Levitt Letter Extra News

By Rebbetzin Holly Pavlov
www.JewishWorldReview.com

When we think of the billions of people that G-d created, it is hard to think of any individual as significant. Even taking into account the uniqueness of the Jewish people, we ask ourselves: What difference do any of us make in the scheme of things? If we had not lived, would the world be different? Would the Jewish people be worse off? Each person seems so small and insignificant compared to the vast world. Does any one person make a difference?

Modern philosophers have asked and answered this question in various ways. Marxism taught us that mass movements dominate the world, and influence the outcome of world events, but the individual is unimportant in changing the world. The pendulum of history swings back and forth, regardless of any one person or group of people. Existentialism taught the futility of the individual, his insignificance in this lonely world, and the emptiness of human existence.

The postmodern world emphasized the individual’s development, happiness, ego, and his ability to change himself. But very little is said about his ability to change the world, to make a difference.

The Torah [Bible] sees it differently. The Torah teaches us that one person can make a difference, and that indeed, it is each person’s responsibility to do so. The story of Joseph, as told in Genesis, is an example of one person who changed the world. It describes a series of events that led the Jewish people into Egyptian exile. The jealousy of Joseph’s brothers led to the sale of Joseph. Joseph ended up in prison in Egypt where, with G-d’s help, he interpreted dreams of other prisoners. This eventually led him to the palace of Pharaoh where he interpreted a set of dreams that caused Pharaoh consternation.

Joseph’s interpretation of the dream led to a change in Egypt’s economic policy and prevented mass starvation. The entire world benefited from his plan and Egypt’s power was strengthened.

What would today’s headlines say? “Breadbasket of the World Faces Starvation.” “Can the Egyptian Economy Recover from Devastating Famine?” “Mass Immigration as Starving Seek Refuge.”

The Torah, on the other hand, describes the events as follows, “Joseph was brought down to Egypt.” One person makes a difference. One person, who was brought down to Egypt, changed world history.

To understand this, we must examine two ideas: the importance of the individual as one who stands completely alone and isolated in this world, and the necessity of individual contribution to society.

THE SINGULARITY OF MAN

The world is founded on the principle of individual significance. Our Rabbis teach:

Man was created alone. To teach that whoever destroys a single soul in Israel, Scripture charges him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whoever preserves a single soul in Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as though he had preserved a complete world. … And to proclaim the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed is He: For if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one another. But the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed is He, fashioned every man in the stamp of the first man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore, every person is obliged to say, “The world was created for my sake” (Sanhedrin 37).

This Mishnah teaches us several important ideas.

• Each person is a world, unique, and brilliant in significance and individuality.
• Each person is different — from the time of the creation of the first person until the end of history — there was and will never be a person like him. No one person is exactly like any other in his combination of talents, deficiencies, strengths, energies.
• Every individual must view himself as so significant that G-d would have created the entire world for his sake alone.

This singularity of Adam is the inheritance of each person. The Jewish nation was founded by one father who stood up against the rest of the world. Our Patriarch, Avraham, was called Avraham HaIvri. The word “ivri” means “other side.” Our Rabbis teach us that Avraham was called this because he stood on one side of the world, while everyone else stood on the other side of the world (Pesachim 118).

Avraham taught monotheism in a pagan world. He was ridiculed, threatened with extermination, and isolated; yet he remained firm in his belief and his teachings.

This ability to stand alone was ingrained and inherited by the children of Avraham, the Jewish people. We are dependent only on Torah for our identity, strengths, and beliefs.

However, although we are capable of standing alone, we often do not define ourselves this way. We often avoid standing alone — we often validate ourselves only within relationships — marital, family, social sphere — or by our profession, power, and prestige.

While relationships are an essential part of the human experience, and while professions provide us with use of our creative energy, they are not validation of our uniqueness as human beings. In fact, we often hide within those relationships and positions in order to avoid being alone and facing ourselves.

THE HIGH HOLY DAYS

Once a year, we are reminded of our aloneness, and we must account for ourselves as unique individuals. On Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we stand completely alone before G-d. We realize that we stand in judgment on our own, and there is no one who can help us or save us. We cannot use our alliances with other people as justification for poor behavior, or as compensation for our own growth. Each of us is our own witness and our own defense. All guilt and failure belongs to us alone, and we stand naked before our Creator as if there is no one else in the world.

When our Creator asks, “Why did you do this or that?” we cannot answer, “Because everyone else was doing it.” We cannot hide behind the actions of others, or hold onto the coattails of others in an effort to justify ourselves.

Our rabbis describe this standing alone on Rosh Hashanah as the “children of Maron.” On Rosh Hashanah, we walk before G-d as children of Maron. The Talmud gives three interpretations of what this means:

What is the meaning of the expression, “like children of Maron?” In Babylon it was translated, “like a flock of sheep.” Reish Lakish said: as in the ascent of Beth Maron. Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: Like the troops of the house of David. Rabbah bar Bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: (All the same) they are viewed at a simple glance (Rosh Hashanah 18a).

The first interpretation is that we pass before G-d as sheep pass be-fore the shepherd as they go through the sheep gates.

We are part of a flock, yet each sheep counts. The second interpretation is that Maron is a narrow pass through which only one individual can walk at a time. This pass is called Beth Maron. As we walk through life, we walk through a narrow pass, alone, despite friendships and associations with others. The third interpretation is that G-d views us as His soldiers, and makes an assessment of each one’s achievements and capabilities. Each of us is important in our service of the King. No one soldier is less important for the job he has been assigned. The last interpretation is that G-d looks at us all at the same time, yet sees each of us individually.

The High Holy Days provide us with days of solitude, days where we stand before our Creator as individuals, contemplating our uniqueness and our ability to stand alone, as our father Avraham HaIvri did. It is a time to consider what we stand for and to acknowledge that we are not just an unimportant person, but we are each a significant soldier in G-d’s army. We are each unique individuals for whom the entire world was created, and we spend these days asking ourselves how we have used that world, how we have earned that world. These are days we measure up to our own ideals and we make decisions for further growth and accomplishments.

The ultimate goal of being alone is not to create individuals who stand completely alone as an island. The goal is to create individuals who know who they are, what they stand for, and how they can use their individuality for the world and for the Jewish people.

This is a two-step process — to build one’s self into a person who is an individual and who stands alone; and to use that strength to be part of the Jewish people. In so doing, we change the world.

KLAL YISRAEL

Klal Yisrael — the Jewish people — is more than just a nation. It is an identity that was forged at Sinai, when we all agreed to accept the Torah. From the moment of that acceptance, a new mechanism was formed, one in which all of its members counted and depended on each other; one in which the actions of any individual affected the other members of the group. Klal Yisrael is an all-inclusive unit that is more than the sum total of its parts.

If a Jew hurts in one place in the world, it affects all Jews in other places in the world. If a Jew does a mitzvah (religious act that makes one G-d-like) in America, it affects the reality of Jews in Israel. Likewise, a sin by one person affects all other people. This is the essence of klal Yisrael.

This means that although we stand as individuals, we cannot ignore the affect of our actions on the group. Every mitzvah we do, every sin we transgress, affects the klal. This is true of actions that are done in private, even in secret, unseen. We are one mechanism and part of the same whole. Our actions affect not just us, but the entire Jewish people.

The great Rabbi, the Chafetz Chaim, compared this to two people in a boat. One person decides to drill a hole under his seat. When his companion objects, the man with the drill retorts, “But the hole is under my seat, not yours!” Of course, the hole will sink both of them, and it would be wrong to think otherwise. So it is with the Jewish people — we cannot “drill a hole” under our own seat by sinning, and assume it affects no one but us. We are all in the same boat, and the salvation of one is the salvation of all.

The existence of klal Yisrael even affects the way we are judged. Whereas as an individual, we may not be able to stand in judgment because of our sins, as klal Yisrael, we merit a different, more merciful, kind of judgment. This is why we pray in a minyan, and why we pray in the plural — not just for our individual healing and redemption, but for the redemption of all of the Jewish people. In being part of the greater whole, we merit more Divine intervention and mercy.

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

To make a difference, a person must first identify himself as a person who stands alone. He must know what he lives for and what he is willing, if necessary, to die for. He must know what he hopes to achieve and set goals for spiritual accomplishment.

He must also understand that klal Yisrael needs him, and that every action he does can be a contribution to the wellbeing of the klal. Every positive thought, deed or word a person does has an effect on the Jewish people.

Therefore, a person can make a tremendous difference even when he sits alone, if he carries the weight of the klal on his shoulders. Once a person realizes this, his life has meaning way beyond himself. And he can make a difference.

Joseph changed the world. The entire world was saved from starvation because one Jew went down to Egypt, and knew that he had a mission. His actions sitting in jail would affect his future and that of his people. If he acted righteously, G-d would be with him; if he acted selfishly, he could not bring about a positive change. His devotion to the greater plan fed the world.

One Jew made a difference. And so can we!

Rebbetzin Holly Pavlov is an internationally acclaimed educator, speaker, and teacher of Midrash, Jewish Philosophy, and Ethics. She is the founder of She’arim College of Jewish Studies for Women. She is the author of “Mirrors of Our Lives: Reflections of Women in Tanach”, and “Water from the Well: Reflections of a Jew at the End of History”.

By Daniel Pipes
Jewish World Review

The violence by Muslims responding to comments by the pope fit a pattern that has been building and accelerating since 1989. Six times since then, Westerners did or said something that triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world. Looking at them in the aggregate offers useful insights.

1989 � Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book “is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an.” Subsequent rioting led to over 20 deaths, mostly in India.

1997 � The U.S. Supreme Court refused to remove a 1930s frieze showing Muhammad as lawgiver that decorates the main court chamber; the Council on American-Islamic Relations made an issue of this, leading to riots and injuries in India.

2002 � The American Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a “terrorist,” leading to church burnings and at least 10 deaths in India.

2005 � An incorrect story in Newsweek, reporting that American interrogators at Guant�namo Bay, “in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur’an down a toilet,” was picked up by the famous Pakistani cricketer, Imran Khan, and prompted protests around the Muslim world, leading to at least 15 deaths..

February 2006 � The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons of Muhammad, spurring a Palestinian imam in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, to excite Muslim opinion against the Danish government. He succeeded so well, hundreds died, mostly in Nigeria.

September 2006 � Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine emperor’s views that what is new in Islam is “evil and inhuman,” prompting the firebombing of churches and the murder of several Christians.

These six rounds show a near-doubling in frequency: 8 years between the first and second rounds, then 5, then 3, 1, and 1/2.

The first instance � Khomeini’s edict against Salman Rushdie � came as a complete shock, for no one had hitherto imagined that a Muslim dictator could tell a British citizen living in London what he could not write about. Seventeen years later, calls for the execution of the pope (including one at the Westminster Cathedral in London) had acquired a too-familiar quality. The outrageous had become routine, almost predictable. As Muslim sensibilities grew more excited, Western ones became more phlegmatic.

Incidents started in Europe (Rushdie, Danish cartoons, Pope Benedict) have grown much larger than those based in the United States (Supreme Court, Jerry Falwell, Koran flushing), reflecting the greater efficacy of Islamist aggression against Europeans than against Americans.

Islamists ignore subtleties. Rushdie’s magical realism, the positive intent of the Supreme Court frieze, the falsehood of the Koran-flushing story (ever tried putting a book down the toilet?), the benign nature of the Danish cartoons, or the subtleties of Benedict’s speech � none of these mattered.

What rouses Muslim crowds and what does not is somewhat unpredictable. Rushdie’s novel was not nearly as offensive to Muslim sensibilities as a host of other writings, medieval, modern, and contemporary. Other American Evangelists said worse things about Muhammad than did Falwell (Jerry Vines called the Muslim prophet “a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives,” without violence ensuing). Why did Norwegian preacher Runar S�gaard’s deeming Muhammad “a confused pedophile” remain a local dispute while the Danish cartoons went global?

One answer is, that Islamists having international reach (Khomeini, CAIR, Imran Khan, Abu Laban) usually play a key role in transforming a general sense of displeasure into an operational fury. If no Islamist agitates, the issue remains relatively quiet.
The extent of the violence is even more unpredictable � one could not anticipate the cartoons causing the most fatalities and the pope’s quote the fewest. And why so much violence in India?

These incidents also spotlight a total lack of reciprocity by Muslims. The Saudi government bans Bibles, crosses, and Stars of David, while Muslims routinely publish disgusting cartoons of Jews and burn the pope in effigy.

No conspiracy lies behind these six rounds of inflammation and aggression, but examined in retrospect, they coalesce and form a single, prolonged campaign of intimidation, with more sure to come. The basic message � “You Westerners no longer have the privilege to say what you will about Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an, Islamic law rules you too” � will return again and again until Westerners either do submit or Muslims realize their effort has failed.

Jack Kinsella
http://www.omegaletter.com/

I’m not certain, but I don’t think that Hugo Chavez is likely to get a Christmas card from the White House this year. (Or a ‘holiday’ greeting card, or whatever it is that the White House will send as it pays homage to the politically correct.)

When ol’ Hugo took his turn at the UN podium, he began by saying, “The devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.”

As Chavez made the sign of the cross and clasped his hands in a gesture of prayer, the UN delegates assembled broke into a round of sustained applause.

As Chavez ranted and raved against the United States, his audience, (seated in New York, New York, USA) alternatively chuckled and applauded. But they didn’t walk out. They kept to their seats, spellbound by an anti-American tirade that would have made Castro blush.

Chavez accused the U.S. of planning and financing a failed 2002 coup against him. If the US didn’t, it certainly should have.

Among the highlights of his address before his approving audience of UN delegates was his charge that America tries to impose its vision of democracy militarily in countries such as Iran and Iraq.

He called U.S. consumerism “madness” at a marathon news conference, saying Americans have wasteful habits in using oil and energy.

Really? The other day, I watched a thirty-second Citgo commercial extolling the “mad US consumers” to spend their money at Citgo stations buying Venezuelan gas and various sundries so that Chavez could buy the expensive suit he’ll have to replace after it was sullied by the sulfur smell at the UN podium.

I’d have to concur with Chavez on one point. Any American that does buy their gas from Citgo just might be a mad American consumer. Citgo is a wholly-owned Venezuelan state oil company. All of Citgo’s profits go straight to Hugo Chavez.

Excerpted from Gary Bauer’s End of Day Report

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has gotten a lot of press lately: exclusive interviews with CBS and NBC, and now he�s on the cover of Time magazine. Yet, the media have been very shy about asking Ahmadinejad serious questions about his faith.

Ahmadinejad�s view of the world is defined entirely by his radical Islamist theology. He believes that the return of a �messianic� imam, known as the �Mahdi,� is imminent. He also believes he can hasten the arrival of the �Mahdi� by starting Armageddon. So, when Ahmadinejad says he wants to �wipe Israel off the map,� he really means it. It is a religious obligation and that obligation is driving his nuclear ambitions, as well as Iran�s support for Hezbollah and the terrorists in Iraq.

In his book, Epicenter, Joel Rosenberg details the religious teachings of Shiite scholars on what the coming of the �Mahdi� holds for the rest of us: �On seeing the fulfillment of many of the signs promised in the traditions, a large number of unbelievers will turn towards Islam. Those who persist in their disbelief � shall be killed by soldiers of the Mahdi. The only victorious government in the entire world will be that of Islam. �The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and the Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise, they will be killed. �It seems unlikely that this catastrophe can be avoided. �Warfare and bloodshed [are] inevitable.� This writing is not from an ancient text, but from Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini, a current Shiite professor at the Religious Learning Center in Qom, Iran. Iran is a theocracy, meaning the government is controlled by religious leaders like Ayatollah Amini. You won�t find this information in the pages of Time Magazine, and it�s worth asking why.

By SUZAN FRASER
Associated Press

ANKARA, Turkey

Turkey’s ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on Friday, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades with remarks he made about Islam. Muslim leaders in the Middle East expressed dismay, and Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned him.

The Vatican said the pope did not intend the remarks — made in Germany on Tuesday during an address at a university — to be offensive.

The pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’” he quoted the emperor as saying. He did not explicitly agree with them nor repudiate them.

Turkey’s top Islamic cleric, Religious Affairs Directorate head Ali Bardakoglu, asked Benedict on Thursday to apologize about the remarks and unleashed a string of accusations against Christianity, raising tensions before the pontiff’s planned visit to Turkey in November on what would be his first papal pilgrimage in a Muslim country.

Bardakoglu said he was deeply offended and called the remarks “extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate.”

On Thursday, when the pope returned to Italy, Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said, “It certainly wasn’t the intention of the pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers.”

Lombardi insisted the pontiff respects Islam. Benedict wants to “cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam,” Lombardi said.

On Friday, Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party, said Benedict’s remarks were either “the result of pitiful ignorance” about Islam and its prophet, or worse, a deliberate distortion of the truths.

“He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world,” Kapusuz blurted out in comments made to the state-owned Anatolia news agency. “It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades.”

In Beirut, Lebanon’s most senior Shiite Muslim cleric denounced the remarks and demanded the pope personally apologize for insulting Islam.

“We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels … and ask him (Benedict) to offer a personal apology — not through his officials — to Muslims for this false reading (of Islam),” Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah told worshippers in his Friday prayers sermon.

A Lebanese government official said the country’s ambassador to the Vatican has been instructed to seek clarifications on the pontiff’s remarks.

In neighboring Syria, the grand mufti, the country’s top Sunni Muslim religious authority, sent a letter to the Pope saying he feared the pontiff’s comments on Islam would worsen interfaith relations.

And in Cairo, about 100 demonstrators gathered in an anti-Vatican protest outside the capital’s al-Azhar mosque.

Pakistan’s parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the pope for making what it called “derogatory” comments about Islam, and seeking an apology from him

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry also called the pope’s remarks “regrettable.”

“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

“What he has done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago,” Aslam said. “It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions.”

She said Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim nations such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Benedict, who has made the fight against growing secularism in Western society a theme of his pontificate, is expected to visit Turkey for a few days, starting Nov. 28. He was invited by the staunchly secularist Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who said the invitation was part of an effort to strengthen dialogue between religions.

On Friday the pope appointed a French prelate with diplomatic experience in the Muslim world as the Vatican’s new foreign minister. The new foreign minister — officially called secretary for relations with states — is Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, 54, who was born of French parents in Morocco.

Here is the mailer mentioned in Mark Levitt’s article “Samaritan’s Purse Strings” in the October 2006 Levitt Letter.

Remarks by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian, at the Duke University Counter-Terrorism Speak-Out

I’m proud and honored to stand here today, as a Lebanese speaking for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. As someone who was raised in an Arabic country, I want to give you a glimpse into the heart of the Arabic world.

I was raised in Lebanon, where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.

When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians, city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17, without electricity, eating grass to live, and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.

It was Israel who came to help the Christians in Lebanon. My mother was wounded by a Moslem’s shell, and was taken into an Israeli hospital for treatment. When we entered the emergency room, I was shocked at what I saw. There were hundreds of people wounded, Moslems, Palestinians, Christians, Lebanese, and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn’t see religion, they didn’t see political affiliation, they saw people in need and they helped.

For the first time in my life I experienced a human quality that I know my culture would not have shown to their enemy. I experienced the values of the Israelis, who were able to love their enemy in their most trying moments. I spent 22 days at that hospital. Those days changed my life and the way I believe information, the way I listen to the radio or to television. I realized I was sold a fabricated lie by my government, about the Jews and Israel, that was so far from reality. I knew for fact that, if I was a Jew standing in an Arab hospital, I would be lynched and thrown over to the grounds, as shouts of joy of Allahu Akbar, God is great, would echo through the hospital and the surrounding streets.

I became friends with the families of the Israeli wounded soldiers: one in particular Rina, her only child was wounded in his eyes.

One day I was visiting with her, and the Israeli army band came to play national songs to lift the spirits of the wounded soldiers. As they surrounded his bed playing a song about Jerusalem, Rina and I started crying. I felt out of place and started waking out of the room, and this mother holds my hand and pulls me back in without even looking at me. She holds me crying and says: “it is not your fault”. We just stood there crying, holding each other’s hands.

What a contrast between her, a mother looking at her deformed 19 year old only child, and still able to love me the enemy, and between a Moslem mother who sends her son to blow himself up to smithereens just to kill a few Jews or Christians.

The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in values and character. It’s barbarism verses civilization. It’s democracy verses dictatorship. It’s goodness verses evil.

Once upon a time, there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian “armed struggle.”

However, once such behavior is legitimized against Israel, it is legitimized every where in the world, constrained by nothing more than the subjective belief of people who would wrap themselves in dynamite and nails for the purpose of killing children in the name of god.

Because the Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that murdering innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic for advancing their cause, the whole world now suffers from a plague of terrorism, from Nairobi to New York, from Moscow to Madrid, from Bali to Beslan.

They blame suicide bombing on “desperation of occupation.” Let me tell you the truth. The first major terror bombing committed by Arabs against the Jewish state occurred ten weeks before Israel even became independent.

On Sunday morning, February 22, 1948, in anticipation of Israel’s independence, a triple truck bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists on Ben Yehuda Street, in what was then the Jewish section of Jerusalem. Fifty-four people were killed, and hundreds were wounded. Thus, it is obvious that Arab terrorism is caused not by the “desperation” of “occupation,” but by the VERY THOUGHT of a Jewish state.

So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing, allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism, now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance. It’s time to all stand up, and support and defend the state of Israel, which is the front line of the war against terrorism.

By Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker

On July 15, MSNBC’s “Connected” program discussed the July 7th London attacks.

One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre’s upcoming film, “Suicide Killers,” is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.

Q — What inspired you to produce “Suicide Killers,” your seventh film?

A — I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.

Q — Why is this film especially important?

A — People don’t understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude.

Q — What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?

A — I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil.

Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.

Q — What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?

A — It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying “Thank God, my son is dead.” Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.

This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed.

They don’t see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

Q — You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?

A — Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God’s sword.

Q — Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.

A — Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don’t see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise.

Q — Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

A — Yes, it is their only conviction. They don’t act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

Q — Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

A — All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don’t think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

Q — Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.

A — Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women’s behavior.

Q — What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?

A — Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).

Q — Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?

A — There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.

Q — Why are so many suicide bombers young men?

A — As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?

Q — What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?

A — The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to “return” into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000rt 23,000
English: World English Bible - WEB
Izbrano poglavje ne obstaja! Štetje svetopisemskih vrstic se začne z ¹! Vrstica ⁰ ne obstaja!

WP-Bible plugin employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film “Hostages of Hatred”).

Q — You say that a suicide bomber is a ‘stupid bomb and a smart bomb’ simultaneously. Explain what you mean.

A — Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn’t know it.

Q — How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?

A — Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Naziism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.

Q — Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?

A — Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.

CNSNews.com

Almost half of the illegal aliens arriving in the U.S. from terrorist-sponsoring or �special interest� nations in the past few years have been released into the American population following their apprehension. This key finding is published in an internal audit of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) obtained by Cybercast News Service.

The so-called �catch and release� policies have allowed more than 45,000 illegal aliens from countries that are well known for their anti-American views or considered �hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism� to be freed.

U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), in conversations with sheriffs operating along the Texas-Mexico border, learned that illegal aliens of Middle Eastern descent have been able to blend into the culture south of the U.S. border and pass themselves off as Mexicans.

�They learn Spanish and assimilate into the population,� Poe said. �Coming across the Canadian border they would be more conspicuous.�

The U.S. State Department�s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSTs), currently includes five countries — Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Sudan. However, the DHS audit lists another category called Special Interest Countries (SICs).

At the moment there is no public list of SICs, however, information made available through the office of U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) indicates that countries with large Islamic fundamentalist populations such as the U.S.-liberated Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, are included on the State Department�s SIC list.

Between the beginning of Fiscal Year 2001 and the mid-way point of Fiscal Year 2005, the DHS audit revealed that 605,210 individuals from countries �other than Mexico� (OTMs) were apprehended and 309,733 of that total were eventually released.

A total of 91,516 illegal aliens from SST and SIC countries were apprehended over the same time period and 45,008 were released, the audit showed.

The audit was produced by the DHS Office of Inspector General and focuses on the Detention and Removal Program, which is operated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau (ICE). The audit was produced in April, but when completed in May, it �was made public on a Friday night with no press release,� said Connie Hair, a spokeswoman for the group of citizen volunteers committed to fighting illegal immigration known as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

The audit report, Hair said, �was buried in an obscure corner of the DHS website,� and discovered only as a result of her group�s research.

The Detention and Removal Program (DRO) anticipates over 600,000r 600,000
English: World English Bible - WEB
Izbrano poglavje ne obstaja! Štetje svetopisemskih vrstic se začne z ¹! Vrstica ⁰ ne obstaja!

WP-Bible plugin foreign-born individuals will be incarcerated in state correctional facilities during Fiscal Year 2007. Current estimates show that at least half of these criminal aliens — 300,000 — will be released or removed due to a lack of resources, according to the DHS audit.

The DHS audit pointed to a number of factors, in addition to funding shortages that are responsible for �catch and release.�

It cites the �propensity of illegal aliens to disobey court orders to appear in immigration court� and �the penchant of released illegal aliens with final orders to abscond.�

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions also mandate the release of criminal aliens and even �high risk aliens� 180 days after the issuance of the final removal order. Finally, the report states that some countries �block� the repatriation of their citizens.

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON — Israel’s war with Hezbollah is a war to secure its northern border, to defeat a terrorist militia bent on Israel’s destruction, to restore Israeli deterrence in the age of the missile. But even more is at stake. Israel’s leaders do not seem to understand how ruinous a military failure in Lebanon would be to its relationship with America, Israel’s most vital lifeline.

For decades there has been a debate in the U.S. over Israel’s strategic value. At critical moments in the past, Israel has indeed shown its value. In 1970, Israeli military moves against Syria saved King Hussein and the moderate pro-American Hashemite monarchy of Jordan. In 1982, American-made Israeli fighters engaged the Syrian air force, shooting down 86 MiGs without a single loss, revealing a shocking Soviet technological backwardness that dealt a major blow to Soviet prestige abroad and self-confidence among its elites at home (including Politburo member Mikhail Gorbachev).

But that was decades ago. The question, as always, is: What have you done for me lately? There is fierce debate now in the U.S. about whether in the post-9/11 world Israel is a net asset or liability. Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack on July 12 provided Israel the extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its utility by making a major contribution to America’s war on terror.

America’s green light for Israel to defend itself is seen as a favor to Israel. But that is a tendentious, misleadingly partial analysis. The green light — indeed, the encouragement — is also an act of clear self-interest. America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat.

Unlike many of the other terror groups in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a serious enemy of the United States. In 1983, it massacred 241 American servicemen. Except for al-Qaeda, it has killed more Americans than any other terror organization.

More importantly, it is today the leading edge of an aggressive, nuclear-hungry Iran. Hezbollah is a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary. Its mission is to extend the Islamic Revolution’s influence into Lebanon and Palestine, destabilize any Arab-Israeli peace, and advance an Islamist Shiite ascendancy, led and controlled by Iran, throughout the Levant.

America finds itself at war with radical Islam, a two-churched monster: Sunni al-Qaeda is now being challenged by Shiite Iran for primacy in its epic confrontation with the infidel West. With al-Qaeda in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq — to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring these territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure these advances, give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel or any other rival.

The moderate pro-Western Arabs understand this very clearly. Which is why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately came out against Hezbollah and privately urged the U.S. to let Israel take down Hezbollah. They know that Hezbollah is fighting Iran’s proxy war not only against Israel but against them and, more generally, against the United States and the West.

Hence Israel’s rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron. Defeating Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. It would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.

The U.S. has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel’s ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war Cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive Cabinet debates are broadcast to the world as was Olmert’s own complaint that “I’m tired. I didn’t sleep at all last night.” (Haaretz, July 28.) Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation, but America’s confidence in Israel as well. That confidence — and the relationship it reinforces — is as important to Israel’s survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.