"god the jews"

rainbow stew

Noahide News

Part 4

mason seal

Extra Extra

read all about it !

are they serious, these gods? You better betcha



Gods of Commerce


Nov 22, 2003

Notice for all Jews

bush.gifPresident Bush already sits at the top of the pantheon of friends of the Jews. In 2,000 years, Jews have never had a friend like President George W. Bush. Only a few others in 2,000 years have entered the pantheon at all. The few members of the pantheon are all recent. Members include those who saved thousands of Jews, such as Rauol Wallenberg and Sugihara, Chiune and those who saved individual Jews, such as the saints memorialized in the line of trees at Yad Vashem. The Danes, as a nation, are in the pantheon of friends of the Jews..

President George W. Bush not only publicly supported the Jews when their enemies began indiscriminately killing Jews in September 2000 but adamantly vilified and punished the leader of the enemy camp. To this day he has never hesitated to support the Jews and vilify Arafat, the perverted leader of the enemy camp. President Bush has never spoken to nor met this evil man.

At the same time that President Bush joined the pantheon of friends of the Jews, former President Clinton gave a speech in the Fall of 2000 at Hebrew University calling on the recently victimized Jews of Israel to "be patient." The sub-text that I read into Clinton's indifference to murdered Jews is ' my long time friend Yasir tells me that killing Jews is only a temporary situation that he is trying to fix.'

Now here is my notice to all living and future Jews:

President Bush is the first president of the United States and the first leader of any major nation at any time in history to demand an end to European anti-Semitism.


I suggest that President Bush is no longer at the top of the pantheon of friends of the Jews, he has become the Zeus of the pantheon. I predict that President George W. Bush will become the most beloved figure in Jewish history and will be as important a part of future Passover services as Elijah is today.


behold they who say in their Talmudic Mishnah Torah their oral tradition which makes he word of none effect, that they are gods, shems, hashems.......


Your Midrash Navigator

The Divine Name ELoHYM usually refers to God as Judge throughout the Torah, even human judges are sometimes referred to as ELOHYM. This fact is not lost on the rabbis and is the key to understanding why the Divine ineffable Name YHVH is inserted in the concluding verse.

and the false witness of the judges, the gods, will deliver the saints of Jesus as they did our Lord to be crucified



The Rebbe was privy to inside intelligence unavailable to the CIA or the Mossad.



Another Foreign National manipulating Amarakan Politiks, and the Obedient GOY Danite Bushkevik

Republican Campaigner
Courting Jewish Vote
'As An American Jew, Israel Right Now Is
The Most Important Thing To Me'
By Matthew E. Berger
Cleveland Jewish News
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Michael Lebovitz's wife, Lauren, watched the evening news from her home in Chattanooga, Tenn., and suddenly her husband's new volunteer work made sense.
On the screen was President Bush changing the landscape of U.S.-Israeli relations, endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and enunciating American support for some Israeli claims in the West Bank.
"My wife looked at me and said, 'That's why you're doing this,'" Michael Lebovitz said. "And that's exactly right."
Lebovitz, 40, has become the key conduit between Bush's re-election campaign and the American Jewish community, which is a key constituency for the Republicans in several vital states, including Florida.
Driving him, he says, is a feeling that the Jewish community should show gratitude for President Bush's Israel policy by helping him win another four years in the White House.
"I have a very strong conviction that our community has a responsibility to thank this president for how he has supported us," Lebovitz said in an interview in a colorless conference room in the campaign's northern Virginia offices.
Lebovitz travels to Washington about every other week, coordinating outreach to Jewish communities across the country. The rest of the time, he works out of his home and office.
He recently worked to find Jewish leaders in Michigan who could help campaign staffers there galvanize Jewish outreach. He also has been making similar connections in other states, and nationally.
A real estate developer, Lebovitz has taken on the campaign task without pay, and tries to downplay his role as a mediator between the Jewish world and the Bush campaign.
"I'm not the head of anything," he said. "I'm not in charge of anything."
In fact, he has no official title at the campaign; his business card reads only "Jewish Outreach."
The story of how Michael Lebovitz became Bush's go-to guy for the Jews starts, he says, at the Shabbat dinner table, where the third-generation Chattanooga resident saw his father engage in Jewish activism, rising to become vice chairman of the United Jewish Appeal.
"That part is definitely hereditary," he said. But Lebovitz combined his family's interest in the Jewish world with his own interest in politics.
Lebovitz was a Republican from the beginning, said Fred Zimmerman, president-elect of the Nashville Jewish Federation, who participated in the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization with Lebovitz when they were in high school.
"He was the first person I ever heard predict the great Jewish migration to the Republican Party," Zimmerman recalled.
In college at the University of Texas, Lebovitz volunteered at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. In 1996, when he served as a delegate at the convention, Lebovitz formed a friendship with his state's new Republican senator, Bill Frist.
A year later, Lebovitz and his wife took Frist to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Lebovitz has been an active donor in political circles. According to the Federal Elections Commission, he has given $55,500 to political candidates and committees since 1997, including $2,000 to Frist, $3,000 to President Bush and $6,000 to his local congressman, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.).
He also has been active in Jewish circles, serving on AIPAC's executive committee and as national vice chairman of the United Jewish Communities umbrella organization of Jewish federations.
"He has a good feel for how his age peers will react to issues and challenges," said Stephen Hoffman, UJC's chief executive officer. Lebovitz serves as chairman of one of UJC's pillars, helping craft strategies for campaign and fundraising efforts to UJC federations.
Still, many seemed surprised when Lebovitz was chosen to head up Bush's Jewish outreach, having assumed that someone with a longer list of contacts and experience in Washington would get the job. Rumors have spread throughout Washington that Lebovitz was placed in the position to appease AIPAC or Frist.
But as Lebovitz and his supporters tell it, it was his quiet discussions with Bush campaign officials about the opportunities for gaining ground in the Jewish community, mixed with the logistical ability to take on the job as a volunteer, that won him the role.
Jeff Ballabon, a Bush fundraiser in New York's Orthodox community, calls Lebovitz an "incredible mensch."
"Whatever people said at the beginning because they didn't know him, what has emerged over the last year is that he is dedicated to the set of goals and priorities," Ballabon said.
Lebovitz's goal for the next six months is to improve on the 19 percent of the Jewish vote Bush received in 2000. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received the largest percentage of Jewish votes for a Republican, winning 39 percent against President Jimmy Carter.
As part of the campaign's outreach, Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to speak Friday to a Jewish audience in West Palm Beach, Fla.
"There is an opportunity in the Jewish community for more votes than last time," Lebovitz said. "There's not a number out there we have to reach."
The opportunity stems from Bush's outspoken support for Israel, Lebovitz says. Even before Bush's support last month for the Gaza withdrawal plan, many American Jews were touting Bush's defiant stances against terrorism and his designation of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat as persona non grata at the White House.
Even Sharon has called Bush the best American president Israel has ever seen.
Lebovitz feels that may be enough to turn the tide in the traditionally Democratic voting bloc by convincing Jews that it's not about the candidate who agrees with them on most issues, but rather on the issues that matter most.
"You have to decide what's most important to you, and as an American Jew, Israel right now is the most important thing to me," he said. "This is a man who, from the day he came into office, has changed policy."
The Bush campaign is focused on increasing its numbers in several key states, most importantly Florida, where Bush won by a very small margin in 2000, and where the Jewish community makes up almost four percent of the population.
But he also is spending time courting Jews in New York, who he says have a lot of connection to Florida Jews, and in California, where Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial victory last year shook up the state's political landscape.
"The Jewish community is very mobile; we have friends and relatives all over," he said. "There is no part of the community that we are not contacting, that we are writing off."
Copyright 2004 Cleveland Jewish News http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/05/13/news/world/plink0512.txt



How the shems will have you delivered for being anti-shem to ha shem the cheif "SAYER their god. Now they have me recorded, that I am anti-Shem, anti gods, anti-Sanhedrin Elohim judges, anti-rebbe, anti-rabbi, anti-Olam hoodlum haba, anti Tetragramatron, anti-YVWH, anti serpent ben Moshiach

and listen to the "SAYERS" of the SYNAGOGUES of satan blaspheme thwe Christ Jesus


Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky

Definition of blasphemy

1. Blasphemy is the act of cursing the Creator. It is a deed so indescribably heinous that the Talmud, whenever referring to blasphemy, calls it by the euphemistic term "blessing God," to avoid directly expressing the idea of cursing God, the Father of all.

their God who has no Only Begotten Son. But does have the son of Perdition, their Moshiach

2. Blasphemy is the only means by which one transgresses the Seven Universal Commandments through the faculty of speech alone.

and if you speak against the shems you are a terrorist and are anti-Shemitic, like Jesus the Christ

3. Blasphemy falls into the category of revenge. When someone is harmed by a person and seeks revenge, he may shout at the person or curse him. If the harm is great, the one seeking vengeance may not be satisfied by words alone but may physically strike out at the one who harmed him. In extreme cases, the vengeful person may not be satisfied till he kills. This is between a man and his neighbor. Between man and God it is somewhat different. Man cannot kill God nor can he strike Him physically. The ultimate revenge that man can take against God is to curse Him. Therefore, blasphemy is seen as the expression of the desire to hurt God, even to erase His existence or murder Him.

Their god, you will be FORCED to worship or be slain. a loving god, don't you think, of a loving people

4. The prohibition against blasphemy comes to teach us not to speak evil against God nor to detract from His exaltedness in any way by intentionally using words to lessen the reverence and faith that are due Him.[1]

5. As with any of the Seven Universal Commandments, before one can be tried in a court of law for having transgressed a commandment, there must be a witness to the deed who is willing to testify against the accused.

ONE WITNESS a jew or an obedient NOAHIDE

 This poses a problem, for how can the witness testify against the accused unless he repeats the blasphemous expression used, which would be a further transgression of this commandment?

False witness, the jews tool of murder

6. In the Jewish courts of law, the matter was handled in the following manner. The witnesses during the entirety of the trial were directed to use a euphemistic phrase for the actual blasphemous utterance that they heard, eliminating reference to God in the phrase.[2] Then, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the courtroom was cleared of all but those essential to the trial, and the witnesses were obliged to repeat the actual blasphemy that they heard. Upon hearing the blasphemy, the judges rent their garments as one does for the death of a parent or any other tragedy that elicits grief.

they had better buy a wardrobe when they deliver me

7. Rabbi Chiya declared that after the destruction of the Second Temple, one who heard blasphemy was no longer required to rend his garments, otherwise all would be walking around with their garments in tatters.[3]

Plumb naked after I am done, so everyone can see their flesh

8. The Code of Jewish Law, which is the final word in determining the religious obligations of the Jew, states that a person who hears blasphemy is commanded to place the blasphemer under a ban of excommunication, regardless of whether the blasphemy was uttered against God's Name or any of His Divine attributes, whether in the Hebrew language or any of the other languages of the world, or whether the blasphemer was a Jew or a Gentile.[4] This ban of excommunication means that the person has no rights as a member of the community and that all are forbidden to speak to him.

banished from flesh hoodlum shem haba to the Heaven of God

9. Profaning the Lord of Hosts with one's lips, God forbid, is a transgression similar to, but worse than, idolatry. Whereas idolatry is the act of worshiping a creation and thereby denying the true existence of the Creator, blasphemy is an acknowledg­ment of His existence but a denial of His greatness or His goodness. The blasphemer denies the truth that everything comes directly from God solely for mankind's benefit and as a bestowal of goodness. Often the goodness is unrevealed, as with a person's pain and suffering. At these times, one with a coarse consciousness or without a sufficient degree of faith in God can come to verbally express dissatisfaction with his lot through blasphemy, and thus transgress the law.[5]

cursing the shems brings the infernal rothschild service's wrath

10. We see the essence of this problem in the Book of Job. Job, God's faithful servant, was struck by Satan with boils from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head. As he sat in agony from the affliction, his wife scolded him, saying, "Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Curse God, and die." But he answered her, "You speak as one who is despicable. Should we accept only the good from God and not also accept the evil? With all this, Job did not sin with his lips" (Job 2:9‑10).

JOBS GOD was the same WORD whic Abraham believed the WORD of God the IAM

11. Consistent with this, it is a Jewish tradition to bless God for the bad as well as for the good.[6] Even when, God forbid, one hears news of a person's death, he responds by saying, Baruch Dayan Emet (Blessed be the True Judge).[7]

12. Blasphemy as an expression of an incomplete faith in God is epitomized by the false notion that there are two powers and two kingdoms, God's and Satan's. All such theology denies that God is the Lord and Master of all.

Then stop with your flesh Hoodlum Haba haha

13. The Book of Job shows clearly that God is the Ruler of Satan as well as of everyone and everything else, for when Satan wishes to test Job, he first petitions God for permission, whereby God sets definite boundaries for Satan, commanding him not to take Job's life, saying, "Behold, he is in thy hand, but guard his life" (Job 2:6).

14. The teaching in Christian theology that the evil force rebelled against the Lord and set up a separate kingdom is tantamount to blasphemy, for it denigrates the Creator and denies His infinite majesty.

No true Christian hold's to the Judeo-Churchizionian made Scofield/Untermyer theology

15. Some authorities state that false oaths or meaningless oaths whereby one invokes the Name of God are forbidden under the category of blasphemy.[8] An example of a false oath would be for one to take an oath in God's Name that a tree is a rock, and a meaningless oath would be for one to swear in God's Name that a tree is a tree. There is a difference of opinion as to whether one who delays fulfilling an oath violates the law.[9]

Kol Nidre anywho jew?

Transgressing the prohibition of blasphemy; piety

1. The prohibition of blasphemy is transgressed even if one uses another term for God, for example, an attribute or epithet such as the Merciful One, the Father, or any other descriptive term. No matter how one curses God, and no matter in what language, the one who transgresses this commandment is subject to the death penalty by a court of law.[10]

such as Jesus the Christ is the Lord God Almighty and His Son, yes a very real law of the Pharisees, the same law which by false witness they delivered Jesus the Christ to be crucified as according to God's Prophets who they also slew

2. If anyone acknowledges that an idolatry is true, even though he does not serve it, it is as if he reviles and blasphemes the mighty and exalted Name of God. Whether a person is an idolater or a blasphemer, it is the same in that both deny God.[11]

3. One who blasphemes and instantly retracts his words is nonetheless guilty if he blasphemed in front of witnesses. If he blasphemes in private and his words are heard by no one other than himself and his Creator, let him repent and God will forgive his transgression.[12]

hahahahahahahaheeeeeeeeeehooooooooooey olam haba hoodlum humbug. Now why do you reckon that is folks? hahahahahhahehhehehhehe.........read that again....their god will forgive you....but they will not..........Now MR. Bushkevik and bunch, that thar decapitation was not justified

4. One who curses God in the name of idolatry is subject to being attacked and killed by zealots,(Talmudic shem Mossad)  who are, in turn, held harmless by the law. But one who is not a zealot, but seeks reprisal against a transgressor because of a desire for justice, must begin proceedings through due process of law against the accused.

but if he is simply a raving manson type zealot...he may proceed....hehhehehehhohohoohohoohohoooooooooooooooooey !

       (Note: A zealot is one who serves God with a selfless, passionate love and is jealous for God's honor. 

Does this mean the TRUE CHRISTIANS should MURDER all shems? NOT hardly. Let the jews do what they will, and let the Blood be on their hands and their childrens hands


Reacting to a desecration of God's Name, the zealot takes immediate action to stop the desecration.


If one has to ponder the situation or ask the opinion of another, wiser than he in such matters, his hesitation or intellectual inquiry takes him out of the category of the zealot, and he is forbidden to take action.

cannot be gotten off by Alan Derkowitz and insanity plea. Therefore by their laws they admit that all the Jews Crucified Jesus Pre-meditatedley. Well thought out conspiring.

 The scriptural source for the action of a zealot is seen in the heroics of Phineas, who stopped a plague among the Children of Israel when he slew a prince of the tribe of Simeon and the Midianite woman with whom he was having forbidden sexual relations (Num. 25:7‑8).

5. It should be the goal of every one of the Children of Noah to strive to do more than the minimum that the law requires, for this is the idea of piety, and one who accepts the responsibility of fulfilling the Seven Laws of Noah is called one of the pious of the nations. Bearing this in mind, a person is well advised to withhold speaking evil about his fellow man as well as against his Creator, for in God's image was man created, and one who reviles his fellow insults God as well. If, by words alone, one destroys a favorable picture of a person in another's mind, this is considered killing him. And it matters not whether the destructive words are true or false.

Hope I have not offended anyone in Jesus Mighty name.

6. Striving to go beyond, the letter of the law has no limit, for the commandments of God are as deep as the ocean and as wide as the sky.[13] Since everything in creation reflects the hand of the Creator, a truly pious person withholds himself from speaking negatively against anything. There are times, however, when it is appropriate and even mandatory to speak out against someone. For instance, when someone is engaged in wicked pursuits and it appears that others will follow his lead, then it becomes a great kindness and even an obligation to speak in condemnation of the transgressor.[14] But in the main, gossip, calumny, and tale‑bearing, even when the statements are true, will stand in the way of the individual's spiritual and moral growth.[15]

For theirs is the father of lies, the murderer since the beginning. They only HIDE in the Rocks, from the wrath of Him who knows the heart, Jesus the Christ the Iam

[1] Sefer Hahinnukh, Commandment 70

[2] Mishnah Sanhedrin, 7:5

[3] Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 60a

[4] Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, 340, law 37

[5] Book of Commandments, Rambam (Maimonides), Negative Commandment 317

[6] Mishnah Brachot. 9:5

[7] Ibid., 9:2; Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim, chapter 222, law 2

[8] Mishneh Torah, Laws





so what are they going to do? NUKE damascus Saturday?
Michael Drosnin, author of The Bible Code, who has apparently been holding back some of his predictions exclusively to counsel Dick Cheney and other high-ranking members of the national Security State elite as to the events of May 15-20. Drosnin was consulted by the Pentagon prior to the Iraq invasion and more recently by Cheney who has allegedly paid him a consultant retainer. The controversial author was probed on his view of the David Booth's prophecy that America would be destroyed at some point during the month of May 2004, as elucidated in his work of plagiarism "Code Red: The Coming Destruction of America."

(Note - Mr. Booth mentioned the time frame of 'April 20 - May 20' as the time during which something would happen that would 'change the world forever'. You can hear him so state in our program Archives in his 'final interview' of April 12. -ed) Drosnin's advice has reportedly seen Cheney in a whirl of self-preservational activity recently, engaged in enhancing his underground facilities at the Naval Observatory and at Greenbriars in West Virginia. http://www.godlikeproductions.com.

The following confirmation of the Drosnin briefings appeared in the NY Times on March 8, 2003 in an article written by Bill Keller. -ed

Two weeks ago, a group of senior intelligence officials in the Defense Department sat for an hour listening to a briefing by a writer who claims " I am not making this up " that messages encoded in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament provide clues to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. One of the officials told me that they had agreed to meet the writer, Michael Drosnin, author of a Nostradamus-style best seller, without understanding that he was promoting Biblical prophecy. Still, rather than shoo him away, they listened politely as he consumed several man-hours of valuable intelligence-crunching time. Apparently he has given similar briefings to top officials of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.

And this story from RM News and Rense.com: Is The Pentagon Using The Bible Code? By Linn Ciesla Rumor Mill News Agents Forum 4-4-3

Talmudic Gematria deception to deceive the maSSES

On the eve of war, military brass listened intently as Michael Drosnin expounded the Bible code The gathering, which took place Feb. 21, was convened by Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defence, and attended by 10 top military intelligence officials, including Vice Admiral Lowell "Jake" Jacoby, director of the massive Defense Intelligence Agency, and Wolfowitz's deputy, Linton Wells, who is in charge of the Pentagon's nerve centre, known as 3CI (Command, Control, Communications)...

The above page links to the following: http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story4.htm Which is a re-post of the original story at: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=4 9A6AF5F- A64C-4031-AF96-C478FFBDD643 Here's an excerpt:

On the eve of war, the military brass listened intently for a full hour as Michael Drosnin expounded on his two brisk-selling volumes on the Bible code. Drosnin argues the Hebrew Torah -- the first five books of the Old Testament -- were intentionally encrypted, by a higher power, with prophetic warnings that have accurately predicted the Great Depression, the Second World War, the Kennedy assassinations, the moon landing, Watergate, and 9/11 -- and foretell the fall of Saddam Hussein and the precise location of bin Laden. The Americans "took it very seriously," Drosnin says. "They're practical people and I wanted to give them something of practical use."

They need Talmudic Advise at this point of the seventy weeks prophesied by Daniel, for they truly hope to battle against Jesus the Christ and his saints who they slew in the near future.... 

As a result of the meeting, Drosnin says U.S. and Israeli intelligence forces are hot on bin Laden's trail in that very place the Bible mentions, "right as we speak." Of course, he would not divulge where that place is. As for Saddam Hussein, the Bible's embedded code ponders, "Who is destroyed?" and then, in the same matrix, answers, "Hussein," with the following number crossing his name: 5763, the Jewish year that corresponds to 2003. "That foretells the outcome of this conflict," Drosnin says confidently. "It might be obvious now, but it wasn't when I told them." If you're really interested in all this, you also might want to take a look at 'Isaac Newton, Bible Code Pioneer?': http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/74

believe this magik of their god and fall into their snare along with TBN and group of big "Wigs"

To Newton,s mind it was clear that some prophecies would not be understood until the end of history. This is an excerpt from his book on Daniel and Revelation:

of course not, for they are not done with their scheme yet. But guess what doc? Betcha I do, wanna know how? Through the SPIRIT OF ALL PROPHECY, Jesus the Christ who Prophesied it all


 This prophecy is called the Revelation, with respect to the Scripture of Truth, which Daniel was commanded to shut up and seal, till the time of the end. Daniel sealed it until the time of the end, and until that time comes, the Lamb is opening the seals: and afterward the two Witnesses prophesy out of it a long time in sackcloth, before they ascend up to heaven in a cloud. All of which is as much as to say, that the prophecies of Daniel and John should not be understood till the time of the end: 



but that some should prophesy out of it in an afflicted and mournful state for a long time, and that but darkly, so as to convert but few. But in the very end, the Prophecy should be so far interpreted so as to convince many. Then saith Daniel, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

and running his saints are, and they are alive with our Lord Forvever

 For the Gospel must first be preached in all nations before the great tribulation, and end of the world. The palm-bearing multitude, which came out of this great tribulation, cannot be innumerable out of all nations unless they be made so by the preaching of the Gospel before it comes. 

ONLY the angel at the sixth Trump will do this after the saints are harvested with the dead in Jesus the Christ...beware of these wolves


There must be a stone cut of the mountain without hands, before it can fall on the toes of the Image, and become a great mountain and fill the earth.

they are molding the secret chamber of Hewn Stone and they are luring you to worship Moshaich the son of perdition


 An Angel must fly through the midst of heaven with the everlasting Gospel to preach to all nations, before Babylon falls, and the Son of man reaps his harvest. The two prophets must ascend up to heaven in a cloud, before the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Christ.

In that great city, that whore of Babylon that spiritual Sodom and Egypt WHERE OUR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED....JERUSALEM

'Tis therefore a part of this Prophecy, that it should not be understood before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the Prophecy, that it is not yet understood. But if the last age, the age of opening these things, be now approaching, as by the great success of late Interpreters it seems to be, we have more encouragement than ever to look into these things.
If the general preaching of the Gospel be approaching, it is for us and our posterity that these words mainly belong: In the time of the end the wise shall understand, but none of the wicked shall understand. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein (Daniel 12:4,10)

They deliver you into the waiting hands of their Moshiach by their Magik of Mishnah Torah Talmud Bavli 



May 15, 2004......will they NUKE Damascus?


May 15 came and went without any global disaster.

12 more days unto the Talmudic Giving of the Torah Mishnah the oral tradition. Their un-holiday of Shavuot


An EXOD-US e-mail received May 14, 2004


----- Original Message -----
From: Proxy# 9079940142
To: Inc. Southern American Marketing
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: ¥€$! Soon, in the End, They Will Rule This World by Proxies!

Ce document en anglais est suivi de sa traduction en francais:

«Even outside the field of politics, anti-Semites are apt to be unduly interested in discovering what average opinion believes average opinion to be; and this populist weakness finds its nemesis in the stock market.»

«We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion proxies cannot be simply wiped out. The enemy killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But tomorrow the Security Board will rule this world by proxies. It will get them to fight and die for it.»

We are 216 Members of the Security Board:


In order to shield you from obvious risks and protect your basic rights, the Security Board is launching:

Operation Exit & Security, Liberty, Prosperity, Peace & Justice

The purpose of the Security Board is to provide the participants of the Exit with a safe mean to protect their belongings against the foreseeable consequences of Keynes' Liquidity Trap and deflation and organiseamong them a New Economic Order thanks to a 

New Efficient Adjusted Credit Free, Free Market Economy

Office of the Chairman of the Security Board,
Department of Holy Land Security.

Proxy# 9079940142

This document is not a SPAM under any legal definition. It is a STAM, Strategically Targeted & Argumented Mailing.

-- Any person who illicitly removes, hides, distracts, destroys, intercepts, controls, or otherwise prevents this communication from arriving to its addressee, shall be subject to the appropriate criminal penalties. Likewise, criminal penalties shall be incurred by any who, either for his/her own benefit or on behalf of third parties, or with prejudice of a third party, discloses or employs the information contained in this communication. In particular, public servants that may receive this message shall be obliged to ensure and keep the confidentiality of the information contained therein and, in general, to comply with the duties of custody, care, handling and other provided under the disciplinary regime.

Should you, your company or your technology participate in preventing the legitimate recipient from receiving that information you could be liable under the laws that protect free speech, privacy, freedom of information, mail delivery, equity and forbid discrimination.

We keep a copy of all e-mail issued as a resulted of that STAM for any future purpose and intent.

The Security Board may decide to prosecute any infringement to the full extent of applicable laws.

Beside any legal consideration, anyone who would, by his actions, attempt to slow our Operation could be prevented from participating in our economy. STAM!

As a consequence: anyone who will be a shareholder or employee of Microsoft (MSFT) (or any of its subsidiaries in which its participation is superior to 10%) after May 28th at 12:00 Israel Time will be excluded from our New Economic Order.

He who Rothschild consulted

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.


Menachem Mendel Schneerson (April 18, 1902-June 12, 1994), a Jewish Orthodox haredi rabbi who was the 7th Rebbe (paramount spiritual leader) of the Lubavitch hasidim, their movement being known as Chabad Lubavitch. He was fifth in a direct paternal line to the third Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel (known as the Tzemach Tzedek), his namesake.



Lubavitch'er Rebbe

In 1950, upon the death of his predecessor, father-in-law, and cousin Rabbi Joseph Isaac (Yosef Yitzchok) Schneersohn (Known as the "Previous Rebbe" or Rebbe Rayat"z), Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (known as "The Rebbe") assumed the leadership of the Chabad (from the Hebrew acronym for "Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom"), sect of Hasidic Judaism. Their last names differed: The new Rebbe spelled his name "Schneerson", without the "h" of his predecessors' "Schneersohn".


Early life and education

Born in Nikolaiev, Ukraine, he received mostly private tuition. He was enrolled in the secular Yekaterinoslav University for part-time study of mathematics at the age of 16. His father Rabbi Levi Yitzchok Schneerson, a renowned kabbalist who served as the Chief Rabbi of Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk) from 1907-1939, was his primary teacher. He intensively studied Talmud and Rabbinic literature , as well as the hasidic view of mysticism and Kabbalah. He married Chaya Mushka Schneerson in 1929 and went to live in Berlin, Germany, and study engineering and philosophy at university. Lubavitch publications state that he received "degrees at Heidelberg". During this time he forged friendships with two other young rabbis studying in Berlin: Joseph Soloveitchik and Yitzchok Hutner.

In 1933 Rabbi Schneerson moved to France. According to histories authorized by Lubavitch, he studied at the Sorbonne in Paris, though official school records are ambiguous. He learned to speak French which he put to use in establishing his movement there after the war. The Chabad movement in France attracted many Jews who immigrated there from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.

Rabbi Schneerson rarely chose to involve himself with questions of halakha. Some notable exception were with regard to the use of electrical appliances on the Sabbath, sailing on Israeli boats staffed by Jews, and halakhic dilemmas created when crossing the International Date Line. Responsa literature on the subject reflect the great deference that prominent arbiters of halakha showed Rabbi Schneerson.

Rabbi Schneerson's activities spread to many surprising parts of Judaism. Since the time of the Rebbe Shalom Dovber, Chabad had been involved with the Sephardic world. Rabbi Schneerson was revered by Rabbi Israel Abuchatzirah (known as Babba Sali), Rabbi Meir Abuchatzirah, Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri and Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu (a former Chief Rabbi of Israel). The latter two often visited him in New York, while the others maintained a correspondence with him. In the late 1970s, Rabbi Schneerson joined with other organizations to orchestrate an exodus of Jews from countries such as Iran, laying the framework for Sephardic Hasidim. There are currently several Sephardic Chabad congregations.

Scientists who called on him, such as Herman Baranover, professor of physics at Ben-Gurion University in Beer-Sheva, Israel, noted that he had a keen understanding of scientific issues. Baranover himself, a Russian-Israeli authority on solar energy, is an active member of the Lubavitch sect. He frequently turned to Rabbi Schneerson for advice on his scientific research. According to the billionaire mining magnate Joseph Gutnick of Australia, it was Rabbi Schneerson who pointed out to him the precise geological points on a map of Australia to commence mining for gold. He was also given guidelines in his search for diamonds. Gutnick was subsequently appointed by Rabbi Schneerson as his main representative to the Israeli government, and was instrumental in the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel in 1996.


America and leadership

In 1941 Rabbi Schneerson escaped from France and joined his father-in-law Rabbi Joseph Isaac (Yosef Yitzchok) Schneersohn in the Crown Heights section Brooklyn, New York. He spent some time working in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. In 1942, his father-in-law appointed him director of the movement's central organizations, placing him at the helm of a budding Jewish educational and hasidic outreach empire across the United States, Canada, Israel, and North Africa.

Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Schneerson passed away in 1950. His followers immediately began pressuring Rabbi Schneerson, then known as the Rama"sh--an acronym of his name, to succeed his father-in-law. At first he steadfastly refused, saying that his father-in-law "lives on".

In that "vacuum", another candidate for leadership emerged--Rabbi Shemaryahu Gurary, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok's elder son-in-law, married to his elder daughter. Rabbi Gurary, known as the Rasha"g failed to capture support among the Hassidim, who continued pressuring Rabbi Schneerson to relent and accept the position of Rebbe. On the first anniversary of his father-in-law's passing, he finally relented and became Rebbe.

Rabbi Gurary became a devoted follower; however, his son Barry resented what he perceived as Rabbi Schneerson's "usurpation" of what he thought should have been his father's position. Various intra-family disputes arose. For example,when invaluable books and manuscripts from the Chabad library began to go missing, Rabbi Schneerson's wife, Chaya Mushka, suspected her nephew Barry and ordered a surveillance camera installed, which then confirmed her suspicions. This led to a protracted battle in Federal Court over the library's ownership. Barry Gurary claimed that the library was a family heirloom and as the previous Rebbe's sole grandson, he claimed ownership of it. Rabbi Schneerson countered that the library was the collective property of the Chabad movement. Barry's mother, Hanna, sided with him, while his father remained staunchly devoted to Rabbi Schneerson, leading to a deep rift in the Gurary family. On the fifth day of the Hebrew month of Tevet , the court handed down its decision--an overwhelming victory for Rabbi Schneerson. His followers commemorate this day each year as Didan Natzach a kind of "V-Day".

Rabbi Schneerson undertook to intensify the outreach program of the movement, bringing in new followers from all walks of life, and aggresively sought the expansion of the Baal teshuva movement. Other Orthodox Jews were bothered by the fact that Lubavitch outreach efforts extended to them as well as to non-affiliated Jews. The Satmar sect attacked him for not sufficiently opposing Zionism. The proximity of Crown Heights to Satmar enclaves in Brooklyn, and the conversion of prominent Satmar Hasidim to Chabad caused friction, culminating in an incident in which a group of Lubavitchers walking through the Satmar enclave in Williamsburg on their way to visit a synagogue to spread Rabbi Schneerson's message were set upon and beaten by a mob. Nonetheless, Rabbi Schneerson and Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe held each other in high esteem.

By the time of Rabbi Schneerson's death in 1994, he had overseen the training of thousands of young Chabad rabbis and their wives, and sent them all over the world as shluchim ("emissaries" in Hebrew) to further Jewish observance.


Methodology and critique

Rabbi Schneerson instituted a system of "mitzvah campaigns" called mivtzoim; these encouraged Jews to be keep kosher, observe Shabbat, learn more Torah, help in writing a Torah scroll, taught women to observe the niddah laws of Jewish family purity (laws pertaining to menstruation and ritual immersion afterwards in a pool of water known as a mikveh), accepting a belief in Moshiach (the Jewish Messiah). They went out to street-corners, and rode in "mitzva tanks", mobile outreach centers, encouraging Jews to increase their religious observance. He also launched a campaign to promote observance of the Seven Noahide Laws among gentiles.

He hardly ever left Crown Heights, except for frequent lengthy visits to his father-in-law's gravesite, the ohel ("tent"), in Queens. Upon the death of his wife in 1988, he further secluded himself, first in his home on President Street and after the year of mourning, moved into his study above the central Lubavitch synagogue at 770 Eastern Parkway which is known as "770" - "Lubavitch World Headquarters.

It was from "770" that he directed his emissaries' work. He would hold court around the clock involving himself in every detail of his far-flung movements' developments. People making appointments to see him would be summoned at all hours of the night. He did not sleep much. The highlight of his public role would be displayed during special celebrations called farbrengens on Sabbaths, holy days, and special days on the Chabad calendar when he would lead the packed hall with long talks called maamorim or sichos, and with songs called nigunim, that would last all night. They would often be brodacast via satellite to Lubavitch branches all over the world.

He oversaw the building of schools, community centers, youth camps, college campus centers (known as Chabad houses,) and reached out to the most powerful Jewish lay leaders and non-Jewish government leaders wherever they found themselves. The United States Congress and President issue annual proclamations declaring that the Rebbe's birthday, usually a day in March or April that co-incides with his Hebrew calendar birth-date of 11 Nisan (a Hebrew month), be observed as Education Day in the United States.


Political activities

Politicians of all stripes came to see him, regardless of their party political affiliations. Be they Democrats or Republicans, they sought his support. Generally, Lubavitch tends to support more conservative politicians such as those who back school prayer, are anti-abortion, pro-Israel, and are generally supportive of Bible values, about which Rabbi Schneerson was publicly vocal. Aspirants for the job of mayor, governor, congressman, senator, in the states of New York and New Jersey would come calling and have their pictures with the rebbe published in newspapers with large Jewish readerships and voters. Towards the end of his life, thousands of ordinary people would line up to receive a dollar bill from him personally, which was to be donated to charity, and a quick blessing from him.

Following the death of his wife in 1988 he withdrew from some public functions and became generally more reclusive. In 1991, he stated that: "I have done everything I can do to bring Moshiach, now I am handing over to you (his followers) the keys to bring Moshiach." A final campaign was started to bring the messianic age through acts of "goodness and kindness" and massive advertising in the mass media such as many full-page ads in the New York Times urging everyone to contribute toward the messiah's imminent arrival.

Rabbi Schneerson paid close attention to, and rejoiced in, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe starting in 1989. Under the Bolsheviks his father-in-law had been imprisoned and tortured and had his massive collection of writings confiscated, and the movement banned on pain of exile to Siberia. Once the Iron Curtain fell, he wasted no time in flooding the former Soviet Union with hundreds of new shluchim. During the Desert Storm war against Iraq in 1990-1991, messianic fever ran high as Rabbi Schneerson interpreted events in the light of Torah and midrash, declaring that: "Moshiach is already here, all we need to do is to open our eyes to see him."


Israel and politics

Rabbi Schneerson never visited the State of Israel, where he had many admirers and critics. One of Israel's presidents, Zalman Shazar, was a religiously observant person of Lubavitch ancestry and his visits to Schneerson were reunions of sorts. Prime Minister Menachem Begin and later Benjamin Netanyahu also paid visits and sought advice. In the elections that brought Yitzhak Shamir to power, Rabbi Schneerson publicly cajoled his followers and the Orthodox members in the Knesset to vote against the Labor aligment leading to articles in Time and Newsweek and many newspapers and TV programs.

During the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973, he called in public for the Israel Defence Forces to capture Damascus in Syria and Cairo in Egypt. He was vehemently opposed to any withdrawals by Israel's armies from captured territories, and was against any concessions to the Palestinians. He lobbied Israeli politicians to legislate on Who is a Jew to declare that "only one who is born of a Jewish mother or converted according to halakha (Jewish biblical religious law) is Jewish". This caused a furor in the United States where Jewish philanthropies cut off their financial support of Lubavitch since most of their members were connected with Reform and Conservative Judaism .


Later Life

In 1977 he suffered a massive heart attack while celebrating the hakafot ceremony on Shmini Atzeret. Nonetheless, he insisted on finishing the ceremony with the customary dancing. Despite the best efforts of his doctors to convince him to change his mind, Rabbi Schneerson refused to be hospitalized. This necessitated building a mini-hospital in "770." Although he did not appear in public for several weeks, he continued to deliver talks and discourses from his study via intercom. On Rosh Chodesh Kislev , the first day of the Hebrew month of Kislev , he left his study for the first time in over a month to go home. His followers celebrate this day as a great holiday each year with a feast of thanksgiving to God for his miraculous recovery.

In 1991, he faced an anti-Semitic riot in his neighborhood of Crown Heights which became known as the Crown Heights Riot of 1991. The riot began when a car accompanying Rabbi Scneerson's motorcade returning from one of his regular cemetery visits to his father-in-law's grave accidentally struck an African American child who subsequently died. In the rioting, a young rabbinic student was murdered, many Lubavitchers were badly beaten, and much property was destroyed.

In 1992 he was felled by a serious stroke while at the grave of his father-in-law. The stroke left him unable to speak and paralyzed on the right side of his body. Nonetheless, he continued to respond daily to thousands of queries and requests for blessings from around the world. His secretaries would read the letters to him and he would indicate his response with head and hand motions.

Despite his deteriorating health, he once again refused to leave "770" . Several months into his illness, a small room with tinted glass windows with an attached balcony was built overlooking the main synagogue. This allowed him to pray with his followers, begining with the Rosh Hashana services and after services, to appear before them by either having the window opened or by being carried onto the balcony.

During these appearances his followers would chant , what would come to be a very controversial "mantra" among the Lubavitchers : Yechi Adonenu Moreinu v'Rabbeinu Melech Hamoshiach l'olam voed! - "Long live our Master our Teacher and our Rabbi King Messiah forever and ever!" This has become the Lubavitch "battle cry" as they have continued to wage a campaign to convince everyone else that the deceased Rabbi Schneerson is the actual "King Messiah" and that he somehow "lives on".

When sung before him in has last months, he evidently vigorously encouraged the singing by swaying to and fro and swinging his hand, as he had done at the numerous farbrengens over the years. From this the Lubavitchers "extrapolated" that he acceded to their wish that he be the "Messiah". Some say they even had a crown of gold made for him, ready to be placed on his head when the right moment arrived. But that moment never arrived, as he died unable to verbalize and say anything to confirm his followers' longed-for dream that he be the actual long-promised Jewish Messiah.



Controversial Legacy

Hasidism has been charged by other Orthodox Jews with creating a cult of personality since its inception. These charges resurfaced with greater intensity as Rabbi Schneerson's influence increased. His followers had an extremely high level of devotion to him; they believed that he was infallible, and many proclaimed that he was the messiah. They believed implicitly in his vision, that he had supernatural powers of insight, "prophecy", and powers to change the world. Behind closed doors many other Orthodox Jews began to call Lubavitch a cult.

Rabbi Schneerson's death was a major event in Orthodox Judaism. Many of Chabad's opponents were unsure of what would become of the movement without its head. Some Chabad Hasidim were thrown into shock and disbelief. Others were disillusioned. Yet others proclaimed that it barely mattered. Those that were accustomed to "believing" that he was the "Messiah", postulated that another "step" in the drama of Messianic redemption had been played out, and that their leader would soon return to redeem the world.

During the funeral procession many Chabad Hasidim cried, but some danced in joy at what they believed was the signal of the "messianic age", which they stated would certainly appear within a "few hours", if not a "few days". Hours and days passed and nothing happened. Many of his followers are still waiting for him to appear. As the number of Chabad Hasidim is difficult to estimate, and no formal surveys have ever been conducted, it is virtually impossible to guess how people reacted in the long run.

Some Hasidim openly declared that Rabbi Schneerson had not, in fact, "died" at all; some saying that he had "shed his mortal body" or that he was "in hiding", waiting for an appropriate time to "reveal himself", in keeping with some of Schneerson's interpretations of Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) that he articulated after the passing of Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn.

This has caused a large part of the Jewish community to renew their denouncements of Chabad as being outside the pale of Judaism altogether. Many Orthodox rabbis associated with Lithuanian Judaism teach that Chabad is effectively becoming a new "religion", similar in its development to Christianity. The Lubavitch however, continue to lead a very strict Orthodox life-styles adhering to their strict application of the Shulkhan Arukh (also known as the Shulchan Aruch or Shulchan Oruch) (code of law) and halakha. Opposition has not stymied the Lubavitchers ; it has hardened their resolve to fulfil their rebbe's mission of ushering in the " messianic age ".

The controversy is aggravated by the fact that the charges come from a long standing opposition to Chabad and Hasidism. During his lifetime, his main critic in the Orthodox "Lithuanian" yeshiva haredi world in Israel, was their own paramount leader, Rabbi Elazar Shach. He was Rabbi Schneerson's fiercest critic, continuously denounced Lubavitch as "heretics" and their leader as misguided or worse. However other Hasidic heads , the prominent hasidic rebbes in Israel such as those of Ger, Vizhnits, Belz, never said anything in public against Rabbi Schneerson, viewing him as part of the world of chasidus - hasidism.

Another major proponent of the opposition to Chabad is Professor David Berger, a Modern Orthodox Rabbi and professor of history at the City College of New York . Berger gained prominence for his fierce opposition to Chabad, advocating ostracism of prominent Rabbis affiliated with the movement and boycotts. He has been behind efforts to bring about condemnations, and has written books on the subject. Berger specialized in earlier false messsianic movements in Judaism, has written essays and a book proporting to show that many followers of the late Lubavitch Rebbe revere him not just as Messiah, but literally as "God" .

There is also a continuing battle within Chabad Lubavitch over the legacy of Rabbi Schneerson. As few are willing to discuss their private views, there is little that can be truly known about what is mainstream in Chabad views, but such a high profile movement can be studied given its gigantic output of religious and political materials.


Controversial Concepts behind his Weltanschauung

A controversial belief among Hasidim first appeared in the Tanya mentioning that every Jew is endowed with a "spark of holiness" that is from the Creator. Based on the teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Baal Shem Tov and the Ohr Ha'Chaim, Rabbi Shneur Zalman taught in the name of the Zohar that "He who breathed life into man, breathed from Himself." He taught that the "Holy One Blessed Be He, Torah, and the people of Israel are one." This would explain Rabbi Schneerson's belief in reaching out to every Jew no matter where.

Hasidism taught that a person became a vehicle (merkava in Hebrew) for the deity when he performed a mitzvah. The Tsadik, being the "righteous" Leader, or 'Rebbe", was a human who performed only that which was commanded, was constantly such a vehicle.

The views of Rabbi Schneur Zalman were adopted and expounded upon by various leaders of Hasidism including Rabbi Elimelekh of Lizhensk. Rabbi Schneerson, in the year after the passing of his father-in-law, termed these beliefs into the concept of atzmut v'mahut melubash b'guf- "Essence and Being constricted into a body". Quoting his late father-in-law, Rabbi Schneerson taught that a Rebbe is literally Atzmus unget'n in a guf ( Yiddish:) "the essence, of God, clothed/incarnated in a human body". (Source: Likutei Sichos II: p. 510-511). While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources.

Just over a decade ago an assembly of the crown hieghts Jewish court and numerous rabbinical authorities declared that in accordance with the Jewish code of law, and clear indications in his holly teachings, his directives and predictions are to be considered a matter of prophecy and messianic sovereignty (psakdin - [Rabbincal_Legislation]) .

His writings and collected discourses have been published in many languages.

Rabbi Schneerson's writings are available online at:



Give Government to Iraqi? Don't think so, it is a ruse. They have not yet stirred 1 Billion Ishmaelites against the "Judeo-Churchizionians" for their coveted final Gog-Magog war"

Iraqi Governing Council President Killed in Attack
10 Iraqis Killed, 6 Wounded in Suicide Bomb Attack

By Scott Wilson and Sewell Chan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 17, 2004; 9:10 AM

BAGHDAD, May 17 -- The president of the Iraqi Governing Council was killed early Monday in a huge explosion set off by a suicide bomber outside the headquarters of the U.S.-led occupation authority here.

At least 10 Iraqis were killed and six were wounded, and two U.S. soldiers were slightly injured, in a devastating attack on Iraq's political leaders six weeks before the scheduled handover of limited political power to a new Iraqi government.

The explosion killed Izzedine Salim, who had held the rotating presidency of the Governing Council since May 1 and was a leader of the Islamic Dawa Party, one of the most influential Shiite Muslim political factions in Iraq.

A veteran political activist, Salim had edited numerous newspapers and magazines and had his base in the southern city of Basra, the second largest city in Iraq. In a statement, L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, called the killing a "shocking and tragic loss."

"The terrorists who are seeking to destroy Iraq have struck a cruel blow with this vile act today," he said. "But they will be defeated...The Iraqi people will ensure that his vision of a democratic, free and prosperous Iraq will become a reality."

Witnesses said a convoy of five white Nissan vehicles was passing through the Harthiya neighborhood toward a checkpoint into the Green Zone, where U.S. authority and the Governing Council have their headquarters, when a red Passat-type Volkswagen sped up to the convoy and exploded.

The blast was so forceful that it flung the car Salim was apparently riding in on to the other side of the street. It left 17 charred and burning vehicles on both sides of the median.

"I saw five burned bodies, completely burned," Mohammed Leith, 21, who lives about 100 yards from the explosion. "The one who did this is creating chaos. He only killed Iraqis. Even the Governing Council members are Iraqis too." Leith said that the street had never been the target of such an explosion before, but he said that U.S. soldiers discovered and safely defused an improvised explosive device, or roadside bomb, on the street about three weeks ago.

The top military spokesman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said at the scene that the cars were in line to get through the checkpoint and enter the Green Zone at the moment of the attack, but witnesses said they believed the cars were still moving.

Salim is the second member of the 25-member Governing Council to be assassinated. Akila Hashimi, who was one of three female members of the U.S.-appointed advisory body, was fatally injured during a gunfire attack on her convoy near her Baghdad home on Sept. 20, and she died five days later.

Salim had advocated in recent days for a continued role for the Governing Council, which has struggled for popular legitimacy since U.S. officials created it last summer. U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has proposed abolishing the council on June 30, when the U.S. occupation is to formally end, and replacing it with a caretaker government of technocrats.

"We shall listen to the ideas of Mr. Brahimi, but his ideas are not compulsory for us," Salim said this month "The Governing Council is the one responsible for forming the government."

The council said it selected Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, a Sunni Muslim civil engineer from the northern city of Mosul, to replace Saleem. Al-Yawer will serve as head of the U.S.-appointed council until the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

"The Iraqi leaders are the main targets of those terrorists and anti-democratic forces, and we will not be intimidated from continuing our path to build a new Iraq," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in remarks at the World Economic Forum being held at the Dead Sea, wire services reported.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office condemned the killing, saying Saleem and his colleagues had been working "to give Iraq a future of freedom, democracy and security, all of which are goals rejected by the terrorists."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, calling the attackers "enemies of the Iraqi people," said Saleem's death should not deter the transfer of power. "What this shows is that the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power from the occupiers to the Iraqi people," Straw said in Brussels, Belgium, on arriving for a European Union foreign ministers meeting.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose country has about 800 troops in and around Iraq, said he was "horrified" by a killing that showed some Iraqis were determined to block democracy in Iraq, wire services said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company




"I love strong opponents! It's such fun to break their backs! said the Leningrad interrogator Shitov. And if your opponent (e.g. your prisoner) is so strong that he refuses to give in, all your methods have failed and you are in a rage? Then, don't control your fury! It's tremendously satisfying, that outburst! Let your anger have its way; don't set any bounds to it. Don't hold yourself back! That's when interrogators spit in the open mouth of the accused! And shove his face into a full toilet! That's the state of mind in which they drag Christian believers around by their hair. Or urinate in a kneeling prisoner's face! After such a storm of fury you feel yourself a real honest-to-God man!"

—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Gulag Archipelago

It's been all over the press, on TV and in newspapers. Mel Gibson, the famous movie actor and director, has been horribly slandered, defamed, and verbally mauled by the Jewish elite who uniformly hate and despise Gibson's powerful film, The Passion of The Christ. The ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and other racist anti-Christian hate groups have made Gibson their whipping boy now for over a year.

But, hold on! You think Gibson has been treated unfairly, you haven't seen anything yet. Consider the case of Nobel Prize-winning historian and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Jews have been ripping into, slandering and otherwise savaging the reputation of the solidly Christian Solzhenitsyn for some four years now. But unlike the Gibson affair, the controlled media disingenuously refuse to report it. Solzhenitsyn is the hapless victim whose brutal mental whipping and emotional beating the world knows nothing about.

It now seems aeons ago that the stoic Russian author was celebrated for his insightful, poignant accounts of the horrible, subhuman treatment of the victims of the Soviet Communist Gulag, an interlocking system of thousands of concentration and slave labor camps. Solzhenitsyn himself had been a prisoner of the Gulag for a decade, preventively jailed for nothing more than the fear of the communist overlords that he might someday write something the Kremlin masters might find offensive to the state.

Solzhenitsyn: The "Conscience of the 20th Century"

Historian Solzhenitsyn's gut-wrenching book, Gulag Archipelago, went through countless printings—in over 50 languages—and touched the hearts of westerners. Expelled by the Kremlin for telling the awful truth, this great man was honored by freedom-loving people both in the United States and in Europe. He was often called the "Conscience of the 20th Century" and recognized universally as one of the globe's prime examples of bold courage and moral conviction. Even the liberal press initially had nice things to say about Solzhenitsyn. They were reluctant to go up against a man so honored for high moral stature, and recognized by so many as a truthteller of the highest character.

Then, the historian and truthteller Solzhenitsyn made what was, to liberals and communists, a grave error. Asked at a press conference his opinion on why the terrible events behind the Iron Curtain had occurred, why millions were carted away, tortured, starved and worked to death in Gulag slave camps, Solzhenitsyn gave this simple, yet startling, response: "Man has forgotten God."



"Outrageous," the Critics Roared

"What did you say? God? Outrageous!" the critics roared. Immediately, the world's press began a reversal of opinion about this man they once had lionized. Some called him a "Christian fanatic." Others said Solzhenitsyn was "reactionary...right wing...a religious nut."

Then, in 2000, Solzhenitsyn released a blockbuster new book he had penned entitled Together For Two Hundred Years. The new book was a lengthy treatise, a thorough and far-reaching compilation of several decades of research by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn into the machinations for two centuries of Jews inside Russia and the Soviet Empire.


Accurate in every detail, painstakingly documented, the author showed how, over the centuries, a small band of revolutionary Jews had conspired and plotted to overthrow the Russian Czars. Their aim: seize control of Czarist Russia and establish a beachhead for a Jewish utopia on planet earth—the long sought after Kingdom of the Jews.

The Gulags of the Jewish Revolutionaries

With staggering implications, Together For Two Hundred Years showed how Lenin, Trotsky and other Jewish conspirators had overthrown the Romanov dynasty in 1917 and set up their own Bolshevik totalitarian system. The result: The nightly assassination and roundup of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, most of whom were herded by black-hearted Big Brother secret police into thousands of monstrously evil Gulag concentration camps.

The largest number of victims, Solzhenitsyn reports, were Christian believers, understandable since the revolutionary Jews despised and hated Jesus and His Chosen People, the Christians. All-in-all, about 66 million innocent people were kidnapped and eventually died a hideous death at the hands of the Jewish "Ivan the Terrible" corps.



66 million murdered by mostly Jewish Gulag overlords! That's over ten times the number of Jews claimed to have been slain in Nazi concentration camps.

Obviously, such a powerful—and truthful—book as Together For Two Hundred Years must be suppressed. And it has been. No English-speaking publisher, either in Britain or in the U.S.A. has dared to publish it. So far, Solzhenitsyn's book has only been issued in the Russian language.

"Crush This Insolent Wretch"

Shamelessly, yet quietly and without a lot of fanfare, Jewish organizations have put out the word: "Crush this insolent wretch, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Give his works, his voice no forum, kill him with neglect. If you must mention his name, say it with scorn and with taunts and ridicule. Punish him severely for attempting to reveal our secrets to the world. Let him be an example of what the Jewish Power can do to a man who stubbornly refuses to tow the Zionist party line."

I have seen what they have done to Solzhenitsyn. I have read their biased and spiteful reviews of his book in the controlled media and witnessed their revengeful hatred of him in countless Jewish magazines, websites, and journals influential but relatively unknown to the public at large. The ruthless Jewish Power clique works to kill men in a variety of ways. With Mel Gibson, it was more public. With Solzhenitsyn, it is more personal and private. Clearly, Solzhenitsyn's writings about the Jewish leadership of the Soviet Holocaust is viewed as a grave threat to the Jewish Plan for global supremacy.

In Russia, millions of people—many of them survivors of the Gulag—still love and respect the aging man of God, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. They have read his newest book, and they know it is true. They lived it! They also well understand why such a book is being kept from the American people. The Talmudic Jews are fiercely determined that the whole truth about their repugnant, geno-cidal crimes be covered up. Solzhenitsyn's reputation must be progressively tarnished and his writings buried forever.

So now, the man, Solzhenitsyn, who suffered under the Jewish Gulag tormentors for so long, must now be tortured once again, and for the same purported "crime," the offense of using "words."

It was Lenin who once said, "Words are more deadly than bullets." Leninist ideology is truly an exemplar of the poisonous Talmudic Jewish mindset. Today, in America, there are, consequently, many things a man cannot say, cannot write about, and cannot publish. I know. I have, myself, faithfully followed God's calling and done my best to follow in Solzhenitsyn's footsteps. The Jewish holocaust revisionists have punished me, too, and they continue today to threaten and bully whip me and Power of Prophecy ministries.

Like Mel Gibson and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Texe Marrs is now being falsely and cruelly branded an "anti-Semite," a "Jew-hater" and worse, on all seven continents.

Fascinating, isn't it, how much fury, venom, and wrath just a touch of truth can whip up among the Jewish overlords and their Gentile accomplices, who today guide Western culture and minutely monitor and control every aspect of media reporting on politics, economics, and religion.


The Fearless Few Are Hated

Their greatest hatred, their most vicious spewing of venom, is reserved for the fearless few who dare to reveal to the world the heinous crimes committed by the Jewish Power in the Communist Gulag, especially the Zionist murder of 66 million men, women, and children, many of them Bible-believing Christians.

Equally hated are men like Ernst Zundel of Canada, who have questioned whether six million Jews actually died in a Nazi Holocaust. But even if six million died in a Nazi Holocaust, what of the sixty-six million who perished in the Jewish Gulag? And remember: Thousands of Nazis have been tracked down and punished for their reported crimes against humanity. Why is it that not even one Zionist Jew has ever been brought to justice for the heinous crimes committed in the Jewish Communist Gulag? Why?

For almost six decades, America and the planet have been preaching to the Germans, reminding them of the terrible crimes of their Nazi ancestors. It is only fair and just that we all now turn our attention to the Communist Gulag Holocaust, that we expose the Jews' role in its monstrous crimes and remind the Jews of what their criminal ancestors did to these sixty-six million innocent victims, most of whom were Christians.

Isn't it also time we demand construction of a Christian Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., to be erected next door to the existing taxpayer-funded Jewish Holocaust Museum? Is only the suffering of Jews worthy of being memorialized? What about the pain and suffering endured by so many other ethnic and religious groups, including that of Russian and Eastern European Christians during the Jewish Bolshevik era? Don't these tens of millions of Gentiles killed and tortured deserve to be remembered as well?


The Revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord

Chapter 18:

16: And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!


17: For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18: And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

that great harlot, zion

19: And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

20: Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21: And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
22: And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23: And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

Rv:18:24: And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of 

all that were slain upon the earth.


To get their Coveted Hoodlum Haba, their false Messiah, the son of perdition, they must slay as many as possible, thus once again they strike the hammer to the anvil, and what comes out of death and destruction, they hope to rule. After Is-RA-EL, Is REAL HELL, pre-imminently strikes Ishmael, then they will move on to their last enemy, them who are anti-Shem, anti-gods, anti-ha-shem...............the True Believers who will stand in firm testimony accusing them who accuse the sheep of OUR Lord Jesus the Christ ETERNAL



    The Final Report of Project Daniel

    April 2004

     FOREWORD by Professor Louis René Beres, Chair

    Further to the issuance of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America on September 20, 2002, US President George W. Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom in March of the following year. The results of that war, still substantially unclear at the time of this writing, derive from a greatly broadened American assertion of the right of unilateral preemption. A conceptual and implemented right, it expands the binding and well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense”a under international law. Although there have as yet been no subsequent legal codifications of this new American expansion, the precedent established by the world’s only remaining Great Power is certain to impact the actual policy behavior of other states. Not surprisingly, many in the international community have criticized this new policy. Yet history is replete with examples where nations have correctly reserved unto themselves the right of preemption when they have determined that their vital national interests, or very existence, were under threat.

    In short, whether or not the presumptively expanded right of striking-first as self-defense will soon become a generally accepted norm of authoritative international law, this right will, in practice, likely acquire enhanced credibility and legitimacy. Even if the broadened idea of anticipatory self-defense does not achieve the status of a peremptory norm as defined at Article 53 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,b it will be invoked more often by certain imperiled states. In this connection, the growing spread of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world – now exclusively to unstable and undemocratic states – fully underscores the broadened doctrine.

    Israel’s Strategic Future: the Final Report of Project Daniel, was completed in mid-January 2003, several months before commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nothing associated with America’s 2003 war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq or the still ongoing conflict within that fragmented country suggests a changed reality for Israel and the Middle East. On the contrary, the “lessons” of Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrate not only that our Final Report remains valid, but that its validity has been significantly enhanced. Today, more than ever before, the State of Israel – a state so small that it could fit twice into America’s Lake Michigan – must include appropriate preemption options in its overall defense strategy. Vastly more vulnerable to catastrophic first-strike aggressions than the United States, Israel must prepare now for existential harms in every available fashion. Consistent with The National Security Strategy of the United States of America and the strategic objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself without first absorbing biological and/or nuclear attacks. This is true irrespective of the cumulative outcome of Operation Iraqi Freedom or of particular criticisms now directed toward the United States.

    Project Daniel began with the assumption that Israel’s security environment must be appraised continuously, and that the threat of irrational state and nonstate enemies armed with WMD assets represents the single most urgent danger to the countrys survival. Early on in our deliberations, however, we (“The Group”) agreed that while the overall impact of this threat was extraordinarily high, its probability was considerably less than that of WMD assaults from rational enemy quarters. Reflecting this judgment, we concluded that Israel’s main focus must now be on preventing a coalition of Arab states and/or Iran from coming into possession of weapons of mass destruction. Preferably, we urged this objective be pursued while Israel continues with its present policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its own nuclear status. We also concluded that the classic paradigm of war between national armies could become less predictive in the developing Middle East, and that an Israeli “paradigm shift” is therefore required. This shift in orientation and resources would place new emphases on short-range threats (terrorism) and long-range threats (ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction). Here we also recommended a corresponding reduction in the resources Israel should now allocate to classical warfighting scenarios. Today, at the end of April 2004 – 15 months after our presentation of Israel’s Strategic Future to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon – we strongly reaffirm these recommendations.

    Our Group notes emphatically that Israel should avoid non-conventional exchanges with enemy states wherever possible. It surely is not in Israel’s interest to engage these states in WMD warfare if other options exist, but rather to create conditions wherein such forms of conflict need never take place. Israel’s Strategic Future does not instruct how to “win” a war in a WMD Middle-East environment. Rather, it describes what we, its authors, consider the necessary, realistic and optimally efficient conditions for nonbelligerence toward Israel in the region. Altogether unchanged by Operation Iraqi Freedom, these conditions include a coherent and comprehensive Israeli doctrine for deterrence, defense, warfighting and preemption.

    Our precise strategic theses, validated by the 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath, are intended to aid policymakers in bringing stability and predictability to a troubled region.

    Following the main body of Israel’s Strategic Future, which remains exactly as it was completed originally in January 2003, a newly-prepared “Addendum” will bring the reader up-to-date with current circumstances and allow him or her to better understand the Final Report in full and proper historical context. It is strongly suggested, therefore, that the reader consider this brief annex as an integral part of Israel’s Strategic Future.

    Louis René Beres, Ph.D.
    Professor of International Law
    Purdue University
    Chair of Project Daniel


    a   The right of anticipatory self-defense under international law was established by Hugo Grotius in Book II of The Law of War and Peace (1625). Here, Grotius indicates that self-defense is permissible not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance – “where the deed may be anticipated”. Or as he says later in the same chapter: “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill...” A similar argument is offered by Samuel Pufendorf in his treatise, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law (1672). The customary right of anticipatory self-defense has its modern origins in the Caroline incident, which concerned the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule (a rebellion that elicited sympathy and support in the American border states). Following this event, the serious threat of an armed attack has generally been taken to justify militarily defensive action. (See J. Moore, A Digest of International Law 409 (1906)). Today some scholars maintain that the customary right of anticipatory self-defense expressed by the Caroline has been overridden by the specific language at Article 51 of the UN Charter. In this view, Article 51 fashions a new and far more restrictive statement of self-defense, one that does rely on the literal qualifications contained in the phrase, “...if an armed attack occurs”. This interpretation ignores, however, that international law cannot logically compel a state to wait until it absorbs a devastating or even lethal first strike before acting to protect itself. And the argument against the restrictive view of self-defense is reinforced by the well-documented weakness of the Security Council in undertaking collective security action against a prospective aggressor. For supportive positions on the particular reasonableness of anticipatory self-defense in the nuclear age, see: Louis Henkin, et.al., International Law: Cases and Materials 933 (1980) (Citing Wolfgang Friedmann, The Threat of Total Destruction and Self-Defense 259-60 (1964); Joseph M. Sweeney et. al., The International Legal System: Cases and Materials 1460-61 (3rd ed., 1988) (citing Myres McDougal, The Soviet-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense, 57, American Journal of International Law 597, 598 (1963)).

    b  Concluded at Vienna, May 23, 1969, Entered into force, January 27, 1988, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; 1969 U.N.J.Y.B. 140; 1980 U.K.T.S. 58, Cmnd 7964; reprinted in 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969).

    Final Report

    Prepared Especially for Presentation to the Hon. Ariel Sharon
    Prime Minister of the State of Israel
    January 16, 2003

    Project Daniel is a private and informed effort to identify the overriding existential threats to Israel and their prospective remedies. These remedies must be both plausible (capable of achievement) and productive. With this in mind,  the Group met in both Washington DC and  New York City on several occasions during 2002. In the periods between meetings, members of the Group regularly exchanged information. The result of this effort is conveyed in the following Final Report: Israel's Strategic Future. The perspectives expressed in this document are those of the individual members, and do not necessarily reflect views of any institution or government. Our hope is that Project Daniel’s unique configuration of member background and experience will contribute to the strengthening of US-Israel strategic relations and to the ongoing debate over how Israel should best respond to existential threats to its national security.

    The Group is comprised of the following individual members:

    Professor Louis René Beres, Chair, USA

    Naaman Belkind, Former Assistant to the Israeli Deputy Minister of Defense for Special Means, Israel

    Maj. Gen. (Res.), Israeli Air Force/Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, Israel

    Dr. Rand H. FishbeinFormer Professional Staff Member, US Senate Appropriations Committee, and former Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator Daniel K. Inouye, USA

    Dr. Adir Pridor, Lt. Col. (Ret.), Israeli Air Force; Former Head of Military Analyses, RAFAEL, Israel

    Fmr. MK./Col. (Res.), Israeli Air Force, Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Israel



    Executive Summary

  1. Considering issues of both probability and disutility (harms), the principal existential threat to Israel at the present time is a conventional war mounted against it by a coalition of Arab states and/or Iran.

  2. Israel is also endangered (presently or potentially) by Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), nuclear and/or biological weapons that could be used against it either by enemy first-strikes or via escalation from conventional war. Israel’s particular vulnerability to such weapons is a consequence of its tiny area, its high population density and its national infrastructure concentrations. We recommend, therefore:

    1. Israel do whatever possible to prevent an enemy coalition from being formed and from coming into possession of WMD. This could include pertinent preemptive strikes (conventional) against enemy WMD development, manufacturing, storage, control and deployment centers. This recommendation is consistent both with longstanding international law regarding “anticipatory self-defense” and with the newly-stated defense policy of The United States of America.

    2. Israel should continue with present policy of ambiguity regarding its own nuclear status. This would help to prevent any legitimization of WMD in the Middle East. It is possible, however, that in the future Israel would be well-advised to proceed beyond nuclear ambiguity to certain limited forms of disclosure. This would be the case only if enemy (state and/or non-state) nuclearization had not been prevented.

    3. Israel should provide all constructive support to the United States-led War Against Terror (WAT). It must insist upon aiding the American objective to prevent/eliminate WMD among rogue states and terror groups in the Middle East. There is a clear coincidence of interest between Israel and the United States in matters of security and counter-terrorism.

    4. Israel must do everything within its means to prevent a Middle Eastern rogue state or terror group from attaining WMD status. Irrespective of its policy on nuclear ambiguity vs. disclosure, Israel will not be able to endure unless it continues to maintain a credible, secure and decisive nuclear deterrent alongside a multi-layered anti-missile defense. This recognizable (second-strike) retaliatory force should be fashioned with the capacity to destroy some 15 high-value targets scattered widely over pertinent enemy states in the Middle East. The overriding priority of Israel’s nuclear deterrent force must always be that it preserves the country’s security without ever having to be fired against any target. The primary point of Israel’s nuclear forces must always be deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post.

  1. If WMD status were attained by any Middle Eastern rogue state or coalition of states, the probability of joint-enemy conventional attack against Israel would be raised considerably. Faced with adversaries who now might believe themselves shielded under a WMD “umbrella”, Israel would have to do the following:

  1. Maintain its conventional forces at full war-waging strength and with a decisive qualitative edge. Hopefully this would be accomplished with full material support from the United States, whose interests would be coincident with Israel’s interests.

  2. Adapt its planning priorities and budgetary requirements to the “paradigm shift” described later in this Report. In this connection, Israel is urged to reduce the priority it assigns to conventional warfighting without impairing its undisputed superiority against any plausible enemy coalition.

  1. The Group is aware that many of its strategic recommendations are contingent upon adequate funding. Should the substantial funds needed by Israel to deal with so-called “Low Intensity” and Long-Range WMD threats be sought via increased taxation, it could threaten Israel’s economy and (ironically) undermine Israel’s security in other ways. To deal purposefully with these threats (threats which are delineated in this Report’s following presentation of “paradigm shift”), Israel’s government must trim all nonproductive costs and seek to encourage dramatic increases in productivity. The resultant rise in per capita GNP could allow the needed increase for Israel’s national defense.


    The Existential Threat to Israel

    In an age of Total War, Israel must remain fully aware of threats to its very continuance as a viable state. With such awareness, Israel has always recognized an imperative to seek peace through negotiation and diplomatic processes wherever possible. This imperative, codified at the United Nations Charter and in multiple authoritative sources of international law, shall always remain the guiding orientation of Israel’s foreign policy.

    When Israel’s search for peaceful settlement of disputes is not reciprocated, however, it must be prepared to deal with a wide range of existential threats. Taken literally, the idea of an existential threat implies harms that portend complete annihilation or the disappearance of the state. The Group feels, however, that certain forms of both conventional and unconventional attack against large Israeli civilian concentrations would constitute an existential threat. Although such forms of aggression are clearly criminalized by longstanding rules of Humanitarian International Law, Israel must:

  1. Acknowledge that these rules have often been ignored by certain Middle Eastern adversaries; and

  2. Take appropriate protective steps involving deterrence, active defenses, passive defenses, and preemption.

    Regarding preemption, international law has long allowed for states to initiate forceful measures when there exists “imminent danger” of aggression. This norm of “anticipatory self-defense” has been expanded and strongly reinforced by President Bush’s recent issuance of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Released on September 20, 2002, this document asserts, inter alia, that traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against an enemy “whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents...”, and that “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.” This “adaptation” means nothing less than striking first where an emergent threat to the United States is judged to be sufficiently unacceptable.

    As Israel is substantially less defensible and more vulnerable than the United States of America, its particular right to resort to anticipatory self-defense under threat of identifiable existential harm is beyond legal question. Moreover, as Israel’s ties to the United States are strong and unambiguous, so too are the strategic interests of the two countries tightly interwoven.

    Certain WMD attacks upon Israeli cities could be genuinely existential. For example, biological or nuclear attacks upon Tel Aviv that would kill many thousands of Israeli citizens could have profound and dire consequences on the continued viability of the country.

    A recent report by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation examined the effects of an Iraqi WMD attack on Tel Aviv.1 In one scenario, a single Iraqi missile carrying 500 kilograms of botulinum would kill approximately 50,000 individuals. In another scenario, an Iraqi missile fitted with 450 kilograms of VX nerve gas would kill 43,000 people. If left to develop nuclear warheads, Iraqi missiles could kill hundreds of thousands of Israelis.

    The Group notes three distinct but interrelated existential threats:

  1. Biological/Nuclear (BN) threats from states;

  2. BN threats from terror organizations; and

  3. BN threats from combined efforts of states and terror organizations.

    To the extent that certain Arab states and Iran are allowed to develop WMD capabilities, Israel may have to deal with an anonymous attack scenario; that is, a situation wherein the attacking state does not identify itself and where Israeli identification of the perpetrator is problematic. Overall, there is a “force multiplier” issue for Israel to face, a situation in which multiple attacks upon Israel from various configurations of state and non-state adversaries create a pattern of harms that is greater than the sum of its parts. Regarding effective deterrence of such situations, the Group feels that Israel must identify explicitly, and early on, all enemy Arab states and Iran, as subject to massive Israeli reprisal in the event of BN attacks upon Israel. In doing so, the Israeli deterrent posture would closely mirror that of the United States towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 

    Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the US has made it clear that it reserves the right to use all available weapons in response to any attack upon its soil by an adversary using Weapons of Mass Destruction. (The Bush Administration told Congress, on December 11, 2002, that it is now the policy of the United States to use “overwhelming force”, including nuclear weapons, if chemical or biological weapons are used against America or its military forces. The threats are contained in a six-page document identified as National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction). Israel, in our view, should follow a similar policy.

    Existential threats to Israel may be exacerbated further by Arab/Iranian leaders whose actions, by Western standards, might be deemed irrational. Faced with enemy leaders who do not value national and/or personal self-preservation more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences, Israeli deterrence could be immobilized and security could be based largely upon the success or lack of success of prior preemption efforts.

    Under such circumstances, a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) which was once obtained between the United States and the Soviet Union would not work between Israel and its Arab/Iranian adversaries. Rather, the Group understands that Israel must prevent its enemies from acquiring BN status and that any notion of BN “parity” between Israel and its enemies would be intolerable. The ratios of physical size 800:1, population 55:1, and political clout 22:1 UN votes between Israel and its enemies, and some of the latter’s’ utterly zero-sum concept of conflict with Israel (a concept currently allowing for no possibility of compromise and reconciliation) means that Israel’s survival is contingent upon avoiding parity at all costs. With this in mind, we strongly believe that Israel immediately adopt – with highest priority – a policy of preemption with respect to enemy existential threats. Such a policy could also enhance Israeli deterrence to the extent that it would reveal the country’s expressed willingness and resolve to act as needed.

    Recognizing the close partnership and overlapping interests between Israel and the United States, the Group fully supports the ongoing American War Against Terror. In this connection we urge full cooperation and mutuality between Jerusalem and Washington regarding communication of intentions. If for any reason the United States should decide against exercising preemption options against certain developing weapons of mass destruction, Israel must reserve for itself the unhindered prerogative to undertake its own anticipatory self-defense operations.

    The Group began its deliberations with the following concern: Israel faces the hazard of a suicide-bomber in macrocosm. Here, in this scenario, an enemy Arab state and/or Iran would act against Israel without ordinary regard for retaliatory consequences. In the fashion of the individual suicide bomber who acts without fear of personal consequences – indeed, who welcomes the most extreme personal consequence, which is death – an enemy Arab state and/or Iran would launch WMD attacks against Israel with full knowledge and expectation of overwhelming Israeli reprisals. The conclusion to be drawn from this scenario is that deterrence vis-à-vis “suicide states” would have been immobilized by enemy irrationality and that Israel’s only recourse in such circumstances would have been appropriate forms of preemption.

    The Group is also concerned about a particular variant of this scenario wherein an enemy state or combination of states does not actually seek or welcome massive Israeli reprisals, but – because of the vast demographic advantage over Israel – is willing to accept huge losses because Israel’s losses would be relatively even greater. If the enemy state or states were to calculate that it could afford a 1-to-1 exchange with Israel, it/they could literally compel Israel’s losses to be in the high existential range. The prospect of such an enemy calculation underscores Israel’s ultra sensitivity to enemy weapons of mass destruction and its imperative to adopt a policy of preemption whenever possible.



    The Group recognizes a basic asymmetry between Israel and the Arab/Iranian world. This asymmetry concerns attitudes toward the overall desirability of peace; the absence of democratic regimes in the Arab/Iranian world; the acceptability of terror as a legitimate weapon by the Arab/Iranian world; the zero-sum conception of conflict vis-à-vis Israel held by some states of the Arab/Iranian world; the overwhelming demographic advantage of the Arab/Iranian world; and the greater tendency of the Arab/Iranian world to make mistakes in strategic calculations. Taken as a whole, these asymmetries point toward an intemperate Arab/Iranian plan for protracted war against Israel that is wedded to an unquenchable desire by some to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction for use in this war.

    In view of the above-mentioned asymmetries, non-conventional exchanges between Israel and adversary states in the Middle East must be avoided. It is not in Israel’s interests ever to engage in WMD warfare with these adversary states. Therefore; Israel must maintain conventional supremacy in the region. This will be indispensable to maintaining the threshold of WMD warfare at the highest possible level.


    Paradigm Shift

    The classic paradigm of war between national armies is becoming less relevant in the present Middle East. In time, it can be made more efficient for Israel to increase the emphasis on high-tech solutions (thereby expending fewer resources).

    Traditionally, short-range threats (terrorism) and long-range threats (ballistic missiles and WMD) have been under-evaluated.

    The strategic paradigm for Israel must now shift to meet the expanding threats from terrorism and long-range WMD attacks. In doing so, of course, there must be a corresponding reduction in the resources Israel can devote to classical warfighting.

    Modern technology should allow Israel to reduce its defense expenditure while maintaining or even enhancing effectiveness and lethality in classical warfighting. Critical to this transformation in warfighting doctrine are a range of new technologies such as a drastic increase in weapons’ lethality (ton x miles per target destroyed) achieved through increased range, precision, warhead efficiency; EW and other defenses; reduced IR and RF signatures and on course + final percussion (data link) feed-back. Efficient use of sophisticated weapons is only possible if pre- and post-strike, real time intelligence, both tactical and strategic is available and accurate, and if strike command, control & communications are computer interfaced with real time intelligence (C4I).

    The Group understands that terror and WMD threats reflect a relative weakness in both “flanks” of the allocation graph. Resources should be allocated to technologies against those who conduct terror as well as the infrastructures that support them. Such effective technologies are already in existence.

    The Group recalls the following relevant technologies against strategic threats: Anti-ballistic missiles; warning satellites; strike UAVs (BPLI); long-range deployment forces; and “long-arm” capability (to be discussed in greater detail further on in this Report).

    The paradigm shift has worldwide implications.

    As stated above the Group feels that:

  1. Israel must do whatever is needed to keep the Middle East non-BN, including conventional preemptive strikes against enemy facilities for developing and producing BN weapons;

  2. Israel should not stimulate or provoke or in any way legitimize enemy development of BN weapons; it should, therefore maintain its current posture of deliberate ambiguity as long as possible;

  3. Israel must strongly support the American War Against Terror (WAT), urging that destruction and prevention of nonconventional capabilities in the Arab/Iranian Middle East remain Washington’s overriding objective. In the event of an American/Israeli failure to prevent BN deployment in a hostile country or countries in the Middle East, Israel will have to maintain and declare a deterrent nuclear arsenal. This would necessarily involve precise and identifiable steps to fully convince enemy states of Israel’s willingness and capacity to use its nuclear weapons.

    The Group is concerned about time-lapses in Arab/Iranian nuclearization. Some current thinking points to short durations needed for an enemy state to achieve a given level of nuclear capability, thus creating a sense of real urgency. Others have preferred long estimates, thereby identifying emergent enemy nuclear threats as still far-off in the future. We suspect that Arab/Iranian development stages will be rather long (that is, consistent with parallel processes in other states and regions of the world), while phases of acquisition and building-up of arsenals after the first pieces have been put into place will be relatively short. We suggest, therefore, that Israeli policy not refer to “a period wherein some Arab states possess just a few nuclear devices”. Such a period would inevitably be rather brief, and Israel could not dwell productively on having sufficient time, under such circumstances, for long processes of response.

    The Group identifies the following list of phases with typical expected durations.

    Some, but not all of these phases, may be simultaneous:

  • Develop a (laboratory) nuclear fission device – 10 years

  • Develop a fusion device (having fission technology) – 10 years

  • Prepare strategic materials for a nuclear device – 10 years

  • Develop an air bomb (weapon system) – 8 years

  • Develop a long-range missile – 12 years

  • Fit a nuclear warhead into a missile – 8 years

  • Build an arsenal of 100 bombs (after the first) – 4 years

  • Build an arsenal of 100 nuclear missiles (after the first) – 4 years

  • Build a distributed system of missile launchers – 5 years

  • Operate a fleet of nuclear missile submarines – 12 years

    The above list of phases offers a rough idea of the amount of time Israel might have for preparations at each declared and verifiable stage of Arab/Iranian nuclear build-up.

    The Group also offers informed judgments concerning the types of weapons for Israeli preemptive operations. We reject the argument that nuclear weapons are necessarily required for preemption of enemy nuclear capability. Conventional means are generally much more effective than nuclear devices for this purpose. Even if nuclear weapons are fully available for preemption, and even if their use would be consistent with authoritative international law, conventional weapons would be preferable wherever possible against emergent enemy nuclear capabilities.

    The Group recognizes there is also the additional advantage of acting preemptively against enemy BN capabilities without escalating to a BN war in the Middle East. The tools for preemptive operations would be novel, diverse and purposeful; for example, long-range aircraft with appropriate support for derived missions; long-range high-level intervention ground forces; long-endurance intelligence-collection systems; long-endurance unmanned air-strike platforms, and so on.

    The Group bears in mind that once achieving BN status, enemy states in the Middle East region could:

  1. Launch unconventional war against Israel; or

  2. Launch conventional or low-intensity war against Israel under the counter-deterrent “umbrella” of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. To prevent such a scenario, wherein Israel could presumably be deterred from retaliation by threats of unacceptably-damaging enemy counter-retaliations, Israel should maintain its “qualitative edge” with assistance from the United States and adapt itself to the aforementioned Paradigm Shift. Under these circumstances, Israel must have conventional superiority against its Arab/Iranian enemies even under cuts recommended by the paradigm shift, and its defense budget must consistently support such needed superiority. More than ever before, the first Basic Point in Israel’s Security Doctrine needs to be remembered and respected: “Israel cannot afford to lose a single war.”

    Conceptually, in examining the persuasiveness of Israeli nuclear deterrence, we must distinguish sharply between threats of enemy low- intensity/conventional attack and threats of enemy nuclear/BN attack. But as the most serious enemy conventional attacks would be launched against Israel by states with a backup BN capability, the persuasiveness of Israeli nuclear deterrence will always have to be assessed vis-à-vis enemy BN weapons.


    Maintaining Israel’s Qualitative Edge

    The Group underscores that Israel’s conventional supremacy over all adversaries and combinations of adversaries must be maintained. Israel’s qualitative edge is the only means by which it can compensate for a fixed and irreversible quantitative inferiority. This means, inter alia, the following expectations for the Israel Air Force (IAF):

  • Israel will have to maximize its long-range, accurate, real-time strategic intelligence.

  • Israel will have to maximize the credibility of its second-strike capability.

  • Israel will have to develop, test, manufacture and deploy a BPI (Boost Phase Intercept) capability to match the operational requirements dictated by enemy ballistic missile capacities (performance and numbers.)

  • Israel must begin to rely heavily on recoverable and non-recoverable UAVs, stealthy or otherwise, for such tasks as defense suppression, decoys, EW in all of its aspects, intelligence gathering and strike. GPS navigation must also be emphasized.

  • Israel must maximize its traditional combat and auxiliary manned force and equip it optimally.

  • Israel will have to assume operational responsibility for a second-strike capability, whether deployed on land or at sea, while ensuring an essential unity of command.

     The Group emphasizes that Israel must remain in a position to win any war conventionally. In order to prevent a nuclear Middle East, Israel needs an ever-higher level of qualitative edge. There is, of course, a mutuality of interest here with the United States of America.

    Israel’s needed identification and funding of particular elements that offer its forces a qualitative edge should be consistent with our prescribed “Paradigm Shift”. As this objective has been a continuing commitment of successive American administrations, and is also substantially dependent upon United States support, the Group recommends that the following key questions be researched and explored:

  1. What steps should be taken to better integrate Israel’s capabilities with validated US military requirements?

  2. What constitutes a healthy industrial base for Israel, and what is needed to ensure Israel’s ability to meet emerging strategic threats?

  3. With a declining defense budget (expressed as a percentage of GDP), how will Israel be able to finance not only its next generation of military systems, but also the ongoing War Against Terror (WAT)?

  4. Is restructuring needed in the US-Israel strategic relationship?

  5. How can Israel make better use of US military assistance?

  6. What can be done to eliminate some of the current impediments to US-Israel defense trade?

  7. How can Israel better assist the United States in meeting its requirements in homeland defense, counterterrorism and the WMD threat?

  8. What strategic forces will Israel require to meet the long-range threats to its security, and how will the country be able to finance these forces? These may include extended-range attack aircraft, expanded missile defense, extended aerial refueling, long-range special ground intervention forces and enhanced space-based C4I capability. In the best of all possible fiscal worlds, Israel would also seek to fund a blue ocean naval presence, but this option is presently precluded by defense budget constraints.

  9. What is needed to harden Israel’s current defensive and offensive forces to make them sufficiently invulnerable to enemy first strikes?

  10. How can Israel minimize the trade-off between operational readiness and force modernization?

  11. How should Israel readjust its defense strategy to take into account the possibilities of an expanded US military presence in the Middle East?

  12. What should Israel conclude about growing threats posed by particular enemy State modernizations?

  13. What should Jerusalem offer Washington in support of future US military operations in the Middle East?

  14. Should there be an enhancement of Israel’s major non-NATO status as an ally of the United States?

    The group feels that it is essential for Israel to get US support in ongoing defense projects designed to enhance Israel’s future overall deterrence:

    Israel’s Arrow missile defense system (prime contractor IAI) involves various arrangements with US Boeing. The IAF, which operates the Arrow, will likely meet its goal of having 200 interceptors in inventory on schedule. Arrow managers also hope to sell their product to certain other States; this would help Israel to reinforce its qualitative edge. Israeli engineers are taking steps to ensure that Arrow will function alongside American Patriot systems. The Group feels that IAF should continue working on external and internal interoperability issues.

    In its effort to create multi-layered missile defense system architecture, it may be that Israel is already working on an unmanned aircraft that could hunt down and kill an enemy’s mobile ballistic missile launchers. Israeli military officials have tried to interest the Pentagon in joining the launcher-attack project, known as boost-phase launcher intercept (BPLI), but Washington is focused on alternative technologies. The Group feels that Israel could do BPLI with or without US support, but gaining such support would allow the project to move forward much more rapidly. Enlisting US support for BPLI would represent another important step toward maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge.

    The Group believes that the United States should participate technologically and financially in Israel’s multi-layered  missile defense efforts as fully as possible. Israel’s priorities and timetables are especially time-urgent, and the end-product benefits of such American participation would be shared by both countries. The Group emphasizes the importance of multi-layered  defenses for Israel – aiming longer-term at BPI or BPLI – but affirms strongly that Israel should act preemptively before there is a destabilizing deployment of unconventional enemy assets.


    War Against Terror

    Further to the Group’s suggestions concerning Paradigm Shift, we believe in the overriding importance, to Israel’s security, of the ongoing, US-led War Against Terror (WAT). This War, of course, must be fought not only at the level of the terrorist organizations directly, but also against the various “rogue states” that support and sustain these organizations. From the standpoint of international law, WAT is a clear expectation and requirement for all civilized states.

    In the previously-cited document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 20, 2002), President George Bush affirms:

    Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances... We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the military, law enforcement, political and financial tools necessary to finish the task.

    The President continues: “While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today’s globalized world we need support from our allies and friends.” The Group advises that Israel offer such support to the United States to the fullest extent possible, and – reciprocally – that Israel seek from the United States whatever assistance and resources that America can provide. America’s WAT is Israel’s war, and Israel’s WAT is America’s war. The interests of our two countries in this matter coincide completely.

    Middle East stability in general, and Israeli security in particular, will be affected by the outcome of the WAT. Impairment of worldwide terror capabilities and enemy unconventional weapons capabilities is linked directly to Israeli security. By moving forcefully and preemptively against pertinent military targets, the United States would help to prevent a WMD conflagration in the Middle East, one that could spill over outside the region. It would also inform the world community about the need for, and lawfulness of, similar defensive actions by the State of Israel. The Group further believes that any such indirect benefit of the American WAT could reinforce crucial ties between Washington and Jerusalem, strengthening various patterns of essential mutual assistance between the two allies.

    The Group agrees that victory in the WAT (a full realization of President Bush’s stated objectives in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America) would be an optimal antecedent of subsequent independent actions by Israel. We understand as well that no clear and verifiable criteria of “victory” are readily identifiable. Rather, the WAT will necessarily be fought amidst considerable ambiguity of outcome; therefore, it would be a mistake for Israel to await an American victory in this theatre before committing itself to needed defensive options. In effect, such a delaying posture by Israel would likely preclude altogether actions needed against existential harms.

    It is very likely that after any American-led war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, accurate assessments of damage to Saddam's developing WMD infrastructures and associated intellectual assets would be problematic. The objective must be to eliminate these infrastructures and assets entirely, and to prevent any still-planned Iraqi steps toward WMD manufacture and deployment. Moreover, a principal objective of any US military action against Iraq must be the removal of Saddam Hussein, although it is not by any means clear that such removal would necessarily end all pertinent dangers emanating from that country. In the best of circumstances for Israel, US armed forces will succeed in neutralizing both Saddam’s developing WMD infrastructures/associated intellectual assets and Saddam himself. Here, depending upon:

  1. Informed post-war assessments of Iraq’s remaining WMD capacities;

  2. Its remaining capability to develop or acquire such capacities, and

  3. The nature of the successor regime in Baghdad, Israel may decide to shift its existential concerns to other regional threats. Special attention must be directed in this regard to expanding nuclear trade between Russia and Iran; to Egyptian plans to build a nuclear power plant near Alexandria, and to recent intelligence about Libya’s efforts in the nuclear arena. Israel’s decision here will be contingent to some extent upon precise military outcomes of the American war on terror.



    Following the Bush Administration’s September 20th reaffirmation of anticipatory self-defense and its broadened emphasis on preemption in the War Against Terror, Israel should now adopt a similar policy. The Group suggests that such policy pertain to WMD/BN threats, and that – wherever possible – it be entirely conventional in nature. Preemption may be overt or covert, and range from “decapitation” to full-scale military operations. Further, decapitation may apply to both enemy leadership elites (state and non-state) and to various categories of experts who are essential to the fashioning of enemy WMD/BN arsenals; e.g., scientists.

    The National Security Strategy of the United States of America stipulates that, “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States...” Urging “Proactive, counter-proliferation efforts to deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed”, the document makes clear that America no longer has the only option to rely on reactive postures. “We cannot,” says the President, “let our enemies strike first.”

    The preemption imperative applies even more strongly to Israel. More than any other state, Israel’s failure to shift purposefully to codified counter-proliferation policies could have fully existential consequences. This shift must be immediate. The Group suggests strongly and unequivocally that conventional Israeli preemption against selected enemy nuclear infrastructures now in development be executed as early as possible, and – wherever possible – in collaboration with the United States. Where America may be unable or unwilling to act proactively against these infrastructures, it is essential that Israel be able and willing to act alone.

    The Group reminds its readers that prevention or delay of enemy nuclear deployment would be profoundly different from preemption of an already-existing enemy BN force. Such issues as time horizon; target types; operation concurrence; disclosure and certain others must be analyzed separately for the two contexts. Attempts at preemption against an enemy that has been allowed to go nuclear may be too risky and may invite an existential retaliation.

    The group distinguishes between two types of preemptions:

  1. Preemption against nuclear installations capable of eventually producing nuclear weapons, and

  2. Preemption in the battlefield (In most cases before hostilities start).

    It is understood that both types of preemptions be carried out by conventional high precision weapons, not only because these weapons are more effective than nuclear weapons, but because preemption with nuclear weapons could be considered as Israeli nuclear first strikes. If not successful, these strikes could elicit an enemy’s counter-value second strike with all its existential ramifications.


    Tactical Weapons and Other Warfighting Considerations

    The Group believes that development of a nuclear warfighting capacity for Israel (counterforce-targeting) should be avoided as far as possible. There is no operational need for low-yield nuclear weapons geared for actual battlefield use. There is no point in spreading (and raising costs) Israel’s effort on low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons given the multifaceted asymmetry between Israel and its adversaries. Overall, the most efficient yield for Israeli deterrence, counterstrike and deployment purposes is a countervalue-targeted warhead at a level sufficient to hit the aggressor's principal population centers and fully compromise that aggressor's national viability. The Group urges that Israel make every effort to avoid using nuclear weapons in support of conventional war operations. These weapons could also create a seamless web of conventional and nuclear battlefields that Israel should avoid.

    The Group opposes the creation of “Red Lines” concerning use of tactical nuclear weapons. These Red Lines could be eroded by a political establishment encouraged to use the “easy” nuclear way out of military dilemma, thus occasioning premature escalation to nuclear war. Red Lines might also be eroded within the military itself, if IDF elements were to prompt any unauthorized use of the weapons at their disposal. In our judgment tactical nuclear weapons and doctrine would increase instability without offering Israel any real strategic advantage.

    Consistent with the basic presumption of enemy rationality, the Group considers it gainful for Israel to plan for regime-targeting in certain instances and circumstances. With direct threats employed against individual enemy leaders and possible others, costs to Israel (and to the Arab populations oppressed by the targeted regimes) could be very substantially lower than alternative forms of warfare. Simultaneously, threats of regime targeting could be even more compelling than threats to destroy enemy hard targets, but only if the prospective victims were made to feel sufficiently at risk. We understand that regime-targeting by Israel is unlikely unless a pattern will first be established by the United States in the expanding War Against Terror.

    The Group offers a final set of suggestions concerning anticipatory self-defense. Israel must be empowered with a “Long Arm” to meet its preemption objectives. This means long-range fighter aircraft with capability to penetrate deep, heavily-defended areas and to survive. It means air-refueling tankers; communications satellites; surveillance satellites; long-range UAVs. More generally, it means survivable precision weapons with high lethality; it also means substantially refined EW and stealth capabilities. Individually, the need for these assets is already well-known. What is new and important here in the Group’s suggestion is the recommended configuration of these assets.



    Operational deterrence is essential to Israeli security in all situations and circumstances. If, for whatever reason, Israel fails to meet its preemption goals and enemy states acquire nuclear capacity, it will have to reconceptualize deterrence to conform to the vastly more dangerous geostrategic context. The Group affirms, again, that Israel’s primary objective must always be to prevent enemy nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but if this mission is unrealized it suggests the following: Israel should immediately end its posture of nuclear ambiguity and take steps toward purposeful disclosure of its own nuclear assets and doctrine. Such disclosure, of course, would be limited to those aspects needed to underscore the survivability and penetration-capability of its nuclear forces and the political will to launch these forces in retaliation for certain forms of enemy aggression.

    The Group understands that Israel must always do whatever it can to ensure a secure second-strike nuclear capability that is recognized by all pertinent enemy states. This means that once nuclear ambiguity is brought to an end, nuclear disclosure would play a crucial communicative role. The essence of deterrence lies in the communication of capacity and will to those who would do Israel great harm. The actual retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by Israel would signify the failure of deterrence. Recalling Clausewitz and Sun-Tzu, the very highest form of military success is achieved when one’s objectives can be met without an actual use of force.

    To meet its “ultimate” deterrence objectives – that is, to deter the most overwhelmingly destructive enemy first-strikes, Israel must seek and achieve a visible second-strike capability to target approximately 15 enemy cities. Ranges would be to cities in Libya and Iran, and recognizable nuclear bomb yields would be at a level sufficient to fully compromise the aggressor's viability as a functioning state. The Group points out that Israel must also convince all relevant adversaries that it has complete control over its nuclear forces. The purpose of such convincing would be to reduce or remove any adversarial considerations of preemption against Israel.

    The Group notes again that where nuclear targeting is concerned, Israel should focus its resources on counter-value warheads, targeting between 10 and 20 city assets of crucial importance to the enemy, but excluding religious assets wherever possible.

    Choosing countervalue-targeted warheads in the range of maximum destructiveness, Israel will achieve the maximum deterrent effect, and will neutralize the overall asymmetry between the Arabs and the state of Israel. All enemy targets should be selected with the view that their destruction would promptly force the enemy to cease all nuclear/biological/chemical exchanges with Israel.

    The Group points out that all of its suggestions regarding nuclear weapons are fully consistent with authoritative international law. On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice at The Hague handed down its Advisory Opinion on The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (pursuant to request made by the General Assembly of the United Nations). The final paragraph of the Opinion concludes, inter alia:

    The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.2

    The Group maintains that Israel must display flexibility in its nuclear deterrence posture in order to contend with future adversarial expansions of nuclear weapon assets. It may become necessary under certain circumstances that Israel field a full triad of strategic nuclear forces. For the moment, however, we believe that Israel can manage without nuclear missile-bearing submarines. This belief holds only as long as it remains highly improbable that any enemy or combination of enemies could destroy Israel’s land-based and airborne-based nuclear missiles on a first-strike attack. The Group recognizes that these circumstances could change in the future.

    To meet its deterrence needs, Israel must be prepared to:

  1. Fully operationalize an efficient, multi-layered  antiballistic missile system to intercept and destroy a finite number of enemy warheads with the highest possible probability of success and with a reliable capacity to distinguish between incoming warheads and decoys.

  2. Fully operationalize a robust second-strike capability, sufficiently hardened and dispersed, and optimized to inflict a decisive retaliatory salvo against high-value targets.

  3. Continue energetic R&D, service trials, eventual production/deployment of Boost Phase/Boost Phase Launcher Intercept systems to add to multi-layered  defense.

  4. Enhance real-time intelligence acquisition, interpretation and  transmission for instant response.

  5. Provide for accurate, real-time post-strike reconnaissance and assessment.

  6. Provide the required C4I system to handle all above and ground-damage control.

  7. Take all necessary measures to connect the north and south of Israel, bypassing metropolitan Tel Aviv (roads, railways, gas and oil pipelines, water, electricity, telephones, etc); and

  8. Provide population dispersal for an early-warned Tel Aviv.

    As a rule Israel will do its utmost never to escalate from the conventional or chemical to the BN. It will do so only as retaliation against an existential attack/first strike by an enemy. Israeli nuclear counterforce first strikes (even for preemption purposes) would be precarious and should be avoided at all costs. For the reasons stated above Israel should also attempt to have very strong conventional, chemical, and biological deterrence capabilities. It should not ever be forced to escalate to the nuclear level for lack of proper response options in lesser capabilities.

    Finally, Israel’s deterrence posture must always be founded upon genuine capabilities. In this connection, the Group suggests that Israel always avoid any intended gap (IG) between actual and alleged military capacities. An effort to maintain any IG would be unnecessary and would likely be unsustainable. Moreover, the consequences of any enemy discovery of an Israeli IG would be very destabilizing. If, for example, the IG had been presumed essential to Israeli deterrence, its exposure by an enemy state or states could provoke overreaction by the enemy. Here, the enemy might launch an all-out attack upon Israel under the false presumption that other declared Israeli capabilities were probably fabricated.

    From the standpoint of deterrence, there is a deep and meaningful consistency between actual and alleged capabilities. In every aspect of nuclear capability, the declared level, by Israel, should be neither less nor more than the real one. This does not mean, however, that Israeli declarations need to be very specific. Nor does it mean that merely having a nuclear force automatically implies having a credible nuclear deterrence posture. Such a force must always be secure, appropriately destructive and presumptively capable of penetrating any would-be aggressor’s active defenses. 



    A policy paper published by ACPR (Ariel Center for Policy Research) in March 2002 raised important concerns about Israel’s deterrent capacities vis-à-vis Iraq or Iran.3 Here, one of our team, Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto linked Israeli security to the US War Against Terror (WAT). At the same time, another member of our group – Louis René Beres – urged the creation of a special ad-hoc effort to advise the Prime Minister of Israel on the growing threat of enemy state and/or terror organization acquisition of WMD. Professor Beres, who has been the Chair of Project Daniel, was initially most concerned about Middle Eastern enemy states who might act as “suicide bombers” writ large; that is, as countries armed with operational biological and/or nuclear weapons. Such states might be willing in certain circumstances to accept collective national “martyrdom” in order to annihilate or bring great destruction to Israel. Although the Group agrees that such a prospect is conceivable, we have concluded that the principal existential threats to Israel are still more likely to come from rational adversaries and that Israel should plan accordingly.

    International law is not a suicide pact. Every state has an established right under international law to protect itself from enemy acts of aggression. This right is all the more obvious today, when Weapons of Mass Destruction can inflict existential harms and where aggressors could calculate, correctly or incorrectly, that they can strike without incurring unacceptably damaging retaliations.

    The United States of America now recognizes that even the world’s remaining superpower must augment deterrence and defense options with up-to-date expansions of anticipatory self-defense. Following Bush Administration codifications of preemption as doctrine, Israel – a country that is vastly more vulnerable than the United States – should do no less. Seeking, always, to implement peaceful and diplomatic remedies wherever possible, Israel must remain fully aware that its adversaries have very different orientations toward these remedies and that, in certain situations, even threats of overwhelming retaliatory destruction could fail to deter enemy aggression. What we are suggesting here is not merely that Israel remain committed to anticipatory self-defense wherever necessary – after all, such a commitment is already understood – but that Israel now make fully doctrinal commitments to conventional forms of preemption in regard to WMD threats. These unambiguous commitments would be unthreatening and law-enforcing, announcing in advance that Israel, like the United States, has an inherent right to defend itself without first absorbing Biological and/or Nuclear aggressions.

    American defense policy under President George W. Bush gathers into one comprehensive whole several interrelated doctrines for deterrence, defense and preemption. Codified during 2002 in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 20, 2002) and National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (December 11, 2002) this policy offers a coherent doctrine from which specific tactical and strategic options may be suitably derived and implemented. Notwithstanding substantial security differences between our two countries, and the distinct possibility that there will be certain conceptual/operational errors and failures in America's actual execution of the Bush Doctrine in particular venues, a similarly institutionalized doctrine could now serve to enhance Israel's defense posture.

    Israel’s strategic future is always a work in progress. This Report has identified various existential threats to this future and appropriate policy responses. The Members of Project Daniel stand ready to offer whatever additional counsel might best serve the security interests of the State of Israel. With this in mind, we respectfully offer this Report to the Honorable Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister.


    The Final Report of Project Daniel


    Israel’s unchanging imperative is to survive in a very hostile neighborhood. Facing both state and non-state enemies in the Arab/Islamic world, some of whom remain relentlessly genocidal toward Israel, the Jewish state must now prepare to systematically harness all resources needed to endure. Above all, this means constructing the optimal conceptual foundations for national strategic survival. With this in mind, and with particular attention to the still-growing dangers of Arab/Islamic nuclearization, the members of Project Daniel offer Israel’s Strategic Future.

    When Project Daniel presented its basic document to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on January 16, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom had not yet commenced. Today, in April 2004, the war – in one form or another – is more than one-year old and (however one might wish to judge the strategic accomplishments of the conflict) the specific WMD dangers once associated with Iraq are for now, evidently irrelevant. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of Israel’s overall strategic doctrine, the recommendations expressed in Israel’s Strategic Future remain entirely meaningful and timely. Indeed, conceptually, these recommendations are now more important than ever before. We refer here especially to the critically enduring expectations of deterrence, defense, warfighting and preemption doctrine – expectations carefully discussed in the main body of the Report.

    Since the presentation of our original document, there have been a few relatively minor “victories” in the indispensable effort to control WMD proliferation among Israel’s enemies. The most obvious case in point is Libya. At the same time, the circumstances in North Korea (which had already participated in a war against Israel, deploying some Mig-21 squadrons to Egypt in the October 1973 “Yom Kippur War”), Iran and Pakistan remain highly volatile and dangerous. At the level of terrorist groups, which are of course sustained by several Arab/Islamic states, new alignments are being fashioned between various Palestinian organizations and al-Qai`dah. The precise configurations of these alignments are complex and multifaceted, to be sure, but the net effect for Israel is unmistakably serious.

    We, the members of Project Daniel, are aware as well, that a movement for nuclear “equity” is currently gaining strength in the Arab/Islamic world and even in parts of Europe. The main argument of this carefully orchestrated movement is that nonproliferation burdens should be borne “fairly and equally” by all states in the region, and that Israel cannot be an exception. If this carefully contrived movement should gather strength and adherents in the coming months and years, it could place Israel’s nuclear options in some peril. Without these options, Israel’s genocidal enemies would quickly understand what classical military thinking has incorporated from Karl von Clausewitz (On War), and what was learned long ago by the ancient Greek King Pyrrhus: There comes a time when mass counts. In this connection it is important for friends of Israel to understand that our reference to “genocidal enemies” is altogether literal and precise. Even by the strict jurisprudential standards defined at the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the language and actions of Israel’s state and non-state enemies qualify fully as egregious crimes against humanity.4

    The Arab world is comprised of 22 states of nearly 5,000,000 square miles and 144,000,000 people. Soon, if Israel is forced to accede to the idea of a Palestinian state, there will be a 23rd Arab state, one with particular territorial and tactical advantages in the accelerating genocidal struggle against Israel. The Islamic world overall contains 44 states with more than one billion people. These Islamic states comprise an area that is 672 times the size of Israel. The Jewish state, with a population of about 5,000,000 Jews – is – together with Judea, Samaria and Gaza – less than half the size of San Bernardino County in California.

    We the authors of Israel’s Strategic Future have reaffirmed Israel’s long-honored commitment to collective security and “peaceful settlement of disputes” whenever possible. But it will be immediately evident to all who consider the United Nations that this world body has regularly been openly biased against Israel, and that it can never be counted upon to halt or even impede the genocidal ambitions of Israel’s enemies. Indeed, at a time when the uniquely barbarous terror of Hamas and related Palestinian groups openly defies every constraint of humanitarian international law (the law of armed conflict is binding upon all combatants, insurgents as well a states), the UN chooses to condemn not the Arab terror but Israel’s efforts at counter-terror. In a fashion that seems to resemble the literary genre of the “Theatre of the Absurd” more than the sober deliberations of international diplomacy, the Security Council debates Israel’s security fence, but not the Arab mutilations and murders that make the fence necessary. Similarly, the world body is quick to condemn Israel’s policy of “targeted killings” while ignoring the bloody pogroms organized by such Hamas leaders as the late Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and the late Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi. We might also recall that the UN Security Council, including the United States of America, voted to condemn Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor on June 7, 19815 – an expression of anticipatory self-defense6 that was the reason Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons during the 1991 Gulf War or during the past year in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Israel’s Strategic Future is founded on the presumption that current threats of war, terrorism and genocide derive from a very clear “clash of civilizations”, and not merely from narrow geostrategic differences. Both Israel and the United States are unambiguously in the cross-hairs of a worldwide Arab/Islamic “Jihad” that is fundamentally cultural/theological in nature, and that will not concede an inch to conventional norms of “coexistence” or “peaceful settlement”. This situation of ongoing danger to “unbelievers” is hardly a pleasing one for Jerusalem and Washington, but it is one that must now be acknowledged forthrightly and dealt with intelligently. Moreover, it is a situation that could combine an eighth century view of the world with 21st century weapons of mass destruction.

    Very early on in our deliberations, the Group considered a coincident danger; that is, the special strategic risks to Israel of irrational adversaries (state and non-state) armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons. Although we concluded that preeminent risks are far more likely to be associated with fully rational enemies, there may be residual circumstances in which Israel could be faced with a “suicide bomber in macrocosm” – enemy state leaders/decision-makers who are actually willing to absorb overwhelmingly destructive Israeli nuclear reprisals in order to eliminate the “Zionist cancer”. For this reason, as well as for other specific circumstances in which Israel’s nuclear deterrent might be eviscerated or immobilized, we have devoted much of our argument to codification of a credible and capable preemption doctrine.

    We may learn two persistently important truths from Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece: (1) that “war is a violent preceptor,” and (2) that human nature is dreadfully constant. Today, Israel’s strategic future is poised precariously on a knife’s edge, and the wisdom of Thucydides can be disregarded only at great peril. It would be a mistake to conclude that inter-Arab or inter-Islamic dissension at any level, including open warfare, would substantially reduce risks of violence to Israel, or that Israel can presently draw any true measure of security from formal peace agreements with its enemies. Ultimately, President Bush is correct in his view that Arab/Islamic democratization is necessarily antecedent to regional peace, but it is just as apparent that this remedy is still many years away. In the interim, therefore, both Israel and the United States must maintain steady momentum in their War Against Terror (WAT) and in the absolutely imperative control (including, if necessary, appropriate preemptions) of nuclear proliferation. Building upon the solid foundations of Libya’s recent nuclear renunciation, attention must now be directed especially to scale down the nuclear programs not only of Iran, but also of Algeria and even Egypt.

    As a “violent preceptor”, Operation Iraqi Freedom yields several important lessons. In its initial combat phases, “Gulf War II” has been a war of high-precision ordnance, in contrast to Operation Desert Storm, which had been a “war of platforms”. The overwhelming majority of bombs and missiles fired in Operation Iraqi Freedom were accurate enough to permit about 600 strike aircraft – deployed farther away from their targets than in Operation Desert Storm – to achieve primary offensive objectives in some 24 days. From the standpoint of these objectives, it follows that what “counts” in such offensive operations is not missions per se, but rather number of ordnance per target hit or destroyed.7 Nonetheless, even where this “lesson” has been learned by Israel and the United States, it must remain obvious that an initial offensive operational victory in wars against rogue regimes and corollary wars against terror is only the beginning of much wider forms of struggle.

    In the main body of our Final Report, we note a recommended “Paradigm Shift”, and identify associated changes to Israel’s defense expenditures. Optimally, a satisfactory level of conventional deterrence/war-winning capacity can be maintained by Israel without substantial budgetary expansions. By definition, this would require a reduction in weapon-carrying platforms (e.g., tanks, aircraft) and a corresponding reduction in manpower, training and maintenance costs without diminishing the desired level of overall combat effectiveness.

    In essence, the budgeted paradigm-shift must allow the IDF to maintain a needed level of potential number of targets destroyed over a pertinent span of time – a goal that will require sophisticated, “intelligent” weapons; lighter, more lethal, with longer-ranges and – very importantly – possessing precise day/night, independent (fire and forget) unjammable guidance systems.8 The recommended paradigm shift will also require additional deterrence/war-winning capabilities in both the Terror and WMD sectors. Although there is a certain overlap of operational requirements between sectors, the slightly-reduced budget allocations for conventional deterrence will not suffice to sustain the vastly-increased needs for anti-terror and (especially) WMD-warfare requirements.

    The authors of this report wish to highlight several areas where Israel’s conventional defense posture is being negatively impacted by recent budget cuts.

    The first of these is in the area of research and development.9 Israel’s FY 2004 defense budget eliminates a substantial part of the funding for new R&D initiatives as a direct consequence of an overall cut of NIS 3 billion (US$680 million) in military expenditure. Innovation in weapons technology is the lifeblood of the country’s military establishment and has been responsible for ensuring that its armed forces can prevail over any combination of numerically superior enemy states. It also is the engine for the country’s high technology economy. Reducing investment in new military technology leaves Israel vulnerable to its enemies who are acquiring new and improved weapons systems at a prodigious rate.

    A second concern is the inadequate funding being allocated by Israel to military Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts. It is these accounts that pay for day-to-day necessities from pay and allowances to training and base support. The three-year old Palestinian war has forced the IDF to divert funds from its regular O&M to pay for ongoing operations in the territories. The war on terrorism and the security barrier have drained away additional resources. Owing to the growing shortage of O&M funds, troop training has been reduced across the board to include flying hours for the Air Force, steaming hours for the Navy and maneuver hours for IDF land forces.

    Third, with rare exception, Israel’s military leaders are being forced to cut back on the acquisition of new, state-of-the-art war fighting platforms.

    Conventional military strength is composed of many factors. Those mentioned above are just a few of the indicators that point to a disturbing trend among Israel’s armed forces, one that if allowed to continue could seriously erode the country’s sustained combat capability as well as its ability to deter non-nuclear aggression. The maintenance of a strong, seamless conventional defense posture is key to being able to deter aggression along the entire threat continuum. Israel’s military weakness, real or perceived, could invite aggression that if left unchecked, could escalate to the WMD level.

    To be sure, Israel’s strategic future will be substantially contingent upon the strength of its economy. It is also clear that expending too high a percentage of GDP on defense would have a debilitating effect on Israel’s overall economic health. Increasing the defense burden above seven percent of the GDP could produce such an injurious effect.10 This means, we suggest, that (a) Israel’s defense burden not exceed this particular threshold percentage of GDP and – assuming no significant increases in support coming from the United States – that (b) Israel now strive in organized fashion to raise its GDP and reach per capita levels commonly expressed in parts of Western Europe.

    Once undertaken and identified, Israel’s suggested Paradigm Shift will itself impact the way other state and certain nonstate actors behave in world politics. It is recommended, therefore, that Israel continuously monitor the “validity” of its Paradigm Shift internationally.

    Just as inter-Arab and inter-Islamic conflict will do little to blunt overreaching Arab/Islamic war-preparations against Israel, so too will American and/or Israeli destruction of particular terrorist bases not necessarily eliminate the safe-havens provided by terrorist patron states. We have already witnessed the apparent ability of al-Qai`dah to shift operations from one state to another, and it is altogether likely that alternative patrons would be discovered readily and expeditiously by other terror groups. We recommend, therefore, not that the War Against Terror in any way reduce its operations against known terror bases, but rather that it also include in its primary tactical arsenal some meaningful disincentives to all prospective terrorist patron states.

    For the moment, Iraq has been eliminated from Israel’s “strategic equation”. This means that Israel can allocate energies and resources toward other sources of WMD danger, although it is conceivable that Iraq may still remain a potential source of anti-Israel terror. It is in Israel’s short and long-term strategic interest to assure a complete American-led victory in post-Saddam Iraq.

    The ongoing war in Iraq has demonstrated the evident weaknesses of national intelligence agencies in providing certain critical warnings and in enhancing strategic stability throughout certain regions. Israel, itself, is not without a history of serious intelligence failure, and Israel’s strategic future will require, inter alia, an enhanced intelligence infrastructure and highly-refined “backup systems”.

    We recognize that – for many different reasons – Israel now faces increasing isolation in the world community. More than ever before, Israel will need to fend for its own security, and to depend, in the final analysis, upon its own skills and resources. As clear examples, the ongoing expansion of the European Community (EU) and NATO will provide various security guarantees to member states and will leave Israel more and more alone. In the end, Israel’s strategic future will depend upon plans and postures of its own making, and these plans and postures will themselves require a more comprehensive and creative pattern of strategic studies as a disciplined field of inquiry.11

    Optimally, a steadily-improving field of Israeli strategic studies will now construct a generalized body of advanced theory from which particular policy prescriptions can be suitably extrapolated and implemented. In building such important theory, it will be vital to consider a number of issues that might not ordinarily seem to “fit” directly into our present range of concern. For example, Israel’s strategic future will assuredly be impacted by such diverse factors as (1) the growing anarchy in world affairs; (2) the prospect of nuclear weapons use on the Korean Peninsula or in Southwest Asia (India/Pakistan); (3) the ironically emerging prospect of the United States ally as a simultaneous guarantor of basic security for “Palestine”; (4) the probable incapacity of the United States to bring democracy to Iraq or to any other Arab state in the Middle East; (5) the likely emergence of mega-terror in different parts of the world, and its conceptual effects on the meaning of “existential threat” for Israel; and (6) the palpable worldwide growth of anti-Semitism and its still-unexamined influence on Israel’s capacity to function diplomatically, economically and militarily.

    Israel’s security is fraught with risk and danger, and it is contingent upon a great many complex variables, but it is also an arena of opportunity. Recognizing a compelling obligation to tackle existential threats systematically, comprehensively and coherently – not merely as ad hoc singular events or concerns – Israel’s decision-makers should soon take certain additional informed steps to enhance national survival. Taking nothing for granted, and drawing fully upon Israel’s Strategic Future, these leaders could build firmly upon the understanding that Israel’s most fundamental strategic asset is, immutably, the intellectual power of reasoned analysis.

    This can now be best accomplished by taking certain concrete steps to implement the principal and detailed recommendations of Israel’s Strategic Future concerning deterrence, defense, warfighting and preemption options; by exploring precise ways for Israel to more effectively finance substantially increased military expenditures; and by examining new possibilities for US-Israel cooperation in the face of mounting mega-threats to regional and international peace.


1 See Dexter Ingram (Threat Assessment Specialist), Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction: Threat Assessments of Possible Attack Scenarios, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, September 25, 2002, PowerPoint presentation, 12 pages. According to the Heritage Foundation, this is a notional scenario, based on a Department of Defense simulation.

2  See The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion of July 8), UN Doc. A/51/218 (1996), reprinted in 35 I.L.M. 809 & 1343 (1996). The Opinion is also available at Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,

3  See: Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, “Non-Classified Realities Affecting Israel’s Air Force – 2005-2010”; Policy Paper No. 136, ACPR, Israel, March 2002, 59 pages.

4 Crimes Against Humanity, from which the crime of Genocide derives, were defined and codified at Article 6(c) of the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal; concluded at London, August 8, 1945. Entered into force, August 8, 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279; 1946 U.K.T.S. 27, Cmd. 6903, 145 B.F.S.P. 872, 59 Stat., 1544, E.A.S. 472. The Genocide Convention (1948) itself criminalizes not only the various acts of genocide, but also (Article III) “conspiracy to commit genocide” and “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”. Articles II, III and IV of the Genocide Convention are fully applicable in all cases of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) condemns “all propaganda and all organizations which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, obliging, at Article 4(a) that “State parties declare as an offense punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons.” Article 4(b) affirms that State parties “Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law.” Further authority for curtailing and punishing Palestinian calls for the genocidal destruction of Jews can be found at Article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” In a December 2003 case before the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda (ICTR), three African media executives were found guilty of genocide, incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. These guilty verdicts were based upon provocative reports and editorials that had been published in the early 1990s before and during orchestrated mass murder of the Tutsi Rwandan minority by the majority Hutus. The defendants were not convicted of any specific acts of violence, but only of a heinous abuse of words.

5 UN Security Council Resolution 487 of June 19, 1981, strongly condemned the attack and expressed that Iraq was entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered.

6 For scholarly examination of anticipatory self-defense with particular reference to Israel by the Chair of Project Daniel, see: Louis René Beres, “Assassinating Saddam Hussein: The View From International Law”, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2003, pp. 847-869; Louis René Beres, “The Newly Expanded American Doctrine of Preemption: Can It Include Assassination?”, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 31, No. 2., Winter 2002, pp. 157-177; Louis René Beres and Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, “Reconsidering Israel’s Destruction of Iraq’s Osiraq Nuclear Reactor”, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 9., No. 2., 1995, pp. 437-449; Louis René Beres, “Preserving The Third Temple Commonwealth: Israel’s Right of Anticipatory Self-Defense Under International Law”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 26, No. 1., 1993, pp. 111-148; Louis René Beres, “After the Gulf War: Israel, Preemption and Anticipatory Self-Defense”, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, No. 2., 1991, pp. 259-280; Louis René Beres, “Striking First’: Israel’s Post-Gulf War Options Under International Law”, Loyloa of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1., 1991, pp. 1-24; Louis René Beres, “Israel and Anticipatory Self-Defense”, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 8, 1991, pp. 89-99; Louis René Beres, “After the SCUD Attacks: Israel, Palestine’, and Anticipatory Self-Defense”, Emory International Law Review, Vol. 6., No. 1., 1992, pp. 71-104; Louis René Beres, “On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel”, Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 2., 1991, pp. 321-340; Louis René Beres, “In Support of Anticipatory Self-Defense: Israel, Osiraq and International Law”, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 19, No. 2., 1998, pp. 111-114; Louis René Beres, “Israel, Iran and Preemption: Choosing the Least Unattractive Option Under International Law”, Dickinson Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2., pp. 187-206; Louis René Beres, “Israel, Force and International Law: Assessing Anticipatory Self-Defense”, Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, Vol. 13, No. 2., 1991, pp. 1-14; and Louis René Beres, “Israel’s Bomb in the Basement:’ A Second Look”, Israel Affairs, Vol. 2., No. 1., 1995, pp. 112-136.

7  See Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, “The Bracketing of Performance of Strike Aircraft: The Case of the Forgotten War”, Society of Experimental Test Pilots, Technical Review, January 1970; See also: Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Lt. Col./IAF, “The Case of the Forgotten War: An Opinion on Strike Aircraft”, Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP), Technical Review, January 1971, pp. 8-27.

8   As new technologies have now greatly reduced the need for heavy bombs (with increasing accuracy, smaller warheads can often be used effectively), the number of targets killed by any one platform is less dependent upon the weight of the weapons than upon their number.

9  See “Israel Halts All New R&D Defense Programs”, MENL, Tel Aviv, April 10, 2004.

10  The 7% limit thesis was advanced by Professor Daniel Tsiddon of Tel Aviv University at the Defense and Society Forum of the Israel Democracy Institute (Jerusalem) on September 5, 2003.

11  We are reminded here of a remark in Goethe’s Faust: “In the end, we still depend upon creatures of our own making.” (Am Ende haengen wir doch ab/Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.)



    January 16, 2003

    Authors of the Report:

    Professor Louis René Beres, Chair, USA

    Naaman Belkind, Former Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Defense for Special Means, Israel

    Maj. Gen. (Res.), Israeli Air Force, Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, Israel

    Dr. Rand H. Fishbein, Former Professional Staff Member, US Senate Appropriations Committee, and former Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator Daniel K. Inouye, USA

    Dr. Adir Pridor, Lt. COL. (Ret.), Israeli Air Force; Former Head of Military Analyses, RAFAEL, Israel

    Former MK/COL (Res.), Israeli Air Force,  Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Israel


    Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and publishes widely on Israeli security matters. Professor of International Law at Purdue University, he is the author of two recent Policy Papers of the Ariel Center for Policy Research: “Security Threats and Effective Remedies: Israel’s Strategic, Tactical and Legal Options” (2000) and “Israel’s Survival Imperatives: The Oslo Agreements in International Law and National Strategy” (1997). Professor Beres is the author of nine major books in the field and is the Strategic and Military Affairs Columnist for The Jewish Press. His articles have appeared in more than one hundred magazines and journals, including US Department of Defense publications, Parameters: The Journal of the US Army War College and Special Warfare.

    Naaman Belkind is a retired engineer with 33 years of service in the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and the Israeli Ministry of Defense. A former Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Defense for Special Means, he headed various projects at the Nuclear Research Center in Dimona and served as Science Counselor at Israel’s Embassy in Washington, DC.

    Isaac Ben-Israel holds a Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University, where he studied mathematics, physics and philosophy.  The author of numerous articles and several books on military issues, he has held several senior posts in operations, intelligence and weapons development within the Israel Air Force. In January 1998 he was promoted to Major-General and appointed as Director of Defense R&D Directorate in IMOD. Maj-Gen. Ben-Israel has been teaching at Tel Aviv University since 1989.

    Rand H. Fishbein holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies ( SAIS ) and is President of Fishbein Associates Inc., a public-policy consulting firm based in Potomac, Maryland . He is a former Professional Staff Member of both the US Senate Defense Appropriation Subcommittee and the US Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as the former Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator Dan iel K. Inouye.

    Adir Pridor holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is currently Head of the Institute for Industrial Mathematics, which he established in 1992. A co-founder of the Operations Research Branch of the Israel Air Force, Dr. Pridor’s wide-ranging analytical studies have focused upon such issues as airfield vulnerability; air defense effectiveness; aircraft survivability in special missions; damage analysis; defense organization; missile threat assessment; threat forecast and force building, operational planning and others.

    Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Col./Res., Israeli Air Force, was a Member of the 12th Knesset and of the 1991 Madrid Peace Mission. A member of the Israel Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics and of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, COL. Tsiddon-Chatto served as Chief of Planning and Operational Requirements for the IAF prior to the Six Day War. A member of RAFAEL (Armament Development Board) from 1992 until 1995, he publishes extensively on security issues in Israel and elsewhere. A founding member of the Ariel Center for Policy Research, Tsiddon-Chatto is the author, most recently, of ACPR Policy Paper No. 136: “Non-Classified Realities Affecting Israel’s Air Force – 2005-2010” (2002).


Israeli Actor Threatens
To Avenge Son, Kill Sharon

By Mohammad Ziada
IOL Correspondent
CAIRO (IslamOnline.net) -- A famed Israeli actor threatened Saturday, May 15, to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, blaming him for the killing of his sergeant son and four other soldiers last week in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah.
"I hold the prime minister responsible for the killing of my son and not the Palestinians," Shlomo Vishinski was quoted as saying by the Israeli public radio.
Lior Vishinski and four soldiers were killed Thursday, May13 , when Palestinian resistance fighters blew up a second Israeli armored vehicle in less than 48 hours.
Israeli warplanes responded with a sweeping air raid , killing at least 16 Palestinians.
Vishinski said he phoned a journalist in the mass-circulation Maariv daily shortly after he knew the heart-breaking news and told him about his intentions to kill Sharon.
He said an Israeli special force stormed his house and arrested him the same night only to be released later.
The actor has also urged the Israeli government to allow him to burry his son in front of the headquarters of the governing Likud party which he held accountable for the loss of his son.
His request was spurned.
"Now, I won't pay income tax," he said. "I won't send my money to the Likud party's central committee, which decides what happens here, instead of the government which is supposed to decide."
Massive Protest
Vishinski said he wants now to launch a massive protest campaign at the policies of Sharon and the Likud.
"My son is the victim of those Likud members, who refused to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. I donít want my son to be killed for nothing," he added.
Sharon suffered on May 2 the most serious setback since assuming power in 2001 , when his Likud party overwhelmingly rejected his disengagement plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
The poll results showed that a total of59 . 5percent of the193 , 000Likud members who cast their votes rejected the scheme.
The centerpiece of his U.S.-backed plan is the removal of all existing21 Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip.
Currently some8 , 000Jewish settlers live in the Strip, alongside1 . 5million Palestinians.
"We donít need Gaza and should pull out our troops of it," said Vishinski. "I hope that my sonís killing would serve as a launching pad for the withdrawal".
Vishinski also took part Saturday night in a mass rally that brought more than 100 , 000Israelis, calling for a Gaza pullout after the killing of11 Israelis soldiers last week.
Packing Tel Aviv's main square, they chanted anti-occupation slogans and said the Strip has become a quagmire like Lebanon before troops moved out in 2000 amid mounting casualties.
Copyright ©1999-2004 Islam Online. All rights reserved http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2004-05/16/article05


But you may ask what is this thing about LIKUD................Chabad Lubavitch of course


This evening, the thousands of volunteers - preferably husband-and-wife teams, in order to maintain the "personal nature" of the meetings with the Likud members - will gather in various central locations, and will be dispersed to the various localities. Beit El, for instance, has been "assigned" Petach Tikvah, while Ofrah will be descending on Holon, Shilo residents will be going to Kiryat Ono, and those of Eli to Tiberias. Mitzpeh Yericho residents have been assigned to the Likud members of Givat Ze'ev, and Beit Horon will visit Likud members in Modiin.

The efforts are being led by the Yesha Council, the Manhigut Yehudit faction of the Likud, Yeshivat Beit El, and others.

In the Chabad movement, as well, efforts are well underway to save Gush Katif. Five hundred anti-expulsion signs will be posted, starting today, on 500 buses throughout the country. The signs will read, "The Lubavitcher Rebbe Warns: Running Away From Gush Katif is a Terrible Danger to Millions of Jews." INN correspondent Ruti Avraham reports that behind the campaign stands Chabad Rabbi Yekutiel Rapp of New York.

For they will never concede LAND of the "SAYERS" covenant with Death and Hell they have made. They seek to devour all of mankind


Chabad For Gush Katif
18:20 Apr 28, '04 / 7 Iyar 5764

In addition to the current Chabad-Lubavitch campaign in Israel against the disengagement/expulsion plan, Chabad Hassidim elsewhere around the world are also making their voice known. Rabbi Binyamin Edri, who runs a Chabad House in Tokyo, Japan, has begun a campaign to oppose the unilateral withdrawal, citing the late Lubavitcher Rebbe's oft-repeated admonition against giving away any portion of the Holy Land and warning of the dangers therein. Rabbi Edri is organizing public demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy in Tokyo.

Two major events were held in New York last week, expressing Chabad's strong opposition to the very notion of giving up parts of the Land of Israel. More than 2,000 people attended a rally in support of Gush Katif held in the main sanctuary of Chabad Headquarters in Brooklyn. MK Dr. Aryeh Eldad addressed the crowd, and noted that when he speaks in defense of Gush Katif, he generally finds himself quoting Ariel Sharon himself. In fact, Eldad said, "I recently wrote an article that had so many quotes from Sharon, I sent him a check, explaining that I did not want to be a thief by stealing his words." N'vei Dekalim resident Moshe Saperstein, a sharpshooter who lost his right arm in the Yom Kippur War and who was wounded in his left hand in a terrorist attack, told of the many miracles that have occurred in Gush Katif throughout this trying period.

The next day, another emergency Chabad rally took place in New York, where it was proposed to hold a Chabad demonstration outside the Israeli embassy in Manhattan. Another suggestion is in the process of being implemented: Having young Chabadniks from New York phone Likud members in Israel and try to persuade them to vote against the withdrawal plan. "Many of these voters may not even be intending to vote," state the phone-calling guidelines, "while others are confused by the media propaganda. Our job is just to gently urge them to do the right thing, according to Torah, Jewish Law (TALMUD BAVLI MIshnah Torah of SATAN) and the Rebbe's (SCHNEERSON) instructions... The people you will call are most often pleasantly surprised by a call all the way from America, and will appreciate the gesture. It is not necessary to try to argue or convince anyone. The call from America itself is convincing enough about the importance of this vote to Jews everywhere."

There will be no Peace until that Great Day of the Lord Jesus Christ the Almighty has His day of Wrath. Them who stood firm shall have everlasting Peace in the House of the Lord


LIKUD is Chabad Lubavitch's "Judeo Churchizionity" zionist Talmudic satanic vision against the Holy Everlasting Covenant, Jesus the Christ the Lord, for their False Messiah their Moshaich ben Satan that son of Perdition which is imminent, according to the WORD of God

As Long as the Pimp's of Washington/Israel whoredom continues, there will follow death and hell and destruction of their father, who is a murderer since the beginning. Bush is not a puppet of Sharon, but the two sit at one table and deceive each other vying for the throne of the earth, that DAN and that Judah. The king of the North and the King of the South. And in their scheme of Ordo ab chao, Moshaich comes as their synthesis, satan incarnate, the SON of Perdition, all the while the masses of apostasy slumber. Dead dogs cannot BARK.


David Booth's
April 20 - May 20
Tragedy Window

The following excerpt is from Mr. Booth's 'Final Radio Interview' conducted by Jeff Rense on April 12th, 2004...
D. People, if they want to really start worrying? Start worrying about between April 20 and May 20... the world's going to change, you know, in the next, you know, 40 days.
J. Forty days. Let me ask you to be as specific as you can. Forty... well thirty days, April 20 to May 20. Thirty days.
D. Yup.
J. Ten days from now make it forty.
D. Yup.
J. A lot of people are going to die?
D. Oh, absolutely. Beyond the shadow of a doubt.
J. Man-caused casualties?
D. Absolutely.
J. In the next 40 days, from April 20th to May 20th, a lot of people are going to ...have matriculated out of here.
D. Oh, absolutely.
J. Nuclear? Biological? Earth changes? Volcanism?
D. Then... then we're touching, you know, on something that, you know, that, you know, I'd honestly tell you, you call me back, you got my number, I'll call you back and talk to you. And you know, you never asked me this before, you know that. The other day when we talked, I would have gladly told you then, but then when I tell you, you'll understand why, you know...
J. That's fine.
D. ...I can't talk about it.
J. I respect that. We'll talk. Okay.
J. Is there anything you can see that would change or alter or otherwise subvert what you project to happen over the next 40 days?
D. Oh, no. It's a foregone conclusion and everyone knows it. Everyone knows it. Everyone in this world knows it. Every government knows it, every church leader knows it, every major broadcaster knows it.
J. So I guess then, I'm not going to push, demand, pry or do anything other than have to leave it at this. And people will make of it what they will. And if nothing happens by May the 20th, then you folks can all say, well, he was wrong. And whatever else you want to say. And that's, I'm sure, fine with David Booth.
D. Oh, absolutely. These are scary times we live in.

The Talmudic Celebration of the Mystical Giving of the Oral Traditions of the Pharisees, Shavuot of Talmud Bavli, which makes the WORD of God of none effect....begins MAY 25-27 2004. Approximate Day 305-312 of the 490 days of the Vision of Daniel's seventy weeks, May 17, 2004. And they work their vision against the Holy Everlasting Covenant of Jesus the Christ unto his saints. Prepare you who are in Judah and have an ear. Prepare you all the earth, Prepare in the Name above all names Jesus the Christ. For satan is likened unto a lion seeking who he can devour. The enemy of all mankind is the self styled Pharisaic Illuminated "Masters" of satan's Dark sentences of Mystery Babylon Qabalah and Talmud Bavli the verses of satan's Hoodlum haba and their Son of Perdition they are about to "REVEAL".



In ah ha name ah ha Jaysoose...Ka-eel all em dirty Arab Bastards. Gimme a-eeean a-meeean Brutha's and saysters ! If you will ah ha..send me..ah onlay $ 49.95..yoo too can have the exclusive word of gawd, in theyah ha name eaha of our loved zion. Hokkly maka paka looka moocka pooloo pooloo, in ah Jaysoose name.......Hal...a....luya! for more reference see....Haggee, Pewy tone..oops Perry Stone, Hal Lindsay, Grant Jeffries, Fall well, Wimpe Van impe, Copeland, Graham, and all the well paid zionazi's of their death and destruction false doctrines of devils of their secret I am greater then thou, an gonna get secretly evacuated by my gawd who is a respector of my luke warm apostasy bunker in the middle of the war complacency of eutopia and euphoria.......like my father's were in the days of Noe.................NOT STANDING FIRM in the Name of All names, Jesus the Christ of all creation, are these dead dogs who will not bark when the thief comes. And these will lie asleep when the Thief comes in the Night to visit them with great wrath.




Noahide News Part 5


The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II


"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

 ADDED Material 3-25-2004 Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

Chabad Satan Part 11

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7 Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

The Leaven of the Chabad Lubavitch Chassidim Pharisees

Exod-U.S the coming Geula 


Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of
 Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

Noahide News Part 3

Noahide News Part 4

Noahide News Part 5