PITH HELMET

From our friend Hershel Tsvi Yehuda in a pithy response to everything the pro-Palestinean activiists have to say on this very old, very bloody topic:

HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE CONFLICT here in Israel is not over land, but has to do with the inability of our Arabs/Muslim neighbors to recognize that Jews and Christians have any claim, religious or historical, to the land of Israel. Time and time again throughout the middle east, and even now in Asia, it becomes the goal of radical Muslims to destroy religious sites from other religions and build Mosques over them. From the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan to the constant religious battles in India, and back to the middle east, this history repeats itself over and over again.

But while we are on the subject, let's dig that swimming pool a little deeper, shall we, again from the rife pen of Hershel Tsvi Yehuda:

The first thing to note is that the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel predates the settlement movement that started in 1967, and even pre-dates Israel's re-establishment as an independent state in 1948. There were pogroms that included the sadistic rape, murder, dismemberment, and burning of thousands of Jews and their properties here going back to the middle of the 19th century. There was no Israeli state, no settlements, and there was no "occupation" of an Arab people called Palestinians.

Next, it it important to point out that the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a state multiple times and rejected it outright, preferring to wage war on the Jews with the hopes of "throwing them into the sea." The entire land of the British mandate was designated as a Jewish state, and in contradiction to official British policy, 80% of the land was given to the Heshemite monarchy to establish the Kingdom of Jordan (which is now over 80% Palestinian.) Of the 20% of the land remaining, the United Nations (League of Nations at the time) offered partition, half to the Palestinian Arabs, half to the Jews. The Jews accepted the small and virtually indefensible borders and immediately established Israel. The Arabs rejected and sent 5 national armies and legions of Palestinian Arabs to destroy the new Jewish state. Thank G-d, the Jews won, and were happy to have a state even though it did not give them authority over it's most holy sites in Jerusalem.

From 1948 until 1967, after every Jew living in east Jerusalem, the West Bank, or Gaza Strip, (places Jewish families have lived consistently since temple times) had been murdered or exiled, Israel still suffered hundreds of murderous attacks from the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. From bus hijackings resulting in the murder of the passengers, to schools being raided by child murdering terrorists, shootings, bombings, kidnappings and more. All these attacks despite the fact that there was no occupation, no settlements, and the Arabs did not make a single attempt at establishing an independent state called Palestine.

In 1967, when the Arab countries called up their armies and pledged to throw Israel into the sea, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack destroying the Arab armies, and re-claiming the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Since then, Israel re-built Jewish towns (settlements) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, reestablishing ancient Jewish communities from biblical places such as Hebron, Bet El, and Shilo, and Israel finally gained control over it's most holy site, the site of the ancient temple that Jews had been forbidden to visit since the Arabs controlled it in 1948. With Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, Christian and Jewish holy sites were restored and for the first time in many years, all religions had access to their holy sites.

Suddenly the Palestinian Arabs decided that the reason they are murdering Jews is because of the occupation. To reiterate, these attacks had been going on all along, before the West Bank and Gaza Strip were "occupied." Throughout this war of terror, Israel has repeatedly tried negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs. They have been offered a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip 2 times by Israeli leaders, most famously by Prime Minister Ehud Barak who against the security interests of Israel offered them 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with a capital in east Jerusalem. The answer Israel received was a "no," and a wave of suicide bombings and shooting attacks that murdered and injured thousands of Israelis.

Read it all.

STANDARD NETWORK PANDERING

Watch CBS Videos Online

IS THIS ALL THE LEFT HAS REMAINING in its quiver of intellectual assaults on Israel? After sixty-two years of incessant conflict with these untenable Arabs who only flocked to this formerly barren land to harass, dominate, or exterminate the Jews as per their religion, this report offers nothing new, and yet the comments on this CBS News drip with enthusiastic aplomb for the bravery and courage of this allegedly blacked out story. What dribble!

Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.

Meanwhile, this tiny nation has had to fight tooth and nail for its very existence for every single day since its inception in 1948, and with Iran threatening to wipe that name of Israel and its people right off the map, Hamas and Hezbollah in the full throes of a breeched childbirth, and world opinion against the only civilized nation in the midst of an Islamic horde with every attempt of Israelis to defend themselves, this situation is certainly not evaporating on its own accord. This arrow left the bow long ago.

ARAB-AMERICAN WAFA SULTAN BLASTS ISLAM

THE IRREPRESSIBLE AND FABULOUS Wafa Sultan continues to say some very harsh things about Muhammad and Islam, as she debates certain vitriolic Muslims on Arab TV. Her assertions are strikingly accurate in terms of Islamic history and theology—not that truth has ever mattered to the girded-loin jihad apologists, Muslim and non-Muslim, in the West, or to those who, even at the highest levels, are given to wishful thinking and fantasy-based policymaking instead of sober analysis.

If CAIR is so inclined, although we suspect this would be more likely if she had said this in English in some high-profile forum, her words would end up on the organization's "Incitement Watch." But the real incitement came from Al-Qaradawi, as she points out. Yet that salient fact will never show up on any CAIR "Incitement Watch." Now, why is that?

Thanks to Robert Spencer. The following paragraphs are excerpts from an interview with practicing Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on May 29, 2008.

Wafa Sultan: When I examined the Koran, the hadith, and the Islamic books under a microscope, I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible—impossible!—for any human being to read the biography of Muhammad and believe in it, and yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.

Do you remember the way that [the Prophet Muhammad] killed ‘Asmaa bint Marwan? His followers tore her body apart limb from limb, while she was breastfeeding her child. When they returned to him shouting “Allah Akbar,” he said: “No two goats will lock horns over her.” As you know, goals lock horns over the most inconsequential thing. For Muhammad, however, the killing of a woman while breastfeeding was too trivial a reason for goats “to lock horns over.” Is this a prophet of God?

It makes me very sad that Al-Jazeera TV allows an insane and terroristic creature like Al-Qaradhawi to use it as a medium for the spreading of his poisons, his terroristic fatwas, and his babbling. The words he used against me incited many young Muslims—who have been brainwashed and blindfolded, and who have been programmed to hate—to rain curses and threats upon me, right after the show in which he discussed my appearance on Al-Jazeera.

When Islam considers women to be deficient in reason, and I refute this assertion—in that case Islam attacks me, and I am merely attacking back. When Islam calls to kill whoever does not believe in it, and I refute this, in that case Islam attacks me, and I am merely attacking back. I do not attack Islam. I criticize it, but unfortunately, we, the victims of Islamic upbringing, view any criticism as an attack.

I always focus on the language—the language of Islam. The language of Islam is a negative, dead language, replete with violence, anger, hatred, and racism. Man is the product of language, the outcome of the negative and positive language to which he is exposed in this lifetime. If his life is dominated by negative language, he will emerge as a negative, reckless, and non-productive person, who rejects everything. On the other hand, if positive language dominates his life, he will emerge as a positive, happy, and productive person. This is why the negative language of Islam has failed. It has failed to produce people with a spontaneous and positive outlook. It has produced negative people. If we take a look at Islamic societies, we see what that negative man did.

I do not view Islam as a religion—according to my notion of religion. Islam is a political doctrine, which imposes itself by force. Any doctrine whatsoever that calls to kill those who do not believe in it is not a religion. It is a totalitarian doctrine that imposes itself by force. When I read, for example, the verse: “The adulterer and the adulteress—flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and do not let compassion for them move you”—I do not discern any spirituality in this verse. Whena certain faith manages to can strip its believers of their last grain of compassion, it strips them of their spirituality as well.

Jesus Christ is the symbol of peace. He did not carry a sword, chop off heads, or accuse anybody of heresy. The problem in Islam is that if we were to act similarly to the Christians of the Middle Ages, and we were to model our lives after the life, actions, and words of Muhammad, we would find ourselves in an even bigger mess than the one we are in, and we would end up like Osama Bin Laden and his ilk. Read about the life of Muhammad. What do you find there? Nothing but his raids and his wives, in addition to his hadiths, some of which make you shudder. I shudder when I hear the hadith: “A woman’s paradise is under her husband’s foot.”

The Islamic teachings have become dreadful in the skulls of the Muslims. I see no alternative but to open up these skulls, and to clean the life-threatening cancerous cells in these brains.

When the Syrian people swarmed the Danish embassy and burned it down, it burned my heart too. Why? The Syrian people are dying of hunger. The Syrians, despite their [ancient] civilization, chase after their daily bread. Why don’t they swarm the palace of their president, who has 40 billion dollars in European bank accounts, and burn down the palace, along with its occupant? They swarmed the Danish embassy, giving the West the wrong image of the moral and civilized Syrian people. Therefore, I describe their conduct as barbaric and backward.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a religious conflict. I support the Palestinian cause. I support the Palestinian children. I lose sleep over the suffering of Palestinian women. I cannot even step on an ant, so how could I possibly be against them? This is inconceivable. This is a political conflict, and they should ask their leaders about what they have done to resolve the problem. But the problem is rooted in religion. A week or two ago, I read a short story in an Islamic book, according to which Muhammad was walking with some of his followers when they heard a commotion. They asked him: “What is this, Messenger of Allah?” He said: “These are the Jews being tormented in the grave.” Regardless of the conflicts Muhammad had with the Jews back then, this statement indicates that the graves of their ancestors were in Saudi Arabia, correct?

Interviewer: Yes.

Wafa Sultan: They are people of this region, as is evident from the Islamic books and the Koran itself. The problem with the Muslims is that they do not distinguish between their prophet and their own noses. When you criticize Muhammad, his actions, and his life, it is as if you chopped off their noses.

ISRAELI LEFTIST STUNNED BY OWN RESEARCH

Disputatious Israeli historian Benny Morris finally admits what so many on the Left (and the Right) continue to deny with his recent epiphany—that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about land, a bankrupt revisionist idea that drives all these so-called peace talks, but is indeed fueled by an Arab imperative called jihad, which at the end of the day calls for the total eradication of all Jews and other dirty kafirs, as taught by Mohammed in the seventh century. We would hope that Morris now begins to repair the damage he has caused in the past in failing to notice that Islam is the origin and the full explanation for the fixed hostility toward Israel. His article in Newsweek begins:

I REMEMBER THE MOMENT when the Palestinian diaspora began to interest me, professionally. It was in Rashidiye Camp, outside Tyre, in June 1982, just after the Is­rael Defense Forces had scythed through on their way north to oust the Palestinian Liberation Organization from Lebanon. A journalist at the time, I picked my way through the devastated buildings. Most of the men had fled or been detained or killed by the Israelis, but I was struck by a group of old women hunched over a tabun, an outdoor oven, making pita bread far from their homeland. A few weeks later a stash of documents produced in 1948 by the Palmah—the strike force of the Haganah, the main Zionist underground in Palestine—was opened for me, revealing why and how many of these people had been displaced as Israel was born.

My historical account of that event, published a few years later, was greeted with some acclaim by Palestinians and their sympathizers—and much shock by Is raelis, who had been brought up to believe, or to pretend to believe, that the Palestini ans had fled their homes four decades earli er because of orders or advice from their leaders. In certain places, at certain times, there had been such advice and orders, of course. But there had also been Israeli ex­pulsions, as well as the chaos of British withdrawal and economic hardship and anxiety about an uncharted future under Jewish rule. In most places it was the flail and fear of onrushing hostilities that had set some 700,000 Arabs on the roads.

Myself and several other young Israeli historians were dubbed revisionists and commonly assumed to be doves. But what brought me to my conclusions about 1948 were the facts, not my political views. Contrary to current historiographic discourse I believe there is such a thing as the Truth—what, why and how things happened—and I've always sought it in my research. If I've since come to a much bleaker opinion about the possibility of reconciliation be tween Jews and Palestinians—many would now call me a hawk—it is also because of that research.

During the 1990s, as the Oslo peace process gained momentum, I was cautious ly optimistic about the prospects for peace. But at the same time I was scouring the just opened archives of the Haganah and the IDF. Studying the roots of the Arab-Is raeli conflict—in particular the pronounce ments and positions of the Palestinian leadership from the 1920s on—left me chilled. Their rejection of any compromise, whether a partition of Palestine between its Jewish and Arab inhabitants or the cre ation of a binational state with political parity between the two communities, was deep-seated, consensual and consistent.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian national movement during the 1930s and 1940s, insisted throughout on a single Muslim Arab state in all of Palestine. The Palestinian Arab "street" chanted "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) both during the 1936-1939 revolt against the British and in 1947, when Arab militias launched a campaign to destroy the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine. Husseini led both campaigns.

Read it all.

NY TIMES BEMOANS ISRAEL AS USUAL

In an article by Ethan Bronner, the churlish New York Times laments the plight of the Arabs displaced from Israel in 1948. Of course, a few pertinent details were left out of the piece:

1. The fact that most of the Arabs left because they were told to do so by their leaders, with the promise that they would return soon, after the Arab states had obliterated Israel.

2. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Muslim countries at the same time.

3. The fact that refugee problems in Europe and India in the wake of World War II were settled within a few years, but that the Palestinian refugee problem has been artificially kept alive by the Arab states as a stick with which they could beat Israel—no Arab state offered the Palestinians citizenship after 1948 except Jordan.

4. The fact that Jews living in an Islamic state ruled by Islamic law would be relegated to second-class dhimmi status.

MOZART IN SAUDI ARABIA

DON'T OVERESTIMATE the power of the tease. As long as its oil and its oil wealth gives them the upper hand, the Saudi crown will not be fools when it comes to doling out tidbits to its first world dhimmis in this real-time international game of chess. Just a taste they will offer, then back to business as usual. The following event should not be taken as a crack in the dam, as the German ambassador suggests, but merely a rare toss of bone scrap to the cur dog infidels (and a few of its own ruling elite, of course. No harm in that) extending the long arm of taqiyya precisely enough to keep the kingdom’s dhimmis in check.

It's probably as revolutionary and groundbreaking as Mozart gets these days. A German-based quartet staged Saudi Arabia's first-ever performance of European classical music in a public venue before a mixed-gender audience. The concert, held at a government-run cultural center, broke many taboos in a country where public music is banned and the sexes are segregated even in lines at fast-food outlets.

The Friday night performance could be yet another indication that this strict Muslim kingdom is looking to open up to the rest of the world. A few weeks ago, King Abdullah made an unprecedented call for interfaith dialogue with Christians and Jews—’the first such proposal from a nation that forbids non-Muslim religious services and symbols, and often uses this type of open call for propaganda purposes to soften up resistence to its own Wahabi supremicism that it is busy exporting al over the world, particularly in the West.

"The concert is a sign that things are changing rapidly here," said German Ambassador Juergen Krieghoff, whose embassy sponsored the concert as part of the first-ever German Cultural Weeks in Saudi Arabia. Public concerts are practically unheard of in the kingdom. Foreign embassies and consulates regularly bring musical groups, but they perform on embassy grounds or in expatriates' residential compounds, and the shows are not open to the public.

Friday's concert of works by Mozart, Brahms and Paul Juon was the first classical performance held in public in Saudi Arabia, said German press attache Georg Klussmann. It was advertised on the embassy's Web site with free tickets that could be downloaded and printed. The excitement in the 500-seat hall was palpable as the largely expatriate audience walked in.

Japanese pianist Hiroko Atsumi, the quartet's only woman, said there was some debate before the concert about whether she should perform in an abaya, the enveloping black cloak all women must wear in public. She settled on a long green top and black trousers.

Among the first to arrive was Faiza al-Khayyal, a retired Saudi educator, with her 15-year-old daughter. Miss al-Khayyal said she had inquired about seating arrangements and had been told the audience would be mixed. Did she mind bringing her daughter to a mixed gathering? "It's OK with me," she said, adding with a smile: "I'm with her."

Faleh al-Ajami, an Arabic-language professor, brought his wife and two sons to the concert—a rare opportunity for the whole family to do something fun together. "It's a good step to introduce Saudis to classical music," Mr. al-Ajami, 50, said during the intermission.

For the expatriates, the evening was an opportunity to have a normal evening out in Riyadh, a city with no movie theaters and where women are not allowed in outdoor cafes. One foreign couple held hands, while another husband put his arm around his wife's shoulders—rare public displays of affection in the kingdom. The mutawwa, the dreaded religious police tasked with enforcing public morality, were nowhere to be seen for a change.

"I'm glad for an opportunity like this," said Mary Ann Jumawan, a 40-year-old administrator at the South Korean Embassy. "It's the first time in nine years here as a married couple that my husband and I go to a location like this."

But this last paragraph says it all. Not everyone was impressed, however. Saud al-Sabhan dismissed the notion that gatherings involving men and women together might one day become the norm. "Saudi society wouldn't accept it. And girls aren't used to such mixed gatherings," he said, adding that if he had a sister, she certainly would not have been allowed to attend.

See what I mean? Of course, I would rejoice to be proven wrong in this matter as in most matters of this nasty war which seems to have no name we can all agree upon. Unfortunately, my instincts and my education instruct me otherwise. Because if I am any judge of girls, I am inclined to believe that they "aren't used to" being burned alive either. For those of you who don't recall my reference:

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from fleeing a burning building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, local newspapers reported. In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media accused them of blocking attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire March 18, 2002. About 800 students were inside the school in Mecca when the fire started. The daily al-Eqtisadiah reported that firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic law.

One witness reportedly saw three police "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya." The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses saying the mutaween—or Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice—stopped men who tried to help the girls, warning "it is sinful to approach them." The father of one of the 15 girls claimed the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out. "Lives could have been saved had they not been stopped by members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," the newspaper concluded.

QUESTIONS OF RACE IN EUROPE

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, most of the Muslims who threaten the West with violence, lethargy, and all sorts of agitation in between, are of African or Asian descent. It also appears that the mainstream parties of Europe or, should we say, the established political parties, are the culprits who are always making the issues of immigration and integration about race.

Geert Wilders manages to make the political case against militant Islam without littering the linguistic landscape with the hubris of racist groups but nevertheless, he himself is called a racist by the mainstream parties. This is something folks here in America should be watching closely, as Europe continues to strain at the seams under the weight of its hapless immigration policies.

In Europe there is undeniably a racial aspect to mass migration. However, we believe few nativists of any stripe ever had a problem with well educated, well-papered Japanese who once upon a time established factories and production plants and employed lots of people. While race may not be the bone of contention, there is a race issue l and it is getting worse by the daily influx of thousands of economic refugees and asylum seekers from failed African nations, who come in leaky boats...

Europe is not Africa, the Africans have shown the Europeans they don't want them there. Now these same Africans are following the vilified colonialists to their native countries, to settle amongst them. However, its a one-way street, there is never any reciprocity.

Let's consider the BNP. The British Nationalist Party is shouted down and loathed as a racist gang of thugs. Since when is a desire to preserve your own culture racist? No one would say that about American Indians who are rediscovering their tribal languages. No one would say that about Muslims in Saudi Arabia. The same people who preach multiculturalism in the West see no obligation on the part of others to allow outsiders to flourish in their systems. If Muslims are allowed to maintain separation within the West and fight for sharia law, why aren't we allowed to fight against sharia law without being deemed racist?

The major parties generally think we are just being close-minded or that we are exaggerating the threat we face. They are the ones using the specter of racism for electoral advantage. The others who make it about race are Arabs themselves. Don't they flatter themselves right down to the Qu'ranic institition itself, as the earthly lords of all others, even other Muslims who aren't Arabic by birth and thus, not from the same theologically mandated land as Mohammed?

THE ANCIENT CASE FOR MODERN ISRAEL

I apologize to that cluster of beloved Jewish anti-Zionists, those whom I know personally, for my reticence in not pouncing upon their lofty ideals with strong rebuttals of my own when occasion permits. My own lofty tendency is to allow people their own thoughts and idealogies. After all, most everybody, including these highly educated and emotionally bold prophets of [that dead horse called] Marxism hold themselves in high regard for arriving at their own conclusions. Fair enough. But here in ineffable print, I am the first to shout from the rooftops:

LET'S NOT BE COY!

1. Israel became a state in 1312 B.C., two millennia before Islam;
2. Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves “Palestinians” in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood;
3. After conquering the land in 1272 B.C.., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years;
4. The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 B.C. Lasted just 22 years;
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it;
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur’an;
7. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it;
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem;
9. In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presence. 68% of them fled without ever setting eyes on an Israeli soldier;
10. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms;
11. Some 630,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while close to a million Jews were forced to leave the Muslim countries;
12. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugess were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following World War II, they are the only group to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country no larger than New Jersey;
13. There are 22 Muslim countries, not counting palestine. There is only one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them;
14. Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Israel ceded most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, and even provided it with arms;
15. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths;
16. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to 1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 general assembly resolutions, 429 were against Israel;
17. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the mount of olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the Temple Mount and Western Wall.

I was told once by a friend that he believed that anyone on the planet should be free to live anywhere. Not the first time I'd heard that one. In fact, I used to dream of that same world back in my own teens and twenties. But now we are both in our fifties. And I for one have always sensed that the world does not contour to the fantasies of flower children, no matter how soft and beautiful the messenger. But my friend is a serious political activist to this day. And the fact that he, as a Jewish "unbeliever" in the state of Israel, is currently allowed and even encouraged to immigrate and set up residence in Israel, while I, a non-Jewish "believer" in the state of Israel, cannot, makes no sense to him. Fair logic. But logic, we have found, feeds on the corpses of foolish philosophers, and legion are their number. I think Wittgenstein said that.

On the other hand, to hold to his own "free to live anywhere" principle, there should then be nothing to prevent Jews from around the world and current Israelis from setting up house in Israel much the same as they currently do. And this is something the Arabs (and by default, their left-leaning comrades) simply cannot stomach. For these Arab supremists, disturbed by a non-dhimmi Jewish settlement in any form, wish to push the state of Israel, off the map and into the sea. How many times must they state their monstrous case for it to be heard by the ideologues lurking along the Western Left fringes, proclaiming peace at any cost when there is no peace to be had?

After all, the whole story of Baalam and the talking ass begins when the prophets of old, busy taking bribes and acquiescing to the fears of the pagan rulers of that time, proclaimed, "Peace! Peace! Peace in our lifetime! Victory over Israel" But according to the storyline, this was not to be. War and destruction for the Moabites and others was on the menu, and no amount of peacebrokering was going to dissuade the future. Several thousand years later, we have the Neville Chamberlain edition of this old tale.

Today, we seem to be living under similar conditions yet again.

So to this end, I leave you, dear anti-Zionist reader, a poem written in 1980 by a poet you have perhaps known in other roles, walking alone along the line of bleeping patriots:

DIED IN MY MOUTH

A silent tongue unravels the strangling noose,
Its path, unheralded by truce.
Odd scratched and scribbled graffitti,
Peacemaking my splintered head,
Ballets in dizzy nymph

Arousing the needy.
A parlor hunger, birds unfed.

My mind, a blank page.
My head leaps as a small frog,
There is no comfort.

The nothingness crowd is quoted no more,
Altared but undevoted they pay by nod.
My mind, a cluttered page.
My head sleeps as a burnt ephemeral log,
There is no comfort.
(Yet told around gracious Sin Avenue
camp fires spotting downtown Machinery Row
to the lilies laughing over a fine glass
of the best Napolean brandy
noonday dollars never doubt
where sheer distance is divided by
voteless cog, the mist of democracy
is seen reflecting upon our names
an appointed fog grazing upon
the tracks of method....)

And the saint thus
Spoke scantily to the prophet:
"He who demoralizes another
"Can claim no morality for himself."
To this the prophet said nothing, but
He knew in part the saint
For a shanty fool.

(And the unfed,
Left to perish among
The unwelcome, left to ravish
The beauty of beast, and the beast
Of beauty, established
Many fine logics.)

I fell blank at such a formula—
Asses built on caged numbers observed,
Deserved and dirty word reserved
For quaint molecules and family,
Where my occupation is a gift to anyone
Stroking along fishy fables,
Mentality tables, cradled
Images, daisies, nightsies,
Keepsies.

I am the yellow sheep
I can’t earn my keep
Proving the fallibility of this text
World without maps
World without worldliness
Matterhorn

My mind, an accurate page.
My head keeps to its own symbol,
There is no comfort.

I wonder what proof died in my mouth.

CHEATING ON THE LITMUS TEST

Where once was sand and rock, Israel blooms despite its enemies.
When Middle Eastern Muslims speak of "peace" what they really mean is the annihilation of Israel. They announce wth fervor "the Jews stole our land" but this bit of moral subterfuge is as much a lie as their delusion that Kuffirs "steal our oil."

Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the UAE and others were making a killing off he West, and building monuments to their own egos and flexing their militant nee religious muscles as a result of this sudden lucre in their midst.

Prior to 1948, the Zionists, by and large, bought marginal real estate (Tel-Aviv was sand dunes) from the large Arab landowners. The Arabs got top price for the real estate. Many Arab land sellers then antagonized the average Arab with denunciations that the Jews coming into the area.

The real objection that these Arabs nurse to the hilt is that Jews should dare create much less prosper a non-Dhimmi state of their own in Dar-al-Islam at all. Hence the 1948 war and all subsequent hostilities.

Though Zionism is essentially a defensive ideology (as opposed to offensive Islam), at some point Israel will have to become extremely aggressive in order to survive. The Arabs have consistently underestimated the Mideast Jews who relocated there, as well as the Holocaust survivors who fled to Israel. "Never again," means "never again".

Just yesterday, a friend of mine, a 20-year anti-terrorism veteran of the US State Department recently returned from a vacation in Israel and Jordan. He made several remarks or gave answers to questions I posed that seemed at odds with each other. First of all, when I asked did he feel safe, he answered affirmatively. But he also added that as a secular Jew, he found himself empathizing and actually becoming more of a Zionist every day as reports of missles lobbed into Israel every day he was there took root in his psyche, echoing the "Never again" sentiment.

He was also amazed that when riding in the country, one could immediately spot whether he was approaching an Israeli village or a Arab one. The tell-tale sign was simple green grass. Of the billions of dollars in foreign aid sent to Palestine few of them ever get into the ground except with the death of one of the corrupt pocket-lined officials. But missles? Oh yes, the Arabs have AN ABUNDANCE of them.

ARAB SLAVE TRADE IN SUDAN

Columnist Stephen Brown offers a critical piece of journalism in war against Islamic aggressors.

It was the kind of excitement that made children uneasy. Grownups were pointing toward the river. Others were arriving at a run. The bustling atmosphere in the market place of the peaceful African town of Nyamlell in the Dinka tribal area in the southern Sudan was changing. Worried adults could see what a seven-year-old Dinka boy, Francis Bok, who had gone to the market that fateful day with older village children to sell his mother’s eggs and peanuts, could not: “a storm of smoke” rising from a nearby village. Sellers frantically began to gather up their wares and hurry away with the buyers. The adults understood. They recognized the approaching signs of the dreaded scourge that most people believed had disappeared from the pages of African history long ago: a slave raid.

It was 1986 and Bok was about to see his happy world of family and village shattered forever by a centuries-old, barbaric practice that has never died out: the violent capture and enslavement of black Africans by Arabs.

“The Arab militias were told to kill the men and enslave the women and children,” said the now 28-year-old Bok, who was himself captured and enslaved that day, to an audience of 80 people at the University of Toronto recently where he had been invited to speak by the campus organization, Zionists at U. of T.

Bok, who would spend the next ten years working as a child slave, then outlined for his college listeners in horrifying detail the savage hurricane of violence he next witnessed when the Arab slavers attacked.

“I saw many people on the ground, shot…I saw people with their heads cut off with swords and shot in the head. People were lying on the ground like they just wanted to relax for a moment. I saw blood pouring like a small stream,” the 28-year-old Bok recounted in a voice that still quivers with emotion.

Unknown to him at that time, Bok was also an innocent victim of the decades-long, savage civil war between Sudan’s Arab Muslim North and the country’s African Christian and animist South. Based in the capital, Khartoum, the North’s Islamist government, which also hosted Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, had promulgated sharia law in 1983 for the whole country in its quest to Arabize and Islamicize the non-Muslim South. Also as part of this goal, the Khartoum government armed Muslim militias and sent them in the 1980s and 1990s to wage jihad against the infidel southerners. However, the spears and hippopotamus shields of the South’s Dinka and Nuer tribes, the war’s main victims, were no match for the Kalashnikov-armed Muslims, who went on to kill two million southern Sudanese, displace another four million and take tens of thousands of slaves in a silent genocide.

After the slave raid, Bok, a Christian, told the audience he was taken to the Muslim North to work for one of the Arab raiders’ families as a child slave for the next decade. During the pitiless trip north, the little Dinka boy witnessed the depth of racism, cruelty and religious hatred of his captors and their world towards black Africans when an Arab slaver cut off the leg of a Dinka girl who would not stop crying because she had seen her parents butchered in the market place. Upon his arrival at his master’s home, Bok was to experience himself this racial viciousness when he was immediately surrounded and beaten by the masters’ children who called him “abeed” (slave), an Arabic word also used for black Africans in general.

And a slave Bok was in every sense of the word as he worked for his master without a day off and without payment for the next ten years, often laboring from four in the morning until after the family had gone to bed that night.

“I was supposed to look after the goats; there were about two hundred goats,” Bok told listeners of his first days as a seven-year-old slave. “My master knew all the goats. He would ask: ‘Where is this goat? Where is that goat?’ If I answered: ‘I don’t know. He would beat me…He had a favorite stick to beat me. When I had done something wrong, even when I had done nothing wrong, he beat me.”

Lonely and isolated, Bok said he was made to sleep in a shelter near the animals and was never allowed to talk to the Dinka slaves owned by other Arab families. The child slave even received a beating, Bok told the audience, when he asked his master one day why he calls him ‘abeed’ and why no one loves him. He was told never to ask that question again.

The treatment Bok received from his master’s wife, however, was even worse. She would, he related, not allow her ‘abeed’ to look her directly in the face and would spit in his, often calling on her children to spit on the Dinka boy too.

“That hurt,” said Bok. “I asked her why? She said: ‘You are my slave and this is my house.’ She would also grab a knife and say she would kill me like a chicken.”

For ten long years, Bok told his listeners, he would lie awake at night and wonder who was going to come and free him from this hopeless, helpless life of a slave where he was told he was just an animal. Even his forcible conversion to Islam, outwardly in Bok’s case, did not bring any improvement in treatment. Only his faith in God, the Dinka slave stated, and his desire to see his parents again kept him going.

“I hated the way they treated me and the way they treated the other slaves,” said Bok, recounting his humanity was never once recognized during all those years with the Arab family, his only value being the work he could do.

This was hideously emphasized by a nightmarish incident that convinced Bok to take matters into his own hands and escape. On a visit with his master to his master’s friend, Bok said he was instructed to talk in the Dinka language to another boy-slave, who had had his leg cut off.

“I asked him what happened,” Bok remembers. “He started crying and said he had refused to go to work for one day. He told his master he was sick and wasn’t going to work. His master told him he had to go to work. There was no excuse. The boy continued to argue with his master, so his master cut his leg off.”

At age 14, Bok told a silent audience he was caught escaping twice and badly beaten, and nearly killed the second time. Waiting until he was 17 to make another attempt, Bok successfully made it to Khartoum with the help of a kindly Muslim truck driver who took him home and bought him a bus ticket. From Khartoum, the young Dinka made it to Cairo where he was eventually allowed to come to America as a United Nations refugee in 1999. Today, the former African slave is a proud American citizen.

In 2000, sponsored by the American Anti-Slavery Group, Bok began speaking of his experiences to audiences across the United States, especially at schools and colleges, giving as his reason the fact he could not forget those Dinka slave boys he remembered seeing in the Sudan. In his anti-slavery advocacy, Bok became the first escaped slave to appear before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and has spoken to other politicians, including Colin Powell and George Bush, whom he and most Dinkas, he says, hold in high regard for his assistance to the southern Sudanese cause. The new African American, grateful to America for the second life it has granted him as well as for the opportunity to speak about his people, also wrote a highly engrossing book about his days as a boy slave, Escape From Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity – and My Journey to Freedom in America, that should be required reading in every high school.

About the only setback for Bok in America occurred when he discovered his father had been killed and his mother and sisters went missing in the same Muslim militia raid that saw him enslaved. His brother, however, was still alive and a member of the southern Sudanese, anti-government army.

As for the Sudan today, Bok says the problem remains the same in that the government is still trying to impose sharia law on its non-Muslim citizens, whom, he says, will never accept it and the second-class status it confers on non-Muslims. Bok, who is not against independence for the African South Sudan, also says he did not believe in the 2005 peace treaty between the North and the South that ended the war.

“It was a big deal for the Sudanese; but I didn’t even smile,” he said. “I knew it wasn’t the real thing. I don’t see it as a real peace. Why is it a peace when there is still a war (Darfur) in the country? They (the government) shifted the war to another region.”

Bok says he plans to return next spring to the Sudan for the first time since his escape and would like to teach English to refugees in Darfur. Asked what he would say to his former master if he was standing in the same University of Toronto lecture room with him at that moment, the supposedly ‘half savage’ ex-slave said he would tell his former tormentor that he was “absolutely wrong” to do what he did and never to do it to another person.

“I don’t want to do anything bad to him or to his wife who hit me,” he said. “The only thing I could do is point a finger at him and say: ‘This is the man who took my childhood away from me.’ Other than that, I forgive him.”

But Stephen Brown doesn't cover it all. Saudis are known to be contemporary slavesmen, and in the north African Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the practice while officially banned, is actually flourishing.

For more information concerning the systematic enslavement of African blacks by Arab Muslims, please visit The African American Registry where extensive research into this appalling but largely ignored Islamic phenomenon is charted:

These modern slaves often serve as maids or cooks, farm laborers or cattle herders. Many were taken too young to remember their homes or families. Some who have tried to escape have been branded, or have had their Achilles tendons cut; some have been castrated. Many, both male and female, are regularly raped. Yet, the international community's influence is limited. The Organization of African Unity does not interfere in the internal affairs of its member states. The rules of the World Bank dictate that economic considerations not human rights issues determine support.

These facts are well known to Western governments and to the United Nations, and reports on slavery do appear in the Western media from time to time. Yet they have failed to ignite the popular resentment that fired up the abolitionist and anti-apartheid movements. With the time span being centuries many African nations have been silent on this subject and the role that neocolonialism plays in continuing an unspeakable practice.

Another factor is the state of denial in the United States Black community. First, there is not enough indication of a connection, and even respect, between African Americans and Africans. An initial brotherhood between the groups turns out to be based on a nostalgic desire by the Americans about Africa and it soon dissolves. Secondly, many African Americans look to Islam for an alternative to their racially prejudiced experience under Christianity.

Read it all.

THE ENGINE OF ARAB IMPERIALISM

Adapted from an amalgam of JW commentators...

Mohammad Khatami said on Saturday that failure of the socialist and nationalist movements have led world people to embrace Islam. So here you have it: The Islamic leadership's own words. Islam—it's not just a religion.

There is much deception and self-deception with Islam. Islam is an imperialist rationalization system which resulted in the Arab Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the colonialism that resulted in Islamic presence in Slavic regions of Europe, in India, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. When are they leaving Kosovo? When are they giving Constantinople back to the Greeks? The Arabs were and are at present extensively involved in the African Negro slave trade. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: when are Islamic Imperialists going to apologize for and cease their exploitation and destruction of the many indigenous cultures and peoples across this huge swath of the planet?

Practically every other group that has engaged in Imperialist-Empire activity have apologized for their Imperialist rationalization systems that permitted the subduing and exploitation of others. It's time for the Arabs (and Turks) to apologize for their Imperialist systems, and stop glossing over and rewriting history (as all imperialists do) to sanitize their Imperialism to show everyone its essential "tolerance".

The truth is that Islam is, at its core, the Engine of Arab Imperialism. Islam should be studied as an Imperialist rationalization system.

Early on the Muslim Brotherhood embraced Socialism as a "vehicle" for spreading Islam and a system of governance for Islamic rule. The SS General's students were of the founders of the popular modern movement which advocated against it and chose to turn to more pure Islam which is believed to be a perfect form of Religion and Government in and of itself. This is part of the reason why those among us should constantly write elected officials protesting them allowing a Foreign Govt [Saudi] to build mosques and support their STATE RELIGION which is also setting up centers for future Islamic Rule in America. The process is a clear violation of US Constitution and a direct subversive act against the Government of the United States. It is NOT a freedom of religion nor a freedom of speech issue. The mosques are being set up for future Islamic rule. Islam IS Government.

The principals of Hitlerian-Gobbles style propaganda, the "spiritual terror" tactics of "a barrage of lies and intimidation" against any critic while at the same time lauding moderate "weaklings" (as Hitler called them), also includes never admitting any wrong and constantly accusing others of the tactics one engages in in an overall "big lie" strategy (as per Gobbles) . The methods of "spiritual terror" (lies, slander, law suits, stunts) and physical terror (cartoon rage) are no accidents in the Islamic world. People like the psychotic in Iran, as well as other demented Muslims, are well acquainted with Mein Kampf and the theories of Goebbels. We should harbor no doubt of it.

The fact that Mein Kampf is as popular as the Quran in the Mideast is a good reason to take a close look at Hitler's book. It is also time to study the propaganda methods of Goebbels, especially Goebbels' ideas on the intimidation of opposition, and the manipulation of "the masses".

THE MYTH OF ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGES

Islamic civilization, the various golden ages of Islamic civilization always occur early in the first few centuries in which a new territory is occupied. Wherever the various Muslim vanguards invaded, the vast majority of the population was non-Muslim. It would take many years for this population to be converted and assimilated. These non-Muslims or recent converts are the ones who carried on the work which many historians are prone to attribute to "Islamic" civilization. Thus, a distinction must be drawn between the so-called high Islamic civilization and the religion of Islam. Eventually as the process of Islamization proceeds the non-Islamic component of the population becomes a small minority and stagnation sets in. This process is evident in the first centuries of the Arab conquests where the process of Arabization and conversion to Islam took a few centuries to complete; this was the "Arab" golden age, a product of unconverted or recently converted Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.

Re Arab mathematics, the so-called Arabic numerals were simply systematized from Hindu texts. From Boyer and Merzbach, A History of Mathematics: The famous Arab mathematician al-Khwarizmi wrote two books on arithmetic and algebra; One of these concerning the Hindu Art of Reckoning. In this work, based presumably on an Arabic translation of Brahmagupta, al- Khwarizmi gave so full an account of the Hindu numerals that he probably is responsible for the widespread but false impression that our system of numeration is Arabic in origin. When subsequently Latin translations of his work appeared in Europe, careless readers began to attribute not only the book but also the numeration to the author. Ultimately the scheme of numeration making use of the Hindu numerals came to be called algorithm, a word derived from the name of al-Khwarizmi.

Algebra had a more mixed origin; it was only partly derived from Hindu texts. The word algebra was also obtained from al-Khwarizmi’s book Al-jabr wa’l muqabalah. Moreover, in certain respects, the works of al-Khwarizmi were at a lower level than those of his Greek and Hindu predecessors. Boyer and Merzbach write: " …in two respects the works of al-Khwarizmi represented a retrogression from that of Diophantus. First it is on a far more elementary level … and second … [it] is thoroughly rhetorical, with none of the syncopation found [in the works of Diophantus] … or in Brahmagupta’s work. Even numbers were written out in words rather than symbols! … Nevertheless, the Al-Jabr comes closer to the elementary algebra of today than the works of Diophantus or Brahmagupta, for the book is not concerned with difficult problems in indeterminate analysis but with a straightforward and elementary exposition of the solution of equations, especially of second degree."

Thus, the Arabs must be credited not with inventing algebra, but with making it more accessible for the solution of simple problems. As for the ultimate origin of modern algebra there are three schools of thought: “one emphasizes Hindu influences, another stresses the Mesopotamian, or Syriac-Persian, tradition, and the third points to Greek inspiration. The truth is probably approached if we combine the three theories.” Historians of mathematics Boyer and Merzbach conclude: "It is probable that al-Khwarizmi typified the Arabic eclecticism that will so frequently be observed in other cases. His system of numeration most likely came from India, his systematic algebraic solution of equations may have been a development from Mesopotamia, and the logical geometric framework for his solutions palpably was derived from Greece."

The example of algebra is an ideal case illustrating the role of cultural cross fertilization in the short-lived period of high civilization under the early Pax Arabica. Algebra was derived from a combination of ideas developed by the oriental culture superseded by Islam, the classical learning of ancient Greece, and an impetus from a far-off land, in this instance India that became accessible due to the vast extent of the Arab empire. And, of course, it reached its full development in a land that still contained a majority population of non-Muslims and recent converts who were well versed in their ancient traditions.

Furthermore, the Hindus had a continuing role in the development of algebra subsequent to al-Khwarizmi as the civilization of the Arabs ossified under the deepening influence of Islam. The radical sign, and many algebraic symbols appear to have been invented by the Hindu mathematician Bhaskara in the twelfth century. For a comprehensive view of the sources of the so-called high Islamic civilizations see Islamic Expansion and Decline.

TOTAL IMMERSION IN THE TRUTH

The following piece is from a contributor to Jihad Watch:

The sneering supremacist delusions systemic in Islam were and are at their core the engine of Arab Imperialism. The Ottomans were also Imperialists destroying "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples".

It is true that history is the story of Imperialism, a record of the subduing, the conquest, the removal and often the actual extermination of "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples". The Aztecs, the Arabs, the British, the Manchu, Chinese, Japanese, Spaniard, etc. have all engaged in this all too human behavior.

However, the Arabs, the Ottomans and Muslims in general never apologize for the crimes they commit and have comitted in history. From North Africa to Spain, to India, to the Sudan, to invasions of Europe, Muslims have engaged in mass murder, exploitation of unbelievers (Arab Muslims were deeply involved in the slave trade), and the record of crimes in the name of this belief-system cry to heaven for vengeance.

All supremacist-pigs (every group has engaged in these crimes) rewrite history to sanitize their crimes and rationalize them by explaining how good it was for the victims. I suppose even the Nazis would have done this eventually. This is the pattern of all history. However, Muslims (especially the Arabs) still engage in these rationalizations for Imperialism.

Again, only Muslims (especially the Arabs and Ottomans) never apologize for their crimes. Why? Because they still hold the delusion of their supremacism and still require that all bow to Mecca. Probably only the very ruthless use of force and devastating destruction (as Sherman did in the Slave states) will finally rip to shreds the engine of Arab Imperialism.

—Frank

I AM CURIOUS (BLACK)

Al-Qaida is aggressively recruiting black Americans for suicide operations against the American homeland, say FBI analysts who have reviewed recent videotaped messages from the terror group's leaders.

A speech released May 5 by Osama bin Laden's deputy confirms earlier fears that African-Americans are the No. 1 recruiting target for the next generation of attacks. Al-Qaida has been trying to lower its Arab profile to reduce the odds that its terror cells will be subjected to security scrutiny.

"Federal and local law enforcement authorities should be aware that al-Qaida terrorists may not appear Arab," warns a recent Homeland Security intelligence report, adding that non-Arab al-Qaida operatives could find it easier to avoid unwanted scrutiny since they may not fit typical profiles."

In the latest message, al-Qaida No. 2 Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri clearly seeks to sow political and racial discontent among African-Americans. He makes frequent references to what he calls the "martyr" Malcolm X, and says "I want blacks in America to know that we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind."

Did you know that the Arabic word for 'black person' is the same as the Arabic word for 'slave.' Curious, but true as nails.

Al-Qaeda of course is slipping the West another mickey. This war organization does NOT want blacks to know the historical fact that slavery in the United States had been established not by the American people but by mercenaries of the British Empire in the North American colonies during the 1600s, and had been inherited by the American people before their nation's birth or that slavery was practiced by a minority of the US population and was opposed by the majority (the Confederate states held only 26% of the US total population, and only 20% of its citizens held slaves). Or that the United States ended the international slave trade in African people in 1807. Some 600,000 Americans lost their lives putting an end to the slavery that had actually been started by the Europeans over a century before their nation was founded.

Who is al-Qaeda to judge America on race matters or anything?

The greatest irony of all is that it was the Arab MUSLIMS who most enabled the African slave trade in the seventeenth century, resulting in the wretched practice of institutionalized slavery of the blacks in the New World. Does any Arab EVER apologize for having been part of this chapter in history? (Of course not).

Black people everywhere should be uniformly outraged at the Muslims' intellectual dishonesty on this issue.

MALCOLM WAS WRONG

Black Americans and Islamic Da'wa
by Hugh Fitzgerald

"Given Islam’s record on slavery, black Americans should think twice about converting. And there are other considerations. Islam does not permit music, though here and there folk music has been allowed. But music having to do with religious worship is absolutely forbidden. When black Americans convert, they are throwing out all of Gospel music, doubly wicked in Muslim eyes: the music itself is forbidden, and this particular church music takes its texts from Old Testament stories (stories involving Jews, and the Promised Land). It is curious that real Muslims regarded (and may still regard) Elijah Muhammad's Black Muslims as not the real thing, partly because of the claims made on behalf of Elijah Muhammad himself, and partly because of the music that occasionally was allowed (and may still be) at certain gatherings of followers.

When black Americans discard Christianity for the sake of Islam, because they are fooled into believing that Islam is somehow the correct vehicle of protest, they manifest ignorance of the whole horrible Arab slave trade. That trade began earlier and ended (where it did end) later than the European slave trade. Also, it was, because it involved the castration on site of so many black African children, much greater in scope. The mortality rate was something like 90%, so that only 1 out of 10 black male children seized and castrated by the Arab slavers actually made it to the slave markets of Riyadh, Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Algiers, Istanbul, and similar centers of Islam. See "The Hideous Trade" by Jan Hogedoorn.

Those Afro-Americans who are made the obvious target of a campaign of Da'wa (as are immigrants from Latin America), and who choose to embrace Islam, are unwittingly, with that "reversion" to Islam (one in which they are seldom presented with the full meaning, or texts, of Islam), also turning their back on, discarding, jettisoning, the place of Biblical imagery and of the Bible in the history of black America.

Decades ago, when the Black Muslims first got started (and because of Elijah Muhammad's own claims, and other doctrinal irregularities, Arab Muslims never considered them to be "real Muslims" and even today are contemptuous of "Black Muslims" as opposed to "black Muslims"), much was made of their ability to supposedly "straighten people" out—have them wear coats and ties, give up drugs and alcohol, and so on. Well, perhaps. But what it also did is cause them to abandon their entire pre-Islamic history, and to thus sever ties with their own past, their own relatives who remained Christians or part of a Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition.

Finally, let's talk about racism. Anyone who has spent even a week in the Arab states of the Gulf, or taken a summer course in Arabic in Cairo or Damascus, knows that the most racist, most skin-color aware societies on earth, are those of the Arabs—despite all the talk of a "universalist" religion. One student of my acquaintance, who had taken courses with, and been brainwashed by, Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, to regard Islam as a great thing, then spent a summer in an Arab country. He came back completely disabused—no greater racists, he insisted, had he ever met in his life. He was from rural South Carolina.

Why this information is not more widely written about in the press, including the black press, by black ministers who should try to hold onto their flocks and not let wanderers be seduced by the siren-song of Islam, which for more than a thousand years has meant nothing but kidnapping followed by enslavement or death at the hands of Arab slavers, is beyond me. And even today Arabs continue to show their contempt and hatred for blacks, not only in the enslavement of black Africans by Arabs in Mali and Mauritania, but by the Libyan mobs that attacked black African students and lynched a black diplomat a few years ago; by the Moroccans who have been known to deal with black African migrant workers by taking them and dropping them in the middle of the desert with no possible way of survival; and of course by the behavior of that member in good standing of the Arab League, the government of the Sudan, which over 20 years, killed or starved to death nearly 2 million black Africans in the southern Sudan, with survivors often enslaved.

Ask Francis Bok, ask all the "Lost Boys" now in the United States. Now they have extended their genocidal campaign to fellow Muslims in Darfur—fellow Muslims, but black Africans, and so dispensable. As the Egyptian Zaki Badawi recently said, "they were not real Muslims." And that was the end of his comment—apparently that was enough for him to lose any interest in their being victims of mass murder.

There's much more to add. But the Islamic Da’wa campaign in America involves the clever targeting of blacks. The Boston Mosque was placed right across from Roxbury Community College, and part of the "deal" was for the mosque members to offer "free lectures" to students at Roxbury Community College and 2,500 "books on Islam" (you can guess which kind) for the college's library. In other words, the Mosque's backers were planning on using it as a center for conducting Da'wa among the black population of Boston. One wonders if the Rev. Eugene Rivers, or other ministers, have taken note of the history of Islam, of the tenets of Islam, of the menace of Islam to the wellbeing of those whom they instruct and guide and elevate and offer solace to.

Begin with slavery. Slavery was implicitly recognized by the American Constitution. But it is so no longer. Fortunately, the Constitution has always been subject both to formal modification (amendments) through the express will of the people, and to judicial interpretation ("It is a constitution we are expounding" wrote Chief Jusice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison). There is no way to modify the passages in Qur'an, the sayings and acts of Muhammad in the Hadith and Sira, that allow, permit, even offer rules for, the institution of slavery.

Muhammad himself, and his Companions, owned slaves—the slaves taken in battle. It is not possible, therefore, for any Believer to denounce slavery as a moral evil, for that would be to condemn Muhammad. And he is uswa hasana, the Model for All Mankind. So it just can't be done.

Within recent months, lest anyone forget, a leading Saudi imam wrote that slavery is an essential part of Islam, recognized and accepted, and to abandon that idea is an insult to Islam. Believers know, though they will not always talk about (they are engaged in deception about the nature of Islam, concious or semi-conscious, round-the-clock—sometimes not only to Infidels, but even to themselves), the fact that under Islam, slavery has a place that cannot be denied. Slavery has received permanent textual justification—and those texts, deemed sacred by Believers, are also immutable.

Black Americans, like other Americans, like Infidels everywhere, who because of the actions of Muslims themselves, and despite the efforts of the political leaders in the Western world to repeat pious nonsense about the real nature of Islam, are beginning to realize that as a vehicle for the expression of discontent, Islam is not exactly ideal. For Islam represents the greatest successful imperialism—Arab imperialism—in human history.

After those it directly conquered in the Middle East and North Africa and Hindustan, the greatest victims have so far not been white Europeans, but black Africans, hideously seized, castrated, dragged to the Muslim slave markets by coffle and dhow, with 90% of them dying on the way. Islam demands that converts ("reverts") simply regard with indifference or hostility their entire non-Islamic past. That leaves the non-Arab convert alone—with no music, no art, no history, with essentially nothing but Islam.

There are many available vehicles of protest—of expressing, articulately, discontent or dismay. The ballot box is possibly the best. There are ways to protest effectively things as they are, including the cult of Growth and of the "free market" as the answer to everything, and the grotesque elevation of Homo Economicus, Economic Man, narrowly conceived, as the new Golden Calf. It is possible to be enraged by illegitimate disparities of wealth (and nowhere are such disparities of wealth more obvious than within the Arab Muslim lands).

But Islam is not a vehicle of protest. Rather, it is an expression of total alienation, of giving up entirely from the circumambient society, and cutting oneself off from one's history. And practitioners of Da'wa in this country have, it should be obvious, certain identifiable target populations, starting with black Americans—especially those in prisons, for whom a center of stability and cultural life has been the church. Causing people to cut themselves off from that center of black life and culture would cruelly do more than merely "change their faith." It might just possibly undo them altogether, leaving them as recruits for the Army of Islam, deliberately alienated from their own past.

It is important to keep in mind the nature of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism, of cultural and linguistic imperialism as well as of economic and poltical imperialism. Look at the historic treatment of black Africas by Arabs—look at the slave entrepot of Zanzibar, the seizure even today of black oil wealth in the Sudan, the massacres of the Ibos in the Biafra War by Egyptian pilots strafing villages, the history of Arab slavers over a thousand years, and the open, rampant racism of Arab societies, which so surprised and horrified Eldridge Cleaver during his stay in Algeria.

Those attitudes of racism, that use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism—not only against black Africans, but also against Kurds, Berbers, and all other non-Arab Muslims as well—should be the object of careful study, by all those who are tempted by the siren-song of Islam. And the long history of Arab enslavement of black Africans that continues to the present day and has no end, should not be put out of sight, or out of mind."

FISHING FOR A PERFECT SOLUTION

The following essay by Rachel Neuwirth and titled "A Win-Win Solution To the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was written as a win/win solution to the so-called Palestinian problem, but it simply does not take into account the Mohammedan precept of annihilating the Jews from the face of the earth wherever they find them. And since such is the case, no amount of logic or cajoling will suffice in convincing the Arab nations in the Camp of Islam to abandon its prime directive. The only anecdote to this crisis is to soundly defeat and eradicate this ideology no less than Naziism was squashed less than a century plus ago. The Muslim populations must be disabused of their diabolical ideology, forever. Islam, after all, does mean "submission" in Arabic.

Let's say it again: Muslims only recognize 3 types of peace with infidels—death, conversion to islam, or dhimmitude (which is offered only to Jews, Christians and Zorastrians who fearfully acknowledge that Mohammed is the Muslim's prophet and also concede other Islamic ideas).

Israel has a very ignorant, very timid, very confused, very bad government. It has had such governments for quite a while. In this it is little different from the rest of the civilized Western world, failing to come to grips with a problem that was foreseen, and analyzed, long ago, by a very few specialists in Islamic matters, most notably that soft-spoken small and steely woman, Bat Ye'or.

But for its own sanity, and the safety not only of its people but to help get other Infidels thinking about their situation, the government of Israel has a duty to raise the issue of Al-Hudaibiyya and force declarations on the matter from Arab states. The very phrase a “final peace settlement” rings hollow to anyone familiar with the tenets of Islam. For there can never be a “final peace settlement” between Moslems and non-Moslems. The model for treaties is the agreement made between Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D., the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya.

It was supposed to be a “truce” treaty that would last 10 years. It lasted scarcely 18 months, when Muhammad, feeling that his forces had grown sufficiently, breached the agreement on a pretext, and attacked the Meccans. As Majid Khaddui notes in War and Peace in Islam, this Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya became the model, and the basis, for all future “treaties” with Infidel peoples and polities.

And it has another duty. That duty is to raise the even larger question: what does Islam inculcate, what do Muslims believe, about the permanence of any Infidel state, anywhere? Yes, we know the answer. But not everyone does. And everyone among the Infidels everywhere—in Thailand, and in India (where some may think that sacrificing Kashmir will lead the Muslims of Pakistan and India to cease their attacks, when it will do nothing of the sort), and in the Philippines, and in France and Germany and Great Britain and Spain and the Netherlands and Belgium and Norway (in the grim grip not of Thor's sons but of Quislingettes, of the unshakeably pro-"Palestinian" variety) and Sweden (more or less ditto).

The Spanish need to know what the Moroccans in their midst think, what they think when they hear the word "Al-Andalus." And the Portuguese. And those living in southwest France, right up to Poitiers. The Italians need to understand what will happen to Sicily. The Greeks, the Serbs (no, they don't need to be reminded, they know), the Croats, the Slovenes, the Rumanians, the Bulgarians, even the Hungarians, need to know what, in Islamic terms, their former status under Ottoman Muslim rule means for their status, in Muslim eyes, today.

And what about the rest of us, living as we fondly believe, in places that were never part of Dar al-Islam? What we, in North America and Australia and other places fail to realize, is that the whole word belongs to Islam, and it is only a matter of time and tactics, in the Muslim view. While some Muslims have comically tried to backdate their connection to various places—claims that Muslims settled long ago in Australia, or were on the boat with Columbus, have already been tellingly made, and while Infidels joke about it, that kind of thing is not quite a joke for the Muslim masses, steeped deeply in a crazed view of history, easily susceptible to any tall tale or conspiracy theory, a susceptibility made much greater than among most non-Muslims today because Islam, more than any other belief-system called a religion, inculcates the habit of mental submission, to not merely the will, of Allah, but to the whim of Allah, who does whatever he wants, breaks every rule

And since Israel are not behaving as proper dhimmi—their only choice is to start behaving as proper dhimmi—if they want to live. Their land is Muslim booty and to be distributed as the Muslims see fit. Or else, join the dead. This is the Muslim way, and the Saudis with their Wahhibi evangelism are primary instigators, and have no intention in "solving" the problem.

Here is Ms. Neuwirth's well-meaning but rather naive essay:

A true solution requires confronting two fundamental issues: 1. Current proposals, including the Road Map, are totally unworkable and should be abandoned. 2. An entirely fresh approach is required that is free of imposed constraints. The purpose of this essay is first to briefly challenge the entrenched mindset and then advance a win-win solution for both Jews and Arabs.

Before proposing the proper solution it is necessary to first demonstrate the falsity and futility of some of the main arguments intrinsic to the Oslo Accords and to the Road Map.

Demonstrably false argument #1: Israel should trade 'land for peace' to create yet another Arab country.

There are 22 Arab countries and only one Jewish country. The land-rich Arabs already occupy over 5 million square miles and land-poor Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 10,000 square miles. The Arab areas are thus 500 times larger than Israel and the Arabs already possess 99.8% of the total land. The so-called West Bank and Gaza areas combined total 2,300 square miles and comprise a miniscule 0.046% of the entire Arab empire - and to seize this speck of land the Arabs are adamant and willing to fight and die forever! Only a mind, hopelessly out of touch with reality, can seriously suggest that the Arabs need still more land, carved out of Israel, to create yet another country.

Demonstrably false argument #2: The 'Palestinians' are a separate people who deserve their own country.

There are no authentic 'Palestinian' people and there never was. Even the name of Palestine is a historic fraud perpetrated by the Romans, to permanently erase the original name of Judea, following the Jewish revolt against Rome of two thousand years ago. As recently as the 1940's the name 'Palestinian' clearly meant a Jew in the land of Israel and Arabs were simply called Arabs. After Israel's rebirth the local Arabs appropriated that now-available title for themselves and created a new identity.

This was done for purely hostile political purposes to undermine Israel's legitimate right to its biblical homeland. In all of history there never was a Palestinian nation, or country, or people, or language, or religion, which was distinct from the existing Arab counties in that region. Repeated attempts to rewrite history must never be allowed to corrupt the truth. To fully expose the 'Palestinian' hoax in modern times one should read Joan Peter's critically acclaimed book, From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine.

Demonstrably false argument #3: We can have a viable 'Palestinian' state in the so-called West Bank and Gaza next to a viable Israel.

Proponents of the Road Map offer NO development plan whatsoever. Any genuine plan must include a comprehensive environmental impact study covering: population growth; water resources; agriculture resources; economic development; social and political considerations; et cetera, with projections extending through at least the next century. Proponents offer NO plan because it is impossible to design any plan that enables both peoples to live viably in so tiny an area along with normal population growth. Below are projections for population growth in Israel and the territory of the proposed Palestinian state, based on current growth rates:

Inside Israel. Assuming continuation of their current growth rates for the next hundred years, Israel's Jews at 1.5% per year become 28 million and Israeli Arabs at 3% per year become 23 million. That totals 51 million Jews and Arabs living on less than 8,000 square miles with a density of 6,500 per square mile. The Israeli Arabs have double the Israeli birth rate and are already 23% of the total population and gaining. They remain mostly hostile and will soon be able to gain political control and they already hold about 10% of the Knesset seats. Israel will thus be unable to remain permanently Jewish and the Israeli Arabs will always be seeking to advance their Arab identity in conflict with Israel.

Inside the territories. At their present high growth rates the Palestinian Arabs, inside the West Bank and Gaza, growing at 3-4% per year become 120 million in 100 years. Including all the Palestinian refugees, who could migrate in from outside, would add another 47 million. Thus there are a potential total of 167 million Arabs in the projected Palestinian state in 100 years in an area of only 2,300 square miles for an astronomical density of 72,500 per square mile.

Many fail to appreciate the awesome power of compound growth until it is too late. These are only projections but long before those numbers are reached the area will explode in misery and conflict based on a crushing burden of population overload, aside from any political conflict. It is totally impossible for that many people to survive, much less thrive, in such a tiny area. That should be obvious to all.

Demonstrably false argument #4: Arab possession of their 22 countries and 5 million square miles is legitimate and not to be challenged.

Just how did the Arabs come to control such vast territories? They got it the old fashioned way—by conquest! Before Mohammed, 1,400 years ago the Arabs lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed founded Islam and with it the zeal for jihad to conquer and convert, often by force. During the period following Mohammed the Arabs conquered vast areas in North Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia and spread Islam far and wide. Today Arabs directly control 5 million square miles and 22 sovereign states, while non-Arab Islamic countries control nearly another 5 million square miles.

The Arabs often claim that they were the original inhabitants in the land of Israel. Actually Arab invaders did not enter the land of Israel until about the year 638 C.E. while Jews had established their first commonwealth under King David, with Jerusalem as their capital, over 1,600 years earlier. Archaeologically, the entire land of Israel gives testimony to the ancient Jewish presence, but there is no evidence of any ancient Arab settlers presence. And most of those 22 Arab States, including Iraq and Jordan, were first created by England, France or Italy during the past century to further their imperial interests, and with no historical justification.

In summary, advocates of these senseless schemes seriously propose to: invent a people that never was; seize land from Jews having virtually no land; transfer that Jewish land to those with too much land and unrelenting murderous hatred; and then let them all grow in numbers and suffocate together inside of a coffin-size territory - all in the name of peace and justice! That is what passes for thinking in this insane world. The Road Map guarantees a lose-lose outcome - we need a win-win outcome.

The true basis for a lasting peace:

A far-sighted Arab-Jewish agreement was arrived at 85 years ago but was never fully implemented. This still-legal agreement provides the basis for a solution today and should become widely publicized and supported.

In 1919, following the end of World War I, an international Paris Peace Conference was convened by the victorious Allies to settle international questions. Delegations attended from around the world including an official Arab and Zionist delegation. The Arab delegation was led by Emir Feisal I, who agreed that the entire Palestine territory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would become the Jewish national home and expressed that position in separate letters to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter. In return for Arab support the Zionists promised economic and technical assistance to the local Arabs and the Allied powers agreed to grant eventual sovereignty to many of the Arab peoples in the region that were previously under control of the former Turkish Ottoman Empire.

This conference, and a subsequent one at San Remo Italy, amicably settled the issues among the parties with voluntary, legally binding, international agreements. In 1922 the League of Nations assigned Britain as the Mandatory to faithfully carry out these agreements. It was British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill who unilaterally divided Mandatory Palestine into an exclusively Arab sector (Trans Jordan) and a Jewish sector. The Arabs received 76% of the original territory, comprising 35,000 square miles, located east of the Jordan River. That left the Jewish sector with only 10,000 square miles out of their original 45,000 square miles, which was still less than 1% of the combined Arab areas of 5 million square miles. That remaining Jewish sector is today contested with the 'Palestinians' claiming the 'West Bank' and Gaza to create, in effect, a second Palestinian state. (Jordan is mostly Palestinian.) It was the British, in 1919, who began to undermine their own Mandate and to instigate the Arabs against Jews.

The Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel has a policy paper no. 147 titled, "Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine Under International Law" by Howard Grief, author of the forthcoming book. It ably summarizes the post-World War I settlement of the Palestine question and its subsequent betrayal by the British government entrusted with implementing it.

A few extracts from the executive summary will indicate its importance:

"Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period. ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ... The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state. ... The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine. ... Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world."

It has been argued, by scholars of international law, that the agreements of the international Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and their formal assignment to Britain as the Mandatory by the League of Nations, continue to be legally binding on all parties under international law. In addition to Jewish legal claims based on the 1922 law a case can be made that it is also morally binding and that England is guilty of bad faith and for having engaged in deliberate sabotage of that agreement. A most promising beginning for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East was deliberately undermined by England and this part of history must be brought to bear upon the present conflict. Israel has a right to make full land claims under that 1922 Mandate by the League of Nations. The Arabs should also be made aware that it was England that instigated them against the Jews in pursuit of British imperial interests and to the disadvantage of both Arabs and Jews.

Significantly, Arab support for a Jewish state was clearly manifested at the Paris Peace conference of 1919. This should also be part of the legally binding Arab obligations to acceptance of a Jewish state with full rights. Emir Feisal I, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Excerpts of two letters from Emir Feisal to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and to Felix Frankfurter indicate their friendly relations and high hopes for Jewish - Arab cooperation. Also note in the following text the term 'Palestine' clearly refers to the Jewish national home and not to any Arab entity or people.

From Emir Feisal to Dr. Weizmann:

"His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish People, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:"

Article IV: "All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlements and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development."

From Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter:

"... We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of the powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together."

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home."

"People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and the Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital our of what they call our differences."

What remains now is for all parties to courageously and boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919 agreement. Those Arabs who have an acquired identity as 'Palestinian' should be given a far better alternative option than to be buried alive inside a non-viable illegal micro-state carved out of the Israeli heartland.

The Win-Win solution...

Contrary to popular belief, the Arab-Israeli conflict has a reasonable solution. An orderly resettlement elsewhere of the so-called Palestinian Arabs would solve this long-standing 'intractable' problem. To propose this solution today elicits automatic rejection by almost everyone and perhaps even anger and hostility at its very mention (although attitudes may finally be changing). This is because the minds of many have been so thoroughly conditioned, with layer upon layer of repeated falsehoods, such that open-minded reconsideration is almost impossible. But resettlement could become the basis of a win-win solution for both sides.

For example Saudi Arabia comprises some 750,000 square miles. It has a very low population density of only 33 per square mile vs. 1,000 for Israel including the territories. A modest 4% of Saudi Arabia, some 30,000 square miles, should be set aside for a new Palestinian state. That state would be 13 times the size of the present Palestinian area proposed under the Road Map and would now have ample space for natural growth. All of the intractable problems facing both Jews and Arabs, arising under the present schemes, would be eliminated. The Palestinians could now construct their own state with full political independence, self-rule and full dignity. The sources of friction between them and Israel would now be removed along with all the immense human and material costs associated with the current conflict.

Palestinians could begin using their legitimate 'right of return' to exit the territories, and the refugee camps, and migrate back to their ancestral home in Arabia and thereby also be closer to Mecca and Medina. A fraction of the countless billions spent on weapons by the Arab governments could fund the cost of establishing new settlements for the Palestinians. Israel would be free of Arabs, and the Palestinians would be free of Israel. The deep wounds of both peoples would now have a chance to heal.

In early 2004 a poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows 37% willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. And this is before a far better deal has been offered, including true self-rule, peace and security, plus their own ample territory. What if 'Palestinians' were offered a homeland territory, drawn from lands donated by one of the more spacious Arab countries, one expressing continuous concern, love for, and outrage at the treatment of these very same folk?

Israeli Arabs could play a constructive role in this because of their higher level of education and their experience living as full citizens in democratic Israel. They would become the managerial and entrepreneurial class and provide valuable assistance and leadership for fellow Palestinians who were stagnating in refugee camps inside other Arab countries. This crime was committed by their own brother Arabs, who refused to allow them to settle.

Once the migration starts toward a far better future the movement could well accelerate voluntarily because the first ones to relocate would receive the best 'ground floor' opportunities and the last ones to move would get what remains. Today there are tens of millions of people on the move around the world in search of better living conditions, so relocation is a long established and viable option for everyone.

Another important advantage is that Israeli-Palestinian interaction would be limited to the selling of Arab homes in the territories and an orderly exit. No more frustratingly complex agreements as with Oslo where Israel honors all commitments and Arabs violate all commitments, and even U.S. assurances often prove worthless. The less need for Israel to depend on agreements with Arabs, Europeans and even Americans the better.

Part of the problem are those Arab governments who deliberately keep the Israel-Palestinian conflict alive to divert attention from their own corrupt regimes. Also, western governments still pander to their corrupt Arab clients for purely expedient reasons. But new progressive voices are emerging among Arab intellectuals and even among some Moslem clerics that call for Arab societal reform, and who also recognize Jewish rights in the land of Israel. These voices need to be encouraged and enlisted in this quest for sanity.

What is also needed is Saudi cooperation and active support. The Saudis have long been responsible for promoting anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-American hatred along with funding terror and the teaching of a hateful form of Islam. With their 'royal' family of thousands of princes living lavishly, off of oil income and the labor of foreign workers, they are a cesspool of corruption that even Osama bin Laden finds offensive.

It is time to demand that the Saudis make a major contribution to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. They caused much of the problem and they must now assist with the solution. It is time for the Bush administration to make the Saudis 'an offer they can't refuse' and have them realize they have a direct interest in providing 'land for peace'.

For too long many people have labored under a collective mindset resembling a bad dream where big lies become entrenched wisdom and truth is constantly strangled. Unless we change direction there will be dire consequences extending well beyond the peoples of the region. Those who still have minds and morals intact now have an obligation to think clearly and with sanity and support this approach to finally resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

__________________

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles-based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of the organization's Middle East committee.

This article appeared as a guest commentary in MichNews.com July 26, 2004 and is archived here. Contact the author.