From Mouse to Vile Killer Bee
Continued Failed Policy by USA and Israel

The US gives Abbas $86 million and Israel releases over $100 million more, these actions take place without any reciprocal actions from the Palestinian Authority.

We have said for many years this policy does not work, it does not change behavior on the ground. For example, there is no evidence required of steps taken to end incitement, corruption or terror. To the contrary, one step of protested action is replaced by another, equally vile.

Remember Farfour, the Mickey Mouse clone who encouraged young children to hate Jews and become martyrs? He was taken off the air when murdered by an Israeli in the last episode. His replacement is a Killer Bee who tells children to take revenge on the enemies of Allah. WATCH THE VIDEO.

Thanks to Aggie Hoffman for bringing this to our attention


In the Al Aqsa TV Show Pioneers of Tomorrow, the degenerate child abusers of Hamas have replaced their evil jihad-spouting Mickey Mouse clone with a new character: Nahoul the Killer Bee, who tells empty-eyed child host Saraa he plans to "take revenge upon the enemies of Allah."
Clip #1510
Windows Media Player
#1510 - Nahoul the Bee Replaces Farfour - Hamas Mickey Mouse - and Vows to Continue on His Path of Martyrdom and Jihad
Al-Aqsa TV (Palestinian Authority) - 7/13/2007 - 00:01:26 http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1510 #


Saraa, child host: Who are you, and where did you come from?

Nahoul the Bee: I am Nahoul.

Saraa: Nahoul who?

Nahoul: I'm Nahoul, Farfour's cousin.

Saraa: What do you want?

Nahoul: I want to continue the path of my cousin Farfour.

Saraa: How do you want to do this?

Nahoul: I want to be in every episode with you on the Pioneers of Tomorrow show, just like Farfour. I want to continue in the path of Farfour – the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom, and of the mujahideen . Me and my friends will follow in the footsteps of Farfour. We will take revenge upon the enemies of Allah, the killer of the prophets and of the innocent children, until we liberate Al-Aqsa from their impurity. We place our trust in Allah.

Saraa: Welcome, Nahoul...

This movement on behalf of Jewish refugees form Arab countries is long overdue. The Palestinians have been screaming about their displaced refugees, the world has paid no attention to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens who were expelled from many Arab countries in 1948, often with just 24 hours notice, making it impossible to take more than they could carry. International law demands that all refugees be treated equally.

Thanks to special lawyer Aggie Hoffman for bringing to our attention the following announcement:


US Congress to Hold Hearing on Jewish Refugees From Arab States

Israel National News / 1 Av 5767, July 16, '07

THIS IS HUGE NEWS

The Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC) of the US legislature is set to hold a first-of-its-kind hearing next week on the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to flee their homes in Arab countries as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The July 19 hearing in Washington DC, under the heading "Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation," is to be hosted by the CHRC in conjunction with B'nai Brith International and Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. It will be the first time that the US Congress will hear testimony on the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

The expert witnesses invited to address the US legislators include: Dr. Irwin Cotler, a member of Parliament and a former Justice Minister from Canada who is well-known for his advocacy on behalf of prisoners of conscience around the globe, including Professor Saad Edin Ibrahim, the leading democracy advocate in the Arab world; Dr. Henry Green , a professor of Religious Studies and Sociology at the University of Miami, and the former director of the Judaic and Sephardic Studies Department; Mrs. Regina Bublil Waldman, a recipient of the prestigious Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award , is a co-founder of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (JIMENA), a US-based advocacy group. Mrs. Waldman was born in Libya and her family was nearly murdered while escaping that country in 1967.

The CHRC hearing will also include a screening of The Forgotten Refugees, produced by the David Project. The film is a documentary about the mass exodus of almost one million Jews from Arab countries . The July 19 congressional hearing on hearing on Jewish refugees has an immediate, practical goal of providing US congressmen with preliminary information ahead of voting on House Resolution 185 and Senate Resolution 85. According to the proposed legislation, the US president would be obligated to instruct all official representatives of the United States that "explicit reference to Palestinian refugees be matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees, as a matter of law and equity." ( See Senate Res 85 for the full text.)

A JIMENA statement calls the proposed resolutions "the strongest declaration adopted by the US Congress acknowledging the rights of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee Arab countries."

As JIMENA notes, "There were two major population movements that occurred during years of great turmoil in the Middle East, from 1948 to 1968." Arabs and Jews were "both determined to be bona fide refugees under international law. In fact, more former Jewish refugees were uprooted from Arab countries (over 850,000) than Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 (UN estimate: 726,000)."

The CHRC, convening the unique hearing, is chaired by Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

fisherp@rogers.com

Iran locked on to 600 targets in Israel
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/ ^ | July 15, 2007 | Staff Writer

Posted on 07/15/2007 11:52:50 AM PDT by B4Ranch

Iran has marked 600 targets for its long-range missiles inside Israel, the Qatari newspaper Al Watan reported on Sunday.

According to the report, Iran is threatening to hit the Jewish state with a massive missile strike if either Israel or the US attack the Islamic Republic or its allies in Syria.

Recent political talk in Jerusalem and Washington indicate the time is rapidly approaching that Israel and the US will have no choice but to intervene militarily to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Likewise, Israeli military experts are predicting a full-scale war with Syria sometime in the coming six months, possibly set off by a renewal of low-level cross-border Hizballah aggression.

April 19, 2007

‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’

Spectator, 20 April 2007

It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Dave Gaubatz, however, says you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.

You may be tempted to dismiss this as yet another dodgy claim from a warmongering lackey of the world Zionist neocon conspiracy giving credence to yet another crank pushing US propaganda. If so, perhaps you might pause before throwing this article at the cat. Mr Gaubatz is not some marginal figure. He’s pretty well as near to the horse’s mouth as you can get.

Having served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations Mr Gaubatz, a trained Arabic-speaker, was hand-picked for postings in 2003, first in Saudi Arabia and then in Nasariyah in Iraq. His mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies.

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq— two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.

This was in the first place because of the massive size of these sites and the extreme lengths to which the Iraqis had gone to conceal them. Three of them were bunkers buried 20-30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed. The bunker walls were made of reinforced concrete five feet thick.

‘There was no doubt, with so much effort having gone into hiding these constructions, that something very important was buried there’, says Mr Gaubatz. By speaking to a wide range of Iraqis, some of whom risked their lives by talking to him and whose accounts were provided in ignorance of each other, he built up a picture of the nuclear, chemical and biological materials they said were buried underground.

‘They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the US to remove them’, says Mr Gaubatz. ‘Much of this material had been buried in the concrete bunkers and in the sewage pipe system. There were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity —gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. The Iraqis and my team had no doubt at all that WMDs were hidden there’.

There was yet another significant piece of circumstantial corroboration. The medical records of Mr Gaubatz and his team showed that at these sites they had been exposed to high levels of radiation.

Mr Gaubatz verbally told the ISG of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be ‘unsafe’ to try.

‘The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south’, says Mr Gaubatz. ‘They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them if they didn’t excavate these sites, others would’.

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learned from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.

When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports they were told that all 60 of them —which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US air base in Saudi Arabia —had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.

One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer’s data base was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the air base. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled.

In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites — to report that they had indeed been looted.

Mr Gaubatz’s claims remain largely unpublicised. Last year, the New York Times dismissed him as one of a group of WMD diehard obsessives. The New York Sun produced a more balanced report, but after that the coverage died. According to Mr Gaubatz, the reason is a concerted effort by the US intelligence and political world to stifle such an explosive revelation of their own lethal incompetence.

After he and an Iraqi colleague spoke at last month’s Florida meeting of the Intelligence Summit, an annual conference of the intelligence world, they were interviewed for two hours by a US TV show — only for the interview to be junked after the FBI repeatedly rang Mr Gaubatz and his colleague to say they would stop the interview from being broadcast.

The problem the US authorities have is that they can’t dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent — because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his ‘courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow’. In 2001, he was decorated for being the ‘lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence’ and because his ‘reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force’s daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government’.

The organiser of the Intelligence Summit, John Loftus — himself a formidably well-informed former attorney to the intelligence world —has now sent a memorandum to Congress asking it to investigate Mr Gaubatz’s claims. He has also hit a brick wall. The reason is not hard to grasp.

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD . The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Mr Loftus goes further. Saddam’s nuclear research, scientists and equipment, he says, have all been relocated to Syria, where US satellite intelligence confirms that uranium centrifuges are now operating — in a country which is not supposed to have any nuclear programme. There is now a nuclear axis, he says, between Iran, Syria and North Korea — with Russia and China helping build an Islamic bomb against the west. And of course, with assistance from American negligence.

‘Apparently Saddam had the last laugh and donated his secret stockpile to benefit Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. With a little technical advice from Beijing, Syria is now enriching the uranium, Iran is making the missiles, North Korea is testing the warheads, and the White House is hiding its head in the sand.’

Of course we don’t know whether any of this is true. But given Dave Gaubatz’s testimony, shouldn’t someone be trying to find out? Or will we still be intoning ’there were no WMD in Iraq’ when the Islamic bomb goes off?

Column One: The lost lessons of Lebanon

---

Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 12, 2007

---

On Wednesday, it was reported that the UN has determined that Mount Dov, otherwise known as the Shaba Farms, belongs to Lebanon and that Israel must relinquish the area to UN control ahead of its transfer to Lebanon. Although the UN later denied the report, true or false it reminded us that since last summer's war, pressure on Israel to withdraw from Mount Dov has risen dramatically.

It should be recalled that in 2000, the UN certified that Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanese territory. The UN acknowledged that sovereignty over Mount Dov is disputed between Israel and Syria.

Hizbullah rejected the UN's finding and insisted that Mount Dov is Lebanese territory. As Lebanese politicians such as Druse leader Walid Jumblatt have argued, Hizbullah invented the claim as a means of justifying its continued war against Israel.

During last summer's war, Hizbullah's demand for Mount Dov was supported by the Saniora government of which Hizbullah was then a member. Since both the US and France support the Saniora government, they accepted the demand.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which determined the conditions of the cease-fire, authorized the UN's secretary-general to determine which country the area - which controls the back entrance to Mount Hermon, the sources of the Sea of Galilee and the Israeli communities on the Golan Heights - belongs to.

The UN's claim that it has yet to settle the issue of sovereignty over Mount Dov has given the Olmert government a temporary reprieve from international pressure to withdraw from the strategically vital area. But the fact that last year Israel agreed to empower the UN to study the issue is itself a disaster for Israel.

By allowing the UN to revisit a sovereignty issue it had already settled, Israel gave up its right to assume that the international community will one day recognize its borders. If Israel were to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, for instance, the Mount Dov precedent shows that there is no guarantee that a Palestinian, Syrian, Egyptian or Jordanian demand for more Israeli land wouldn't enjoy similar international backing.

Over the past year, Israel has conducted no critical analysis of the political and military consequences of Resolution 1701. No one has discussed the significance of an agreement that places Israel on equal footing with an illegal terrorist organization and makes no mention of Hizbullah's state sponsors, Syria and Iran. No one has asked how the IDF will deal with UNIFIL forces, which at the Olmert government's insistence are deployed along the border, when the next round of fighting begins.

ISRAEL'S FAILURE to analyze 1701 is but one illustration of how it has avoided truly reckoning with what happened last summer. Israel's failure is especially disconcerting given that today we are poised on the edge of another war against the same forces - Hizbullah, Iran, Syria and the Palestinians - that fought us last summer.

A year ago, assisted and directed militarily by Iran and Syria, and backed politically by international human rights groups, the UN, France and the Western media, Hizbullah successfully carried out a 34-day attack against Israel. Israel failed to either stop or mitigate the Hizbullah onslaught.

Since then, assisted by Iran and Syria, Hizbullah has rearmed and expanded its missile arsenal. It has filled its ranks with operatives who have undergone training in Iran. Hamas has taken over Gaza and built its own army of some 10,000 soldiers, many of whom have also been trained in Iran. Syria and Iran have both mobilized for war and Iran has made great progress in its nuclear weapons program.

In Lebanon itself, Hizbullah, Iran and Syria are actively destabilizing the Saniora government. Whether or not their ultimate goal is to repeat the Hamas model in Gaza by fomenting a Syrian-Hizbullah takeover of the country, their actions to date have neutralized all threats to their freedom of action. The Lebanese military is neutralized. After the car bombing against Spanish UNIFIL forces last month, Spain and another country are holding talks with Hizbullah and Iran.

The Bush administration, which supported Israel in the first weeks of the war, is now keeping its distance. From its support for Hizbullah's demand for Mount Dov; its pressure on Israel to support Fatah; to its attempts to appease Iran, the Bush administration is clearly signaling that it views Israel as a liability.

In Israel itself, the only point of light is the tactical training that IDF forces have been undergoing since the cease-fire. But although the training is vital, the fact is that the tactical level was the least problematic level of the last war. Although they were ill-equipped and ill-trained, in every head-on engagement with Hizbullah, IDF forces convincingly defeated the enemy.

The real problems that the war exposed were on the operational and strategic levels of war. And here, no improvements have been made.

Under then-chief of General Staff Dan Halutz, the General Staff conceived of the war as an air battle, with a limited ground component comprised of special forces. Although this operational concept failed in the first days of the war, the General Staff stubbornly maintained it throughout.

Due to the General Staff's refusal to revisit its operational concept, it was unable to draw lessons from engagements with the enemy. Rather than examine the surprise inflicted on the special forces in their first engagements with Hizbullah and update IDF operations in accordance with what those engagements revealed about Hizbullah's deployment and mode of operations, the General Staff ignored the experience and allowed itself to be drawn into a war it didn't understand. Forces were deployed willy nilly in battles of no operational significance and with no connection to any overarching plan for victory.

A month before the war, Halutz closed down the IDF's Operational Theory Research Institute. The institute was responsible for training corps commanders in operational warfare. That training boils down to giving commanders cognitive tools to test their operational environment and to update their plans to ensure they maintain the initiative. As Halutz's successor, Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, has noted on various occasions, today there is no operational thinking in the IDF. Perhaps this is important. Perhaps it is not. We'll only find out in the next war.

Strategically, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. Despite the obvious nature of Israel's failure, the Olmert government insists that we won. And since it claims we won, it also claims that nothing needs fixing.

The government's insistent claims of victory have forced it to also say that Israel is now safer for having fought the war. As a result, the government downplays the significance of Hizbullah's rearmament and of Syria's preparations for war.

Moreover, by ignoring the fact that with Iranian and Syrian guidance, the Palestinians and Hizbullah launched a coordinated attack against Israel, the Olmert government is forced to ignore the significance of the strategic alliance that exists between its enemies. It is because of its need to underplay the dangers that it continues to embrace Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, even though Fatah forces participated in the kidnap of Gilad Schalit. The government is forced to embrace Abbas, even though since September 2005, he and his forces did nothing to prevent Hamas from training, arming and raising an army in Gaza.

Intent on ignoring the results of its failed war, the government says nothing about the fact that the weapons Israel allowed the US to supply to Fatah were surrendered to Hamas without a fight and are now being used to attack Israeli soldiers. Indeed, next week, with full US backing, Abbas is scheduled to demand that Olmert allow him to deploy armored vehicles and a Jordanian brigade in Judea and Samaria, and to equip his forces with bullet-proof vests and more guns.

THE ARROGANCE and ignorance of Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and their colleagues plays a significant role in the government's refusal to reconcile itself to reality. But their personal failings tell only part of the story. Both Israel's political leaders and its military leaders are party to a general conceptual failure that has plagued Israel since the Rabin-Peres government signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO in 1993.

To embrace the PLO, Israel had to abandon its national narrative and adopt the false narrative of peace. Only by so acting was it possible to embrace a terrorist group dedicated to its destruction. Although today Israel has no Palestinian or Syrian partner in peace, and is beset by a global jihad fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Israel's policymakers continue to cling to the peace narrative.

The peace narrative assumes that Israel rather than the Arabs is responsible for the lack of peace in the region, and so Israel, rather than the Arabs must change its behavior to engender the peace it has blocked. As a result, the peace narrative negates Israel's right to defend itself from aggression, for doing so would distance the chance of peace. Even worse, an Israeli assertion of its right to self-defense would risk exposing the fact that there is no peace to be had and that Israel is not responsible for its absence.

On the military level, the attraction of an air war for generals is largely a consequence of the peace narrative. If Israel is on the verge of peace, then soldiers shouldn't be dying, and control of land - which we want to give away for peace anyway - is neither necessary nor desirable. If we still are forced to fight, it is best to do so from an altitude of 20,000 feet. Boots on the ground would involve an acknowledgement that we are at war.

On the political level, the peace narrative has paralyzed strategic analysis and policy making for 14 years. If we are in a peace process, then it isn't only that we mustn't defend ourselves. We mustn't assert our sovereignty at all. We mustn't tell the UN that in accordance with Israeli law, Mount Dov is part of the State of Israel. We mustn't tell the US that Judea and Samaria are Israeli territories and that we haven't the slightest intention of giving them to our enemies. We mustn't tell the Palestinians that they have shown they cannot be trusted with international borders and we are therefore taking back the Gaza-Sinai border. We mustn't acknowledge that Fatah is our enemy or that Syria is an Iranian client state.

Tuesday, Military Intelligence asserted that the only way to avert war with Syria is to reach a peace deal with Syria. This means that Syria is about to launch a war against us. But since we have yet to discard the delusion of peace, it is unclear that anyone understood the message.

A year after the war, we still haven't found the courage to recognize that security, not peace, is our goal. Until we do, we will remain plagued by war.

---

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184168552156&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Subject: West-Total war, total victory vs. "Surge till Iraqis merge"
Andrew Bostom

We may be stuck in an intellectual tidal cycle - tide in (surge), tide out (withdraw) - but there's a big wide ocean of answers out there. First, we need to ask new questions. For example: When will it become clear that even if everything goes as planned in Iraq (or doesn't), the United States will only have succeeded in securing a Hezbollah-supporting, Shi'ite-majority state that is a natural ally of Iran? And how great is that for America's national security?

At this point, my conservative friends will remind me that we must destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. And I couldn't agree more. So let's destroy al Qaeda in Iraq - a neat name for an amorphous network - and any other threats including Iranian-supported Iraqi Shi'ite forces. Sharon Behn of The Washington Times recently asked Command Sgt. Maj. Jeff Mellinger why the world's most powerful army hadn't yet accomplished this mission. He replied:

"We could absolutely crush every one of them, but would you be happy with what is left?"

Presumably, our military could destroy Iraqi terror-towns and strongholds with a well-guided aerial bombing campaign, and thus go a long way toward bringing this whole war to an end; instead, we opt to send our young men to fight precisely as the terrorist wants them to fight - in booby-trapped towns, among duplicitous peoples. Lately, we even argue that these same soldiers should stay in those towns among those peoples to prevent the "bloodletting" to follow an American exit. But for how long? One year? Ten years? Until Iraqis learn to sing "Kumbaya?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070713/EDITORIAL04/107130007/1013

Article published Jul 13, 2007
Total war, total victory

The Israeli left unmasked

---

July 11, 2007

By Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Much has been said here and abroad about controversial statements made in recent weeks by a yarmulke-wearing, prominent international leftist Jewish leader and senior activist of Israel's "peace camp" who called on Israel to cease being a Jewish state and instead model itself after Europe. But I think most people are missing the point.

Avraham Burg, once an important Knesset member in Israel's leftist Labor party, recently published a book, "Defeating Hitler," in which he repeatedly compared various Israeli Jewish policies with that of Nazism.

"To define the state of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It's dynamite," said Burg, who once was Israel's Knesset speaker and was considered by some a hopeful for prime minister.

Burg, a scion of one of Israel's founding families, also served as chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, both of which are major Jewish organizations.

Burg said Israel's Law of Return, which allows all Jews seeking sanctuary in Israel to become citizens, is similar to Nazi rule, even though it was created in response to genocidal Nazi crimes. The law helped Jews escape persecution in countries such as Germany, Russia and Yemen.

"The Law of Return is an apologetic law. It is the mirror image of Hitler. I don't want Hitler to define my identity," Burg said.

He compelled Israelis to obtain foreign passports. He said Israel should model itself after the European Union and become a multinational state, and he urged the Israeli government to allow the EU more influence in its affairs.

The leftist Israeli leader said Israel should learn from the assimilation and inter-marriage of Jews in the U.S., where Jewish individuals marrying non-Jews has become a major phenomenon.

Burg criticized what he called Israelis' "closed conception" of religion, which he stated is "orthodox, not humanist and not universal." He said other alternatives to Judaism must be offered.

Burg now is a citizen of France. He retired from Israeli politics and departed Israel in shame after it was disclosed he may have engaged in election corruption and vote tampering while trying to become chairman of the Labor party. He also was accused of illicit business practices.

He is still active as a leader in Israel's peace camp, which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israeli evacuations of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Burg has been condemned by many politicians and commentators here and abroad as a self-hating Jew who is encouraging anti-Semitism. One Knesset member called for Burg to be denied a burial plot in Israel's national cemetery reserved for the country's leaders.

But what many seem to be missing is that Burg's views are not renegade. They are representative of the Israeli left. Burg's reasoning is the same as those petitioning for more EU control of Israel's affairs and for evacuations from Biblical Jewish territories and holy sites. Burg comes from the school of people like Geneva Initiative leader Yossi Beilin, Labor Chairman Ehud Barak, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and their ideological godfather and mentor, Shimon Peres, who officially becomes Israeli president later this week.

So many around the world wrongly believe the conflict in Israel is about territory. They think the Israeli left mainly wants to cede land to the Palestinians while the right stands against land giveaways.

In actuality, the main Israeli political battle is between a left that wants Israel to be a secular, European-like state, and the religious right, which sees Israel as a Jewish country defined by national Zionism. It's a battle that will ultimately determine the future of Israel.

Growing up in a Jewish community in the United States, I was fortunate enough not to have experienced the kind of anti-Semitism that permeates places like France and, increasingly, the UK. But European anti-Semitism pales in comparison to its venomous counterparts in Israel. That's right, Israel.

It wasn't until I moved here to open WND's Jerusalem bureau in February 2005 that I fully understood what anti-Semitism is. The hatred many secular, leftist Israelis feel for the religious is so deep I cannot do it justice with words. The secular leftist media routinely demonize the religious. I've seen the way secular Jewish security forces brutally squash legal religious Jewish protests at the direction of leftist politicians. I've borne witness the past few years to the enactment of institutional anti-Semitic laws, such as singling out illegal Jewish construction in strategic territory while ignoring rampant illegal Arab building; or denying Jews the right to pray at or even visit Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount, during most hours of the day.

This great divide extends itself to the streets. Religious and secular cities are mostly separated. Just try talking to a secular leftist Jew in Tel Aviv about religion and God and watch his or her face wither in anger.

But many Israeli leftists politicians and activists are more enterprising than the average leftist Israeli. They disguise their hatred of Judaism with specific political policies . Just like Islamic terrorists who claim their attacks are aimed at ending America's military presence in the Middle East or our support for Israel when the jihadists' real goal is worldwide domination of Islam, leftist Israeli leaders state their aim is to create a Palestinian state when their true intention is the establishment of a secular Israeli country by stabbing at the lifeline of religious Zionism with evacuations of the West Bank – the biblical heartland and center of the religious Zionists movement – and with the division of religious Jerusalem and stationing of foreign troops on Israel's borders.

Already, the religious Jewish communities of the Gaza Strip were uprooted and international forces were deployed along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Burg is not a maverick. He is a leftist politician who knows he has no chance at being re-elected, so he was able to take off his mask and expose his true beliefs and the real nature of Israel's internal war. And he didn't blurt these things out during a spontaneous interview; he detailed his views in a book he said took him three years to compose.

Some believe Burg could have become Israel's prime minister. What if he had achieved Israel's highest office before he let loose his real beliefs? Why isn't anyone asking whether Israel's current prime minister, who seeks to evacuate the Jewish West Bank and sections of Jerusalem, shares Burg's anti-Jewish views? What about Ehud Barak, who as prime minister in 2000 announced at Camp David he was ready to cede the Temple Mount and who offered PLO leader Yasser Arafat a state within rocket range of Israel's population centers? And what about all the Israeli leftist politicians who regularly petition for placing EU or U.N. troops in Gaza or the West Bank?

Sure, some Israeli leftist politicians, including Beilin and some from Olmert's party, condemned Burg, but I believe they did so because they were angry at him for exposing them.

The admitted anti-Jewish Burg once held some of the most prestigious leadership positions in world Jewry. Why isn't anyone questioning whether top leaders of Jewish organizations now share his beliefs ?

Perhaps Burg's revelations about the left help explain why, as I reported, the leaders of the Jewish National Fund, which collects hundreds of millions of dollars in Jewish donor funds for the stated purpose of Jewish settlement, has been ceding Jewish-owned properties to Arabs in key sections of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities designated by the left for evacuation. The JNF, which proudly posts pictures of leftist leader Peres on its newspaper advertisements, has been allowing Arab squatters to live completely illegally on millions of dollars worth of Jewish-owned land purchased for Jewish settlement.

Perhaps Burg's admissions might also help explain why, as I reported, mainstream U.S. Jewish groups, including the leadership of United Jewish Communities, one of the most financially endowed Jewish organizations on the planet, neglected the plight of religious Jewish refugees evacuated from Gaza in 2005 who didn't receive most compensation promised to them by the Israeli government.

The uprooted national religious Gaza Jews still live in terrible conditions in refugee camps and suffer from low employment and a host of other problems. The UJC largely ignored the Gaza Jews while instead funding initiatives with Jewish money to aid Israeli Arabs. The esteemed Jewish organization finally started helping a bit after they were exposed and angry Jewish donors demanded action to help the Jews of Gaza.

So, while many are resoundingly condemning Burg for his anti-Jewish views, I thank him for unmasking the true beliefs of the Israeli left. Perhaps now the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be understood in its proper context.