| October 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
From Iraq the Model:
I met one friend on the way and when I asked him what would his vote be he said that he hasn’t decided yet “if I voted yes I would be approving some articles that I don’t agree with and if I voted no we would go back to where we started from…” he said and that was really refreshing because this guy who used to believe in conspiracy theories and stuff like “what America wants is what’s going to happen” now feels that his vote can make a difference.
...(5:01 pm local time)Time is up and doors of the voting centers are closed now and only voters standing in line will be allowed to cast their votes.
Counting the votes is expected to start soon and the results will probably be announced within 3 days acoording to sources in the electoral commission.
...the economy enters its fifth year of expansion this November...
Fiscal policy, in the form of the Bush tax cuts, has been stimulative.
The GWB tax cuts worked.
See also these previous posts:
The Bush Tax Cuts Have Resulted in Higher Tax Revenue
Lower Taxes Make the Economy Stronger
Lower Tax Rates Are Resulting In Higher Tax Revenue
A Myth Debunked: Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Favor the Rich
Tax Cuts Work: Government Forecasting Incorrectly Thought Tax Costs Would Reduce Tax Revenue
Sunnis Attack Their Own Over Iraq Constitution:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Sunni insurgents determined to derail this weekend's constitutional referendum attacked the largest Sunni Arab political party Friday, bombing and burning offices and the home of one of its leaders after the group dropped its opposition to the draft charter.
The largest Sunni Arab political party has dropped its opposition to the draft Constitution. This appears to make it probable that the draft will pass in tomorrow's election.
And with the insurgents targeting other Sunnis, it appears that popular support for those insurgents among those Sunnis may be at risk.
If the Constitution passes, it will be a huge advance for Muslims and the Mid-East, demonstrating acceptance of Democracy. It will also be a historic achievement for GWB and the U.S., in bringing Democracy to the Mid-East.
Let's do a recap of the two most recent posts, and make a few additional observations. First, the recap:
Now, the additional observations:
In the 2000 movie, "Memento", the protagonist suffers from short-term memory loss. He can only remember the most recent 15 minutes. Anything that happened before that is gone from his recollection. For example, he finds himself in a foot chase and says something like, "I'm chasing somebody. Cool!" When the person shoots at him and he finds himself unarmed he says something like, "Oh -- he's chasing me. Not cool!"
Humanity suffers from a similar situation: we can't remember anything that happened over 100 years ago. From The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), by Robert Spencer (chapter 9):
Virtually all Westerners have learned to apologize for the Crusades, but less noted is the fact that the Crusades have an Islamic counterpart for which no one is apologizing and of which few are even aware. The first large-scale contact of Muslims with the Western world came not with the Crusades, but 450 years before them. When the forces of Islam united the scattered tribes of Arabia into a single community, the newly Islamic Arabia was surrounded by predominantly Christian lands -- notably the byzantine imperial holdings of Syria and Egypt, as well as the venerable Christian lands of North Africa. Four of Christendom's five principal cities -- Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem -- lay within striking distance of Arabia. The Byzantine Empire's great rival, Persia, also had a significant Christian population.
Say what? Egypt and Syria were predominantly Christian, and North Africa and Persia (Iran) had significant Christian populations? What happened?
But for centuries now, the Middle East, North Africa, and Persia (Iran) have been regarded as the heart of the Islamic world. Did this transformation take place through preaching and the conversion of hearts and minds? Not at all: The sword spread Islam. Under Islamic rule, the non-Muslim majorities of those regions were gradually whittled down to the tiny minorities they are today, through repression, discrimination, and harassment that made conversion to Islam the only path to a better life.
You know what language they used to speak in Egypt? Egyptian. You know what language they speak today? Arabic. It didn't happen peacefully. Spencer quotes a contemporary account from the year 642:
Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou. There was not one single soldier to resist them. They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches -- men, women and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found.... But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when they occupied the island of Nikiou.
In 650 the Muslims attacked Cappadocia. Spencer quotes a Medieval account:
They [the Taiyaye, or Muslim Arabs] moved in Cilicia and took prisoners...and when Mu'awiya arrived he ordered all the inhabitants to be put to the sword; he placed guards so that no one escaped. After gathering up all the wealth of the town, they set to torturing the leaders to make them show them things [treasures] that had been hidden. The Taiyaye led everyone into slavery -- men and women, boys and girls -- and they committed much debauchery in that unfortunate town; they wickedly committed immoralities inside churches.
By 711 the Muslims had conquered Christian North Africa.
Early 700's: "Muslim forces... pressed into what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India..."
715: Muslim conquest of Spain is almost completed -- the Muslims held Spain for over 700 years.
732: In France, Charles Martel, "The Hammer," finally stops the Muslims at the Battle of Tours.
792: Hisham, the ruler of Muslim Spain, calls for jihad against France. Muslims from many countries rallied to the religious call and attacked France. France repelled them.
827: "...the warriors of jihad set their sights on Sicily and Italy. The commander of the invading force was a noted scholar of the Qur'an who forthrightly cast the expedition as a religious war. They pillaged and looted Christian churches, all through these lands, terrorizing monks and violating nuns. ... they held Sicily until 1091 -- when the Normans drove them out."
848: Another Muslim army attacked France and was repelled.
920's: "In Jerusalem ... More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection."
960's: Finally somebody wakes up and realizes that the Muslims are seeking to conquer them: "In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories."
1001: Byzantine emperor Basil II concludes a truce with Muslim opponent, the Fatimid caliph.
1004: The Fatimid caliph breaks the truce. "Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives."
1090's: The Byzantine emperor calls for help to drive back the invading Muslim armies -- initiating the Crusades, which were fought as a defensive action.
1095 - 1291: Crusades temporarily halt Muslim advances into Europe.
1395. "A large Crusader force was defeated in Nicopolis, a town on the Danube, in 1395. All of Europe now lay open to the Turks, with virtually nothing standing in the way of their conquest of Rome, Paris, or even London."
1402: The Mongols make common cause with the Europeans and help drive back the Turks.
1453: The Turks conquer Constantinople. "After weeks of resistance, the great city finally fell to an overwhelming Muslim force -- which, as we have seen, brutally massacred those inside."
1456: "The Turks besieged Belgrade in 1456 and even tried to get to Rome, but at this point they were turned back. Finally, the tide was starting to change."
1500's: The Muslims attempt to take Malta and Vienna and are repelled.
1600's: Muslim forces take much of the Ukraine but are driven out within 10 years.
1683: Muslim forces besiege Vienna and are driven back.
The recent spread of Islamic Shari'a law in Muslim nations; murders committed worldwide by terrorists in the name of Islam; and the mass immigration of Muslims -- who then refuse to assimilate -- into European nations -- show that this centuries-long tradition of Islamic jihad against non-Muslims continues today -- as called for in the Koran.
Last night in Los Angeles, a panel discussed these matters. On the panel were Robert Spencer; editor of Muslim World Today, Tashbih Sayeed; and Rabbi David Eliezrie.
Tashbih Sayeed, who has just returned from Pakistan, said:
Jihad has many meanings. But none of them is peaceful.
It's said everywhere in the Muslim world that whereas Muslims want to die, non-Muslims are afraid to die.
Radical Islam can only fool people who have had no experience with evil.
In 1622 the Jews were massacred by Muslims at Medina -- proving that the jihad is not about Iraq or Israel -- Israel didn't even exist then.
Rabbi Eliezrie said he had recently been in Paris, and found that he could not walk down the street, with his beard and yarmulke, without being loudly and offensively yelled at -- not by the French -- but by the Muslim immigrants to France.
Robert Spencer:
One of my books was in process of being distributed in French. There were death threats and the translation was stopped.
Spencer noted that the Koran guarantees entrance to heaven only to those who have killed for Islam or who have been slain in the name of Islam. Nobody else gets in.
My note: this appears to contradict claims that Islam is the "religion of peace."
When asked what to do to oppose the encroachment of Islam in the United States, Spencer responded:
An audience member asked if Islamofascists are worse than Hitler. My note: Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews. The Islamofascists want to exterminate the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, and everybody else who's not a Muslim. In that sense, the Islamofascists are worse.
The Internet will end the millennia-long period of history in which humanity suffered from "The Memento Syndrome."
Last night in Los Angeles, Robert Spencer and Tashbih Sayeed spoke about Islam and jihad.
Robert Spencer (at podium), Moderator Avi Davis, and Tashbih Sayeed, editor of Muslim World Today. Click for a larger image. Note: this image is merged from three smaller images.
Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), is in its eighth week on the NY Times bestseller list -- despite having had no MSM publicity:
The American people realize that they aren't getting the truth, and are seeking out the book themselves.
Spencer noted that the text of the Koran is not presented in the order in which it was written. It was written in three major sections. The first, calls for peaceful co-existence with other religions, and was written when Muhammad was just starting out. The second calls for Muslims to require the non-Muslims among them to have a second-class status. The third, written when Mohammed's armies were at their greatest strength, calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims unless the non-Muslims convert or accept second-class status. Muslim scholars believe that the third and final part of the Koran abrogates all the previous parts. I don't have a transcription of that part of Spencer's observations last night, but he made a similar point in the following comment posted at LGF in 2003:
The Qur'an is not arranged chronologically. Rather, the longest sura is first (after the opening sura, the Fatiha), and the shortest sura is last. But Muslim tradition assigns a general chronological order to the revelation of the Qur'an, according to which sura 109 is far from one of the last revealed. In fact, it was one of the first. The short suras at the end of the Qur'an are generally chronologically early, and the long ones at its beginning are generally late. The last sura of all to be revealed in full was sura 9, which contains the Verse of the Sword ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them," 9:5), and the command to fight Jews and Christians until they either become Muslim or submit as inferiors under Islamic rule (9:29). Those, unfortunately, are the Qur'an's last words on jihad, and Muslim thinkers have long held that they abrogate words of peace and tolerance such as those in 109.
Spencer observed that there are no core teachings in the Judeo-Christian tradition that instruct people to kill those who are of another faith. However, such teachings are an overwhelming part of the Koran. Spencer's comments (from my handwritten notes from last night):
The idea that Muslims must fight against Jews and Christians is contained in over 100 versus in the Koran. The fighting is not to be just by words, but is to be in the most literal sense.
Sayeed, a Muslim, called for a reformation of Islam in which Islam would discard its traditions of attacking those of other faiths, and would learn to co-exist with those of other religions. When asked by an audience member to name one other Muslim who was willing to publicly make the same call, Sayeed was unable to provide one. This emphasizes the courage of Sayeed.
Iraqis will vote next week on whether to ratify the current draft of the constitution. The constitution is expected to be passed by the Shiites and Kurds, but it appears to be opposed by the Sunnis.
Many minority Sunnis, most of whom live in central and western Iraq, believe the constitution would create two powerful and wealthy regions that exclude them: one controlled by Kurds in the north and another by Shiites in the south.
The Sunnis opposing the constitution are seeking to impose their will on the rest of the nation by killing as many non-Sunnis as possible:
Sunni-led insurgents are seeking to undermine the vote with attacks that have killed 304 people the past two weeks.
This past week, U.S. forces correctly responded by initiating a series of military operations targeting Sunni insurgents:
The military said 50 insurgents were killed in the six-day Iron Fist offensive, launched Oct. 1 in towns near the Syrian border. The operation, which ended on Thursday, was the first in a series of major offensives in the past week in the heartland of the Sunni-led insurgency.
U.S. forces have swept through the area before — most recently in May. But militants have always returned, bringing in foreigners from Syria and planning attacks in other parts of the country. The military said they now plan to maintain a long-term presence there.
Iraqi-American Fawaz Saraf emails:
Since the fall of the regime, Iraqi Shiites have firmly rejected violence and peacefully embraced the political process hoping for a political structure that will preserve their rights as a minority within the larger Arab world. Denying Iraqi Shiites their rights simply to appease those who chose violence to achieve political goals or to appease misplaced Arab fears of an Iranian take over of a Shiite dominated southern Iraq is not only unfair but indeed is not in the best interest of our goal of spreading democracy and tolerance in the Arab world.
There was a move last week to change the election rules such that the Sunnis alone could not vote down the constitution. This seemed reasonable to me: by harboring those who killed non-Sunnis, the Sunnis have betrayed the public trust and given up their right to be included in a fair election. However, the change in the election rules was then reversed after criticism from the U.N.
It appears to me that one thing we're going to find out in the election is, whether the majority of Sunnis support the actions of the terrorists among them, or whether they are oppressed by and in fear of those terrorists. If the majority of Sunnis vote against the constitution, that would be evidence that they support the actions of Sunnis who kill thousands of non-Sunni Iraqis.
However, if the majority of Sunnis vote in favor of the constitution, that would be evidence that they have been too afraid of the terrorists to oust them.
Next week's vote in Iraq will have historic ramifications.
In the Western tradition we are raised to be considerate of others. Muslims in England are raised to be offended by everything that is non-Muslim. This makes Islam in England a perfect cancer directed against the British culture. They're offended by everything non-Muslim, and Westerners in England follow the Western tradition of caring about how others feel, and abandon Western ways to those claiming to be offended by them. Mark Steyn describes the situation:
...the United Kingdom's descent into dhimmitude is beyond parody. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and "pig-related items" will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee's box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.
This is how jihad works. Muslims immigrate in large numbers to a country, and then demand that all others submit to Islam.
So far the British are dumb enough to be letting it work.
Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. "It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding," he said.
Notice how Rahman demands that non-Muslims tolerate and accept Islamic demands for them to submit to Islam -- but does not want Muslims to have any "tolerance and acceptance" of Western culture.
Steyn provides additional examples of the inroads made by jihad in England:
When the Queen knights a Muslim "community leader" whose line on the Rushdie fatwa was that "death is perhaps too easy", and when the Prime Minister has a Muslim "adviser" who is a Holocaust-denier and thinks the Iraq war was cooked up by a conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews, and when the Prime Minister's wife leads the legal battle for a Talibanesque dress code in British schools, you don't need a pig to know which side's bringing home the bacon.
A couple of years ago, when an anxious-to-please head teacher in Batley was banning offensive "pig-centred books", Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain commented that "there is absolutely no scriptural authority for this view. It is a misunderstanding of the Koranic instruction that Muslims may not eat pork." Mr Bunglawala is a typical "moderate" Muslim - he thinks the British media are "Zionist-controlled", etc - but on the pig thing he's surely right. It seems unlikely that even the exhaustive strictures of the Koran would have a line on Piglet.
So these little news items that pop up every week now are significant mostly as a gauge of the progressive liberal's urge to self-abase and Western Muslims' ever greater boldness in flexing their political muscle.
After all, how daffy does a Muslim's willingness to take offence have to be to get rejected out of court? Only the other day, Burger King withdrew its ice-cream cones from its British restaurants because Mr Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe, after a trip to the Park Royal branch, complained that the creamy swirl on the lid resembled the word "Allah" in Arabic script.
That's jihad. It's working in England.
We must prevent that from happening here.
We must control immigration to this country from Islamic nations.
Reported by the Egyptian press:
[There are] "the new rules of the game" [practiced by Israel] for the military conflict with the Palestinians. Very simply, this translates as zero tolerance for any attempt by the Palestinian resistance to use Gaza as a base to mount attacks on Israel. It was shown by operation "First Rain", launched after mortars were fired following an explosion at a Hamas rally in Gaza on 22 September that left 23 dead. As veteran military correspondent, Alex Fishman, noted in Israel's Yediot Aharonot newspaper on 30 September, it was "less a rain, more a tornado".
Over the following seven days, Israel renewed its policy of assassinating militants, bombing civilian infrastructure and arresting Palestinians in mass sweeps, all methods tried and tested throughout the Intifada. For the first time since the 1967 War, it used artillery to clear entire regions in Gaza and flew F-16s to trigger sonic booms at a rate of one every two hours.
The aim of the onslaught was two-fold. In Gaza it was intended to sow fear among the civilian population, creating a popular groundswell for the PA to "act" against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In the West Bank the purpose was to wreck Hamas as an electoral force. Of the 415 Palestinians Israel arrested last week, 250 were Hamas members, most of them civilian cadre, including 14 local government candidates and 15 campaign managers. The sweep also netted political leaders Hassan Youssef, Mohamed Ghazzal and Ahmed Haj Ali, all three driving forces behind the turn to elections in the movement.
The rain brought its harvest. By 24 September, Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, announced an end to all military operations from the Strip. And on 27 September instructions were issued to Gaza's Palestinian police to "arrest any person" not in uniform. Both decisions were taken unilaterally, without consultation and in response to the Israeli attacks. And both lay the seeds for confrontation.
Hamas leaders then battled Palestinian police:
It erupted on 2 October, when Palestinian police allegedly tried to arrest Mohamed Al-Rantissi, son of the assassinated Hamas leader Abdul-Aziz Al-Rantissi. Hamas reacted with absolute force, firing on police stations in Sheikh Radwan and the Beach refugee camp and leaving three Palestinians dead, including a police officer and 32-year-old woman, Hiyam Nasser.
The police evidently fled:
The police reacted by storming Gaza's Legislative Council building, demanding protection and, above all, leadership. The police are insisting that they cannot be viewed as simply one militia among others. Hamas is adamant that there can be no move to disarm its fighters, especially when they are once more under attack from Israel.
Is there any way out from this impasse, short of civil war? Yes, says Palestinian analyst, Hani Al-Masri. "The resistance must be allowed to preserve its arms. But this does not mean it can act like a collection of private fiefdoms which decides when and how to act. Resistance is a national activity that should be decided by all Palestinians through their legitimate national institutions."
They're still calling their war against Israel "resistance." The PR value of that word may be in doubt. All the world really cares about, is whether Israel will defend its own women and children. When the world saw Israel doing the minimum possible to defend itself, the world condemned Israel. In my view, the more that country behaves like it's in a war, and does everything necessary to protect its women and children, the more it will gain global support.
I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution. Why not? We'd amend it to ban flag-burning, even though a fool burning a flag can't possibly harm our country. But a Kelo decision and a court unrebuked for it can really tear the fabric of a nation.
Appointment for life may be one reason why some Supreme Court judges start to favor judicial activism. They've been there forever, and judicial activism is the only way to make something new and interesting happen. For some judges it could be a cry for help -- a way of saying, "Get me outta here."
Short of amending the Constitution, perhaps we can just encourage any judges who may wish to do so, to resign, and find high-paying, rewarding work -- book deals, speaking engagements, etc. -- in the private sector.
Why haven't more judges resigned? If they do, and then get big job offers, in some cases they would be accused of having biased their judicial decisions in hope of later obtaining just such offers. In order to make it possible for Supreme Court judges to resign after a reasonable amount of time -- say five or ten years -- we need to identify rewarding, private-sector work for them to do, which would not subject them to such criticism.
U.S. Presidents are able to find such work. It should be possible for Supreme Court judges as well.
Giuliani: 'I think I'll return to politics'
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rudy Giuliani plans to return to politics, he said Wednesday, but argued it's too early to say if that will be for the 2008 presidential campaign.
"I think I'll return to politics," Giuliani said during a speech to business leaders.
With Giuliani and Condi as possible 2008 presidential candidates, the Republican bench is starting to look strong. Who's the GOP going to run? From Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (distributed via email -- no link):
Back in the mid '60s, all the usual leaders of the left -- Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Adlai Stevenson, Edmund Muskie and Nelson Rockefeller -- were backing the Vietnam War. Today, Hillary Clinton stands behind the war.
Will Clinton lose her claim on the leadership of the left as Humphrey did? Her support for the war might galvanize the appearance of new leaders in her party, just as the political vacuum over Vietnam led to the emergence of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Or will she switch and play the role of Robert Kennedy, discarding her backing of the war just in time to lead a crusade against it before the elections of 2008?
There's plenty of time between now and 2008 for new potential candidates to emerge on the Left.
I recently posted on evidence that the famous footage of the 12-year Palestinian boy, supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers, was faked.
An excellent Internet documentary has now appeared, showing outtakes from all kinds of footage, apparently faked by Palestinians:
The documentary, called "Pallywood", is 18 minutes long. Check it out.
One criticism of the Roberts nomination was that he was not necessarily opposed to judicial activism. From Ann Coulter (with whom I agree on most things):
The relevant question for a prospective justice, and it can be asked properly either by a president or a senator, is: "What, in your view, is the legal force of a Supreme Court opinion?" If Roberts believes that Supreme Court opinions are law of some kind, all is lost.
Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" — which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.
It doesn't help to have someone who thinks that, as an original matter, the Constitution says nothing about state abortion laws if he is then going to "balance" the law against "the integrity of the institution," "public confidence in our system of justice," "the need for stability and predictability," "the sweet mystery of life," blah blah blah. The problem with establishment types is precisely that they worry about everything except the law. Just get the law right and shut up.
Most nominees aren't personally known to the Presidents who nominate them, and often end up voting in unexpected ways after being appointed to the Supreme Court. Miers is someone Bush knows well:
"I've known her long enough to know she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today," Bush said. "She'll have more experience. She'll have been a judge, but nevertheless the philosophy won't change, and that's important to me."
Dismissing Democratic charges of cronyism, Bush said: "I picked the best person I could find. People know we're close." Bush has known Miers for more than 10 years, first as his personal lawyer and most recently as a White House counsel.
The Judicial Watch foundation is far from a rubber-stamp for Conservatives, having just supported the indictment of Tom DeLay. Here's their statement on Miers:
The fact that President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court speaks well of her. The president has a history of nominating high quality conservative judges who refuse to legislate from the bench.
What appears to be a retreat from a fight, may in fact be an innovative and reasonable strategy for insuring that the justice he nominates will not support judicial activism.
I've discussed the amazing decision of the people of Netzarim -- one of the cities in Gaza that was evacuated by Israel:
Last night at a private residence in Los Angeles, people gathered to hear Ehud Zinar speak about the forced withdrawal, from Gaza, of the population of his town, Netzarim. Ehud is the Assistant to the Chairman of the Council of Netzarim, which is working to prepare a new life for that population. What is amazing is that the population is not bitter, not angry; it is hopeful and is looking to do good for itself and for Israel, even though the withdrawal was "a tragedy."
The people of Netzarim have made a brilliant and surprising decision: they will stay together geographically. They will find a place to which they can all move to maintain their community, and to continue the work at which the different individuals in it are skilled. They are seeking undeveloped land in Israel on which to live.
Word has now arrived that they have found the land to which they will be moving. The government approves. Ehud has distributed this info via email:
The community of Netzarim voted to relocate to the western Negev, by the Egyptian border. Populating the Negev is currently a national mission. Moreover, the members of our community feel it is the best place to recover from the trauma of the deportation, get back in shape and start focusing on our next missions. We feel community work and non-formal education - both in Israel and abroad - are our next mission.
Once the decision was made, the government started setting up a trailer site down there. We will be living next to Moshav Yevul. During the next two years, BH, we will start building our new town.
Most sincerely yours,
Udi.
Ehud Zinar, Netzarim
Assistant to Chairman
I believe their courage will secure for them a good and prosperous future.
