TO OUR NEWSLETTER USING THE BUTTONS BELOW
Subscriptions are processed through the Secure PayPal system.
Despite 15 years of clear-cut evidence that the more Israel gives the more violence and pain it gets in return, the United States continues to lead the Western world’s determined efforts to pressure the Jewish state into surrendering its God-given land to its Islamic foes.
That pressure, in addition to negating the Jews’ own claim to the land as rightfully theirs, has also effectively worked to rip the Israeli people in two.
It is no secret that Israel’s leaders make no important policy decisions without looking over their shoulders to see whether or not they will receive Washington’s approval. Most Israelis place great importance in what the White House says Americans think of them.
But some in Israel still hold that God and the Scriptures should have greater bearing on their lives than the whims of any US administration. This, God-fearing, sector of society has been increasingly demonized by those of their fellow countrymen who believe they should kowtow to America and its “interests” in the region.
That a United States headed by a born again Christian is actively participating in rending Israeli society asunder should be of great concern to every bible-believing American.
Fuelling that concern is a question increasingly seeking an answer:Just what kind of pressure is Washington exerting, and how far is the US willing to push Israel?
What is the nature of the threat, how intense is the squeezing, that has succeeded in making a man who once championed the Jews’ right to settle Judea, Samaria and Gaza, suddenly change his stripes and become withdrawal’s greatest advocate?
Ariel Sharon has not only bent in the spirit of compromise, he and his ideology have been broken.
What kind of pressure would cause Israel to agree to take that last step off the plank of self-destruction? We have had decades of evidence that such pressure, and the willingness to apply it, is in the United States’ repertoire. Will the current Bush administration be the one to use it?
In a world stacked almost universally against Israel, the US has often been the only nation prepared to take the side of the Jewish state, even bearing the scorn and rage of the nations for doing so. Despite this history, despite this alliance, the de facto result of the last 15 years of US foreign policy in the Middle East is that Israel has been weakened, in its security and in its society, amidst the increasingly dangerous environment in which it lives.
The US is helping the gentile world to bare Israel’s throat, even as implacable foes in Tehran, Damascus, southern Lebanon and Egypt work night and day to sharpen the blades with which they plan to cut it.
Tehran is pushing ahead with its efforts to become a nuclear power, last month ordering new, long-range surface-to-surface missiles from North Korea, and simultaneously breaking its pledge to the European Union that it will no longer seek to manufacture an atomic bomb. Damascus is assembling SCUD-missile mountable VX gas warheads on production lines within Syria’s borders. Both Syria and Iran are facilitating the efforts by the Lebanese Hizballah, (which already has more than 10,000 missiles aimed at northern Israel), to increase the range of those rockets and to acquire non-conventional warheads to fit on them.
Egypt, that nation supposedly at peace with Israel, and facing no national threat from any surrounding nations, is pouring billions of dollars annually into upgrading its forces, and regularly conducts war games in which Israel is the enemy. A former Egyptian war minister has stated publicly that in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, Cairo would tear up its peace treaty with Israel and willingly join the fray.
And inside Israel, the people to whom Washington wants to give a state or giving themselves no rest in their effort to increase the deadliness of their terrorism, so that they will not only kill 20 or 30 Jews at a time, but 2000 or 3000 or more.
For the last 60 or so years, the nations of the world have been vowing, “never again.” Never again would they allow a holocaust to be perpetrated against the Jews. Never again would they allow efforts to render extinct the ancient people of Israel. Every head of state that pays an official visit to Israel stands at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Jerusalem and mouths the words, “Never again.”
But it is being allowed to happen again. These leaders are actively helping to bring a about the destruction of the Jewish state. The western nations are playing with Israel’s future, with Israel’s life.
President George W. Bush has “personally committed” himself to overseeing the creation of a state for the Palestinian Arabs, even as all his intelligence agencies feed him this information, that those Arabs regard such a state as the most effective weapon they will have to use against what will be left of Israel – to finally expunge the Jewish cancer from their Muslim midst.
They declare their intention openly, believing that Allah will ensure them this victory over the infidel Jews.
The evidence is too clear. No longer can the US claim ignorance; no longer can it say that it is only trying to do what was best for all involved.
Will Washington continue to push Israel until it is too late, until the increasingly existential threat posed by the Arabs around and within erupts into hostilities that will leave tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of Jewish dead?
And are the millions of bible believing American supporters of Israel going to allow their representative government to continue down this road?
Most of those Christians know that God has promised to restore the Jews to their homeland, and to plant them there, no longer to uproot them again.
The real question then becomes:Are America’s Christians going to allow their nation to travel a path that will end in its own severe judgment at the hands of a wrathful God?
Israel’s future is secure. God is committed to it. America’s future is not so certain. Time is fast running out.
“I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)
Iran is moving rapidly to become a nuclear power. The Iranian mullahs have publicly promised to use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel even if Israel were to achieve peace with the Palestinians. They also claim that Iran, with 70 million people, could absorb and survive any response from Israel while Israel, with only 5.5 million Jews, is vulnerable to devastating losses if only a few of Iran's missiles got through.
Each time these Iranian threats were announced, the U.S. administration failed to issue any statement in opposition. (When Saddam Hussein earlier vowed to "burn half of Israel" the U.S. administration also remained silent.) The Iranian mullahs could not fail to notice the significant American silence and to draw conclusions. They can also note that Israel is outside NATO and has no mutual defense treaty with the U.S. If Iran attacks Israel they need not fear any U.S. response.
All of Israel's past experiences with America and the UN underscore the reality of Israel's isolation and vulnerability. Some examples:
At its birth Israel totally accepted the UN partition resolution. The Arabs rejected that resolution and attacked the new state, attempting to destroy it at birth. The UN failed to help Israel and America imposed a regional arms embargo, which only affected Israel because the Arabs were already well-armed. Israel survived only due to its own sacrifice and would have perished if it depended upon the UN and the U.S. There was no subsequent punishment or even criticism for Arab aggression.
In 1967 Egypt and Syria were openly poised to launch an unprovoked attack to "drive the Jews into the sea" as Gamal Abdul Nasser vowed. There was no strong U.S. warning to Egypt and Syria not to attack. Instead the U.S. urged Israel not to pre-empt and to wait on U.S. diplomacy. When it became clear that U.S. diplomacy was failing and Israel could face catastrophic losses if the Arabs were allowed to strike first, Israel was forced to pre-empt. Again there was no subsequent punishment or even criticism for Arab aggression.
In 1973 Egypt and Syria again were openly poised to launch an unprovoked attack on Israel. And again there was no U.S. warning to Egypt and Syria not to attack. But this time Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did not just urge Israel "not to fire the first shot," he warned Israel not to pre-empt and to not even mobilize, lest it face the loss of American support, and then have to face Egypt and Syria backed by Russia and be left all on her own. Israel obeyed, was attacked, and almost lost that war while sustaining horrendous loss of life and suffering a brutal blow to its economy. Again there was no subsequent punishment or even criticism for Arab aggression.
These examples illustrate an ongoing pattern of U.S. behavior from Israel's birth until this day. The Arabs are always free to commit aggression and launch repeated attempts to destroy Israel without facing punishment or even criticism. It appears that the U.S. will always act to restrain Israel from exercising its full right of self-defense but will never act decisively to blunt Arab aggression. If Israel obeys U.S. pressure it could gravely endanger its security but if it acts in legitimate self-defense it could face U.S. punishment because of a consistent U.S. double standard.
Today the Iranian threat poses the greatest danger ever, because even a single nuclear missile reaching an Israeli population center could cause catastrophic damage and casualties. The U.S., the UN and the Europeans are also concerned, but only because Iranian nukes could also endanger them. However, they have so far failed to generate a sufficient collective response to guarantee that the ongoing Iranian quest for nuclear weapons will be halted and dismantled in time.
The U.S. is the lead player in all this and recent reports suggest that President Bush is unlikely to act until after the November election, assuming that he is re-elected, and that there is still enough time left to act. Note that President Bush, after Iraq, is now gun shy about pre-emption and he has announced no deadline for Iran to terminate its nuclear program.
Perhaps the West believes that Israel is their free insurance policy. They may prefer to have Israel take out Iran's nuclear facilities for them, as in 1981 when Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor. This means that Israel takes all the risk, Israel takes all the blame and the other nations benefit for free. The U.S. and the other nations still want to avoid alienating more Muslims and want to appear "even handed" concerning Israel. Bluntly put, the survival of Israel may be desirable for the nations, but not at any cost in jeopardizing their essential oil supplies and facing increased enmity among the world's Muslims.
It is not unreasonable to speculate that the U.S. and Europe may have decided to wait and let Israel be forced to pre-empt and do their dirty work, and hopefully be successful. But if something goes wrong they can always claim plausible deniability and join in the denunciation and possible punishment against Israel to appease the Arabs. It has happened before after the 1981 Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor.
Another possibility is for the U.S. and Europe to reluctantly allow Iran to go nuclear in the same way that we allowed North Korea to go nuclear while downplaying the real threat. And once they do go nuclear to then say that they have become too dangerous to attack and now we must negotiate - just as with North Korea which signed agreements, accepted U.S. aid and then secretly violated their agreement and brazenly announced their nuclear capability. We have established the pattern and Iran can simply follow suit.
Iran will then have additional options besides overt missile attack. They could build mini nukes and secretly distribute them to various terrorists for smuggling into target countries to be used against Israel and the West while adamantly denying all culpability. Heavy Western pressure might be put on Israel, including possible threats, to not pre-empt and to rely on their missile defense. This approach may appeal to the West because it simply plays for time and avoids having to take unpleasant decisions today that could upset their voters in the next election.
What is the military option? Retired Air Force and Army Generals, Thomas McInerney and Paul E. Vallely wrote the book, Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. At a recent lecture they claimed that the U.S. has the military capability to effectively take out the nuclear facilities of both North Korea and of Iran and can reach facilities buried deep underground. They stated that American capabilities are much greater than Israel's. If that is true, then it is primarily a U.S. political decision rather than one of military capability.
There are further complications if Israel feels compelled to pre-empt. Unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran's facilities are buried underground, dispersed and well protected with air defenses. Israel may not be able to readily neutralize these facilities. Iran also had ample time to develop a counter strategy to deter Israel that may include Syria's launching chemical and biological attacks on Israel combined with Iranian-backed Hizbullah attacks on northern Israel. If Israel is forced to pre-empt, other Arab countries may join in a general attack on Israel. This would rapidly create an entirely new situation that could escalate out of control. In such a situation Israel may be forced to use some of its nuclear weapons. (Note that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. publicly reserved the right to use tactical nuclear weapons if required.) A worst-case scenario could also include an oil embargo and even destruction of some oil fields resulting in major damage to Western economies. Thus a Western policy that results in Israel feeling gravely threatened and forced to pre-empt could backfire severely against Western interests.
There is also the question of knowing just how close Iran is to having the bomb. Keep in mind how often Western and U.S. intelligence have been wrong in the past. There has also been a tendency to underestimate the capabilities of rogue nations and their ability to deceive. We were fooled by North Korea and then surprised at their progress. After the 1991 Iraq war we were surprised at how close Saddam was to having a nuclear bomb. He fooled us again by moving his nuclear weapons program to Libya while we were still searching in Iraq. We only found out when Muammar Ghadaffi decided to come clean. And Iran insists its program is only for non-military purposes that legally allow it to progress just short of weapons level. If all their nuclear components are fabricated but unassembled, they may be able to assemble them suddenly and then announce they are now a nuclear power. We know they are also acquiring more and better missiles as delivery systems. We may tell Israel that there is still plenty of time to act but we have little credibility, and Israel can also suspect that we may be lying just to restrain her for our own convenience.
There are still other complicating factors, including the paranoia of the Iranian mullahs who may also act irrationally in response to their own fears, both real and imagined. Nevertheless the Iranian bomb must be stopped. The best way is to mobilize a solid Western front plus any other international support, with an ultimatum to Iran combined with support for Iran's large internal opposition. This will require America to lead with more firmness and more wisdom than we have seen in the past. Any perceived weakness by our side will only serve to increase the defiance of the Iranian mullahs.
In summary, it is definitely not in American or Western interests to leave Israel with no other security option except to pre-empt and thus open Pandora's Box of horrors. The longer we wait to act, the higher the stakes and the greater the danger. And to again push this problem into the future may be the worst option of all.
See Also: Time is Not on the World's Side: The Iranian Threat
Islamic extremists may target the Dome of the Rock or the al-Aksa mosque, the two Muslim shrines atop the Temple Mount (Haram es-Sharif in Arabic), aiming to lay the blame on Israel.
I am told by Israeli experts with considerable experience in countering terror that they are worried about such provocations being perpetrated by Israeli or Palestinian Arabs, or by Muslim fanatics associated with international terror.
Paradoxically, what arouses anxiety is the possibility that Islamist fanatics may try to exploit the flood of recent media coverage suggesting that Jewish extremists might attempt to attack the Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount.
Reported threats of a possible Jewish extremist attack on the shrines are nothing new but have garnered greater attention recently because they were aired publicly by Internal Security Minister Tzahi Hanegbi. He also complained that despite repeated requests for additional funding to better protect the Temple Mount, his ministry has not yet received additional funds.
Hanegbi's warnings of a supposed Jewish threat to the shrines were widely publicized in the Arab media. In a sense, here were the Jews themselves admitting that they were threatening Islamic holy places.
The accusation is that Jewish extremists want to destroy the shrines to make room for the construction of the Third Temple, or to try to torpedo Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan for the Gaza Strip. Sure enough, there were a handful of messianic right-wing types who immediately hinted in the media that they would like to see the shrines disappear from the Temple Mount.
Not surprisingly, banner headlines about a possible attack on the Temple Mount by Jewish extremists generated threats from Islamic extremist leaders in Israel and abroad warning of retaliation by "a billion Muslims" if anything happened on Haram es-Sharif.
IN FACT, the current Islamist terror war against Western democracies has created a breeding ground for provocation on the Temple Mount. But the danger does not stem from Jewish extremists. Islamic terrorists throughout the world have carried out attacks not only in the West but also in Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
Consequently, the danger does exist that enemies of the Jewish state might attack the shrines on the Temple Mount with the explicit aim of placing the blame on Israel. Against the background of official Israeli declarations about the danger posed by Jewish extremists, such an attack could disguise the actual perpetrators.
Those who want proof that the enemy is capable of concocting such a blood libel should examine the recent declarations by Yasser Arafat accusing the Shin Bet of being the hidden hand behind suicide attacks against Israelis.
Arafat and his cohorts have no difficulty lying with brazen impudence or inventing blood libels against Israel. I still remember how Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared in a CNN interview broadcast from Jericho in 2002 that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem "was burning. The Israelis shelled it."
The truth is, Palestinian terrorists had "hijacked" the Christian shrine to avoid being taken into custody. Not a single hair on Erekat's head trembled as he lied before an international audience in a live broadcast.
Regrettably, there will always be Jews who play into the hands of the Palestinian enemy – intentionally or not – to put the blame on Israel.
Israeli authorities should be the first to explain that the danger of provocation against the shrines on the Temple Mount comes from Muslims – including terrorists in the ranks of Palestinians loyal to Arafat.
The Israeli security establishment must improve the means of protecting the Temple Mount against Islamist factions with at least the same degree of fervor and professionalism that they display against Jews. Recall that Jews are not permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, despite the fact that it is the most holy place for the Jewish nation.
The danger of Arab provocation on the Temple Mount is so grave that it calls for not only the absence of irresponsible Israeli declarations by cabinet ministers and senior officers but also a constant re-examination of security procedures and the security establishment methodology itself.
The world seems to be discovering the basic facts about the Palestinian movement's leadership and especially regarding Yasser Arafat. It is increasingly obvious that he is impossible to deal with diplomatically, uninterested in ending the violence or making the peace, and repressive as well as incompetent in leading his own people.
Nevertheless, despite this factor as revealed by growing turmoil in Gaza, battles among Palestinian factions, and protests about Arafat's leadership, four basic principles have been largely overlooked.
The problem is not merely Arafat himself but the extremist ideology, distortion of reality, maximal goals, rationale for terrorism, and refusal to accept a real peace that both he and his colleagues represent.
Doesn't it make sense that Israel does not want to make more concessions, take more risks, and trust its future to such an enemy? Isn't it clear that Israel must use force to stop terrorism since Palestinian leaders encourage, protect, and pay for it?
Under these circumstances isn't a security fence a necessity, an act of legitimate self-defense? Such responses are not the choice of a demonized Israel or satanized Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, but a rational and appropriate response to the violence and anarchy fostered by Arafat.
To recognize that the leader accepted (up to now) by Palestinians has been a corrupt autocrat who uses terrorism and incitement while rejecting peace means the world should support Israel's actions in defending itself. How then could the EU's members vote unanimously in the UN to condemn Israel's security fence? (Answer: by endorsing an International Court of Justice decision that Israel had no right of self-defense against terrorists.) Implicit in the condemnation of Arafat – especially now that his victims are visibly Palestinians – the world also must understand what it requires to defend oneself against Arafat and a movement and doctrine he has led and shaped, most of which continues to be loyal to him.
Consider only one of a thousand points of evidence revealing the kind of person we are dealing with here. Nabil Amr, a veteran Fatah activist, became a dissident, writing an open letter to Arafat last year accusing him of throwing away the chance for a peaceful solution and an independent Palestinian state. A few weeks later, shots were fired at Amr's house. Recently, Amr was shot and his leg has to be amputated.
Arafat originally declared – as he always does in such circumstances – that this crime would be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. Now he has canceled the investigation and accusing Israel of responsibility for the shooting, when obviously it was carried out by his own men.
After four years of totally unnecessary violence and 40 years of Arafat, the world seems to be getting the idea of what is actually going on.
The New York Times and Washington Post both had Arafat-must-go editorials, though they were not so keen on the idea when the US government made this its policy two years ago.
As for the Arab media, there have never been so many open denunciations of Arafat, including calls for his resignation and changes in the Palestinian leadership. Some places in Europe and the European Union bureaucracy (and of course that part of the Israeli Left for whom wishful thinking is their religion) remain the last bastions of believers that Arafat is a man of peace.
Beyond bashing Arafat as an individual, however, it would be good to think about the political and strategic implications for those who are next-door neighbors of such a leader, system and world view as the one he created, both for Palestinians and the entire Arab world, and which hundreds of thousands of his people fervently embrace.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Centerand co-author of Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography and the forthcoming Hating America: A History (Oxford University Press).
F By Beth Goodtree August 3, 2004 For those of us who follow international politics, the European Union's typically critical stance regarding Israel has been unfathomable. Why would Europe, with its history of involvement with or against Nazis and genocide, its fight against Soviet oppression, and its modern turn towards peace and justice, consistently side with modern-day genocidal monsters? After diagnosing their reaction at the UN, the answer is simple: The EU has been in a coma.
The EU's coma has not been merely about Israel, but about themselves. Like an unconscious person's inability to keep himself clean and free of vermin, Europeans have been oblivious to the human parasites plaguing their countries. Not a week goes by when one doesn't hear of Islamists invading with impunity some European society, changing the demographics and political character. Whether it was Germany's unwitting hosting of the 9-11 murderers, France's struggle against Islamic thugs, Spain's cowardly capitulation to Muslim terrorists, or England's hosting of hate-filled imams, Europe has been critically infected.
Despite watching the almost daily carnage wreaked by Arabs upon innocent Israeli women, children and families, the EU has remained, if not silent, at the very least uncritical of a concerted effort to commit genocide upon the Jewish people. Until now. Now the EU has expressed 'shock.' In a suspiciously underreported story, Arab countries at the UN are trying to thwart a proposal to raise a vote condemning anti-Semitism in the General Assembly this September.
According to a news article in Haaretz, "UN ambassadors from Arab and EU countries met and the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.
The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source."
It is apparent that the EU has bought the Arab/Islamist lie that Zionism is separate from Judaism. One must wonder what Christian Europe has been doing when they've been in church. As Christians, they have as their holy books both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament, usually bound together in one large book. Haven't any Europeans ever read their holy books? The return of the Jewish people to their aboriginal and native Holy Land is the most important thing in Judaism. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Hebrew bible, ZERO times in the Koran.
Besides apparently never reading their own bible, the Europeans are alarmingly ignorant of history. There have been THREE Jewish states in the land of Palestine, there have been ZERO Arab states in the same land.
Perhaps nothing proves the EU coma better than their oblivion regarding current events. The UN Commission on Human Rights has passed 26 resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations, despite the fact that Muslims are allowed complete freedom of worship, freedom to live and freedom to thrive in Israel. The same UN Human Rights Commission has passed ZERO resolutions against any Arab country. This is despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has made it a capital offense to practice Judaism or Christianity, and the Palestinian Authority has an official government policy to make its territory 'Judenrein.'
So the next question is, now that the EU is waking up to the fact that the Arab countries, and perhaps most or all of the other Islamic countries think anti-Semitism is a good thing, what do they plan to do about it? Before Europe makes a decision, let me remind them of three things:
Dr Mahathir, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia and former head of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences) publicly stated this past year at the OIC 2003 conference:
"They (the Jews) invented and successfully promoted... human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others."
"The Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage."
And one more thing. The Muslims have a saying:
"First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people."Good morning Europe -- after the Jews and Israel, you're next!
“We will continue to shell you every day to see what your defeated army will do for you.”--A Hamas spokesperson, on a videotape resembling those produced by the al Qaeda terror network, threatening daily attacks on the village of Sderot unless the IDF halts its operations .(Jerusalem Post, August 2)
“If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch. When it comes to fighting the threats of our world and making America safer and promoting peace, we’re turning the corner and we’re not turning back.”—President George W. Bush, campaigning in Missouri. (New York Post, July 31)
Last year, an Iranian security agent beat a Canadian photojournalist to death in a Tehran prison. Apart from recalling its ambassador—a meaningless gesture given Ottawa’s weakness—the Canadian government was impotent to respond.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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: http://christianactionforisrael.org/donations.html
Send Comments/Suggestions to email@example.com
TO SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE visit http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/cafi-list