Threats from the House of Saud: real or hot air?

Last week, HRH Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain and a member of the House of Saud, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled "Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone".  Besides the usual ideological propaganda statements and a predictable litany of Saudi complaints about the West not doing enough, the piece contains a definite though vague threat:

The foreign policy choices being made in some Western capitals risk the stability of the region and, potentially, the security of the whole

Arab world. This means the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no choice but to become more assertive in international affairs: more determined than ever to stand up for the genuine stability our region so desperately needs.  (...)  We will act to fulfill these responsibilities, with or without the support of our Western partners. Nothing is ruled out in our pursuit of sustainable peace and stability in the Arab World as King Abdullah — then Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince — showed with his leadership of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (...)  We continue to show our determination through our support for the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition. It is too easy for some in the West to use the threat of Al Qaeda’s terrorist operations in Syria as an excuse for hesitation and inaction. Al Qaeda’s activities are a symptom of the international community’s failure to intervene. They should not become a justification for inaction. The way to prevent the rise of extremism in Syria — and elsewhere — is to support the champions of moderation: financially, materially and yes, militarily, if necessary (...) Saudi Arabia will continue on this new track for as long as proves necessary.

Much is said here, much is alluded to and much remains unsaid.  Let's parse this text for the key words: more assertive, nothing ruled out, determined to support the "Syrian opposition" financially, materially and militarily.  Sounds impressive, but is it really?  What can the Saudis really do?  Let's look at their options:

1) Continue to pour money into the international Jihadist gang which has been waging war on Syria for several years: yes, that is an option, but that is nothing new, the Saudis, and their allies, have already been doing that for a long while and it did not help the insurgency.  Pouring even more money into a largely defeated insurgency will really only serve to foster corruption and infighting and won't do anything to reverse the situation.

2) Continue to send weapons to the insurgency: just as with money, the Saudis and their allies have already been doing this too, and it did them no good.  Why?  Because the insurgency has enough light weapons anyway, whereas bigger, more complex, weapons systems are harder to deliver and they need trained personnel to operate.  Even more importantly, a few canons, tanks or multiple rocket launchers cannot be used effectively unless there is a full system of support around them: logistics, ammunition, intelligence, forward artillery controllers, etc.  There is a reason why even when they could seize such weapons from government forces insurgencies rarely could use them effectively.

3) Directly intervene in Syria: well, he did say that "nothing is ruled out", didn't he?  So could the Saudis simply send their military across the border and attack the government forces?  Nope.  Why?  Simply because they do not share a common border and to get to Syria the Saudis would have to cross through western Iraq or Jordan.  Could the Saudis send their air force to provide support to the insurgency? Yes but, again, that would mean overflying Iraq or Jordan, and the Saudis could only do that with the agreement of CENTCOM which is highly unlikely, to say the least (more about that later).

4) Attack Iran or let the Israelis use Saudi airfields for an attack on Iran: sounds crazy, doesn't it?  But think about again.  First, after decades of semi-secret collaboration the Saudis and the Israelis have recently upgraded their relationship to something looking like a semi-official love story.  And, look at the example of "nothing is ruled out" which Prince Mohammed gives in his text: the Saudi 2002 "Peace Initiative" offered to Israel.  So if really "nothing is ruled out" then we should not rule out a sudden "strategic rapprochement" between the two crazy religious and racist regimes in the Middle East: the KSA and the Israel. Neither should we rule out a possible joint action against Iran by these two rogue states who now make no secret that feel that the Obama Administration is letting them down.  Scary though?  Yes, but considering the lunatics involved, one which we need to consider.

What is the main impediment for an Israel attack on Iran?  Distance.

Sure, the Israelis could use ballistic or cruise missiles, but they would not provide the kind of flexible capabilities needed to severely degrade Iranian nuclear facilities and associated research centers.  That is a job for the air force.  The problem for the Israeli Air Force is not only that it does not have a common border with Iran and that they would need to get all sorts of authorizations to cross the airspace between Israel and Iran, but also that considering the distances involved an airstrike would require air-to-air refueling which, in turn, would require even more aircraft in the air to protect strike force.  To make things worse, Iran is a big country, so several strike groups should be sent to different target groups to hit them and each strike group would have to be refueled, protected, and allowed to penetrate into Iranian airspace by dedicated suppression of enemy air defenses aircraft, including strike and electronic warfare aircraft.  Bottom line - it would be a huge operation and one which the Israelis simply cannot carry out.  But what if we assume that they could use Saudi airfields?

This option does not solve all problems, but it does address a lot of the worst problems involved in a direct attack from Israel.  First, if the Israelis were allowed to refuel in Saudi Arabia, they would not need to rely on always very complicated and dangerous air-to-air refueling.  That would immediately free many aircraft for other tasks.  Second, taking off from Saudi Arabia would place all of Iran well within the reach of Israeli strike aircraft which could then be "spread" all over the Iranian airspace to support each other.  The Israelis could even deploy helicopters to rescue

any downed pilot.  Third, taking off from Saudi Arabia would make it possible to attack some key Iranian targets with little or no warning since they are literally across the Persian Gulf.  The nuclear site at Bushehr could be revisited many times by successive waves from strike aircraft until the bomb damage assessment confirms that the target has been destroyed.  Furthermore, if the KSA takes the decision to offer its airfields to the Israeli Air Force it might as well offer military support, if only to protect itself.  If the Saudi Air Force decided to support the Israeli attack - especially with its AWACs and F-15s - it would make a huge difference.  The bottom line is this: if the Saudis and the Isarelis really decided to join forces they could strike Iran in a way which the Israelis alone could never hope for.  This would probably be a done deal by now if not for one big problem: CENTCOM.

All the fancy scenarios about a joint KSA-Isareli attack have to assume that the US CENTCOM would, at the very least, stand by and let such an attack proceed without taking any action.  This is highly unlikely because the Americans understand perfectly that any Iranian retaliatory strike would be primarily directed at them at which point the US would be as involved as the KSA or Israel.  From the American point of view, it would make no sense at all to let the Israelis and the Saudis start a war which would immediately result in the USA being involved.  At that point, the USA would be far better off starting the war by itself not only because the USAF and Navy are far more powerful and capable than the combined forces of Israel and the KSA, but primarily because the USA would be in control of the time, scope and manner of execution of the attack.  The USA, however, is clearly not interested in starting a war with Iran.

Knowing the Israelis, I am sure that they have carefully considered the option of simply ignoring Washington and going ahead with their customary chutzpah: let's start the war for the goyim - they won't dare stopping us anyway - and then see how they handle it.

Sounds crazy?  Yes, of course.  Because it is.  Too crazy for the Saudis and the Israelis?  I am not so sure.  The Saudis fully understand that if Assad remains in power this would make the so-called "Shia crescent" even more powerful than before the war against Syria started.  They also understand that if Assad is allowed to remain in power, the chances of a US attack on Iran will dramatically decrease, leaving them terrified of what their powerful neighbor might do.  The same goes for Israel which, for its own reasons, is also terrified of the Shia alliance of Hezbollah - Syria - Iran.  There can be no doubt at all that the Israelis and the Saudis would do anything for the Americans to get rid of the Shia threat against them.  But it appears that at least for the time being the USA does not want to comply with their crazy wish.

But would the Americans dare to use force to stop an Israeli attack on Iran?

That is really the key question and while we will only have a definitive answer to that if such a situation happens, I personally strongly believe that yes, the Americans would basically tell the Israelis to "turn back or else..."

Why?

Because what is at stake here is much more than just a local fight between Shia, Wahabis and Zionists: a US-Iranian war would inflame all of the Middle-East and possible spread way beyond this region.  According to some models, it could even result in a World War.  And that is something which Obama or, rather, those who put Obama into the White House do not want.  For all his long list of failings and screw-ups, there is one thing of significance which did do: he got rid of most of the Neocons and now the "Israel Firsters" have been replaced by "USA Firsters" and the latter have absolutely no intention to risk it all for the benefit of two rogue states lead by psychopaths.  It is impossible to prove it, but my guess is that, if really pushed into a corner by the usual Israeli arrogance, the Americans will use force to prevent an unauthorized Israeli attack on Iran.

For one thing, it is not too hard to conceal from the general public what really took place in the airspace over Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night.  Second, if the Americans actually open fire on the Israeli strike force, the Israelis will have no other option than to turn back.  Finally, the Americans also have a much simpler option: they can prevent the Israelis from refueling on the Saudi airfields.

In other words, this Saudi-Israeli attack ain't happening, at least as long as Obama or his allies are in the White House.

It appears that for all his grand statements about Saudi Arabia going at it alone, Prince Mohammed cannot back his words with some meaningful action.  The House of Saud and the Netanyahu can make all the bellicose statements they want - unless Uncle Sam allows it there is absolutely nothing they can do.  CENTCOM is the real master and overlord of the Middle-East and as long as CENTCOM does not want something - it ain't happening.

The Saker

The "defense forces" of the "only democracy in the Middle-East" in action

Mitt Romney - the man who makes even Dubya look educated, articulate and smart

Priceless no?

Though that cretin pretty much gets everything wrong, I fundamentally agree with at least one of his key points: a two-state solution is neither possible nor morally acceptable. The only solution is ONE state, called Palestine.  As for the "Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem" must, of course, "vanish from the page of time" as Ayatollah Khomeini so accurately put it.

God willing, soon.

The Saker

California passes resolution defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism

By Tom Carter for the World Socialist Website

Last month, the California State Assembly passed a resolution urging state educational institutions to more aggressively crack down on criticism of the State of Israel on campuses, which the resolution defines as “anti-Semitism.” The anti-democratic resolution is the latest step in the broader campaign to stifle and suppress dissent on California's increasingly volatile campuses.

The California State Assembly is the lower house of the state legislature, consisting of 80 members. The resolution—H.R. 35: “Relative to anti-Semitism”—was passed by a vote of 66 to 80, including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Assembly.

The resolution was drafted by Republican Linda Halderman and passed without public discussion. The vote on the resolution came when most students were between semesters and away from their campuses.

The resolution (available here) uses the classic trick employed by defenders of Israel’s Zionist regime: lumping together any criticism of the Israeli state’s policies or of the US government’s support for them with racist attacks on Jews.

On the one hand, the resolution denounces “swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti in residential halls, public areas on campus, and Hillel houses,” and denounces those who accuse “the Jewish people, or Israel, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”

On the other hand, the bulk of the resolution is dedicated to defining criticism of the state of Israel as “anti-Semitism.” It lists the following as examples of “anti-Semitism”:

• “language or behavior [that] demonizes and delegitimizes Israel;”

• “speakers, films, and exhibits” that indicate that “Israel is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide;”

• describing Israel as a “racist” or “apartheid” state;

• “student-and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel;”

• “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination;”

• “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;” and

• “actions of student groups that encourage support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

This list makes clear that the accusations of anti-Semitism are a red herring, employed to attack students’ democratic rights and stifle dissent. The resolution recalls the smear campaign against German author Günter Grass and his poem “What Must Be Said” earlier this year.

Defending the poem, the World Socialist Web Site explained: “Anti-Semitism is the term used to describe racist hatred aimed at the oppression and persecution of Jews—and in the case of the Third Reich, the extermination of Jews. Grass’s criticisms of the war policy of the Netanyahu government are not directed against Jews, nor against Jews in Israel. His overwhelming concern is the well-being of both the Jewish population in Israel and the Iranian people. This is in stark contrast to the Israeli government.

“The Israeli regime does not represent the interests of the Jewish population, but rather a tiny rich and corrupt clique that has always worked closely with American imperialism.” (See Defend Günter Grass!)

The aggressive narrowness of the resolution's definition of acceptable political discussion, combined with its broad definition of anti-Semitism, prompted the University of California to distance itself from the resolution, though without rejecting or denouncing it. “We think it's problematic because of First Amendment concerns,” UC spokesman Steve Montiel told the San Francisco Chronicle last week.

The resolution does clearly implicate the First Amendment, which protects not only criticism of the state of Israel, but generally protects anti-Semitic hate speech as well.

Moreover, it must also be said that the State of Israel is, as a matter of fact, guilty of crimes against humanity.

To cite only a more recent example, the 574-page UN Goldstone Report published in 2010 found that the State of Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza during the 2008-2009 “Operation Cast Lead.” The invasion of Gaza saw 1,400 Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis killed. More than 21,000 buildings, factories, and apartments were damaged or destroyed.

Under California H.R. 35, it appears that the Goldstone report is now to be considered “anti-Semitic.”

The resolution also contains a denunciation of “suppression and disruption of free speech that presents Israel's point of view.” This appears to be a reference to the “Irvine 11” incident last year, in which 11 students shouted down Israeli ambassador Michael Oren during his speech at the University of California at Irvine.

The 11 students shouted, “Michael Oren, you’re a war criminal,” and “You, sir, are an accomplice to genocide.” These students were later arrested, charged, and convicted of the crimes of “conspiracy” and violating Oren’s rights. (See University of California students convicted for protesting Israeli ambassador’s speech.)

The resolution goes on to state that the “Assembly recognizes recent actions by officials of public post secondary educational institutions in California [e.g., the prosecutions of the Irvine 11] and calls upon those institutions to increase their efforts to swiftly and unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism on their campuses and to utilize existing resources . . . to help guide campus discussion about, and promote, as appropriate, educational programs for combating anti-Semitism on their campuses.”

On California's campuses, as on campuses and workplaces internationally, explosive class antagonisms are increasingly apparent. Massive tuition hikes year after year coupled with job losses and skyrocketing youth unemployment present an entire generation of young people with an increasingly impossible situation.

State authorities in California, which is controlled by the Democratic Party, have watched the large campus protests that took place across state campuses over the past two years with hostility, consternation, and fear.

Over the past year, at the behest of Democratic Party officials, demonstrating students across the state have been attacked by paramilitary police squads armed with batons, tear gas, and flash grenades, with hundreds of students arrested and jailed. The world's attention was captured when students peacefully protesting tuition hikes at UC Davis were pepper sprayed by police in cold blood.

In the face of increasing tensions and protests, state authorities are moving to clamp down on the campuses, intervening to “guide campus discussion” and criminalize criticism of both domestic and foreign policy. Under the guise of criticizing “anti-Semitism” the state government signaling that the persecution of student protesters will be tolerated or welcomed.

The resolution concludes that “strong leadership from the top remains an important priority so that no administrator, faculty, or student group can be in any doubt that anti-Semitic activity will not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources will be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.”
-------
Commentary by the Saker:  Amazing, really.  I am always awed by the infinite and totally "in your face" arrogance of organized American Jewry which clearly acts in way very similar to what an occupying power would do.  Think of it: if by some miracle the USA had been invaded by the Israeli military, the passing of such resolutions or laws would have been exactly what one might have expected.  Except that the Israeli military never invaded the USA, so what do such resolutions tel us about the power configuration in the USA?

The other thing that always amazes me is that Zionists clearly do not think that ridicule can kill.  Take, for instance, the concept of "behavior which delegitimizes Israel": what in the world are they talking about?!  It is rather hilarious how concerned the Zionists are about the "legitimacy"  of Israel considering that the latter exists solely and exclusively by means of total violence locally and the kind of covert occupation imposed on the West we see in this resolution.

Lastly, the fact that all this goes practically unchallenged in the country which modestly proclaims itself to be the "the land of the free and the home of the brave" just goes to show that, in reality, the USA has truly become the land of the enslaved and the home of the cowards.  How would one find another explanation for the fact that the one and only openly racist regime on the planet get that kind of worshipful treatment from a society which, at least in theory, is categorically opposed to racism?  So for the really dumb and submissive, let me conclude by posting the following reminder: In 2004, Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote:

“The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century, but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure – in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s. Over the past six months, a similar movement has taken shape, this time aiming at an end to the Israeli occupation.”

In July 2008, 21 South African activists, including ANC members, visited Israel and Occupied Palestine. Their conclusion was unanimous. Israel is far worse than apartheid as former Deputy Minister of Health and current MP Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge explained:

“What I see here is worse than what we experienced – the absolute control of people’s lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw….racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa.”

Sunday Times editor, Mondli Makhanya, went further: “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. It is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.”

Straight from the horse's mouth

Sent to me by Gilad Atzmon (thanks brother!) who wrote the following foreword on his website:

The following article was published on the popular Zionist site Times Of Israel. It actually confirms everything we say and write about Jewish power, Jewish identity, Jewish left and Jewish AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists) . It is also consistent with each and every finding in my latest book The Wandering Who? We are dealing here with a racist chauvinist political identity. Zionist honesty is a rare product, make sure that you read this article carefully and make the most out of it.

The Times of Israel reports: (emphasis added by me - VS)

Jews DO control the media

We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.

But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?

But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.

And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.

Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.

Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.

But let’s look at it a bit deeper.

Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?

I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.

First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?

The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great article about the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.

The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.

This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.

Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.

Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.

I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”

Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.

The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.

But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.

Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.

The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.

Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.

by "Manny Friedman " (assumed name)

Israeli regime goes totally apeshit over human rights issue

Israel cuts contact with UN rights council, to protest settlements probe

By Barak Ravid for Haaretz:

Israel decided Monday to sever all contact with the United Nations human rights council and with its chief commissioner Navi Pillay, after the international body decided to establish an international investigative committee on the West Bank settlements.  The Foreign Ministry ordered Israel's ambassador to Geneva to cut off contact immediately, instructing him to ignore phone calls from the commissioner, a senior Israeli official said.

Israel will also bar a fact-finding team dispatched by the council from entering Israel and the West Bank to investigate settlement construction.  "We will not permit members of the human rights council to visit Israel and our ambassador has been instructed to not even answer phone calls," said the official. "The secretariat of the human rights council and Nabi Pilawai sparked this process by establishing an international investigative committee on settlements, and we will thus not work with them anymore and will not appear before the council," said the official.

(...)

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Friday that the move by the UN body proves that the Palestinians do not want to renew negotiations with Israel. "We are dealing with Al-Qaida terror on the one hand and diplomatic terror by Abu Mazen on the other," Lieberman said, referring to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Senior officials in the Prime Minister's Bureau and the Foreign Ministry said then that Israel would not cooperate with the UN committee. The Prime Minister's Bureau decided Friday that the committee's members - who are yet to be determined - would not be allowed into Israel.  Israel is also considering sanctions against the Palestinian Authority in response to the human rights council decision.

-------

Commentary: Amazing, is it not?!  Even by Israeli standards the latest official reaction from the Zionist regime is beyond the what I call the "day to day paranoid hysterics" of the Zionist entity.  Sure, the Israels has never been known for their good manners, and Chutzpah is something of a revered national tradition there, but not answering telephone calls is infantile and bad-mannered even by Israeli standards.  It shows to what degree the regime is absolutely terrified of the entire human rights topic. And that, in turns, tells us all we need to know about abhorrent human rights situation in all of occupied Palestine.

It is rather amusing to observe that the Zionist regime clearly does not understand that such paranoid hysterics are an admission of guilt, that such an over-reaction will do as much, or eve more, damage to the (already catastrophic) public image of Israel than any kind of little know report on human rights (how many hundreds of such reports have been ignored and ended up in the waste basket in the past decades?)

To use the US-coined expression, Israel has become the prototypical "rogue state", totally out of control, with its unique mix of medieval racism and religious bigotry, is addiction to ruthless and random violence, its comprehensive and overt rejections of any norms of civilized behavior, its equally comprehensive and overt rejection of any and all forms of international law and the grotesque antics of its leaders.  Take the DPRK, combine it with Apartheid-era South Africa, put it all on steroids, and you will get something in the same league as today "Jewish state of Israel".

The Zionist entity of "Israel" is a disgrace to all of mankind, a blasphemy against God, and a clear proof of the moral bankruptcy of the current international order.

The Saker

Sudan says found proof of Israeli strike

Reuters reports:

Sudan said Sunday that remnants of a missile used in a mysterious attack that killed two people on April 5 proved that Israel carried out the strike.

Israel has declined to comment on the incident, which mirrored a similar attack on Sudan's east in 2009 for which it neither admitted nor denied responsibility.

A car carrying two Sudanese nationals was targeted near Port Sudan's airport.

"The definitive proof that Israel was behind this attack is that the rockets used by the American-made Apache helicopters are only owned by Israel in the region," the Foreign Ministry statement said.

It said remnants at the scene showed the weapon was an AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile.

The aircraft, the ministry said, had flown in from the direction of the Red Sea, scrambling Sudanese radar systems and following Port Sudan airport flight paths.

East Sudan has long been a route for the smuggling of arms that often pass through Egypt's Sinai desert and reach the Gaza Strip, territory controlled by Hamas Islamists, via tunnels under the border.

According to the website of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which monitors arms transfers worldwide, the United States delivered 250 Hellfire missiles to Israel in 1998-1999 and 680 in 2005-2006.

The only other country in the region listed by SIPRI as having Hellfires -- which are also used by U.S. forces -- is the United Arab Emirates, which bought 289 of the missiles in 2005.

Sudan said Israel, which it considers an enemy state, was trying to derail efforts to normalize ties with Washington. The United States started the process of removing Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terror after Khartoum recognized a vote by its south to secede in July.

Sudan has close ties with Hamas, but denies it offers direct support to the group. Washington designates Hamas a terrorist organization, citing its refusal to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing Israeli-Palestinian interim peace deals.

Khartoum says it has begun the process of lodging a formal complaint against Israel at the U.N. Security Council.

Mossad Snatched Me, Handcuffed Me, Hooded Me

al-Manar reports:

Dirar Abu Sisi, the Palestinian engineer abducted from the Ukraine by Israeli Mossad agents last month gave an account of the incident in which he was arrested to a lawyer from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) earlier this week, the NGO reported on Monday.

On Sunday, Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court partially removed a publication ban and confirmed that Abu Sisi was being held at the Shikma Prison in Ashkelon.

PCHR said that Abu Sisi told the lawyer that on February 19 he was traveling by train from Kharkov to Kiev to meet with his brother Yousef when three persons, two in military uniforms, entered his room on the train. They asked him to show his passport but he refused. Then they threatened him and forcefully took his passport. They forced him to get off the train at the nearby station of Poltava.

Abu Sisi said that he was handcuffed, hooded and transported in a car to Kiev. Once in Kiev he was held in an apartment where there were another six persons who introduced themselves to be members of the Mossad. Abu Sisi said that the Mossad members immediately questioned him.

The Palestinian engineer said he was then put on a flight that lasted between four and five hours before landing in a place unknown to him. Approximately thirty minutes later, they took off again and the flight lasted for approximately one hour. Upon landing Abu Sisi found himself in “Israel”.

Abu Sisi told the PCHR lawyer that he was denied contact with a lawyer for fourteen days. This denial was extended for another eleven days. He said that he was placed under intensive interrogations and that he was denied his legal rights.

After speaking with Abu Sisi, PCHR expressed doubts about previous reports that Ukranian authorities had colluded in the abduction. He was not legally arrested by Ukranian authorities and made no appearances in Ukranian courts.

The human rights organization expressed concerns with Abu Sis's physical and mental health and called for his immediate release.

Abu Sisi is the manager of the only power plant in the Gaza Strip. He is not known to have any direct ties with Hamas or other organizations, although it is likely that his senior position was the result of political affiliation.

In interviews to foreign reporters, Abu Sisi’s wife Veronica, blamed the kidnapping on the Mossad, saying they did it to sabotage the Gazan power plant.

Israel fears sushi shortage after quake

by Gilad Atzmon

You have to read it to believe it. Ynet reported yesterday that “Israel fears sushi shortage after quake.” As Japan faces a nuclear catastrophe and the rest of humanity prays for a safe end to this unfolding disaster, Israelis fear a shortage "in the ingredients of one of their favorite dishes": Sushi

"There may be a shortage of sushi components, but we are still studying the situation," says Dudi Afriat of the Rakuto Kasei company, which imports the Kikkoman soy sauce, as well as seaweeds, wasabi, rice and other necessary ingredients for sushi rolls.

I really wanted to believe that this report was a tasteless satire but it wasn’t. It is a real representation of Israeli hedonist, self-centric inhumanity.

If you want to read more about the immediate Israeli existential concern just follow this link:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042347,00.html

-------

Comment: these totally demented Zionist racists even make the Apartheid-era South African racists look halfway sane...

Two worlds

(make sure to click on 'cc' for subtitles in English and watch on full screen)

'Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring'

Ynet news reports:

Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.

According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews." Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.

Lior addressed the issue during a women's health conference held recently at the Puah Institute, a fertility clinic. His conservative stance negated a ruling widely accepted by rabbis, which states that sperm donated by a non-Jew is preferable to that of an anonymous Jew, who might pose a genealogical risk.

"Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son," he said in the lecture. "If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel."

Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. "A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren't raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it's genetic," he explained. "If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things.

"I even read in books that sometimes the crime, the difficult traits, the bitterness – a child that comes from these traits, it's no surprise that he won't have the qualities that characterize the people of Israel," he added.

'Kids born to single moms become criminals'

Lior condemned artificial insemination and sperm donation in general, saying that they lead to waste of sperm, unclear genealogy and other Jewish law offenses. He warned against undergoing intrauterine insemination at hospitals, where the workers may mix sperm samples for one reason or another - a major halachic violation.

On the subject of women who freeze their eggs to use at a later date, the rabbi asserted that instead they should concentrate their efforts on getting married younger.

"Our public has been influenced by a part of the Western culture in which every woman, instead of becoming a mother, needs to get a Masters Degree," he lamented. "The role of women – child rearing – is not less important than an academic degree." Lior noted that there is nothing wrong with attaining a profession, but it should not be a priority.

Moreover, the rabbi spoke against single women getting pregnant.

"We can understand the desire of every woman to have a child, but according to our Torah it is impossible to address the demand of a certain woman when it can cause someone else suffering," he said.

"If a child is born without a father, he cannot be 100% normal." He stated that rabbinical literature defines these kids as "criminals and subjects of other negative phenomena."

McCarthy Comes to the Knesset

By Uri Zaki for the Jewish Daily Forward

The danger of the Knesset’s decision to set up a McCarthy-style committee for investigating Israeli human rights organizations was aptly summed up by Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin. He warned that the inquiry would be a “show trial” and stressed in a newspaper interview: “We must stop this murky wave.” Regrettably, only two of Rivlin’s colleagues from the governing Likud party joined him in publicly opposing this sinister effort, which was approved in the Knesset by a vote of 41 to 16.

It seems inevitable that after 44 years in which one nation occupies another and deprives it of basic human and civil rights, the occupying society would also come to be affected by the occupation. Indeed, increasingly the tools of occupation — the restrictions of personal and political freedoms — are no longer confined to the territories. These methods are now being extended beyond the Green Line, which divides sovereign Israel from the occupied West Bank, and are tainting Israeli democracy. The rise of Avigdor Lieberman — whose Yisrael Beiteinu party sponsored the push for the investigative panel — and the presence in the Knesset of unabashed racists like Michael Ben-Ari, a Kahanist who represents the National Union party, is testament to how the ongoing occupation is penetrating Israeli society.

Last year, we witnessed a surge of anti-democratic, and often racist, legislation and rhetoric. Now, in the first week of 2011, the Knesset has launched a witch hunt against Israel’s human rights community. In justifying this initiative, Lieberman accused human rights organizations of supporting terrorism. Only 15 years ago, such political incitement led to the assassination of our prime minister; with his unrestrained vitriol, Lieberman has placed a target on the backs of all of us who work on behalf of human rights.

When B’Tselem was established in 1989 to monitor human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories, the organization’s founders would never have imagined that the occupation would still exist 22 years later. They would not have believed that a third generation of settlers would be born in the West Bank, enjoying the full rights of any other Israelis, while Palestinians in neighboring villages and towns continue to live under military occupation, deprived of basic rights such as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and the right to a fair trial and due process.

Israel’s human rights community has been at the forefront of the struggle against this state of affairs. Much like the brave Americans who spoke out against oppression during the civil rights movement, we love our country and are concerned about what might become of it if the status quo continues.

Speaking in synagogues and at universities across America, I encounter American Jews who have been instructed by the representatives of established Jewish organizations to unconditionally support Israel. To this I answer that in human affairs the only place where unconditional love exists is within a family. If you were to learn that a member of your family was headed in a dangerous direction, would you simply support him or her unreservedly? Or would you try to help your loved one understand the dangerous path he or she was taking?

It is not too late. Israel is still a democracy. Only very recently we saw that our court system did not hesitate to convict a former president of rape. Our media is still free and vocal, and yes, our civil society is more determined than ever to sustain the only democracy in the Middle East. The Knesset has now put Israel’s human rights organizations on the front line of the struggle to preserve Israeli democracy. We are taking a stand, but we cannot do it alone. We need the help of all of those who care about Israel’s future.

Uri Zaki is U.S. director of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

The Last Days of the Jewish State

by Gilad Atzmon,

A few minutes ago, I came across a press release written by Left Israeli MK Nitzan Horowitz.

Horowitz, a member of Mertz Party, disclosed the new suggestions made by the McCarthyite Knesset Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Organizations.

According to Horowitz, the commission is now considering the following measures:

· New bills and regulations restricting the entry to Israel of anyone who may be affiliated with left activity. This may take place without the need for court.

· Putting an end to foreign citizens status, including parents who are married to Israelis

· Reducing drastically the rights of prisoners and detainees - along with new initiatives of minimum prison terms, increased enforcement, penalties and so forth

· Denial of Israeli citizenship from an increasing numbers of Israelis convicted of various offences

· Stripping Knesset members of their rights.

· Giving judicial powers to administrative proceedings; for example, the establishment of a clerical tribunal for foreigners

· Preventing the entry of Arab communities

· Seize funding to cultural institutions that are promoting ‘leftist materials’

· Eliminating tax exemption on donations to human rights organizations

· Cancellation of contracts with public bodies associated with human rights organizations.

· Allocated assigning posts for civil service volunteers to human right associations will be cancelled.

· Restricting access to the websites of human rights organizations and public institutions

· Preventing the entry of representatives of human rights organizations to educational institutions

I guess that the picture is clear.

Israel turns against itself. Its days are numbered.

-------

Comment: also, please check out this report by Ken O'Keefe.  Clearly, the Israeli leadership, and most of the Israeli society, are 'loosing it' and that means that the risk of violence on their part is increasing exponentially.  This could happen in Lebanon, Gaza, inside Israel proper or even against Iran.  It would be a gross miscalculation to expect the Israelis to act in a rational matter; at this point we are clearly dealing with late-stage lunatic regime and population.

The Saker

Senior WP editor calls for war with Iran to rescue US economy

A truly seminal editorial by David Salzer Broder in the Washington Post:

-------
The war recovery?

David S. Broder
Sunday, October 31, 2010; Washington Post A27

When the midterm election cycle began, the prevailing opinion was that Barack Obama was cleverer and more inspirational than anyone else on the scene. As it ends, nothing appears to have changed.

OH, YES, I know that Democrats have fallen into a peck of trouble and may lose control of Congress. But even if they do, Obama can still storm back to win a second term in 2012. He is that much better than the competition.

In what respects is he enduringly superior? Let's start with the basics. He is much smarter than his challengers in either party, better able to read the evidence and come to the right conclusions.

Over time, his conclusions are likely to stand scrutiny better than those of other politicians.

The crucial case in point is his analysis of economic forces. No one would pretend that this is anything but a daunting situation. The nation is suffering simultaneously from high and persistent unemployment, lagging investment, massive public and private debt, and a highly inefficient tax system.

The steps that have been ordered so far in Washington have done nothing more than put the brakes on the runaway decline. They have not spurred new growth.

But if Obama cannot spur that growth by 2012, he is unlikely to be reelected. The lingering effects of the recession that accompanied him to the White House will probably doom him.

Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.

What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.

Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
-------

Some people are simply and plainly *evil*.  Folks lie Broder (or his mentor Kissinger for that matter).   The really interesting question is this: once the attack on Iran turns into a disaster (and it will, you can bet on that) will the Israel lobby again deny that it had anything to do with causing the war on Iran just as it now denies having had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq?

The Saker

Did you know? Jews made all of creation possible, and they get to crown God as "king" too

Or, at least, so said one of the most famous modern rabbis, Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, whom some considered as the Messiah and who is specially honored in the USA by no less than:

1) The Congressional Gold Medal - the bill passed both Houses by unanimous consent!

2) Having the President decree that the US "Education and Sharing" day (I am not kidding you!) shall named after him and commemorated on his birthday

3) the National Museum of American Jewish History selected Schneerson as one of eighteen Jewish Americans to be included in their "Only in America" Hall of Fame.

Just listen to the man - he shows the kind of racist hubris Rabbinical Judaism (which is not the religion of the Jews of the Old Testament) fosters among its adherents:

Israel: a sick, confused and racist society

Unravelling the Israeli Arab 'rape by deception' case

By Dina Newman BBC News

New evidence has emerged in the widely-reported case of Sabbar Kashur, an Israeli Arab who was found guilty of rape by deception after having sex with an Israeli Jewish woman.

Back in July, it was reported that the two met in a Jerusalem street in 2008, had consensual sex within 10 minutes of meeting each other.  Two weeks later the young woman discovered that he was an Arab, not a Jew, and went to the police.

After his verdict was announced in July, Kashur protested his innocence in an interview to the BBC: "The whole case focussed on the fact that I am an Arab. It was real racism. The court insisted that I presented myself as a Jew and not as an Arab which is not true."

The conviction of Sabbar Kashur generated a heated debate around the world about racism, sexual mores and justice in the Jewish state.

It was also reported at the time that Kashur was charged with rape and indecent assault, and the conviction of rape by deception was a result of a plea bargain.

New details in the case emerged when the woman's testimony, which had been kept secret, was declassified last week (what?!  that the 'victim's' name not be released is understandable, but why in the world would a criminal case be *classified*?!)

It shows an emotionally disturbed woman who had been sexually abused by her father from the age of six, forced into prostitution, and lived in a women's shelter at the time of the encounter with Kashur.

During her initial testimony, she repeatedly broke down in court as she accused Kashur of rape.  She was adamant she did not want sex at the time of the encounter, but was looking for a lasting relationship.

Asked why she went into an office block with a strange man, she said: "You have to understand where I came from. I used to live in the streets. I needed someone to place my trust in. I felt I was safe with him."

Following the encounter with Kashur, the victim - identified only as B in the testimony - says she was taken away in an ambulance half naked and bleeding.  However, Lital Grossman - an Israeli journalist who has had access to B's full testimony - said she got very confused and upset at this point.  What is clear from the court record is that the woman was inspected by doctors, who found bruises on her body. (ok. but if she was physically assaulted, then this is not a case of 'rape by deception', right?)

Photograpic evidence of the abuse was presented in court, but prosecutors feared the woman would not be able to give a coherent testimony, given her emotional state.  B had lodged 14 complaints of rape and sexual violence in the past. Most of those resulted in convictions, but in at least one case, she was found an unreliable witness because of her confused state of mind (14 accusations of rape does beg the question of entrapment on her part, does it not?)

So when the defence attorney proposed to cross-examine her on every one of those 14 cases, the prosecution feared she may be too traumatised and undermine her evidence.

Thus, a plea bargain was struck whereby Kashur was accused of rape by deception for presenting himself as a Jewish bachelor available for a romantic relationship, whereas in fact he was a Muslim and a married father of two (oh, so that entire race-based nonsense is nothing but the product of some prosecutor's sick imagination?)

Kashur is now appealing against the 18-month prison sentence.  In a statement he gave after the victim's evidence emerged, he insisted he was innocent, pointing out that his release from house arrest backs his version of events.

"I have no prior convictions - this is the first time, while she has a long history of rape charges," Kashur told the UK's Guardian newspaper.  "She still claims I raped her - but even the prosecution, which is supposed to represent her, does not believe her."

In any case, Kashur's verdict left many observers wondering about the precedent it sets in Israeli law. The judge's decision focuses mainly on Kashur presenting himself as a bachelor, but his religious background is also mentioned in the verdict.

"The charge does in fact specify that Kashur presented himself as a Jewish bachelor when he was in fact a Palestinian Muslim, says Lisa Goldman, an Israeli journalist and blogger who has been following the case.  "This sets a dangerous precedent. We now have a legal precedent for rape by deception based on presenting oneself as a Jew when one is in fact a Muslim," she adds.

-------

Comment: this goes far beyond the sick racist imagination of some prosecutor.  Can you imagine such a 'rape by deception' charge presented in a civilized court?!  I can just imagine some US or French cop trying to say  "the perp concealed his race/religion your honor!" in court before finding himself immediately sentenced to a psychological evaluation and mandatory counseling .  But not in the last officially racist state on the planet - there such an crazy and sick accusation is actually taken seriously.

What a sick irony that Israel has turned into a reincarnation of the III Reich with its own set of Halacha-based "Nuremberg Laws"

The Saker

'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only 'to a Jew who kills a Jew,' write Rabbis

(thanks to L. for pointing me to this article)

The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?

Prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only 'to a Jew who kills a Jew,' write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur.

By The Forward and Daniel Estrin in Haaretz

The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.

The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."

"The King's Torah (Torat Hamelech), Part One: Laws of Life and Death between Israel and the Nations," a 230-page compendium of Halacha, or Jewish religious law, published by the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar, garnered a front-page exposé in the Israeli tabloid Ma'ariv, which called it the stuff of "Jewish terror."

Now, the yeshiva is in the news again, with a January 18 raid on Yitzhar by more than 100 Israeli security officials who forcibly entered Od Yosef Chai and arrested 10 Jewish settlers. The Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security agency, suspects five of those arrested were involved in the torching and vandalizing of a Palestinian mosque last month in the neighboring Palestinian village of Yasuf. The arson provoked an international outcry and condemnation by Israeli religious figures, including Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, who visited the village to personally voice his regret.

Yet, both Metzger and his Sephardic counterpart, Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, have declined to comment on the book, which debuted in November, while other prominent rabbis have endorsed it - among them, the son of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Sephardic Jewry's preeminent leader. Also, despite the precedent set by previous Israeli attorneys general in the last decade and a half to file criminal charges against settler rabbis who publish commentaries supporting violence against non-Jews, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has so far remained mum about "The King's Torah."

"Sometimes the public arena deals with the phenomenon and things become settled by themselves," Justice Ministry spokesman Moshe Cohen told the Forward.

A coalition of religious Zionist groups, the "Twelfth of Heshvan," named after the Hebrew date of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination, has asked Israel's Supreme Court to order Mazuz to confiscate the books and arrest its authors.

"You open the book, and you feel that you read a halachic book. And it's a trap," said Gadi Gvaryahu, a religious Jewish educator who heads the coalition. It was, in fact, "a guidebook [on] how to kill," he charged.

Family members who answered phone calls placed to the homes of both authors said they did not wish to comment.

In 2008, author Shapira was suspected of involvement in a crude rocket attack directed at a Palestinian village. Israeli police investigated but made no arrests.

Co-author Elitzur wrote an article in a religious bulletin a month after the book's release saying that "the Jews will win with violence against the Arabs."

In 2003, the head of the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, was charged by then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein with incitement to racism for authoring a book calling Arabs a "cancer."

In 2006-2007, the Israeli Ministry of Education gave about a quarter of a million dollars to the yeshiva, and in 2007-2008 the yeshiva received about $28,000 from the American nonprofit Central Fund of Israel.

"The King's Torah" reflects a fringe viewpoint held by a minority of rabbis in the West Bank, said Avinoam Rosenak, a Hebrew University professor specializing in settler theology. Asher Cohen, a Bar Ilan University political science professor, thought its influence would be "zero" because it appeals only to extreme ideologues.

But the book's wide dissemination and the enthusiastic endorsements of prominent rabbis have spotlighted what might have otherwise remained an isolated commentary.

At the entrance to Moriah, a large Jewish bookstore steps from the Western Wall, copies of "The King's Torah" were displayed with children?s books and other halachic commentaries. The store manager, who identified himself only as Motti, said the tome has sold "excellently."

Other stores carrying the book include Robinson Books, a well-known, mostly secular bookshop in a hip Tel Aviv shopping district; Pomeranz Bookseller, a major Jewish book emporium near the Ben Yehuda mall in downtown Jerusalem; and Felhendler, a Judaica store on the main artery of secular Rehovot, home of the Weizmann Institute.

The yeshiva declined to comment on publication statistics. But Itzik, a Tel Aviv-area book distributor hired by the yeshiva who declined to give his last name because of the book's nature, said the yeshiva had sold 1,000 copies to individuals and bookstores countrywide. He said an additional 1,000 copies were now being printed.

Mendy Feldheim, owner of Feldheim Publishers, Israel's largest Judaica publishing house, said he considered this a "nice" sales figure for a tome of rabbinic Halacha in Israel. He said his own company, which distributes to 200 bookstores nationwide, is not distributing "The King's Torah" because the book's publishers did not approach the company.

Prominent religious figures wrote letters of endorsement that preface the book. Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, son of former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, blessed the authors and wrote that many "disciples of Torah are unfamiliar with these laws." The elder Yosef has not commented on his son's statement.

Dov Lior, chief rabbi of Kiryat Arba and a respected figure among many mainstream religious Zionists, noted that the book is "very relevant especially in this time."

Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, one of the country's most respected rabbinic commentators, initially endorsed the book, but rescinded his approval a month after its release, saying that the book includes statements that "have no place in human intelligence."

A handful of settler rabbis echoed Goldberg's censure, including Shlomo Aviner, chief rabbi of Beit El and head of Yeshivat Ateret Yerushalayim, who said he had "no patience" to read the book, and spoke out against it to his students.

Previously, Israel has arrested settler rabbis who publish commentaries supporting the killing of non-Jews. In addition to Ginsburgh, the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva head, in 1994, the government jailed Rabbi Ido Elba of Hebron for writing a 26-page article proclaiming it a "mitzva to kill every non-Jew from the nation that is fighting the Jew, even women and children."

"The atmosphere has changed," said Yair Sheleg, senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, who specializes in issues of religion and state. Previous governments took a tougher stance against such publications, he said, but "paradoxically, because the tension between the general settler population and the Israeli judicial system is high now, the attorney general is careful not to heighten the tension."

It is not uncommon for some settler rabbis, in the unique conditions of West Bank settlement life, to issue religious decrees, or psakim, that diverge from normative Jewish practice. In 2008, Avi Gisser, considered a moderate rabbi from the settlement of Ofra, ruled that Jews may violate Sabbath laws and hire non-Jews to build hilltop settlements. And In 2002, Yediot Aharanot reported that former Israeli Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu sanctioned Jewish harvesting of Palestinian-owned olive trees.