Read More About:

Share This Post

A Naval Disaster in the Making. The misbegotten plan to shrink the US submarine fleet.


The Weekly Standard,  October 6, 2014

The US Navy’s latest shipbuilding plan would see its attack submarine fleet diminish from 55 to 41 boats in the next decade and a half. That decision, confirmed in August, was eclipsed by the advance of ISIL, war in Gaza, and sedition in Ukraine. But the Navy’s announcement—the single-largest strategic consequence of this administration’s defense cuts—has the most far-reaching ramifications of the summer’s events.

The United States faces the prospect of drawn-out tension leading to possible conflict on two fronts, the Middle East and the Far East. Of the two, Chinese ambition will require more attention. It is supported by growing wealth, expanding military power, and abundant patience. The challenges these generate are likely to remain a century from now. China’s leadership, meanwhile, will confront a host of problems in the next 15 years—when the US attack submarine fleet will be a quarter smaller than it is today—including an aging population that can’t sustain the optimistic predictions for China’s economy.

As Nick Eberstadt notes, 15 years from now, because of the preference for male babies, 20 to 40 percent of rural, uneducated 30-year-old Chinese men will not be able to find mates—with large and unknowable possibilities for turmoil. Over the same period, competing regional markets’ lower labor, utility, and rent costs will becalm the expanding economy on which China’s authoritarian leaders have justified their rule. A multitude of state-owned industries employing millions are already seeing the loans they need to stay afloat failing to perform; more could follow.

Equally troubling is a political class whose hegemonic ambition matches its contempt for international agreements. Consider the National People’s Congress decision to renege on China’s 1984 signed promise to allow Hong Kong’s political arrangements to continue intact for 50 years. In August, Hong Kong’s voters were told that they will select their senior political official in the 2017 elections from a slate approved by a mostly pro-Beijing nominating committee. At the same time, China’s increasing challenges to many of its neighbors over territorial issues in the international waters of the South and East China Seas are nourishing a spirit in surrounding states that could mature into determined opposition. In short, China’s internal pressures are mounting in parallel with external aggression.

China, however, possesses one advantage not of its own making. The chances that the United States will be there to organize and lead the states that fear China are dimming as the gulf between the ships the Navy needs and the ships it can afford widens. What China will have to show for throwing its weight around in the region depends on what the United States does to preserve its dominance as a Pacific naval power. On that score, the strategic importance of the Navy’s decision to cut its attack submarine fleet by 25 percent cannot be overstated.

Beijing aims to keep the US Navy out of range of Asia. Its large investments in naval aviation, cyber warfare, a modernizing surface and submarine fleet, a fledgling carrier force, and a ballistic missile intended to sink or put out of service US aircraft carriers place at risk our bases in the region and interrupt our communication with allies. If wielded successfully, these measures will assure the safety of China’s navy and mainland and end our run as the West Pacific’s great power.

But China’s strategy is vulnerable—chiefly to submarines. Subs are very difficult to detect and cannot be targeted by missiles while underway. They can demolish an enemy’s fleet and their cruise missiles can destroy targets ashore. As a hedge against China’s anti-access strategy, submarines are matchless. Long-distance drones launched from carriers at a safe distance will eventually offset the dangers of China’s ship-hitting ballistic missiles. Then it will be but a question of time until China adds to its missiles’ range. So long as submarines remain stealthy, they bypass the age-old technological cat-and-mouse game of countering an adversary’s technology and in turn being countered.

Because of its war-fighting abilities, a robust attack submarine fleet is also a highly persuasive deterrent against conflict itself. But the idea of deterrence is missing from Obama administration thinking. When a Chinese jet fighter approached within yards of a US Navy surveillance plane in international air space in mid-August, the State Department sent a disapproving letter. China responded that the United States must cease its patrols over international waters or face more dangerous encounters.

Notwithstanding repeated parallel incidents in international waters against US allies in the region over the past couple of years, China was invited to join the United States and those same Asian allies in an annual U.S.-led naval exercise the previous month. The plan for a diminished attack sub fleet is a broader expression of the Obama administration’s hopeful idea—not shared by Chinese leaders—that there exists no strategic competition between China and the United States.

The president’s refusal to build defenses, (or anything else that will maintain US power) harness them as legitimate instruments of international persuasion, and actually use them is—in conjunction with his skepticism about the morality of American leadership—as responsible for the growing international chaos as it is incapable of preventing its metastasis.

USS George H. W. Bush, for example, which has been using a minuscule portion of its powerful strike force against ISIL for the past few weeks, was the only US aircraft carrier in the region. The two-carrier presence that the United States had previously maintained ended last year as a cost-saving measure and as an encouragement to Iran for a deal over its nuclear weapons program. The single remaining American carrier had been patrolling the northern Arabian Sea supporting the withdrawal of US equipment from Afghanistan. Its departure for the Persian Gulf left a hole in the Afghan mission that could only be filled by ground-based attack planes—which are also scheduled to be withdrawn.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin’s ambition for a reborn Russian empire is fanning blazes that begin in Moldova and reach through Crimea, Ukraine, and end—for now—in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Turkey’s Islamist president Recep Tayyip Erdogan openly supports Hamas, has facilitated the transit of Westerners crossing the Syrian border to join ISIL, and holds an international record for the number of imprisoned journalists.

The territory south of Asia Minor is in a turmoil whose end cannot be seen. All these lands are either joined by, or set back from, the Black Sea. The great power conflicts that overlapping areas of interest ignited in the mid-19th-century Crimean War and concentrated again, with bloody results, at Gallipoli six decades later are likely to engage American attention for years.

The paucity of carriers where they are—or might soon be—needed is a here-and-now crisis. But it is congruent with, and a harbinger of, the strategic crisis that will unfold if the political will cannot be found to build the US attack submarine fleet at a rate to assure, at a minimum, its current strength over the next three decades, as events around the globe point toward a darkening future.

Seth Cropsey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, is the author of Mayday, an account of American seapower’s current challenges. He served as a naval officer and deputy undersecretary of the Navy in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.



Twitter: @israelcomment 



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

See video below:  Frank Gaffney explains the Jihadist War against America.  (Wake up US and change the Party driving the bus)

I’ve spent my entire professional life fighting for America’s security.

For years now, I’ve sounded the alarm in particular about shariah– the supremacist Islamic doctrine and the global jihadist movement it has spawned to spread this brand of hateful repression worldwide, including here. In countless meetings, articles, congressional testimony, interviews and individual conversations, I’ve explained need to counter this menace.

All too often, my warnings went unheeded. Until recently.

Suddenly, the emergence of the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL)and its reign of terror has awakened Americans to the danger posed by such shariah-adherent jihadis.

The Islamic State invokes shariah to justify the horrific beheadings you and I have witnessed on television and the internet. They have said this is just the beginning. They want Americans to know they have plans to harm our nation. There is reason to believe they are preparing to do so.

I wear a pin on my lapel to start conversations about shariah and those seeking to impose it on the rest of us – including the millions of Muslims who do not practice their faith in accordance with its horrific rules. The pin bears this symbol ن. It’s the Arabic letter “N” that is spray painted on Christian homes by Islamic State fighters to mark them for plunder, rape or murder. “ن ” stands for Nasrani, Arabic for Nazarene – a believer in Jesus of Nazareth, a Christian. These days, under the pall of shariah, it stands for death.

With the emergence of the Islamic State and its explicit pledges to attack us here at home, it is no longer possible to ignore what shariah portends for the freedoms and people you and I hold dear.

Please join me in exposing the ideology of the Islamic State and its ilk – and to arm Americans with information they need to defeat it.

Authoritative reports indicate that the Islamic State is currently training to kill Americans on our own border. Inside the USA, terrorist cells associated with al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and other jihadist franchises are said to be in place, and preparing for violence against us. The average American is unaware this is taking place.

Please join me in my effort to educate our countrymen and women about the very real and present danger the Islamic State and other global jihadists pose to our great nation.

For a small donation to support the efforts of the Center to build awareness, I will send you a Nazarine pin of your own.  To make a donation visit

While it may seem like a small action, the lapel pin I wear generates curiosity and interest, and ultimately, an opportunity to share information about the Islamic State and the global jihad of which it is a part. This is where we must start if we are to understand and defeat this growing threat.

Frank Gaffney
President and CEO
Center for Security Policy



Twitter: @israelcomment






Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

 II The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown. The Numbers don’t add up!

Redacted from an article By JUDITH CURRY, Wall Street Journal Oct 10, 2014

(See below)

I  Stop taking environmentalist hypocrites seriously. 

By DREW JOHNSON – The Washington Times – October 6, 2014

Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire-turned-environmentalist, just launched a multimillion-dollar attack-ad blitz that takes political dishonesty to a whole new level. In his latest spot, Mr. Steyer accuses Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst of pushing American jobs overseas. In reality, all Mrs. Ernst did was bravely pledge to oppose tax hikes. Watchdog group Politifact judged the ad to be, in a word, “False.”

The ad campaign isn’t just deceptive; it’s hypocritical. As a self-described “professional pain in the [butt],” Mr. Steyer brags he’ll spend $100 million this election cycle to defeat candidates such as Mrs. Ernst who don’t buy in to his particularly sleazy brand of climate-change hysteria. A lot of the money Mr. Steyer now uses to advance his fringe environmental agenda was made off his investments in oil and natural gas.

While managing his hedge fund, Farallon Capital, Mr. Steyer made a killing off the same fossil-fuel industry he is now smearing as greedy and sinister. Mr. Steyer isn’t the first green crusader to secretly owe his wealth or his way of life to fossil fuels. Given the stakes of our nation’s energy debate, Americans should stop taking these environmentalist hypocrites seriously.

Any list of “do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do” environmentalists needs to put former Vice President Al Gore at the top. With his global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the former veep established himself an expert on carbon dioxide footprints — and his is massive.

In 2007, using public records, I determined that Mr. Gore’s Nashville mansion devoured more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year — more than 20 times the national average. In some months, his electric bills topped $2,400. During the same year he was touting “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film demanding that Americans reduce their energy consumption, Mr. Gore’s combined electricity and natural-gas bills totaled just under $30,000.

Public pressure eventually forced Mr. Gore to give his Tennessee home a green-friendly overhaul. Since slapping solar panels on his roof, though, Mr. Gore purchased additional properties, and he continues to fly in private jets, even though the resulting carbon dioxide footprint can be more than 100 times greater than flying commercial.

Another elder statesman of enviro-hypocrisy is Robert Redford. The actor urged Americans to embrace “green buildings that use less energy,” but when an environmentally friendly housing development was planned too close to his Napa Valley winery, the actor quashed the project.

Mr. Redford also demands America “kick the oil habit,” despite having served as a paid spokesman for the world’s second-largest airline — no conflict there.

George Soros is a megadonor for environmental groups like the Alliance for Climate Protection and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Both groups are staunchly opposed to fracking, a technology that uses pressurized water and sand to capture oil and natural-gas deposits trapped deep underground. His support for abolishing the drilling technique didn’t stop him from recently buying a $234 million stake in Consol Energy, an avid practitioner of fracking.

Then there’s Bill McKibben. As the head of, he is a leading advocate for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and killing the Keystone XL pipeline. He’s gone so far as to demonize imported foods, including oranges, because of the fuel consumed to transport them. That hasn’t stopped Mr. McKibben from jetting around the globe to spread his anti-fossil fuel-message. It’s still unclear how this busy jet-fuel-guzzling travel schedule squares with his hard-line views on citrus.

Despite the silliness spewing from the mouths of environmentalist hypocrites, the economic and security benefits of domestic oil and gas production are hard to deny. Thanks to advances in fracking technology, natural gas now sells for one-third of what it did in 2008. As a consequence, Americans are saving hundreds of dollars on their heating and electric bills annually — and that has to be good news for Mr. Gore.

Fracking is also propelling domestic oil production to its highest levels ever. In fact, the International Energy Agency recently announced that the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer. With the unrest in the Middle East and Ukraine, our energy boom couldn’t have come at a better time.

Despite so much good news, naysayers like Tom Steyer, Al Gore, Robert Redford and George Soros are doing their best to condemn the fossil-fuel industry. Until they start taking their own advice, however, there’s no reason for anyone else to.

Drew Johnson is an editorial writer for The Washington Times.

II  The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown. The Numbers don’t add up!

Redacted from an article By JUDITH CURRY

Ms. Curry, a professor and former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network.

The Wall Street Journal

October 10, 2014

At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that,  “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the UN considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.

More than a dozen other observation-based studies have found climate sensitivity values lower than those determined using global climate models, including recent papers published in Environmentrics (2012),Nature Geoscience (2013) and Earth Systems Dynamics (2014). These new climate sensitivity estimates add to the growing evidence that climate models are running “too hot.” Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased.

The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is a central question in the debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.

Continuing to rely on climate-model warming projections based on high, model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. This can bias policy decisions. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper, as well as similar other recent studies, is that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario.

This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.



Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I From: FLAME   (Facts and Logic About the Middle East)

II Obama Dismembers American Military – By F. MICHAEL MALOOF

September 2014

Terrorist groups ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), Hamas, al Qaeda and Boko Haram have in common their disdain for Western values, their murderous disregard for human life and their goals of conquering vast lands in the name of Islam. Because they consider jihad a divine mission, they refuse to surrender or negotiate peace.

What are the facts?

ISIS, the latest, most brutal and militarily successful Islamist terror group, grew as an offshoot of al Qaeda in Syria. The group now controls huge swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq, massive stores of armaments, some 15,000 soldiers and billions of dollars in assets. ISIS’s avowed goal is to create an Islamic caliphate—empire—consisting of land it perceives to belong to Islam, hundreds of other terrorist acts, killing thousands of innocent civilians. Boko Haram has distinguished itself by murdering some 5,000 citizens, including 2,000 in 2014 alone, kidnapping 300 Christian schoolgirls and driving 650,000 Nigerians from their homes.

Likewise, Hamas, a terrorist Palestinian splinter group of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, has killed hundreds of innocent Israelis through suicide bombs and launched more than 13,000 rockets aimed at Israeli civilians from Gaza. It has also abducted and murdered Israeli children. Since Hamas violently seized control of Gaza in 2007, it has ruled with an iron Islamist hand, imposing strict sharia religious law, crushing civil rights and driving Christian Arabs out by the thousands. Hamas’s charter states its goal is to conquer the entire Holy Land and kill all its Jews. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh has proclaimed that,  “We love death like our enemies love life.”  No wonder then, that the group readily sacrificed thousands of its own people by using them as human shields in its war on Israel.

Other Islamist terror groups, such as al Qaeda, with cells throughout the Middle East and Africa, and Boko Haram in Nigeria, use equally bloodthirsty tactics in their jihad to expel foreign influences from “Muslim lands” and create a worldwide caliphate. Al Qaeda, of course, engineered the 9/11 attacks, the 2005 London subway bombings and hundreds of other terrorist acts, killing thousands of innocent civilians. Boko Haram has distinguished itself by murdering some 5,000 citizens, including 2,000 in 2014 alone, kidnapping 300 Christian schoolgirls and driving 650,000 Nigerians from their homes.

What Can Be Done? Islamist terror groups are clearly ascendant, increasing their carnage and influence daily and increasingly threatening Middle Eastern nations, Western Europe, and the US Indeed, American Secretary of State Kerry called ISIS a force of “ugly, savage, inexplicable, nihilistic and valueless evil.” Likewise, British Prime Minister David Cameron has called Hamas’s intentional attacks on Israeli civilians “barbaric.” Comparable adjectives have been used to describe the ruthless and fanatical brutality of al Qaeda and Boko Haram.

While most of the world’s nations agree that the global Islamist jihad must be stopped, its perpetrators have implacably refused to surrender or negotiate a peace. All remain unconditionally committed to the defeat of Islam’s “infidel” enemies and colonizing their lands. Even Hamas in its recent conflict with Israel broke all 11 ceasefire agreements, rendering peace talks impossible and subjecting Palestinian citizens to more suffering.

While no Western nation seeks another war in the Middle East or Africa, we must ask how long these terrorist aggressors should be permitted to kill and expel civilian populations and conquer others’ territories. Indeed, since these groups show no signs of relenting their murderous terror campaigns, responsible Western nations, led by the United States, should consider urgent action for stopping them. While Israel is helping to fight Hamas—in fact is compelled to do so since Hamas attacks its citizens daily— Israel cannot hold back the jihadi tide by itself. It needs the unalloyed support of the West for its fight. But even more, the world needs Western nations to defeat the global jihad . . . before these terror groups swallow more territory, enslave more people and strike our homeland once again.

Global jihadi groups—ISIS, Hamas, al Qaeda and Boko Haram—share the same oppressive Islamist ideology, the same drive to conquer others’ lands and people, the same barbaric tactics and disrespect for human life, and they raise the same increasingly dire threat to the US and our allies. Isn’t it time for a U.S.-led coalition to oppose the black flag of jihad with moral determination, courage and all necessary force?

FLAME , P.O. Box 590359, San Francisco, CA 94159,Gerardo Joffe, President

II  Obama dismembers American Military

(As per tacit agreement with Vladimir Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians and the Islamists) jsk

From: Whistleblower Magazine published by World Net Daily (WND)

October 31, 2014

Redacted from an article by F. MICHAEL MALOOF

WASHINGTON – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the US military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the US ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels — those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals — are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

Boykin points out that the military adheres to the constitutional requirement of a civilian leadership over the military. As a consequence, officers are not allowed to criticize their civilian leadership, as occurred when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was relieved in 2010 of his command of the International Security Assistance Force and commander of US Forces in Afghanistan. He was relieved due to what has been described as unflattering remarks made about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist. As a consequence, he said, the lower grades therefore have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

“These officers want to train for war but are not be allowed to” because of the preoccupation not only with sequestration, but what Boykin said were other concerns surfacing in the military under Obama as commander-in-chief.

He referred specifically to the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which now allows openly homosexual personnel in the military. In addition, he said the integration of women into the infantry “will reduce readiness of units.” He also was critical of the rules of engagement which he says favor “political correctness over our ability to fight to win.”

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, US Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded US African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night. But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

It is no accident that the president used the Obama sequester and shutdown to punish the military family,” he said. “It is part of his DNA. In fact it is in the psyche of the entire liberal/progressive establishment — the elite. President Clinton outed himself and this ilk when he declared his loathing of the military. Who could believe progressives/liberals care about veterans and military?”

Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely similarly has been very vocal in his opposition to the Obama administration. Vallely said the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2 Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II  Pertinent  critique of Netanyahu’s speech by Americans for a Safe Israel.  (AFSI)

I  Redacted from Netanyahu’s speech, September 29, 2014. Complete video of speech shown below.

Distinguished delegates, I come here from Jerusalem to speak on behalf of my people, the people of Israel. I’ve come here to speak about the dangers we face and about the opportunities we seek. I’ve come here to expose the brazen lies spoken from this very podium against my country and against the brave soldiers who defend it.

Ladies and gentleman, the people of Israel pray for peace. But our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace are in danger because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march.

It’s not militants. It’s not Islam. It’s militant Islam. And typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one. Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Kurds, no creed, no faith, no exit — no ethnic group is beyond its sights. And it’s rapidly spreading in every part of the world.

You know the famous American saying, “All politics is local”? For the militant Islamists, all politics is global because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world.

Now, that threat might seem exaggerated to some since it starts out small, like a cancer that attacks a particular part of the body. But left unchecked, the cancer grows, metastasizing over wider and wider areas. To protect the peace and security of the world, we must remove this cancer before it’s too late.

Last week, many of the countries represented here rightly applauded President Obama for leading the effort to confront ISIS. And yet weeks before, some of these same countries, same countries that now support confronting ISIS opposed Israel for confronting Hamas.

They evidently don’t understand that ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control. Listen to ISIS self-declared caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

This is what he said two months ago. “A day will soon come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master. The Muslims will cause the world to hear and understand the meaning of terrorism and destroy the idol of democracy.”

Now listen to Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas. He proclaims a similar vision of the future. “We say this to the West: By Allah, you will be defeated. Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world.”

As Hamas’ charter makes clear, Hamas’ immediate goal is to destroy Israel, but Hamas has a broader objective. They also want a caliphate. Hamas shares the global ambitions of its fellow militant Islamists, and that’s why its supporters wildly cheered in the streets of Gaza as thousands of Americans were murdered in 9/11.

And that’s why its leaders condemned the United States for killing Osama bin Laden, whom they praised as a holy warrior. So when it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common.

Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabaab in Somalia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, al Nusra in Syria, the Mahdi Army in Iraq, and the Al Qaida branches in Yemen, Libya, the Philippines, India and elsewhere. Some are radical Sunnis. Some are radical Shiites. Some want to restore a pre-Medieval caliphate from the seventh century. Others want to trigger the apocalyptic return of an Imam from the ninth century.

They operate in different lands. They target different victims. And they even kill each other in their battle for supremacy, but they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever-expanding enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance; where women are treated as cattle; Christians are decimated; and minorities are subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone can be considered an infidel, including fellow Muslims.

There’s one place where that could soon happen: the Islamic State of Iran. For 35 years, Iran has relentlessly pursued the global mission, which was set forth by its founding ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini, in these words, ”We will export our revolution to the entire world until the cry, “There is no god but Allah will echo throughout the world over.”

So don’t be fooled by Iran’s manipulative charm offensive. It’s designed for one purpose and for one purpose, only, to lift the sanctions and remove the obstacles to Iran’s path to the bomb.

Allowing that to happen would pose the gravest threat to us all. It’s one thing to confront militant Islamists on pickup trucks armed with Kalashnikov rifles. It’s another thing to confront militant Islamists armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Ladies and gentlemen, would you let ISIS enrich uranium? Would you let ISIS build a heavy-water reactor? Would you let ISIS develop inter-continental ballistic missiles. Of course you wouldn’t. Then you mustn’t let the Islamic State of Iran do those things either, because here’s what’ll happen.

To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war. Ladies and gentlemen, the fight against militant Islam is indivisible. When militant Islam succeeds anywhere, it’s emboldened everywhere. When it suffers a blow in one place, it’s set back in every place.

That’s why Israel’s fight against Hamas is not just our fight, it’s your fight. Israel is fighting a fanaticism today that your countries may be forced to fight tomorrow.

Ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world steeped in tyranny and terror, where gays are hanged from cranes in Tehran, political prisoners are executed in Gaza, young girls abducted en masse in Nigeria, and hundreds of thousands are butchered in Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

Yet nearly half, nearly half, of the UN Human Rights Council’s resolutions focusing on a single country have been directed against Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. Israel, where issues are openly debated in a boisterous parliament, where human rights are protected by the — by independent courts and where women, gays and minorities live in a genuinely free society.

In the past, outrageous lies against the Jews were the precursors to the wholesale slaughter of our people. But no more. Today, we, the Jewish people, have the power to defend ourselves. We will defend ourselves against our enemies on the battlefield. We will expose their lies against us in the court of public opinion. Israel will continue to stand proud and unbowed.

Ladies and gentlemen, despite the enormous challenges facing Israel, I believe we have a historic opportunity. After decades of seeing Israel as their enemy, leading states in the Arab world increasingly recognize that together, we and they face many of the same dangers. And principally, this means a nuclear-armed Iran and militant Islamist movements gaining ground in the Sunni world.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a new Middle East. It presents new dangers, but also new opportunities. Israel is prepared to work with Arab partners and the international community to confront those dangers and to seize those opportunities. Together, we must recognize the global threat of militant Islam, the primacy of dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, and the indispensable role of Arab states in advancing peace with the Palestinians.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us light a torch of truth and justice to safeguard our common future. Thank you.

II Critique of speech by Americans for Safe Israel.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations with the intention of exposing the many lies against Israel spoken by Mahmoud Abbas in his attack against the Jewish State at the United Nations last Friday. He described these lies, which don’t deserve repeating, as the function of diseased minds whose hatred of Jews has no bounds. PM Netanyahu stressed that we are NOT occupiers in our own country, citing history, archaeology, and common sense as his source. He did not mention our biblical and legal entitlements. In our opinion, this was a serious omission. Recognizing that Israel’s withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza created “threats from militant Islamists,” (he never mentioned the hardships endured by the Israelis evacuated from their homes and communities in Gush Katif/Gaza) , he insisted that, “rock solid security arrangements” would be required for further “territorial compromises” that would be necessary for “peace.”

We understand that PM Netanyahu has to walk a fine line in the diplomatic world in order to present the case for Israel; however WE STRONGLY DISAGREE with his willingness to give away more Israeli land and we know, as does any realist, that there are NO SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS THAT COULD GUARANTEE SAFETY FOR ISRAELIS. If he had cited Israel’s biblical entitlement to the land, that might have been the end of the lesson. If he used the Edmond Levy report to demonstrate Israel’s legal entitlement to the land, that might have been a good post script to the lesson. But agreeing that  any peace that requires territorial compromise is a prescription for disaster for Israel.

As we enter this new year of 5775 we pray that Israel’s Prime Minister will remember the meaning of the “promised land” given to our ancestors, which centuries of dedicated Jews have sacrificed to ensure. We must continue in that tradition, treasuring the land and its protectors.

(I hope the PM reads the AFSI critique above. It points out omissions that constantly pervade Netanyahu’s usual truly magnificent delivery and the perverse thinking of virtually all the previous leaders of Israel. They have not a clue as to how they have allowed the Arabs to invent and direct the entire narrative putting the Israelis on the defensive when every historical and political fact is on the side of the Jews. Only the Jews could find a way to invariably snatch defeat from the jaws of glorious, deserved victory leaving their few friends in the world confused by their stupidity and propensity to self-destruct trying to please their enemies! It is very much like a Patty Hearst Syndrome — only this time by an entire nation, an entire misguided people.)

This evening (Oct 2, 2014) former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, on the Greta Van Susteren TV show, could not understand why  Israel had not taken the Iran nuclear facility out of existence five years ago. It would have saved the world most of our current problems with militant Islam.  The US and the European Union have failed to distinguish its friends from its enemies and what happens next, especially with the current deliberately destructive occupant in the White House, can only fill one with great foreboding. And, may Hashem help us.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Twitter: @israelcomment

PM Netanyahu, with his usual brilliance,  addresses UN Sep 29, 2014:




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Jerome S. Kaufman

September 28, 2014

While watching the fantastic video featuring Melanie Phillips (See below), I heard her use an amazingly acute descriptive term. Her term was Left Wing Narcissism and it must  have been coined by Ms. Phillips who also coined the defining term, Londonistan, so precisely describing the Muslim take-over of London.

I guess the reason the term, Left Wing Narcissism rings such a bell with me is that it finally gives me a defining term to describe and understand many people including some in my own family. The term implies the condition wherein the facts have no bearing on thought or action. They just get in the way of engraved-in-concrete generalizations with which certain individuals are seemingly born. Intelligent discussion, respected literature, history or events that have followed subsequent to their birth evidently  have made no impression.

Under this aberration, there is, of course, no such thing as right or wrong. Everything is open to challenge and dubious question and finally,  it is concluded, simply revolves around one’s own innate irrefutable reaction and personal conclusion. So, no differentiation or judgement calls or beliefs need be  determined. It is all equivocal.

There is  still another buzz word utilized — “moral equivalency” for all conditions and situations. There are, of course, no real criminals or bad guys — just those poor folks that have been environmentally challenged with no real control over the understandable results.

Typically these individuals with Left Wing Narcissism also know, without any question of contradiction, that, “I am a nice person. I am not religious but I am ‘spiritual.’” And … please don’t get hung up trying to define exactly what those statements mean.

Naturally, everyone else who does not believe in these unintelligible generalizations is demonized as being inferior, racist, bigoted, chauvinistic, nationalistic, narrow, unsophisticated, uneducated, plain country, right wing extremists or just despicable Republicans.

Apparently even some “decent people” are perverted because they watch the right wing fanaticism of TV Fox News. The rest of us are smart enough to turn away from Fox like the plague. It is so unsettling. The only truly worthwhile TV station is, of course, MNBC featuring stars like Rachel Maddow of the perpetual snarled mouth; Christiane Amanpour who would obviously be more comfortable if she had stayed in Iran where she was born and where her soul still abides; Chris Mathews, who one wonders if he still gets shivers up his leg when the archetypical narcissist Barack Obama postures and nonchalantly tells limitless outright lies. Amazingly Obama himself has never progressed beyond his role as the consummate community organizer. He remains simply another politician, another Party hack devoid of moral confusion.

Then, finally there was Keith Olbermann who made one sick with his single minded hatred of anything Conservative or Republican. Fortunately for the viewing audience, he is now just an arrogant, abrasive sports commentator easily cancelled out as quickly as his obnoxious face hits the screen.

There are, of course, tons of other examples but I really just wanted to introduce you to this precise descriptive term, It may be of some help to you in your own friendly family conversations. But, I doubt it. So just keep the peace and debate the weather, the traffic, the price of gasoline, who won the ball game.  Discuss your other obnoxious relatives and when do we eat?

Thanks again to the incomparable Melanie Phillips.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Publisher/Editor Israel Commentator


Melanie Phillips’ video where the term originated as far as I know?


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

On the Origin of ISIS

Why has a terrorist state blossomed in Syria and Iraq?


The Weekly Standard, Sep 8, 2014

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the terrorist army many thousand strong now rampaging through the Levant, embraces such an extreme, violent ideology that it makes even al Qaeda squeamish, argue many Western experts. On this reading, al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri was forced to distance himself from ISIS’s bloody practices. In reality, the notion that ISIS’s gory campaign turns the stomach even of an arch-terrorist, America’s public enemy number one, is colorful but inaccurate.

To be sure, ISIS—or the Islamic State, as it now calls itself—is an extremist movement, attracting militants from all over the world eager to help build the new caliphate. Given the thousands of foreigners—including Chechen snipers, Saudi car bombers, and Western misfits like American Douglas McAuthur McCain—who have signed on to fight alongside ISIS, security officials are right to fear that the United States will become an ISIS target. The group kidnaps and murders American journalists. It threatened the existence of the Yazidi community in Iraq, and it slaughtered at least 700 members of the Sheitat, a tribe in Syria, last month. It regularly employs the vicious hudud punishments to enforce sharia law in the areas it controls in Syria and Iraq.

None of this, however, is outside the norms of a region where governments regularly incite hatred of America and Israel, wage wars against their own populations, and kidnap, imprison, and kill foreign nationals. Cutting off the hands of criminals, as prescribed by sharia, is hardly out of the ordinary; the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs gay teenagers from construction cranes, and the legal authorities of Saudi Arabia—an American ally—regularly separate accused criminals from their heads in public executions in what is popularly known as Chop-Chop Square.

Nor are ISIS’s money-raising schemes especially novel in the Middle East. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, the organization’s key source of income is (stolen) oil, especially in the Syrian provinces of Deir al-Zour and Raqqa and the Iraqi province of Nineveh. “They sell it to opposition groups, to the tribes, back to the Syrian regime, or on the Iraqi black market,” says Faysal Itani, an ISIS expert at the Atlantic Council. The other main source of revenue is taxation, or rather, extortion. As one source in the city of Raqqa, ISIS’s so-called capital, explained to us, merchants pay 3,000 Syrian pounds (close to $20) every two months. The kidnapping of foreigners or wealthy Syrians for ransom also brings in millions.

And yet it’s true that ISIS is not exactly what we’ve become accustomed to seeing in the Middle East of late. “This is not a classic insurgency,” says Itani, “or a non-state actor.  Rather, it’s a state-building organization.” ISIS’s effort right now is to secure borders and lines of communication.

ISIS’s leader, Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, is the self-proclaimed caliph, also known as Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, a 43-year-old jihadist from the Iraqi city of Samarra.  His strategy has been greatly facilitated by the Obama administration’s December 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and the anti-Sunni policies pursued by the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. ISIS’s project was further aided by the Syrian uprising, which began in March 2011. Over the last three and half years, it has evolved into a civil war in which Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has slaughtered Sunnis. The White House and the rest of the international community have done nothing to stop him.

In other words, any policy addressing ISIS also has to address the root problem: What gave ISIS room to take hold and blossom is the Iranian-backed order of the Levant, consisting of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and Nuri al-Maliki and his successor, Haidar al Abadi, in Iraq. All these are sustained by the Shiite Islamic revolutionary regime in Tehran. And the White House has virtually signed onto this regional security apparatus. It is the tacit agreement the Obama administration has made with Tehran that has not only galvanized ISIS but also made foes out of former allies. Sunni Arab tribes that sided with the United States during the surge to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq less than a decade ago are now joining the Sunni extremists of ISIS.

The other key players in the ISIS-led Sunni rebellion are the Arab tribes on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border. Indeed, the map of ISIS’s new caliphate, with its so-called capital in Raqqa and encompassing Deir al-Zour in Syria and Nineveh, Anbar, Salaheddine, and Diyala in Iraq, overlays a much older map of tribal lands forming a contiguous territory with a total area of around 168,000 square miles, bigger than Great Britain (143,000 square miles). To see how ISIS has succeeded, it is of paramount importance to understand the tribal politics behind its achievement.

Last week President Obama announced that the White House has no policy to deal with ISIS. The revelation came as no surprise since it was the administration’s handling of Iraq and Syria that gave ISIS room to grow.

… But the reality is that Obama doesn’t want to change the equation. As the president has explained in a series of interviews over the last year, he wants to build a new geopolitical equilibrium that would bring Iran back into the community of nations. And to do that, the White House has to respect Iranian regional interests—which amounts to signing off on Iranian hegemony across the Levant, at the expense of America’s traditional regional partners, the Sunnis. (And, by the way — the sacrifice of Israel allowing Iran to build nuclear bombs, which is virtually a fait accompli) jsk

Lee Smith is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard. Hussain Abdul-Hussain is the Washington bureau chief of the Kuwaiti newspaper Alrai.

(PS  Just today, Tuesday Sep 23, 2014, the US cobbled together some sort of bizarre coalition including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Anti-Assad Syrian forces, possibly some Turkish involvement as they are pushed into the conflict by thousands of Kurdish refugees fleeing Iraq. This conglomerate is supposed to be attacking ISIS in both Syria and Iraq to degrade it only, with no discussion as to the only real solution —  wiping it off the map.  There are supposedly to be no  American boots on the ground except for advisors? (A necessary gross lie)

The only thing good about it seems to be that Russia does not like it.  Its staunch ally and client state Syria  is being invaded  and its relationship with Iran becomes conflicted.  Syrian President Assad has mixed emotions. It is OK with him so long as his internal enemies are killed and his dictatorship is preserved.  Ultimately  the centuries-old primal forces of tribal and religious enmity will not go away.

The strength of ISIS may be diminished for the moment but what else comes of this action and this bizarre bunch of supposed allies is very much in question. The thought of sacrificing more American lives here makes me sick. I would love the Arabs and the Turks to duke it out themselves.  There are only two US allies in the area in which I have any faith – Israel, of course and our long neglected legitimate friends, the Kurds.)  jsk 



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Zionist Organization of America



NEW YORK — September 19 — The Zionist Organization of America (“ZOA”) urges its members and everyone who can do so to attend the important rally on Monday September 22, 2014, at Lincoln Center, at Broadway and 65th Street in Manhattan, starting at 4:30 p.m., to protest against the Met Opera’s scheduled eight performances of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, pro-terrorist opera, “Death of Klinghoffer.”

Prominent speakers will include former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey; Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY); Israeli Knesset member Nissim Ze’ev; ZOA President Morton Klein; Catholic League President Dr. Bill Donahue; Rabbi Avi Weiss; Assemblyman Dov Hikind; New York Board of Rabbis Executive Vice President Rabbi Joseph Potasnik; Dean of Rambam Mesivta and Shalhevet High Schools Rabbi Zev Meir Friedman; IDF Sgt. Benjamin Anthony; victims of terrorism, and others. Judge Mukasey presided over the prosecutions of the blind sheik (who was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), El Sayyid Nosair (who assassinated Meir Kahane and was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Jose Padilla (who plotted to build and explode a dirty nuclear bomb in the U.S.).

Thousands of protestors, including students from area high schools, are expected to attend the protest rally. After the main speeches from 4:30 to 6 p.m., the rally will continue on for many hours, with songs, marching around Lincoln Centers, and more.

ZOA has learned that the Met Opera’s production of “Klinghoffer” will be particularly venomous against Israel and Jews. Among other things, we understand that parts of the opera will be set at a wall in Israel that the opera falsely depicts as a symbol of oppression of Palestinian Arabs. The opera utterly fails to explain that Israel erected a security fence in order to stop Palestinian Arab terrorists from continuing to carry out deadly suicide bombings of pizza stores and buses, which had become a regular occurrence. (The security fence is only an actual wall in a few areas next to major roads where Palestinian Arabs were shooting at innocent Israeli drivers in cars.) From September 2000 to mid-2005, Palestinian Arab terrorists carried out hundreds of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, killing almost 2,000 innocent Israelis, and maiming thousands of other innocent Israelis.

In addition, Israel’s security fence was erected 20 years after Palestinian Arab terrorists murdered Leon Klinghoffer, and 15 years after John Adams composed “Death of Klinghoffer.” Apparently the opera’s producers will stoop to any stratagem, no matter how historically inaccurate, to attempt to malign Jews and Israel and justify terrorism.

ZOA President Morton Klein stated:

“Terrorism is not “an act of desperation.” There are no justifiable “reasons” why Palestinian Arabs murdered an innocent disabled American Jew and murdered and wounded thousands of innocent Israeli civilians, or why Islamists murdered thousands of innocent New Yorkers on 9-11, or why an Islamist murdered 13 American soldiers at Ford Hood. An opera that attempts to justify terror should not be staged by one of New York’s premier cultural institutions.

Please also note that there will be additional protests at Lincoln Center if “Klinghoffer” is not cancelled, on Monday October 20, 2014; Wednesday October 29; Wednesday November 5; Saturday night November 8; and Tuesday November 11. For further information, contact and/or check our website

The rally on Monday September 22 at 4:30 p.m. is sponsored by a large coalition of Jewish, Catholic, Christian and anti-terror groups, including: the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA); the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Mothers Against Terrorism; The Catholic League; COJO (the Council of Orthodox Jewish Organizations); The Bridge Project; Christians’ Israel Public Action Campaign (CIPAC): AMCHA; Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI); COPMA (Citizens Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art); Congregation Or Zarua; Congregation Ohab Zedek; Hasbara Fellowships; Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam (HRCARI); International Committee for the Land of Israel; Lincoln Square Synagogue; Russian American Jewish Experience (RAJE); Israel Forever Foundation; Israel’s Voice; Jewish Action Alliance; Advocates for Israel (AFI); Jewish Political Education Foundation;; One Israel Fund; Middle East Research Center Ltd. (MERCL); Rambam Mesivta HS; Shalhevet HS for Girls; Stand With Us; Strength to Strength; and Westchester Hebrew High School (WHHS).



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By David Kupelian, Editor, Whistleblower Magazine,

Published by World Net Daily September 2014

(This is the lead article in a priceless issue of Whistleblower Magazine. This is the most politically incorrect reputable magazine on the market. Below are excerpts from the lead article plus a partial list of other articles in Whistleblower by experts with whom you are well acquainted.)

Jerome  S. Kaufman

From David Kupelian’s article, September, 2014:

In Germany, the crowds were feverishly chanting “Jew, coward pig, come out and fight alone” and “Jews to the gas” and other vile, murderous incitements.

But this was not Kristallnacht (“the night of broken glass”), the notorious 1938 mass attacks on Jews that foreshadowed the Holocaust. It is today’s Germany – which, like much of Europe and the rest of the world, is currently experiencing a huge and fiery resurgence of raw Jew-hatred.

“When calls for Jews to be gassed, burned and murdered are bawled on the streets of Germany, that no longer has anything to do with Israel’s politics and Gaza,” said Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. “It is the most abhorrent form of anti-Semitism.”

Indeed, as revealed in the September issue of Whistleblower magazine, the current explosion of hatred of Jews is the outcrop of something much deeper and more consequential than just public reaction to Israel’s war with Hamas.

Titled “DAVID AND GOLIATH: Why Israel, always defending against genocidal attacks, is portrayed as the aggressor,” Whistleblower documents the stunning emergence of virulent anti-Semitism:

In France, eight synagogues and a kosher supermarket were attacked, and a mob of about 400, chanting “Death to Jews” and “Slit Jews’ throats,” firebombed a synagogue in a Paris suburb.

The Jewish owners of dozens of shops in Rome have found swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans scrawled on shutters and windows, including “Jews, your end is near.”

In Manchester, England, occupants in a group of cars shouted “Heil Hitler” and swore at Jewish pedestrians.

In Belgium, a café refused to serve a Jewish woman, posting a sign with the message, “Dogs welcome, Jews not.” Similar scenes are playing out all across Europe.

In Australia, police arrested five people after a group of Jewish schoolchildren were abused and threatened by eight drunken men. “They were screaming ‘Heil Hitler,’ ‘Kill the Jews,’ ‘Palestine must kill you Jews,’ ‘We are going to cut your throats and slice your throats open,’” said one eyewitness.

In NATO-member Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Erdogan outright compared Israel to Hitler.

And the UN “Human Rights Council” recently named a three-member international commission to investigate Israel’s supposed “war crimes” during Operation Protective Edge – chaired by a notoriously anti-Israel academic who has repeatedly demanded the International Criminal Court prosecute Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal.

Even in the United States, anti-Semitism is emergent: A rabbi in North Miami Beach, wearing the traditional Orthodox black hat and long coat, was gunned down on his way to temple. In Brooklyn, a 24-year-old Jewish man was punched in the face and knocked to the sidewalk by three teenagers, while the next day, a 9-year-old Jewish boy was riding his bike when three male teenagers hit him in the back of the head. In Boston, pro-Israel supporters had to be rescued from an angry crowd shouting “Jews back to Birkenau” and “Drop dead, you Zionazi whores.” Similar examples throughout the US abound.

So what is really behind this worldwide outbreak of anti-Semitism?

Other Highlights in this issue of Whistleblower Magazine titled  “DAVID AND GOLIATH” are articles by some of the most respected experts in the field:

“Kristallnacht 2014″ — a guided tour of anti-Semitic demonstrations and crimes now exploding worldwide, by Art Moore

“Western anti-Semitism and Israel’s options” by Walter E. Williams, who reminds Israel’s critics: “There’s no nice war, and that’s why war should be a last alternative”

“The Ebola-like plague of anti-Semitism sweeping the West” by Avi Davis, who says the unthinkable is happening: “Jews are once again openly threatened in Germany and sometimes attacked”

“The world’s ultimate disinformation campaign: Unearthing the astonishing biblical and historical roots of anti-Semitism and Israel hatred” by Joseph Farah

“The genocide libel” by Dennis Prager, who explains why some world leaders consider Israel “worse than the Nazis”

“Jon Voight fires back at celebs condemning Israel,” in which the famous actor sharply rebukes his Hollywood peers who have publicly condemned Israel over the Gaza war, telling them, “You should hang your heads in shame”

“Was Israel justified in going after Hamas terrorist tunnels?” by Alan M. Dershowitz, in which the top lawyer rebuts UN accusations of Israeli “war crimes” and “indiscriminate killing”

“Revealing the Nazi connection to Islamic terror” by Chuck Morse. Why exactly was that famous Jerusalem mufti seen cozying up to Hitler?

“Top 10 differences between Israel and ‘the Palestinians’” by Don Feder, a quick summary of how 3,300 years of turbulent history has ended up

“Anatomy of an anti-Semite,” a glimpse into the strange and delusional mental processes of a Jew-hater, by David Kupelian

“Uprooted Jews ‘ready to return to Gaza,’” in which a Gush Katif pioneer says former Jewish residents would line up to move back to Gaza if given a chance

“Never again: Why Israel must not ever cede Judea and Samaria” by Joseph Farah.

Do yourself a favor and subscribe or renew your subscription to Whistleblower  and you’ll get $10 off (pay $39.95 instead of the usual $49.95), plus you’ll receive two free gifts:

First, you’ll get the book Glenn Beck insists is the very first book Americans should read if they want to restore their nation to greatness — “The 5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen. (A $19.95 value – FREE!)

Second, You’ll also receive Whistleblower’s  uncannily prophetic issue titled “THE YEAR OF MANUFACTURED CRISES,” with penetrating insights by talk-radio giants Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, as well as Ronald Reagan’s top intelligence analyst Herbert E. Meyer, in addition to WND’s Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, David Kupelian and many others.

Subscribe, renew or give a gift subscription for two years and you’ll not only get “The 5,000 Year Leap” and “THE YEAR OF MANUFACTURED CRISES,” but you’ll also get a $10 discount on the already reduced two-year rate ($74.95  not $84.95).

If you prefer, you may order a single copy of the September 2014 issue, “DAVID AND GOLIATH.”

To order by phone, call our toll-free order line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

Or online at



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Rotherham UK  Residents Search For Answers in U.K. Sex Abuse Scandal.

Redacted from article By ALEXIS FLYNN and NICHOLAS WINNING

Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2014

Residents of this once-prosperous English town are united in their outrage at revelations this week that predatory gangs abused vulnerable girls here with near-impunity for 16 years. But, sorting out why the pattern of abuse remained hidden so long is a different matter.

An independent report issued this week by a local council alleged that nearly 1,400 children and teens in the Rotherham area were victims of sexual exploitation between 1997 and 2013, a revelation that has sent shock waves through this town of about 250,000.  (The interesting fact to me is that Pakistanis constitute just 3% of the population and they  were able to intimidate the whole town into fear, silence and obscene “political correctness”!)

The report, citing evidence collected by caseworkers, alleges that children and teens in the area, most of them girls, were raped, beaten, abducted or trafficked to other towns in the north of England. The perpetrators, it said, were mostly men of “Asian” or Pakistani origin.

Until the 2010 convictions of five local men for a range of sexual offenses, there had been few prosecutions in Rotherham. The men’s prosecution and revelations of a more widespread pattern of exploitation have made Rotherham a flashpoint in a string of high-profile abuse allegations across Britain in recent years, some involving celebrities.

Others have uncovered similar sexual-exploitation rings in other English towns and cities. The wave of claims prompted British Prime Minister David Cameron to announce a national inquiry last month into how public and private institutions across the country have dealt with abuse claims.

Assigning blame for the litany of institutional failures that allowed the abuse to continue unchecked has pulled Rotherham’s citizens in opposing directions, exposing deep fault lines of class and race. Some residents point the finger at local officials they say were either incompetent or too cozy with politically influential members of the local Pakistani community, which makes up about 3% of the Rotherham population.

Others-mainly Anglo working-class residents-have complained that the main problem was an unwillingness to criticize local Pakistanis for fear of appearing racist . Members of the local Muslim community also condemned the alleged crimes—but at the same time shifted blame to the allegedly lax social mores of the northeast England region. (… Using the centuries-old dodge of blaming the victims and many English are stupid enough and intimidated enough to buy into the argument in a sham of political correctness. Psychologically, one might explore one mm deeper and find that fear of violence from the Muslim community – not a unique event – was a subliminal, undiscussed cowardly  factor) jsk

“It’s a chuffing cover-up,” said Roy Haderell, a retired builder, scanning headlines that called for prominent local politicians to resign for their alleged role in the scandal. Pressure mounted from all directions on local leaders.

Prime Minister  Cameron was among the chorus of voices clamoring for the resignation of South Yorkshire’s elected police commissioner, Shaun Wright, who headed children’s services in Rotherham Council from 2005 to 2010. Mr. Wright—whose role involves ensuring that the South Yorkshire police force meets the needs of the local community—said late Wednesday that he was resigning from the Labour Party but intends to remain in his role as commissioner. The South Yorkshire police, meanwhile, is conducting its own investigations, having this week admitted that “many mistakes were made” without detailing what they were.

Rotherham is a small town in south Yorkshire whose fortunes have slumped with the death of its steel mills and coal industry. (Let Americans take note as Obama and the EPA chase wind mills and sun beams) Today its main street is dotted with betting parlors, pawn shops and discount stores. The report’s findings have only served to reinforce local residents’ fears that local politicians haven’t put the community’s interests first. Central to those concerns are worries about race.

The Rotherham report itself accused local authorities of “ignoring a politically inconvenient truth” by not pursuing evidence that many of the exploitation claims involved men of Pakistani origin. “If worries about the race card held the authorities back, then that’s outrageous,” said Maxine Baker, a Rotherham resident for nearly 20 years.

Among Rotherham’s Muslim residents similar searching questions were being asked. Clothing store owner Abdul Wahid debated with Masarat Din, a charity worker, about the report’s findings. “They are not Muslims,” said Ms. Din, referring to the men accused of plying young Rotherham girls with alcohol and drugs and then forcing them into exploitative sexual encounters. “These individuals are a minority. They don’t represent our British Muslim community,” she said.

Mr. Wahid said that while their behavior was inexcusable, some of the blame should be lodged with the families of the victims and what he described as a permissive English culture that encouraged such behavior. “They shouldn’t be asking for cigarettes and things like that,” Mr. Wahid said.

(Ah, there it is again. It’s the victim’s fault for bumming cigarettes. Gang rape and sexual slavery naturally follow!) jsk



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

US Aid: When does Israel Get it?

By MK (Member of Knesset) Moshe Feiglin

August 18, 2014

From The Marker, A publication  supplement to Ha’aretz, Israel’s most Left wing newspaper

The Marker published an important report on Sunday, August 17, 2014 on US  ‘aid’  to Israel. If you read the small print, you will find exactly the same things that I have been writing for the last two decades: “Today it is clear,” says the report, “despite the fact that no prime minister or Finance Minister will say so — that Israel can live without the grant.”

Until the Six Day War, in the days of shortages and tent camps — an era when Israel really did need all the help possible. American aid was approximately 2% of Israel’s GNP. Instead of sending aid, the US reneged on its support of the Partition Plan, opposed the establishment of the State of Israel and declared an arms embargo on fledgling Israel, which was being threatened with destruction by all the Arab armies surrounding it.  Only in 1962 did the Americans throw Israel a few bones: left-over Patton tanks from World War II.

When did the trend do a complete turnabout? When did the US begin to sell Israel weapons in strategic quantity and quality? When did Israel begin to receive US military and civilian aid, which increased until it grew to 15% of our GNP?

When we left the ‘occupied territories’?

When we ended the ‘occupation’?

When we destroyed the settlements?

No! …Actually, just the opposite is true. In 1967, Israel captured the Golan Heights (and expelled 60,000 Syrians, established Israeli towns and villages and regained the Heights) Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem – and the Sinai desert. Suddenly it became America’s favored ally.

(The facts are that the 3 billion in aid from the US began when Richard Nixon was in office. Nixon, despite Kissinger, was sharp enough to understand that Israel was the US key ally in the Middle East and its only bulwark against Russian aggression, aided and abetted by Arab duplicity. Nixon considered it a 3 Billion dollar bargain — an absolute steal compared to the billions of dollars the US spent annually maintaining thousands of American troops in both Europe and Japan protecting these areas and sustaining their economies. Nixon was no lover of the Jewish people nor were the rest of  American presidents and certainly not the American State Dept.  He was a proud American and smart enough to know what was in America’s best interests — unlike the present occupier of the office)  jsk

But that is not the end of the story. When did US aid to Israel begin to decrease?

The greatest amount of US aid, in grants and loans, was afforded to Israel in one year, 1979, in which the peace accords between Egypt and Israel were signed. According to The Marker, US aid to Israel in that one year was 15.7 billion dollars.

And since then?

If we take the US rhetoric literally, then when Israel made peace and surrendered the entire Sinai to Egypt, we should have received more aid. But for some reason, the ‘occupation’ increased the aid, while ‘peace’ brought about its decline.

Today, US  ‘aid’  to Israel, entirely military, is at its lowest level ever. Even the leftist Ha’aretz admits that Israel does not really need it. We take this ‘aid’ for psychological reasons (if we get an allowance, that means we have a father) and pay for it dearly; much more than its economic, security and diplomatic benefit.

One thing must be clear. Israel and America do share many common values. (Israel is, far and away, the only democracy in the Middle East) It is important to strengthen them on a mutual basis. But we do not receive any aid for being ‘nice guys’. Israel receives US  ‘aid’ regardless of how many Gazans were killed. We receive the  ‘aid’  because it is in the economic, security and diplomatic interest of the US. When Israel is strong (1967) it is worth America’s while to invest in us. When we retreat (since 1979), the US invests in us less and less.



Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from an article By MATT RIDLEY

Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2014

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the UN declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The UN no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David White house of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. White house was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article,  climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out at the 95% levelzero trends for intervals of 15 yr. or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick,  a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Most science journalists, strongly biased in favor of reporting alarming predictions, rather than neutral facts, chose to ignore the pause until very recently, when there were explanations available for it. Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.

The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.

Last month two scientists wrote in Science that they had instead found the explanation in natural fluctuations in currents in the Atlantic Ocean. For the last 30 years of the twentieth20th century, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung suggested, these currents had been boosting the warming by bringing heat to the surface, then for the past 15 years the currents had been counteracting it by taking heat down deeper.

Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before. Let’s hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.

Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Rational Optimist” (HarperCollins, 2010) and a member of the British House of Lords.

(But,  who is most disappointed by this final moment of truth? Of course, Al Gore, who has made literally millions of dollars on his unconscionable scam and Barack Obama who has  made it his cause célèbre  along with John Kerry who has called it the most dangerous problem facing us in the 21st century!

Unfortunately, Obama has a much more sinister, destructive agenda. The foisting of global warming upon the US is just another way of bankrupting our economy demanding the development of inefficient and frequently doubly expensive energy sources like solar and windmills that in no way satisfy American energy  needs. Using this warming and contamination as an excuse, he has been killing our essential coal industry.

In the meantime, Russia, China, Germany and India are taking full advantage of his deliberate destruction creating energy, as cheaply as possible, using coal and rapidly narrowing the economic gap that has always existed with US industrial production. The supposed global warming and atmosphere contamination hysteria has made no impact upon their activity even when it had some dubious legitimacy.

Let us hope the American public, the Congress and the Supreme Court wake up to Obama/Kerry in time for us to regain our crucial positions of strength in the military and in the world’s economy)   jsk



Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

 Diaspora Jewry – Paying the Price for Gaza?

Review and Commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, commentator and author. Among her multiple academic honors, she was awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996. She is the author of, All Must Have Prizes, an acclaimed study of Britain’s educational and moral crisis. Her book Londonistan, describing the Muslim take over of London, was published in the US and UK in 2006 and immediately became a best seller. Her latest book is The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

Ms. Phillips began her discussion by advising the Israeli audience that it was a great privilege, a blessing to be addressing them here in Israel – despite the rockets, the constant tension and the surrounding enemies hell bent upon Israel’s destruction. Here Jews no longer have to be on their knees begging for mercy. Nor do they have to go begging someone else to defend them, which has been an exercise in degradation and futility. Instead, the Israelis are justifiably proud to defend themselves with perhaps the best army, pound per pound, in the whole world and to finally have their destiny in their own very capable hands. That is indeed, G-d’s blessing.

What the western world still fails to understand or appreciate is that Israel is the one defending them against barbarism and inhumanity from a monstrous enemy dedicated to destroying the Western world. The current Islamic Nation (ISIS) is no accident. The Muslims hope and pray this to be the beginning of their Grand Caliphate, their return to world domination. Unfortunately, they have in Barack Obama a better enabler and compatriot than they could have ever imagined.

Phillips spoke of current hate attacks agains Jews throughout the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the Netherlands, the rest of Europe and even Australia. The convenient issue used to trigger these attacks is Israel’s war in Gaza. Israel’s right to defend itself against thousands of rockets indiscriminately rained upon its civilian population is ignored or challenged and minimized. The world’s haters are enraged and chagrined that more Israeli lives are not lost and the fact that Israel is again overwhelmingly winning, with G-d’s great help, yet another war initiated by its mortal enemies.

These acts against Jewish citizens are just the usual sick, cowardly acts of obscene hatred against defenseless Jewish citizens at their places of business, synagogues, their rabbis and religiously garbed Jews. For some inexplicable reason local police and the involved governments have been deliberately lax in defending their Jews. Attacks against Jews in Britain have gone up 500%. Even on New York City’s East Side, a Jewish couple was attacked by hoodlums proudly carrying a Palestinian flag!

The source of all this is clear cut. The world is once again using its easiest fall guy to mask its own problems and failures. Just blame the Jew. Revive anti-Semitism, which is unfortunately, an absurdly simple ploy to use successfully.

What should we Jews and Israel do about all this? Should we use the age old Jewish ploy of hiding in the cellar, using our great powers of rationalization by pretending the haters don’t really mean it, the Cossacks are really not there and will surely soon go away or the government will protect us? Unfortunately, literally millions of dead Jews have proven that strategy dead wrong.

Despite this indisputable fact, Melanie Phillips accuses British Jewry of continuing this delusion. They are denying any relationship with or responsibility for Israel and again present the ridiculous pose that they are the “good Jews” and are really just another group of uninvolved British citizens. Are the American Jews that far behind?

According to Melanie Phillips, the latest attacks against the Jews revolves around three elements — separate but interconnected:

1. The Muslim problem – Muslims are greatly overrepresented in the current mindless hatred and the numerous physical attacks against the Jews —particularly on the streets. The Muslims are deliberately sending a strong threatening message to the non-Muslims of Britain, France, Europe and the rest of the world. They are attempting to intimidate people with fear and their raw exaggerated power — that they own the streets. They deliberately use extreme violence and are perfectly willing to employ suicidal attacks with total disregard of human life even that of their own wives, sons, daughters and certainly the rest of the population.

They also use the clever ploy of projection. They accuse the Jews and the Israelis of the very crimes they themselves are committing. It is an ancient inversion and projection bought into by an uninformed and already well prejudiced, indoctrinated West.

2. The British and Europeans are themselves complicit. Why do they believe and re-enforce with their populations the entire, patently false narrative against the Jews and Israel which presents them as the aggressors rather than the obvious victims of a Muslim culture whose only object is to destroy them? Of course, part of this acceptance of the Muslim narrative is age-old anti-Semitism going across party lines, Left and Right, without ever allowing the facts and truth to get in the way.

It is also possible that some governments need a cop out of their own to relieve themselves of their own responsibility for their bankrupt economies, unemployment, graft, prejudice, lawlessness, political incompetence and moral depravity?

In addition the Muslims and Western civilization haters deliberately portray Israel as an exploiting residual Western colonial power. The fact that of all peoples, the Jews are the most indigenous to their land dating for over 3000 years and predating the birth of Muhammed by some 2000 years, never reaches Western consciousness.

The only reason millions of Jews have not lived in Israel over all these centuries is that they were expelled by the Romans in 70 AD and have been kept from returning by all the forces of history. In the meantime, they have been used as the world’s primary victim with millions slaughtered in the Diaspora in which they have been frequently forced to live as a displaced and despised minority.

3. What about those of the Jewish Diaspora?

What has been the response of US and UK Jews to this outrageous attitude and action of Obama and the UK? Phillips is kind and says it is “deeply problematic.” UK Jews have spent most of their time, instead of vehemently protesting, hiding their heads under the bed proclaiming that they are British Jews that have no loyalty to Israel and should not be responsible for Israel’s reprehensible behavior in responding to thousands of missiles fired at their civilian population from Gaza. These ignoramuses have evidently not learned that Adolph Hitler and all the other anti-Semites of the world are not impressed by this convenient loss of Jewish identity.

Phillips then addresses Israel’s foreign relationships.

Israel has a genuine problem with its ostensible allies, the UK and US governments. Not surprisingly cooperation between Israel and their respective military and intelligence gathering people is at a high level of cooperation. Israel is respected as a valuable, irreplaceable source of skills and experience in dealing with Islamic terrorism. Israel is also the source of unique analytical hardware of great use to other nations to deal with this terrorism and this equipment is eagerly gobbled up along with Israel’s expertise.

At the same time, The UK and US governments publicly express great support and affection for Israel but simultaneously, militarily and politically, kick Israel in the head. Recently both the UK and Obama threatened Israel with withholding vital military supplies if Israel escalated its attack upon Hamas forces in Gaza and would punish Israel in other ways.

Even worse, it is no secret that both Obama and the UK would love to make a deal with Iran allowing them to continue their enrichment of uranium and the creation of a nuclear bomb that the Iranians have bragged for years they would use as soon as possible, to permanently eliminate the Jewish State.

Ms. Phillips speaks regretfully of the “sustained malice” of Barack Obama against Israel. She says he professes to have Israel’s back but it is his history that he, in fact, has a knife in Israel’s back. The Obama administration has repeatedly leaked out vital information to the Arabs undermining Israel’s security and any plans Israel may have to wage war against its dedicated enemies.

Obama/Kerry have insisted Israel make suicidal concessions to Mahmoud Abbas while they ignore Abbas’ failure to fulfill any of his or Hamas’s obligations under the many cease fire and previous long established agreements. Neither have the UK or American governments ever challenged Abbas and Palestinian Arab statements that they will never accept a Jewish State nor give up on their demand that the Israelis allow three generations of so-called PA refugees to emigrate to Israel. At the same time Obama continues to cozy up to Israel’s mortal enemies – Qatar, Iran and Turkey.

But, never mind Israel and the Jews. Will the US, the UK and the rest of the Europeans finally wake up to their own peril? Will they finally genuinely understand that Israel is their point man in the Middle East and their main bulwark against the Islamic Caliphate already declared and enlarging before our very eyes?

Have they not heard the Muslim cry that Israel is the little Satan to be eliminated and the US is the Great Satan to be eliminated next? Maybe that is finally sinking in. The Islamic State with its beheadings, flagrant deliberate killings of Christians and other minorities and killing of non-conforming Sunnis and all Shiites may wake them up?

Finally, it is the UK, US, and European oxen that are being gored. What happens next is conjectural but with Barack Obama in the mix, I don’t like our chances.

By Jerome S. Kaufman, Publisher/Editor Israel Commentary



Twitter: @israelcomment











Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Newsletter

Netanyahu: There is a realignment of forces in the Middle East based on the common concern with the dangers posed by radical Islamic terrorists. I’d like to translate this understanding into cooperation and peace between Israel and our Palestinian neighbors.

Upon the establishment of the ceasefire, I can say that there is a major military achievement here, as well as a major diplomatic achievement for the State of Israel. Hamas was hit hard and it did not receive even a single one of the conditions that it set for a ceasefire, not even one. As Prime Minister of Israel, I hold the supreme responsibility for the security of Israel’s citizens and this is what guided my colleagues – Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon and IDF Chief-of-Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz – and I during each stage of Operation Protective Edge. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the cooperation and the joint work for the security of Israel’s citizens.

From the first moment we set a clear goal: The goal was to strike hard at Hamas and the terrorist organizations and in so doing bring prolonged quiet to all Israeli citizens. I can say that Hamas was indeed hit very hard. First of all, we destroyed the network of attack tunnels that it built over the years. I would like to make it clear that we introduced the ground force for this goal. When the mission was completed, when the IDF reported to us that this mission had been completed, we pulled the force back in order to deny Hamas the possibility of killing our soldiers or abducting them, goals that it very much aspired to.

We continued to attack from the air. Approximately 1,000 terrorists were killed, including senior terrorists, very senior terrorists from among its top command. We destroyed thousands of rockets, rocket launchers, rocket production facilities and other weapons, arsenals, command and control positions, hundreds of command positions, hundreds. We also foiled, of course, attempts by Hamas to attack us by land, sea and air. Above all, thanks to Iron Dome, we foiled hundreds of attempts by Hamas to kill very many Israeli civilians. This was achieved, inter alia, thanks to a decision I made as Prime Minister, in my previous term, to equip the State of Israel with thousands of interceptors which, of course, blocked the murderous aerial assault by Hamas and the other terrorist organizations.

The blow that Hamas has now taken is unprecedented since it was founded, a very hard blow. I must say that it also took a diplomatic hit. See, Hamas set conditions at the outset for a ceasefire. We accepted the Egyptian initiative for a ceasefire, already in the first days, unconditionally and without time constraints whereas Hamas set conditions. It demanded a seaport – it did not get one. It demanded an airport, it did not get one. It demanded the release of the Shalit prisoners, those who were released in the Shalit deal whom we returned to prison following the murder of the three youths, it did not get this. It demanded Qatari mediation, it did not get it. It demanded Turkish mediation, it did not get it. It did not receive any condition. It demanded further conditions. It demanded the rehabilitation of the institutions that we dissolved in Judea and Samaria, it did not get this. It demanded salaries and money from us, it didn’t get them. I t did not receive any of the conditions that it set.

We agreed at the outset to one thing – to carry out the humanitarian rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip, with supervisory mechanisms and oversight abilities in our hands. This is in order to prevent the entry of weapons or materials that could be used to produce weapons. We have always agreed to this but we did not agree to accept any of Hamas’s conditions and the fact is that this ceasefire was achieved without the conditions that it set.

II Frustration Grows in Israel Over Outcome of Gaza Conflict

Redacted from article By JOSHUA MITNICK
Wall Street Journal  Aug. 30, 2014

TEL AVIV—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces frustration over how the conflict with Hamas is winding down — both from the Israeli public and from parties that wanted harsher action against Gaza’s Islamist rulers.

Two political parties that take a harder line on Palestinians than Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud faction saw an upswing in support in a new poll published Friday in the Israeli daily Maariv. The survey also found 58% of Israeli Jews believe it was a mistake for the government to accept an open-ended cease-fire with Hamas this week, while 61% don’t think the prime minister achieved his goal of prolonged quiet.

“I think that there is a general atmosphere of disappointment after 50 days of war, 72 victims, billions of shekels lost, we are back at square one,” said Likud parliament member Danny Danon, a leading critic who Mr. Netanyahu fired as deputy defense minister early on in the conflict. “You cannot ignore the fact that it’s problematic.”

Mr. Danon has called for a meeting of Likud’s central committee within two weeks to discuss the results of the Gaza conflict and he predicted that the prime minister will face stiff criticism over his handling of it.

Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition, formed after elections in 2013, has always been potentially unstable because of ideological disputes between the main partners.

But the rising criticism from right-wing allies within the government could force the prime minister into calling early elections that may produce a government with an even tougher line against concessions to the Palestinians. It could also lead him to break up the current coalition in favor of another combination of parties.

Sam Lehman-Wilzig, a political-science professor at Bar Ilan University in Israel, said Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to pull troops out of Gaza after a ground offensive has highlighted how much of his party is more hawkish than he is.

Mr. Netanyahu declared in a news conference on Wednesday that Israel had delivered a crushing blow to Hamas in the offensive dubbed “Operation Protective Edge” and that Hamas got no concessions. He said calls by rival politicians to reoccupy Gaza for an all-out defeat of Hamas were “populist” and “unrealistic,” adding that eviscerating the group is “very difficult.”

Hard-line Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman cautioned in a Facebook post on the same day as Mr. Netanyahu’s news conference that upcoming cease-fire talks wouldn’t boost Israeli security because “it’s impossible to reach an arrangement with Hamas.” Mr. Lieberman, another critic of Mr. Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict, was one of those who called for a re-occupation of Gaza.

“I think Netanyahu needs a protective edge internally with the rest of his party,” Mr. Lehman-Wilzig said. “More and more people are realizing he’s out of sync with views on national security.”

The poll commissioned by Maariv showed rising popular support for two parties more hawkish than Likud based on a gauge of how many seats the those parties would get in the 120-member parliament if new elections were held now.

One of them was Jewish Home, the pro-settler party of Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, who was another frequent critic of Mr. Netanyahu during the war. It got 18 seats, up from the 12 it actually received in the last election. Yisrael Beiteinu, headed by Mr. Lieberman, got 17, up from 11. Likud also gained, up to 32 from 20 in the poll conducted on Wednesday night after Mr. Netanyahu spoke.

Another poll published Thursday in the Haaretz daily found a similar rise in support for Mr. Bennet’s party but no gains for Mr. Lieberman’s party. That poll indicated that the public considers the Israel-Hamas conflict a draw and showed declining public approval of Mr. Netanyahu. His approval rating fell to 50% from 77% in a poll on Aug. 5, at the height of Israel’s ground offensive in Gaza. The poll surveyed 464 Israelis on Aug. 27 and had a margin of error of 4.64%.

“If they start shooting in six months, I would say Netanyahu is dead meat, said Mr. Lehman-Wilzig.



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Despite this despicable Anti-American cast, Gov. Snyder is  naive enough to believe this gathering is not for the benefit of Hamas! I had honestly thought this news item a plant by Democrats to discredit Snyder in his election campaign. Not so.  I just spoke to his office and told the Governor is well aware of the organization and happy to be a speaker!

Jimmy Carter to Headline Fundraiser for Hamas Front Group

By John Blosser

Thursday, 28 Aug 2014 01:51 PM

Former President Jimmy Carter will headline a fundraising convention for Hamas, a group which has been recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. (And the US)

Breitbart News reports that Carter, 89, long known as a supporter of Hamas in its struggle with Israel, will be welcomed this weekend to the Detroit event by members of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), implicated by the Justice Department in a scheme to funnel $12 million to Hamas.

Expected to speak at the meeting at Cobo Hall are unindicted co-conspirators Jamal Badawi, named in 2007 in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, and Siraj Wahhaj, listed for his involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the US, and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim member of Congress, also will speak.

Carter’s involvement may be in violation of the law, US Code 2339B, Section 18, which makes it a crime for any US citizen to provide material support to any group designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz stressed that Carter’s actions, in raising funds for the ISNA, place him “very close, if not across the line,” of criminal behavior.

In a recent article in Foreign Policy, Carter accused Israel of “war crimes” and wrote that in order to end the Israel/Hamas conflict, Hamas must be recognized as a “legitimate political actor” in the Middle East.

“There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war. Israeli bombs, missiles, and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals. More than 250,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinian noncombatants have been killed. Much of Gaza has lost access to water and electricity completely. This is a humanitarian catastrophe.”

“There is never an excuse for deliberate attacks on civilians in conflict. These are war crimes,” Carter wrote.

“The United States and EU should recognize that Hamas is not just a military but also a political force. Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor — one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people — can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons.”

Carter’s position on Israel also is bringing political trouble to his grandson, Democrat Jason Carter, in his effort to unseat Georgia Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, while Georgia Republican Senate candidate David Perdue told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he was “offended” by Carter’s comments.

“I have been on the front page of the paper talking about the ways in which I disagree with my grandfather. I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself, especially against Hamas’ terrorist actions,” Jason Carter said.

Register your disgust with Governor Snyder’s office: 1-517-335-7858



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments