A couple of years ago I had the privilege of working with a Shoah survivor named Jack Wohl, at a retirement community.Sometimes I would say, "Let's go visit some of the Jewish residents, Jack.Do a Mitzvah."Jack would invariably look at me from his wheelchair and say, "A Mitzvah, Yeah."
Operating IsraelAmerica and Earl Krugel Chai! is a Mitzvah I perform.
I try to write as much of the material as I can myself, but frequently the items I receive via email are so powerful and informative that there is little for me to add.
The articles by Professor Rubin are in that category.

Many years after September 11, despite more than 10,000 terrorist attacks by radical Islamist groups alone, there is still an amazing amount of confusion and falsehood over what should be a very simple point: What is terrorism all about?
The answer is politics and, to be specific, revolutionary politics.
Most obviously, terrorism is a tactic used by political groups but, most importantly, it is a strategy.
Defining who and what is "terrorist" should be neither a moral judgment nor a propaganda exercise.
It is a simple use of political analysis.There are many incomplete or misleading concepts of terrorism. Often, terrorism is conceived as evil and its perpetrators as irrational criminals. While, of course, terrorism is evil in moral terms the problem with this approach is that it feels no need to go further in understanding what is going on.Partly as a reaction to that concept, terrorism is presented as a matter of opinion. In today's world, of course, repressing women, denying freedom, and murdering dissenters are often presented in democratic countries as a mere cultural choice, an aspect of local color. It should be remembered that when the Communist USSR made an alliance with Nazi Germany the Soviet foreign minister explained that fascism was merely a matter of taste.Leaving all that aside, though, once the issue is defined in moral terms then it is being depoliticized. The media thinks of itself as neutral. Consequently, the English-language Western media often calls people who commit terrorist actions "militants" or "extremists." That may be a good thing since it indicates a radical and implies a violent orientation. But it only educates up to a point.Here's what you need to know: There are arguably good reasons for having a terrorist strategy, not as a reaction to poverty or oppression but as a way to seize state power and transform societies.Why does an ideology or movement decide that its best course is deliberately murdering the maximum number of civilians? The choice of terrorist strategy is a judgment particularly about one's goals, enemy, and constituency.Only a despotic goal pursued by a totalitarian movement can sustain a terrorist strategy which, in turn, further reinforces an anti-democratic, intolerant orientation. A radical Islamist dictatorship in which the ruling elite's whim is rationalized as divine will is the shining hell that is the movement's utopian dream. This replaces the Marxist dictatorship of those claiming to embody the proletariat's needs with that of those pretending to interpret divine desires.To be deserving of mass murder or even genocide, the enemy must be defined as simultaneously demonic and weak. Pure evil, so to justify its being massacred but also cowardly to explain why the revolutionaries will triumph. We have reached the point where many non-radical Muslims agree that criticizing radical Islamism is punishable by death.Unfortunately, a large part of the West seems to be acting in a way that seems to embody the predicted weakness but that, too, is another story.
More relevant here, though, is the fact that the terrorist strategist may make a tactical adjustment in the face of a tough opponent. The reason that Muslim Brotherhoods in Egypt and Jordan do not presently engage in terrorism has nothing to do with their worldview and everything to do with fear of repression.
In contrast, Hamas and Hizballah--very parallel movements in every way--can go all-out because there is no government of their peers that is going to flatten them for doing so.
Especially important is the terrorist strategist's assessment of his constituents.
He must believe that terrorism will be relatively popular among those he wants to win over.
Terrorism appeals as a revolutionary strategy largely because the violence used against Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, and Western targets is largely cheered among Arabs. Only a minority are radical Islamists but a majority is pleased, at least at their work in nearby places.
The fault lies with the fans in the stands rather than the victims in the arena.This is the problem presented by terrorism and radical Islamism. Crazy people can be given therapy, misunderstandings can be cleared up with dialogue; honest grievances can be resolved by mutual concessions. With determined, ideologically clear, mass-based revolutionary movements you can only defeated them or surrender.
Holding them off, that is preventing them from winning for a very long time until they are truly worn down, is another option. Refer here to the history of Communism.
Finally, a new twist is added, not for the folks at home but for the suckers out there. "The communists disdain to conceal their aims," wrote Karl Marx in 1848.
Since then, the public relations' industry has flourished.
Terrorist movements and supporters learned to feign innocence (and moderation), accusing their victims of being terrorists. With a lot of help from prestigious Western news organs they have turned the tables.Arab leaders spoke in 1948 and 1967 of repeating the Mongol massacres and driving the Jews into the sea.
This has not completely changed. Hizballah chief Hasan Nasrallah said recently, "The Zionist entity can be wiped out of existence."
But there is no end of commentators around to explain that he doesn't really mean it seriously.Instead, the sophisticated talk is of "collective punishment" and "excessive force."
Even a young gentleman of the old school like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has many saying he was misquoted about seeking to wipe Israel off the map.Consider this 1993 exchange between two founders of the U.S.-based, Hizballah-supporting Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):Omar Ahmad: "There is a difference between you saying, 'I want to restore the '48 land' and when you say 'I want to destroy Israel..."Nihad Awad: "Yes, there are different but parallel types of address. There shouldn't be contradiction.
Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn't know anything. As for the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something, I know how to address him, you see?"
"Yes, I see."
But I wish everyone else did, too.
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His latest book, The Truth about Syria was published by Palgrave-Macmillan in May 2007. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname=submenus/articles/index.asp.

Hamas Killers Deride Shoah

Hamas believes the Holocaust was "exaggerated," its supreme leader said.

Khaled Meshaal Hamas Chief said in a TV interview Monday that the numbers were exaggerated to justify the existence and actions of Israel.

"We don't deny the Holocaust, but we believe the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Zionist movement to use as a whip," the Palestinian gangster was quatoed as saying.

"We don't deny the fact but we don't accept two issues. We don't accept the exaggeration of numbers and we don't accept that Israel uses this to do what it wants."

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, by any means, including the murder of unarmed civilians.


Asked about Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier abducted to Gaza by Hamas in June 2006, Meshaal said he is alive and well and that negotiations on his return are "being held up by Israel."

The Israeli government has balked at Hamas' demand for the release of hundreds of jailed Palestinians, including hard-core killers, in exchange for Shalit.

The Golan Heights at issue between Israel and Syria is tagged onto the Annapolis peace conference agenda - over Israel’s head

Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak made welcoming sounds about Syria’s possible presence at the conference, as though they had come up with the plan after careful consideration. In fact, DEBKAfile’s Middle East and intelligence sources report, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice presented them with a fait accompli.
The invitation she handed to Syrian foreign minister Walid Mualem on Nov. 3 came from President George W. Bush, after he accepted Damascus’ condition that future negotiations on the Golan be mentioned in the conference’s final paper, as well as the Palestinian issue.
Rice and Mualem initially agreed that the Golan talks between Israel and Syria would be delayed for a while so as not to interfere with the Palestinian track. It will also be necessary to prepare Israeli opinion for the step. But Tuesday, after winning one point, Damascus raised the ante.
Syrian deputy prime minister Abdullah Dardari announced that if the restoration of the Golan to Syrian hands is not laid out at the peace conference, Syria will not attend. His statement aimed at pinning Rice down to making Israel go along with the deal, or risk being accused of derailing the conference.
The Syrians are demanding furthermore that their delegate, possibly vice president Farouk a-Shara, or Moualem, be given the floor for a speech calling for the handover of the Golan which Israel has controlled since Syria was defeated in the 1967 War. And if president Bashar Assad decides to attend, Damascus wants him to be formally received by his opposite number in rank, namely Vice President Dick Cheney.

G-d Bless Earl Krugel, OBM

We will never forget Earl as long as there is a need for men like him to fight to protect those who are not able to fight alone.
Earl Krugel was a true hero, and will always live in our hearts.