Newsletter #189     Friday, June 11, 2004



Subscriptions are processed through the Secure PayPal system.

Monthly - $ 3.00 USD
Yearly - $ 30.00 USD


By Ryan Jones - JNW Editorial - June 8, 2004

Thirty-seven years to the day after Israel wrapped up its stunning Six Day War victory, the government of Ariel Sharon decided to retreat from a major chunk of the territory that had been used as a launch pad for attempts to annihilate the Jewish state.

That Sharon played such a key role in helping to conquer the Gaza Strip and Samaria, and that he himself once deemed these areas vital security assets as well as integral parts of Israel’s biblical patrimony seem to no longer matter to the prime minister.

He has by now staked his entire political career, and his legacy, on a plan to initiate unilateral flight from these areas in the face of unrelenting "Palestinian" terrorism.

How is it that Israel was able to defeat the mighty armies of Egypt, but remains unable, after decades, to put out of commission the small and comparatively ill-equipped Gaza-based terror groups?

The notion that Israel has no military answer for these groups is, of course, ludicrous. If America has a military solution to a threat as diverse as Al Qaeda, then Israeli arms are more than capable of routing a localized enemy like Hamas.

As commander of the IDF’s Southern Command, Sharon led an unyielding anti-terror campaign in the Gaza Strip between July 1971 and February 1972.

He used all means at his disposal, including the deportation to Jordan of Palestinian Arab men whose children had stoned Israeli soldiers. During those seven months, 104 terrorists were killed and another 742 arrested.

And it worked. Sharon himself announces in his autobiography that the targeted and well-executed military efforts succeeded in the complete elimination of organized terrorist activity in the Gaza Strip at that time.

"For ten years afterward there was no terrorism in Gaza; it was completely peaceful." (Warrior, page 261)

But it was the "will to fight these people [the terrorists] and destroy them," and not reckless retreat, which resulted in a Gaza Strip where people could lead quiet, prosperous lives during the 1970s, Sharon pointed out.

What has really defeated Israel in Gaza and northern Samaria – the two areas from which the initial retreat is set to occur - is the nation’s fear of international criticism. While Israel is capable of bombing into oblivion the Gaza terrorist infrastructure, it is scared stiff of the worldwide reaction to doing so.

Whereas in the past, Sharon and the rest of the Israeli leadership were more concerned with ensuring that a Jew was able to live in peace and security in any part of his God-given homeland, their priorities now lie in tickling the sensibilities of world leaders like George W. Bush.

And so, instead of securing its people by defeating terror, Israel is to flee before it, signaling to the Arabs, whether Sharon recognizes it or not, that a combination of low-level violence and international sympathy for the "Palestinian" cause will eventually achieve what full-scale invasion could not.

Clearly, this re-gathered, physically reconstituted nation has yet to realize that when it comes to doing the right thing, when it comes to administering its right to this land, there is only an audience of One.

Fortunately, some in Israel, like National Religious Party chief Effi Etiam, do get it:

"We have another partner in these decisions, the Master of the Universe. We must show the Master of the Universe that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for the Land of Israel and He will help us."

The prophet Zephaniah writes:In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem:"Do not fear; Zion, let not your hands be weak. The LORD your God in your midst, the Mighty One, will save." (Zephaniah 3:16)

Through Jeremiah God says, "Do not fear, O Jacob my servant, for I am with you; for I will make a complete end of all the nations to which I have driven you…" (Jeremiah 46:28)

And speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God tells Israel to "fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, yes, I will help you…" (Isaiah 41:10)

If this is so, and it most certainly is, does it really matter what Washington thinks?

TheThe Mountains of Israel -
The Mountains of Israel is an exciting and refreshing new perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict, clearly outlining how God is fulfilling His Word in modern-day Israel. It is highly suitable for the beginning reader on Israel and for those who have studied Israel from a Scriptural perspective for years.
Free with a $ 10.00 USD per copy Donation!
Click button at left for PayPal or visit our "Mountains" page onsite.


By Jason Maoz - | June 11, 2004
"Reagan I could trust." - Yitzhak Shamir

"He was unshakable; a staunch supporter." - Shimon Peres

For most of the 1980's, Ronald Wilson Reagan dominated the American political landscape as no man had since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The attitude of most Jews, however, was that Reagan's presence in the White House was a not altogether pleasant fact of life, something about which they could do nothing and for which they bore little responsibility.

Although Reagan's share of the Jewish vote in the 1980 election was 39 percent - the best showing among Jews for a Republican presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower's 40 percent in 1956 - the number that really stands out all these years later is that while Reagan was winning a 44-state blowout victory in the nation at large, fully 61 percent of Jewish voters preferred either the incumbent, Democrat Jimmy Carter, or third-party candidate John Anderson.

If Reagan's landslide victory over Carter was greeted by a less than enthusiastic response from American Jewry - then even more than now one of the Democratic party's most loyal constituencies - the reaction was entirely different in Israel, where there were real fears of what another four years of a Carter administration would bring.

For Israeli officials, the fact that a candidate with strong pro-Israel credentials defeated Carter was merely icing on the cake; more important was the relief in at last being rid of a president they had long ceased viewing with anything but distrust. And they were equally pleased to bid adieu to the Carter foreign policy team, particularly the national security adviser, Zbiegnew Brzezinski, and the UN ambassador, Donald McHenry, who along with former Carter officials Cyrus Vance (secretary of state until mid-1980) and Andrew Young (McHenry's predecessor at the UN until late 1979) had been a constant impediment to warmer U.S.-Israel relations.

The Roots of His Commitment

Ronald Reagan had an instinctive affinity for Israel that Jimmy Carter plainly lacked. As an actor who spent decades in the heavily Jewish environment of Hollywood, and who counted scores of Jews among his friends and colleagues, Reagan moved easily in pro-Israel circles. Both as a private citizen and as governor of California he was a familiar sight and a favored speaker at various functions for Israel.When asked about his immunity to anti-Semitism, Reagan would credit his parents, often relating the story of how his father, a traveling salesman, was about to check in at a hotel in some remote area late one night when the desk clerk casually remarked, "I'm sure you'll enjoy it here; we don't allow any Jews." Whereupon Jack Reagan brusquely informed the clerk that he most definitely would not enjoy it there, grabbed his bag and walked out the door. He spent the night sleeping in his car.

Few experiences touched Reagan as deeply as did his viewing of Nazi death-camp newsreels. "From then on," he said, "I was concerned for the Jewish people."

"The newsreels of the death camps he had seen in 1946,'' wrote Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, "were such a vivid part of his memory that he was able to imagine... that he was actually at the site of the concentration camps when they were liberated by the Allied armies.''

Indeed, in separate conversations, Reagan told then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center that he had filmed the camps and their grisly evidence of Nazi atrocities and had even kept a copy of the film for himself in case anyone would voice doubt
about what the Nazis had done.

Contrary to his recollection, Reagan, who spent the war years in Hollywood working on propaganda films for the U.S. military, could not have filmed the camps himself. Given the nature of his wartime responsibilities, though, he certainly would have been one of the first Americans with access to those films.

Reagan's emotional reaction to the Holocaust sealed what would become a lifelong commitment to the Jewish state. And for better than four decades he never wavered in his certitude, even when, as president, he had his share of disagreements with Israeli leaders.

"I've believed many things in my life," Reagan stated in his memoirs, "but no conviction I've ever had has been stronger than my belief that the United states must ensure the survival of Israel."

Scrapping Carter's Foreign Policy

"Few presidents," wrote Steven Spiegel in The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict, a study of U.S. policy toward Israel, "have come to office with as specific a vision of the world as Ronald Reagan. The basic tenets of his policy could not have been more divergent from the principles of the Carter era: staunch anti-Communism, antagonism to the Soviet leadership, de-emphasis on the Third World as an object of U.S. concern, and a commitment to a dramatically increased defense budget."

As his first secretary of the state Reagan chose General Alexander Haig, former chief of staff in the Nixon White House and more recently supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe. Haig was described as "a 100 percent supporter of Israel on all issues" by Caspar Weinberger, the secretary of defense with whom he often clashed.

Reagan's UN ambassador during his first term, the solidly pro-Israel Jeane Kirkpatrick, had been a professor of political science at Georgetown University. Her writings on the struggle between democracies and dictatorships caught Reagan's eye as he campaigned for the White House, and the thought struck him that this was precisely the clear, pro-American voice he wanted for his administration.

For the Middle East, the Reagan team initially visualized an alliance of shared interest between Israel and anti-radical Arab states, a plan that for obvious reasons proved unworkable.

"The administration," explained Spiegel, "planned to provide incentives to both the Israelis and Arabs so they would join the effort to block Russian expansion in the area. Reagan, who had gone further than any previous major candidate in celebrating the Jewish state as an important strategic asset to the United States, would offer the Israelis unprecedented cooperation and increased military assistance. Meanwhile, the Arabs, especially the Saudis, would be fortified with arms so that they could contribute to the effort. Each side would acquiesce in U.S. support for the other because of the assistance they were to be provided."

The plan sounded sensible, but its implementation was stymied by the Saudis' reluctance to be grouped, however loosely, with Israel. The administration, rather quickly, was forced to shelve its grandiose plan for an anti-Soviet alliance and concentrate instead on bolstering friendly nations in the
region on an individual basis.

The Inevitability of Disagreement

Reagan inaugurated what Israeli journalists Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman have termed the "Solid Gold Era" in U.S.-Israel relations. Certainly the administration included individuals - most notably Weinberger - who were less than favorably disposed to Israel, but their influence was more than offset by the views of Haig, Kirkpatrick, a number of key non-cabinet level aides and, of course, Reagan himself.

Even so, Reagan - and this should underscore the inevitability of disagreement between Israel and even the friendliest of U.S. presidents - found himself engaged in a series of tiffs with the Israeli government, particularly during his first term.

The earliest friction concerned Israel's destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in June 1981. The U.S. voted with the rest of the UN Security Council to condemn the action, and briefly held up delivery of some F-16 aircraft to Israel, but the reaction was basically a slap on the wrist, with no permanent ramifications.

"Technically," Reagan wrote in his memoirs, "Israel had violated an agreement with us not to use U.S.-made weapons for offensive purposes, and some cabinet members wanted me to lean hard on Israel because it had broken this pledge.... I sympathized with [Prime Minister Menachem] Begin's motivations and privately believed we should give him the benefit of the doubt."

Later in 1981, a bitter fight was played out in Congress between the White House and supporters of Israel over the administration's decision to sell Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft (AWACS) to Saudi Arabia. The sale was finally approved by a narrow margin, but the confrontation left bruised feelings and egos on both sides.

The fears of those who opposed the AWACS sale would, over time, come to be seen as overblown. Ironically, Israeli military leaders were never in the forefront of the AWACS opposition; according to Raviv and Melman, "the commanders of the Israeli air force - the officers most directly concerned - were willing to live with AWACS flying over Saudi Arabia. They did not see them as a serious threat to Israel's security."

The AWACS battle highlighted what many in Washington - and Jerusalem - felt was the needlessly abrasive personality of Menachem Begin. Their concern was underscored in 1981 when, just weeks after the Reagan administration signed a memorandum of understanding with Israel for closer military and strategic ties, Begin rammed a bill through the Knesset that in effect annexed the Golan Heights. The U.S. responded by suspending the memorandum, whereupon Begin delivered a blistering - and highly undiplomatic - tongue-lashing to the American ambassador in Israel.

Reagan's frustration with Begin reached a crisis point in June 1982 with Israel's invasion of Lebanon, a promised "quick strike" that became a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Israeli army and an unprecedented military and public-relations fiasco for the Israeli government.

To make matters worse, it was during this tense period that Alexander Haig resigned as U.S. secretary of state. Haig's tenure had been marked by squabbles with other administration officials and his departure was hardly a shock, but the timing could not have been worse for Israel. (Haig's replacement, George Shultz, initially viewed with some wariness by supporters of Israel, would develop a surprisingly warm rapport with Israeli and American Jewish leaders.)

The U.S.-Israel relationship had grown strong enough to survive a major disaster like Lebanon, just as it would survive what some viewed as the overbearing personality of Menachem Begin; the failure of the so-called Reagan Plan, which called for a freeze on Israeli settlements and the eventual creation of a quasi-independent Palestinian entity; the Iran-Contra scandal, in which Israel played a major role; the ill-advised visit by Reagan to a German cemetery where the remains of SS soldiers were buried; the arrest and conviction of an American citizen, Jonathan Pollard, on charges of spying for Israel; and the administration's controversial 1988 decision to talk to the PLO after Yasir Arafat read some American-scripted lines about recognizing Israel.

Through it all, Reagan provided more military and financial aid to Israel than any of his predecessors, and the increased cooperation between American and Israeli intelligence services proved beneficial to both countries. Washington also worked closer with Israel on the economic front, and in 1985 the administration signed a landmark Free Trade Area agreement, long sought by Israel, which resulted in a hefty boost in Israeli exports to the U.S.

Soviet Jewry

The plight of Jews in the Soviet Union was bound to strike a sympathetic chord with someone as unbendingly anti-Communist as Ronald Reagan. Concern over the Russians' decades-long repression of Jewish religious expression and their refusal to allow "refuseniks" to emigrate to Israel was woven into U.S. policy during the Reagan years.

"Reagan's interest in Soviet Jewry was immense; it was close to the first issue on the American agenda and was part of the confrontation between the two superpowers," Yitzhak Shamir told authors Deborah and Gerald Strober.

"The Soviet leaders," Shamir added, "told me that every time they met with Shultz, he raised the issue of Soviet Jewry, and they would ask him, 'Why do you do this?' Shultz answered that this was very important."

Elliott Abrams, who served under Shultz as an Assistant Secretary of State, told the Strobers that "The Reagan administration kept beating the Soviet Union over the issue of the Soviet Jews and kept telling them, "You have to deal with this question. You will not be able to establish the kind of relationship you want with us unless you have dealt with this question...."

According to Richard Schifter, another assistant secretary of state, when Gorbachev came to Washington in December 1987 for a summit with Reagan, it was just a couple of days after a huge rally for Soviet Jews had been held in the nation's capital "and the person who was the note-taker at the meeting told me that Reagan started out by saying to Gorbachev, 'You know, there was this rally on the Mall the other day.'

"And Gorbachev said, 'Yes, I heard about it. Why don't you go on and talk about arms control?' And for five minutes, Reagan kept on talking about the rally and the importance of the Jewish emigration issue to the United States, when Gorbachev wanted to talk about something else."

The Reagan administration was instrumental in gaining the release in 1986 of prominent Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky, imprisoned for nine years on trumped-up treason charges. Now a government minister in Israel, Sharansky recalled his reaction when, in 1983, confined to a tiny cell in a prison near the Siberian border, he saw on the front page of Pravda that Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire."

As Sharansky described it, "Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's 'provocation' quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth - a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us. I never imagined that three years later I would be in the White House telling this story to the president....Reagan was right and his critics were wrong."

In 1984 Reagan was reelected in a landslide of historic proportions, but his share of the Jewish vote actually decreased by nearly eight points from 1980. When he left office in January 1989, it was with a higher approval rating than any president before him, but Jews - a majority of whom evidently consider a president's fealty to liberalism more important than his support of Israel - gave him lower marks than any other voting bloc save African Americans.

It would take four years of the decidedly frosty relationship with Israel fostered by the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, for an appreciable number of Jews to begin looking back at the Reagan years with a new sense of appreciation.

   Click Here! Get A Free Gift With Your Donation!   


By Beth Goodtree - - June 11, 2004

Their successes are few, but failures by policy makers and shakers never seem to end. The reason? Not a single one has faced reality. Be it Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush and his Arabist State Department, the so-called Arab moderates or the delusional EU, all they are good at is producing failures and thus hastening the annihilation of their own people. (Why do I feel like a rehab counselor surrounded by a bunch of unwilling drug addicts?)

I will pick on George W. Bush first. This man has more waffles then The International House of Pancakes. In a presidential address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people on 20 September 2001, George W. Bush made the following statements:

"It (the war on terror) will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated...And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism."

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

From this statement, one would have thought that George W. Bush would never consider putting pressure on the U.S.'s strongest ally, Israel, to cede land to a bunch of terrorists so they could better continue their genocidal agenda from their own newly-created country. But he is doing just that, demanding Israel expel its own people from their own land and give it to their blood enemy. Bush, possibly because of his Arabist State Department advisors, seems to feel the terror-bent 'Palestinians' occupying Israeli land are a separate entity from other Arab nations, despite the following statement by one of their esteemed own:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism." [1]

Mr. Bush also ignores the reality of the Arabs' own polls, which show the average Arab occupying Israeli land supports genocide bombings and is hell-bent on perpetrating genocide upon the Jews.

Most recently, Mr. Bush has ignored the fact that Israel is under constant attack and in a fight for its survival. He has shown his ignorance of this by his having the U.S. abstain in (rather than veto) a UN vote condemning Israel for defensive actions against an enemy who uses women and children as human shields and living bombs. If Mr. Bush were cognizant of the laws of the Geneva Convention, he would know any harm that comes to civilians, or destruction of their properties, when these are used by armed combatants, is the fault of the combatant, not of the victim trying to defend itself, as Israel is doing.

Meanwhile, Christendom in the EU has its head in the sand (literally) when it comes to Arab countries and Muslims in general. Europe is under invasion from the Muslim hordes and seems to think appeasement will work. Their philosophy is 'condemn Israel and the Muslims and Arabs will leave us alone and continue the flow of oil.' Fat chance. The Muslim world has its sights set on another European conquest, as a prelude to world domination and subjugation, and is fast approaching success. [2] Their methods are a combination of out-of-control birth rates, immigration, propaganda and terror. At the rate they are going, Europeans will be subjugated by the next generation.

So now let's talk about Arab 'moderates'. Here is a statement made last year by a man hailed as a Muslim moderate, Dr. Mahathir, former Prime Minister of Indonesia and former head of the Organization of Islamic Countries:

"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships..." [3]

Since Malaysia is not under siege or threat, whom is Dr. Mahathir planning on attacking with these weapons?

Okay, forget so-called 'moderate' Muslims' statements. How about behavior? Equating interrogation techniques that cause embarrassment and a bit of discomfort (used with known combatants and terrorists) to the brutal slow, gruesome beheading of an American (also Jewish) noncombatant shows a shocking but unsurprising lack of human decency on the part of the Arab/Muslim world, as well as the Left-wing Western world. And as if this false moral equivalency were not enough, state-sponsored Arab papers, many from so-called moderate countries, have gone even farther. Egypt, considered moderate and 'friendly', made no mention whatsoever of the beheading in its leading daily newspaper, Al-Ahram. Two other major pro-government newspapers ran news service reports on their inside pages, without photos, while blasting America about Iraq on their front pages. [4]

Want more bad behavior? Let's talk broken treaties. Supposedly, Egypt is at peace with Israel, but you would never know it by Egypt's behavior. According to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (which the U.S. has guaranteed in her Israel-U.S. Memorandum of Agreement), Egypt may not promote terrorism nor instigate incitement. Yet Egypt actively breaks this treaty on a daily basis.

Egypt refuses to stop the flow of weapons -- through illicit tunnels and other means -- to the terrorist Arab entity occupying Israeli land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The Egyptian government even uses textbooks that represent Jews as having the traits of "malice, greed, treachery, exploitation of others, fomenting of dissension, deception, racism, arrogance, hypocrisy, trickery and hostility." [5] And yet the U.S. still considers Egypt a 'moderate' country and a 'friend', refusing to see the reality of Egypt's duplicity.

Meanwhile, the Arab world has just staged another farcical 'International Islamic Conference', meant to appease the civilized world. This year's theme was "Tolerance In the Islamic Culture." Shamelessly, they tried to present themselves as tolerant and even enlightened, while meantime their compatriots not in attendance continue to enslave and force conversion on Christians and wage war on Jews merely for being Jewish. These Muslims do the same thing year after year, yet our leaders seem to buy into their lies and propaganda instead of demanding that the Islamic world change its behavior. This reminds me of the home invader who tells his victims that if only they cooperate no harm will come to them and then proceeds to shoot them in the head.

Next comes Ariel Sharon. That man does more about-faces than does a military academy on parade day. After being the main proponent of populating Judea, Samaria and Gaza, he now wants to destroy them and expel all Jews from their homes, in an act reminiscent of the Holocaust. Nor are his about-faces reserved for the disputed territories. First Sharon had many reservations about the Roadmap; then he seemed to accept it, as testified by his proposals to make concessions. First he said Israel would not do anything until terrorism stopped, and now he plans to reward terrorism by pushing through with pullouts and expulsions of his own people.

The reality Sharon fails to face is that the Arab/Muslim world does not want Israel to exist. He also fails to face the reality that he cannot use Israel's fate to offset his personal problems. And he also fails to face the reality that the U.S. does what is good for the U.S. and not necessarily what is in Israel's best interests.

Finally, there is the civilized world in general, specifically the common citizens thereof. They have bought the line that the enemy is terror. In truth, terror is merely a tactic of the real enemy, Islamism, which seeks to dominate and subjugate the entire planet just as Nazi Germany once did. We are in a war for our very existence. And unless we are willing to face this reality, we might as well immediately give the Muslims the keys to our countries, control of our lives (and accept the role of second-class citizens with few rights if any), renounce our religions, buy prayer rugs and start praying to Allah five times a day.


[1] Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 and Pakistan Today.

[2] Islam Will Invade Europe and America, WorldNetDaily, February 4, 2004.

[3] Mahathir speech at the Islamic Summit Conference.

[4] Arab Media Muted in Coverage of Beheading, MSNBC News, May 12, 2004.

[5] War and Peace, Israel and the West in Egyptian Schoolbooks, American Jewish Committee.

"Faith to Faith - Face to Face" Christian Video Conferencing


  • Divide Jerusalem?  Divided cities are ugly cities: Think of Belfast, of Nicosia, of pre-'89 Berlin and pre-'67 Jerusalem.

NOTICE: We make EVERY effort to insure our newsletter is not received unsolicited. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter, please send an email to with "REMOVE" in either the subject or body of your message. Please ensure the email is sent from the address receiving the newsletter! Thank you.
We depend ENTIRELY on viewer/reader donations. PLEASE HELP US get the truth out about Israel and God's chosen people. All needed info at:


Send Comments/Suggestions to


Recommended Links
  • C and M Law Corporation, the Los Angeles personal injury attorney firm, has been serving the city’s residents for over 45 years. People who think they do not need the services of an experienced personal injury attorney, invariably find out the hard way that they should have chosen that right lawyer in the very beginning. Regardless of the type of accident or injury, we have the experience to successfully represent you and your family. If you or someone you know has been injured through the negligence or recklessness of others, come see us. Voted in the top one percent of trial lawyers in the USA, our lawyers go the distance. We can help get you the compensation you and your loved ones deserve. The personal injury attorney Los Angeles firm of C and M Law Corporation has won an excess of 2 Billion Dollars in settlements!