Please visit this amazing site and see Jerusalem's eternal connection to Judaism/Jewdaism (or maybe the other way around):
http://www.cityofdavid.org.il/hp_eng.asp
Absolutely incredible!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Oooops, I did it again and again
Last night's news almost had me pity the poor poor children of Gaza, forced to burn their books and notebooks to avoid freezing to death because our evil army cut fuel supplies to Gaza. We were once again treated (by Israeli TV, not some BBC, CNN or other terror supporting news agency, no sir, by our own) to heart breaking footage of Gaza in the dark, Gaza drowned by the noise of the generators (only a lucky few can avail themselves thereof), Gaza this, Gaza that and the other thing. But my pity was short lived and proven quite unnecessary, because tonight's news sounded more optimistic: Gaza is no longer bankrupt! Gaza has pulled itself out of its bitter predicament: Gaza has fuel, electricity, food, medicine, can treat its own sick, can teach its own aspiring academics. Gaza can afford to import explosives:
2 tons of explosives found amongst humanitarian aid en route to Gaza
Terror groups take advantage of Israeli permit allowing humanitarian goods into impoverished Gaza Strip, attempt to smuggle two tons of fertilizer in truck transporting aid in second such incident this week.
Three weeks ago potassium nitrate was being passed as sugar. Six and a half tons of it, allegedly provided by the European Union.
Yes, poor Gazan kids. What with the evil Yahood oppressing them and such and denying them their inalienable rights to rocket science, fireworks and suicide bombing. But look on the bright side, perhaps those kids burning books might not need their books any more, after armed thugs practically destroyed a private American school: "We don't need no education..." gains a whole new meaning in Gaza. So does "our daily bread": Allah, you're listening? Forget about our daily bread. Give us our daily explosives, you hear?"
2 tons of explosives found amongst humanitarian aid en route to Gaza
Terror groups take advantage of Israeli permit allowing humanitarian goods into impoverished Gaza Strip, attempt to smuggle two tons of fertilizer in truck transporting aid in second such incident this week.
Three weeks ago potassium nitrate was being passed as sugar. Six and a half tons of it, allegedly provided by the European Union.Yes, poor Gazan kids. What with the evil Yahood oppressing them and such and denying them their inalienable rights to rocket science, fireworks and suicide bombing. But look on the bright side, perhaps those kids burning books might not need their books any more, after armed thugs practically destroyed a private American school: "We don't need no education..." gains a whole new meaning in Gaza. So does "our daily bread": Allah, you're listening? Forget about our daily bread. Give us our daily explosives, you hear?"
I hear Hamas is condemned the attack. I say Hamas did it. Why? I suspect the American owner wouldn't let them shoot mortars (please watch video) at Israel from the premises, fearing IAF retaliation. "Oh, yeah?" said Hamas, "you think WE can't retaliate?"
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I Stand with Lionheart
Dear Lionheart, I stand with you.
The blogosphere is asizzle over a British blogger facing the threat of arrest for speaking his mind. Lionheart has had the unheard of gall (hutzpah as we say in Hebrew) to speak his mind. To protest Islam taking over his homeland. A realm that has taken pride in its insularity, traditions, religion, culture, freedom and independence. A country where Queen Boudicca rose against the Romans just like Shimon bar Kochba, a country where Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic church, will now punish a free man for exercising his right to free speech, in a manner that reminds me of the darkest days of the KGB. Yet this same country allows hatefests without batting an eyelid: the BBC and Guardian can indulge in bashing Israel with impunity; members of the academia, media and trade unions call for isolation and boycott of the Jewish State; the celebrated Oxford University holds Holocaust Denial seminars. These are just a few instances of the corruption of freedom and distortion of truth allowed in a European country where hospital employees have to turn beds occupied by Muslims in the direction of Mecca to allow them to pray. Five times a day. This same country that produced the Magna Carta Libertatum in 1215, and where Muslims are free to hold up banners sending the British police to hell 800 years later, has a severe grievance with a man who stands in solidarity with Israel, who has gone so far as to put the crest of Israel right next to St. George's cross.
Well, dear Lionheart, for your courageous stand, for your declared love for and solidarity with the Jewish people, I hail you as my Righteous Gentile. I wish there was something the State of Israel could do for you. I mean, a snake such as Jonathan Cook is allowed residence in Israel and can spew hatred at will. But then, as you know, our own leadership seems to have succumbed to the "charms" of Islam, the "religion of peace".
I, on the other hand, thank you and wish you good luck. I hope the British system of justice still has the ability to locate its right mind and focus on the real perpetrators of racial hatred.
God bless!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Bad, Bad Jewish Boy
Bad, bad Jewish boy with eyes to die for! Or kill for!
No wonder more and more Pali women are becoming suicide bombers: those cruel cruel Jewish soldiers with their gorgeous blue eyes won't even rape them !
Thursday, January 03, 2008
No Partition, No State
Ya'akov Ahimeir
November 11, 2007
Ma'ariv, Today supplement
Sixty years ago today the UN General Assembly voted to establish a Jewish state alongside an Arab one. The Arabs refused then and have ever since.
After reading the full version of UNGAR 181 one has to agree with Abba Eban's famous quote: "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". The UN Resolution dealing with the partition of the Land of Israel into two states emphasizes the lack of vision afflicting Arab policy. Arab, mind you, not Palestinian. This document speaks of two states - a Jewish state and an Arab state. Arab, mind you, not Palestinian.
The State of Israel is not mentioned in the text, but it was established half a year after the vote. What the General Assembly approved was the "Jewish State", and the text makes no mention of the Jewish people or the Palestinian people. The Arabs refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state then, just as they do now. The UN resolution also deals with the settling of the Land of Israel, and defines the intended boundaries between the two sates. Nahariya and Beer-Sheva, e.g., would have been part of the Arab state. But nrcause the Arabs rejected the partition plan, Israel has retained its yekke town, with its industrious and equally intellectual population, famous for locally-produced cheeses and ice-creams.
Jerusalem was not meant to be a capital city, neither "the eternal capital of the Jewish people", nor the capital of the "Palestinian state." Jerusalem was to be a separate entity, under a special international Trusteeship Council, administered by a governor, not mayor.
The Arabs were not alone in refusing the partition. Menahem Begin, head of the pre-state underground Irgun (Etzel) and Israel Eldad, one of the Lehi commanders, also refused. After the UN vote, Begin declared that the Jewish people would fight to free its country on both sides of the Jordan: "The Land of Israel will be returned to the Jewish people. All of it, for ever."
Now the Arab states are struggling to establish a Palestinian state. Had they accepted the partition, they would have been celebrating the 60th anniversary of yet another Arab state. Instead, the Arab countries went to war. The bloodshed has never stopped. The paper on which the United Nations partition resolution has become just another piece of paper. The State of Israel was established thanks to the valor and boldness of its soldiers and fighters. I was a child when the resolution was passed. I remember one of our neighbors in Jerusalem worrying that we had no air force. Except now we do have an air force. And not only.
Yet in this day and age, the UN General Assembly would have rejected the partition plan, perhaps even by a large majority. Had the necessity of a Jewish state been at stake in
November 2007, instead of November 1947, the Jews of the Land of Israel would have been split by a fierce debate, just as we are now. Sixty years ago such a debate would have been unthinkable.
November 11, 2007
Ma'ariv, Today supplement
Sixty years ago today the UN General Assembly voted to establish a Jewish state alongside an Arab one. The Arabs refused then and have ever since.
After reading the full version of UNGAR 181 one has to agree with Abba Eban's famous quote: "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". The UN Resolution dealing with the partition of the Land of Israel into two states emphasizes the lack of vision afflicting Arab policy. Arab, mind you, not Palestinian. This document speaks of two states - a Jewish state and an Arab state. Arab, mind you, not Palestinian.
The State of Israel is not mentioned in the text, but it was established half a year after the vote. What the General Assembly approved was the "Jewish State", and the text makes no mention of the Jewish people or the Palestinian people. The Arabs refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state then, just as they do now. The UN resolution also deals with the settling of the Land of Israel, and defines the intended boundaries between the two sates. Nahariya and Beer-Sheva, e.g., would have been part of the Arab state. But nrcause the Arabs rejected the partition plan, Israel has retained its yekke town, with its industrious and equally intellectual population, famous for locally-produced cheeses and ice-creams.
Jerusalem was not meant to be a capital city, neither "the eternal capital of the Jewish people", nor the capital of the "Palestinian state." Jerusalem was to be a separate entity, under a special international Trusteeship Council, administered by a governor, not mayor.
The Arabs were not alone in refusing the partition. Menahem Begin, head of the pre-state underground Irgun (Etzel) and Israel Eldad, one of the Lehi commanders, also refused. After the UN vote, Begin declared that the Jewish people would fight to free its country on both sides of the Jordan: "The Land of Israel will be returned to the Jewish people. All of it, for ever."
Now the Arab states are struggling to establish a Palestinian state. Had they accepted the partition, they would have been celebrating the 60th anniversary of yet another Arab state. Instead, the Arab countries went to war. The bloodshed has never stopped. The paper on which the United Nations partition resolution has become just another piece of paper. The State of Israel was established thanks to the valor and boldness of its soldiers and fighters. I was a child when the resolution was passed. I remember one of our neighbors in Jerusalem worrying that we had no air force. Except now we do have an air force. And not only.
Yet in this day and age, the UN General Assembly would have rejected the partition plan, perhaps even by a large majority. Had the necessity of a Jewish state been at stake in
November 2007, instead of November 1947, the Jews of the Land of Israel would have been split by a fierce debate, just as we are now. Sixty years ago such a debate would have been unthinkable.
Jewish Israel
If Israel Isn't Jewish
by Amnon Rubinstein
Ma'ariv
If Israel is not the Jewish State it may not be called Israel. Israel is synonymous with Jewish.
If Israel is not Jewish, the Declaration of Independence must be annulled, because it deals with the establishment of the Jewish State called Israel.
If Israel is not Jewish, the November 29, 1947 UN General Assembly resolution must be annulled, because it deals with the partition of Palestine into two states - A Jewish one and an Arab one.
If Israel is not Jewish, one should also annul the Law of Return and the Human Dignity and Liberty Basic Law, which establishes the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
If Israel is not Jewish, a new national anthem must be found in lieu of the Tikvah. If Israel is not Jewish it will not be Catholic. Nor Buddhist. It will be Muslim Arab, even if in order to get there it may have to be a bi-national state for a while. If Israel is not Jewish, there will never be two states for two peoples.
If Israel (interim name) becomes Muslim Arab, it is hard to believe it will be democratic.
If Israel is Muslim Arab, the first to flee will be the learned anti-Zionist journalists, while Jews from Arab countries will stay put. They have already fled Arab rule in order to live in a Jewish state, but the same regime that once humiliated and oppressed them, will have caught up with them.
All of this is not likely to happen, but it is important to understand that it is right to define Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. We are being told that the large Arab minority in our midst should preclude this definition, as it is undemocratic to disregard this minority. However, the UN accepted the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, when the Arab minority here constituted over 40%. The General Assembly saw no discrepancy between the facts on the ground and the definition of Israel as the Jewish State. The anti-Zionists will argue: the facts on the ground have changed. We are living in the post-national era (this is what I call the multi-crappy-culti). But even in this day and age most European countries are being defined as national states, even though many of them have very large minorities.
The truth is there is no justification in not recognizing Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The Supreme Court has defined on several occasions the main characteristics of the Jewish state, including the following elements: Hebrew is the main official language, the days of rest are those defined by Jewish tradition, and there is a Jewish majority in the State of Israel (yes, that too).
We are being told that the Jewish State is redolent of religious coercion, and that it is at most the State of the Jews, as per Herzl's book. However, Herzl saw no difference between the two, and even allowed his book to be translated into several languages either as The State of the Jews or The Jewish State. The UN General Assembly surely did not think of a religious state; neither did Ben-Gurion when he declared independence; nor did ex-Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak, who defined the hard core of the Jewish State. Besides, what good would a name change do? Would the Palestinians agree to a Jewish State? Quite the contrary, they would argue that it would be ten times worse, as it makes no mention of its Arab citizens.
If Israel shouldn't be Jewish in the religious/Jewish law meaning, what does Jewish mean? In fact, the meaning has not changed since Herzl: Jews, at least since the emancipation, are a people, a nation. A people just like any other people, with an important religious contingent, a link to its religious past. This religious past is the source of modern nationalism. Yes, Jews were late in this respect too, that is why there still is an on-going struggle to divide between nationality and religion, whereas other nations are past this point in their evolution. However, the process is similar. The State of Israel is the state of this people, of all denominations, and it must also be the state of its non-Jewish citizens, including the large Muslim minority whose leaders preach dissent from the state.
The state cannot be identified with a certain part of the Jewish people. It is the home of all: Jews and non-Jews, religious, traditional and secular, and therefore it must not discriminate between is different constituents. It's true, there are flaws in our governing, such as the absence of civil marriages. The very submission of Israelis to religious courts does not sit well with its democratic character. But this is not why the Arab leadership in Israel and the Palestinian president object to Israel being the Jewish State. On the contrary, they aspire to establish a religious state, fanatic and anti-democratic at that. They object to the very existence of a Jewish democratic state in "their" region. They envision a nightmarish non-Israel state, as described above.
[The beautiful illustration I chose for this post shows how each and every Hebrew letter has its place in the Star of David, the eternal symbol of the Jewish people, which has also become our national symbol. Courtesy of Hazofen (The Code) by Rabbi Zamir Cohen].
by Amnon Rubinstein
Ma'ariv
If Israel is not the Jewish State it may not be called Israel. Israel is synonymous with Jewish.If Israel is not Jewish, the Declaration of Independence must be annulled, because it deals with the establishment of the Jewish State called Israel.
If Israel is not Jewish, the November 29, 1947 UN General Assembly resolution must be annulled, because it deals with the partition of Palestine into two states - A Jewish one and an Arab one.
If Israel is not Jewish, one should also annul the Law of Return and the Human Dignity and Liberty Basic Law, which establishes the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
If Israel is not Jewish, a new national anthem must be found in lieu of the Tikvah. If Israel is not Jewish it will not be Catholic. Nor Buddhist. It will be Muslim Arab, even if in order to get there it may have to be a bi-national state for a while. If Israel is not Jewish, there will never be two states for two peoples.
If Israel (interim name) becomes Muslim Arab, it is hard to believe it will be democratic.
If Israel is Muslim Arab, the first to flee will be the learned anti-Zionist journalists, while Jews from Arab countries will stay put. They have already fled Arab rule in order to live in a Jewish state, but the same regime that once humiliated and oppressed them, will have caught up with them.
All of this is not likely to happen, but it is important to understand that it is right to define Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. We are being told that the large Arab minority in our midst should preclude this definition, as it is undemocratic to disregard this minority. However, the UN accepted the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, when the Arab minority here constituted over 40%. The General Assembly saw no discrepancy between the facts on the ground and the definition of Israel as the Jewish State. The anti-Zionists will argue: the facts on the ground have changed. We are living in the post-national era (this is what I call the multi-crappy-culti). But even in this day and age most European countries are being defined as national states, even though many of them have very large minorities.
The truth is there is no justification in not recognizing Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The Supreme Court has defined on several occasions the main characteristics of the Jewish state, including the following elements: Hebrew is the main official language, the days of rest are those defined by Jewish tradition, and there is a Jewish majority in the State of Israel (yes, that too).
We are being told that the Jewish State is redolent of religious coercion, and that it is at most the State of the Jews, as per Herzl's book. However, Herzl saw no difference between the two, and even allowed his book to be translated into several languages either as The State of the Jews or The Jewish State. The UN General Assembly surely did not think of a religious state; neither did Ben-Gurion when he declared independence; nor did ex-Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak, who defined the hard core of the Jewish State. Besides, what good would a name change do? Would the Palestinians agree to a Jewish State? Quite the contrary, they would argue that it would be ten times worse, as it makes no mention of its Arab citizens.
If Israel shouldn't be Jewish in the religious/Jewish law meaning, what does Jewish mean? In fact, the meaning has not changed since Herzl: Jews, at least since the emancipation, are a people, a nation. A people just like any other people, with an important religious contingent, a link to its religious past. This religious past is the source of modern nationalism. Yes, Jews were late in this respect too, that is why there still is an on-going struggle to divide between nationality and religion, whereas other nations are past this point in their evolution. However, the process is similar. The State of Israel is the state of this people, of all denominations, and it must also be the state of its non-Jewish citizens, including the large Muslim minority whose leaders preach dissent from the state.
The state cannot be identified with a certain part of the Jewish people. It is the home of all: Jews and non-Jews, religious, traditional and secular, and therefore it must not discriminate between is different constituents. It's true, there are flaws in our governing, such as the absence of civil marriages. The very submission of Israelis to religious courts does not sit well with its democratic character. But this is not why the Arab leadership in Israel and the Palestinian president object to Israel being the Jewish State. On the contrary, they aspire to establish a religious state, fanatic and anti-democratic at that. They object to the very existence of a Jewish democratic state in "their" region. They envision a nightmarish non-Israel state, as described above.
[The beautiful illustration I chose for this post shows how each and every Hebrew letter has its place in the Star of David, the eternal symbol of the Jewish people, which has also become our national symbol. Courtesy of Hazofen (The Code) by Rabbi Zamir Cohen].
Tinker, Tailor, Spy and Traitor or Bishara Launderette, Ltd.
It's urgent, it's urgent, and I need it!
by Shmuel Mittlemann
January 2, 2008
Ma'ariv (Today supplement)
"MK Azmi Bishara, sir, you are suspected of breaking the law on a number of counts: you have traveled to enemy states without proper clearance, aided the enemy during wartime, passed information onto the enemy, laundered money received from foreign agencies, became involved with terror financing. We have solid evidence that you have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Jordan, via an East Jerusalem money changer." This is how Yaron London of the International Crime Unit greeted his distinguished guest. Bishara missed a beat, but quickly recovered: "This is all lies, it's insulting… I never …"
by Shmuel Mittlemann
January 2, 2008
Ma'ariv (Today supplement)
"MK Azmi Bishara, sir, you are suspected of breaking the law on a number of counts: you have traveled to enemy states without proper clearance, aided the enemy during wartime, passed information onto the enemy, laundered money received from foreign agencies, became involved with terror financing. We have solid evidence that you have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Jordan, via an East Jerusalem money changer." This is how Yaron London of the International Crime Unit greeted his distinguished guest. Bishara missed a beat, but quickly recovered: "This is all lies, it's insulting… I never …" 
It was an embarrassing situation: the most prominent Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, the intellectual who hopped in and out of Arab capitals, sitting in the interrogation room of the Petach Tikva international crime unit, like a common criminal. Wondering how this came to pass. He denied everything, angrily, vehemently, but the interrogating officer kept on asking the pertinent questions unrelentingly. Bishara felt cornered. He saw no way out. That is why, a few days later, at the end of March 2007, taking advantage of his parliamentary immunity, he fled the country and has not come back since, fearing justice, no doubt. Sometime later he resigned from the Knesset. 
Bishara saved his skin from a severe criminal trial concerning the security of Israel, that had the potential to put him behind bars for a good number of years. His minor partner in crime was not so lucky. Last week, Fires Assila, the East Jerusalem money changer, was convicted by the Jerusalem District Court for transferring excessive amounts of money from Jordan to Bishara. No less than three hundred and ninety thousand USD. The source of money in Amman, Jordan, remains a mystery. All through the trial the State (Israel) claimed that the money had been sent from an Arab country, but it is believed that the money source was a terrorist organizations, meaning Hezbollah. The money is also gone, and nobody knows where it went.Assila was confronted with the incriminating evidence and stood trial. He consented to a plea bargain: admitting to money laundering. His attorney, Reuven Bar-Haim, managed to get him off lightly: the more severe charges of endangering state security were dropped. He will probably spend six to eight months in jail.
Ma'ariv has recently obtained transcripts from Assila's questioning, shedding quite a lot of light on the "money monkey business" surrounding the Bishara affair: declarations obtained from Assila and Bishara and transcripts from their tapped telephone conversations about money transfers and meetings. It appears that there was solid evidence against Bishara, that would have gotten him convicted, at least on the money laundering charge.
Thirty-year-old Assila went to university in Jordan, and is currently an employee of the Assila Bros money changing firm. Their offices are in East Jerusalem, on Saladin Street, a few hundred yards away from the Department of Justice and the Attorney General's Office. On March 16th, 2007, Assila admitted that his dealings with Bishara were an extension of his connection with Bishara's wife Rana, who used Assila's offices to
convert her salary from Bir Zeit University where she was a lecturer. In early 2006, she asked Assila for his private number.Thirty-year-old Assila went to university in Jordan, and is currently an employee of the Assila Bros money changing firm. Their offices are in East Jerusalem, on Saladin Street, a few hundred yards away from the Department of Justice and the Attorney General's Office. On March 16th, 2007, Assila admitted that his dealings with Bishara were an extension of his connection with Bishara's wife Rana, who used Assila's offices to
One week later her husband, dr. Azmi Bishara, called him and invited him to their home in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina. There Bishara asked Assila to help him transfer a certain amount of money from Jordan to Israel. Assila agreed and gave Bishara the address of G., a money changing friend of his in Amman. Bishara asked Assila to notify G. in Amman that every now and then a courier would deposit certain amounts of cash, and that he was not supposed to enquire as to who the man was, who sent him or where the money was coming from.
And this is how it worked: G. would notify Assila whenever the money man arrived. Assila would transfer the money to Bishara and refer East Jerusalem residents seeking to exchange money in order to travel to Jordan on business or for university studies to G. in Amman, who would do the same: send the Bishara money via East Jerusalem investors. During
And this is how it worked: G. would notify Assila whenever the money man arrived. Assila would transfer the money to Bishara and refer East Jerusalem residents seeking to exchange money in order to travel to Jordan on business or for university studies to G. in Amman, who would do the same: send the Bishara money via East Jerusalem investors. During
the next fourteen months, Assila transferred, in complete secrecy and total violation of the law, seven installments of at least fifty thousand USD each, adding up to 390 thousand USD in cash, to Azmi Bishara. "Whenever he called, I'd go to his house and hand him the money."
The International Crime Unit investigator informed the money changer that he was suspect of financing terror, assisting in unauthorized associations, and contact with foreign agents:
"Investigator: Does your money changing firm transfer money from Arab states?
Assila: No, not even once.
I: Then why did you agree to transfer money from Jordan to Bishara?
A: For profit. He agreed to pay me one percent out of every payment.
I: Did you know that the money was being transferred illegally?
A: Yes.
I: Then why did you do it?
A: Because Dr. Azmi is a Christian, famous and honorable. I had no idea the money was meant to finance terror. I was wrong and I am sorry.
I: Did Bishara ask you not to record any of the transfers?
A: No, but it was obvious.
I: Did you use any code words?
A: When he wanted shekalim, he'd say "local" (from the transcripts it appears that Bishara also mentioned "books, local", when he wanted shekalim).
I: Would you have agreed to transfer money for any other person?
A: Of course not. Moreover, had Bishara been Moslem I would have refused because I would have suspected a terror connection."
The transcripts of the phone conversation between Bishara and Assila are even more incriminating. Bishara is laconic and prudent, and uses code words, obviously trying to avoid the unwanted eavesdropper. There is no way he was acting candidly. Sometimes he asked for "urgent" deliveries: "It's been a long time and you're late. And it's got to be in Hebrew. Books." Whenever someone else answered the phone in Assila's office, Bishara would just leave a message for Assila to call Omar.
Assila: No, not even once.
I: Then why did you agree to transfer money from Jordan to Bishara?
A: For profit. He agreed to pay me one percent out of every payment.
I: Did you know that the money was being transferred illegally?A: Yes.
I: Then why did you do it?
A: Because Dr. Azmi is a Christian, famous and honorable. I had no idea the money was meant to finance terror. I was wrong and I am sorry.
I: Did Bishara ask you not to record any of the transfers?
A: No, but it was obvious.
I: Did you use any code words?
A: When he wanted shekalim, he'd say "local" (from the transcripts it appears that Bishara also mentioned "books, local", when he wanted shekalim).
I: Would you have agreed to transfer money for any other person?
A: Of course not. Moreover, had Bishara been Moslem I would have refused because I would have suspected a terror connection."
The transcripts of the phone conversation between Bishara and Assila are even more incriminating. Bishara is laconic and prudent, and uses code words, obviously trying to avoid the unwanted eavesdropper. There is no way he was acting candidly. Sometimes he asked for "urgent" deliveries: "It's been a long time and you're late. And it's got to be in Hebrew. Books." Whenever someone else answered the phone in Assila's office, Bishara would just leave a message for Assila to call Omar.
The following conversation took place on December 28th 2006:"Bishara: What are you doing tomorrow morning?
Assila: Ok, half a book?
B: Nope, one or two. In Hebrew. It's got to be in Hebrew.
Later the same day:
B: Hello, Fires. Please come by tomorrow morning. It's very very urgent. Because of the holidays. I want to know where I stand."
Assila went to Bishara's house and gave him the money. Bishara called him again, probably before flying abroad and asked: "Please have the remainder ready for me by next Sunday, when I get back."January 19th, 2007, Bishara calls again and is very laconic:
B: The remainder, when is it possible?
A: How do you want it?
B: Doesn't matter, it's been a long time. You're late. When? Tomorrow? The day after?
A: You want two installments? Tomorrow and the day after?
B: Yes, like the last time.A: OK, four local?
B: Twenty two-hundred bills."
During the last conversation, on February 17th, 2007, Bishara asked: "Can you bring me the last book?" Assila agreed and two days later brought Bishara the last payment, about 100 thousand USD.
One month later, as evidence was piling up, the police and the Shabak decided the time was ripe for an inquiry. On March 22, 2007, Bishara was summoned to the Petach Tikva
international crime unit. He had no idea that the investigators had a solid body of evidence, including the money changer's declarations, tapped conversations transcripts and additional elements, quite sufficient to incriminate him. Bishara was taken aback by the gravity of the accusations:"Investigator: Do you know Fires Assila?
Bishara: Yes, money changers.
I: Are you conducting any kind of business with them?
B: No, sometimes my wife or I use their services for checks.I: So you are not conducting any kind of business with their firm?
B: Occasionally I exchange very small sums of money, checks that I receive from different newspapers.
I: So you conduct no personal business with Assila?
B: I have no personal connection with him.
I: Is it possible that he transferred money for you from a foreign source? B: No, there is no such thing.
I: Has he ever been to your house?
B: Yes, I invite him over when I need to exchange the checks.
I: Does he receive money for you from different sources and transfers you this money?
B: No.
I: We have evidence that he has handed you sums of money received from different sources.
B: No, there is no such thing. If he says so, he's lying.
I: He told us he received money on your behalf. And he
mentioned very large sums.
B: There is no such thing.
I: Can it be that someone is trying to frame you?
B: No, there is no such thing. This comes to me as a surprise.
I: He told us that he came to your house on several occasions and handed you large sums of money.
B: It can't be. This is groundless.
I: Do you want to check back with him?
B: No, I don't.
I: Do you understand that this means breaking the law?
B: It surely means breaking the law."
The following day Bishara was questioned again. Officer London confronted him with the previous day's declarations: "Yesterday you told us that you didn't want money from Rabbat Ammon (Amman). Except I never mentioned Rabbat Ammon." Sensing that he had fallen into a trap, Bishara lost his temper and went into a lengthy angry monologue: "You mentioned money transfer, and I understood exactly what you meant, that's why I answered categorically NO. I know those people and I use their money changing services. But this thing comes as a total surprise. Because 
your accusations make no sense. One can get to Rabbat Ammon by car. I am just a state employee, my wife is also an employee, anyone can tell that we don't have a lot of money. We live a modest life. No way I could have received such large amounts of money. This is insulting. I wish they had sent me some money. I have rich relatives abroad. It is not uncommon for rich relatives to help. But this thing… What would that money have been for? This is quite a surprise… Do you have any information on Azmi Bishara spending money? You have put people on trial for things like that. Had I received any money I would have told you. I have nothing to add, and I am very upset, because I live a modest life and I stay away from these things as fire stays away from water."
People involved in the investigation told Ma'ariv that the secretive conspiracy-like manner adopted by Bishara, the total separation between the Jordanian and Israeli money changers and the
very high sums of money involved, point to illegal activities. "This is not writer's fees", they said cynically. At the end of the investigation, Bishara informed the detectives that he was traveling abroad for a few days. They replied that he would be needed for additional questioning upon his return. He promised to be there. Except he has never returned.
I: Has he ever been to your house?
B: Yes, I invite him over when I need to exchange the checks.
I: Does he receive money for you from different sources and transfers you this money?
B: No.
I: We have evidence that he has handed you sums of money received from different sources.
B: No, there is no such thing. If he says so, he's lying.
I: He told us he received money on your behalf. And he
mentioned very large sums.B: There is no such thing.
I: Can it be that someone is trying to frame you?
B: No, there is no such thing. This comes to me as a surprise.
I: He told us that he came to your house on several occasions and handed you large sums of money.
B: It can't be. This is groundless.
I: Do you want to check back with him?
B: No, I don't.
I: Do you understand that this means breaking the law?
B: It surely means breaking the law."
The following day Bishara was questioned again. Officer London confronted him with the previous day's declarations: "Yesterday you told us that you didn't want money from Rabbat Ammon (Amman). Except I never mentioned Rabbat Ammon." Sensing that he had fallen into a trap, Bishara lost his temper and went into a lengthy angry monologue: "You mentioned money transfer, and I understood exactly what you meant, that's why I answered categorically NO. I know those people and I use their money changing services. But this thing comes as a total surprise. Because 
your accusations make no sense. One can get to Rabbat Ammon by car. I am just a state employee, my wife is also an employee, anyone can tell that we don't have a lot of money. We live a modest life. No way I could have received such large amounts of money. This is insulting. I wish they had sent me some money. I have rich relatives abroad. It is not uncommon for rich relatives to help. But this thing… What would that money have been for? This is quite a surprise… Do you have any information on Azmi Bishara spending money? You have put people on trial for things like that. Had I received any money I would have told you. I have nothing to add, and I am very upset, because I live a modest life and I stay away from these things as fire stays away from water."People involved in the investigation told Ma'ariv that the secretive conspiracy-like manner adopted by Bishara, the total separation between the Jordanian and Israeli money changers and the
very high sums of money involved, point to illegal activities. "This is not writer's fees", they said cynically. At the end of the investigation, Bishara informed the detectives that he was traveling abroad for a few days. They replied that he would be needed for additional questioning upon his return. He promised to be there. Except he has never returned.
Bishara is suspected of aiding Hezbollah target strategic locations in Israel. Many of the victims were Arabs, Druze and Bedouins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
