Think about this one, folks:

After weeks of terrorist fedayeen attacks on American forces, Allied troops managed to catch a large group of these militants in open battle. Casualty lists varied, with the official American toll listing 54 guerrillas killed. Iraqi sources listed 8 civilians dead, however.

The Smooth Stone team woud like to take the opportunity to make a simple comparison, with the help of an idea from Voice of Judea. Imagine that instead of 'American,' or 'Allied' forces, the story listed 'Israeli' or 'Jewish,' and instead of Iraqis, the news item spoke of "Palestinian fatalities."

What would world reaction be? Would America be at all supportive of it? Doubtful. Would the UN and world community accept it with even a modicum of understanding? Hardly. Demands for a UN mission in Israel would arise. The International War Crimes tribunal would place every Israeli solider and officer even distantly involved in the operation on trial. Why is there the special treatment for Israel?

As obvious as the answer is, most people simply don't know. I will present the following points and leave it to the reader to decide. Israel is the only country to be threatened with annihilation time and time again and still refrain from taking simple logical steps to free itself of these threats. Israel is the only country to be bombed relentlessly without a serious response aimed at defeating the enemy entity (in this case the PA), despite its ability to do so.

What the Geneva Protocols Really Say

What the Geneva Protocols Really Say
There have been many accusations that Israel has committed war crimes and massacres in fighting the Palestinians, up to and including charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide. But these accusations do not hold up according to the Geneva Protocols, even with regard to the operations in Jenin, and the targeted killings.

The "Geneva Protocol" in question is the "Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." This lays down the "law" for situations where an army finds itself fighting non-conventional forces that themselves operate from within civilian areas: The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas. Those who are actually fighting the war are not considered "protected persons." Only civilians are granted the status of "protected persons" whose rights cannot be violated with impunity.

The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas, the Jenin terrorists, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and all of the other terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations, in one sentence: This sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28.

It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

This sentence appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely to deal with situations like the ones the Israelis faced.

Here's how: Israel is at war with Hamas and Palestinian militant organizations wreaking terrorist havoc. Hamas and al-Aqksa, et al are at war with Israel. But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians - the "protected persons" mentioned in 3:1:28 - as living camouflage. To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances.

Again, let's check out that 3:1:28 sentence: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." There were plenty of "protected persons" in Jenin (and applicable to other areas). The Palestinian terrorists wanted it that way: they choose to live in their camps with their families and hundreds of others around them so that they would serve as human shields, knowing that the Israeli army is reluctant to attack those areas like the Russians did in Grozny.

And because the terrorists do set up in civilian areas, they are wholly responsible for what happens to their "protected persons" - that is, the civilian population where they hide out.

That's what the very next sentence of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: "the party to the conflict in whose hand protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."

Let's translate: The "party to the conflict" here is Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqska, etc. Because they choose to live in and fight from a civilian setting, the "protected persons" are deemed to be "in his [their] hands." And since they are in the terrorists'', these terrorists "is[are] responsible for the treatment accorded to them."

This is mainstream thinking about Geneva Convention issues, by noted legal scholars. The Palestinians fight from within civilian areas- therefore civilians - who knowingly support and give aid to the terrorists- lose any and all immunity from Geneva Convention rights - and that would include human shields. Israel is therefore in no violation according to the Geneva Conventions - whereas the Palestinians, if they had been signatories- would have no rights of protection, since in Jenin, and in other places where there is conflict, they have abrogated those rights to which they are claiming that Israel is violating.

DAY OF INFAMY 2001 - Holiday toy glorifies 9-11 Osama figurine with burning Twin Towers on sale in West Bank.

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As family members of Sept. 11 victims brace for a third holiday season without their loved ones, the celebration of the hijackers' atrocity continues among Palestinians in the West Bank through the sale of children's toys.

StrategyPage.com, a military insiders' newssite and forum, has posted a photograph of one of the toys being sold in the streets of Gaza and Ramallah.

The toy depicts a joyous Osama bin Laden holding a replica of the Pentagon in one hand and gesturing to miniature Twin Towers crowned with flames and smoke with the other.

Palestinians glorifying the 9-11 massacre is nothing new, as hundreds danced in the streets of the West Bank in reaction to the first reports of the news. Palestinians blame the United States for condoning and assisting their perceived oppression by Israel.

WorldNetDaily has reported on the association between the head of the al-Qaida terror network responsible for the 9-11 attack and Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat. Prior to Sept. 11, bin Laden was set to join Arafat's uprising against Israel. According to an intelligence report, the U.S. tipped off Israel that al-Qaida cells in Lebanon were complete and ready to launch strikes in Israel. They operated under the command of Imad Mughniyeh, terrorism and intelligence consultant to Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the report.

The 9-11 toy represents a tribute to bin Laden and reflects the deep-seated hatred toward Israel manifested in scores of suicide bombings aimed at Israelis.

WorldNetDaily reported high-ranking public officials and prominent columnists in the Middle East even promoted a claim that Jews perpetrated the terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

Conspiracy theorists latched onto false reports in Jordan's Al Watan newspaper and on Lebanon's Al-Manara Television that 4,000 Israelis who worked in the World Trade Center didn't report for work on Sept. 11.

The alleged conspiracy was even touted among prominent Muslim leaders within the United States.

"All the signs indicate that the Jews have the most to gain from an explosion like that," Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gamei'a, the imam of the Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque of New York City, told the website alazhar-gaza.edu, an unofficial Al-Azhar University site. "They are the only ones capable of planning such acts."

Propagating a hate for Israel among Palestinian children is nothing new. WorldNetDaily has reported on programs broadcast by Palestinian television that demonize Israelis as murderers and encourage young Palestinians to take up arms against the Jewish state.

Music videos played on Palestinian television earlier this year suggested Israelis kill both elderly and infant Palestinians and presented the message to children that throwing stones at Israelis is honorable.

A recent Syrian-produced prime-time show aired an age-old anti-Semitic libel on Hezbollah TV that purports to tell the story of the Zionist movement by depicting Jews murdering a Christian boy to drain his blood for use in the special bread eaten at the Jewish Passover feast.

Al-Qaeda's Christian Targets

A link to Havdala's Doves and Pomegranates site, about Al-Qaeda's Christian Targets
Paul Marshall offers a useful summation of the evidence that Al-Qaeda targeted Christians, not Muslims, in Riyadh — and of the dangers of glossing over that evidence.

"The media," says Marshall, "seem to equate Arab with Muslim and, along with some in the administration, think that al Qaeda's war is against Americans and Westerners per se, rather than against all 'infidels,' a group al Qaeda defines idiosyncratically and expansively as anyone who is not a strictly observant Muslim. Both mistakes are compounded by reliance on the Saudis' distorted account of the attack.

"The November 8 bombing took place in a Lebanese Christian neighborhood of Riyadh, and of the seven publicly identified Lebanese victims, six were Christian. Lebanon's newspapers are replete with photographs of Maronite Catholic and Greek Orthodox victims. Daleel al Mojahid, an al Qaeda-linked webpage, praised the killing of 'non-Muslims.' The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes Abu Salma al Hijazi, reputed to be an al Qaeda commander, as saying that Saudi characterizations of the victims as Muslims were 'merely media deceit.'"

After all, the Prophet Muhammad says, "War is deceit" (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, nos. 267-9).

Gedud HaIvri

Gedud HaIvri
Jewish mysticism holds that dogs can sense the presence of the Angel of Death.
Now Jewish settlers are reviving an ancient partnership, acquiring specialized canines to fend off Palestinians waging a 22-month-old uprising against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

By night, settlers from the self-styled "Jewish Legion" patrol their hilltop communities with Belgian shepherds donated by foreign friends and trained to sniff out and pounce on intruders before they can go on shooting sprees.

"Generous donors from abroad -- gentiles and Jews alike who believe in our right to live -- supplied the dogs hoping they will prevent men, women and children being butchered in their homes," Legion director Yekutiel Ben-Yaakov said on Friday.

He said dogs were considered by ancient Jewish canon as gifted with a "sixth sense" for danger. They are mentioned in the Talmud as guardians of ancient Israelites. "Our sages say dogs are blessed because when the Israelites fled Egypt at the time of Exodus, they did not bark and alert the Egyptians," Ben-Yaakov said. "They looked out for us then, and they're looking out for us now."

He declined to disclose how many of the dogs -- costing between $3,000 and $10,000 each -- had been deployed, saying only that they were already in use in several West Bank settlements which had suffered serious attacks.

In one of these, Itamar, two night-time Palestinian infiltrations in as many months killed nine people this year.

In nearby Tapuach this week, Legion trainers put a dozen trainee handlers through their paces with the dogs.

TRAINING PROGRAM

A sleek bitch called Zara bared fangs on command and galloped across the settlement's open field to seize the kevlar sleeve worn by a trainer posing an attacker. The moment he put his hands up in surrender, she backed off watchfully.

Smell becomes the animal's trigger after dark.

"Fear, exhilaration and hatred make a person exude a distinctive odor, which the dogs pick up. Their rudimentary bomb-sniffer training means they are also sensitive to the presence of ordnance," Guy, a Legion trainer, told Reuters.

Around 200,000 Jews live in 145 settlements built in the West Bank and Gaza since Israel took the two territories in a 1967 war. The international community regards the settlements as illegal under international law. Israel disputes this.

Though common household pets in Israel, dogs are not used extensively in its security forces aside from select police and army bomb-sniffer units.

The Legion, and a government-backed initiative called Kalbi designed to supply Israelis with dogs trained to spot and subdue Palestinian suicide bombers, are recent exceptions.

Some experts believe Jews are burdened by their unhappy history with the beasts.

"Our problem is that the use of dogs by us immediately invokes memories of the Holocaust, because the Nazis used dogs in the concentration camps," veteran trainer Nir Harman told Israel's mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

Palestinians are also uncomfortable with canine culture, shunning the animals because Islam considers them unclean.

Many Palestinians also believe Israel's use of sniffer dogs at border crossing points in the Gaza Strip is designed to intimidate and humiliate them.

Ben-Yaakov rejected such associations with his work.

"Our dogs are not attack dogs, per se. They are defensive guard dogs trained to subdue, rather than kill," he said.
###
The Smooth Stone Team has first-hand experience with defensive guard dogs that spans over 30 years. Dogs, and the love and loyalty they provide, continuously prove that Adam did indeed walk and commune with the animals in the Garden of Eden. The relationship between a dog and his loving Master is so very spiritual and the relationship presents an ongoing opportunity for the observant Jew to perfom the ethical treatment of animals, as prescribed by Judaic and Halachic law.

Website remembering the Shoah: collection of documentary photographs, reproductions of works of art, poetry and essays

Website remembering the Shoah
An interesting collection of documentary photographs, reproductions of works of art, poetry and essays on the Shoah.

Most of the material herein concerns the annihilation of Jews by the Nazis in the occupied Poland in the years 1939-1945.

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism: Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews

Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews by Emanuele Ottolenghi
Saturday November 29, 2003
The Guardian

Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it.

Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.

There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.

If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?

Despite piqued disclaimers, some of Israel's critics use anti-semitic stereotypes. In fact, their disclaimers frequently offer a mask of respectability to otherwise socially unacceptable anti-semitism. Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got. Others speak of Zionist conspiracies to dominate the media, manipulate American foreign policy, rule the world and oppress the Arabs. By describing Israel as the root of all evil, they provide the linguistic mandate and the moral justification to destroy it. And by using anti-semitic instruments to achieve this goal, they give away their true anti-semitic face.

There is of course the open question of whether this applies to anti-Zionism. It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their _expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an _expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much. (Guardian --UK)

· Emanuele Ottolenghi is the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel Studies at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford

From RadioRote Updates on Anti-Semitism: http://www.geocities.com/radiorote/as.html

Israpundit has just posted an exclusive interview with Shaykh Palazzi

IsraPundit, a popular pro-Israel blog, has a post devoted to an exclusive e-interview with Shaykh Prof Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the remarkable Italian-Moslem cleric whose support for Israel has been the subject of many articles. Prof. Palazzi is one of the few Moslem clerics whose opposition to radical Islam and support for Israel are unequivocal.

The object of the interview was to solicit Prof Palazzi's views on a variety of topics not covered elsewhere, ranging from the peace plans floated recently, to the Koranic passages which appear anti-Semitic, encourage violence, and suggest subjugation of Jews, Christians and other infidels.

In contrast to many published interviews, where Prof Palazzi's responses are paraphrased and quoted in third person, the text given here quotes Prof Palazzi's responses verbatim.

A few biographical notes about Prof. Palazzi as well as a selected list of links to relevant articles are given at the end of the interview.

Visit IsraPundit to read this engrossing interview.

Who is Julie Burchill?

From RadioRote:

The maverick British journalist Julie Burchill, who is a veritable household name in the UK, has decided to quit 'The Guardian' because of what she perceives as its biased views on Israel.

As you might have heard, I'm leaving the Guardian next year for the Times, having finally been convinced that my evil populist philistinism has no place in a publication read by so many all-round, top-drawer plaster saints. (Well, that and the massive wad they've waved at me.)

Once there, I will compose as many love letters to the likes of Mr Murdoch and Pres Bush as my black little heart desires, leaving those who have always objected to my presence on such a fine liberal newspaper as this to read only writers they agree with, with no chance of spoiled digestion as the muesli goes down the wrong way if I so much as murmur about bringing back hanging. (Public.) Not only do I admire the Guardian, I also find it fun to read, which in a way is more of a compliment.

But if there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. Which, for all its faults, is the only country in that barren region that you or I, or any feminist, atheist, homosexual or trade unionist, could bear to live under.

I find this hard to accept because, crucially, I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad. Judeophobia - as the brilliant collection of essays A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia In 21st-Century Britain (axt.org.uk), published this year, points out - is a shape-shifting virus, as opposed to the straightforward stereotypical prejudice applied to other groups (Irish stupid, Japanese
cruel, Germans humourless, etc).

Jews historically have been blamed for everything we might disapprove of: they can be rabid revolutionaries, responsible for the might of the late Soviet empire, and the greediest of fat cats, enslaving the planet to the demands of international high finance. They are insular, cliquey and clannish, yet they worm their way into the highest positions of power in their adopted countries, changing their names and marrying Gentile women. They collectively possess a huge, slippery ! wealth that knows no boundaries - yet Israel is said to be an impoverished, lame-duck state, bleeding the west dry.

If you take into account the theory that Jews are responsible for everything nasty in the history of the world, and also the recent EU survey that found 60% of Europeans believe Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world today (hmm, I must have missed all those rabbis telling their flocks to go out with bombs strapped to their bodies and blow up the nearest mosque), it's a short jump to reckoning that it was obviously a bloody good thing that the Nazis got rid of six million of the buggers. Perhaps this is why sales of Mein Kampf are so buoyant, from the Middle Eastern bazaars unto the Edgware Road, and why The Protocols of The Elders of Zion could be found for sale at the recent Anti-racism Congress in Durban.

The fact that many Gentiles and Arabs are rabidly Judeophobic, while many others are as horrified by Judeophobia as by any other type of racism, makes me believe that anti-semitism/Zionism is not a political position (otherwise the right and the left, the PLO and the KKK, would not be able to unite so uniquely in their hatred), but about how an individual feels about himself. I can't help noticing that, over the years, a disproportionate number of attractive, kind, clever people are drawn to Jews; those who express hostility to them, however, from Hitler to Hamza, are often as not repulsive freaks.

Think of famous anti-Zionist windbags - Redgrave, Highsmith, Galloway - and what dreary, dysfunctional, po-faced vanity confronts us. When we consider famous Jew-lovers, on the other hand - Marilyn, Ava, Liz, Felicity Kendal, me - what a sumptuous banquet of radiant humanity we look upon!

How fitting that it was Richard Ingrams - Victor Meldrew without the animal magnetism - who this summer proclaimed in the Observer that he refuses to read letters from Jews about the Middle East, and that Jewish journalists should declare their racial origins when writing on this subject.

Replying in another newspaper, Johann Hari suggested sarcastically that their bylines might be marked with a yellow star, and asked why Ingrams didn't want to know whether those writing on international conflicts were Muslim, Christian, Sikh or Hindu.

The answer is obvious to me: poor Ingrams is a miserable, bitter, hypocritical cuckold, whose much younger girlfriend has written at length in the public arena of the boredom, misery and alcoholism to which living with him has led her, and whose trademark has long been a loathing for anyone who appears to get a kick out of life: the young, the prole, independent women. The Jews are in good company.

Judeophobia: where the political is personal, and the personal pretends to be political, and those swarthy/pallid/swotty/philistine/aggressive/cowardly/comically bourgeois/filthy rich/delete-as-mood-takes-you bastards always get the girl.

I'll return to this dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance next week and, rest assured, it'll get much nastier. As the darling Jews them-selves would say (annoyingly, but then, nobody's perfect), enjoy!

(Julie Burchill, soon to be former correspondant for the Guardian -- UK)

Ex-CIA Director: European Anti-Semitism = Harbinger of Totalitarianism

From RADIOROTE: EUROPE

Ex-CIA Director: European Anti-Semitism = Harbinger of Totalitarianism

Former CIA director James Woolsey says that Europe's intolerance of Jews is a first step toward dictatorial rule. In a speech to a predominantly Jewish audience at York University in Toronto, Woolsey said that Europe's increasing anti-Semitism is its "first breath of totalitarianism."

According to the National Post, as reported by WorldNetDaily.com, Woolsey said that Jews are history's great champions of the rule of law, so much so that they have come to embody it. "Once anti-Semitism raises its head, the rest of us who don't want to live with a foot on the back of our necks are likely to be the next targets," Woolsey said. "So once you begin to dabble with the idea that you want to bully people, that you want to order them around, that you want them to do what you say, you very frequently start to drift into anti-Semitism. I think that is what is happening in some of the cultural elites in Europe."

He said Jews have always promoted the primacy of the law over the leader, as evidenced by their dietary restrictions and dress. ''People hate Jews [as] they have come to realize that this notion of the rule of law came to the world something between three and four millennia ago in the Sinai desert," Woolsey said. "The idea that the government is above the ruler, and that rulers, whether it's King David or anyone else, are to be held to account by the people, by great prophets, by whomever -- that notion essentially came out of the Sinai desert."

European media have a lot to do with promoting anti-Semitism, Ynet reports today. The European Union's recent report on anti-Semitism, which it buried because it showed that Moslem and pro-Palestinian elements are involved in most of the incidents, shows that the one-sided coverage in Europe of the Middle East conflict "fans the flames of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel feelings." So said Francois Zimeray, a MEP (Member of European Parliament, Socialist Party, France), who obtained parts of the now-classified report. Zimeray said that the report confirms that "the media chiefly expresses only one viewpoint of the conflict, out of identification with the Palestinian side, and this fuels anti-Semitism."

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which serves as the EU's racism watchdog organization, commissioned the report on anti-Semitism in early 2002, following a sharp increase in anti-Jewish violence. However, when it received the report towards the end of the year, the EUMC objected to the focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators, judging this "inflammatory." (Arutz Sheva -- Israel)

RadioRote. News with Intelligence.

Want to Subscribe/Unsubscribe to RadioRote?

It's Easy.

radiorote@hotmail.com

Palestinians negotiating peace in really bad faith

Fatah official: Initiative designed to divide Israelis by Khaled Abu Toameh and Lamia Lahoud

Faced with a campaign of terror and intimidation, a number of Palestinians have decided to stay away from the signing ceremony of the Geneva Accord, due to be held in Switzerland on Monday.

Those who decided to boycott the ceremony include Fatah officials Hatem Abdel Kader and Muhammed Hourani, who played a major role in the behind-the-scenes talks that resulted in the Geneva Accord.

Abdel Kader told The Jerusalem Post that the main goal of the Geneva Accord was to create a schism inside Israel and undermine the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'Our aim was to create divisions inside Israel and block the growth of the right-wing in Israel.'

There's more to this article; read it here.