutes to 12… We have to be very tough in terms of immigration, building mosques and everything that has to do with the Islamization of the continent. Jews and Christians are beaten up on the streets of my own country, and in Belgium, for drinking water in public during Ramadan! … Someone has to get up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’”

About Israel, Wilders said, “I love Israel. I lived here when I was 17-18 in a moshav near Jericho. My most important message [to Israe is to remember that this is not a territorial conflict, but ideological. You gave up Gaza, and what did it give you? Nothing good. [Regardin a Palestinian state, I would say there already is one, and it’s called Jordan; but if you feel that this will help, I would tell you that this is an illusion. It will not bring about the end of the jihad; it’s rather the start of jihad. We see it here, and in Europe, and in the United States. However, whatever Israel decides, I will always be your friend - but make sure that you are not fooled by people who say it’s a territorial dispute. You must defend yourselves.”

Eldad's Anti-Islamization Legislation

MK Aryeh Eldad, who organized the Facing Jihad conference, used the opportunity to unveil details of the emergency anti-Islamization legislation he is planning to introduce in the next Knesset – if he wins a seat. Currently, polls show that his HaTikvah party will not have sufficient support in the coming elections.

“This legislation is aimed at confronting the enemy from within and without the State of Israel,” said Eldad at the conference. “What I am trying to accomplish is to preserve the State of Israel as a Jewish state and to continue the fight against those who say that we no longer need a Jewish state, but a bi-national state of Jews and Muslims.”

The new legislation calls for every Israeli citizen to pledge an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel, requires every citizen to serve the country either in the army or through national service, and aims to crack down on the illegal acquisition of land, illegal building and organized crime in the Arab sector as well as the preaching of hateful statements and doctrines in mosques.

Speakers at the conference included Prof. John Lewis, Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch, Daniel Pipes, and others.