Thy Word is Truth: encouraging serious study of the word of God Welcome friends. Thankyou for visiting this web site. I have always loved to teach the Word. Too many of God's people let their pastor or teacher do all their studying for them. But if the Bible is the Word of God, shouldn't you take a serious look at it yourself? To study and discover things on your own is both faith building and spiritually rewarding. It is exciting to discover the treasures of God's Word. Studying the Bible doesn't have to be a chore, it can be a most thrilling adventure. I hope to stimulate thought by this web site, provoke you to want to dig into the scriptures yourself, and honor the God of Israel, and our Saviour, the Messiah our soon coming King.

by Alon Ronk


By way of introduction I freely admit that as I write this article it is difficult for me not to be impassioned about it. I care very much about what is happening in Israel. But what I set forth is not just emotional opinions, but Biblical and historical information. For those of you who see the way the world villifies Israel at every oppurtunity I wish to give you some foundational information upon which you can base your world view concerning Israel. Also I hope to convince those who are otherwise minded that supporting and loving Israel is the Biblical and right thing to do. The World Wide Web is a good place to get the word out. I would hope that you would forward this site to your friends and encourage them to do the same.

I do not advocate hatred of Arabs. All men were created in the image of the Creator. God has given life to all men. But the force that drives the enemies of Israel is evil; sinister. They are also the enemies of God. Nevertheless, God has not forgotten Zion. Psalm 121:4," Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." God also knows those who love Zion. We are commanded by Scripture to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, the capital city of Israel. Psalm 122, "I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem. Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together: Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the LORD. For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good."

The House of the LORD was the Temple that once stood and will stand again on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This Temple was the place where God Himself appeared to His people Israel. It would have been there to this day had it not been destroyed by the Romans. Israel would have continued to exist where it was before for thousands of years had the Romans not driven the Jewish people from their homes, their heritage, and their land.

No matter how hard the heathen try they will never succeed in destroying Israel. But the lines are drawn and people and nations are taking sides. Psalm 125 says, "They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever. For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity. Do good, O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their hearts. As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel. "

"Again the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness." - Zechariah 8:1-8.


In the fifth century B.C; the Jews of Persia (modern day Iran) were in great danger from a man named Haman. Haman, second in rank only to King Xerxes, had plotted to kill all the Jews in the kingdom. The plot failed and Haman was ultimately hanged. It is still remembered by the Jews through the feast of Purim, or Lots.

The Jewish people had faced terrible persecutions by great nations before. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, and Rome among them. But perhaps nothing could prepare them for what was to transpire in Nazi Germany.

There was nothing to fear from the Jewish people. They were not engaged in terrorism, criminal rackets, treason, or any other such thing. They also were not a liability to the State. In fact, just the opposite was true. These men and women were successful, hard working, and productive. They had greatly contributed to the good of the Nation both to its economy and people. They were involved in trade and commerce, industry and manual trades. They were doctors, lawyers, judges, actors, musicians, teachers, and university professors. They were patriotic, and many were war veterans with a deep love of their country, Germany. Their roots were deep in this Land.

Their religion did not threaten nor adversely effect the German way of life nor the State sponsored Roman Catholic Church. The religious pretty much stayed to themselves not interested in proselytizing converts. In fact, most of them were probably not religious Jews. Judaism is not just a religion but an ethnicity as well. It can be one or the other or it can be both. But it can never be neither.

Nevertheless, when the National-Socialists came to power they marked the Jews as enemies of the State and ultimately for annihilation in the Final Solution. It seems these veterans of thousands of years of suffering, did not realize the severity of the approaching storm clouds of genocide such as the world has never seen before. Their leaders had been telling them at first to hang tight, ride it out, things will probably get bad but then it will get better. Little did they know.

There were some who sounded the alarm. There were also those who would later repent that they did not. There were also those who had managed to flee. But many more it would be who would perish in the flames.

During the conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany, Hitler turned his attention to the country of Czechoslovakia. The following is an account of the German invasion of Czechoslovakia made possible by Nazi Germany's masterful use of propoganda on the world stage regarding the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia. The article was written by former Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu and can be found on Koinonea House's web page, to which there is a link on this web site.

Their Strategic Barrier

Czechoslovakia was strategically placed in the heart of Europe, and its conquest was central to Hitler's plans for overrunning Europe. Though small, Czechoslovakia could field over 800,000 men (one of the strongest armies in Europe), and it had a highly efficient arms industry.

To complicate matters from Hitler's point of view, it possessed a formidable physical barrier to his designs in the shape of the Sudeten mountains, which bordered Germany and guarded the access to the Czech heartland and the capital city of Prague only miles away.

A system of fortifications and fortresses had been built in the mountains over many years, making passage by force a very costly proposition, perhaps even impossible. We now know from the Nuremberg trials and other sources that Hitler's generals were utterly opposed to an assault on the Czech fortifications.

Worse from Hitler's point of view, the Western powers had promised at Versailles to guarantee the Czech border against any aggressive attack. France, which in 1938 could field one hundred divisions (an army 50% larger than Germany's), had agreed in writing to come to the Czech's defense, and Britain and Russia were committed to joining in if France did so.

Propaganda vs. Reality

Since an outright military victory seemed impossible, Hitler embarked on an unprecedented campaign to politically force the Czechs to give up the land, and with it any hope of being able to defend their capital or their country. The inhabitants of the Sudetenland, Hitler said, were predominantly German, and these three million Sudeten Germans deserved-what else?-the right of self-determination and a destiny separate from the other seven million inhabitants of Czechoslovakia; this despite the fact that the country was a democracy and that the Sudeten Germans enjoyed economic prosperity and full civil rights.

To buttress his claim, Hitler organized and funded the creation of a new Sudeten political leadership that would do his bidding, which was, in the words of Sudeten leader Konrad Henlein, to "demand so much that we can never be satisfied." 2

William Shirer, who was a reporter in Europe at the time, succinctly summarized it: Thus the plight of the German minority in Czechoslovakia was merely a pretext ... for cooking up a stew in a land he coveted, undermining it, confusing and misleading its friends and concealing his real purpose ... to destroy the Czechoslovak state and grab its territories .... The leaders of France and Great Britain did not grasp this. All through the spring and summer, indeed almost to the end, Prime Minister Chamberlain and Premier Daladier apparently sincerely believed, along with most of the rest of the world, that all Hitler wanted was justice for his kinsfolk in Czechoslovakia. 3

In addition, Hitler backed the establishment of a Sudeten liberation movement called the Sudeten Free Corps, and he instigated a series of well-planned and violent uprisings that the Czechs were compelled to quell by force. 4

Hitler's propaganda chief, Goebbels, orchestrated a fearful propaganda campaign of fabricated "Czech terror" and oppression of the Sudeten Germans.

The Czech refusal to allow the Sudeten territories to return to their "rightful" German owners, Hitler prattled, was proof that the Czechs were the intransigent obstacle to peace. For what choice would Germany have but to come to the assistance of its oppressed brethren living under intolerable Czech occupation?

Moreover, the Germans reversed causality, claiming that the Czechs were trying to precipitate a European crisis in order to prevent the breakup of their state, that the choice between war and peace in Europe was in Czech hands, and even that "this petty segment of Europe is harassing the human race." 5

But there was a simple way to simultaneously avoid war and achieve justice, Hitler said. The Western powers-meaning Britain and France-could force the Czechs to do what was necessary for the sake of peace: Czechoslovakia had to relinquish the "occupied territories."

The Fickle West

And it worked. With astonishing speed, the governments and opinion-makers of the West adopted Hitler's point of view. Throughout 1937 and 1938, mounting pressure was exerted on Czechoslovakia by the leading Western powers "to go to the utmost limit" to meet Sudeten demands. 6 Czech leader Edvard Benes was reviled as intransigent.

The Western press published articles lamenting Czech shortsightedness and its total disregard for the cause of peace in Europe, as well as the injustice of not allowing the Sudetenland to be "returned" to Germany (despite the fact that it had never been part of Germany). The British envoy who was dispatched to investigate the situation even went so far as to demand that Czechoslovakia "so remodel her foreign relations as to give assurances to her neighbors that she will in no circumstances attack them or enter into any aggressive action against them." 7

Land for Peace

On September 18, 1938, under the gun of Hitler's September 28 deadline, a meeting was held between the British Cabinet and the French prime minister and foreign minister, in which it was determined that democratic Czechoslovakia must accede to Hitler's demands.

Despite the fact that the West had promised in writing at Versailles to go to war to defend Czecho-slovakia's borders, it agreed that the Czechs must give up the Sudetenland for "the maintenance of peace and the safety of Czechoslovakia's vital interests."

In return, the Czechs would receive from Britain and France "an international guarantee of the new boundaries... against unprovoked aggression." 8

If the Czechs did not accept the plan and thereby save the peace of Europe, they were informed by the leaders of the free world, they would be left to fight Hitler alone. In Neville Chamberlain's immortal words: "It is up to the Czechs now." 9

But in fact it was not even left to the Czechs. Chamberlain realized that if the Czechs were to fight, France and Britain might be forced to fight too. As the Czechs and Germans mobilized, Chamberlain became increasingly hysterical about averting war by buying off Hitler with the Czech defensive wall. He shuttled repeatedly to Germany to try to arrange the payoff. Finally, minutes before his September 28 deadline, Hitler "agreed" to Chamberlain's proposal for an international peace conference to bring peace to Central Europe.

At Munich, Britain and France pleaded with Hitler for 11 hours to "compromise" and take the Sudetenland peacefully. In the end Hitler agreed. Having grasped the fact that his supposed democratic allies had allowed themselves to become tools in Hitler's hand, Prime Minister Benes announced Czecho-slovakia's capitulation to the demands of the totalitarians. "We have been basely betrayed," he said. 10

The Western leaders returned in triumph to London and Paris. In government, in parliament, and in the press, Chamberlain and Daladier were praised, cheered, and thanked for having traded land for peace. "My friends," said Chamberlain, "I believe it is peace in our time."

For when they shall say, 'Peace and safety'; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 1 Thessalonians 5:3

Phase Two

On September 30, the Czech army began its withdrawal from the Sudetenland-from the strategic passes, the mountain fortresses, and the major industrial facilities that would have been the backbone of Czechoslovakia's effort to defend itself. But this was only Phase One of Hitler's plan.

The German annexation of the Sudeten-land was followed by a renewed list of demands on the Czechs. The Nazis continued to invent incidents of violence and oppression against the ethnic German minority in what was left of the Czech state.

Less than six months later, on March 15, 1939, the Nazi war machine rolled through the rest of Czechoslovakia. Shorn of their defenses in the Sudeten mountains, the Czechs were now powerless to resist. Phase Two had been implemented.

The Western powers again did nothing. Once more, all their assurance proved worthless.

Grave and Present Danger

Unfortunately, the parallels to today's effort to gouge Judea and Samaria out of Israel are all too easy to see. Like Czechoslovakia, Israel is a small democracy with a powerful army much aided by defensive terrain. Like the Sudeten district, the West Bank is mountainous territory, a formidable military barrier that guards the slender and densely populated Israeli shoreline and Israel's capital city. Like the Germans, the Arabs 11 understand that as long as Israel controls these mountains, it will not be overrun. They understand too that a military campaign to seize these mountains is at present unthinkable, and that Israel's removal from them can be achieved only by the application of irresistible political pressure by the West on Israel to withdraw. The Arab regimes have therefore embarked on a campaign to persuade the West that the Arab inhabitants of these mountains (like the Sudeten Germans, comprising roughly a third of the total population) are a separate people that deserves the right of self- determination-and that unless such self-determination is granted, the Arab states will have no choice but to resort to war to secure it.

As in the case of Czechoslovakia, Israel's insistence on not parting with territories strategically vital for its defenses is presented as the obstacle to peace.

Echoing Munich, the Arabs repeatedly advocate "active" American (and European) involvement, in the hope that an American Chamberlain can be found to force "the intransigent party" to capitulate where it is otherwise unwilling to compromise its own security.

That the Arabs have borrowed directly from the Nazis in this, as in so many of their other devices against Israel, is not surprising. What is surprising, or at least disappointing, is the speed and readiness with which this transparent ruse has been received, digested, and internalized by the elite of the Western world. Not a day passes without some somber editorial or political comment from august quarters in America or Europe asking Israel to voluntarily accept the same decree that Czechoslovakia was asked to accept.

In 1938, the London Times, the leading newspaper of the world at the time, published a celebrated editorial that summed it all up:

It might be worthwhile for the Czechoslovak government to consider whether they should exclude altogether ... making Czechoslovakia a more homogenous state by the secession of that fringe of populations who are contiguous to the nation with which they are united by race .... The advantages to Czechoslovakia of becoming a homogenous state might conceivably outweigh the obvious disadvantages of losing the Sudeten German district. 12

The foregoing comments by the present Prime Minister of Israel were excerpted from his book published in 1993. It is astonishing how the Western press has swallowed the PLO line that they are "the oppressed people struggling to be free," that Israel is the aggressor, that forcing Israel to withdraw from its strategic defenses will bring peace, and that the survivors of the Holocaust are now the "bad guys." Amazing.

Yet this is consistent with Biblical prophecy. Jerusalem is prophesied to be "a cup of trembling" to all nations round about ... all that burden themselves with it will be torn to pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it." 13

The Wehrmacht marched into Czechoslovakia on the 15th of March, 1939. The West did not intervene, and today we see this same strategy being employed in Israel. The Palestinians claim Israel must withdraw from the "Occupied territories" which never did belong to the Palestinians. In Israel today it is the PLO who are the squatters. In addition to this they are terrorists, indiscriminately killing anybody anywhere. They are the occupiers of what is collectively called Yesha. You may be more familiar with the term, West Bank, or Gaza Strip however. There has never been a Palestinian government, country, capital, or language anywhere in the world let alone in Israel. NEVER! West Bank and Gaza have never been independent sovreign countries: EVER. The media uses these terms as an anti-semitic slant on their biased reporting. An Arutz 7 report titled, Bigger and Bigger Lies, by Emanuel A. Winston 23 December 2002 points out, " The first Big Lie is that the mix of Arab immigrants who adopted the name of Palestine and called themselves Palestinians are now, or ever were, a people of any recorded history. Nowhere, even in the Koran, is there any reference to such a body of people. No ruins, no folk tales, no recorded history, no stories of ancient battles - nothing - absolutely nothing." The country of palestine is a myth much like the land of Oz.


Israel is always branded as the obstacle to peace. Is Israel the obstacle to peace? After Israel was threatened by the Arabs in June of 1967, and by the way, all of Israel's wars were started by the muslims, Israel responded and in only 6 days not only defeated the Arab armies but also captured more territory than they had before. As a side note, the PLO or Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1965 to "liberate" Palestine from Israel. But the territory that the PLO claimed it was seeking to liberate in 1965 when it was founded was under Egyptian and Jordanian control not Israeli.

After the war, Arabs convened a summit in Khartoum, Sudan from 29 August to 1 September, 1967 in which they formulated what is often called, "the three no's" which are also cited as being,"the main principles by which the Arab States abide". Their resolution reads as follows:

The conference has affirmed the unity of Arab ranks, the unity of joint action and the need for coordination and for the elimination of all differences. The Kings, Presidents and representatives of the other Arab Heads of State at the conference have affirmed their countries' stand by and implementation of the Arab Solidarity Charter which was signed at the third Arab summit conference in Casablanca.

The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.

The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference has come to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference has, therefore, decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.

The participants in the conference have approved the plan proposed by Kuwait to set up an Arab Economic and Social Development Fund on the basis of the recommendation of the Baghdad conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil.

The participants have agreed on the need to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen military preparation to face all eventualities.

The conference has decided to expedite the elimination of foreign bases in the Arab States.

So you can plainly see who the real intransigent obstacles to peace are and it is not Israel. The United Nations mentality seems to be, if we get rid of Israel there will be no more problems in the Middle East: Israel is expendable. Israel is the obstacle to peace. Back in December of 2001, Daniel Bernard, French Ambassador to Britain pretty muched summed up what world governments and news organizations think.

The following excerpt is from the Jerusalem Post dated Thursday, December 20, 2001. "The diplomatic career of French Ambassador to Britain Daniel Bernard was said to be in jeopardy yesterday, after he was quoted as having referred to Israel as "that shitty little country" which threatens world peace. The undiplomatic remarks were made at a private gathering at the London home of Lord Black of Crossharbour, chairman of The Jerusalem Post's parent company Hollinger Inc. They were referred to - anonymously - in a column published in the Daily Telegraph on Monday by Black's wife, Barbara Amiel. In her column, which laments that anti-Semitism has become a respectable sentiment at London dinner tables, Amiel noted the ambassador of a major European Union country "politely told a gathering at my home that the current troubles in the world were all because of 'that shitty little country Israel.' "Why," she quoted him as saying, "should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" .

This is a good indication that Western Governments are willing to sacrifice Israel because some of them just plain hate Israel and also they are afraid of the Muslim governments. There are large and growing Islamic communities in their countries. In Belgium, for example, there are only around 40,000 Jews while muslims number around 600,000. Terrorism pays against the spineless West. The EU especially has been intimidated by the murdering rogues and are afraid to confront them. Terrorism has already won in Europe. America alone seems to have the courage to do what must be done and take the bull by the horns. Perhaps Europe is envious at the might and courage of the American government and therefore responds to it with resentment. Belgium, France, and Germany have already lost the war against Iraq. At least France and Germany's foreign policy seems to already be held hostage by the fear of terrorists.

A Yahoo news article titled, Powell Urges U.N. to Stand Up to Saddam dated Mon Jan 20, 6:24 PM ET, By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer, reported, " Germany's foreign minister took a strong stand against military action, saying it might have "negative repercussions" for the international fight against terrorism... Other Europeans said they had yet to be convinced war would not make things worse. "We have no illusions about the brutal nature of Saddam Hussein's regime," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher said during a daylong Security Council meeting on counterterrorism. But, he said: "We are greatly concerned that a military strike against the regime in Baghdad would involve considerable and unpredictable risks for the global fight on terrorism."

French President Jacques Chirac has also publicly shown his fear of Islamic terrorism. In an article written by GINA HOLLAND for the Associated Press dated 2-17-03 and published on the Yahoo News site, we read, " French President Jacques Chirac outlined his opposition in an interview with Time magazine. He said that "a war of this kind cannot help but give a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens" - a reference to Osama bin Laden"

Terrorism has grown to the point it is today, not because of war, but because of politicians who stick their heads in the sand and hope the problem will go away. It did not. It is the worse it has ever been because of a fear and refusal to confront it head on. You can not reason with terrorists. Their blind insanity and hatred can only be met with superior force.

Clearly, they are worried about what the terrorists will do in response to a war with Iraq. Iraq has even threatened as much. From Israel Wire News dated Jan-30-03 Arutz Sheva reports, "Iraq Threatens Global Islamic Attacks Against US Targets ( Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations announced that if the United States attacks Baghdad, Islamists around the world would strike out against American targets." This, in my opinion, is one major reason why Germany took sides against the USA in its war with Iraq. That France would side against the United States is not at all surprising. In an article titled, French Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism by Irwin N. Graulich dated 28 January 2003, Arutz Sheva reported, " Sometimes humor can teach us an important lesson. "Q: Why are there large trees along the Champs Elysees [in France]? A: So the Nazis could march in the shade!"

Today, in the very same location on that wide avenue, we find anti-Israeli and anti-American demonstrations. Once again, France is giving the world trouble. It seems to always begin with small, innocuous, anti-Semitic incidents throughout a country. In this case, a synagogue is torched because of "The Occupation." Jews with skullcaps are harassed in the streets because of West Bank "Settlements." A Jewish soccer team is attacked by a gang of hooded youths because of "The IDF." Jewish day schools are firebombed because Israel responds to "terrorism."

If the French are truly protesting Israel´s actions, important questions must be asked. Why are innocent French Jewish citizens being targeted?...

Unfortunately, France has learned virtually nothing from WWII. That famous French arrogance, usually experienced in fine French restaurants, has prevented this ungrateful nation from showing their appreciation for US soldiers dying to rescue them from The Third Reich. Ever since Napoleon, France has thought of itself as an important world player, when in truth, they have become irrelevant. Opposing Israel, and now the United States, merely gives the French a feeling of newfound importance and power.

The world should learn from its ugly past. The important lesson of what Hitler attempted, and what was continued with Nasser, Saddam, Khaddafi and much of the Arab/Muslim world today, is that those who begin with attacking Jews and Israel, will eventually move on to more significant targets, namely decent democracies...

France´s policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue is evidence of a lack of moral clarity. The fact that French churches are empty while their sex clubs are filled to capacity, is further proof of a moral decline...

The French Intifada against the Jews and Israel includes: a gunman firing on a Kosher butcher shop in southern France; the University of Paris stopping collaboration with Israeli universities and academics, while suggesting that the European Union do the same; Rabbi Gabriel Farhi stabbed in Paris preparing for the Sabbath and his automobile set on fire; the major French encyclopedia questioning the large number of Jews murdered during The Holocaust; eight people in France arrested for their participation in bombing a Tunisian synagogue; a bomb diffused at the entrance of a Jewish cemetery in Strasbourg; "Dreaming of Palestine," a book by a teenager glorifying suicide bombings in Israel, becomes a French bestseller; French lawyer, Gisele Halimi defending Marwan Barghouti, the man personally responsible for most recent suicide bombings in Israel; and the list goes on.

The French Intifada against America has only just begun: France was the greatest obstacle during the Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq; Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" was allowed through French airport security, despite missing pages from his passport due to trips to Afghanistan; information about Zacharrias Moussai, a French citizen and so-called "20th hijacker," is not being released to authorities because American law includes the possibility of capital punishment; France was the most outspoken country against George Bush´s decision to boycott Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader...

President Jaques Chirac has criticized "(America´s) attempt to legitimize the use of unilateral and pre-emptive force," as if morality is accomplished through a majority worldwide vote. There was no UN vote for American entry into WWII, saving France and the world. Yet, Chirac continues his diatribes with the idea that "weapons inspectors need more time." Using that same logic, perhaps America should have given Hitler more time."

But now that the Iraq war is basically over, American inrelligence has uncovered some evidence of other reason why France and Germany were so opposed to the war. World Net Daily published the following report on Sunday, April 20, 2003:

German spies aided Saddam?

Documents seized in Baghdad point to ties with Iraq's intelligence service © 2003

"Documents recovered from the bombed Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad reveal Germany's intelligence services attempted to build closer ties to Saddam's secret service during the build-up to war last year, according to a report in the London Telegraph. The documents point to a meeting on January 29, 2002 between an agent named as Johannes William Hoffner and Lt. Gen. Taher Jalil Haboosh, the director of Iraq's intelligence service. Haboosh indicates the Iraqis are anxious to cultivate a relationship with Germany's intelligence agency ''under diplomatic cover," and offers to give lucrative contracts to German companies if Berlin helps prevent an American invasion of Iraq. He also urges Hoffner to lobby the German government to raise its diplomatic mission in Baghdad to full ambassadorial level, according to the Telegraph. ''When the American conspiracy is finished, we will make a calculation for each state that helps Iraq in its crisis,'' Haboosh says. He indicates he hoped to forge the relationship through Hoffner, who replies: ''My organization wants to develop its relationship with your organization.'' Haboosh also tells the German agent Iraq has ''big problems'' with Britain and the United States. ''We have problems with Britain because it occupied Iraq for 60 years and with America because of its aggression for 11 years,'' he says. The meeting between the Iraqi and German agents took place some six months before Chancellor Schroeder's government began its policy of direct opposition to the idea of a U.S.-led war against Iraq. Schroeder was re-elected last September, largely because of the popularity of his government's outspoken opposition to the war. The revelations about Iraq's ties to German intelligence come a week after The Telegraph reported Russia had spied for the Iraqis, passing them intelligence about a meeting between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. Both the British and Italian governments have launched investigations."

The report was also published by the Jerusalem Post.

As for France, Washington Targets Chirac and ElBaradai

>From DEBKA-Net-Weekly May 2 Updated by DEBKAfile May 7, 2003, 1:08 AM (GMT+02:00)

"The Americans are sitting tight on the extremely valuable Iraqi intelligence archives discovered at Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad and at sub-departments of Saddam's clandestine machine never before known to exist. The only data released are a few leaks to the British media calculated to help prime minister Tony Blair stand up to anti-war campaigners at home and around Europe.

>From this treasure trove, America has distributed to its war allies some materials relevant to their national security. But no decision has been taken as to the disposition of documents attesting to the clandestine ties of collaboration maintained with the Saddam regime by a whole range of foreign government and public office-holders, academics, media figures, financiers and industrialists the world over, many deeply involved in sanctions-busting. By and large, Washington is not inclined to bare these secrets or make use of them at the moment, except in some notable cases. One is French president Jacques Chirac; another is the head of the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradai, who led the nuclear weapons inspection in Iraq before the war. In addition, the administration has secretly handed over to various Middle East and Persian Gulf governments the names of ministers and public figures who were handsomely rewarded by Saddam Hussein for supporting his case in deliberations at the United Nations, other international bodies and inter-Arab forums. Washington was given to understand that these public officials would be held to account by their governments. This process has started quietly in Qatar and Jordan, where our intelligence sources expect overnight resignations of senior cabinet members.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly has been reliably informed that the nature of the relationships the French president and members of his family wove with Saddam Hussein and members of his regime is due to be revealed quite soon, drawing on the materials in the secret Iraqi files. Some sources say that the ties linking the two families were deep and ramified. Their exposure is likely to raise a storm."

DEBKAfile - We start where the media stop

Washington Targets Chirac and ElBaradai

From DEBKA-Net-Weekly May 2 Updated by DEBKAfile May 7, 2003, 1:08 AM (GMT+02:00)

"The Americans are sitting tight on the extremely valuable Iraqi intelligence archives discovered at Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad and at sub-departments of Saddam's clandestine machine never before known to exist. The only data released are a few leaks to the British media calculated to help prime minister Tony Blair stand up to anti-war campaigners at home and around Europe.

From this treasure trove, America has distributed to its war allies some materials relevant to their national security. But no decision has been taken as to the disposition of documents attesting to the clandestine ties of collaboration maintained with the Saddam regime by a whole range of foreign government and public office-holders, academics, media figures, financiers and industrialists the world over, many deeply involved in sanctions-busting. By and large, Washington is not inclined to bare these secrets or make use of them at the moment, except in some notable cases. One is French president Jacques Chirac; another is the head of the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradai, who led the nuclear weapons inspection in Iraq before the war. In addition, the administration has secretly handed over to various Middle East and Persian Gulf governments the names of ministers and public figures who were handsomely rewarded by Saddam Hussein for supporting his case in deliberations at the United Nations, other international bodies and inter-Arab forums...

DEBKA-Net-Weekly! has been reliably informed that the nature of the relationships the French president and members of his family wove with Saddam Hussein and members of his regime is due to be revealed quite soon, drawing on the materials in the secret Iraqi files. Some sources say that the ties linking the two families were deep and ramified. Their exposure is likely to raise a storm."

Copyright 2002 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

The Russians not only also spied for Iraq but were also interested in protecting their oil contracts with Bagdad. There's your German, French, Russian alliance. This would probably not have surfaced had the military not been able to raid the Iraqis secret intelligence archives. Who knows what else this trio is up to.

The West is also willing to sell Israel out for oil. There is no moral high ground in this stupid logic. The West maintains the double standard of preaching democracy while sleeping in bed with democracy's enemies. In December, 2002, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England, rolled out the red carpet for the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Never mind that Syria is on the U.S. list of terrorist supporting countries. Never mind that Syria is still occupying Lebanon. Of course, the British are still occupying Northern Ireland too. Never mind that Syria supports Hizballah terrorists who daily fire on Northern Israel from Southern Lebanon. Never mind that Syria is a totalitarian dictatorship etc. But when the foreign minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu visited England, Tony Blair would not meet with him. Of course Mr. Blair came up with some lame excuse in order to justify himself. But that just shows that Mr. Blair believed he needed an excuse thus inadvertantly admitting that he was wrong: as a Jerusalem Post report by Douglas Davis, dated Jan. 19, 2003 points out. "British Conservative leader blasts PA parley as 'pointless'- "Opposition Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith has criticized the British government for "fiddling with pointless conferences while suicide bombers are malignantly burning their way through Israel."

Addressing a Jewish audience at a breakfast meeting on Friday, he said last Tuesday's conference on Palestinian reform in London, which was initiated by Prime Minister Tony Blair, "offers little hope." "The British government has demonstrated once again that it does not understand the balance that is needed for peace to develop between Israel and the Palestinians," said Smith. Labor ministers must realize, he said, that "cosmetic grandstanding solutions and ill-thought-out conferences do more harm than good to a process which requires, above all, even-handedness. "And that applies also to the prime minister's approach to meeting Israeli ministers," he said, an apparent reference to Blair's refusal to meet with Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last month but his decision to host Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna in London this month.

Duncan Smith attacked Blair for "giving support" to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat through a Palestinian conference, "while refusing to see the Israeli foreign minister."

"This does not seem very balanced," he said. "It will not advance the prospect of peace. But it is also very disturbing to contemplate the possibility that our taxpayers' money could be financing the bombs and explosives used to attack Israeli civilians." He noted that Conservative European parliamentarian Charles Tannock is fighting to secure the support of 157 fellow legislators, the number required to establish a European parliamentary committee of inquiry, to investigate whether European Union aid to the Palestinian Authority is being diverted to fund terrorist attacks.

Tannock, he said, had told him, "We are not even sure who is actually monitoring the 10 million euros given every month given to the Palestinian Authority. The European Commission keeps stating that the International Monetary Fund 'provides a monitoring role,' but the director of external relations at the IMF said, 'The IMF does not monitor foreign assistance to the PA.' "

"There is also disturbing speculation," said Duncan Smith, "that the PA hides funds by exaggerating the number of employees they pay, by manipulating currency exchange rates, by forcefully deducting salaries for 'Fatah membership fees.' This must be investigated and it is the British Conservatives that are leading the fight to set up a committee to answer these questions."

He said it was "very disappointing" that not one Labor legislator in the European parliament had agreed to add his name to the list seeking an investigation into "the possible funding of terrorism against Israel... It is time for a reality check. You cannot appease terror." Israel, he said, stands "in the front line [of] the war on terror [and] is a lighthouse of democratic values in a troubled region." He was troubled that it is "lambasted time and time again by those on the one hand who wish to appease terrorists, suicide bombers, and their ilk and, on the other, who use attacks on Israel to hide behind a veil of thinly disguised anti-Semitism."

While he was not uncritical of Israel, he added: "My party understands the difference between democracy and dictatorship. Israel's fight against terror deserves support."

I made bold the certain sentences for emphasis. It remains to be seen if the EU is really interested in finding out where the money is going. My sense is the EU will not follow through, or make a show of it at best.

Israel is neither interested in proselytizing Judaism nor invading territory outside Israel. Deuteronomy 2:4,5,9 says for example, "And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore: Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession." Israel and Israel alone was given to the Jews by God. They have no interest in conquest. Their interest is security, not expansion.

Islam, on the other hand, wants to forcefully convert non muslims to Islam or kill them as well as enslave the nations of the world to Islam. Islam's goal IS expansion; by force if necessary. And the Western Media, the Julias Streichers and Joseph Goebbels of CNN, the BBC (which some in Israel are nicknaming, Der Stuermer) et al; are helping to propogate the evil of anti-semitism through their subjective slant on the news and making Israel out to be the aggressor. They are trying, sucessfully, to indoctrinate people with their new brand of anti-semitism equating Zionism with Racism. If Zionism is racist, is not the aspirations of the Palestinians more so? Their strategy is to commit genocide against the Jewish State to expand their own lebensraum, a term used by Hitler in his sweep across Europe to create more living space for germans in countries that did not rightfully belong to the germans. It is also no secret that the muslims want to make Israel "Juden Rein", that is, free of all Jews. It seems to me that those who go around killing people only because they are Jews (or Americans), are the racists. Do you really think that the ones in control of the media are unbiased, honest, and objective people? Sometimes I wonder if their subjectivity is ignorant or deliberately evil. My guess is, deliberately evil, because they have an agenda against Israel. They are part of an international conspiracy against the Jewish State. It is not that this information is not available to them. They just choose to ignore and suppress it.

It is unfortunate to see history repeat itself. Especially Nazi history. The situation in Israel today is much like it was during Hitler's reign. The Palestinians have borrowed heavily from Hitler and with great success on the world political stage. The truth is, there is no Palestinian homeland in Israel. The Jews were driven out of their homeland by the Romans who also coined the term "Palestine" for Israel's past enemies the Phillistines. The Phillistines, by the way were non arab, non muslim people who inhabited the costal plain along the Mediterranean Sea while the Jews inhabited the areas in the eastern, mountainous parts of Israel. You may recall that the Syrians declared in 1 Kings 20:23, " And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their [Israel's] gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they." The renaming of Israel to Palestine took place at least 500 years before the birth of Islam. By the way, you must keep in mind the fact that Islam is a religion and NOT an ethnicity. It is not so much Arabs, per se, who are the most interested in Israel, it is the muslims. The war against the West and Israel is an Islamic crusade. It is a vicious religious conquest. It began with a campaign of genocide by Muhammad and his followers against the Jews and Christians even stating that it was Allah that delivered them and their property into the hands of Muhammad and his followers.

Iran is an enemy to Israel but it is not an Arab country. The hypocrisy coming from Iran is their claim to support the Palestinians living in Israel, and Islam's claim to Jerusalem as being the second holiest site in their religion. But inspite of that, they threaten to use nuclear weapons against Israel. Iraq also, has threatened the use of unconventional weapons against Israel. Never mind the countless number of Arabs this would injure or kill. So much for the holiness of Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. But then again, truth is not important to them. It sounds like the Palestinians have more to fear from Iran and Iraq than Israel.

The Iranians are Persians not Arabs. In fact, the Egyptians are not even Arabs. If the Arabs trace their ancestry back to Ishmael, remember that Hagar was Ishmael's mother and she was Egyptian. The Pharaohs were certainly not Arabs let alone muslims. But Islam is an enemy and a threat to Israel, and every other country for that matter. Nevertheless, the spiritual dimensions of the Israeli conflict are so great, and the powers of darkness against her so evil, that as Zechariah wrote, all the nations of the world would line up against her. Zechariah 12:1-3 says, "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it."

The prophet Joel also foretold this event. " For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink. Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head; Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things: The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head: And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it. Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about. Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more. " - Joel 3:1-17.

There is an interesting observation about this verse of scripture. In verse 4, we find the words, "all the coasts of Palestine". This is a prophetic scripture discribing a future event. Today, those who live in "Palestine" are called "Palestinians". But compare that with verse 2, "I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. " When I look at todays world you may excuse me if I see a conglomeration of nations (the UN) that parted ( Hebrew- partition, assign, distribute) "My" (God's) land and apportioned parts of it to the Palestinians. The Palestinians could quite well be the catalyst that brings about the war of Armageddon. For the war of Armageddon is to be fought in Israel by a multitude of nations in the valley of Megiddo. The armies fighting in the valley of Jehoshaphat may be part of, or a prelude to the war of Armageddon. The world may call the Holy Land, Palestine, but God calls it, "my heritage Israel". Don't forget that this passage in Joel is not historical but prophetic. God is speaking of a future time. Also bear in mind that the Palestinian problem is the first and foremost single issue that gets the nations involved in Israel's business. There is also a call for international peacekeepers to be sent to Israel. Israel would then become occupied by foreign armies.

In order for the nations of the world to come against Israel, there must be a coalition representing the nations of the world hostile to Israel which, up until the present, did not exist. The U.N. presently represents a coalition of the nations of the world, most of which are antagonistic to Israel and all with military capabilities.

Even China is interested in Israeli affairs. May. 26, 2003 China urges Israel-Palestinian negotiations soon By The Associated Press Beijing, published by the Jerusalem Post

"China on Monday welcomed Israel's decision to accept a US-backed "road map" for peace in the Middle East, and urged that it resume talks with the Palestinians as soon as possible...China, though a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has no direct stake in Middle East tensions. But it has growing economic and political ties there and is eager to promote an image as a major power with global influence." China expects Israel to negotiate with the PLO when they will not even do it with the internationally recognized nation of Taiwan.

The UN itself is anti-Israel. Arutz Sheva Israel News Dated Nov.13, 2002 reported that Koffi Annan said, " ( - Speaking before an audience at the University of Maryland, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the United Nations would never allow Israel to be destroyed. "It was to prevent such things from happening that the United Nations was founded," he said." His guarantees are about as worthless as the guarantees made to Czechoslovakia before it was invaded by the Nazis. Kofi Annan later condemned Israel as reported by Arutz Sheva, "UN Chief Condems Israel ( UN Security Council chief, Kofi Anan, has condemned Israel for conquering "Palestinian territories", stating that Israel must relinquish all the territories it conquered in the 1967 war [Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, the Temple Mount] for peace with the "Palestinians". Anan also said that Israel is blocking the peace process." But as we already saw, Israel is NOT the obstacle to peace. The obstacle to peace is the U.N.'s terrorist buddies. Israel is not blocking the peace process, it is, rather, an obstacle to the UN's political agenda but not peace.

Is the UN's political agenda anti-Jewish and anti-Israel? Decide for yourself. Arutz Sheva published an article titled, "Throwing Israel to the Dogs, written by Emanuel A. Winston, dated 9 Feb.2003, in which the UN's voting record displays blatant anti-Semitism without apology.

"...The United Nations, led now by Kofi Annan and driven by a large block of Arab nations, has voted against Israel 55,642 times and passed 429 resolutions against Israel. The Quartet are all members of the UN. So think of the UN, given its past record of extreme hostility to Israel and how it has artfully avoided passing resolutions against Arab states, like a savage pack of predatory dogs, proven, by their votes, to be "hunting" down the Jewish state. Israel, meanwhile, is the only nation permanently barred from UN Security Council membership..."

Also consider the remarks of Javier Solana as reported by the Jerusalem Post 27 June, 2003.

There is no anti-Semitism in Europe, Solana tells US congressmen

"At the sidelines of Wednesday's US-EU summit in Washington, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana met with the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, Reuters reports.

"When the issue of increased anti-Semitism was raised, he looked at us and said, 'There's no anti-Semitism. There's no wave of anti-Semitism in Europe,'" said Florida Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, who has visited Israel and Syria recently.

"I was stunned to hear him say, more or less, that there has not been a rise in anti-Semitism in Europe," said Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a leader on the committee. "And so I said, 'Oh, it must be another Europe.' And other members couldn't believe it either."

The Simon Wiesenthal Center and other groups have noted a spike in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe since 2001, with 1,300 attacks in France alone, including the stabbing of a rabbi in Paris and the torching of a synagogue in Marseilles. Last week, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) held its first-ever conference on anti-Semitism in Vienna. At the conference the head of the US delegation, former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, referred to anti-Semitism as "a burden that has held Europe back for two millennia.' Germany agreed to host a follow-up conference to be held next year in Berlin on anti-Semitism specifically.

Solana also told the Committee that despite American and Israeli objections European leaders intended to maintain ties to Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. Solana's argument was that meetings with Arafat were an opportunity to encourage him to support Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and the road map.

Members of the House International Relations Committee also pressed Solana to outlaw Hamas' political wing. "He really sidestepped that issue," Wexler said. France has insisted that Hamas remains a necessary player in the peace process." I think the statements and actions of the UN and EU speak for themselves.


The U.N. has already passed more resolutions against Israel than any other nation on earth. Recently they passed six in one day. "

Fresh from a three-day debate criticizing Israeli policies in the Middle East, the United Nations General Assembly passed six resolutions that declare Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights illegal, and urge the international community to renew peace efforts in the region.

The General Assembly's annual debate on Israel, which is expected to end this year with the adoption of 19 resolutions opposed only by Israel, the US, and a handful of Oceanic nations, was denounced by an Israeli source as a "yearly embarrassing ceremony." "Israel deeply appreciates the countries that do not vote in favor of these biased resolutions," said the source.

The resolutions, which are non-binding, each passed with more than 100 votes from 167 nations in attendance in the assembly hall on Tuesday. The most popular resolution, which called for the "peaceful settlement to the question of Palestine" and deemed as illegal Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, passed 160-4, with three abstentions. A resolution on the mandate of a UN committee called the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, which collects and disseminates information on the Palestinian cause and organizes an annual exhibit at UN headquarters on Palestinian rights, received the least backing, passing 108-4, with 56 abstentions.

Surprise opposition to the assembly's annual demand that Israeli repeal the Jerusalem Law, which annexed the eastern part of the city that Israel seized during the Six Day War, came from the US - which provided the "no" vote after years of abstaining. The Palestinians' representative, Nasser al-Kidwa, called the American opposition to the resolution "a slap in the face" to Muslims, Christians, and Arabs...

The resolution passed 154-5, with 6 abstentions.

The assembly debate opened last Friday, on the organization's International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which marks the UN's partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state on November 29, 1947. At the time, all Arab member states rejected partition.

Fifty-five years later, some representatives expressed their continued opposition to partition, while at the same time calling for a peaceful solution to the conflict. In an opening address on Friday by Under-Secretary General Iqbal Riza, the UN's own representative, declared: "This day of solidarity is a day of mourning and grief." Voting on the 13 additional Israel-related resolutions is expected to continue into next week." - Melissa Radler Dec. 4 2002 Jerusalem Post Internet Edition.

And again, another article from the Jerusalem Post Internet Edition, by Melissa Radler dated 22 Dec. 2002. "Resolution Condemning Israel for UN Deaths Vetoed" - "The US vetoed a Syrian-sponsored resolution in the Security Council Friday evening that would have condemned the killing of three United Nations workers and the destruction of a food warehouse in Gaza.

Twelve council members, including Britain, supported the resolution's passage and two, Bulgaria and Cameroon, abstained. The US is one of five permanent members of the council with veto power.

A draft of the resolution condemned Israel for the killing of three UN employees, including British aid worker Iain Hook, who was killed November 22 in a firefight between soldiers and Palestinian gunmen, and the December 6 deaths of two Palestinian UNRWA employees in Gaza during an IDF search for terrorists...

Calling the resolution one-sided and unhelpful in fostering peace between Israelis and Palestinians, US Ambassador John Negroponte said he voted against the resolution because its backers "appear more intent on condemning Israeli occupation than on ensuring the safety of UN personnel...."

Earlier Friday, at the council's year-end wrap-up session, Negroponte praised the council for adopting a March 12 resolution that, for the first time, "affirmed a vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders," and warned it against returning "to the destructive practice of seeking to pass one-sided resolutions heaping criticism on one party, that is to say Israel."

In 2002, he said, "the council made several steps forward in acknowledging the obvious: that suicide bombings destroy prospects for peace as well as innocent lives. In 2003, I would ask the question, will the Council have the courage to take aim at those groups and their supporters that promote and perpetrate this violence and terror?"

The US last vetoed a Middle East resolution on December 14, 2001. That resolution, also voted upon on Shabbat, would have established a monitoring mechanism aimed at bringing in observers to the region to end the violence. In vetoing the resolution, Negroponte said he opposed the text because it made no mention of a recent spate of suicide bombings against Israelis or the terrorist organizations that carried them out.

In July, Negroponte told the Security Council the US would only consider Middle East resolutions that condemn Palestinian terrorism, specifically the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Aksa Martyrs Brigades... (The Associated Press contributed to this report.) As is almost always the case, the US pointed out, these resolutions, the latest sponsored by the dicatorial, terrorist supporting country Syria, are all one sided and biased against Israel. The underlined parts of the article are my emphasis. The UN resolution also failed to explain why there was a gun fight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists shooting from a UN compound.

The new fourth reich, the EU, and their ally the UN, never miss an oppurtunity to criticize Israel. Europe is still infested with anti-Semitism, even in government. That, in spite of what Javier Solana says. They want to see Israel withdraw to militarily indefensible positions. In the Arutz 7 article, Palestinian Lies, Israeli Truths by Martin Sherman 30 December 2002, we see this pointed out. "The deadly threats that would confront Israel in the event of the establishment of a Palestinian state manifest themselves along every conceivable dimension: width, length, height and depth. Width - because Israel will be left with less than the minimum territorial depth required for the deployment of a modern military defense system to protect the coastal plain, in which 80 percent of the country´s population and 80% of its economic activity are located; length - because Israel will have to contend with the creation of a permanent border hundreds of kilometers long on the very approaches of the Dan region and adjacent to the nation´s major urban centers; height - because from the highlands of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians will have total topographical control over all the infrastructure (civilian and military) in the low-lying coastal strip, including airfields, seaports and power plants; depth - because the Palestinians will have hydro-strategic control over crucial groundwater sources, creating a situation in which Israel´s water problem could be transformed from a grave but manageable crisis, to an insoluble catastrophe.

Detailed explication of these dangers goes beyond the above points. However, it was none other than Shimon Peres, who encapsulated their essence in the following apt, articulate and accurate warning (in his book, Tomorrow is Now): "If a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, who will be equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passersby, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal plain." (my translation - M.S.) "

What they fail to realize is, not only are they making the world a more dangerous place by actively seeking to reward terrorists with lebensraum, (the PLO is not a national entity but a terrorist group), but also by forcing Israel to respond to attack with the nuclear option. Please take a moment to go to the Iris web site and look at the maps. There is a link to it on this site.

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition published this article by Herb Keinon titled, " EU blasts settlements in harsh statement" dated Dec. 15, 2002. " The European Union blasted the settlements on Friday at the end of a summit on the Mideast in Copenhagen, issuing a sharply-worded statement saying the settlements "inflame" a volatile situation and indicate Israel's lack of commitment to ending the occupation. Five of the 22 sentences in the European Council statement on the Middle East were devoted to the settlements, while two addressed terrorism. The EU, according to the statement, "reiterates its strong and unequivocal condemnation of all acts of terrorism. Suicide attacks do irreparable damage to the Palestinian cause." While recognizing Israel's "legitimate security concerns," the statement called upon Israel to "stop excessive use of force and extra-judicial killings, which do not bring security to the Israeli population." On the settlements, the statement read: "The European Council is alarmed at the continuing illegal settlement activities, which threaten to render the two-state solution physically impossible to implement. (Note how the word 'solution' is used when refering to Jews. With the Nazis it was the 'final solution'. With the EU it's the 'two state solution'. The second state just being one more step in a long term plan to create another Jewish holocaust.)

"The expansion of settlements and related construction...violates international law, inflames an already volatile situation, and reinforces the fear of Palestinians that Israel is not genuinely committed to end the occupation. It is an obstacle to peace." (There they go again.)...

Victor Harel, the Foreign Ministry's deputy director-general who heads the Western Europe department, reacted to the statement by saying "once again the European Council, for the sake of 'balance,' is more alarmed by the settlements than by the real problem - Arab terrorism." ... - Janine Zacharia contributed to this report."

Recently, the head of the European Central bank and his wife both publically made anti-semitic remarks as the Jerusalem Post reported in an article written by Herb Keinon dated Jan. 13, 2003, "European Central Bank Chairman Wim Duisenberg should be fired because he supports his wife Gretta's anti-Israel positions and embrace of Yasser Arafat, a leading Dutch parliamentarian visiting Jerusalem said Sunday. Jim Jansen van Raaij, deputy chairman of the Dutch parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, said he wrote the Dutch finance minister Sunday demanding Duisenberg be replaced.

Van Raaij's call following Gretta Duisenberg's comments during a visit to Ramallah that Israel's occupation is "inhuman," and that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon provokes violence and "then he blames the Palestinian people."

On Friday, the Dutch paper Algemeen Dagblad quoted her as saying, "The Holocaust excepted, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is worse than the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands." Van Raaij, a ranking member of the LPF Party, said Duisenberg should be forced to resign because "instead of distancing himself from his wife's statements and anti-Jewish declarations, he has said he stands behind her 100 percent." "It is not acceptable that he should support terrorist attacks," Van Raaij said. "If he supports that, he should resign immediately."

Van Raaij also said it is unacceptable that Gretta Duisenberg be allowed to "abuse her diplomatic passport" to come here and make such pronouncements, when she is only in possession of this passport as a result of her husband's position. Officials at Yad Vashem have objected to Duisenberg's comparison between Israeli actions in the territories and Nazis actions during World War II. Yad Vashem's chief historian, Prof. Dan Michman, said that "any attempt to differentiate between the Holocaust and the Nazis is both artificial and absurd."

I might also add that Britain has been antagonistic to Israel and continues to be so today. In fact, ARUTZ SHEVA Internet News Nov. 13, 2002 reported,"( - Certain European governments, most notably Spain, Belgium and Britain, are considering prosecution of Israeli soldiers, reservists and politicians for war crimes. Such a move would effectively bar Israelis from travelling to these countries.The war crimes under discussion are allegations of unlawful killings, torture and the use of Arabs as human shields in Jenin and Shechem during Operation Defensive Shield earlier this year. The IDF categorically denies the charges. Ra'anan Gissin, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, said, "they want to arrest Israelis who are enforcing the law while the real war criminals, like Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat, get away scot free." Note these countries' willingness to prosecute Jews based on unproven allegations. Sounds like plans for some kind of anti Jewish inquisition in the making. Belgium is entertaining this huge fantasy of trying the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon for war crimes.

Britain has a history of hostility toward the Jewish people and nation and can therefore not be fair in its dealings with Israel. After WWII, when the Jews were trying to return to their homeland the British actively opposed them. In his book, Who Owns The Land, by Stanley A. Ellis, on page 97, the author writes, ""Zionists sought to filter displaced persons through various ports in Europe. Some of these efforts were successful, but most were not. The British put a tight naval blockade along the coast of Palestine and sent 80,000 troops to patrol the country. Those who were caught were either sent back to Europe or put in barbed-wire internment camps on the island of Cyprus. Of the sixty-three refugee ships that started out, only five actually slipped through the blockade; some were even fired upon while landing. One Hagonah ship, the Exodus 1947, was rammed by the British, forcing forty-three hundred survivors of of Hitler's inferno to board other ships and return to France. They were finally sent back to Germany."

As bad as that is, it gets worse. Even during WWII the British kept the Jews from fleeing to Israel. Again, Stanley Ellis writes on page 71 and 72, ""If the European Jews ever needed a refuge, it was in the climactic year of 1939. When they needed it most, however, it was cut off. On May 17, 1939, the British government of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain issued a paper that shook the halls of Zion. That paper, infamously known as the "MacDonald White Paper" (after Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary), cut the immigration of Jews to Palestine almost to nothing. It was a virtual surrender to the demands of Arab terrorists." Neville Chamberlain, by the way, was the same British Prime Minister who sold out Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.

The British government has not changed since then either. In another article published by Arutz Sheva, The Hateful Legacy of the British Foreign Office written by Avi Davis and dated 12 January 2003, this fact is clearly seen. "Tony Blair´s and Jack Straw´s latest charm offensive in the Arab world has many observers perplexed. After-all, the unbecoming respect offered visiting despot Bashar al-Asad, the decision to host Palestinian negotiators in London, the cold shoulder given Israeli diplomats, and the refusal of Britain to export ejector seats for the Phantom jet, has unsurprisingly inspired conjecture that Britain is rapidly slipping into Europe´s anti-Semitic orbit.

Blair and most of his predecessors have had middling records when it comes to Israel and the world Jewish community. But the Foreign Office remains another matter altogether. Its hostility towards the Jewish State forms the very backbone of policy, and Jack Straw, who began promisingly, has slowly succumbed to its inevitable embrace.

The change began in September 2001 when Straw, visiting Iran, pointedly blamed Israel for the violence of the entire previous year. Ingratiating himself to his Iranian hosts, he commented that "the factors that help breed terrorism is the anger that many people in this region feel at events over the years in Palestine." The British Foreign Office stood by his remarks and affirmed that, while Straw believed that there was "never any excuse for terrorism," at the same time there was "an obvious need to understand the environment in which terrorism breeds." Such apologetics were painted at the time as a sop to the Arabs in preparation for the war against Afghanistan, but it far more accurately reflects a long standing attitude of the British Foreign Office - both of the career diplomats and the men who have served at its helm.

Take, for instance, George Nathaniel Curzon, Alfred Balfour´s successor and Foreign Secretary under David Lloyd George from 1919 to 1923. Serving in the most favorable British government to the Jewish people in history, Curzon was a bitter opponent of Zionism, rejecting the Balfour Declaration of two years earlier and advocating a go-slow approach on the realization of Britain´s commitments under that document.

Lord Halifax was Neville Chamberlains´ Foreign Secretary (1938-40) and has gone down in history as one of the architects of the Munich fiasco and the disastrous policy of appeasement that led to the Second World War. For Jews, he will remembered as the author of the 1939 White Paper, which restricted Jewish immigration to a trickle and doomed millions to death. An early admirer of Hitler and a Nazi sympathizer, he reportedly told the German leader: "War would undoubtedly serve the purpose of all Jews, Communists and doctrinaires in the world for whom Nazism is anathema."

The situation did not improve much under Anthony Eden. Three times British foreign secretary, he was widely known for his bias against Jews, and during the 1930s expressed precious little regret about Nazi persecutions. His World War II diaries are rife with anti-Semitic comments and a definite indifference to Jewish annihilation. He is reported, by one of his biographers, "as having been forced into a pact with the devil" for being required, during his prime-ministerial years, to cooperate with Israel against Egypt during the 1956 Suez Crisis.

Ernest Bevin, who succeeded Eden in 1945, made no secret of his anti-Semitism. His post-War decision to enforce the 1939 White Paper, while hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors languished in European DP camps, together with his publicly expressed belief that the refugees could be repatriated to Europe, earned the wrath of Jewish leaders. Various colleagues privately noted how often Bevin used pejoratives to describe Jews. His parliamentary Under Secretary, Christopher Mayhew, wrote in his diary (May ,1948) that "there is no doubt in my mind that Ernest detests Jews. He makes the odd wisecrack about the ´Chosen People´; declares the Old Testament the most immoral book ever written and says the Jews taught Hitler the technique of terror. ´What could you expect when people are brought up from the cradle on the Old Testament´ he said to me."

Other former secretaries, such as Lord Carrington (who referred to Menachem Begin as an "international outlaw"), David Owen and Robin Cook all displayed indifference to Israeli rights and contempt for the country´s security concerns. In 1998, when Israeli cabinet secretary Danny Naveh greeted Cook at Har Homa in Jerusalem with the words "welcome to the capital of Israel," he responded: "It´s not just the capital of Israel... it´s also the capital of Palestine." Cook refused a briefing on Har Homa from his Israeli escort, declaring "I don´t need your briefing, because I don´t recognize your right to be here." Har Homa is a site that has been regarded by all Israeli governments as within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and rightfully claimed as sovereign Israeli territory. Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and opposition leader Ehud Barak cancelled meetings with Cook as a result of his comments.

While the present Foreign Secretary may not be an anti-Semite, it is undeniable that his ministry is staffed with men and women for whom Israel´s very legitimacy is in question. They follow a long line of Arabists for whom the Lawrence of Arabia vision of Middle East militarism (selfless guerilla bands struggling against the ignoble forces of imperialism) has become an idée fixee. Often forgotten is that Israel is a vital ally of Great Britain and that Britain´s present strategic interests in the Middle East hang, very much as they did in 1956, on cooperation with the Jewish state.

Sadly, even that may not be enough to dislodge almost a century of antipathy to both Israel and Jews in the British Foreign Office. All of which might provide convincing evidence that anti-Semitism has an after-life that no level of geopolitical reality will ever completely erode."

Arutz Sheva published an article, Britain, EU And Israel dated Thursday, 09 January 2003 which illustrates bias against the Jews. "The European Union has formally demanded that Israel allow a PLO delegation from attending a London conference dealing with political reforms in the Palestinian Authority and the diplomatic process. The Israeli government decided to ban the PA's participation in the conference in response to the double attack in Tel Aviv on Sunday that killed 22 people. The attack was perpetrated by terrorists of Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization, and the ban was meant to prevent his men "from organizing terrorist attacks one day and then parading around the world presenting themselves as peace-seekers," according to Finance Minister Silvan Shalom. The EU announcement of today condemns Israel's decision to ban the delegation, which it says will "perpetuate the hatred and extremism in the region."

England's Prime Minister Tony Blair, too, has sent an urgent message to Ariel Sharon, demanding that he rescind the decision. Sources in London say that Blair is angered at Sharon's decision, which appears likely to lead to the cancellation of the British-organized conference.

HaTzofeh angrily editorialized today, "Britain, which pursued boats carrying Holocaust survivors, has never changed its attitude towards the Jewish people and the State of Israel... The self-righteous British know that there is no value to a meeting with Palestinian figures and that these meetings only give legitimacy to continued terror... The British are interested in economic gains from the Arab countries, not truth and justice... Those who finance the martyrs and terror must rot in prison, and the British Foreign Minister must ask himself the questions that troubled Clinton: Why did Arafat reject the Israeli offer to return almost to the 1967 borders? The answer is known: The Palestinian leadership wants the destruction of Israel and not peace. Britain, if judged by her past and present behavior, is apparently interested in advancing those aims. The proof: Money from the EU, of which Britain is part, flows with an open hand to the extreme Israeli Left, which wants to return Israel to indefensible borders."

Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund, too, commented on the hypocrisy of Britain's stance and that of its Foreign Secretary Jack Straw:

"It was just over 15 months ago, in September 2001, that Straw [said on a visit to Iran], 'I understand that one of the factors which helps breed terrorism is the anger which many people in this region feel at events over the years in Palestine.' … Interestingly, when it comes to "the environment which breeds" the likes of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin-Laden, the British Foreign Secretary sees no comparable need to understand the "anger" at work… "…The British government has shown itself to be increasingly hostile toward Israel of late. Last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to meet with Foreign Minister Netanyahu during the latter's visit to London, citing a "busy schedule", though he managed to find plenty of time to roll out the red carpet for Bashar al-Assad, the Dictator of Damascus… The British government won't sell Israel vital spare parts that are needed for its fleet of F-4 Phantoms, despite the looming war with Iraq… When it comes to Her Majesty's own "occupied territories", such as Northern Ireland, Straw is surprisingly silent about the need for "withdrawal" as a means of achieving a lasting peace. His government will gladly tell Israel to abandon the heart of its ancestral homeland, where the founding fathers of the Jewish people are buried, but would never countenance yielding the Falkland Islands, with its incomparable flocks of sheep, to Argentina."

It is so easy for the EU, UN, and other foreign politicians to hurl insults, lies, and accusations against Israel . After all, it is not Europeans being shot down and blown to pieces in the streets of Europe on a daily basis. There are no terrorists or enemy nations on their borders launching economy and life threating terrorist attacks on a daily basis. There are no neighborhoods being shelled and rocketed. It's so easy to sit in climate controlled offices from a safe distant place and criticize Israel. But once again, these people are involved in a plot to overthrow the Jewish State by providing Israel's enemies with Jewish land from which the terrorists and foreign armies can launch their attacks. The Jewish State is a burr under the saddle of the New World Order which seeks to obliterate all traces of the One True God from the realm of their power. The return of the Jews to Israel only demonstrates the truth of God's word and that He is very much alive. The response of the nations to Israel's rebirth betrays the fact that they have declared their independence from the Almighty and operate in open rebellion against Him.

They do this to their own peril for it is written, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." - Psalm 9:17.


It's interesting that the Jews are the only people to be driven out of their land for almost two thousand years only to return to it once again and revive their national language which had also fallen into disuse except in synagogue services or prayers. The Jews are simply returning to where they were before: Israel. God has not forsaken His people. He still has great plans for them. In fact, the time will come when Israel will stretch from the river of Egypt all the way to the Euphrates river which runs through Iraq and Syria. " In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: " - Genesis 15:18. It's important to note that Israel has not yet possessed all this territory. How Israel will finally come into possession of this land is not fully known. But God still has it reserved for them. Should Israel militarily seize this territory? NO. God will give it to them when the time comes. Remember, David had been promised by God to be king over all Israel while Saul was still on the throne. On a couple of occasions David had the oppurtunity to kill Saul who had in fact been seeking to kill David. David's warriors had even interpreted these oppurtunities to kill Saul as God delivering the kingdom into David's hand. But David chose to wait on God and when the right time came God Himself fulfilled His promise to David as He will also fulfill His promise to Israel.

The disputed territories were in Bible times, as they still are, part of Israel proper. But in Bible times, there were no disputed territories. There was no West Bank. It was all Israel. David first began to reign as King of Israel in Hebron which in todays news is called the West Bank. The West Bank was called Judea and Samaria in Bible times. The Golan Heights belonged to the Israelite tribes of Dan, (when part of the tribe of Dan migrated north and captured Laish from the Phoenicians), and Manasseh. It was not Arabs who were driven out of the Golan. The area at the time of the conquest was called Bashan. Bashan had been inhabited by the Rephaim. In the Golan, Moses established a city of refuge there. The Arabs have no rightful claim to any of these areas to which Israel is simply RETURNING.

For Christians and even non-Christians who are familiar with Christmas songs, there is no excuse for for being against Israeli sovreignty in the disputed areas.

The New Testament says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. In Matthew 2:1-6 the Bible says, "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. "

Bethlehem belonged to Judea, not the West Bank. The palestinians claim Jesus was born in Palestine and was therefore a Palestinian. But the scriptures say that Yeshua was born in Bethlem, Judah. Judea belonged to Israel. Jerusalem was the Capital of Israel. It's all there. Consider some of the Christmas carols sung during the Christmas season:

This Star drew nigh to the North West; O'er Bethlehem it took it's rest. And there it did both stop and stay, Right over the place where Jesus lay. Noel, noel, noel, noel. Born is the King of Israel Or Joyful all ye nations rise, Join the triumph of the skies, With the angelic host proclaim, Christ is born in Bethlehem. Hark! the Herald Angels sing, Glory to the new-born King

Or my favorite

O come, O come, Emmanuel, And ransom captive Israel, That mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear. Refrain Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel. O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free Thine own from Satan's tyranny; From depths of hell Thy people save, And give them victory over the grave. Refrain O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer Our spirits by Thine advent here; And drive away the shades of night And pierce the clouds and bring us light! Refrain O come, Thou Key of David, come, And open wide our heavenly home; Make safe the way that leads on high, And close the path to misery. Refrain O come, O come, Thou Lord of might, Who to Thy tribes on Sinai's height In ancient times once gave the law [Torah ] In cloud, and majesty, and awe. Refrain

We could go on to talk about Easter and where the resurrection took place; Jerusalem Israel. Or about President George Bush participating in a Menorah lighting ceremony for Hanukkah. I suppose he understands that Hanukkah is about the Jews triumphing over their oppressors and rededicating the Temple which stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem Israel.

Even the name, Israel, shows that the Holy Land belongs to the Jewish people. The Jews trace their ancestry back to Abraham through Isaac. The muslim Arabs claim their ancestry back to Abraham through Ishmael. Yet Israel is not named for either Isaac or Ishmael. The name was given by God to Jacob, Isaac's son. In Genesis 32:24-30 we read, " And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." It was Jacob's (Israel's) 12 sons who became the twelve tribes of Israel. God had allotted a certain portion of the Holy Land to each of Jacob's sons except for the Levites. That Holy Land is the Land of Israel. And who or where were the palestinians when this was going on? Do the palestinians claim descent from the 12 sons of Jacob? Of course not. For you who say you believe the Judeo-Christian Bible, do you not know your Bible?

There is no excuse for blind ignorance or willful rejection. Everyone can plainly see it. But not everyone will receive it. There is a deep sinister evil at work turning hearts and minds away from, and against Israel and the Jewish people. If the Greek orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in the Land of Israel side with the PLO and the Muslims over who owns the land, then they are ignorant of what the Bible teaches, or don't really care, and they are christian in name only. Have they forgotten the countless millions of murders perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church during the inquistion? Islam and the Roman Catholic church have that in common, their hands are dripping with the blood of innocent victims. Yet they have the audacity to claim that the Jews were "Christ Killers".

But Jesus said Himself, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." - John 10:17-18. For the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to be against the Jews and Israel, they must themselves betray the same Lord they say they serve. This is NOT Christian. In fact, some officials of the Greek orthodox church in Israel are openly against Israel while embracing the muslim killers with outstretched arms.

The Jerusalem Post published a report titled, " Greek Orthodox Church spokesman says suicide bombers are 'heroes'. The article, written by Khaled Abu Toameh, and dated Jan. 12, 2003, says, "Palestinian suicide bombers are heroes of the people, which is very proud of them, a prominent Greek Orthodox Church official is reported to have said at a closed-door meeting in Haifa. Archimandrite Atallah Hanna, an Israeli Arab serving as the official spokesman of the Greek Church in the Holy Land, was quoted by the Hamas Web site as making the remarks during a meeting in Haifa with "an official and popular delegation." According to the report, Hanna also called for the liberation of Palestine "from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river."

Praising suicide attacks against Israel, Hanna is quoted as saying: "These martyrdom freedom fighters are the heroes of the people and we are proud of them. We categorically reject suspicious attempts to cast suspicion on their deeds. They are not suicidal, as some are claiming. Nor are they terrorists, as others are claiming. They are resisting the occupation."

Hanna is also reported to have said, "We support the martyrdom [suicide] operations without any reservations, regardless of what skeptics and opponents of this form of resistance are saying." Hanna, according to the same report, also urged Palestinian and Arab Christians "to join the resistance against the Israeli occupation in all forms and methods. The Christians are part of the Palestinian people and this nation." He also called for joint Islamic-Christian action to thwart the planned war against Iraq. He said that, had it not been for Israeli travel restrictions imposed on him, he would have led a delegation of Christians to Baghdad to act as "human shields" in defense of Iraq when the war breaks out. Archimandrite Hanna is a controversial figure in the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. He has repeatedly embarrassed Church leaders by making statements in support of suicide bombings and by visiting Lebanon and Syria. Hanna, a resident of the Galilee, was dismissed from his job earlier this year by Greek Orthodox Patriarch Irineos 1 because of his anti-Israeli views... Hanna has also played a major role in organizing protests and demonstrations in eastern Jerusalem. His high-profile activities have angered not only his superiors at the Greek Orthodox Church but also Israeli officials, who accuse him of exploiting his religious status to incite against the state." These remarks from leaders of a major religion siding with genocide bombers betrays the fact that the god that they are serving might not be the one they profess to be serving. This brand of "cultural christianity" is not based on the Holy Bible. As the old saying goes, just because a mouse jumps into the cookie jar, that doesn't make him a cookie. Recently I heard another way of putting it, you can dress a monkey in a tuxedo but that still doesn't make it a gentleman. Even in the US anti-Semitism has gained a foothold in American colleges and universities. Speakers are invited to share their anti-Israel bias with students. Anti-Semitism is infecting the education of hundreds of thousands of students across America and Canada. The palestinian arabs of Israel are portrayed as victims of Israeli human rights abuses. But what does the PLO or any muslim nation know about human rights? Consider the following news article. From Wall Street Opinion Journal from the Editorial Page

Israel on Campus How did American colleges get so anti-Semitic? BY RUTH WISSE

Sunday, December 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--

The claim of universities to be fostering diversity and preventing discrimination against vulnerable minorities is oddly compromised by a surge of anti-Semitism. With the recent addition of Columbia and Yale, over 50 campuses are currently circulating faculty petitions to divest from Israel and from American firms selling arms to Israel. Faculty at Georgetown, Michigan and Harvard have gone out of their way to invite speakers best known for their defamation of Israel and the Jews.

To be sure, hundreds of university presidents have either spoken out publicly or signed a statement deploring the presence of anti-Semitism on campus. But none have tried to explain the phenomenon, much less undertaken to do anything about it. So questions abound. How does one know, for example, that the divestment petition is anti-Semitic? Why should Jews have become a target in a campus atmosphere of such advertised sensitivity? And what can universities do to remedy the situation without stifling healthy debate?

Like many such initiatives since the 1960s, the petition campaign against Israel is promoted by relatively small numbers of faculty with interlocking interests. Its driving force are Arabs, Arabists and their sympathizers, who help prosecute the war against Israel as a way of diverting attention away from Arab regimes. They are joined by leftists--including Jews--who see in Jewish particularism the chief hindrance to their internationalist faith, by radicals who consider Israel and America to be colonial powers and who promote their reactionary or revolutionary alternatives, and by antiwar enthusiasts who blame Israel for inviting Arab aggression against it.

The call for divestment sets up an implicit comparison between Israel and South Africa, whose apartheid policy once inspired a campaign of divestment aimed at forcing democratic change. In South Africa, a minority of whites had established a government based on racial criteria. But not only is Israel a vigorous democracy; it is, with Turkey, the only democracy in the Middle East. Arab autocrats and despots attack the Jewish state precisely because it embodies the democracy they are determined to resist. Arab rulers see in Israel's free and open society a threat to Muslim hegemony and to autocratic rule.

Most university professors and students who support divestment do so in the misguided belief that it will force Israel to improve its human-rights record in the West Bank and Gaza. What they fail to recognize is that, far from championing human rights, the divestment petition is a springboard for the spread of anti-Semitic hostility to American campuses. The economic boycott has been part of the Arab arsenal in the war against Israel for the past 50 years. Last month, the Arab League formally reactivated its boycott at a meeting in Damascus, Syria. Saudi Arabia recently blacklisted some 200 European, American and other companies for importing Israeli products or product parts under other labels; and its Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on citizens to report the presence of any Israeli product exported through a third country. The divestment petitioners are asking their universities to join the Arab boycott that has the destruction of Israel as its larger goal.

The divestment campaign did not just happen, and speakers assaulting Israel do not appear of themselves. This antipathy toward Israel grows from a campus culture that is selectively repressive. All the while that students, in the spirit of diversity, are actively discouraged from making pejorative comments about other vulnerable minorities, some Arab and Muslim students have been actively fomenting hatred of Israel as an expression of their "identity." On campuses with a large Arab presence, such as Wayne State in Detroit, this has resulted in a palpable threat to Jewish students, and outbreaks of physical violence have actually occurred at San Francisco State and Concordia University in Montreal.

Since Arab and Muslim students are currently the only ones who exuberantly defame another group, and who blame that group rather than Arab and Muslim governments for the failings of their own antidemocratic societies, it is hardly surprising that they should be joined by others looking for a villain or scapegoat. Anti-Semitism thrives because slandering Israel is the only aggression against a minority that is encouraged by the rules of political correctness. Along similar lines, universities have allowed Middle East departments to disseminate anti-Israel propaganda to an extent unimaginable a generation ago, representing violations of intellectual honesty and academic impartiality that may be unique in our academic life. Martin Kramer's book on Middle East Studies in America, "Ivory Towers on Sand," points out the conditions that encourage this abuse. Instead of scrutinizing the obsession with Israel that has retarded the development of Arab societies, many professors of Arab and Muslim civilization have themselves become obsessed with the obsession. Here the damage to America is at least as great as to Israel, for had these scholars been submitting Arab regimes to honest scrutiny, they would have long since have been investigating the connections between anti-Semitism, opposition to democracy and hostility to the U.S....

Anti-Semitism perverts the ideal of a mutually tolerant campus. The faculty and administration, and students who wish to uphold that ideal, will have to exercise their free speech to address the function and the roots of this virulent phenomenon.

The education system in America is trying its best to crank out a generation of atheists who will not recognize the authority of God. Nevertheless, to borrow a slogan from the X-Files, "The Truth Is Out There".


The truth is, it's the PLO who are the squatters. It is they who should be evicted. The common people are victims, abandoned by their fellow Arabs to being mere pawns in a public relations and propaganda war against Israel. Admittedly, however, I must wonder, what kind of people would celebrate by the hundreds and thousands in the streets passing out candy, shooting into the air, and so forth at the news of terrorist strikes, either in America, or Israel, which result in the deaths of innocent human beings.

Arutz Sheva reports again on 14 Nov.2002, "Arab Public Overwhelmingly Supportive of Metzer Attack ( - The IDF Spokesperson relates that Arabs openly support the murder of little babies in Metzer:

"Joy and praise were voiced on both the Fatah and Hamas Internet forums, with regard to the murderous terror attack in kibbutz Metser on November 10, 2002. A public opinion survey aired on the Fatah movements website shows wide support for suicide attacks against Israel.Comments published on the Internet forums of the Fatah movement's military wing, The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and that of the Hamas military wing, Iz-Adin Al-Qassam Brigades, sounded calls of joy and praise by various Internet users, following the murderous terror attack in kibbutz of Metzer on November 10, 2002. Five Israelis were murdered in this attack, including a mother and her two children aged four and five years old.94% of those responding to the Fatah website's survey, expressed their support for suicide attacks.The survey's results and enthusiastic response to the murderous attack reflect the general atmosphere on the Palestinian streets."

A recent poll is also telling. "News Roundup - December 18, 2002 Jerusalem News Wire * Times shown in Israel Standard Time (17:45) Poll: Most Palestinians back "suicide" bombings, intifada

A poll published by the Associated Press Wednesday shows 63 per cent of Palestinians support the use of "suicide" bomb attacks against Israelis. The survey also revealed that a mere 17 per cent of Palestinians are opposed to the current campaign of violence agianst Israel."

This same poll was also published in the German news paper, Der Fraenkischer Tag, 19 Dec.2002. You don't find Jews taking to the streets to rejoice over the misfortunes of the Palestinians. You don't find many Jews who are in favor of daily violence.

Now bear in mind that Israel, including the disputed areas, is smaller in area than Lake Michigan. The disputed areas, i.e Judea, Samaria, Golan Heights, and Gaza, are even smaller still. Now given the small size of what the P.L.O. controls as theirs, what do you think you could accomplish with 10 million euros (roughly the same as ten million dollars) a month? And don't forget the millions of dollars which also came from the USA and the British pounds that came from the U.K. The U.S. sends an average of 75 million dollars of taxpayers money annually to the Palestinian Authority. Ironically, Israel itself sends huge sums of money to the PLO. Consider the following article."Maybe it's time for a little review of history. Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, the umbrella group under which many Arab terrorist groups united, was classified as a terrorist organization from its inception in 1964 until 1993. Magically, following the Oslo Accords, in which Arafat theoretically renounced terrorism, he and his group become non-terrorists. They got a full pardon, a clean slate, they were bestowed political "grace" - or unmerited favor. It was truly unmerited. Arafat may have mumbled some magical words, but he did not stop his terrorist campaign. In fact, a study conducted by my friend Rachel Ehrenfeld showed Arafat used the public relations coup of 1993 to launch a whole new career as a drug trafficker, arms smuggler, money launderer and counterfeiter to help amass a fortune estimated by the British National Criminal Intelligence Services nearly 10 years ago at $10 billion. You might think a fortune like that would lead to moderation. But, Arafat has every incentive to maintain his terrorist and criminal escapades. After the first year of the 2-year-old uprising utilizing suicide bombings and other terrorist tactics against Israel, the Palestinian Authority's annual revenues from donations jumped 80 percent - from $555 million to more than $1 billion... Want to know how much of your taxpayer money goes to fund Arafat? You better sit down. The U.S. has given $548.7 million in direct aid to the PA, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation. But the total sum, according to Ehrenfeld's study, is actually $1.1 billion. The European Union is even crazier than Washington. Altogether, in loans and aid, the EU has provided $2.52 billion to the PA. Then there's the U.N., which provided $521.7 million just this year, about 30 percent of which came from the U.S. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Arafat has taken these "investments" from the West and put them to work in criminal enterprises to create new revenue streams...Then there's the drug-running, arms-smuggling, etc. It all adds hundreds of millions to the hantom PA budget. Where does all this money go?" - Palestine, again By Joseph Farah WorldNetDaily - Dec 10, 2002

So, where does all this money go? The EU didn't really even care until the issue was forced upon it. Arutz Sheva reported in an article titled, EU to debate alleged PA funds misuse by Herb Keinon, dated Jan. 31, 2003, "It took four months, but European Parliament member Francois Zimeray succeed Thursday in getting 170 of his colleagues to agree to initiate a debate on establishing a commission of inquiry into the EU's funding of the Palestinian Authority. A minimum of 157 signatures out of the 626-member parliament are needed to put the inquiry on the agenda. Shira Ansky, one of the assistants to Zimeray a French MP affiliated with the European Labor Party said getting these signatures was in and of itself a victory, since no one thought that it would be possible.

Last month, EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten in response to a question by a European parliamentarian about the allegations of misuse of the funds said he wanted an inquiry into the matter like "a hole in the head." Patten argued that such a probe would undermine moderates inside the PA and ruin any chance of halting the violence.

"An inquiry would make it enormously difficult to continue providing aid," Patten told a meeting of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee in November. "We have insisted on reform since we began the administrative assistance in 2001. If we sunder relations with the Palestinian Authority, it will be very difficult to claim that the EU is playing any kind of role in the Middle East region."

Ansky said that although the goal is to get the plenum to set up the inquiry committee and look into how the PA has used the money and whether it has been diverted to terrorism, just bringing the issue up for a debate is significant. A simple majority in the parliament is necessary to set up the inquiry committee, she said.

"Up to now the money has been given freely, with no one knowing what happens to it or where it goes," Ansky said. She said the very fact that more than a quarter of the MPs signed the petition shows they are not comfortable with the current situation, and feel funds are being misused. Ansky noted that members appear to agree that the PA has stolen money meant for ordinary Palestinians. "About corruption there is a consensus," she said. "There are the reforms now and there's a new finance minister, but the most important thing is that the money could have been going to terrorist attacks and terrorist groups and the financing of hate in the education system," she said. She said that the investigation's objective is to spark a public debate on the topic and funnel aid to Palestinians in need.

"The lives of the Palestinian people haven't improved since 1994. Maybe the authority improved, by buying new houses and new cars," she said. "I'm sure the people would be glad to have help, but they didn't see this money." Ansky said the EU currently gives the PA some 10 million euros a month. EU officials have consistently denied allegations of PA misuse of European funds, saying these claims have been made repeatedly in the past, and each time found to be untrue. Melissa Radler contributed to this report from New York.

In spite of all this money, the Palestinian economy is in ruins. Their infrastructure is pathetic. The quality of life for Palestinian Arabs under PLO control is poverty. Israel can't be blamed for that. The money the PLO received was used to finance terrorism and corruption. Much of it was also pocketed by palestinian officials.

In an article titled, Bankrolling terrorism,dated February 4, 2003, author David Vance writes, " The European Union (EU) likes to portray itself as a benign institution dedicated to advancing the humanitarian quest for peace and harmony around the world. Yet the facts indicate that the EU more accurately resembles a font of financial largesse for terrorist groups around the world. This begs the question how can such a malignant organization play any constructive function in the "Quartet" currently interfering in Israeli affairs?

Over the years the EU has merrily channeled vast sums of money into sweaty Palestinian Authority hands without any degree of accounting propriety. It is reported that over 540 million euros have been sent in Yasser Arafat's direction since 2000 and, as one would expect, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has failed to produce audited accounts showing what this money has been used for. Tragically, Israel knows only too well. The price paid for reckless EU generosity to the PA can be counted in lost Israeli lives.

IDF discovery of incriminating documents proving that Palestinian terrorists are on the Arafat payroll should have been sufficient to immediately halt all further funding. Not so! Even when the families of Hamas bombers are generously compensated by Arafat along with terror operatives in Fatah/Tanzim, the EU resolutely refuses to take any action. Why the EU inertia?

When a British MP lobbied to bring about a thorough investigation into this matter, EU Commissioner Chris Patten swiftly moved to ensure it did not happen. Patten passionately defended failed EU efforts to keep track of the more than 1.4 billion euro spent over the past decade on projects in the so-called "occupied" territories. Repeated failure, it appears, is no basis for changing policy.

Patten informed the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee: "We have found no evidence of EU funds being used for any purposes other than that for which they were intended." He warned that the committee risked undermining EU credibility if it blocked assistance approved by the 15 member states. What credibility, we may ask? "If we turn our back on this, any words about Europe having a part in the Mid East peace process are pretty worthless," he said. But Israelis, Americans and Britons already know that EU words are worthless...

Post September 11th, the EU has behaved disgracefully when it comes to the freezing of terrorist assets. It has grudgingly blocked assets of only two out of twenty eight terrorist groups provided by the United States.

When President Bush was alerted to the activities of Hamas in the U.S., he immediately moved to freeze the assets of Hamas and closed the offices of a Texas-based foundation allegedly providing finance to the militant Palestinian group. By way of contrast the EU responded by drawing a fine distinction between Hamas' military wing and its so-called political leaders. Moral equivocators to the core, the EU also refuses to block funds of Hizbullah!

Arafat has successfully manipulated the EU in the same way as he has manipulated many other world leaders into believing that the PA really wants peace. They do, of course, but they define peace as the elimination of Israel. The coded language spoken by Arafat is understood by the EU, and under the guise of the search for "peace," the EU bankrolls his terror regime. In this respect they follow a pattern previously established in Northern Ireland where for years they have bankrolled the IRA and other terror groups. Always sympathetic to the perpetrators of violence, often hostile to the victims of violence, the EU stands as a discredited sham.

Having gratefully swallowed Arafat's lies, EU endorsement of Palestinian statehood gives Arafat the acceptable political leverage he needs to portray himself as a man of reason, as the poor victim. Most EU member nations continue to lavish praise upon their hero Arafat whilst spewing condemnation upon Prime Minister Sharon. His resounding democratic re-election has caused resentment amongst the political elite in their Parisian and Berlin salons.

In 2003, the European Union does nothing to dispel the sinister shadows cast by its own historical antipathy towards the Jewish people. A good starting point would be to stop bankrolling Palestinian terrorism."

And that is what the PLO has to show for all the money they received; corruption and terrorism. Nevertheless, the EU, the UN, etc is still financing the terrorism against Israel. Hitler's dream continues.


The palestinian people were forced into refugee camps, which are more like ghettos or shanty towns, by other Arabs . The Jews do not run these towns. The Jews did not build them. The Jews are not oppressing them. The Palestinians' own leaders are at fault. Did the Jews stop them from building roads, houses, schools, businesses, etc. No! The PLO just didn't care about the welfare of their people. The PLO was criminally negligent.

How did the PLO improve the Arab people's way of life with the billions of dollars they received from western nations? They didn't. That's why they still live in ghettos. The European Union gives the Palestinians somewhere around 10 million euros a month.

Israel is not the only country where these camps or shanty towns exist. They are also in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Is Israeli aggression preventing progress in those countries too? What has Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria done to integrate these people into their societies? How did these Arabs end up in refugee camps anyway?

"In 1948, Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than Lake Michigan". - The Brief Facts on the Middle East Conflict. (Note: I replaced the word New Jersey, which was in the original article, with Lake Michigan. Both statements are true but I thought Lake Michigan would more fully enlighten the reader as to the miniscule size of the nation of Israel.)

"Up until 1948, Jews had lived in most of the Arab Muslim countries of the Middle East. In most cases they had been there over 1000 years before Islam even existed. From 1947 hundreds of Jews in Arab lands were killed in government-organized rioting, leaving thousands injured and millions of dollars in Jewish property destroyed. In 1948 Jews were forcibly ejected from Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, who confiscated property from the fleeing Jews worth tens of billions in today's dollars. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees created by this situation, 590,000 were absorbed by Israel. The 820,000 Jewish refugees who were forcibly ejected from Arab countries where they had often lived for thousands of years were all welcomed and integrated into Israel or the Jewish world elsewhere, where they became full citizens. There are no Jewish refugee camps. The 750,000 Arab refugees who were displaced in 1948, were placed into squalid refugee camps by fellow Arabs who had just gone to war (and lost) on their behalf but were unwilling to pay for the consequences. Incredibly, over 50 years later, over a million of these poor people are still in these camps, despite billions of dollars of relief paid by rich Arab states, the United Nations, the EU and others. Where on earth has this money gone and why on earth are they still in camps and not integrated into Arab society?" - An Idiot's Guide to the Middle East by Steve Maltz.

But as we address the palestinian refugee problem we must not forget that there were also Jewish refugees as well. Don't let the palestinian refugees be the only ones we focus on. From the FRIENDS OF THE GALILEE EXPERIENCE UPDATE #55 Jan.24, 2003 we read, " Here is a recent article from WorldNetDaily Executive Director Joseph Farah, an Arab-American and one of the world's most passionate and eloquent spokesmen for ISRAEL: © 2003 WorldNetDaily

"But there's another Middle East refugee story you seldom hear about - the Jewish refugees... In 1945, there were about 900,000 Jews living in the Arab world. Today there are fewer than 8,000. Where did they go? More than two-thirds - some 600,000 - were immediately absorbed within the borders of tiny Israel. Most of these Jews fled their native lands with little more than the clothes on their backs. These people came to Israel with nothing, yet they were quickly resettled despite language barriers, cultural differences and other problems.

About 10 percent of the Jewish refugees came from Iraq. Here's the historical background on how that population transfer took place: In 1941, during the festival of Shavout, 180 Jews were murdered in a pogrom in Baghdad. As many as 700 were injured, and property damage amounted to about $3 million. This culminated a long history of repression, intimidation and dhimmi life in Iraq for the Jewish community. Life for Jews in Iraq got no better over the next decade. In 1950, the Iraqi government revoked the citizenship of the country's 90,000 Jews and told them they could leave - but they were not allowed to take any property with them. Iraq froze all Jewish assets, prevented Jews from accessing their bank accounts, seized homes, closed businesses. Most of the Jews escaped with Israel's help in the early 1950s in Operation Ezra and Operation Nehemiah. Today there are fewer than 100 Jews left in Iraq.

Note that this refugee crisis occurred after the 1948 Palestinian affair. Yet all the refugees were resettled immediately. Israel demanded no reparations. It knew better. The Jews simply took care of their own.

Israel, by the way, is far less prosperous, far less wealthy and has far fewer resources than any of the Arab oil states. Yet, despite their wealth, the Arab oil states have decided for more than 50 years to keep Arab refugees in camps as political pawns."

The Israeli "occupation" of Israel is like saying you're a squatter in your own home. When I was in Israel I visited the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. Then it dawned on me, would Americans tolerate an American quarter of Washington D.C.? Would the Russians tolerate a Russian quarter of Moscow? How about the English quarter of London or the French quarter of Paris? Why should the Israelis only be entitled to one quarter of their own Capital? Nevertheless, we hear time and time again about how the Israeli Occupation is an obstacle to peace. It is meant to insinuate that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land. The term, "Israeli Occupation" or, "The Occupation" is a LIE, a sham. The Palestinian Arabs use the term as if it were truth. Of course, at least those in power and those who follow them, have no regard for truth anyway and regularly lie, like they lied about a massacre in Jenin.

World Net Daily reported on 26 April,2003, " It's often said that the Palestinians make up in public-relations savvy what they lack in armaments. Indeed, they are notorious for playing to the overly sympathetic and often one-sided international media's camera, and complete fabrication is an honored weapon, employed effectively and often. Remember the Israeli military incursion last April into the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank - a major terrorist enclave? Remember the claims of hundreds and even thousands of dead, the result of a brutal "massacre" by Israelis?

Here's how Douglas Davis, London correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, reported the situation: When Israeli troops broke up the terrorist infrastructure in Jenin which had produced at least half of the suicide bombers, European politicians, journalists and human-rights campaigners joined in a chorus of "Massacre." Saeb Erekat, one of Arafat's top aides, provided the justification when he spoke of at least 3,000 dead. Abu Ali added the local color when he led willing journalists to the ruins of what had been his home and where, he said, nine of his children now lay dead. The media's rush to judgment turned into a stampede. As further proof of the "massacre," the good people of Jenin staged a series of highly emotive funeral processions (the parades ended only when a "body" was twice tipped out of its stretcher on the way to the cemetery, at which point the "martyr" stood up and walked off in disgust).

With barely a glance at the cautionary Israeli officials, Phil Reeves wrote in the [London] Independent of "hundreds of corpses entombed beneath the dust," the London Evening Standard's Sam Kiley reported "staggering brutality and callous murder," the [London] Times's Janine di Giovanni accused Israel of using terrorism as an excuse to attack children, while the Guardian's award-winning Suzanne Goldenberg added breathlessly that the destruction "is almost beyond imagination."

When the thousands of bodies failed to materialise, the Palestinians revised the numbers downwards and the journalists realized the game was up. Some simply cut their losses and moved on to fresh pastures. But among those who could not bear to abandon a winning storyline was a British television reporter who perched in the midst of the rubble to intone solemnly, "No one knows what happened here, but it is certain war crimes were committed." Oh really?

Within days of Israel's departure, talk of a massacre ceased and Saeb Erekat's 3,000 dead was reduced to 52 (all nine of Abu Ali's children, bless them, are fighting fit). There have been no retractions by the papers and television stations which published the original, unsubstantiated nonsense.

Such Arab theatrics are legendary - fueled by the belief that all tactics, including deception, are fair in the war for the liberation of Palestinine. The two-and-a-half-year-old "al-aqsa intifada," supposedly a spontaneous uprising triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, had actually been planned months in advance. More theater. Some of their other lies are so stupid one wonders at the intellect that gives birth to them.

The term "occupation", is thrown around carelessly, and deliberately by the news media (the Ministry of Propaganda Offices of the New World Order and the New Fourth Reich) and interestingly enough, many Israelis. There is no such thing as an Israeli occupation. Are you getting what I'm saying? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ISRAELI OCCUPATION! It is a Palestinian Arab occupation which pollutes and desecrates the Holy Land with blood, death, and violence, filth and lies. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE END OF THE "PALESTINIAN OCCUPATION". Yesha should return to complete Israeli sovereignty and control.

By the way, I'm not saying that there are no Palestinian Arabs who legally own private property in Israel. I am referring to a much larger picture. It is interesting that if a Palestinian Arab were to sell his property to a Jew, the PLO would render an automatic death sentence on the Arab. Selling private property to a Jew is a capital crime. And that's not racist?

Let me include an article here refering to the disputed territories in Israel. JERUSALEM ISSUE BRIEF Vol. 1, No. 1 2 September 2001 Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories? Last month's Palestinian draft resolution at the UN Security Council again described the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territories." References to Israel's "foreign occupation" also appear in the Durban Draft Declaration of the UN World Conference Against Racism. This language was not just chosen for rhetorical purposes but in order to invoke specific legal claims: For example, Palestinian insistence on using the term "occupied territories" is usually connected to the assertion that they fall under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, Palestinian spokesmen also speak about Israeli military action in Area A as an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty: If Israel "invaded Palestinian territories," then they cannot be regarded as "occupied"; however, if the territories are defined as "occupied," Israel cannot be "invading" them.

Israel's Traditional Definitions - Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states. International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense.

Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the UN rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War. In any case, under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967, that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles, Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes those strategic zones of what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. Moreover, these rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Impact of Oslo: Are the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied" From a Legal Standpoint?

Under the Oslo Agreements, Israel transferred specific powers from its military government in the West Bank and Gaza to the newly created Palestinian Authority. Already in 1994, the legal advisor to the International Red Cross, Dr. Hans-Peter Gasser, concluded that his organization had no reason to monitor Israeli compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Gaza Strip and Jericho area, since the Convention no longer applied with the advent of Palestinian administration in those areas. Since that time, 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have come under Palestinian jurisdiction. Israel transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority, as well as responsibility for security and public order, to the Palestinian Authority, while retaining powers for Israel's external security and the security of Israeli citizens. These residual powers have only been employed extensively, in recent months, in response to the escalation of violence and armed attacks imposed on Israel by the decision of the Palestinian Authority.

The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention itself (Article 6) states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory...." Under the earlier 1907 Hague Regulations, as well, a territory can only be considered occupied when it is under the effective and actual control of the occupier. Thus, according to the main international agreements dealing with military occupation, Israel's transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements has made it difficult to continue to characterize the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories. It is not surprising that at the United Nations, the U.S. has opposed the phraseology of "occupied Palestinian territories." In March 1994, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright stated: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory." Describing the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territories" is incorrect and misleading. Israel's transfer of government functions under the Oslo Agreements greatly strengthens Israel's case that the main international conventions relevant to military occupations do not apply. Describing these territories as "Palestinian" may serve the Palestinians' political agenda but prejudges the outcome of future territorial negotiations that were envisioned under UN Security Council Resolution 242.

It also serves the current Palestinian effort to obtain international affirmation of Palestinian claims and a total denial of Israel's fundamental rights in every international forum. It would be far more accurate to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "disputed territories" to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims. Additionally, UN resolutions that characterize these territories as "Palestinian" clearly undermine the foundations of the peace process for the future. Dore Gold, Publisher; Saul Singer and Mark Ami-El, Managing Editors. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Registered Amuta), 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-5619281, Fax. 972-2-5619112, Email: In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 1515 Locust St., Suite 703, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3726; Tel. (215) 772-0564, Fax. (215) 772-0566. Website: © Copyright.

In a Commentary dated 3 Dec. 2002 Richard C. Csaplar, Jr. published an article titled, "1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression: An Analysis" in which he wrote, "Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:

1844 -- 33%

1896 -- 19%

1910 -- 13%

1922 -- 22%

1931 -- 22%

1948 -- 24%

1967 -- 21%

1972 -- 23%

1992 -- 25%

There was an interesting saying on the Professors For A Strong Israel e-mail bulletin which said, If the Arabs were to lay down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Jews were to lay down their weapons today there would be no more Israel. Little do people know that the true front line troops in the battle against terrorism is none other than Israel.

During the war of 1967 Israel liberated the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), including Bethlehem, Hebron, East Jerusalem etc. from Jordan. The Gaza Strip was liberated from Egypt. The Golan Heights was liberated from Syria. Neither of these three countries are considered to be Palestine. Palestine was an area of land which consisted of what today is recognized as Jordan and Israel. Together, these two countries were what was called Palestine. The British, after defeating the Ottoman Turks, allocated 77% of Palestine, what is now Jordan as a Palestinian homeland and 23% of Palestine, which is now Israel for a Jewish homeland. It is the East Bank in Jordan that is for the Palestinians where millions still live, not the West Bank which has always belonged to Israel. Yassir Arafat, the supreme grand terrorist dictator of the Palestinians, is himself Egyptian, not Palestinian. He was born in Cairo. By the way, Arafat's real name is Rahman Abdul Rauf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini. The only reason people think his name is Yassir is because that's what they keep hearing. There is no such thing as a Palestinian ethnicity. That's just what you keep hearing. They are Arabs.

Concerning this campaign of palestinian lies, Arutz 7 in Israel published the following report. " Palestinian Lies, Israeli Truths: Martin Sherman 30 December 2002 - "Since the time of Dr. Goebbels [head of the Nazi propaganda machine] there has never been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has borne such great fruits... Of all the Palestinian lies there is no greater or more crushing lie than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank..." (Excerpt from Palestinian Lies by former Meretz minister of education, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, printed in Ha´aretz, July 1976)". [The author] Martin Sherman is a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya. Originally published in the Jerusalem Post. Reprinted with permission of the author. "

The media keeps repeating lies about "occupied territories" because their aim is not merely to inform you of what's going on in the world, but to shape your opinion to fit with their world view. Of course, many now believe that Israel is occupying Palestinian land because the media has been repeating that lie every day for years and years. It's what people keep hearing.

In an Op Ed titled, It's All About Envy by Arlene Peck dated 05 January 2003, the writer also referred to this media campaign of anti-Semitic fiction. " I remember Rodney King, after the South Central Los Angeles riots saying, "Can't we just all get along?" I've thought about that and have come to a conclusion. No, we can't all get along. It's great to have the attitude of 'love thy neighbor' and 'war isn't the answer'; however, when there are those whose sole existence is based on your destruction, the attitude better be one of a strong defense rather than turning the other cheek.

Unfortunately, somehow, the reasons behind that defense seem to be getting lost in the phraseology of the media. The tirade against Israel is so consistent and uniform in the style of reporting that sometimes I just have to wonder if there are more than a few of these 'journalists' who coincidentally are on the payroll of the Arabs. I can't help but wonder who instructed them not to use the word "terrorists" when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Where did they pick up the catchy phrase "martyrdom" to describe these mass murderers? Who has instructed them to describe terrorist groups such as Hamas as "freedom fighters"? When they strike Americans, they are terrorists. Why the one-edged sword? Whenever the cry for journalist accountability goes out, the 'free speech' defense is raised. I've yet to read any of their reports that mirror the continued polls of the Palestinians, which show that eighty-one percent of them support continued violence.

They speak of the "cycle of violence" each time that an Israeli is killed. Yet, I rarely see any understanding for Israel, who is defending its citizens just like any democratic government, justifying its actions. When Israel finds it necessary to retaliate against a particularly violent terrorist attack on its citizens, somehow the reason for the provocation is delegated to the back section of the newspaper. Usually under the heading about the "cycle of violence". I keep waiting for Peter Jennings, the BBC, CNN and even, lately, Fox News to refer to these terrorists as "terrorists". They are not militants. Terrorists are the ones who sneak up on unsuspecting innocents, such as patrons in a coffee shop, or disco, or even students praying in class, and shoot them. Despite the reporting, there is no moral equivalency.

The code word of "resistance" is to clothe murderous activities in a semblance of legitimacy. How about the key expression, "struggle for independence"? I wonder what that could mean? The Arabs are clever, though. By using those phrases, Arabs see to it that Americans tend to become confused and compare the PLO war with their own War of Independence. The two couldn't be more different. There are no legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. Their sole goal is to kill Jews. If they ever accomplished that, then they could move on to the Christian people, who they also consider an abomination.

Phraseology. Josef Goebbels, who was Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, once said, "If you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth." The world media repeats the lie of calling the Jewish settlements "occupied territory", which allegedly is an obstacle to peace. Israel didn't "just appear," as I was told by some Egyptians when I went to view the pyramids. They said that Israel "appeared" one day, out of nowhere. The same for making Judea and Samaria bloom. It took a lot of hard work and brilliant engineering. There are no territories, only survival...

The terrorists are winning their propaganda fight. And they garner the front-page sympathy columns about how their cities are suffering because of the actions of a few. The mothers of yeshiva students bury their children. It's not a "militant" attack, but yet another terrorist attack! Terrorists attack, while the Times publishes two-page columns about how "the Palestinian children don't have enough to eat and signs of malnutrition have crept into a population that was once relatively healthy." I want to scream out that the Arabs, who are so obsessed with the complete and utter destruction of Israel, have chosen this path by their evil and mindless bombings. Now, they find that they have no one but themselves to blame for the situation they find themselves in..."

The occupied territories are nothing more than "palestinian occupied 'terror'-tories", laboratories of terror. In an Arutz Sheva Op-Ed by Steven Plaut titled, Facing Unpleasant Facts in the Middle East and dated 07 January 2003, we read, " The time has come to sit back, take a deep breath and re-evaluate the entire Middle East situation. Such careful inspection and rethinking can only lead to one simple conclusion: the Middle East conflict cannot end until the Occupation ends.

Of course, the Occupation of which I speak is the illegal occupation of Israeli lands by the PLO. The key to peace in the Middle East is the liberation of these occupied territories from their occupying power. End the Occupation now! The Occupation corrupts!

Now, had you been listening to the Western media in recent years, you might be unaware of the fact that the only "occupied territories" in the West Bank and Gaza these days are those occupied by the PLO. True, each and every atrocity by the PLO and its front groups is greeted in the Jew-bashing media with diatribes about how it is all because Israel refuses to give up its occupation of Palestinian lands. The BBC ends every single report on bombings by reminding everyone of how all the violence is directly caused by Sharon having strolled on the Temple Mount two years back; the BBC, CNN and Economist still routinely justify the shooting into the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem by describing it as an illegal settlement on Palestinian lands.

Yet Israel long ago gave up its "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza, if that is what is meant by the misnomer "Palestinian Lands". The result was to turn those areas into huge bomb factories and terrorist bases, precisely in the manner predicted by all of us anti-Oslo dissidents many years ago...

Meanwhile, it should be patently obvious to all with eyes in their heads that sooner or later Israel will have to retake and re-occupy the entire set of PLO-occupied territories. No, it will not do so because these are sacred Jewish lands and no it will not do so because of any particular desire to rule Palestinians. It will do so because as long as a single acre of land is under PLO rule, it will be used for nothing other than as a base to murder Jews. The only way to end the atrocities by the PLO is to seize and rule the West Bank and Gaza. All of it. Yes, including Gaza City and Jericho. " .


It is interesting that the U.N. and other Western Nations maintain that they have no right to dictate to the Palestinians who their leader should be. It is o.k. to tell the Iraqis who theirs should be; definitely not Saddam Hussein, right? Oh, but Yassir Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinians. What a smokescreen. Everyone knows that the PLO is not democratic. Besides, Hitler was elected by the German people to lead Germany. It did not stop the nations, however, from engaging his government in WWII. The United Nations equates a known terrorist Arafat, with that of a democraticly elected government in a democratic society. Israel and Arafat partners for peace? Just like Hitler was a partner for peace with the west concerning the Sudetenland.

During the June 17th, 2002 bus attack in Israel at the French hill junction, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the scene and said, "It is interesting what type of Palestinian State they have in mind, what type of Palestinian State they are talking about". What kind of a State do you think they have in mind? There is so much talk in Israel about what a palestinian state would be but what about what it might become? What happened in Iran after the Shah was deposed? It is wisdom that is supposed to come with agae not shortsightedness.

Consider this, Judea and Samaria are now occupied by a foreign government. Because of this, the area called West Bank and Gaza is infested with murderers. Israel, of course, is not. Does the U.N. want Israel to become like those areas under the Palestinian occupation? Or would it rather see those areas under the Palestinian occupation be liberated and become more democratic and peaceful like the Jewish people in Israel? We, of course, know the answer to that question. Perhaps the U.N. wants to create another Belfast, N. Ireland in Israel. Do you think the Palestinian Arab muslims will stop with a Palestinian State? No more than Hitler would stop with the Sudetenland.

When a State is founded by terrorists it can only be a rogue terrorist State. Israel is not a threat to humanity but muslim States like Iraq and Iran are. A Palestinian State would join that club. It would also be a reward for terrorism encouraging other terrorist organizations to continue in terrorism because it eventually pays off. This would not be a good precedent for the Russians who are defending themselves from Islamic terrorists in Chechnya. You should have seen their kind celebrating at the news of the destruction of the World Trade Center, a muslim attack on the World, not just America. But in fact, the former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered Yassir Arafat pretty much all Arafat wanted on the negotiating table. What did Yassir say? No! It was his desire to continue his capaign of genocide against the Jews. It was terrorism as usual. Anyway, if he really wanted to declare a Palestinian State, why didn't he? The European Union would have recognized it as would other Arab States. But all Yassir could think about was violence and murder. Maybe he's in some kind of competition with Bin Laden whom he accuses of hiding behind the palestinian cause.

There are many Palestinian sympathizers and activists who speak of Palestinian victims as if there were no Israeli victims. These people live in the West and have comfortable lives. But if they were to have to live under an oppresive Islamic regime like the Taliban in Afghanistan, or some other oppressive terrorist regime that strips its citizens of equal and/or human rights, I'm sure they would change their minds rather quickly. In fact, you did not see any arab sympathizers flying in to side with Yassir during the Israeli siege of his Ramallah compound. They were westerners. The interesting thing is that, as America went to war in Afghanistan in response to 9-11, and as America prepared for war with Iraq, protesters came out of the woodwork with signs protesting the war. What's interesting is, that the destruction of the World Trade Center took place in New York, where the United Nations is also based. Having experienced Islamic terrorism first hand, they still have not learned their lesson.

On the 19th of January, 2003, news paper headlines announced anti-war protests around the world. Many people are willing to accept these kind of stories at face value but I like to analyze what's really going on. For example, when I first read the headlines and news stories I asked myself, Who organized these anti-war rallies? People just don't wake up one morning and decide to go somewhere and protest. These rallies are organized by someone and speakers are invited. Buses must be chartered, signs must be made etc. So I wondered who is behind these rallies.

World Net Daily provided some answers. "Monday, November 4, 2002 Has anti-war movement been hijacked? Terror alliances, radical politics revealed at forefront Posted: November 4, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Sherrie Gossett © 2002 While publicly promoting non-violent protest and humanitarian causes, some key leaders and prominent groups that organized and participated in the recent anti-war demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol and San Francisco are staunch supporters of terrorist groups and dictatorial regimes worldwide. In fact, critics now charge that the "new" anti-war movement is being "hijacked" by this dominant network whose organizational power is increasing and whose political agenda is anathema to most Americans. The Saturday, Oct. 26 rally, which focused on opposition to a U.S.-led war against Iraq and drew 100,000 protesters, featured speeches by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, actress-activist Susan Sarandon, singer-songwriter Patti Smith, as well as a host of lesser-known figures. The protests also served as a platform for Democratic Party campaigning, as top politicos hobnobbed with the elite of the anti-war movement. The large turnout signals an invigoration of the "new" anti-war movement, which has been increasingly dominated by the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, an organizational front group formed by the International Action Center.

Closely allied with IAC is the World Workers Party, a quasi-Stalinist organization that supports authoritarian regimes and communist dictatorships. The World Workers Party created the IAC in 1992, and put Ramsey Clark, now kingpin of the anti-war movement, at the head of it. Also at the forefront in the weekend demonstration and current anti-war protests was the "Not In Our Name" campaign. NOIN spokesman Clark Kissinger represents that movement to the public and is an integral part of Refuse and Resist , an organization with close ties to the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, of which Kissinger is a member and writer for its newspaper .

The controversial ties of IAC remain almost completely unreported by the mainstream media, but increasingly are being exposed by a handful of enterprising journalists, including Michelle Goldberg of , Ian Williams, United Nations correspondent for The Nation ; Michael Tremoglie, Edward Immler and David Horowitz of FrontPage Magazine and Christopher Hitchens, a 20-year veteran of The Nation magazine, now writing independently... "The International Action Center and the Revolutionary Communist Party [USA] aren't just extremists in the service of a good cause," says Michelle Goldberg, a writer with "They are cheerleaders for some of the most sinister regimes and insurgencies on the planet." "Once people realize this," Goldberg adds, "it could easily discredit any nascent anti-war movement, unless a more rational group comes to the forefront."

Sock puppet for Saddam?

The founder of the IAC and director for A.N.S.W.E.R. is Ramsey Clark, who is introduced at IAC rallies as the former attorney general under the Lyndon Johnson administration. No mention is made of the fact that Clark, in his current occupation, has been retained by the State of Iraq to serve as legal counsel for the regime. Not surprisingly, criticism of Saddam Hussein is not aired at IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R.-controlled protest events. No mention is made of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, invasion of Kuwait, murder of an estimated 1 million of his own people, environmental terrorism, imprisonment, torture or execution of political prisoners. The suffering of the Iraqi people is blamed solely on the United States, just as the suffering of Palestinians is blamed solely on Israel. IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R leaders have aligned themselves exclusively with pro-Arafat groups.

The only Jewish people truly embraced as "brothers and sisters" are those who equally denounce Israel or deny Israel's right to exist. A.N.S.W.E.R's pro-Palestinian march in April was regarded by many, in fact, little more than a thinly disguised public display of anti-Semitism masquerading as a "pro-Palestinian" march. Frequent mention was made at the march of a "supposed holocaust," and of a "genocide" in Jenin, despite the fact that New York Times reporters allowed into the area had already discredited such reports as erroneous. The "genocide" claims dominated the rally, even though fatality estimates had already been downgraded from 500 down to 56-90, most of which, according to media reports, were said to be terrorists. Clark represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly tourist who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986. And while accusing the Bush administration and Israel of Nazi-like war crimes, Clark fails to mention his former client Karl Linnas, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard in Estonia, where he had overseen the murder of some 12,000 resistance fighters and Jews. Linnas was at that time being deported from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. to face war-crimes charges. Clark lost the case, but went to bat for his client in the public arena. According to media reports, Clark said that he questioned the need to prosecute Nazis "forty years after some god-awful crime they're alleged to have committed." While consistently denouncing the American and Israeli "terrorist states," IAC leadership, headed by Clark, have defended dictator Slobodan Milosevic in the International Criminal Court... Overall, the IAC-WWP-A.N.S.W.E.R. triaxis, firmly at the helm of the anti-war movement, unequivocally supports Iraq, while instructing protestors that the U.S. is the foremost terrorist threat to the world. In addition they claim that Osama bin Laden was the victim of an imperialist American plot. Brian Becker, member of the secretariat of the World Workers Party, national co-director for the IAC and a member of the national A.N.S.W.E.R. steering committee, is admired by the North Korean dictatorship for his loyalty to their state as well. At a press conference in Pyongyang, Becker denounced the U.S. for "mercilessly killing innocent people." In May of 2001, FBI Director Louis Freeh labeled the World Workers Party a potential threat to U.S. national security - a status certain to be explained by the WWP/IAC (as is most criticism) as a conspiratorial smear by warmongers... "

As I continued to read the news some clues began to surface. The following news article was taken off the Yahoo Home Page. I have added some of my observations to the text i. "Thousands Rally in U.S. Against Iraq War Sat Jan 18, 7:36 PM ET By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON -

Tens of thousands rallied in the capital Saturday in an emphatic dissent against preparations for war in Iraq, voicing a cry - "No blood for oil" - heard in demonstrations around the world. [ No blood for oil was also heard in Pakistan, a muslim country. Some one came up with this fancy slogan which totally misrepresents the real issue].

A rally in the shadows of Washington's political and military institutions anchored dozens of smaller protests throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the United States. In Washington, police said 30,000 marched through the streets, part of a much larger crowd that packed the east end of the National Mall and spilled onto the Capitol grounds.

"We stand here today, a new generation of anti-war activists," Peta Lindsay from International Answer, the main organizers, [who is International Answer? it would be interesting to look into their leaders and their agenda] exhorted the spirited masses in a biting cold. "This is just beginning. We will stop this war."... [ take note of the number of times that the word war is used by these demonstrators. How many times do you find the word terrorism?]

"We don't want this war and we don't want a government that wants this war," said Brenda Stokely, a New York City labor activist. A sign branded America, not Iraq, a "Rogue Nation." Another said, "Disarm Bush."... "Mr. Bush hung Dr. King's picture up in the White House last year but he need to hang up Dr. King's words," the Rev. Al Sharpton, a Democratic presidential candidate, told the demonstration.

Added civil rights activist Jesse Jackson: "We march today to fight militarism, and racism, and sexism, and anti-Semitism, and Arab-bashing." [Jesse Jackson is an anti-Semite himself though he no longer publicly admits it. You will notice that neither did he condemn terrorism at the rally.]

Terrence Gainer, chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, said "about 30,000 people moved out on the march route," a two-mile trek from the huge rally... As with any big Washington rally, the main cause made room for other causes. "Free Palestine" was one of them. Racism and genocide were others...[What could be more racist and genocidal than palestinian genocide bombers purposefully targeting and murdering innocent Jews?]

"I want Bush to see that his people are against the war," he said. "I want to show my children that they can stand up to stupidity."... [Will he show his children how to stand up to terrorism?]

"Standing out in this kind of temperature is nothing compared to innocent people losing their lives in Iraq," said marcher Eric Kimmer, 32, a credit union worker.[How many people have lost their lives BECAUSE of Iraq? How about the poison gas attack against the Kurds, the war with Iran and Kuwait? ]

About 400 people, many of them elderly, gathered in downtown Venice, Fla., to listen to anti-war speeches.... Larry Holmes, speaking for organizers of the Washington rally, said protesters everywhere sense war is close... [Again, they are strangely silent about terrorism]

Three dozen people stood by the Vietnam War Memorial to show support for Bush's policy and offer a contrary voice to the blitz of demonstrations. "The protesters don't understand the threat" of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, said Scott Johnson, 55, a Navy veteran from Minneapolis. "It's a war of liberation for people." Overseas, 60 protesters in Hong Kong shouted, "War, no," and in Pakistan, the familiar refrain "No blood for oil" was heard - accusing America of wanting to attack Iraq only to control its oil wealth...[How about this slogan: No more bloodshed for Islam, Or No blood for Allah].

Bush says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and no qualms about using them on the United States, if he could. U.N. inspectors are in Iraq trying to find them."

The "No blood for oil" slogan is just a fancy smokescreen. It is designed to be a catchy phrase that serves only to cloud the real issues. America will not be in control of Iraqi oil after a war. The new Iraqi, and I might add, muslim, government will still be in control of Iraq's oil production. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, to name a few, are also oil producing countries. The U.S. is not after them. The empty slogan, No blood for oil, is too superficial; it's too easy. Not only has Iraq fought with its neighbors, i.e. Iran, and Kuwait, also the Kurds, but it is also a threat to its other neighbors whom it has not yet fought. During the Gulf War, Iraq launched, I think it was 39, scud missiles against Israel which was not even in the war. What does that have to do with oil?

These rallies were also infested with anti-Israeli messages telling us something else about the organizers. It was also recognized in Israel where the Jerusalem Post reported, " Anti-war rallies provide a platform for anti-Israel views, The Jerusalem Post Internet Staff, Jan. 19, 2003. "Among the dozens of anti-war rallies that took place around the world on Saturday to protest a possible US strike against Iraq, demonstrators took the opportunity to criticize Israel and its leaders as well. In a demonstration in Paris organized by several far-left groups, 6,000 protestors booed both US President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to reports on Israel Radio.

In Washington, D.C., where 30,000 people marched through the streets of the US capital, "Free Palestine" was one of the other causes taken up by some of the demonstrators. In Damascus, thousands marched with a message that was not all about peace. Many cried, "Our beloved Saddam, strike Tel Aviv," in celebration of Iraq's missile thrusts against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War and in hope Saddam would strike again. In the Gaza Strip, thousands of Palestinians rallied in support of Saddam Hussein. In Lebanon, 4,000 demonstrators waved posters of Saddam. In Jordan, 300 protesters in the predominantly Palestinian district of Nuzha in the capital, Amman, burned U.S., British and Israeli flags and denounced Bush." (The Associated Press contributed to this report.)".

These anti-war demonstrators evidently feel in good company with those in love with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. They glorify and defend him while villifying their own country. But democracy allows them to do that. Do you think that anti-Saddam rallies would be tolerated in Iraq? These anti-war protesters are turning their backs on those oppressed in Iraq who yearn for freedom. The Stars and Stripes published a center piece in their news paper titled, Iraqi torture haunts fisherman, dated Jan.26, 2003. On page 8 and 9 the article reports, "...Life is good.Fishing is decent. But his face turns grim when he's asked about the American troops massing at the desert outpost in the distance.

He tosses the cigarette into the sand, reaches under his flowing, brown robe and exposes a small round scar just above his ankle. He jabs different parts of his body with his finger: "And here. And here. And here," he says.

It's where the Iraqi soldiers tortured him, he says. They used drills, electric prods, and sometimes battery acid. Like so many other Kuwaiti men, Al-Ali was in the wrong place at the wrong time: Kuwait in 1990.

Abducted from a shopping trip to the local souk, he spent four months in prison camps in Iraq before he was released near the end of the last Desert Storm and walked home to the light of flaming Kuwaiti oil fields...."There should be a war. There must be a war," Ali says. He curses Saddam [Hussein]...

...The Soldiers caught Ali while he was shopping at the souk... they blindfolded him, put a gun to his head and hauled him across the border to a series of dingy prison camps from Basra to Baghdad.

"They tried to pry information out of him for four months, as if he were an American spy...They torture me for nothing. That is the way they do it in Iraq." He says he saw men tortured with pliers to the face and genitals...

Now the winds of war are blowing again. In much of the Arab world, opposition to war and ant- American sentiment has been growing for months. But for those with the most to lose in Kuwait, there's a different attitude.

Al-Ali dismisses America's critics. So what if there's another war? What if the great super power topples a fellow muslim? And what if Iraq retaliates by firing its remaining scud missiles into Kuwait? "Where were you 10 years ago when Saddam was here?" al-Ali shouts to the absent critics. "If you were here you'd say, 'Please President Bush, you come. You come...'"

So where were all the signs protesting terrorism and muslim genocide against the Jews?? There are barely any. Is terrorism somehow not war? These people may mean well but they are myopic to say the least. Perhaps even gullible and naiive stooges of the Islamic propaganda crusade of lies. Some, perhaps, just plain evil. And now that the war is over, what do these so called peace activists think of all the mass graves found in Iraq?

Islam's goal is to subjugate the world, not just Israel, under Islamic rule. Many of these Palestinian sympathizers in the United States also believe in "Separation of Church and State", which is, by the way, not in the U.S. Constitution. But what would they do if they had to live under Islam which controls both church and State? They would immediately lose their civil rights and be forced to convert to Islam or die. Do you think they have freedom of speech or religion in Islamic controlled countries? What? CNN or the BBC or whoever else didn't explain that on the news! By the way, they all have the death penalty too for more crimes than just murder. Like I said before, the Palestinians have the death penalty for just selling a house, or plot to a Jew. Palestinians are killed on only a suspicion of them collaborating with Israel. Sound like a place where you would like to live?

America will send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight terror, and rightfully so, but Israel is expected to negotiate with terrorists in its own country at the expense of Jewish bodies being torn apart on a regular basis. The destruction of the World Trade Center gave Americans a taste of what Israel has been dealing with for decades. Only this time it wasn't somebody elses news. It was our news. It happened in our country. And we were rightly incensed. You can look at it like this, America 9-11; Israel 24/7. Also, there was a sniper in Washington D.C. commanding attention of World News organizations. In Israel it happens by a number of terrorists on a daily basis. And not only with rifles but with rockets, mortars, grenades etc. How often do you hear about that? Oh, incidently, when police finally caught the sniper it was learned that he was a muslim who had served on a security detail for Louis Farrakhan during the million man march in Washington D.C. Of course he was accompanied by his young apprentice who was learning the great "peaceful" religion of Islam from him from behind an assault rifle.

Jews do not hijack airliners and commandeer them into buildings. They do not blow themselves up just to murder innocent bystanders. They do not blow themselves up on crowded buses or in packed shopping malls. They do not bomb pizza parlors or restaurants. They do not plant bombs on airliners. They do not attack Arab settlements. They do not parade through the streets with masks and guns. They do not bomb embassies in other countries. Jews are not indiscriminate killers plotting how they might murder more people. Jews do not fire rockets or mortars into neighborhoods and towns. They do not send their children into war to be martyrs. Their soldiers do not hide behind innocent civilians. They are not leading the world in exporting terrorism. Have you ever heard of a terrorist alert in America regarding a Jewish plot to kill Americans? But the muslim terrorists do all these things and more. And still the UN and EU would betray Israel to the infidels who commit these barbarous acts of genocide.

They claim they are doing it for their god. But what kind of god would sanction such blood-thirsty savages and serial killers? What kind of god demands human sacrifice? It is a religion based on violence, bloodshed, murder, and conquest. On the Island of Bali, muslim terrorists murdered almost 200 young civilians in one minute. Israel told the world, if we don't stop them here in Israel it will surely spread. The world did not listen and Israel was proven right. Does the world fear the spread of small pox by Jews or muslims? Muslims of course. How about anthrax? It is also known that Israel possesses an nuclear arsenal. Do the Western nations fear it? No! Because they know it is in responsible hands. The Muslims are opposed to Israel's nuclear arsenal because it is a deterrent to Islamic military aggression against the Jewish State. When a muslim country seeks to aquire nuclear weapons the West becomes all alarmed; and for good reason. People who love death and destruction do not worry about pushing buttons.

And consider this, how many of the world's conflicts involve muslims? To name several off the top of my head there is Albania, Macedonia, the Phillipines, East Timor, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, India, America ( 9-11 the most prominent attack), southern Russia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq etc. The list would continue to grow upon more research. The Western Nations are all on some kind of muslim terrorist alert. They are not on any kind of Jewish terrorist alert though. Masada reports that, "FACT: 90%-95% OF ALL THE CONFLICTS ON THIS PLANET TODAY INVOLVE MUSLIMS FIGHTING NON-MUSLIMS OR EACH OTHER!" Read the article, Islam: Religion of Peace? There is a link to it under "general" on my web site. By the way, the "peaceful" religion of Islam has the highest number of suicides in the world. They are fooled into thinking they are doing this for their god. This is no different than the Jim Jones cult and others like it. The only difference is their reason. In the case of muslims it's for the purpose of murder and genocide

If muslims aren't busy killing non muslims or themselves, they're busy killing each other such as in the Iran-Iraq war or the Taliban in Afghanistan, or when Iraq invaded Kuwait etc. And how is it the that the Israelis are the aggressors? What kind of twisted logic is that? The Muslims started all of Israel's wars. Israel is just an excuse for terrorism. The fact is, Islam wants to control the whole world. It reminds me of the Monkees theme song " you better get ready, we may be coming to your town".

What did the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait have to do with Israel? What did the Iran-Iraq war have to do with Israel? What did the Syrian invasion of Lebanon have to do with Israel? By the way, Syria is still "occupying" Lebanon. Where is the world outcry against that? How about the Lybian invasion into Chad, or the civil wars in Algeria, Lebanon, Sudan, etc? In fact, Chuck Missler from Koinonea House relates that within a 50 year time span the Egyptian invasion of Yemen killed 250,000. In the Algerian civil war 1,000,000 dead. In the Lebanese civil war 150,000 dead. In the Lybian incursion into Chad there were 100,000 dead. In the Sudanese civil war there were 500,000 dead. In the Iraq-Iran war over 1,000,000 dead. These are muslims killed by muslims. In the same 50 year period the total number of casualties between Israel and the muslims stood at 70,000. But between muslims and muslims somewhere around 3,000,000 from just the above mentioned conflicts. That's "only" two million, nine hundred and thirty thousand more casualties than those betweeen Israel and the muslims. But that's not important to the Jew haters. In fact, if Israel is the problem, why are Jews attacked who do not even live in Israel? They are attacked in America, Europe etc; not just in Israel. What is the explanation for that?

In December 2002 news came out of Israel of fighting in the Gaza Strip. No, not between Israelis and Muslims, but between Muslims and Muslims. The story is by Khaled Abu Toameh and was published by the internet edition of the Jerusalem Post dated 5 Dec. 2002. Fatah gunmen attack homes of Hamas leaders: "Hamas said Fatah gunmen fired automatic weapons at the homes of Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Ismail Abu Shanab, and Dr. Ahmed Bahar, all senior Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, on Thursday. No one was hurt. Tensions have been running high between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza City following a series of incidents in which several people were killed. On Wednesday night, Fatah gunmen opened fire at a group of Hamas activists while they were painting graffiti on the walls congratulating Palestinians on the occasion of Id al-Fitr, killing two. The victims were identified as Isam Ghubun, 34, a Palestinian Authority security official, and his son Allam, 13. Abdel Rahman Ahmed, 18, was seriously wounded in the head. The killings triggered a confrontation between dozens of Hamas and Fatah gunmen, who also lobbed hand grenades and bombs at each other. This was the second confrontation of its kind in the past 72 hours. Earlier, rival students at the Azhar University engaged in a gun battle on campus. Several people were reportedly wounded, but no one was killed. The university administration decided to suspend studies until further notice. Witnesses said scores of Fatah gunmen participated in Thursday's pre-dawn attack. They said the assailants were forced to retreat after Hamas gunmen returned fire. The Fatah gunmen also attacked a number of mosques."

And again, from the same source dated 8 Dec. 2002: "For the second time in the past three days, Fatah gunmen in Gaza City fired on the home of a Hamas leader, Palestinian sources told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday. They said several masked gunmen belonging to Fatah fired on the home of Ismail Abu Shanab, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, damaging some windows and frightening his children. Abu Shanab was not at home during the assault, the sources added. The shooting is the latest in a series of unprecedented assaults that are threatening to turn into an all-out confrontation between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip... The latest confrontation was triggered by the killing of a Palestinian police officer and his son in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood last Wednesday. Issam Ghubun and his 13-year-old son, Allamn, were killed when Hamas and Fatah gunmen attacked each other with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and explosives. Palestinians said the clashes began when Fatah supporters tried to prevent members of Hamas from writing graffiti on the occasion of the Muslim feast of Id al-Fitr."

Also from the same source dated 9 Dec.2002, " A senior Palestinian Authority official called on Monday for putting an end to the continued fighting between Hamas and Fatah gunmen in the Gaza Strip and warned that the clashes, which are occurring almost on a daily basis, could spark off a civil war. Hasan al-Kashef, director-general of the Palestinian Ministry of Information, condemned the use of firearms in the street clashes, particularly in Gaza City, where a father and son were fatally shot last week. Several other people have been killed and injured in a series of violent clashes that have plagued the Gaza Strip over the past few months. Most were victims of gun battles between activists belonging to Hamas and Fatah.

Again, what does their fighting have to do with Israel? As I said before, if Muslims aren't busy killing non-Muslims they are busy killing each other. This does not sound like peaceful people to me. Do you see these kinds of armed clashes taking place among the Jews of Israel? The difference in the mindset of these two peoples is plain to see. If muslims don't get along with themselves how will they interact with everyone else? And that is what a Palestinian State would bring to the region.


Israel and Jews are blamed for almost everything. They are the world's scapegoat. How many hundreds and thousands of Jews paid with their lives for the lies of their persecutors. The Protocols of of the Elders of Zion was one such lie that even to this day is often preached as truth among the Muslims and right wing extremists. They have been blamed for everything from the plague to killing christian children and using their blood for their Passover Matzah. The muslims even blamed them for destroying the World Trade Center. Muslims still tell these lies and publish them even to this day.

In 2002 an Israeli missile killed the military leader of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza. Unfortunately some innocent people were also killed including some children. No one takes delight in that. It was a terrible tragedy. But the same world outcry against Israel was silent over the HUNDREDS of Jews that are dead because of this one man. This one sided racist, anti-semitic hypocrisy is inexcusable. There were innocent civilians inadvertantly killed in the Gulf war. There were innocent civilians inadvertantly killed in Afghanistan. The same holds true for the war in Yugoslavia. WWII, especially Berlin and Dresden, had its share of civilian casualties numbering in the thousands. How many innocent people died in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Vietnam was also no stranger to innocent civilian casualties as well as friendly fire.

In fact, Arutz 7 Internet News, Wednesday, July 24, 2002 published a story of civilians inadvertantly killed by the U.S. military. " In response to American and international criticism of the Israeli assassination of arch-terrorist Salah Shehada that led to the deaths of nine Arab children, analyst Yoram Ettinger, Israel's former liaison to the U.S. Congress, has prepared a list of United States attacks in which civilian lives were not taken into consideration."The list actually goes beyond Afghanistan," Ettinger told Arutz-7 today. "For instance, in 1989, the US invaded Panama City in order to free [the ruling strongman] Noriega, using jets and helicopters. Six hundred civilians were killed in that raid, according to American estimates, and thousands were wounded. Then U.S-Chief of Staff, whose name was Colin Powell, said at the time that the appropriate amount of force was used 'and we have no need to apologize.' The Attorney General at the time, Dick Thornburg, said that the U.S. was operating according to the UN's clause 51 allowing self-defense."In 1993, in response to the killing and mutilation of 15 US soldiers, the USAF bombed Somalia, turning an entire area basically into a parking lot, killing over 1,000 citizens. Again the U.S. said that it was self-defense."In this current war against Al-Qaeda [in which sources say 400-800 civilians have been killed - ed. note], when Rumsfeld was asked about the American attack on Red Cross offices and on other civilian areas in Afghanistan, he said,[ and I agree with him ], 'This is a war that has been forced upon us by terrorists. We are making great efforts not to hurt civilians, but if civilians are hurt, the entire responsibility for such is upon the terrorists who use them as cover.'"

This situation is not unique to Israel. In fact, many times friendly forces are mistakenly killed as well as soldiers from a countries own military. It's called friendly fire although there's nothing friendly about it. The biggest difference is, that innocent people are accidentally killed in Israeli military operations in a war forced upon it by terrorists. They are not purposefully targeted unlike the innocent Jewish civilians who are targeted by Islamic murderers. Just yesterday (at the time of this writing) a palestinian terrorist shot to death a 34 year old mother and her 5 and 4 year old son while she was reading them a bed time story. For a muslim, I guess, that was a legitimate military target. And how many Jews are dead because of these Palestinian serial killers? Why is world outcry not as loud against them and even silent? Is it perhaps because the Muslims have the oil; and money is more important that human life? Or is it because the western nations cower before the sword of Islam?

Consider that the Hamas is also to blame for the innocent civilian casualties as are the Palestinians because they locate themselves among civilians using them as human shields. But this time their shields became casualties of their own war. Their behaviour is a war crime. It is called Perfidy. Professors For a Strong Israel published the following point on their e-mail circular.

PALESTINIAN PERFIDY, ISRAELI COUNTERTERRORISM AND THE LAWS OF WAR Louis Rene Beres, Professor of International Law Dept Political Science, Purdue U, West Lafayette IN 47907, USA

"The recent Israeli bombing of a building in Gaza succeeded in killing a principal Hamas terrorist, Salah Shehadeh, but it also killed and wounded a number of Arab civilians. Normally, according to international law, any such bombing that strikes noncombatants could be a clear case of "unjust means." In this instance, however, full legal responsibility for the harms done to civilians must fall upon those Palestinian leaders who deliberately placed terrorists in the midst of ordinary populations. These leaders are guilty of the long-established crime known as "perfidy."

Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but the Hague Regulations clearly disallow placement of military assets in densely populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found in Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and it is widely recognized that these rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law. Indeed, it is generally agreed that perfidy represents an especially serious violation of the Laws of War, one identified as a "grave breach" at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. The legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for counterterrorist harms done to Arab civilians. Even if Hamas had not deliberately engaged in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would have given Israel full legal justification for full military action. All combatants, including Palestinian fighters, are bound by the Laws of War of international law. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for "self-determination," the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within." As far as I know, the UN has never investigated Palestinian crimes of perfidy. That is not important to their political agenda. In fact, even their own facilities and vehicles have been used by Palestinian terrorists against Israel. The U.N. has done nothing to stop it.

The United States had criticized Israel for targeted killings but they did the same thing in Yemen and in Iraq, trying to assassinate Hussein with cruise missiles. Israel is also often criticized for civilian casualties. Yet U.S. troops in Iraq found themselves in the unenviable position of having to do the same thing. Jerusalem Post reported on 30 April, 2003, "In the bloodiest incident involving American troops in the post-Saddam era, US troops killed 14 Iraqis and wounded almost 70 Monday night when pro-Saddam demonstrators allegedly opened fire on American troops. The incident could ignite future American-Iraqi violence, as anti-American sentiment mushrooms among many Iraqis who accused the American administration of dawdling, perhaps intentionally, in its promised rehabilitation of this war-torn country. US Central Command said in a statement that paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired upon by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound they were occupying. "It's important to sort out the facts of what happened," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "American forces, wherever they are, have the right to defend themselves and they will do so with the utmost care and professionalism." The Israeli Army has no less right to defend itself under the same circumstances even when the results are the same. In those cases it is also no less important to sort out the facts from the hype and propaganda.

An incident that also caught world attention is when a palestinian boy and his father were killed in a cross fire between Israeli troops and palestinian terrorists. But it seems that this was nothing more than palestinian street theater. World Net Daily published the following report, Probe: Famous 'martyrdom' of Palestinian boy 'staged' Shooting of intifada's 12-year-old poster-child called 'street theater' datedApril 26, 2003. The article says, "The whole world watched the agonizing drama of the 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Dura, pinned down in crossfire between Arab snipers and Israeli Defense Forces.

It was one of the most widely reported stories of 2000. Due to the presence of the news media there in Gaza's remote Netzarim junction that Sept. 30. an international audience watched little Mohammed crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, who struggled in vain to protect his son from the gunfire. Millions witnessed the moment the boy's life was snuffed out by an Israeli bullet. He died there, cradled in his father's arms, after both father and son frantically pleaded for help.

At least that's how the story was portrayed on television worldwide.

The Israelis were blamed by all, and indeed the Israeli military even apologized for the tragedy initially. Mohammed al-Dura soon became the poster child, rallying cry and virtual symbol of the "al-Aqsa intifada." Heart-wrenching photographs of father and son were posted everywhere alongside roads throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian authorities named a street after the boy and Palestinian television created an edited version wherein pictures of an Israeli soldier shooting were spliced into the original footage. And countless Palestinian would-be suicide bombers dedicated their lives and souls to the destruction of Israel and liberation of Palestine, swearing vengence for the death of little Mohammed al-Dura, ruthlessly murdered by Israeli soldiers.

There's only one problem. Multiple, exhaustive investigations have shown Mohammed al-Dura was not shot by Israelis. In fact, as a new journalistic probe conducted in France shows, it was very likely all a charade. Worse, the news media were almost certainly complicit in the charade ...Although the Israeli military immediately assumed responsibility and apologized for the shooting, it soon became apparent that the IDF soldiers, positioned kitty-corner across the Netzarim Junction from Mohammed and Jamal al-Dura, couldn't have shot them, as both father and son were protected from that direction by a large concrete barrel. If so, then what really happened? In October, 2000, Yosef Doriel - an Israeli engineer and former Israel Defense Force sharpshooter - spearheaded the first investigation and re-enactment of the Mohammed al-Dura shooting. His conclusion: The 12-year-old boy could not have been shot by IDF soldiers - but instead fell victim to a cruel plot perpetrated by Palestinian sharp-shooters and a Palestinian television cameraman.

In the video, noted Doriel, "you can hear the firing - but the Israeli position was far away! Rather, what happened was that a Palestinian advanced to a spot very close to the photographer, and shot the fatal shot. You can also notice that at that moment of the fatal shots, the photographer suddenly 'shook' and the picture was blurred - a signal that the shots came from close to him." Doriel was emphatic: "The Palestinian forces staged the event. The Israelis were firing, for sure - but the fatal shots came not from them, but from the Palestinian position in front of the boy, behind the cameraman."... "Even before asking if this [the body of the dead boy at the hospital] is in fact the body of the boy in the film one cannot help asking why the bullets that went through his body didn't leave any trace of blood [at the site of the alleged death scene]. No blood on his forehead (if he was in fact wounded in the head … the declarations are contradictory), no blood on his t-shirt." The article is too long to print it in its entirety but this gives you the gist of the report.

Another crime that neither the UN nor the EU confront the PLO on is sending their children to battle or suicide bombings. Arutz 7 reported on Thursday, 19 Dec. 2002, "UN REPORT OMITS P.A. AS CHILD-WARRIOR SPONSOR U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has issued a new report to the Security Council condemning 23 nations and movements that recruit child soldiers - yet one entity particularly known for massive recruitment of child warriors is conspicuously absent: the Palestinian Authority.

"For the first time in an official report to the Security Council," said Olara Otunnu, Annan's special representative for children and armed conflict, "those who violate standards for the protection of war-affected children have been specifically named and listed." Despite this blanket statement, reports that amidst cited offenders such as Afghanistan, Colombia, the Philippines, Sudan, and many others, the Palestinian Authority - where "children continue to be raised, virtually from birth, to be jihad warriors" - is not mentioned.

The intentional recruitment of PA children to die as suicide bombers is accomplished, writes yesterday, "through constant indoctrination in the mosques, by way of television programming, and in the school classroom."

Note the date that this report was published; 19 Dec. 2002. Finally, in Jan. 2003, the UN decided to speak up. In an article titled, UN condemns Palestinians' use of children in conflict, dated 15 Jan. 2003, Melissa Radler, writing for the Jerusalem Post, reported, " NEW YORK Palestinian terrorist groups' use of children as human shields, gunmen, and suicide bombers, long a source of Israeli indignation, has come under attack by an unlikely source: the UN. At a Security Council debate on measures to protect children in armed conflict, the UN's special representative on the issue, Under-Secretary-General Olara Otunnu, condemned Palestinian suicide bombings as destructive to both Israeli and Palestinian children. "The use of suicide bombing is entirely unacceptable. Nothing can justify this," said Otunnu at the opening of Tuesday's day-long session. "We have witnessed both ends of these acts: children have been used as suicide bombers and children have been killed by suicide bombings. I call on the Palestinian authorities to do everything within their powers to stop all participation by children in this conflict," he said.

Israel, which was the only country to mention Palestinian terrorism in its remarks, also came under criticism by Otunnu, who reiterated concerns raised by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his annual report on children and armed conflict, released last month, that rates of immunizations among Palestinian youths are falling due to IDF closures and curfews.... Some 50 nations spoke out against recruiting children into conflict, and the council is expected to adopt a resolution later this week urging sanctions against governments and groups that violate children's rights.

Among Middle East representatives, the focus was on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli charge d'affaires Arye Mekel faulted Annan's failure to condemn Palestinian incitement of children against Jews in its official media and education system, the recruiting of children into the conflict, and the killing of 106 Israeli children over the past two years...

"In our region, children have been recruited and used by terrorist organizations as human shields, for the placing of explosives, as gunmen, and even as suicide bombers, and it is regrettable that the secretary-general's report failed to make mention" of this, said Mekel.

The debate was held three days after two Palestinian children, ages 14 and 17, were caught trying to infiltrate Netzarim in the northern Gaza Strip. In April, three youths, ages 13 to 15, were shot dead during an attempted terrorist attack on Netzarim. Public outcry prompted Hamas to promise not to recruit children to carry out attacks. "

I would suggest that it was also publicity that prompted the UN to speak up. Of course, somehow, it was all Israel's fault again.

So what is the deal with that? Why did it take them so long? Does the UN fear the PLO or is it just like them at heart? They obviously have something in common. Inspite of all the international crimes and war crimes by Islamic terrorists and regimes against the Jewish people, the EU/UN continues to turn a blind eye in favor of their usual Jew bashing. Islam may be the kingdom out of which the anti-christ arises with whom the kings of the earth have fornicated. Of course, this will necessitate the betrayal of the chosen, Israel, by the kings of the earth. "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies." - Revelation 18:2-3. Babylon today is in the country of Iraq which is an Islamic country.

We must understand that the conflict in the Middle East is a religious conflict. It is a religious Islamic conquest, Islamic Naziism, Islamic crusaders if you will, and it will not stop with Israel. The muslims themselves call it Jihad, "holy war". Their religious leaders preach it from their pulpits. They use the Koran to justify killing the infidels. Islam spread, not by evangelism, but by war. The following article on the Jerusalem Newswire web site, Hitler And Muhammad by Chuck Morse dated 30 Dec. 2002, discribes a common evil being played out in today's world.

"Moderate Muslims, thank G-d, tend to follow the portions of the Koran that cover the peaceful and worshipful early period in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, tend to focus on the more violent passages of Koran and Hadith, which emanated from the later period in Muhammad's life, after he had achieved military hegemony in Medina. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Saudi Wahabbists, Hizbollah, Hamas, the Iranian clerics, and a growing international network of Islamic terrorists embrace this aspect of Islam, an aspect that is entirely comparable to the Nazi faith of Hitler. We can't afford to apologize for examining the professed faith of those who hijacked the passenger planes on Sept. 11 and who are now trying mightily hard to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Serge Trifkovic, the author of the book Islam: The Sword of the Prophet quotes from, among other traditional sources, the Sirat Rasul Allah, a universally accepted biography of Muhammad, which was written by Ibn Ishaq, an early Islamic writer, and translated into English by Alfred Guillaume. Trifkovic describes the scene after Muhammad achieved military victory against pagan Mecca in the battle of Badr. Flush with victory, a transformed Muhammad would claim divine sanction for the slaughter of pagan captives, whom he described as "the worst animals" and the robbery and enslavement of captured Jews and Christians. A triumphant Muhammad would return to his home base of Medina after the battle and proceed to establish a theocratic police state, which offered Medinans a choice between conversion, expulsion or death. That totalitarian state essentially remains in place to this day...

Muhammad went on to instigate a series of similar murders, each grizzlier than the last, but the murder of the Jewish merchant Ibn Sunayna is notable, because it followed a pronouncement by Muhammad to kill the Jews...

Muhammad's passions would then turn from individual murder to mass murder and genocide. First, he would expel two Jewish tribes from Medina, and in the process confiscate their property and wealth with enough of the loot going directly to Muhammad to make him wealthy. Then, after claiming to receive a divine revelation, Muhammad would order an attack against the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah. When the men of Banu Qurayzah refused forced conversion, 900 were decapitated and dumped into a mass grave in front of their families. Muhammad was said to have exclaimed at the scene, "Truly the judgment of Allah was pronounced on high." The women would then be raped, and Muhammad would take one of them, who had just witnessed the murder of her father and husband, Raihana bint Amr, as a concubine. Those unfortunate enough to survive this would be tortured and murdered in a manner that the Hadith lays out in graphic and gruesome detail...

Muhammad believed that his evil was sanctioned by Allah and was a necessary means toward the utopian goal of establishing paradise on earth for all of his followers."

Incitement to Jihad is preached openly in the mosques. The homicide bomber is promised a free trip to paradise complete with his own harem of virgins. The Judeo-Christian Bible offers the redeemed the reward of eternal life with God. It does not cater to the lusts of man's flesh however, as the Koran does. In the New Covenant (New Testament), Jesus said, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:29-30. The Bible never discribes the angels of God as being sex crazed individuals with their own private harem. Neither does it present them as individuals with a string of murders behind them.

The Koran says in the section titled, The Cow, "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." The West is the ones who are trying to politicize and secularize a religious war. The Muslims know full well that their war on humanity is a religious one. Allah Akbar is their war cry (god is great). They call their murderous aggression Jihad, or holy war.

In an article by Daniel Pipes, What is Jihad dated 31 Dec. 2002, the author writes," What does the Arabic word "jihad" mean? One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad. As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: it means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe. Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical and one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad (which explains why Algerians, Egyptians, and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression). The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans. At present, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist organizations: ...BUT JIHAD'S most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom."

For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings, and killed their males. Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them, and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation, and a life of sexual servitude. Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about two million deaths and the displacement of another four million making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era..."

Recently President George W. Bush, a man that I am glad to have for my president, spoke out against the Religious Right for its anti-Islamic statements. Yahoo News reported in 14 November, 2002 "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday took on the Christian right core of his political base, denouncing anti-Islamic remarks made by religious leaders including evangelist Pat Robertson. Bush said such anti-Islamic comments were at odds with the views of most Americans. Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans," Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. By far, the vast majority of American citizens respect the Islamic people and the Muslim faith. After all, there are millions of peaceful-loving Muslim Americans," Bush said. "Ours is a country based upon tolerance ... And we're not going to let the war on terror or terrorists cause us to change our values."

Are anti Islamic remarks at odds with the views of most Americans? I don't know. But truthfully, neither does he. Has anyone conducted a poll to find out? By the way, who ever raises their voices against the constant flow of anti Jewish rhetoric coming from the UN and the EU? President Bush's statement is a political one. I understand that he wishes to maintain the unity of our people and not cause religious divisions. I can not dispute that the vast majority of American Muslims are peaceful people but what would the results be of a poll on their views concerning Israel? I also know some Muslims that are nice people. That still does not change the situation in the Middle East. The "nice" muslims are not the ones in power. They are not the ones the world has to deal with. It is not their influence that is infecting the planet like some evil virus. Dictatorial regimes and terrorist organizations are not staffed with "nice muslims" but with evil men. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia raised some tensions in the E.U. by declaring this fact.

Putin: Non-Muslims Target of Rebels Tue Nov 12, 8:01 PM ET Published on Yahoo News. By ROBERT WIELAARD, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - A French reporter who questioned the Kremlin's war in Chechnya provoked an angry outburst from Russian President Vladimir Putin who challenged him to convert to Islam and come to Moscow for circumcision. During a post-European Union summit news conference, Putin also said Chechen rebels want to kill all non-Muslims and establish an Islamic state in Russia... Chechnya is predominantly Muslim... The translation showed Putin issuing a broadside against the Chechen rebels. "They talk about setting up a worldwide (Islamic state) and the need to kill Americans and their allies," Putin said. "They talk about the need to kill all...non-Muslims, or 'crusaders,' as they put it. If you are a Christian, you are in danger. If you decided to abandon your faith and become an atheist, you also are to be liquidated according to their concept. You are in danger if you decide to become a Muslim. It is not going to save you anyway because they believe traditional Islam is hostile to their goals."... Putin claims Russia is fighting international terrorism - not an independence movement - in Chechnya. He calls Chechen fighters "religious extremists and international terrorists" whose impact has spread far beyond the borders of the republic. He pointed to last month's hostage-taking in a Moscow theater by Chechen rebels. Russian special forces troops stormed the auditorium after three days, pumping a knockout gas into the theater to disable the rebels, all of whom were killed... Putin praised Russian handling of the crisis and said other nations must adopt a similarly tough stand against terrorism to prevent further incidents like it and the recent bombing of tourist nightclubs in Bali, Indonesia, where about 200 people were killed."

The Prime Minister of India, in October of 2002 accused the West of taking its own terrorism more seriously than that of other countries, such as India. In fact, a news story by Nirmala George, Associated Press, published by The Stars And Stripes on Sept. 27, 2002 informs us, " ...A centuries old culture of Muslims and Hindus living in harmony ended in 1989, when Islamic militants began attacking Hindus, forcing thousands to flee in their drive to separate the mostly Muslim territory from Hindu majority India...At least 350,000 Hindus fled their homes in the lush Kashmir Valley in less than a year after the insurgency started, heading south to the Jammu region of the state, or to other parts of India."

Now, not only are there many Hindu refugees as a result of being forcefully driven from their homes, but muslim terrorism has spread into India itself. The same is true regarding Israel as well. Evidently, everyone elses terrorism is more important to them than that in Israel. There, terrorists are labeled "militants" by the press instead of the murdering terrorists they are. For the news media and many world governments, the UN and the EU etc, the difference between a terrorist and a militant seems to be where he does his killing and who is doing the killing.

In an Op Ed titled, 'Militant' or 'Terrorist'? published on the Arutz Sheva web site dated 2 February 2003, Emanuel A. Winston writes, "How extreme must an 'extremist' be before the BBC, CBC, New York Times, London Times and NPR calls him a 'terrorist'? - Would 'terrorists' remain 'extremists' or 'militants' if they blew up the buildings in which these media giants house themselves - like the World Trade Center? Or the Pentagon?

We in America clearly understood that, when 15 Saudis and four Egyptians forced airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these were terrorists - not militants, not extremists.

Yet, for Arab Muslims in Gaza, Beirut, Damascus, and Cairo who danced in the streets in hysterical delight, they were not terrorists, not extremists, nor militants - to them, they were shahids (martyrs).

Clearly, much of the media have become fellow travelers and apologists for terrorists... The media have worked diligently to twist history and actual events into a rationale that not only excuses the Arabs for making war, but supports their actions. Would that not make the media not only observers...[but] terrorist supporters... Would the media object to being targeted as are those who shoot infants through sniper rifles equipped with telescopic sights?

Would members of the media object to being waylaid on the road and being machine-gunned or fire-bombed, or blown-up by a road-side bomb place there by a terrorist (or would the members of the media call them 'militants')?

Since propaganda is a tool of war, has the media enlisted itself to become a combat division of global terrorist organizations?

Surely, it is more than just journalistic semantics to use words like "militants" or "extremists" to describe hideous crimes. What it is can only be defined as an effort to both protect terrorists and, through word play, excuse their actions...

They are no longer objective observers when they take up the causes of terrorists and assist their causes through the persuasion of the media. They persuade the public that the killing and the maiming was done for a good cause - that the terrorists are not to be faulted, but rather understood, even pitied. They create a barrier of defense so the governments of nations will not go against the prevailing sense of their citizens, who have been persuaded by the media. Thus, of their own choice, they have become a propaganda mechanism for violent political movements who use terror to obtain power and control...

There are, of course, honest, ethical and moral journalists out there, who similarly have corporations behind them that do not demand biased reportage... One reports the news, while the others make the news, and then offer misleading jingles like "All the news that's fit to print." NPR has become known to many as National Palestine Radio by usually interviewing pro-Palestinian academics, along with weak Israeli Leftists pretending balance. CNN has modestly improved as their ratings fell against Fox News, which reported on terror in a straight, unadulterated fashion.

The Chicago Tribune continues to be an apologist for Arab Palestinian terrorists, while explaining that their terrorism is somehow the fault of Israel. The media has exposed itself to criticism as it has made itself part of the world of "rejectors without a cause." The Arabs have become the darlings of the media, in the name of Islam. Perhaps it is merely fear that the Islamists will blow up their offices or assassinate their journalists - as they have. If fear is their motivation, I cannot help but wonder when the victims of terrorism will decide to use the same form of media persuasion. At that point, who will then be the 'militant' and who the 'terrorist'? "

There are also many Jews who feel that we have to give in to the terrorists in order to achieve peace. Why must Israel concede defeat? Why should Israel reward terrorism with the Land that was promised to our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The reluctance of the West to engage terrorist nations with military force is seen as weakness by the terrorists and only encourages them to more and more terrorism. Is slavery to Islamic shariah law to be preferred over the fight for liberty? How can one find peace in such barbaric bondage? The West doesn't seem to realize this.


My idea of a good political solution for the Israeli conflict is to oust the PLO permanently. Bring all of Yesha and the Gaza strip under full Israeli control and sovereignty and recognized by, at least, the Western governments. All the funding that went to the Palestinian Authority should go to Israel. Israel would then use the money to improve the standard of living and infrastructure of the palestinian occupied territories. This would also create jobs for both the Arabs and the Israelis. Jews would have the same right to live in Yesha as the palestinians. There are many etnic groups living in the USA but they are not trying to claim parts of it for their own. They live under full American sovereignty. Any arabs that wish to leave Israel could be financially assisted to do so. It seems like a good idea to me but it probably wouldn't work. Why? The major obstacle to peace would not be Israel. Perhaps not even the Arabs. The obstacle to peace would be Islam. Consider Islamic theology. From the Galilee Experience internet news update #53 dated 13 Dec.2002 by Eric Morey, "Why Islam Will Never Make Peace With Israel"

"A core aspect to the teaching of Muhammed in the Koran is the concept that--even though the Jews were at one time God's Chosen People--they did not obey God and they were replaced by the Christians. The Christians also did not fulfill their role, and God sent Muhammed to be the final Prophet. His followers, the Muslims, became the final, and real, Chosen People.

If this were true, it would follow that all the promises God gave to the Jews, and the Christians, now belong to the Muslims. Of all the promises of God in the Holy Scriptures, the most clearly identifiable is the promise of the Land of Canaan, with its defined boundaries, to the Jews. Islamic theology claims that this Land now belongs to the Muslims.

If you examine the history of the Land, it seems to bear out Islamic theology. First the Jews had it, in the Old Testament period. Then the Romans conquered it and threw the Jews out. After Constantine, the Eastern Roman Empire became the "Christian" Byzantine Empire, and continued to control the Land (by then called "Palestine" after the enemies of the Jews - - the Philistines) for another 300 years. Shortly after Muhammed's death in 632 AD his followers conquered it--the first land they conquered outside of Arabia. They controlled it continuously (with short breaks during the Crusader period) for almost 1300 years, until the British took over in 1917. Just as Muhammed taught: first were the Jews, then the Christians, then the Muslims. History was proving Muhammed to be correct. However, in the late 1800's the Jews began to return--in very small numbers at first. After the Balfour Declaration in 1917 the numbers increased. The Muslims in and around "Palestine" begin to react violently. In 1929 and 1936 there were murderous riots against the Jews. By 1948 there were over 600,000 Jews living in "Palestine," and they had become the majority. When the Jewish State of Israel was declared and survived the initial onslaught of six Muslim nations bent on its destruction, Islam began to go berserk. Fundamentalist Islam started to experience a "revival." One of the major causes - - perhaps THE major cause - - of the rise of fundamentalist Islam in our time is the return of the Jews to their Land.

Today thirty-seven nations of the world still refuse to recognize the existence of the State of Israel. All of them are Muslim nations. The goal of fundamentalist Islam - - by innumerable declarations of its followers - - is the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Why? According to Islamic theology, it is impossible for the Jews to return here and miraculously reestablish their nation and survive against overwhelming odds. If the Land still belongs to the Jews, then Muhammed was apparently wrong about the very important issue of the Muslims replacing the Jews as God's Chosen people and as the owners of the Promised Land.


The Koran itself claims to be confirming the previous scriptures, i.e. the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Judeo-Christian Bible does not need to be confirmed, it needs to be believed and adhered to. But if the Koran confirms the previous scriptures why does it spend so much time denying them. It sets itself up as being more authoritative than the Bible yet the Koran is the writings of just one man. It was his understanding of the scriptures subjected to his world view. Muhammed seemed to think the Christians were a bunch of idol worshippers. But he confused Christianity with Roman Catholicism which is indeed infested with idols of the dead.

There is only One God and that God is not Allah. There are no two names for one God. You do not find a god named Allah in the Hebrew Bible, neither do you find YHWH (Baruch HaShem) in the Koran. The Koran never reveals God as "the LORD God of Israel" The Hebrew Bible repeatedly does. In fact, if you read the Koran, Mohammed was not very well informed on many things we read in the Hebrew Bible. Muhammad was not in possession of a Bible in the Arabic language. Most of what he learned he learned from passing caravans.

A few examples are: The Koran says in Surah 11:40-46 that one of Noah's sons drowned in the flood but others were saved out of his tribe. But the Bible says, " And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. The Koran also says, " We delivered Lot and all his kinsfolk save for one old women who stayed behind." That one old woman was Lot's wife who went with them. She did not stay behind. The Bible tells us that she disobeyed God by looking back on the destruction of Sodom and was turned into a pillar of salt outside the city. The Koran says, "It was He who created man from water." Sometimes it's clay and other times it's a clot of blood. But the Bible says consistently, " And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Yet the Koran claims to confirm the Torah. There are other such examples but it is not my purpose to dwell on them here. Suffice it to say that God does not need a Koran to confirm His word for He says, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps.119:89.

The LORD God of Israel swore a covenant to Israel by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is in the Torah. How can one profess faith in the Torah and yet contradict it when it comes to the covenants God made with Israel. There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. If Arabs wish to live in Israel they must submit to Jewish sovereignty over all Israel. There were strangers who lived in the Land in the Tanakh like the Gibeonites for example. But they submitted to Jewish authority. It would not be humane nor merciful to expect a forced expulsion of all the Arabs living in Yesha not caring what happens to them just so long as they leave. But under Israeli sovereignty I'm sure their living conditions would eventually improve. They certainly did not under the PLO. Israeli Arabs certainly have it better than most Palestinian Arabs under the PLO. But Islam has fostered conquest, murder, and hate. Because they have no legitimate answers they can only respond by hate, and violence, and murder.

The Koran says, in "The Bee" second paragraph, "There is no god but me..." The speaker here is, of course, Allah. So it seems that someone is in competition with the God of Jacob for the God of Jacob and Allah are not the same, else Islam would honor the covenants that the God of Israel made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But what does the Tanakh say? 1 Kings 8:23, "And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:" Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye [Israel] are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Now we have heard from Allah in the Koran and we have heard from the God of Israel in the Bible. Which one do you think is telling the truth? Muhammad claimed to have received his revelations from Allah through the angel Gabriel. But believers in the New Covenant know that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatian church, " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." -Galatians 1:8. I believe Paul, who was raised a Jewish pharisee and Torah scholar, would imply the the entire Word of God in that statement. Isaiah 8:20 says, " To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Had Muhammad indeed seen an angel, how could he have known that the angel was in fact Gabriel? Again the Apostle Paul says, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of the Messiah. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." - 2 Corinthians 11:13-15. If Satan can masquerade as an angel of light is it wise to accept the word of angels at the expense or instead of, or even in addition to the Word of God? The cult of Mormonism also originated after this fashion.

Also, in 1 Kings 13, we find a man of God who was deceived by the story of an angelic revelation. It costed him his life. Focusing on verse 11 through 22 we read, "Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father. And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah. And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon, And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am. Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water. And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back: And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. " You see, the man of God had his instructions from God Himself, as we do from God's Word, the Holy Bible. But he was lied to by a prophet claiming to have a revelation by an angel. The man of God set aside his clear instructions from the LORD and fell for the lie of the prophet and it cost him his life.

The God of Israel Himself promised the Land of Israel to the Jews. That's either true or it's not. You either believe that or you don't. Those who do not recognize the legitimate right of Israel to live in peace in its own Biblically mandated, and historical borders, also do not recognize God or His authority. They are as the Pharaoh who said, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go." - Exodus 5:2. Go where? To the Promised Land. This includes the unbelieving Jews in the Land who are willing to give up part of their inheritance and the inheritance of their children and the children of their fellow Jews, and put at risk the rest of Eretz Yisrael. It is not a matter of British mandate, or U.N. resolutions, it is a matter of "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel". It's disappointing that, as Charles Stanely once said, Christians can be so satisfied knowing so little about their Bibles. But we already know from Zechariah 12 that the world in general will not listen and will pay a great price.

How do you think Moses, Joshua, or David would have responded to today's situation in Israel? Not like the Israeli leaders of our time.Why? Because they believed and trusted God and stood firmly on His Word. As Moses would say, " Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me." Or the prophet Elijah, "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." Moses and Elijah, here, would represent the Law and the Prophets.Who would you be following by giving in to the enemies of God? We know how Moses, Joshua, or David would respond for they left us an example recorded in Scripture.

We have honored and exalted the Torah for thousands of years now. To compromise the Torah with the will of the heathen is a great sin. The Torah reveals the covenant that God made with Israel, not Yassir Arafat, the U.N. the EU, the Palestinians, the Roman Catholic church or anyone else. Of course, back then, the Word of God was more authoritative than U.N. resolutions. Most Bible believing Christians know this. Regrettably, there are still those who don't. Those who don't are wrong. There is no true, Biblical Christianity that is without Jewish roots. Judaism and Bible based Christianity are the only two world faiths to be born in the Land of Promise. Yes! True Christianity is also Zionist. But unfortunately, there are Christians and Jews who do not recognize today's Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy. But who is responsible then for Israel's return? Did it happen against God's will? Was it by chance? Or is God indeed in sovereign control? Does God not establish kings and nations and overthrow them according to His will? The truth is, since God promised the Land to the Jews, even though they were driven from it, it never ceased to be their inheritance and was never transferred to anyone else.

Yes, modern Israel is also according to the will of God. "And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." - Genesis 15:17-21. [NOTE: The Jebusites lived in Jerusalem and were conquered by King David. The Jebusites, Hittites, Hivites, and the Canaanites inhabited the West Bank areas. The Rephaim possessed the Golan.]

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God ... And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." - Genesis 17:1-8,15-21.

Notice that The Torah says, "all the land of Canaan," shall be given to the descendants of Abraham and Isaac for, "an everlasting possession". Notice that the Torah also says, "my covenant will I establish with Isaac". Remember too that the Torah also says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2. Here again, failure to recognize the Jew's divine right to the Holy Land is a rejection of God's authority and sovereignty.

The Bible also groups Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion together for they are inseparable.

In Isaiah 4:2-5, for example, the Bible says, " In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence." Isaiah 46: 12-13," Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness: I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory."

Isaiah 62:1-7, " For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence, And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.

Zephaniah 3:14-17, " Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more. In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack. The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. "

Joel 3:14-17, " Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more."

Joel 3:20-21, " But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.

Zechariah 8:2-3, " Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain."

Also, according to the Scriptures, Jerusalem is the unmistakeable capital of Israel. It was there that the Temple was built. Daniel 5:2-3 tells us how Nebuchadnezzar had taken the vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem and brought them back to Babylon, "Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them."

It was there that the kings of Israel reigned. For example, 2 Samuel 5:5, " In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah. " Not only does this show that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel but it also shows that Hebron belonged to Israel as well, not any fictitious West Bank. Let's look also at 1 Kings 14:21, " And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there." And Again, 2 Kings 21:7, " And he [Manasseh] set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house, of which the LORD said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: "

For those who know their Bible, the re-establishment of Israel and the return of the Jews to the promised land should come as no surprise. God showed ahead of time that He would do this.

Is.11:11-12, " And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Micah 4:1-8, " But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem. "

Jer.31:10-14, " Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all. Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow. And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the LORD."

Ezkl.37:12,21-23, " Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel... And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God."

This passage of Scripture is often referred to as the vision of the valley of dry bones. I prefer to call it, the resurrection of Israel. Modern day Israel is not yet an entire fulfillment of these prophecies but we are witnessing the beginning of their fulfillment. According to Ezekiel 37, the restoration of Israel back to God would take place in stages. Modern Israel is surely an indication that those stages have already begun.

Amos 9:14-15, " And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God." Of course, now that the Jewish people have returned, cultivated the land, drained the malaria infested swamps, built cities and roads etc, the muslims want it for themselves.

Israel belongs to the Jewish people. No one else has any rightful nor divine claim to it. Not the church, nor the muslims. Islam wants to steal the land from the Jews by force and blood-shed but plain and simple, Israel is none of their business. When the Jews were returning from their captivity to rebuild Jerusalem, they were met with opposition. In the book of Nehemiah the scriptures read, "Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach. Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king's words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work. But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king? Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us; therefore we his servants will arise and build: but ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem." - Nehemiah 2:17-20.

There are no more Horonites or Ammonites. But there are still Arabs. And according to the Word of the Living God of Israel the Arabs have no portion, right, nor memorial in Jerusalem. Therefore, opposing and despising the Jews returning to Zion and seeking to stop them from building up the Land and their eternal capital Jerusalem is rebellion against the Almighty. Perhaps God is already drawing the line of the prophesy in Zechariah 12:1-3. Remember the words of Moses, " Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me." Or the prophet Elijah, "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." It matters not whether you are a Jew or a Gentile. An observant religious Jew or a Christian. You must choose a side.

The Israeli government is seeking to promote Jewish Aliyah to Israel. Yet they are creating an environment that makes one leary of moving. You do not plan for a bigger family by making your house smaller and allowing gangs, thugs, and murderers to move into the rooms you move out of. Since the "Palestinian occupied territories" are part of the house, it is not Israel that should pull out of them. Israeli politicians, for the most part, are just that: politicians. They do not rule according to the Word of God. Obviously, the New World Order has infiltrated and infected Israeli politics, politicians, government, and media. It's interesting that PM Ariel Sharon would appoint Shimon Peres to a unity government. The name, Peres, can be found in Daniel 5:28 in the handwriting on the wall. " PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." His name means to divide, or division. How about that! Division in a unity government. His first name, by the way, Shimon, means," waste, wilderness, desert, desolate place ", definitely nothing fruitful about that. Basically, his name has also been the results of his politics.

Now the old battle fatigued general Ariel Sharon is himself advocating a palestinian state. The PLO is a terrorist organization and not an ethnicity. Sharon wants to hand over large parts of the Land of Israel to a terrorist organization. He is also allowing foreign influences and political pressures to set the policy of how Israel should respond to terrorism. But to borrow a line from a Bob Dylan song, " How many deaths will it take till he (Sharon) knows that too many (Jews) have died"? I respectfully think it's time the old general retired and turn the reigns of power over to one who will put Zion first. If Ariel Sharon had been one of the kings of Israel, I wonder how the Bible would remember him. Would it say that he walked in the ways of his father, David? Would David have surrendered to the god of the phillistines? But it seems that Ariel Sharon has been consumed by the lie of Israeli occupation. Indeed, his behaviour is becoming increasingly harder to understand. Instead of taking a democratic approach he is taking a dictatorial approach, i.e. I don't care what you want, it's my way or the highway. His way is a road to surrender and an even greater war over the horizon. Debka File published an article on May 26, 2003, in which they reported, " "The forty-member Likud parliamentary party hurled bitter complaints against prime minister Ariel Sharon Monday, May 26, for failing to consult the party before he presented the Middle East road map to the cabinet for endorsement on Sunday, May 25. It was carried by a narrow majority of 12 to 7 ministers and four abstentions. None of the Likud ministers voted against the document. Even the nay-saying coalition hawks did not walk out of the Sharon coalition.

Former foreign minister David Levy attacked the government for accepting a Palestinian state. For a much lower price, he said, "the left" would have got us full peace. Why did the ministers who publicly decried the road map as dangerous and bad fail to vote against it? he asked. Pointing at finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he said: Fence-sitting is not an option when the Land of Israel is at stake. There is no longer any difference between Likud and the left-wing parties.

One MK accused the Sharon government of accepting "Oslo C" - a reference to the 1993 Oslo accords signed by a Labor government, long anathema for Likud and nationalist parties.

Sharon was unmoved by his critics. He demanded that the party line up as one man behind his policies. When a MK ventured to remark: Consult with us and we'll support you, the prime minister retorted: You will support me whether or not I consult with you." " Now if that isn't arrogant. But then, Sharon goes on to display the double standard of his thinking, "

He went on to declare:" Maintaining three and a half million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing. One and a half million are in the care of international organizations. Do we want to take over? Can we? We have to let the occupation go without compromising our national security. It is not possible for us to stay forever in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem. Fifteen years ago I decided that any effort was worthwhile - limited only by our security needs - for an accommodation that left us holding onto areas vital to our security and turned the rest over to a Palestinian state - even though I cherish every scrap of our homeland as much as anyone here...DEBKAfile's political analysts note that Sharon is the first Israeli prime minister to use the term "occupation" in reference to Israel's presence on lands captured in the 1967 all-out war launched by its Arab neighbors. He thereby risks providing fodder for future anti-Israeli UN resolutions, writers of international treaties and international courts, including war crimes tribunals, seeking grounds for incriminating Israel or any individual acting in its name. The Americans mindful of this potential legal trap were careful to refer to their invasion of Iraq as liberation rather than occupation." Twice Sharon calls Israel's presence in the disputed areas "occupation" and then goes on to say "Our homeland". So is it the Israeli occupation or the Israeli homeland? Let the palestinians return to their own homeland in Jordan. Why are they still in ghettos anyway? When the Jews return to Zion they are absorbed into the Jewish nation.

This is still going on today. Arutz 7 reports: Arutz Sheva News Service Sunday, May 18, 2003 / Iyar 16, 5763 5. MOROCCAN JEWRY, PLEASE COME HOME

Following Friday night's string of bombings in Casablanca, Morocco, in which some 30 innocent people were killed, Israel's Minister of Absorption Tzippy Livni issued a call to the remaining Jews of Morocco. The terrorists, assumed to be members of Al-Qaeda, targeted two Jewish sites in their attacks, and Livni invited the Jewish community there to immigrate to Israel, pledging special assistance from the Jewish Agency.

Some 2,000 Jews still live in Morocco, 80% of them in Casablanca. Ben Sheetrit, Chairman of the World Federation of Moroccan Jewry, told Ynet today, "The time has come for the last remaining Jews of Morocco to pack up their belongings and join the 700,000 Moroccan Jews who have immigrated to Israel and have been successfully absorbed by their people here." Jews do not confine their people to ghettos. But the oil rich muslim States do.

God promised to regather Israel in their own Land to include all of Yesha. Until Israel becomes more concerned with pleasing her God instead of mortal men, she will continue to have trouble even though God's divine favor is on this people. The leaders of Israel would do well to remember, that, " If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. " - 2 Chronicles 7:14. A good place for this to start would be the Israeli leaders. You will remember from the scriptures that some kings had led Israel to faith and others had led the nation to apostasy. Where is Israel's present leader leading the nation?

Aliyah is a Biblical mandate. But so is the Nation to which Aliyah is to be made. There is no true 100% Aliyah possible if parts of Israel are off limits to those making Aliyah. Israeli politicians say, we must negotiate, we must bow to the pressure of the gentiles. Thus they tolerate the high place on the Temple Mount, denying the Jews their right to pray there for fear of the heathen. I would like to see the Temple of God built once again on it's rightful spot: The Temple Mount. The Jewish People are shut out of their own inheritance. The Temple of God has been forsaken.

But the Word of God says: "Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD:[NOTE: The Mountains of Israel is an area of Israel roughly equivalent to the West Bank, biblically known as the Mountains of Israel or Judea and Samaria]. Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession: Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people: Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about; Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey. Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I have lifted up mine hand, Surely the heathen that are about you, they shall bear their shame. But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." - Ezekiel 36:1-11.

The word "settle" is certainly an interesting choice of words, for the Jews of Judea and Samaria, ie the mountains of Israel, are called, "Settlers". Even important political figures in Israel call for the dismantling of Jewish settlements just to try to appease the heathen. There are many illegal Palestinian Arab structures in Israel, but they are tolerated and the Jews are uprooted from their own Land. Nevertheless, I do recognize the legitimacy of the Government of the State of Israel. Though there are those Jews who do not, I do. That doesn't mean I support all of their policies. I believe it is right to serve in the Israeli Defense Force. I support the legitimacy of the IDF. I support the IDF in Yesha also.

The world is at war with God as are the forces of evil. They have aligned themselves with each other against God's Word and against God's people. But as Ezekiel wrote the words of the LORD, "ye shall know that I am the LORD", whose side will you find yourself on when that day comes for you?

The present situation in Israel is the symptom of an even deeper evil. The nations of the world are marching to the beat of the drum of "the god of this world". 2 Corinthians 4:4, " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Messiah, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Also we see a confrontation between Jesus and Satan in which Satan makes his boast, "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." - Luke 4:5-6. It's interesting that Jesus did not argue with Satan over this point. This present world scene is Satan's kingdom. It is his sphere of influence. Thankfully, it's only temporary. Ultimately God is still King.

God spoke through the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 31:35-37. If Satan could wipe out the Jewish people he could question the reliabilty and truth of God's word. There must be an Israel and a Jewish people for God's prohetic word to be fulfilled. That is motivation enough for Satan to manipulate the kingdoms of the world to seek Israel's destruction. And in their self-righteous wisdom against the Jews they fail to realize that they are fulfilling God's prophetic word by condemning Israel. Zechariah's prophecy will be fulfilled. Since Satan is the enemy of God and therefore also the enemy of Israel. But God is Israel's friend and Creator.

God made an everlasting covenant with Israel which is, of course, only in effect as long as both parties exist. We know God isn't going anywhere but if Israel ceased to exist the covenant would not be everlasting, it would have an end. Paul wrote in Romans 11:1-5, " I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." You will notice Paul presents the question, "Has God cast away His people"? But then answers it, " God hath not cast away His people." You will notice that Paul's answer is very precise. First, God did not cast off His people. Second, God foreknew His people which also means that none of Israel's sins caught God off guard. Inspite of knowing all He did about Israel He chose them anyway. Third, Paul makes the case that he himself is proof that God did not cast off Israel in saying that he too was "of the seed of Abraham". This is very specific because Paul realized that when a gentile converts to God he becomes a part of that household of faith. The believers are thus called "Children of Abraham" but never "the seed of Abraham. "Children of Abraham" refers to the gentile being grafted into the olive tree, or believing Israel.

Galatians 3:6-8, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Still, at the same time, they are not descendants of Abraham. Therefore, though a common faith is shared, the physical distinctions remain. Paul was very careful to say that he was not only a child of Abraham but also the "seed" of Abraham thus demonstrating that God had not cast off the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Satan is at war with the Jewish people. Of course, he is not totally unrestrained. In Daniel 10, Daniel began to fast and pray for he knew from the writings of Jeremiah the prophet that the Babylonian captivity was coming to an end. As Daniel began to pray God dispatched an angel to him which was held up by a mysterious being for 21 days. In Dan. 10:12-13 the scriptures read, " Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." We don't know anything about this conflict with the prince of Persia, Michael, and though not specifically named I presume Gabriel. What happened during those 21 days? We don't really know. We do know that that particular battle was not finished for in Dan.10:20, this messenger speaks of returning to it. In verse 21 Michael is called "Your prince" indicating that he is the guardian angel of Israel.

Who was this prince of Persia? Let me offer you my opinion. Many Bible commentators say that the prince of Persia was a very powerful demon. He was certainly that. It is my opinion, however, that this prince was Satan himself. This is not a new or far fetched idea. Note the following verses. Isaiah 14:4-14, "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Isaiah addresses the king of Babylon but it suddenly becomes apparent that he is talking to Lucifer, son of the morning. Evidently Satan had possessed the king of Babylon.

Ezekiel 28:11-17, "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee." This time we see Satan personified in the king of Tyrus.

Revelation 2:12-13, "And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." Many Bible commentators write that Satan's seat was a possible reference to the altar and throne of Zeus which was built up on a hill where all could see it. Some say it was a reference to Pergamos being a center of idol worship or paganism. That is a rather superficial explanation however due to the fact that the scriptures go on to say that Pergamos was the place "where Satan dwelleth". Why Satan chose to set up headquarters in Pergamos I do not know. All I know is that the Bible says he was there for whatever reason.

Keeping this in mind, we know from the Scriptures that Satan and demons can take possession of man and animals. We also know that Satan can move around freely as he wills. We also know that this world is Satan's domain. That's why it is so evil. Now let's return to the prince of Persia.

If the prince of Persia was Satan, why was he hanging around in Persia? Satan had, no doubt, also seen the handwriting on the wall in Daniel 5 which said, " Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." We see that the Babylonian empire would fall and the Medo-Persian empire would succeed it. Then, in Daniel chapter 8 we see that the Persians would become more dominant over the Medes. Dan.8:3,20, "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last...The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." Satan was fully aware that the Persian empire would be the next world empire.

So it would be a great time to get off to a head start already pulling strings in Persia. As a world empire, Satan would definitely be interested in controlling it. Persia, by the way, officially changed its name to Iran in 1935. Iran means, "of the Aryans" or "land of the Aryans". Strangely enough, the Nazis were all preoccupied with being a pure Aryan race. They obviously didn't know who the real Aryans were. So now that we have a good reason 'why' Satan would take up residence in Persia, we may ask ourselves 'where' in Persia? A good place for Satan would be in the seat of power which means he would have to find a man either to take possession of, like he did with Judas Iscariot Luke 22:3, "Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." or at least find someone he could manipulate, influence, and control.

It is interesting that there is only one book in the entire Bible in which the events thereof took place entirely in Persia. The title of the book is Esther, which is, in fact, the Persian name of a Jewess named Hadassah. It's hard to pinpoint exact dates; different sources give different dates, but it is entirely probable that the events in the book of Esther took place within about a hundred years after the death of Daniel. By this time Persia had already established itself as the next world empire.

The book of Esther contains the record of a certain Haman in the palace of king Ahasuerus. Haman had been promoted to the number two spot of power in the kingdom of Persia. Haman had plotted genocide against the Jews of Persia. As it turned out, through the intercession of Queen Esther, the king allowed the Jews to arm and defend themselves against Haman's genocidal attacks because he could not reverse the law authorizing it. The Jews successfully defended themselves and thus was born the Feast of Purim. It is my opinion that the prince of Persia was Satan, who inspired Haman to destroy all the Jews of Persia. Satan did not succeed. Neither did Haman who was eventually hanged on a gallows that he had specially made for a cetain Jew named Mordechai. Even if it turns out that Satan was not the prince of Persia, we can still clearly see that attacks on Jews are the works of a deep sinister evil orchestrated by Satan.

The nations of the world in attempting to erase Israel are only proving God right. That is, of course, not their motivation nor their intention, but inspite of everything they do against the Jewish people, in the end it will be to their own destruction for God will save His people. But God will bring them to the brink of dispair that when they are saved, they will know that it was the LORD God of Israel and not their own hand that saved them.

Zechariah 12:1-10, " The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God. In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. "

Zechariah 13:8-9, "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. "

Zechariah 14:1-3,9,16, " Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle... And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one... And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. "

These are truly sorrowful, yet exciting times. For God has not forgotten His word for Israel which He spoke by the prophet Jeremiah, "At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest. The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry. Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things. For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God. For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock." - Jeremiah 31:1-10.

Support Israel and stand by her side. Reject anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Perhaps there is nothing we can do to personally change the situation in the Promised Land. But maybe we can still be of help to those who live there. Perhaps we can still persuade some to join the LORD'S side with Israel. We side with Israel because we know that God loves Zion.

Romans 15:27, "For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their [Israel's] spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things."

Recommended Reading:

A Durable Peace: Israel and its Place Among the Nations by Binyamin Netanyahu

From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

The Mountains of Israel: The Bible and the West Bank by Norma Parrish Archbold

The Arab Israeli Conflict: Who Owns The Land by Stanley A. Ellisen