Israeli Minister: Apocalypse Over Nuclear Programs

Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:39 AM

By: Newsmax Staff

Israeli Strategic Affairs minister Avigdor Lieberman tells the Jerusalem Post that Egyptian and Saudi Arabian intentions to ramp up their nuclear programs in the face of Iran's move to nuclear power present an "apocalyptic scenario" for Israel as well as for the rest of the world.

"If Egypt and Saudi Arabia begin nuclear programs, this can bring an apocalyptic scenario upon us," Lieberman told the Post. "Their intentions should be taken seriously and the declarations being made now are to prepare the world for when they decide to actually do it."

Lieberman also said Pakistan was a major threat to Israel due to the political instability there and the fact that the country had "missiles, nuclear weapons and a proven capability.”

Lieberman also lambasted International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei as an impediment to the West's efforts to impose further sanctions on Iran.

"He is part of the problem, not part of the solution," Lieberman said. "ElBaradei's behavior has not succeeded in solving anything like North Korea or Libya's nuclear programs. And instead of criticizing Iran, he finds it right to criticize Israel."

Lieberman said ElBaradei was delaying the U.N. Security Council's consideration of a new round of sanctions by not publishing the new IAEA report on the status of Iran's nuclear program.

Lieberman concluded that Israel needed to ignore ElBaradei and to work on its own - together with other Western countries - to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic. He said the international community finally understood that Iran was not just a threat to Israel but to the entire Free World.

Apartheid, not peace
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 30, 2007

This week the Bush Administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.

Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.

At the meeting of foreign ministers on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called her Arab counterparts to task for their discriminatory treatment. "Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?" she asked pointedly.

Israel's humiliated foreign minister did not receive support from her American counterpart. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spent her childhood years in the segregated American South, sided with the Arabs. Although polite enough to note that she doesn't support the slaughter of Israelis, she made no bones about the fact that her true sympathies lie with the racist Arabs.

As she put it, "I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."

Rice's remarks make clear that for the Secretary of State there is no difference between Israelis trying to defend themselves from a jihadist Palestinian society which supports the destruction of the Jewish state and bigoted white Southerners who oppressed African Americans because of the color of their skin. It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not Livni, who was forced - by Rice - to enter the conference through the service entrance.

The Bush administration's tolerance for discrimination against Israel was not merely ceremonial. Diplomatically, the conference was equally prejudicial. At Annapolis, the US joined the Arabs in placing the lion's share of blame for the absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians on Israel. But you wouldn't know that from listening to Olmert, who is working steadily to hide what happened there.

Olmert obfuscates the truth because his political stability rests in the hands of his hawkish coalition partners Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas. Both warned before the summit that if Olmert made any concessions on either Jerusalem or the so-called outpost communities in Judea and Samaria they would bolt his coalition and so spur new elections.

Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the summit. Both Shas leader Eli Yishai and Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman dismissed Annapolis as a pathetic joke and claimed that there is no reason for them to resign from the Olmert government. But these assertions are deliberately misleading.

The fact that the Israeli-PLO joint statement made no specific mention of Jerusalem, and that the government didn't announce a timetable for destroying the so-called outpost communities and expelling the hundreds of Israeli families who live in them, doesn't mean that Israel made no concessions on these issues. In fact, the Olmert government made massive concessions on these issues.

The Israel-PLO joint statement at Annapolis contains a joint pledge "to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis."

Although Olmert, Lieberman and Yishai dismiss this Israeli acceptance of moral equivalence with Palestinian jihadists as a meaningless rhetorical concession, the government's move is rife with political and legal implications. US Ambassador Richard Jones's unprecedented meeting this week with Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch made clear that the US demands that Israeli courts interpret Israeli law in a prejudicial manner in order to demonize Israeli opponents of Palestinian statehood and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Their meeting also signaled that the US expects Israel to treat lawful building activities by Jews in Judea and Samaria and even in sections of Jerusalem as criminal acts. Since the Olmert government accepts that Israel is morally indistinguishable from the Palestinian Authority, it is hard to foresee it preventing the criminalization of its political opponents. From now on, Israelis who oppose the diplomatic moves of the Olmert government can expect to be treated as the moral equivalents of Palestinian terrorists.

At Annapolis the Americans accepted the role of sole arbiter of Israeli and Palestinian compliance with their commitments to the so-called 'Roadmap' and the peace process. They also committed themselves to reaching a comprehensive peace treaty by the end of 2008. But as former US Middle East mediator during the Clinton administration Dennis Ross has admitted, these goals are contradictory. It is impossible to both ensure Palestinian compliance and the achievement of a peace treaty in that timetable.

Writing in The Washington Post after the Oslo peace process collapsed at Camp David and the Palestinian jihad had begun, Ross explained, "The prudential issues of compliance were neglected and politicized by the Americans in favor of keeping the peace process afloat….Every time there was a behavior, or an incident, or an event that was inconsistent with what the peace process was about, the impulse was to rationalize it, finesse it, find a way around it, and not to allow it to break the process."

"What the peace process was about" for the Clinton administration was signing peace agreements. It was not about ensuring that the Palestinians were actually interested in living at peace with Israel. When Rice stated that "failure is not an option," in the coming peace process, she made clear that the same is the case for the Bush administration today. She wants an agreement. Whether the Palestinians are serious about peace or not is none of her business.

Although reporting on Palestinian non-compliance with their commitments to fight terror will harm prospects for speedy "progress," accusing Israel of filching on its commitments will actually speed things along. Alleging Israeli non-compliance will force the pliant Olmert government to make further concessions to the Palestinians.

In light of this, it is clear that contrary to Yishai and Lieberman's dismissive treatment of what happened at Annapolis, Olmert's acceptance of the Americans as both judge of compliance and guarantor of "progress" means that Israel already made massive concessions.

On Jerusalem, for instance, although Yishai is right that Jerusalem is not specifically mentioned in the joint statement, the fact is that Israel agreed to negotiate the status of its capital city by agreeing to discuss all outstanding issues. Since the Americans want a Palestinian state within a year and they know that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will not make any concessions on Jerusalem, they can be expected to pressure Israel to accept the Palestinian position. The thousands of Arab Jerusalemites now applying for Israeli citizenship are a clear sign that the Arabs understand that Israel has already made massive concessions on the city. And Yishai must know this.

The American status as arbiters of compliance has far reaching implications for Israel's ability to cope effectively with the security situation in Gaza and the Western Negev. Since Hamas seized control of Gaza in June, Abbas has opposed any wide-scale IDF counter-terror offensive on the area. Abbas has claimed - probably rightly - that an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza would weaken his position in Palestinian society since the Palestinians support Hamas's positions more than they support him. Given that the Americans are committed to strengthening Abbas, it is obvious that they will veto any Israeli plan to conduct an offensive in Gaza aimed at restoring security to the Western Negev.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. Lieberman claims that he can remain in the government because Olmert has yet to announce a timetable for throwing the Jews out of their homes in the so-called outpost communities. But that isn't Olmert's responsibility anymore. He ceded it to the Americans at Annapolis. They will set the timetable for expulsions, not Olmert. And it isn't only the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria that are now at risk.

By anointing the State Department arbiter of Israeli compliance, the Olmert government gave the Americans the right to veto IDF operations in Judea and Samaria. As the guarantors of progress in the peace process, the Americans will tell the IDF where it can - or more precisely where it cannot - erect roadblocks. The Americans will tell the Israelis what cities and towns to transfer to Fatah control. They will tell Israel what guns and armor to transfer to the Palestinians, what to do with terror fugitives and when and how many terrorists it must release from its prisons.

Actually, the US has been constraining Israel's counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria for months now. That these American efforts have harmed the effectiveness of the IDF's operations is something that Ido Zoldan's widow can attest to. Zoldan, after all, was murdered last week by Fatah terrorists who owed their ability to move about freely to Israel's decision to bow to American pressure and dismantle 24 roadblocks and curb its efforts to arrest Fatah terror bosses.

In essence, what we see in Olmert's and Livni's machinations is a repeat of Ariel Sharon's and Livni's political maneuvering in the period that preceded the withdrawal from Gaza. In both cases, Israel's senior leaders abide by the basic political understanding that a fight postponed is a fight won.

In 2004 Sharon lacked the political strength to announce openly that he was going to completely withdraw from Gaza and destroy all the Israeli communities in the area. So he allowed the Likud to hold a referendum on his plan to withdraw and authorized Livni to draft the so-called compromise plan according to which the destruction of Israeli communities would take place in four stages over several months and that each stage would require separate government approval.

By the time the Likud rejected his plan, Sharon was strong enough to ignore the will of his party. And when the withdrawal took place, far from taking place in four stages, it took place in four days. Livni and Sharon could ignore their previous commitments because when the time came to pay the piper, they had already destroyed their opponents.

Today, by pretending that the joint declaration at Annapolis was a big nothing, Olmert and Livni are repeating the maneuver. By the time they start throwing Jews out of their homes, they won't need Shas or Yisrael Beiteinu anymore.

Lieberman and Yishai are under no obligation to leave the government. They can stay for as long as they like. But they cannot pretend that by staying they are not full partners in the government's policies. As Annapolis made clear, those policies include dividing Jerusalem, destroying the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and compromising the security of the State of Israel.

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam (DVD $14.95)

http://www.farewellisrael.com/home.html

The confrontation between Islam and the Jews began in the Prophet Muhammad's time, and continues to this day. Israel's existence recalls Islam's age old Jewish problem, first felt at Islam's inception in Medina in 624 AD: How can Islam thrive and find salvation if Jews are politically powerful? And it requires the same solution chosen by the Prophet Muhammad - elimination of political independence of Jews and the domination of Islam over them.

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam is an historic journey, from the birth of Islam, through its 1,200 year reign over the civilized world, to the last 300 years of Islamic decline, overtaken and dominated by the West -- then humiliated by a Jewish state. Islam's historic trials with Jews, and its relationship with conquered non-believers, help illustrate the Islamic world view - all through the eyes of Muslims.

In this groundbreaking film, the total rejection of Israel by Muslim states since its inception in 1948 comes to light as a religious duty for Believers. The Islamic roots of Anwar Sadat's 1977 Camp David Accords with Israel are exposed as "The Diplomatic Strategy Against Israel," by which Egypt sought to defeat Israel through diplomacy, rather than establish "Western Peace." Israel's misunderstanding of Islamic goals and values are highlighted by its enthusiasm for Yasser Arafat and the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Next, President George Bush's tragic misunderstanding of 9/11 as a "War Against Freedom," in which the United States played into the hands of Al-Qaeda and the Islamist cause by advocating democratic reform across the Middle East, is revealed. Finally, the Iranian agenda for acquiring strategic weapons to eliminate Israel comes clearly into focus.

Today, at the direction of Iran, Islamists are preparing for a fateful coming war for Islam - and Israel is the number one target and obstacle in the path of Islamic revival. For Muslims, Israel embodies "injustice", and is the ultimate symbol of Islam's decline - a Western, secular society imposed by the West on former Islamic lands. Only with the return of Jews to their historic status as "Dhimmi" or "Tributaries," tolerated and protected within Islamic society, can Islamic revival succeed - resulting in "Islamic Peace" in the Middle East.

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam reaches the unavoidable conclusion that Western and Israeli misunderstanding of Islam is leading to a coming war - which will have devastating consequences for the West, and worst of all for Israel - Farewell Israel!

Conversation with Director Joel Gilbert

What are the main concepts you wish to convey in your film?

First, an understanding of the Islamic world view, from the point of view of Muslims. In the West, there is a huge gap in understanding Islam on every level, from the man on the street, to Jewish and Christian religious leaders, to our elected officials. Only by gaining an understanding and appreciation of Islam's world view, through its historic trials and its theology, can the West begin to deal with the real issues and challenges.

Second, misunderstanding leads to war. Israel's lack of understanding of Islam, its values and goals, have led it to a policy of surrender of territory, based on the belief that it will achieve "Peace" in Western terms. In reality, "Western Peace" between Israel and Islam is unattainable. Peace can only be achieved in Islamic terms - "Peace with Justice" - which requires the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Muslims have 1,400 years of experience and Holy Scriptures to refer to that deal with Jews. Because Judaism predates Islam, Jews have no such foundation in dealing with Muslims, hence the Israeli misunderstanding, and the Islamic advantage.

What do you mean by "The Revolt of Islam"?

The terms "Radical Islam" and "Islamo-fascism" are simplistic and inaccurate Western misperceptions. Islamism is not a war against the West; it is an internal struggle for the revival of Islamic society - a "revolt" against their failed secular governments. The attacks of 9/11 are completely misunderstood by the West. In fact, 9/11 was only a provocation by a small group of Islamists, hoping to use the West's response to inspire the masses in Islam's internal struggle. The 9/11 attacks were successful only because George Bush played into the hands of the Al-Qaeda by adopting Al-Qaeda's agenda for government reform across the Middle East - helping to pave the way for Islamist parties to come to power.

Why are Israel and the West lacking understanding of the Islamic world view?

Unfortunately, it is a natural tendency to dismiss ideas and values that are not understood or shared - thus one judges other societies through one's own world view. Because the West considers its own historic development of concepts of "nationalism," "freedom," and "secularism" as the natural advancement of humanity, it has a hard time accepting that its values don't apply to others. This is why Western media doesn't even know what questions to ask. For instance, "Why can't Islam accept Jewish statehood? Why don't Western concepts of secularism and nationalism fit into Islamic society? Why do Muslims consider America to be "The Great Satan"? You'll find the answers to these questions in my film. Contrary to popular media concepts, the Middle East is very understandable and predictable looking through the eyes of the Muslim world, rather than our own Western world view.

What is Iran's agenda in the Middle East?

Iran is acquiring strategic weapons in order to shift the balance of power with Israel, which it believes will precipitate Israel's destruction and Islam's revival. Even without attacking Israel, the mere capability of Iranian missiles to lay waste to Tel-Aviv would create a "strategic umbrella," preventing Israel from using its superior strategic assets in a conventional war. With Israeli missiles neutralized, Muslim countries could overwhelm Israel with their superior numbers, conventional armor and short range missiles.

Doesn't Egypt's Camp David Agreement of 1979 with Israel and the 1993 Oslo Accords demonstrate there are moderates in the Muslim world?

Sadat, Carter and Begin

No, those agreements were simply part of what I call "The Diplomatic Strategy Against Israel," with the same goal as a military Jihad, the transformation of Israel from a Jewish state into a Muslim state. There is complete consensus across all schools of thought in the Islamic world that Israel's existence is an injustice, and must be eliminated on the path to successful Islamic revival.

How are President Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad featured in the film?

Actually, each of them represents the world view of their society - Bush expresses common Western misconceptions of Islamist values, such as "they are against freedom," "they want women to be prisoners in their homes," and so on. Ahmadinejad's statements, though considered "radical" in the West, are actually honest opinions that reflect long held Islamic views regarding Israel and the Jews. You'll see statements by Bush and Ahmadinejad throughout the film that relate to both historic and current subjects. Bush and Ahmadinejad help to demonstrate the very, very different world views of Western and Islamic culture.

The title of your film is disturbing - how can you imply that Israel is doomed?

There is a coming war in the Middle East, and it will be here soon, a war for Islamic revival. Islam must reacquire Palestine to redeem itself from Westernization and the humiliation of a Jewish state. After years of diplomacy and withdrawals, Israel is no longer a strategic asset for the United States, but instead a security burden. George Bush or Shimon Peres will say that "Peace" in the Middle East is at hand between Israel and "moderates", but anyone who believes that just doesn't understand the reality, or is in denial. Islamism is on the march and Israel is facing a calamity.

Are there any new historic revelations in this film?

Yes, there are many. First of all, Islam's historic trials with Jews will be a revelation to most. Islam solved its Jewish problem at its inception, and has a natural social order whereby Jews are given a protected status under Islamic leadership. There are also fascinating new perspectives on the Holocaust, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, George Bush and Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Its amazing how well one can understand current events once you understand the Islamic world view.

You have Bob Dylan band members playing on the film soundtrack?

Yes, I'm honored to have Dylan's musicians on my film's original music score - all of them have recorded and performed with my Bob Dylan tribute show, Highway 61 Revisited, in the past. Violinist Scarlet Rivera and Bassist Rob Stoner were featured on Dylan's Desire album, Rolling Thunder Review Tour and Dylan's film Renaldo and Clara. Bruce Langhorne, "Mr. Tambourine Man," was second guitarist on early Bob Dylan albums like Freewheelin' and Bringin' It All Back Home - that's Bruce playing tambourine on "Like A Rolling Stone." I play harmonica on the soundtrack. You can download 10 soundtrack songs as MP3s from the DVD. All together it sounds like a Bob Dylan Middle Eastern album, if you can imagine that!

Who is the film's narrator?

Lance Lewman is a renowned voiceover artist who has narrated documentaries for PBS's NOVA series, National Geographic's highly rated Taboo Series, and the Discovery Channel. He was the announcer for the 2003 Kennedy Center Honors, and has done political commercials for Clinton/Gore and Kerry/Edwards.

It's unique to see CGI in a documentary, why did you choose to use CGI?

The CGI environment is used to replicate the look of the Ishfahan complex in Iran, because of its incredible beauty and powerful Islamic historic feeling. The presentation of the film travels through rooms in an Islamic museum of history, created with CGI, and then each scene comes to life full screen out of picture frames (refresh to view).

How long did it take to make this film?

I actually wrote a book of the same name based on my studies and many years of ongoing research, and continued to update it. Then, I converted the book into the narration for this documentary. It took 6 months to find the footage, and another six months of editing, narration, and music to complete the film.

Comments:

Donald Anderson

Anchorage, AK

By a wide margin, this is the best documentary about political Islam. It contains the most historically accurate depiction of the legal and political side of Islam that I have seen. It carefully shows Islamic thinking with respect to Jews, Christians and other infidels. It shows the special tradeoffs of Dihimmi status and the peace that is available under Dar al-Islam.

Gilbert does a remarkable job of selecting pieces of Islam's historical record to give the viewer an excellent appreciation for the thinking of Muslims about their relationship to God and their earthly duties and opportunities. He generally presents accurate information and lets the viewer form his own opinion and recommended course of action.

I was blown away by the quality and quantity of information about political Islam contained in this 2.5 hour video. Joel Gilbert has produced by far the best video documentary on the topic of Jihad and Islam I have ever seen. It is probably about too serious and sensitive a topic to receive a well deserved award for the best documentary of 2007. I would not trade it for a half dozen of the books on fundamentalist Islam that I have read.

Every American and everyone else in Dar al Harb needs to see this film to appreciate the seriousness and duration of the battles we are now fighting.

Pete Howard, Former Editor

Rolling Stone Magazine

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam is a thoroughly researched, expertly crafted look at the tumultous Middle-Eastern political unrest and the West's gross misunderstanding of it, particularly the United States and even more to the point, the Bush administration. Not a moment is wasted in the engrossing, if dense, two-and-a-half hour presentation that feels like a college course but, unlike a live classroom setting, can be rewound or viewed repeatedly to glean the full meaning.

Plenty of archival newsreel footage (including sundry world leaders), splashy graphics, original, engaging soundtrack music and scholarly reporting combine to make this a compelling view for anyone interested in this most curious and important part of the world, and the history leading up the tensions found there today. Anyone with even a shred of interest in political science, or with a desire to educate themselves about a region of the world that's key to the future of America, should not miss this film!

Lex Zaleta

Charlston, TN

FAREWELL ISRAEL lifts the veil of mystery that has shrouded the Islamic culture from the Western world for many centuries. Joel Gilbert skillfully bobs and weaves through history to hit the high and low points of the struggles between two distinctly different, yet scarily similar, ideologies. Gilbert lays out his research in meticulous and painstaking detail, and viewers need only add their own reasoning to this chronological cautionary tale.

Those who have been paying little or no attention to what's been happening “over there” will be jolted into awareness by this crash course in past, current, and coming events. No matter where you stand on the Arab-Israeli issue, your comfort zone will be invaded and occupied by FAREWELL ISRAEL.

J. Bones

San Diego, CA

Just finished watching a new DVD by Joel Gilbert, titled "Farewell Israel - Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam". I think this should be seen by as many Infidels as possible, including the politicians and students from 6th grade on. It is a cold dose of realism about Islam, Israel, and Western & Israeli ignorance about Islam.

Gilbert has compressed 13 centuries into the DVD with excellent maps and backgrounding. He makes the Islamic definition of 'Peace with Justice" abundantly clear. The Israeli government should require every politician to watch it at least 5 times. America and the Euro politicians too. There is more historic info packed into that DVD than any of our highschoolers are getting on Islam. Where it should go is on National TV, and replayed at least 3 or 4 times a week for a year.

Andrew Ian Dodge

Bloggernews.net

This is a rather depressing and extensive documentary (145 minutes) on how badly the West and even the Jews do not get Islam at all. They routinely don’t even attempt to see the world as Islam sees and thus make loads of mistakes in dealing with Islam. We assume the best and get burnt every single damn time due to ignorance about the religion and its ultimate goals.

This DVD, with a soundtrack from Bob Dylan’s backing band, tells the tale of the rise, fall and possible rise again of Islam. It tells the tale of Islam from its roots to its present behaviour. I think Robert Spencer’s books are written for those who can’t be asked to read at times meaty and esoteric tomes.

What is very interesting is the method in which they explain the gist of this documentary. It’s done as if one is in a Mosque looking at various pieces of art on the wall; which each major point being a different picture. Chapters are set in different areas with the final prediction of all out war set in its own room.

Extras include Islamic art and the complete soundtrack in it entirety including the haunting track ‘By the Rivers of Babylon.” And no, not the Boney M song.

This is a very pessimistic piece which I fear is spot on about Islam’s intentions for all of us. However, that said, this is not a subject to be taken lightly. This DVD should probably be required viewing for everyone both young and old in the West. Its blunt but equally damning of the idiotic actions of the West and Israel when confronted by Islam.

I highly recommend this DVD to you -- that is if you give a damn about what we are all up against.

Robert Avrech

Seraphic Press

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam, written and directed by Joel Gilbert, lays out the true nature of the Arab Israeli conflict with an unblinking eye. Gilbert is eloquent about the Islamic point of view, which should put to rest, once and for all, the notion that we are all alike. 

Farewell Israel makes clear that it is a religious duty for every Muslim to reject Israel. The film also shows how Israel tragically misunderstands Islamic goals and values, hence a parade of Israeli and American politicians play into the hands of Israel's enemies at each and every turn.  …Farewell Israel is a powerful film, an informative film, and I urge everyone to order Farwell Israel and screen it for as many of your friends as possible.

Rael Jean Issac

Mideast Outpost

Joel Gilbert has pulled off a remarkable tour de force: in “Farewell Israel” he has produced a technically sophisticated, visually imaginative, scholarly documentary that manages in the space of 145 minutes to investigate the belief system and history of Islam, the development of the Arab-Israel conflict (more accurately the Muslim-Jewish conflict) and the aftermath of 9/11. The documentary’s enormous achievement is in bringing all this together to show incontrovertibly the total misunderstanding of Islam that shapes the policy follies of the West in general and the U.S. and Israel in particular. The potentially deadly results are summed up in the foreboding title—Farewell Israel. (more)

Arsenio Orteza

World Magazine

Despite the dozens of bestsellers and non-stop talk-radio and television-news coverage devoted to the topic during the last six years, the "war on terror" - a.k.a. the war against radical Islam - still generates more heat than light.  Joel Gilbert's fascinating new documentary, enticingly titled Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and the Revolt of Islam, represents an important act of redress.

Part historical documentary and part multi-media survey course, Farewell Israel is ultimately a call to reason, painstakingly detailing both the origin of Islam and its subsequent rise and fall, with particular attention to the religion's first millennium and definitions of its most important yet often most misunderstood terminology.  Because of its theology and philosophy, Islam has changed little since the Prophet Muhammed's death left the religion to his followers, so Gilbert's attention to their roots and evolution is more essential than ever to a meaningful (as opposed to a merely expedient) response to the present crises posed by Ayatollahs, the PLO, Al-Qaeda, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

Moshe Dayan

The fact remains, however, that, for whatever reason, most Westerners, from the man on the street to the movers and shakers, are as oblivious to the history and ideology of Islam as they are passionate about either combating or appeasing it.

Gilbert has not only skillfully condensed this information into a swiftly moving script (euphoniously delivered via voiceover by the veteran narrator Lance Lewman) but also made it visually arresting, supplying the film's latter half with ample footage of the relevant 20th and 21st century people, places, and events while illustrating the first half with a clever, and at times ingenious, combination of Islamic art, stock Crusader-movie footage, and computer graphics.  As for the original Middle Eastern-sounding soundtrack, performed by Gilbert and a trio of musicians best known for their past association with Bob Dylan, its effectiveness is such that it calls attention less to itself than to the historical parade at the heart of the story.  The result is an artful mixture of quick-edit form and thought-provoking content that will hold the attention of MTV-generation channel-surfers and reflective intellectuals alike.                  

Farewell Israel is so absorbing, in fact, that one will not only want to watch it repeatedly but also to weigh its fundamental premise: that neither the stereotypical conservative nor liberal reactions to 9/11, based as they are on Westernized misperceptions of Islam's nature, bodes well for the future of Israel or the West.

Si Woolridge

DVD Reviewer Magazine

One of the most important questions of our time, especially in the post 9/11 world, is how we view the world of Islam. The other important question, possibly of greater value, is how the world of Islam views us.  What do we know?

What if the knowledge that we take for granted is flawed? What if we’re looking at this through Western eyes with Western ideals? Joel Gilbert, better known for producing documentaries on Bob Dylan, brings us his latest film in an attempt to show the history of Islam and how they view the wider world.

Farewell Israel is a history of Islam, from it’s earliest roots to the present times, marking each significant point in history that Gilbert believes shows an understanding of what Islam is trying to achieve, arguing that the West has failed to understand the motivations of Muslims and continues to view the religion from our own perspective and our own values rather than attempting to walk a mile in their shoes.

As well as a detailed history lesson, Gilbert also tries to educate us with dictionary type definitions of key words and phrases used by Muslims. A lot of the phraseology he uses is straight out of the Koran, but it’s broken down to it’s component parts in an easy to understand format so that even the most ignorant about Islam can walk away understanding just how Islam views the world and what it is trying to achieve. It’s a brave line that Gilbert takes and a vital one if we are to learn the lessons of the last few hundred years, let alone the last decade.

This is an extremely well presented documentary, broken down into bite sized portions with detailed but short explanations. For someone who knows nothing or very little of Islam and the Middle East, it is a great introduction and helps to put things into perspective.  At just over two hours, it’s very long but I would guess is designed not only for repeat viewing but also block viewing. I watched this over four sessions, went back over a few sections and truly believe that I will watch it again. It’s a fantastic achievement in my eyes and hopefully may lead people to start trying to understand a religion that appears tolerant and extremist at the same time dependent on the direction you’re facing at a given moment. Superb!

Phyllis Jones

Simi Valley, CA

When I saw this piece I was amazed at the depth and breadth of information in it. It was almost too much to take in at one time. It illuminated the history of the Muslims, how they developed and why they are doing what they are doing today.

Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri

This vast accumulation of knowledge, paired with the visually stunning graphics, reflects

Director Joel Gilbert's professional dedication and hard work, resulting in a real eye opener. Every American should see this film. It cleared up many questions, as well as misconceptions that I had. I'm sure others suffer from the same lack of education as I did.

Paul Rekstad

Palm Coast, FL

KUDOS for a fine job of simplifying a complicated story. After two hours of viewing I was so angry at what is happening to Israel I had to turn it off and finish viewing it the next day. It's a story that needs to be told. What amazes me is that the Israelis, as smart as they are, do not appear to fathom what is at stake. It is as though they have never learned from their history.

I hope your video gains wide distribution and jars our nation of sleep-walkers back to reality. Having lived in Libya, and traveled in the Middle East in 1954, I appreciate your wake-up call all the more. Thanks again for a first-rate production.

Kirkland Ciccone

Subba-cultcha.com

Farewell Israel is a political documentary that strays away from sensationalist extremes which means it’s nothing like a Michael Moore project at all.

I will confess to not knowing much about Islam so this documentary comes as a bit of a crash course in the history of Islam, that religion that divides the world. Now I also need to confess that I cringed when I was told to review this -- after all who wants to watch boring documentaries about religion? I have much more important things to do.

I was wrong. This is a scholarly in-depth look at a religion that is hundreds of years old. It helps to put into perspective what is happening in the world right now, and does it in a manner that is not flippant, but not so ponderously boring that it would be hell to watch. It’s interesting stuff. The sheer volume of information to take can be quite heavy but the documentary has an interesting way of breaking up the sequence of events for people like me who need hundreds of years explained in simple terms.

The history presented in this documentary threads up whole countries and other cultures and it helps explain the massive tangle the world is currently in.  So what can you expect to see? Archive material, dazzling graphics and a compelling soundtrack. Farewell Israel is powerful stuff, if a little depressing to watch. It still should be watched so you can see an old story retold.

Paul Hamill

Granbury, Texas

Excellent DVD!  Before viewing, I considered myself knowledgeable on Islam and Islamists.  However, I learned a great deal from the DVD.  It has become mandatory viewing for my family and highly recommended to my close friends.  Money well spent. Thanks again!

Obsession (DVD)
Radical Islam's War Against the West
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2151

”Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” is an award-winning, eye-opening documentary that allows us to enter the minds of radical Islamists - to hear and see what they think about us in the West. Using actual footage from Arabic TV rarely seen in the West, and interviews with former terrorists, “Obsession” documents the call for world domination and global jihad that are made by Islamic leaders daily. You do not have to read between the lines here – their message is loud and clear. The undercover footage shows suicide bomber initiations, the indoctrination of young children into hate and violence, secret jihad meetings and public celebrations of 9/11.

Due to its vivid exposition of the terrorist’s ideology and methodology, “Obsession” has been used by numerous military and security personnel for educational purposes as well.

Many newspapers covered the recent controversy when administrators from Pace University attempted to prevent the screening of “Obsession” fearing Muslim opposition. Similar incidents occurred at the State University of New York - Stonybrook, Georgia Tech University, as well as in the Winnipeg, Manitoba community.

“Obsession” should serve as a wake-up call to the free world to confront the threat now, before it is too late..." Joel Surnow, Executive Producer of “24”.

“Obsession” is without exaggeration one of the most important films of our time… Please, you must see it.” Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News.

”Obsession” is touted as “The movie Hollywood doesn’t want you to see,” due to the fact that despite the overwhelming public interest, no distributor was willing to pick up the film for release because of its controversial nature. “Obsession” shows that what the West perceives as seemingly isolated acts of terrorism are actually viewed by radical Islamists as integral parts of the global war they are waging against us.

The feature-length edition is now being released despite protests from political groups opposed to the film.

”Obsession” features interviews with Sir Martin Gilbert, Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, a former Federal Prosecutor, a former Hitler Youth Commander, as well as anti-Islamist Muslims including the daughter of a terrorist, a former Palestinian terrorist, a Palestinian journalist, and the director of the Palestinian Media Watch. The film demonstrates parallels between Chamberlain’s doomed strategy of appeasing Hitler and the West’s current attitude of appeasing Iran and radical Islamists, the film also traces blatant similarities between the Nazi movement of World War II, and the “Islamo-fascists” of today.

Awarded Best Feature Film at the Liberty Film Festival and a Special Jury Award at the WorldFest Houston, this is a film you cannot afford to miss!

Because They Hate
By Larry Elder
Thursday, April 12, 2007

"Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America," is written by Brigitte Gabriel. This is an edited version of our interview.

Larry Elder: You are of Christian Lebanese descent. When you heard what Rosie O'Donnell said, that Christian extremism is as bad as Islamic extremism, how did you react?

Brigitte Gabriel: Well, I do not know what land she is living in, but I do not recall when the last time I saw a Christian behead anybody on television, or behead somebody and advertise it on the Internet. I do not recall hearing a Christian preach that Muslims are apes and pigs because they are cursed by Jesus, the way that Muslims are teaching that we are apes and pigs. I do not recall the last time a Christian went into an elementary school, hijacked children and started shooting them in the back like the Muslims did in Beslan in Russia when they went into a schoolyard and took over the children and started butchering them and killing them. [Rosie] better be thankful that she is living in America because if she were living in Iran and spoke against her country -- or any Arabic country -- she would be beheaded or actually buried halfway in the ground, to be stoned to death.

Elder: Did you study Islam?

Gabriel: No, I did not study Islam; I lived Islam. I lived in the Middle East. I read the Koran in the Arabic language -- I do not need translation. There is something about living in a place and being an eyewitness and coming from a culture and blowing the whistle on that culture, and that is very different from someone majoring in Islam and living in the Middle East for two months so they can write their thesis.

Elder: You were raised in Lebanon, you were 10 years old and living in southern Lebanon when militant Muslims . . . poured into your country and declared jihad against Lebanese Christians such as yourself.

Gabriel: Yes, my 9/11 happened to me in 1975 when I was a 10-year-old child, living and minding my own business, [in] a small town in south Lebanon. I was an only child to a businessman and his wife. I was blessed with a wonderful childhood . . . they showered me with love and everything life had blessed them with. However, our lives were turned upside down because in 1975, the Muslims declared Holy War on the Christians of Lebanon. My home exploded around me, buried in the rubble, wounded as the perpetrators shouted "Allahu Akbar" [God is great]. My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. I learned at 10 years old the meaning of the word "infidel." I had a crash course in survival not in the Girl Scouts, but in the bomb shelter that I lived for seven years of my life in freezing cold, pitch darkness, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. I remember at the age of 13, I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends who were slaughtered by Muslims.

Elder: You call your book a wake-up call. Tell us what the West does not understand about what I call Islamofascism. And, do you think "Islamofascism" is an appropriate term?

Gabriel: Yes, it is an appropriate term. We are fighting Islamofascism, we are fighting a war that is much worse than Nazism, anything we have fought before because even the Nazis did not encourage their children to strap bombs onto their bodies and then rejoice at their deaths, as well as the deaths of their victims. Islamists are encouraging their children to die.

Elder: There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. I want you to analyze them by ideology.

Gabriel: Not all of them are radicals. We estimate that the radicals are between 15 and 25 percent; that translates to between 180 and 300 million people like Mohammad Atta who are willing to strap bombs to their bodies and commit martyrdom operations. Now, that is still a minority, 15 to 25 percent, but 300 million Mohammad Attas ready to unleash their blood upon the West. . . . Now, the rest of them . . . despise the West, they hate our westernization, they think we are morally corrupt, that we are corrupting the world, and they think we are such a bad influence on the world that we need to be stopped at any cost. They may not be willing to commit martyrdom operations themselves, but they will sit there and cheer on and rally those who are willing to kill us.

Elder: Are we winning?

Gabriel: No, we are losing.

Part two: seven steps necessary to fight Islamofascism.

Because They Hate, Part II
By Larry Elder
Thursday, April 26, 2007

Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian who lived through jihad as a child, wrote "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America." This is an edited version of our interview.

Larry Elder: What caused Lebanon's 1975 jihad invasion?

Brigitte Gabriel: . . . In the early '70s, Lebanon was a majority Christian country . . . a republic very much like America. We prospered. We focused on growing our economy. We were multicultural, fair and tolerant, and had an open border policy. We welcomed everybody into our country, because we wanted to share the westernizations we had created in the Middle East. . . . Sadly, many people who came didn't want to assimilate and adopt westernizations, but wanted to drag us down to their tribal Islamic culture. . . . By 1974, Christians stopped traveling. We became prisoners in our homes and cities because Muslims would set up fly-by-night checkpoints. . . . Our religion is written on our national ID. . . . So, Muslims would stop cars, look at their IDs and if a Christian family was traveling, they would shoot them in cold blood. The whole family. . . . Extremist Muslims started coming from all around the Arabic world to fight alongside the Muslims in Lebanon.

Elder: Tell us about Islamofascism in the West.

Gabriel: The Center for Religious Freedom went undercover last year and collected 200 publications from some of the most prominent mosques in the United States. Those books, provided by the government of Saudi Arabia to American mosques, teach Muslims living in an infidel land how to deal with infidels. These Saudi publications repeatedly exalt Muslims to, and I quote, hate them for their religion -- meaning Christians, Jews, atheists and everybody in between. . . . They say that democracy, justice, freedom, brotherhood and equality cause all of the world's problems. This is being taught in the mosques. And it gets worse. They say it is the religious duty of every Muslim to impose functionally Islamic government on every country in the world. This religious duty is binding . . . and a sacred obligation of jihad. . . . Many people do not realize that under the banner of Islam the Muslims killed children in Israel, massacred children in Lebanon, killed cops in Egypt, murdered Armenians in Turkey, killed Hindus in India, and expelled over 900,000 Jews from Arab land. All that happened before they turned their eyes to the West and before September 11, 2001. . . . This is the religion of Islam. . . .

Elder: Are there moderate Muslims who condemn the radicals, who don't feel threatened by democracy?

Gabriel: Yes. . . . I call it a practicing Muslim and a non-practicing Muslim. I think it is a better description than "moderate" and "radical." A practicing Muslim goes to mosque, prays five times a day, doesn't drink, believes God gave him women to be his property -- to beat, to stone to death. . . . He believes Christians and Jews are apes and pigs because they are cursed by Allah. He believes it is his duty to declare war on the infidels because they are Allah's enemies. That is a practicing Muslim. A non-practicing Muslim no longer goes to mosque or prays five times a day, has an occasional glass of wine and believes that a woman is equal to a man. . . . He believes he cannot murder his wife just because he wants to. He does not believe in taking four wives just for sexual pleasure. . . . He no longer believes that, as a Muslim, it is his duty to kill the apes and pigs that have been cursed by Allah. A non-practicing Muslim is educated, an intellectual who believes the Koran -- written in the 7th century -- doesn't apply to today's standards, and Islam needs to be reformed. Those Muslims do exist and live in the West. However, they are such a minority -- we estimate about 2 percent -- they are irrelevant because it is the majority that is causing the problem now.

Elder: What should be done?

Brigitte Gabriel: Shut our borders. We have terrorists coming through our borders. Al Qaeda is working with the MS-13 gang [El Salvadorian gang Mara Salvatrucha], smuggling al Qaeda terrorists into the country. Hezbollah is doing the same. . . . We estimate thousands have already been smuggled into America. . . . Hamas is here. . . . They have cells in over 40 states. . . . We also need to reform our immigration and visa programs. We need to monitor who is coming into our country and why. . . . We need to increase human intelligence. . . .To get that human element that gets you the information, it takes years to establish trust with the enemy in order to get the secrets out of them. . . . As for profiling, I want everyone who fits the terrorist profile to be profiled. We have men between the ages of 16 and 40 who have committed terrorist acts around the world in the name of Islam. They are not little old ladies from Ohio with blue hair. They are not children going to Disney World on their Easter vacation.

Elder: What happens if a Democrat wins the 2008 election?

Gabriel: We are doomed. Our enemies want the Democrats to win. This last election, jihadist websites were playing victory songs and declaring the Democrats are our allies in the war against America. . . . Whoever comes next is going to have to deal with the same things Bush is dealing with.

Gang-Rape in Annapolis, Saudi Style
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

It is fitting that Condoleezza Rice chose the U.S. Naval Academy for the venue of tomorrow’s so-called Mideast peace conference. The reputation of that extraordinary institution in Annapolis has been sullied in recent years by a succession of rapes of young women. Despite official efforts to low-ball its significance, Ms. Rice’s conclave is shaping up to be a gang-rape of a nation on a scale not seen since Munich in 1938, when the British and French allowed Hitler and Mussolini to have their violent way with Czechoslovakia.

This time, the intended victim is Israel. As with the effort to appease the Nazis and Fascists nearly sixty years ago, however, the damage will not be confined to the rapee. The interests of the Free World in general and the United States in particular will suffer from what the Saudis and most of the other attendees have in mind for the Jewish State – namely, its dismemberment and ultimate destruction.

As it happens, millions Americans have lately been introduced to the Saudis’ attitude towards gang-rape, pursuant to the theocratic code known as Shari’a that they seek to impose on us all. We learned that a 19-year-old Saudi woman identified only as the Girl of Qatif had been kidnapped and raped by seven men. The rapists were to receive prison sentences and whippings. The woman, though, was sentenced to receive 90 lashes for the crime of sitting in a car with a male who was not a relative. When she had the temerity to appeal her barbaric sentence, it was increased to six months in prison and 200 lashes.

There will, of course, be no punishments for the perpetrators of the coming gang-rape of Israel at Annapolis. To the contrary, the Bush Administration feels deeply indebted to the Saudi foreign minister for his participation and that of a representative of a country Ms. Rice’s department lists as a state-sponsor of terror: Syria.

In fact, as an inducement for attending, a host of nations who have never formally and concretely abandoned their historic determination to bring about Israel’s liquidation have been assured by their U.S. hosts that they will be able to use this event to promote their agendas. As one American official blithely put it: “No one’s microphone will be turned off.”

Consequently, it seems likely that Annapolis will feature an outpouring of sentiment – in fact, near unanimity – on the following points: Israel must relinquish to its Palestinian and Syrian enemies territory essential to the defense and security of the Jewish State. Hard experience in southern Lebanon and Gaza leaves no doubt that the vacuum thus created will be used by terrorists to attack Israel, and perhaps America.

The gang assembled at the Naval Academy – Europeans, Russians, non-governmental organizations as well as Arabs – will largely insist that the Israelis allow the capital of a new Palestinian state to be established in the section of Jerusalem most holy to Jews (and Christians). Never mind that from East Jerusalem, the Israeli-controlled remainder of the city can be shelled at will with Kassam rockets or even mortars.

At Annapolis, virtually everyone will also agree that Israel must accept some arrangement affording rights to millions of Arabs who have been, as the esteemed historian Bernard Lewis points out in today’s Wall Street Journal, deliberately condemned to refugee status (in some cases, for as many as five generations) by their regional “brothers” and UN enablers. Everyone understands this demand will translate demographically into the end of the Jewish State.

By virtue of its sponsorship of the event and its actions, both there and subsequently, the United States will once again assume the role of “honest broker.” This mutation of Israel’s one ally makes it still less likely that America will block such international demands.

Even before Annapolis, Condi Rice has found it inexpedient to do more than mouth platitudes of the kind that once governed George Bush’s policies vis a vis the Jewish State and its enemies. Today, Palestinians can remain in the terror business – they can even officially and explicitly refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland – and still enjoy the Administration’s political support and access to U.S. military equipment, training and vast amounts of taxpayers’ funds.

The bigger problem is that the government of Ehud Olmert seems disposed to go along with the emerging “international consensus.” Indeed, Olmert has already signaled a willingness to compromise his country’s future security and integrity as a Jewish state in the hope of rescuing his failed premiership and avoiding prosecution for corruption. For their part, his people seem to be sleep-walking, unable to believe that every one of their longstanding national requirements (for example, a unified Jerusalem, secure borders, no “right of return” for “refugees,” etc.) is being abandoned in the pursuit of a “peace” no one can seriously believe is in prospect from the Saudis and their friends.

Sadly, like the Girl of Qatif, the people of Israel stand to be punished for putting themselves in such a compromising position. Unfortunately for them and for others who will be victimized in the future by Israel’s emboldened Islamist enemies, the penalty for the “process” resuscitated at the Naval Academy and the concessions that will flow from it will not be the lash. It may well prove to be a death sentence.

As Rice looks set for a date, Abbas insists that it must be a rape
By Israel Insider staff  November 6, 2007
  
The US says invitations are likely to be sent out in two weeks for a conference at the end of the month, according to some sources beginning October 26. But reports on the Palestinian positions suggest that the meeting will turn into a fiasco resulting not in peace but war and chaos. Abbas is said to be rejecting recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, demanding control over the Kotel ("Western Wall") and Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and insisting on an unlimited "right of return" of Palestinian "refugees" and their descendants to Israel. And now Syria appears to have won the right to use the conference to pressure Israeli to withdraw from the strategic Golan Heights.

Such positions have been anathema to previous Israeli governments, at least pubicly, but Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni seem to be cheerfully welcoming what is looking increasingly like a conference to roll back Israeli sovereignty beyond even the 1967 borders to something that resembles the pre-State UN partition plan of 1947, perhaps sixty years to the day after the resolution passed in the General Assembling, partitioning Mandatory Palestine/Eretz Yisrael into Jewish and Arab areas.

Except that, according to a report by DebkaFile, the Palestinians and Arab states have no intention to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Instead, led by "moderate" head of the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority (or that part of it not representing the majority-supported Hamas Islamic movement) will recognize Israel simply as a state of its citizens, leaving the way open for the gradual dissolution of the Jewish character of the state as the higher Arab birthrate increases their political control over the state. That strategy is also reflected in the Palestinian insistence on an unfettered right of return by Arab who claim to have been made refugees by Israel and two or three generations of their descendants, totalling millions of people throughout the Middle East, who will not be satisfied by residency in the Palestinian State but will instead demand to turn Israel into an Arab state.

In addition, Abbas made it clear to Rice, according to reports, that he does not intend to allow any Israeli control over the Old City of Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter, the Temple Mount (site of the Jews' two Holy Temples), and the Kotel or Western Wall, among the sole remaining remnants of the Temple structure to which Jews have access and hold sacred.

Despite these reports and "difficulties" in discussions reported by both side, the Israeli government appears unfazed by the prospect of the conference and wants to expand to include additional intransigent enemies who also hold maximalist positions.

"The US expects to send out invitations in the next few days,'' Olmert told reporters after discussions with President Shimon Peres. "I hope Syria and other Arab countries will participate.'' The conference was proposed in July by President George W. Bush as a way to establish a Palestinian state. Olmert, Abbas and Rice said this week that they agree to try to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement before Bush leaves office in January 2009 or according to one report, before August 2008, when a Republican candidate is selected to replace Bush and the US Presidential election gets into high gear.

In fact, according to Debka, Olmert was trying to put the best face on an American fait accompli after President Bush authorized the inclusion of the return of the Golan Heights to Syria as a subject to be negotiated and mentioned in the final statement of the Annapolis conference, over Israel's head. The report said that the Syrians are demanding that the restoration of the Golan to Syrian hands must be laid out in a speech at the peace conference, or Syria will not attend.

While Olmert insists that no formal negotiations are to take place at Annapolis, he has agreed to start a round of peace talks immediately after the meeting. Israeli and Palestinian teams are trying to wordsmith out a joint statement for Olmert and Abbas to deliver at the meeting. that prospect seems distant, unless Israel continues to cave in on its own long-held positions demanding recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, opposing any return of Arab refugees or their descendants to Israel, and insisting that Jerusalem -- at least the Holy Basin including the Old City and its immediate surroundings -- remain under Israeli sovereignty and control.

Once negotiations begin, Olmert said today that he will accept Palestinian demands to discuss all issues central to the conflict, including the status of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the resettling of Palestinian refugees. Two coalition partners, Yisrael Beitenu and Shas, have vowed to quit his government if such negotiations begin, which would leave the Prime Minister without a parliamentary majority.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, now the defense minister, negotiated with the Palestinians under similar circumstances seven years ago at Taba and was pummelled by Ariel Sharon in the February 2001 election.

Meanwhile, Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon, trying to score points against Barak, objected to the delays in Israel's ability to cut electricity to Gaza following continuing Kassam rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas, which continued Tuesday evening.

"It is a grave mistake for Israel to uphold the absurd situation whereas it continues to supply water, electricity and fuel to an entity that has a terrorist organization at its helm," Ramon said. "In my eyes this is legitimate beyond the shadow of a doubt," he said, referring to sanctions against Gaza.

Then, in a twist of logic that has come to characterize the left side of Israel's political spectrum, Ramon went on to call for expanding the failed Gaza experiment in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), handing over more land to Palestinian control and exposing vast new portions of Israel to rocket attacks. "If it becomes evident that Israel does not have a partner that can bring results, there will be no choice but to take unilateral steps in Judea and Samaria as well," he said.

The Chairman of the extreme leftist party Meretz, Yossi Beilin, claimed that cutting off electricity and fuel was not the best way to halt rocket attacks from the Strip. Instead he called for talks with Hamas.

"Former prime minister Ariel Sharon's biggest mistake was to allow Hamas participation in the Palestinian elections. We must arrive -- via indirect means -- at a cease-fire agreement with Hamas," he said. "They approached us, but we weren't interested."

"Cutting off electricity and water is an inhuman and un-Jewish act," he added.

Monday evening a rocket attack from Gaza blacked out the Israeli city of Sderot, silenced its early warning system, damaged homes, and sent residents to the hospital suffering from shock.

It is becoming apparent that in Annapolis, as in Sderot, Israel is set to become the willing victim, inviting attacks from its enemies and rewarding them with increasing concessions.

Former Ambassador to the US Zalman Shoval has been stressing this point for weeks: "This conference, if it does take place, has every potential of becoming an event where Israel will be on the defensive from the beginning [until] the end," former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Shoval told foreign journalists in Jerusalem in October.

Israel's "original sin" was agreeing to participate in the "Annapolis charade," Shoval said.

"In a forum where Israel will be in splendid isolation, facing the entire Arab League, European Union, the U.N., Russia ...the chances for Israel to have its positions...recognized are practically nil," he said.

Shoval pointed to a report that the US intends to submit a "bridging proposal," which would most certainly not favor to Israel. He lambasted "Israel's inexperienced team" for agreeing to let Washington oversee the Road Map initiative's implementation, ruling whether the Palestinian side fights terrorism (the experience has shown that the US not only turns a blind eye to violations -- except when Americans are killed) and whether Israel freezes settlement activity.

Shoval said that "the United Nations Secretary General's intention to turn the Annapolis understandings into Security Council resolutions could emerge as another obstacle for Israel."

In short, Israel appears to be putting herself blithely into an indefensible situation where she will be forced to accept entreaties that will strip the country of its defenses and yield her most sacred places. It will be no surprise, as Stan Goodenough has written in Israel Insider, that the days of Jewish State's submission to international rape will be the sixtieth anniversary of the date on which the Jewish State was created. 

Olmert Warns of End of Israel

Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:57 PM

In unusually frank comments, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in an interview published Thursday that "the state of Israel is finished" if a Palestinian state is not created, saying the alternative was a South African-style apartheid struggle.

The explosive reference to apartheid came as Olmert returned from a high profile peace conference in Annapolis, Md., hoping to prepare a skeptical nation for difficult negotiations with the Palestinians.

Just hours after his return, the Israeli leader received an important boost when police recommended that prosecutors drop an investigation into whether he illegally intervened in the government's sale of a bank two years ago. The threat of indictment in the case cast a cloud over Olmert for months.

While Olmert has long said that the region's demography was working against Israel, the comments published in the Haaretz daily were among his strongest. Israeli officials have long rejected any comparison to the racist system once in place in South Africa.

Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed at the Annapolis summit to resume peace talks with the Palestinians after a seven-year freeze. The two leaders pledged efforts to reach an agreement on the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of next year.

In the interview, Olmert said it was a vital Israeli interest to create a Palestinian state due to the growing Arab population in the area.

"The day will come when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," Olmert told Haaretz. "As soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."

The interview was published on the 60th anniversary of the historic U.N. decision to partition Palestine, setting up separate Jewish and Arab states. The vote led to a war, and the Palestinian state was not created.

The Palestinians want to form their state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

Jews are a solid majority inside Israel, comprising roughly 80 percent of the population of 7 million. However, if the West Bank and Gaza are included, Arabs already make up nearly half the population.

To ensure that Israel can maintain its character as a democracy with a solid Jewish majority, Olmert supports a withdrawal from much of the West Bank and parts of east Jerusalem, following Israel's pullout from Gaza in 2005.

Israel's 1.5 million Arab citizens have the right to vote, but the estimated 3.9 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza do not have Israeli citizenship or rights.

Olmert, a hard-liner earlier in his career, in recent years has repeatedly warned that Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza. But he has never used the South African analogy in public, though officials say he recently made the same argument in a closed meeting with lawmakers.

Gazans complained Thursday that they are running out of fuel, blaming an Israeli decision to cut back on supplies. However, the private Israeli company that sells fuel to Gaza said the problem was that Gaza is not paying its bills — an issue that repeats itself every few months and is usually resolved quickly.

In the corruption case, police said there was insufficient evidence to indict Olmert in one of those investigations — whether he illegally intervened in the government's sale of a bank two years ago. Olmert had been suspected of trying to rig the privatization of Bank Leumi in favor of two associates while he was finance minister.

The decision, coming after months of investigations, including two interrogations of Olmert, was forwarded to the attorney general, who makes the final decision on whether to indict. That decision is weeks or months away, but an indictment appears unlikely.

Police are still conducting two other corruption probes against Olmert, who has denied any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, two polls published in Israeli newspapers Thursday showed the Israeli public to be highly skeptical of the fledgling peace process.

The polls, conducted by the Dahaf Institute and Dialog agency, found that fewer than one in five Israelis believe the Annapolis conference was a success, and more than 80 percent of the public thinks the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will not meet their goal of reaching a deal in 2008.

The polls each questioned about 500 people and had margins of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Zionism's Bleak Present
By Daniel Pipes
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DanielPipes/2007/10/11/zionisms_bleak_present

"We are all Keynsians now," Richard Nixon famously asserted just as the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes fell into disrepute. Likewise, one could have said with similar confidence in 1989, as Israel's existence reached wide acceptance, "We are all Zionists now." No longer.

Count the ways Israel is under siege: from Iranians building a nuclear bomb, Syrians stockpiling chemical weapons, Egyptians and Saudis developing serious conventional forces, Hizbullah attacking from Lebanon, Fatah from the West Bank, Hamas from Gaza, and Israel's Muslim citizens becoming politically restive and more violent.

World-wide, professors, editorialists, and foreign ministry bureaucrats challenge the continued existence of a Jewish state. Even friendly governments, notably the Bush administration, pursue diplomatic initiatives that undermine Israeli deterrence even as their arms sales erode its security.

Let's suppose, however, that the country muddles through these many problems. That leaves it face to face with its ultimate challenge: a Jewish population increasingly disenchanted with, even embarrassed by, the country's founding ideology, Zionism, the Jewish national movement.

As developed by Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) and other theoreticians, Zionism's call for a sovereign Jewish state fit the political context and mood of its time. If Chinese, Arabs, and Irish sought to establish a national state, why not Jews?

Indeed, especially Jews, for through nearly two millennia they had paid the greatest price of any people for their political weakness, having been expelled, victimized, persecuted and mass murdered as none other. Zionism offered an escape to this tragic history by standing tall and taking up the sword.

From its inception, Zionism had its share of Jewish opponents, ranging from the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox) to nostalgic Iraqis to reform rabbis, But, until recently, these were marginal elements. Now, due to high birth rates, the once-tiny Haredi community constitutes 22 percent of Israel's current first-grade class; add to this the roughly equivalent number of Arab first-graders and a sea-change in Israeli politics can be expected about 2025.

Worse for Israel, Jewish nationalism has lost the near-automatic support it once had among secular Jews, many of whom find this nineteenth-century ideology out of date. Some accept arguments that a Jewish state represents racism or ethnic supremacism, others find universalist and multi-cultural alternatives compelling. Consider some signs of the changes underway:

*Young Israelis are avoiding the military in record numbers, with 26 percent of enlistment-age Jewish males and 43 percent of females not drafted in 2006. An alarmed Israel Defense Forces has requested legislation to deny state-provided benefits to Jewish Israelis who do not serve.

*Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has up-ended the work of the Jewish National Fund, one of the pioneer Zionist institutions (founded in 1901) by determining that its role of acquiring land specifically for Jews cannot continue in the future with state assistance.

*Prominent Israeli historians focus on showing how Israel was conceived in sin and has been a force for evil.

*Israel's ministry of education has approved school books for third-grade Arab students that present the creation of Israel in 1948 as a "catastrophe" (Arabic: nakba).

*Avraham Burg, scion of a leading Zionist household and himself a prominent Labor Party figure, has published a book comparing Israel with 1930s Germany. A 2004 poll found only 17 percent of American Jews call themselves "Zionist."

Seen in a larger context, this turn from Zionism echoes trends in other Western countries, where old-style patriotism and national pride have also declined. In Western Europe, citizens tend to see little of special value in their own history, customs, and mores. Last month, for example, the Netherlands' Princess Máxima, wife to the heir to the throne, announced to wide acclaim that "The Dutch identity does not exist." This Western-wide decline of patriotism aggravates Israel's predicament, suggesting that developments there fit into a larger trend, making them the more difficult to resist or reverse.

To top it off, Arabs are moving these days in the opposite direction, reaching a fever pitch of ethnic and religious bellicosity.

As a Zionist myself, I watch these several trends with foreboding about Israel's future.

I console myself by recalling that few of today's problems were evident in 1989. Perhaps in 2025, Zionism's prospects will again brighten, as Westerners generally and Israelis specifically finally awake to the dangers posed by Palestinian irredentists, jihadists, and other extremist Middle Easterners.