The Congressional Israel Victory Caucus

The Congressional Israel Victory Caucus was launched only short time ago (April 27, 2017), and it already has generated a stream of commentary.  That's good.  Because for years, I have said that no matter where people stand on the Israel-Arab conflict, we all can agree that the current "peace process" (re-labeled by Middle East Forum founder and scholar Daniel Pipes as a "war process") has not brought us any closer to peace.  Three decades of endless negotiations make resolution of the conflict less likely, not more.

The Israel Victory Caucus intends to support US policy and legislation that furthers conflict resolution through an Israeli victory, and to work against policy and legislation that places artificial restraints on Israel that only prolong the conflict.

Co-chair, Congressman Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) noted that the current situation only creates uncertainty among all parties with regard to a possible and moral endgame, and that the US and others must send the Palestinians a strong and clear message to give up their goal of destroying Israel.  Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), the other co-chair noted that Israel is the only state in the Middle East with which the United States has shared values.  "Israel is not the problem in the Middle East.  Israel is the solution."

Some specific goals of the Caucus:  for the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem to signal its support for an undivided Israeli capital there; cutting off US funds to the Palestinian Authority so long as it continues to provide financial support to families of suicide terrorists and continues its formal anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement through its leaders and institutions.

Perhaps Dr. Pipes put it most succinctly by saying that "When the Jews of Hebron have no more fear for their safety than the Arabs of Nazareth, the war will be over."

Remember "The BDS 59" at election time

Those of us who feel passionately about our nation's security and the international fight against Islamists, and who are equally passionate about the State of Israel, have been snubbed time and again by the Obama administration and its fearful acolytes in Congress.  When that happens, people shake their fists and rant about those who are placing our security and that of our ally Israel in jeopardy, but too often we do nothing more.

I've spoken with so many individuals--passionate supporters of Israel--who have come to me with their anger about Barack Obama and his clearly anti-Israel actions.  Yet, when pressed, they admit that they voted for him not once but twice, the second time after his anti-Israel actions were--as they too admitted--on full display.  So with the 2016 US elections not that far away, from time to time, this blog will remind voters who snubbed them and did so expecting that they did not have the heft to administer the appropriate consequences.

Let's begin with "The BDS 59."

Do you remember when Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed a joint session of Congress, and several members of that body publicly boycotted our friend and ally.  They did so even though were it not for our ally Israel, Saddam Hussein would have ten years of nuclear material for use against our troops in 1991; and even though were it not for our ally Israel, ISIS would have a bomb today.

Some of The BDS 59 tried to hide behind an excuse about protocol, however, there are historical precedents for the Netanyahu speech; and their anti-Israel boycott reflected their tacit or vocal support for the Obama's attempts to distance the US from Israel.  Here are The BDS 59 who do not deserve our votes in 2016 or any time:

Vice President Joe Biden

Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.)

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)

Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)

Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.)

Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)

Rep. Joaquin Castro (Texas)

Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)

Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.)

Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)

Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.)

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.)

Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.)

Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.)

Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)

Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.)

Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)

Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)

Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.)

Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.)

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)

Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.)

Rep. John Lewis (Ga.)

Rep. Dave Loebsack (Iowa)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)

Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)

Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.)

Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)

Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)

Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)

Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)

Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.)

Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)

Rep. David Price (N.C.)

Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)

Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.)

Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)

Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)

Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)

They put partisanship over our security, and did so expecting that none of us will remember come election day.  We do remember, and this blog will put out more reminders in the coming weeks and months, including reminders of who voted for the Iran deal that places US and Israeli security in jeopardy.

American Jews need Save-Soviet-Jewry Effort

The November 18 attack on the Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighborhood should have put to rest the belief that Arab opposition to Israel is anything but anti-Jewish.  Unfortunately, the Jewish community’s response to it has been tepid, at best, confused, and confusing.  Many American Jews and American Jewish organizations are more concerned with appearing liberal than with defending their people against a serious threat; more afraid of being called Islamophobic than of Jews being murdered in Israel.  Their general silence and inaction indicate that they find it okay for Arab media and their partisans to refer to Israel incessantly as Nazis; but God forbid we identify the “Final Solution” embedded in anti-Israel politics.  Recognizing those realities that the synagogue attack brought so sharply into focus would shatter their cherished myth that the Israel-Arab conflict is merely political and can be solved by talk and giveaways.  More than that, the lack of unequivocal condemnation of the attack by Arab leaders also shatters their other myth:  that of the moderate Muslim country.  There might be moderate Muslims but no moderate Muslim country.

The Parliament in “moderate” Jordan, did observe a moment of silence after the attack—but for the two Palestinian terrorists.  The Speaker prayed for them and called them martyrs.  Usually, however, only “radical” Muslim leaders expressed their approval by praising the anti-Jewish act; “moderate” Muslim leaders expressed theirs by refusing to condemn it.  Not to be outdone, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attack for the cameras, but blamed Israel for it.

We need a “Save-Soviet-Jewry” type effort.

Those of us who were around in the 1970s and 1980s will remember that back then, you could not pass a synagogue without seeing a large banner proclaiming, “Save Soviet Jewry.”  Our people were being persecuted in the Soviet Union, whose leaders wanted to eradicate their Jewish religion and identity.  A few, like Natan (then Anatole) Sharansky, who later became an Israeli Cabinet Minister, got some attention, but most suffered anonymously.  Members of the American Jewish community saw their persecuted brothers and sisters and recognized their obligation to save them.  More importantly, they acted on that obligation.

We lobbied Washington and our local officials.  We prevailed upon other religious bodies to recognize the atrocity, and their moral obligation to join us and let Washington know their position.

Average Jews who you might see at the office or in the supermarket went to Russia at their own expense.  They smuggled in religious books and other Jewish artifacts at considerable peril to themselves; and they let Jews there know that they were not alone.  It became common for Jewish children reaching their Bar and Bat Mitzvah to be “twinned” with Soviet children who did not have the freedom to celebrate this most important rite of passage; we did it for them.  Most Jewish children in religious schools had at least one Soviet Jewish pen pal.

There was no attempt to “understand” the Soviets or find the “good” in their communist ideology; and remember that back then, there were still those who defended communism as a “good idea in theory.”  No one felt compelled to say, ‘Well not all Russians are bad,’ because like similarly compulsions today, it did not change the heinousness of the action.  It did not matter if we were liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat; whether our synagogues were Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist.  Our organizations, long dedicated to a universalist image, put that aside to defeat the existential threat to our people.  And defeat it we did.  Before it was over, we helped get 1.2 million Jews out of that communist hell.   The rest found freedom not that many years later when “the evil empire” fell and that existential threat died with it.  The American Jewish community’s recognition of what all of us faced and our success in defeating it strengthened our identity, and helped us realize that we could in fact stand strong for our people, that the only thing that could stop us is ourselves.

And standing up for Israel is in our interests as Americans, too.  Our only constant ally in the region, Israel mourned after 9/11, while Palestinians gave out sweets to celebrate the terror attacks.  Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) tells how, beyond that, Israel sent us a body of experts so we could get our planes back in the skies.  And imagine for a moment what the 1991 Iraq War would have looked like if Israel had not taken out Sadam Hussein’s nuclear reactor.

Interfaith prayer meetings and understanding might in the end be needed for true peace, but right now, our priority is survival.  Those who minimized that in favor of political correctness can no longer do so in light of the November 18 attack.  As a start, Jewish organizations and those who stand with us against a final solution, should inform those Arab and Muslim organizations that they no longer can believe their statements of goodwill unless they unequivocally condemn the Jerusalem synagogue attack and all anti-Jewish actions.

American Jews need to recognize what comes first in Rabbi Hillel’s famous formulation:  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me; if I am only for myself, what am I; and if not now when?”

India can expect the media's "Israel treatment"

What is the media's "Israel treatment"?  It is the imposition of a general narrative over the situation, which then mandates that all events be interpreted within its framework; all editorial decisions about what gets covered (and what does not) and how it is covered must come out of that narrative.  Matti Friedman, who was an Associated Press reporter and editor in its Jerusalem bureau from 2006-2011, has done an excellent job of describing how that narrative works to mislead populations whose misinformed actions then seem to validate this "narrative construct that is largely fiction."  How would such a narrative work to distort any actions India might take to save Hindus in Bangladesh?

The media and its slavish followers have decided that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a "bad guy" and that Bangladesh is a "moderate Muslim country,"  both of which are as far from the truth as one can get.  If PM Modi is a bad guy, so must be the overwhelming number of Indians who gave him a landslide mandate in the world's largest democratic election ever.  Moreover, I have the pleasure of knowing him and know that he is sincere in his aspirations for his nation and all of its people.  On the other hand, Bangladesh has fallen under the grip of Islamists, who now control most of its major institutions.  (Al Qaeda and ISIS have recently opened offices there.)  Another of the media's cherished myths is that the current party in power, the Awami League, is the "good party," as opposed to its major opponent, the BNP,  Like the rest of the narrative, that too does not stand up to the reality of ongoing ethnic cleansing of Hindus and others in Bangladesh with the government's tacit support.

Here is one example of how the narrative distorts reality to make good guys into bad and bad guys into good.  Earlier this year, I was in Assam's tribal areas and observed the cultural and ecological damage massive infiltration from Bangladesh has brought to the region.  Forests are being destroyed, poaching is bringing both the elephant and one-horned rhino to the brink of extinction; the natives' children are being sent out of the area for their safety with the parents having little hope that they will return to their tribal culture; an ancient way of life and the ecology that supports it are dying, and the people in the area are restive.  On several occasions, that restiveness has erupted into violence (I've interviewed several elderly tribal victims of the violence); and the only thing preventing another, major eruption is the people's expectation that new Indian PM will protect them.  Yet, I told tribal leaders earlier this year that if they try to expel illegal infiltrators, the media will feature "bedraggled refugees," alleged victims of "nationalists."  Moreover, no major media outlet has covered the devastation to their land and way of life--even after Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina promised a continued flow of illegal aliens to Assam.

The media has left India with three difficult options.  It can cave into the narrative in an attempt to avoid criticism at the price of its people's safety.  It can ignore the narrative and hope that one day people will recognize the reality of the situation.  It can attempt some hybrid that probably leans toward the second option but attempts to mollify its critics. If the Israel experience is any guide, the first option is a disaster and will only invite more anti-Hindu rhetoric; and the third will prevent India from achieving the goals it wants to in order to protect its people. The second road is a tough one that brings potentially high political costs to the leader who follows it.  My own sense is that after centuries of other nations--first the mughals then the British then the West in general--treating India in a patronizing way and lecturing it on right and wrong; India is about to flex its muscles under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and take its rightful place as a world economic, cultural, and military leader.  How it handles the flood of infiltrators from Bangladesh, the Prime Minister's pre-election promise to protect neighboring Hindus from ongoing and state-supported persecution, and similar matters will test its mettle in the face of the narrative makers.

Obama vs. Cameron. Who stands with Israel?

I was going to write an extensive blog about how the murder of three Jewish teens is a human rights violation that the world has a tough time treating as one.  Instead, I am reproducing statements about the murder by US President Barack Obama and British PM David Cameron.

Obama:  "On behalf of the American people I extend my deepest and heartfelt condolences to the families of Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frankel – who held Israeli and American citizenship. As a father, I cannot imagine the indescribable pain that the parents of these teenage boys are experiencing. The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms this senseless act of terror against innocent youth. From the outset, I have offered our full support to Israel and the Palestinian Authority to find the perpetrators of this crime and bring them to justice, and I encourage Israel and the Palestinian Authority to continue working together in that effort. I also urge all parties to refrain from steps that could further destabilize the situation. As the Israeli people deal with this tragedy, they have the full support and friendship of the United States.”

Cameron:  "This was an appalling and inexcusable act of terror perpetrated against young teenagers. Britain will stand with Israel as it seeks to bring to justice those responsible. Tonight my thoughts and prayers are with the families of Gilad, Naftali and Eyal. No parent should have ever to suffer such heartache or grief."

Not much to say.  While Obama parses his words, uses the passive voice, and refrains from calling this heinous act terror; Cameron is clear and unequivocal.  Obama urges restraint and obliquely makes clear that an Israeli response could "destabilize the situation."  (Does he really think it's stable now?) Cameron stands with Israel in seeking to bring to justice "those responsible," who might include the actual murderers as well as those who sent glorified them.  Cameron also humanizes the three boys by calling them by their first names.

Did I fall asleep in one country and wake up in another?

Don't Believe Talking Points: Obama Foreign Policy a Disaster

In an article in Andrew Breitbart's foreign policy blog, Big Peace, I make the argument that the recent talking points about Obama's foreign policy miss the point. Specifically, they congratulate the President for the deaths of Bin Laden, Gadaffi, and Al Alawki--all bad guys, and allege they indicate his overall foreign policy success. While their deaths are blows to the other side, they have not stopped the progression of real dangers that remain strong thanks in large part due to Obama's policies. The article is the first of two, this one concentrating on the Middle East, the next on South Asia.

The focus is the Democrats' contention that Obama has "won back" US friends and influence around the world. In articles and speeches several years ago, I took issue with the notion that we really lost anything--except in the minds of racist and Euro-centric pundits. Now, however, we seen really to have lost true influence by policies that emphasize weakness, abdicate leadership, and equivocate on values.

The Palestinians, who Obama has gone out of his way to smooch, recently rejected his demands that they abandon their effort to secure statehood via the UN--a fool's errand in the first place. And who could blame them? In February, Obama made similar threats about repercussions if they went ahead with their anti-Israel building resolution; they did, and he didn't. The Israelis aren't listening to him, either; certainly not when he and his parroting Secretary of State "demand" they stop building; and very recently perhaps in planning a strike against Iran.

Iran is another example, by the way. First, they rejected his craven and embarrassing outreach; they went ahead and slaughtered their own citizens; and they have increased their sphere of influence at our expense. Obama's influence with Turkey has all but evaporated for this once-reliable ally, now a reliable flotilla-sponsoring antagonist.

Obama's love for the actions behind the Arab Spring has not prevented it from becoming an Arab Winter. We cannot even get our "new friends" to extradite the Lockerbie Bomber, responsible for the mass murder of 189 Americans.

And if you think that's bad, wait for the article on South Asia.

Jews Unite! Gaza Flotilla IS Anti-Semitism"

Why is it so difficult for we Jews to call out our enemies for what they are: Anti-Semites? Are Muslims afraid to toss around the charge of "Islamophobic" as easily as they tossed around candies to celebrate the 9/11 attacks? Have the left and their associates shied away from calling anyone who opposes them "racists"? And their charges are almost always disingenuous. Then why do we fear calling things what they are?

The knee-jerk Israel bashing response to the Gaza terror flotilla by the UN, EU, and the rest of the morally bankrupt idiots places their endemic anti-Semitism on full view. Israel--the Jewish State--acted in every way to stave off violence, and issued numerous warnings to the countries and entities involved. They told them that they were attempting to break a blockade and would be stopped from doing so. (Let's remember that the "blockaded" have launched thousands of missiles indiscriminately against Jewish children with that alphabet soup of anti-Semites consistently silent. I guess it's okay with them if Jews are killed; just don't mess with terrorists.) They offered to transfer any humanitarian supplies on the terror flotilla over land to Gaza--which would have satisfied the alleged humanitarian purpose of the flotilla and its Turkish Islamist backers; but they rejected it preferring violence against Israel instead. All of that is well-documented.

What needs to be called out is the anti-Semitic reaction--and it needs to be identified as such. Ask yourself what their reaction would have been if a group of Jews from Yesha lobbed missiles at schools in Syria? Ask them what their reaction would have been if the Jewish IDF opened fire first. And ask them why they all demand that Israel, the Jewish State, be investigated,, while they do not demand the same of provocateur Turkey, the Islamic State!

Once again, the US State Department failed to show the courage needed in this situation. As reported in the Washington Post, it issued a statement saying that the United States remains "deeply concerned by the suffering of civilians in Gaza" and "will continue to engage the Israelis on a daily basis to expand the scope and type of goods allowed into Gaza."

Nothing about the suffering of the Jewish children in Southern Israel, subject to constant rocket attack from the terrorist enclave; nothing about the openly Islamist intentions of the activists on board the flotilla; nothing about Turkey's role in generating this international incident and the loss of life President Obama "deeply regrets."

There is only one answer to this diplomatic pogrom, and that is self-defense by all Jews and our non-Jewish allies. Am I the only one who sees that? I doubt it. So where is the courage we have lauded in the past?

UPDATE: JUNE 3, 2010: As we knew would happen, there is more and more evidence of terrorist backing and involvement in what Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister called this "armada of hate." See my web site for new information, and for two new articles, see: Turkish 'aid' group had terror ties and 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom.'

The al Dura hoax, the non-massacre in Jenin, the doctored photos from Qana, and on and on: Too bad that Israel's bashers never let a silly thing like facts get in their way.

UPDATE: JUNE 3, 2010

Practical Jewish-Hindu Cooperation

On Sunday, April 25, 2010, there was a large rally held in front of the Israeli embassy in New York. Its purpose was to show support for the State of Israel and protest the current US administration’s policies that demonize the Jewish State. The day before, I was among three recipients of the Vishwa Hindu Ratna award at the Hindu Temple of Greater Chicago. The rally, organized largely by Jewish groups, was notable for the significant presence of Hindu and Sikh groups. The award was given to me, a Jew, for my principled and ongoing defense of Hindus, especially in Bangladesh. Participants at both events recognize that radical Islam and its passive tolerance threaten the very existence of Jews and Hindus respectively. (And for the record, all of us are Americans, too, another favorite target of Islamists.)

I agree with critical thinkers like Dr. Daniel Pipes, who argue against infusing political debate with religion. That can turn rational discourse into zero sum vilification in which each side accuses the other of moral atrocity and believes it is not debating an issue but defending the divine. I am also trained as a social scientist, however, and that training directs me to investigate significant social factors that appear regularly in the same set of events. So, while not all acts of terrorism in this world have been perpetrated by Islamists, that factor has appeared in the overwhelming number of terrorist actions that refusing to look at it sacrifices the scientific method in favor of political correctness. Similarly, Judaism and Hinduism were two very prominent factors helping to organize and explain the events of that weekend.

In Chicago, Hindus were adamant on thanking this Jew for defending their co-religionists; and subsequent to the New York rally, I was part of numerous email chains by Jews wanting to know how we can thank Hindus for their passionate participation. Perhaps it is time to return the favor and save lives at the same time. Just as Israel is facing an existential threat at this moment so, too, Bangladesh’s Hindus are dying. That is not opinion but fact. At the time of India’s partition in 1948, they made up a little less than a third of East Pakistan’s population. When East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971, Hindus were less than a fifth; thirty years later, less than one in ten; and some estimates put them at less than eight percent today. If we do nothing about it, they will follow Kashmir’s Hindu population into oblivion in our lifetime.

There are initial discussions underway to hold a rally in defense of these victims of ethnic cleansing, perhaps in New York (not clear yet), that would involve members of those same two religious communities. Clearly, such an event should resonate with all religious communities in the United States, this is simply the initial point of discussion. All individuals and organizations that would like to participate—if not by their presence by their donations—should contact me at drrbenkin@comcast.net; fully tax deductible online donations can be made by going to my web site, http://www.interfaithstrength.com and clicking the “Donate” button.

Israeli Diplomatic Offensive a No-Brainer

In late March, according to the AP, “Britain took the extraordinary step Tuesday of expelling an Israeli diplomat for the first time in more than 20 years, after concluding there was compelling evidence that Israel was responsible for the use of forged British passports in the plot to slay a senior Hamas operative in Dubai.” Ironically, the man behind the move, UK Foreign Minister David Milliband, justified the move by saying that the high-quality fakes were “almost certainly made by a state intelligence service.” After taking such strong action, he also “insisted Britain has drawn no conclusions over who is responsible for the killing. Is there any question that Britain’s move was political and nothing else?

In August, for instance, an international committee accused the UK of selling arms that “killed civilians” in Sri Lanka and that were used to make IEDs in Iraq. The government responded by promising a “full review.” That was eight months ago; the alleged Israel incident occurred in January. Did the British expel diplomats from Saudi Arabia over any of its numerous human rights violations? Or from Russia during any of the mini-wars, anti-terror operations, or crackdowns? Even more shocking, did the British do anythingto Iranian diplomats enjoying its hospitality during the recent murders of dissidents, government-led oppression of religious and ethnic minorities, or any other Iranian atrocities? But it did it to Israel for something only alleged and far less deadly than the incidents noted above. Now, it is “re-considering” any arms sales to Israel. That should be the last straw.

How far have Israel and its friends have allowed this Israel’s international standing to fall? The Dubai assassination took out a terrorist and Hamas arms trafficker; yet, the resulting furor was aimed exclusively at the assassins. There was no expression of thanks to whoever took out this known terrorist, responsible for the death of many innocents. What kind of topsy-turvy world it this? Nor was there any acknowledgment that Israel—and for that matter, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, because it is still not clear who arranged the hit—has a legitimate right to protect its citizens and its very existence. Clearly, those who have sounded off on this incident have lost any semblance of a moral compass.

Israel has been rather passive in response to an international onslaught of vilification of which this is but the latest example, regardless of which party is in power—and it has not worked. There is no shortage of otherwise impotent countries and groups lining up to take pot shots at the world’s only Jewish State. Strategists should ask if they foresee a time when those nations will simply decide to stop doing that and treat Israel treated like other nations. Unless they can come up with a “yes” to that, it clearly is time for a change. Israel and America have allowed their enemies to take the initiative and set the agenda for their existential war on terror; doing little more than responding to the most recent provocation with the likelihood being that the enemy has anticipated the response. Why do we think the Gaza weapons factories and smuggling tunnels are always empty when Israel bombs them after a terrorist attack? When al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attack against the United States from its strongholds in Afghanistan it is highly unlikely that the US invasion of that South Asian nation surprised anyone. When Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists stepped up their attacks on Israeli civilians and then captured Israelis from Israeli territory; did they not expect Israel to launch the 2006 Operation Defensive Shield? And even if they suspected that the United States and Israel might have the resolve to finish the job, they knew they could count on the “international community” to lend a hand in preventing that.

Israel, however, is not a beggar nation without recourse. It can use its strengths to force those whose main desire is placating Israel’s enemies to think twice before engaging in that sort of morally bankrupt diplomacy. It can start with the current crisis. Instead of engaging in an empty tit-for-tat move, expelling some marginal British diplomat in a move that will be forgotten and rectified in not too long, try hitting them where it hurts. The British economy is still going through a difficult time, and quite a few British companies depend on the business they do in Israel: British Gas, Apax Partners, Unilever, HSBC, British Airways, Lloyds of London, and Rolls Royce Aero Engines among others. There is rather extensive evidence that one of them HSBC, has had a role in helping to fund anti-Israel terrorist groups. The allegation first arose in 2004, when Washington attorney Allen Gerson targeted HSBC, Citigroup, and others for channeling funds through their Saudi subsidiaries to Palestinian terror groups. Five years later, HSBC was accused of supporting “financial jihad” in the form of disruptive banking techniques also through its Saudi branch and “Sharia advisor.” Also in 2009, HSBC (as well as a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland) was accused of funneling money to Hamas through a Gaza facility. It would not be unreasonable for the Israeli government to restrict HSBC’s activities, suspend its license, levy fines, or launch a highly public government investigation of HSBC for supporting terrorism. They can do this, moreover, without jeopardizing the benefits that the relationship brings to both countries, as it is in no one’s interest to escalate the crisis over Israel’s actions—unless Israel shows that its enemies in Britain can do what they wish without fear of meaningful action.

Similarly, Israeli longshoremen and other laborers can refuse to unload or otherwise handle goods that have been processed by members of the British unions who called for a boycott of the Jewish state. They might even prevail upon their cohorts in the United States to do the same, as every major American union previously joined the Jewish Labor Unions denunciation of the Brits’ boycott call.

Perhaps nothing enrages Israel and its supporters as much, however, as when governments like Britain take a holier-than-thou attitude toward Israel, condemning it for legitimate self-defense actions that pale in comparison to their own. If Israel’s vaunted intelligence agency is as good as its reputation suggests, it would not be difficult for the Mossad to leak information about real torture, for instance, committed by British security forces in Ireland or atrocities in the Falklands. Have all the actions of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan been beyond reproach. Certainly, there are incidents that rise to the level of the accusations they hurl against Israel. As The Economist noted, when commenting on the current Israel-British row, “Israel provides Britain with much needed intelligence on areas such as Iran which it will be reluctant to forfeit.” So, Israel is not without assets it can marshal to forestall similar feigned outrage by governments in Britain and elsewhere.

When countries like the UK can take this sort of harsh actions far out of proportion to any alleged offense, knowing that it can do so with impunity; when the world’s worst human rights offenders feel free to lecture Israel about human rights with the only reaction pat on the back; it is time to change the dynamic that works only for the international “bad guys.”

Ignore Indian events at our own Peril

For the past year, I have been saying that the political center in India is collapsing. The re-election of the left-centrist Congress Party last year only masked this inevitable decline because the finale might not come this year, or maybe even next; but it is coming, and when it does it will be with an explosion heard round the world. I was in India for just over two weeks in February, and during that time noted:

• Relations with fellow nuclear power Pakistan deteriorated in a hail of harsh rhetoric and threats such that the Obama administration sent Senator John Kerry to try and “calm” tensions.
• Pakistan first refused to join in scheduled talks with India about the former’s involvement in a 2008 terror attack that killed almost 200 Indians.
• Later, they agreed to talk only if they focused on Kashmir—a territorial dispute between the countries that has sparked skirmishes, continued terror and counter-terror operations, and all out wars between the two. India wanted to focus on terrorism, but acquiesced and said they would consider the matter but insisted the talks concentrate on terrorism.
• While this was happening, Islamists launched another deadly Islamist terrorist attack, this time on Pune, a major Indian city of over 5,000,000 people, that at last count took 13 lives and left over five dozen injured.
• Initial investigations identified the terrorists as Indian citizens, known as Indian Mujahedeen who are committed to replacing India with an Islamist state.
• Subsequent investigations confirmed that fact and added that the operation likely was directed from Pakistan.
• The Indian government announced that American Islamist David Headley gave his captors information about the “Karachi Project” that was carried out by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. He said the ISI brought sympathetic Indian Muslims to Pakistan, trained them in terrorist techniques, and returned them to India where they were to await further instructions to carry out terrorist attacks.
• Communist insurgents, known as Naxalites, abducted a government official in the state of Bihar and refused to release him until the government caved into their demands, one of which was for the Indian government to end its, very effective, military crackdown on the Maoist revolutionaries.
• Naxalites carried out a half dozen military operations against the government and people of India. Among the many terror operations were at least two of particular note. They launched a particularly gruesome attack on an unarmed paramilitary camp in which more than two dozen soldiers were shot or burned alive; and an unknown number of wounded were seized and taken to undisclosed locations as hostages. They also attacked an unarmed village in the Jamui district of Bihar because its inhabitants refused cooperate with their insurgency. They murdered several villagers, including some who were burned alive when the Maoists torched homes in the village.
• Islamists carried out several terror attacks, mostly in Kashmir, but in other areas of India, as well. The attacks killed both civilians and military personnel indiscriminately.
• The government’s anti-terror squad prevented another half dozen Islamist terror attacks, seizing 200 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, 600 detonators, and 200 gel sticks from known Muslim terrorists, in one raid in Gujurat (a state that has been a rallying cry for Islamists after violence there in 2002. The government also detained two British nationals caught at a hotel near the international airport with high-tech devices for monitoring and tracking air traffic.
• Students rioted—and as of the time I left were still rioting—at an Indian university in Hyderabad in the South of the country At the time I left India, one student was near death after self-immolating as part of the protest.

Imagine the media coverage if any one of those things occurred in the United States. Yet, from what I could glean from the Internet and elsewhere, it appears that our own media (except for a few journals that ran my articles) devoted far more ink to Tiger Woods than to all of these events combined. India is a nuclear power, as is the United States. India, like the US, is a major target of international jihiadis. Its other primary adversary also has nuclear weapons as do those of the United States. Both countries are among the largest and most populous nations on earth. Both are among the world’s most important economic powers. And both countries are critical if Islamist and communist imperialism and terror are to be defeated.

Indians are questioning the United States' reliability as an ally in the war against radical Islam. Our continuing aid to Pakistan--aid which even former Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf admitted had been channeled against India--is incomprehensible to most Indians without relying on cynicism about politics; and the Obama administration's policies have led most anti-Islamists to conclude that his administration would sacrifice allies like Indian and Israel if it meant even a superficial friendship from America's worst enemies.

A Phony Peace Process

If we were to demand honesty from our political leaders, media, and international groups, we would have long ago banned the phrase "the peace process" from all discussions of what has happened with regard to the Israel-Arab conflict to date.There is no Middle East peace process; never has been. The reason for that is not Israeli "settlements," not Hamas per se, not President Obmama. The problem predates all of them. And there is no sillier notion with currency in the world today than that of the solution being an end to the so-called "occupation"; that is, Israeli hegemony over lands re-captured during the 1967 Six-Day War.

The idea of the occupation is perhaps the most damaging of them all because it has focused world attention on a goal that has nothing to do with peace between Israel and the Arabs. First of all, the lands in question were determined merely by troop positions at the end of Israel's 1948 War of Independence--where Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian troops were at the moment an armistice was announced. That's it; there was no natural mandate, no historical consciousness, no nothing, just troops. Second, expecting peace from an end to that so-called occupation presumes that there was peace before 1967 when it came into existence. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The Arabs were trying to "drive the Jews into the sea," as they put it since before the State of Israel came into existence. Their collective militaries invaded the new Jewish State at the moment of its birth with that goal in mind. The 1967 War itself was a defensive war, in which Israel struck Egypt only after the latter committed an act of war, according to international law, with a blockade and by massing troops on its border. Syria and Jordan went to war before being attacked--and Israeli leaders had frantically tried to convince Jordan to stay out of the war, but the latter invaded nonetheless.

Let's also remember that before 1967, the "West Bank," Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem were occupied continuously by Muslim powers: from 1948 by Jordan and Egypt and before then by Turkey. Yet, there was no cry for them to allow a "Palestinian State" to take shape on those lands. Never! In 1964--three years before Israel gained control of those lands, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was born and made no mention of an end to that Arab occupation; not a word for Jordan and Egypt to give up those lands. But it did call for Israel's destruction--all of Israel!

So if we really want peace, we need to give up the notion of a return to 1967. There was no peace then, so why would we want to return to it? The concept of "land for peace" was always an idiotic idea. The real issue in the Israel-Arab conflict is and always was the latter's refusal to accept a viable Jewish State of Israel in the Middle East. Until that is addressed head-on as the key, peace will remain elusive.

What, then, does peace require?

* That every Arab and Muslim leader commit themselves to defending the existence of a Jewish State of Israel among their people. Not every policy or action, but that State's legitimacy and very existence.

* That probably means cooperating with Israel--militarily if necessary--to defeat terror groups that refuse the peace.

* It means that all parties must defend equal Jewish and Muslim access and legitimacy to all holy sites, including Jerusalem's Temple Mount, Hebron's Cave of Machpelah, and so forth; regardless of which party has political hegemony.

* It means that the Arabs have to reform their educational system to eliminate all the negative and hate-filled lessons about Jews and their State.

* Arabs must give up the notion of flooding Israel with millions of Arabs under their so-called right of return; because it is just a disingenuous way of appearing to accept a Jewish State while working to destroy it. Let's stop pretending it is anything else.

* And it means that the rest of the world--which really has no skin in the game--has to commit to support this genuinepeace process, no matter how many of their assumptions have to die.

Does that solve all the problems; does it provide the parties with mutual trust? No, but without them, peace will never come, and with them, there is no chance that it will not.

Arab Responsibility for Palestinian "Refugees"

Through a continuous bombardment of propaganda intended to supplant historical fact, the Arabs have made the so-called refugee problem a key element in their war against Israel. Today, they use it as the basis for their claimed "right of return," which is intended to force Israel to accept millions of Arabs into their country and so destroy the Jewish state. Those familiar with the history of 1948 know that Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the new Jewish state so they could destroy it and then return to claim the entire land. The Palestinian Media Watch recently published testimony by Palestinians--who were there at the time--that confirms the historical truth that the refugee problem is a fabricated one and not the fault of Israel. The fact is that anyone who includes an Arab "right of return" in a peace agreement supports the destruction of Israel and is therefore not a worthy negotiating partner.

The six testimonies are:

"The radio stations of the Arab regimes kept repeating to us: "Get away from the battle lines. It's a matter of ten days or two weeks at the most, and we'll bring you back to Ein-Kerem." (Palestinian TV, 2009)

"The first war between Arabs and Israel had started and the "Arab Salvation Army" told the Palestinians: 'We have come to you in order to liquidate the Zionists and their state. Leave your houses and villages, you will return to them in a few days safely. Leave them so we can fulfill our mission (liquidate Israel) in the best way and so you won't be hurt." (Al Ayyam, 2008)

"The leaders and the elites promised us [refugees] at the beginning of the "Catastrophe" in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave until they put their trust in those[worthless] promises made by the leaders and the political elites." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 2006)

"They [Arab leaders] told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours" (Al Ayyam, 2006)

"Like the armies of your predecessors in the year of 1948, who forced us to leave [Israel], on the pretext of clearing the battlefields of civilians." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 2001)

"Son of refugee: 'Mr. Ibrahim [Sarsur]: I address you as a Muslim. My father and grandfather told me that during the "Catastrophe" [in 1948], our District Officer issued an order that whoever stays in Palestine and in Majdel [southern Israel] is a traitor, he is a traitor.'" (Palestinian TV, 1999)

The Arab narrative about Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount has been a deliberate attempt to replace historical fact with propaganda.

The Truth WILL set us Free

In January, I helped force an anti-Israel conference to be canceled in Australia. As so many anti-Israel events are, this one too was cloaked in the language of human rights. In fact, the conference organizer, Maqsood Alshams, was known as a human rights activist Down Under, and the conference was to "debate" charging Israel with war crimes for the Gaza War.


A few days before it was to begin, however, the conference organizer made some blatantly anti-Semitic remarks and used them--not human rights--to explain his rationale for the conference. With the help of several Australians, we exposed him. (Now, to be sure, that faux human rights language is more times than not a fig leaf for anti-Semitism, which we exposed in this case. But it was not the rabid Israel haters (and Jew haters) who were the key. If anything, they would have cheered Alshams' remarks. The key was the academic institutions and liberal participants, including Jews who justified their participation by "compassion for the Palestinians.

Even after Alshams' anti-Semitism was exposed in one of Australia's most widely-read dailies, they were not planning to pull out of the conference. It took another day of emphasizing the poison that was the rationale for the conference before they did. "I don't want to confuse the Palestinian issues that I care about with any form of racism or anti-Semitism," said one of the academics, explaining his pullout. "As a Jew who condemns anti-Semitism I though it would be inappropriate to engage in a debate in that kind of environment," said another.

And that's the key. Regardless of how chic it has become in those circles to be anti-Israel, it is still difficult for participants to associate themselves with open and blatant "racism or anti-Semitism." As the Australian conference is far from unique (we have seen recent examples of the same in Canada, for instance), Israel's supporters world wide should be vigilant and ready to act in similar situations. It is not all that difficult if we (1) have truth and justice on our side; (2) are active in smoking out these things; and (3) have an organized effort ready to act whenever we do.

The elements are all there, too, and I offer to work with anyone who wants to see the same results we gained in Australia this January.

Concern Mounting again for pro-Israel Muslim, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

The fact that the fight for Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has reached an impasse should lead no one to conclude that his defenders have given up. Not a week goes by when I do not receive at least one interrogatory about it; and even as I have been speaking about saving the Bangladeshi Hindus from government-tolerated discrimination, the host always begins by asking me for an update on Shoaib.

Calls and emails come from media and from average citizens wanting to know if he is all right and what they can do to help. And people still ask about boycotting Bangladeshi goods, something I have opposed to this point. And there is continued concern from governments, as well. The Australian Foreign Ministry expressed interest in meeting with me for an update on the case and to see what might be proper for it to do. In a recent letter to Australian Senator Ursula Stephens, it wrote that “The Australian Government will continue to encourage the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that Mr. Choudhury’s trial is conducted in an expeditious and transparent fashion in accordance with proper judicial process and that his human rights are respected at all times. A high ranking member of the ruling party, Stephens is close to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and has been an outspoken advocate for Shoaib Choudhury.

The Foreign Ministry’s letter points to the next phase of the international struggle for justice in this case. First focused on gaining Shoaib’s release from imprisonment and torture, we shifted after that success when several government officials admitted that the charges against him were “false…and only maintained to appease the radicals.” We exposed the truth behind the prosecution, but the former (BNP) government went forward with the case; and in doing so, decided their political need to “appease the radicals” was more important than the damage they were doing to the people of Bangladesh. Their decision has meant that every piece of legislation intended to provide tariff relief for Bangladeshi imports to the United States has been defeated. (The United States imports about 70 percent of Bangladesh’s garment exports, and has free trade agreements and other relationships with several garment exporting countries that are steadily eroding Bangladesh’s place in the US market as a result.) Several members of the Bangladeshi government were told that these consequences would follow their continued need to placate radicals, as “the American people do not intend to spend their money to support their enemies.”

Once the legal proceedings began, internationally famed human rights attorney Irwin Cotler filed an amicus curiae brief that identified almost two dozen ways in which the case violated Bangladesh’s own laws and international human rights laws. Dr. Cotler has defended such luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Andrei Sakharov, and Saad Ibrahim, as well as Shoaib Choudhury. Moreover, the proceedings have been carried out contrary to accepted principles of justice worldwide: in five and a half years since the charges were brought, the government has been unable to provide one shred of evidence to support them; on August 6, 2008, when it made a completely fictitious allegation alleged that Shoaib wrote an article entitled, “Hello Tel Aviv” for USA Today, the trial judge demanded proof of the article, or he would dismiss the case; the government never provided any, and the judge never raised the issue again. The government had one witness, the officer in charge of Shoaib’s 2003 arrest, and he has not shown up to testify for the past several court dates. There is a legal principle in civil societies world wide that “justice delayed is justice denied”; and so in any society of laws, the court would have issued a warrant for the witness to testify or dismissed the case. Bangladesh has done neither. These various illegal irregularities on the part of the Bangladeshi government, prompted one US official to suggest to me in April that “because they have no case against Shoaib, the Bangladeshis are making the legal process his punishment.”

Many people have wondered if Bangladesh’s Awami League government will break from the policies of its predecessor or continue them, making only cosmetic changes to enhance it own image. On January 12, several members of the US Congress (Republicans, Democrats, and committees that determine appropriations and trade legislation) sent a letter to the then newly elected Prime Minister. They congratulated Sheikh Hasina on her electoral victory and noted that her first step in bringing “democracy, integrity and prosperity to Bangladesh” should be “to quickly drop all charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.” “Doing so,” they noted, “will take a significant step toward restoring faith in the Bangladeshi government and removing a significant obstacle in Bangladeshi-American relations.”

It has not, which means that Bangladeshi goods will continue to be assessed higher tariffs than those of its competitors. The fact that the Awami League government has done nothing to demonstrate that it is any different from is prompting some legal experts to explore a case against Bangladesh at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Others are looking to see if Shoaib’s persecution should exclude Bangladesh from UN peacekeeping forces.

In a meeting at the Bangladeshi Embassy in Washington, Ambassador M. Humayun Kabir addressed Bangladesh’s inability to gain favorable trade status in the US by asking me, “How can you hold up aid for 150 million people because of one man?”

“How can I? How can you?” I responded. “You’re the ones prosecuting a case you have admitted to be false. You’re the ones telling the rest of the world that you place the feelings of the radicals above your own laws. All you have to do is stop it. How can I? How can you do this to your people?”