How Al Sharpton Abandoned Africa’s Slaves

By Charles Jacobs

American Thinker

August 17, 2019

The eminent African-American economist Glenn Loury recently wondered in the New York Times why leading Democrats would defend Al Sharpton, a man who is a blatant anti-Semite, an anti-white racist and to many, a simple con man. 

www.israel-commentary.org

Joe Biden calls him “a champion in the fight for civil rights.” Elizabeth Warren says “he has dedicated his life to the fight for justice for all,” and Kamala Harris lauds him as a man who “has spent his life fighting for what’s right.” Records show that President Obama had Sharpton visit his White House 118 times.

This, after Sharpton’s many outrages: the Tawana Brawley rape hoax of 1987, the anti-Jewish Crown Heights riots of 1991, and the firebombing of a Jewish-owned Harlem fashion boutique in 1995.

Loury suggests that any one of these things should have disqualified Sharpton from national platforms, along with any praise by Democratic Party leaders. But there’s something else, something no less repugnant, and perhaps even more shocking, that should obliterate once and for all the perception of Al Sharpton as a tough guy who never buckles when it comes to defending his race.

Al Sharpton is betraying black people currently enslaved in Africa. He went there. He spoke to them. He promised the slaves he met that he would awaken American blacks to their plight, but then he abandoned them. He abandoned them, I believe, because they are enslaved by Arab Muslims.   

A review of just how this came about should be instructive.

In 2001, as Sharpton contemplated a run for president in the 2004 election, he made a trip to Sudan to verify reports of the ongoing enslavement of Christian blacks there by Arab Muslims.  Reports were emerging of Arabs from northern Sudan raiding black Christian villages in the south of Africa’s then-largest country, killing the men and enslaving the women and children. 

(Full disclosure: At the time, I headed a movement to educate the public about modern-day slavery. We worked with the human rights organization Christian Solidarity International, which over the years redeemed tens of thousands of slaves in Sudan who were returned to their villages.)

To be fair, Sharpton’s 2001 trip to Sudan required courage. He flew with CSI leaders into a war zone on one of CSI’s regular slave redemption missions to see and talk to the slaves. The mission was protected by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), a black militia defending southern villages against an onslaught that had over the years killed millions and enslaved tens of thousands, an onslaught that the Islamist rulers in Khartoum designated a jihad. 

Sharpton was appalled. He said it was “outrageous that no nationally known civil rights group has gone over to Africa to criticize what is happening there.” He met with slave women, who showed him their scars from being beaten and raped. One asked him if the world knew of her people’s suffering; Sharpton replied, “They don’t know now, but they will soon.”

There was speculation that Sharpton not only used this trip to launch his presidential campaign, but also to climb to the top ranks of black American leadership. Indeed, he took a subtle shot at Jesse Jackson, who had been silent about slavery in Sudan for years.

When Sharpton returned from Sudan he met with senior members of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Farrakhan had been vigorously denying that Arabs were enslaving blacks. His mission is to convince American blacks that Islam is the path to authentic freedom; it would be damaged by living and breathing proof that blacks are enslaved and slaughtered in African countries like Sudan where Islam dominates. 

Equally damaging for Farrakhan is the case of Mauritania, where black Muslims, who had been converted to Islam centuries ago, are nevertheless enslaved by Muslim Arab-Berbers.

Indeed, the mounting reports of Arab Muslims owning, breeding, and torturing black Muslims with impunity may have pushed Farrakhan into an unforced error: As reported by the New York Times, when he was cornered at a televised press conference and pressed by a reporter about his silence on the current enslavement of blacks, Louis Farrakhan grew visibly angry and challenged the gathered reporters. “If slavery exists,” he shouted, “why don’t you go, as a member of the press? And you look inside of the Sudan, and if you find it, then you come back, and tell the American people what you have found!” 

The editors of the Baltimore Sun took him up on his challenge and sent two reporters to Sudan, where the reporters personally purchased the freedom of two black Christian slave boys. Three months later, the Sun published a Pulitzer Prize-nominated account of their trip. 

Clarence Page, the Chicago Tribune’s black editorialist, who had written about a billion-dollar “loan” to Farrakhan by Libyan dictator Qaddafi for purposes of fomenting a revolt among black soldiers in the U.S. armed forces, now taunted Farrakhan to respond to the Sun report. But the leader of the Nation of Islam fell silent.

One can imagine Sharpton, upon his return from the slave liberation trip in Sudan, being read the riot act by the Farrakhaners: “You want to divide the black community?!” In any event, Sharpton reneged on his promise to the freed slave woman that he would make sure black Americans learned about the plight of her people.  

In 2017, after ignoring Africa’s slaves for many years, Sharpton returned to the issue. The occasion was a CNN report on Arabs in Libya capturing and selling Africans as slaves which featured a video of an auction where a man was sold for $400. This raised eyebrows in the black community, and Sharpton announced his decision to lead a delegation of black clergy to Libya to learn more about the slave trade there. 

For whatever reason, Sharpton never actually went to Libya, but he did meet with Libya’s U.N. ambassador Elmahdi Elmajerbi to discuss the problem — and made sure to get the photo-op. Just as with his trip to Sudan, however, Sharpton’s ire quickly faded and once again the slaves went down the memory hole.

Today, in five Arab and Muslim African countries — Sudan, Mauritania, Libya, Nigeria, and Algeria — blacks are enslaved. These are known realities, easily documented.

Sharpton and Farrakhan have ignored or denied the current-day plight of black people who are taken as slaves  They do so for two primary reasons; first, so as not to denigrate Islam, and secondly, to keep “America’s racism” a singular and unique focus, the benefits of which would be lost to them if blacks here knew that today, sadly, in some parts of the Islamic world, African men, women, and children are still in bondage, captured, bought, and sold as chattel.

Al Sharpton had the chance to marshal the power of America’s black community to help free today’s slaves. That black power, political and moral, has been won with courage, persistence, and volumes of blood. It is evoked in the example of Harriet Tubman, a runaway slave who went back into the South to bring more of her people to freedom. She explained, “I have heard their groans and seen their tears, and I would give every drop of blood in my veins to free them.”

Al Sharpton heard the groans of enslaved black Africans, saw their tears, and then, seeing the way the wind was blowing, ran away.

Charles Jacobs is president of the American Anti-Slavery Group.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Al Sharpton, The Darling Of Democrats and their Presidential Candidates

We were dismayed but not surprised by the reactions of several Democratic presidential aspirants to President Trump’s critical remarks about Rev. Al Sharpton.

Sharpton had announced he would hold a press conference in Baltimore “to address Trump’s remarks & bi-partisan outrage in the black community” over the president’s description of Baltimore as a rat-infested, poverty-stricken area and of Congressman Elijah Cummings, its representative in Congress who is black, as negligent in not making sure it had the resources it needed. 

The president’s remarks had followed Cummings’s berating of the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security during a hearing regarding the way migrant children were being treated at the U.S.-Mexico border.

So, in response to the Sharpton announcement, Trump said he knew Sharpton for 25 years and that “Al is a con man, a troublemaker, always looking for a score.”

Of course we in New York are familiar with Sharpton and the persistent “racial arson” allegations against him and completely concur in Trump’s remarks – except hat we would go even further.

Sharpton first emerged on the public scene in the infamous 1987 Tawana Brawley affair in which he claimed that a black teenager had been abducted by a white gang, including a local assistant district attorney, Steven Pagones. A grand jury cleared Pagones and also found that the alleged incident never happened.

In 1991 he defended a New York City college professor who had slammed “rich Jews” for financing the slave trade and manipulating Hollywood in an effort to maintain “a system of destruction of black people.” In the midst of the ensuing controversy Sharpton announced, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkas back and come over to my house.”

In the 1991 Crown Heights tragedy, a Jewish driver accidentally ran over a 7-year-old African American, Gavin Cato. During the anti-Semitic riots that broke out, Sharpton reportedly led marches which featured chants of “Kill the Jews.” Of course, the riots culminated in the stabbing death of Yankel Rosenbaum. At the funeral for Cato, Sharpton made snide references to the presence of “diamond merchants” in Crown Heights.

In 1995, Sharpton got involved in a dispute in Harlem which pitted a Jewish tenant, who ran Freddy’s Fashion Mart, against his black subtenant, who ran a record store. Sharpton went on radio and declared, “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street. Sharpton’s assistant said, “This street will burn. We are going to see to it that this cracker suffers.”

Sharpton’s National Action Network then led protestors in front of Freddy’s Mart, referring to Jews as “bloodsuckers” and threatening “to burn and loot the Jews.” After two months of this sort of thing, one of the demonstrators rushed into the store and burned it to the ground, killing seven people and shooting himself.

Yet this is how New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s responded to Trump calling out Sharpton: “I’ve known…[Sharpton] for decades and Trump’s characterization is not only disrespectful, it’s untrue. While [Sharpton] was pushing for justice in the teaching of Dr. King, Trump was calling for the execution of five innocent black boys [in the Central Park jogger case].”

(It should be noted that when the Central Park case was scheduled to go to trial in 1989, then private citizen Donald Trump took out full-page ads calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York. He didn’t quite call for the execution of the five accused men. They had confessed to the attack on the jogger, but their convictions were later overturned when someone else confessed to the crime.)

For de Blasio, it seems, none of Sharpton’s antics is of any consideration. Indeed, since the Trump ad was placed in 1989, the mayor’s “decades” long period had to include the Crown Heights and Freddy’s Mart tragedies. This from the mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel is breathtaking.

Of course, de Blasio is not a serious player in Democratic presidential politics. But here are similar reactions from three, who at the time of this writing are:

Joe Biden called Sharpton “a champion in the fight for civil rights. The fact that President Trump continues to use the power of the presidency to unleash racist attacks on the people he serves is despicable.”

Elizabeth Warren said, “Rev. Sharpton has dedicated his life to the fight for justice for all. No amount of racist tweets from the man in the White House will erase that – and we must not let them divide us. I stand with my friend Al Sharpton in calling out these ongoing attacks on people of color. “

Kamala Harris chimed in with, “Rev. Sharpton has spent his life fighting for what’s right and working to improve our nation, even in the face of hate. It’s shameful, yet unsurprising that Trump would continue to attack those who have done so much of our country.”

Of course, lest we forget:  Al Sharpton was Barack Obama’s right hand man to the Black community and had more White House visits than any other leader or politician.

Democrats are not only  pandering to Sharpton but perpetrating the worst sort or Trump Derangement Syndrome running amok. Probably both. Come election time, readers are urged to remember who are our real friends.

www.israel-commentary.org

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

All you need to know about the Jews while standing on one foot.

This Shabbat we began the study of Deuteronomy (D’varim) – The Fifth Book of the Hebrew Bible (The Five Books of Moses)

From: ETZ HAYIM  Torah and Commentary

The Rabbinical Assembly, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism 

Parsha 1 – D’varim

Edited from the introduction by Jeffrey Tigay                                                                 

   …The book’s core is the second  discourse, in which Moses conveys laws that the people commissioned him to receive from God at Mount Sinai 40 years earlier.

Several themes in Deuteronomy stand out. Among the Torah’s books, it is the most vigorous and clear advocate of monotheism and of the ardent, exclusive loyalty that Israel owes God. It emphasizes God’s love justice and transcendence. He is near to Israel but in a spiritual not a physical sense. Only God’s name , not God himself. dwells in the sanctuary.

This book stresses the covenant between God and Israel,  summed up in 26:I619. Established with the patriarchs, affirmed at Sinai and in Moab, it is to be re-affirmed as soon as Israel enters its land (4:3l, S:2,28:69,27).   

Deuteronomy Iooks toward Israel’s life in the Land of Israel where a society pursuing justice and righteousness, living in harmony with God  and enjoying His bounty, can be established. (4:5-8, 7:12-13). 

The promise of this land is  conditional. Israel’s welfare depends on maintaining a society governed  by God’s social and religious law. These laws are a divine gift to Israel unparalleled in their  justice and their ability to secure God’s closeness. (4:5-8).

The Torah’s humanitarianism is most developed in Deuteronomy’s concern for the welfare of the poor and disadvantaged.  Deuteronomy proclaims the unique rule that sacrifice may take place only in the religious capital, in a single sanctuary. (chap. 12). 

Its aim is to spiritualize religion by freeing it from excessive dependence on sacrifice and priesthood. It urges instead God’s studying law and performing rituals that teach reverent love for Him. These teachings probably laid the groundwork for non-sacrificial, synagogue-based worship.     

Deuteronomy has a strong intellectual orientation. It urges all Israelites to study God’s laws.  Its style is didactic and sermonic, explaining  the meaning of events and the purpose of laws, to secure Israel’s willing, understanding assent.   

Deuteronomy strongly influenced later Jewish tradition. The core of Jewish worship is the recitation of the Sh’ma (6:4) and the public reading of the Torah. Also based on Deuteronomy are the duty of blessing God after meal,  Kiddush on Shabbat, affixing mezuzas to doorposts,  wearing tefillin and tzizzit and charity to the  poor (e.g., If:8). 

Deuteronomy is the source of the concept that religious life should be based on a sacred book and its study. As the biblical  book that deals most with beliefs and attitudes, it plays a major role in Jewish theology. 

In the theological-ethical introduction of  his digest of Jewish law, the Mishnei Torah, Maimonides cites Deuteronomy more than any other book, starting with the command to believe in God and Him alone.   

Deuteronomy’s effect on Jewish life cannot be overstated.   No idea has shaped Jewish history more than monotheism, which this book  asserts so passionately. And no verse has shaped Jewish consciousness and identity more than Deuteronomy’s classic expression of that idea – the Shema prayer.                                                             

 

Jeffrey Howard Tigay (born December 25, 1941) is a modern biblical scholar who is best known for the study of Deuteronomy and in his contributions to the Deuteronomy volume of the JPS Torah Commentary (1996). Educated at Columbia University and gaining his B.A. in 1963, he continued toward rabbinic ordination at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (M.H.L., 1966). He earned his Ph.D. in Comparative Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies from Yale University.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

By the personal haters National Security Advisor John Bolton attracts, he must be one super military advisor for our side!

John Bolton’s Wars

By William McGurn

The Wall Street Journal  Aug. 6, 2019

What do the Iranian regime, the New York Times and Sen. Rand Paul have in common?

www.israel-commentary.org

(By the haters National Security Advisor John Bolton has attracted – Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, the New York Times and Senator Rand Paul– John Bolton must be one super military advisor for our side!)

“I believe Mr. Trump does not seek war. But Mr. Bolton and Netanyahu have always sought war.” Thus spoke Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, at a Monday press conference in Tehran. 

It’s not the first time Mr. Zarif has tried to drive a wedge between President Trump and his national security adviser, John Bolton—or between the president and his most steadfast international ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  But for Mr. Bolton, Mr. Zarif implies, we could have peace in the Middle East tomorrow.

Iran’s foreign minister has plenty of support for his argument. Scarcely a week goes by without some article warning the president that Mr. Bolton is leading him to war. The same folks who pound the president for being soft on the world’s worst thugs then oddly side with the thugs against the White House official who takes them on.

There can be no doubting Mr. Bolton’s unpopularity in Dictatorsville. The North Koreans blame Mr. Bolton (along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) for the “atmosphere of hostility and mistrust” that fouled the Hanoi summit in February. 

In Moscow last year, Vladimir Putin asked Mr. Bolton whether he’d removed the olive branches on the American seal.

Venezuela’s besieged dictator, Nicolás Maduro, charges Mr. Bolton with trying to have him assassinated. Cuba’s foreign minister calls Mr. Bolton a “pathological liar” for accusing the Communist island of fomenting revolution in South America. 

China denounces him for slander for saying Beijing’s behavior toward its Southeast Asian neighbors threatens peace. Along with the New York Times and the Rand Paul/Pat Buchanan axis of the Republican Party, the dictators would all love to see Mr. Bolton run out of the West Wing.

But if war isn’t what’s guiding Mr. Bolton, what is? At bottom it’s the conviction that diplomacy and multilateral organizations are fine—as long as they serve American interests. In the Bolton version, America First means the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over the U.N. Charter.

For all the talk about Mr. Bolton’s wish to go to war with Iran, the actual policy has been more limited: pulling out of a bad nuclear deal, applying economic sanctions, isolating Tehran diplomatically, designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and, more recently, building a coalition to protect oil tankers in the Persian Gulf from Iranian aggression. 

One way of interpreting Mr. Zarif’s increasing complaints is as an admission that Iran’s regime is feeling the pinch—and that it longs for the days when it was dealing with the malleable (read – “stupid” ) John Kerry.

Ditto for North Korea. Before joining the administration, Mr. Bolton wrote a piece on these pages called “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First,” so naturally his critics assume that’s the game plan. But again the actual policy has been maximum pressure short of war, along with summits. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Trump’s skepticism about using massive military force, moreover, surely he would side with Mr. Bolton over Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced a no-first-use nuclear policy during the last Democratic debate. In practice this would entail a willingness to sacrifice Los Angeles or Chicago to a nuclear strike before responding in kind.

It’s true that the Trump-Bolton relationship has its bumps. A recent Axios profile relayed an anecdote from the Irish prime minister’s St. Patrick’s Day visit to the Oval Office. “John,” Mr. Trump asked his national security adviser, “is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”

But the article didn’t report Mr. Bolton’s rejoinder, which suggests a healthy give and take: “It’s still early in the day, Mr. President.”

Plainly Mr. Bolton is aware that he’s more hawkish than his president. But plainly, too, Mr. Trump finds his national security chief useful. One reason might be that—unlike so many others, even within the Trump administration—Mr. Bolton knows who makes the decisions and doesn’t regard the president as stupid.

In making his case to his boss, Mr. Bolton emphasizes both U.S. interests and Mr. Trump’s instincts. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

pastedGraphic.pngBut the idea that a warmonger is leading an unsuspecting president around by the nose is ridiculous. Mr. Trump was elected on a platform that rejected both what he called the “endless wars” of the George W. Bush era and the pusillanimity of the Obama years. Could it be the president appreciates having around him a national security adviser who puts the fear of God into America’s enemies?

Meanwhile the critics carp, from the right as well as left. “I fear that he’s a malignancy, a malignant influence on the administration,” said Sen. Rand Paul, speaking for the right-wing claque of those who regard Mr. Bolton as a warmonger. While over on the left the New York Times publishes pieces such as “Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.”

Which is pretty much the same complaint from the autocrats in Caracas, Moscow and Tehran (and all of the above).

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:

jkaufman253469@icloud.com  

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

The Exemplary Life of Muhammad, the Prophet

Affirming the article present below:

II  Courageous Brigette Gabriel presents 1400 years of Islam,  Religion of Peace, in 15 minutes – A fearless wake-up call to those who prefer denial

Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Born in Mecca (now within current Saudi Arabia) in 570 CE.  Most of his early life was spent as a merchant. At age 40, he began to have revelations from Allah that became the basis for the Koran and the foundation of Islam.

(He was originally not accepted as a prophet by the Arabs of Mecca and elected therefore to move to Medina which was populated by Jews and hopefully gain acceptance by them of his revelations. They did not accept him as a prophet. He then created a Treaty of Hudaybijjah with the Jews that was to have lasted 10 years. After only 2 years, Muhammad felt strong enough to defeat the Jews, abrogated the Treaty and slaughtered the Jews of Medina. 

You may remember the famous photo-op handshake on the White House lawn, Sep 13, 1993 between Yasir Arafat and Yitschak Rabin with Bill Clinton as witness. This was supposed to have been the beginning of a mutually acceptable peace process. Within hours, Yasir Arafat secretly advised his followers not to be concerned and told them, remember the Treaty of Hudaybijjah, mentioned above, wherein Muhammed killed all the Jews after two years.

This slaughter was quickly followed by Muhammed’s return in triumph to Mecca and the beginning if his reign of terror and conquest  that continued until his death in 632.  By 630 he had unified most of Arabia under a single religion – his. He died in 632 CE

His followers were amazingly successful in their ongoing conquests that continue in one form or another to this very day. As of 2015, there are over 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who profess, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”  “Allah Akbar” remains  the universal battle cry the Islamic terrorists declare right before killing themselves and as many non-believers as possible. The Arab leaders seem to by-pass this particular part of the ceremonies.) jsk

A few examples of the peaceful nature of Muhammed’s conquests include the following:

Tortured & killed unbelievers – beginning in 628 AD

1. To find the treasure hidden by the Jewish Banu an- Nadir tribe, Muhammad personally ordered the torture of three Jews: Saʼyah ibn-ʻAmr (The Origins of the Islamic State, p. 43), Kinanah bin al-Rabi (The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 515), and Ibn Abi l- Huqayq (The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al- Maghazi, p. 331). Muhammad then personally ordered the killing Ibn Abi. 

2. After a raid on the settlement of Wadi al- Qura about 100 miles from Medina in 628, Zaid (Muhammadʼs adoptive son) by Muhammadʼs authority ordered that a “very old woman” Umm Qirfa be tied by her legs between two camels and ripped in two. (The Life of Muhammad, page 665) 

When Muhammad raided the Jewish town of Khaybar in 629, their treasure had been hidden. To extract its location, Muhammad ordered that a fire be kindled on the chest of the leader, Kinana bin al-Rabi. When he was nearly dead, Muhammad delivered the man to a fellow-raider who beheaded him. (The Life of Muhammad, page 515). 

What is Islam? 

Islam is defined by the holy texts of its religion – not by the beliefs, actions or virtues of a Muslim. 

Muhammad is Islam – Islam is Muhammad The importance of Muhammadʼs example in Islam cannot be over-stated. The Quran establishes in Surah 33:21, “There is a good example in Allahʼs apostle [Muhammad] for those of you who look to Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah always.” Sharia Law insists that the moral scale of good and evil is NOT what reason considers good or bad, but rather what Muhammad indicated by what he did or what he forbade or permitted. (Reliance of the Traveler, paragraph a1.4)

This is further emphasized by a reliable Hadith, Bukhari Book 9, Number 391, “If I [Muhammad] forbid you to do something keep away from it. And if I order you to do something, then do it as much as you can. 

Muhammad, at about age 50, married Aisha in 620, when she was six years old, and he consummated their marriage in 623, when she was nine.  She remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). 

There are numerous authoritative reports in which Muhammad was personally involved in possessing, buying, selling, or giving away slaves: 

As we saw in the section dealing with slavery, Muhammad engaged in the slave trade and possessed slaves of his own. And after a Muslim victory, Muhammad was involved in distributing the captured non-Muslim women among his Muslim warriors, and taking some for himself. Islamic Doctrine is based on the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad. What did this Doctrine allow to happen to these non-Muslim women? 

Captured non-Muslim women then, and still today, fall under the category of those “whom your right hands possess.” Such a woman becomes a slave to her Muslim captor, has all previous marriages annulled (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13) and it then becomes “legal” for him to have intercourse with her. This is authorized by 4:24 of the Koran, which begins by stating: 

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you… 

Who is a Muslim? 

A Muslim is one who is obedient to the commands of Allah and examples of Muhammad. 

Beheaded 600 Jews in one day 

For twenty-five nights in March 627, the Muslims besieged a Jewish enclave within Medina until they surrendered. Some within the enclave had been accused of aiding Muhammadʼs enemies. In an act of collective punishment, Muhammad ordered all of the men – some 600 to 900 in total – beheaded and the women and children sold off as slaves. The entire clan was disseminated.  As it was later described: 

The Messenger of God [Muhammad] breakfasted at the market and gave instructions for a furrow to be dug there [in which to bury those to be killed]…The Messenger of God sat with the distinguished among his companions. He called for the men of the Banu Qurayza, and they came out at a leisurely pace, and their heads were cut off. 

It is generally accepted that Muhammad consummated marriages with eleven women during his life. During the time of his first marriage, he had only one wife, Khadija. During the last three years of his life, he had nine wives at one time. Here are a few of  his eleven wives: 

Khadija bint Khuwaylid b. Asad – Married to Muhammad in 595. Died in 619. 

Sawdah bint Zam’ah b. Qays – Married to Muhammad in 619 after Khadija’s death. 

Aisha bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq – Married to Muhammad in 620, when she was only six years old, and he consummated the marriage in 623, when she was nine. 

Hafsa bint ‘Umar b. al-Khattab – Married to Muhammad in March 625. 

And, this is only the beginning of the lurid tale of this “Perfect Man of Peace.”

From:  Jarvis Williams   * For a complete list of references 

http://perfectmantruth.com    The Perfect Man

CounterJihadCoalition.org

Article written in part and compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

www.israel-commentary.org

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Your savings quickly becoming worthless with new budget leading the charge

The direct result of another runaway government collapsing under the weight of the gimme people – uncontrolled immigration, no work, more pay, more unearned  benefits and Voila — national  bankruptcy.   jsk

Budget Deal a Win for Everyone Except Taxpayers

Redacted from an article by Bob Adelmann

23 July 2019

The budget “deal” cobbled together over the last couple of weeks is a win for every vested interest but one: the U.S. taxpayer. It provides proof about what can be accomplished, even by Congress, when the motivation is sufficiently strong.

That motivation was provided by a letter from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on July 12 that his “extraordinary measures” being employed since the debt ceiling was reached in early March were about to be “exhausted.” This move allowed him to conduct budget negotiations directly with Pelosi, sidelining Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney and resulting in a deal that was a win for nearly every vested interest in Washington.

First and foremost it solves the number one problem politicians face when they leave Washington for their six week “recess”: unhappy constituents quizzing them on big spending Washington. It gives President Trump a victory: more spending for the military and “his” vets.

It gives Pelosi and her Democrat counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, a win by increasing domestic spending by even more than that granted the military.

It gives a win for Mnuchin who is now free to borrow without limit the sums increasingly needed to pay Congress’ bills. It provides a chance for establishment politicians to claim improved “stability” without the threat of another government shutdown, while touting the kind of pragmatism and compromise that Washington is famous for but largely missing until now.

It also funds Planned Parenthood, provides nothing for Trump’s wall, fails to loosen budgetary constraints on the Border Patrol, and, best of all for big spending politicians, it finally and completely obliterates any remainder of the highly touted but rarely followed Budget Control Act of 2011 and its “sequester” caps. 

As House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) celebrated: “I am proud that this agreement ends the senseless austerity imposed by the Budget Control Act.” (‘Senseless’ — Huh?)

The deal includes extending the budget ceiling until June 2021, a convenient eight months after the November 2020 elections.

It increases government spending by nearly a third of a trillion dollars over the next two years, part of which goes to the military and part to domestic spending. 

As Pelosi and Schumer chortled, the deal “will enhance our national security and invest in middle class priorities that advance the health, financial security and well-being of the American people.”   (Who the F are they kidding?)

It predictably engages in phony bookkeeping maneuvers to show an attempt at cutting spending. The White House sought $150 billion in faux “cuts.” The deal provides supposed cuts of $77 billion by — ready? — extending cuts to Medicare beyond fiscal year 2027(!), and by “extending” fees being collected by Customs and Border Protection. That $77 billion in cuts is less than two percent of the government’s total budget and just one quarter of the increased spending provided in the agreement.

This is the same stunt engaged in by Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush. In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.

At present the federal government borrows a quarter of every dollar that it spends, with that percentage increasing in the next few years thanks to this budget deal and as boomers retire and interest rates increase.

The “deal” — humorously being called a “compromise” — is expected to be voted on and passed by Congress on Thursday, a day before the summer recess begins. 

When it is signed into law by the president it might, as Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, “end up being the worst budget agreement in our nation’s history, proposed at a time when our fiscal conditions are already precarious.”

Author Bob Adelmann is an Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:

jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

How Walt Disney, the German Nazis and the Arabs Exploited my Good Friend, Mickey Mouse

Walt Disney, Mickey Mouse, And The Nazis

Walter Disney (1901-66), a worldwide cultural icon, was an animator, film producer, and entrepreneur credited with pioneering the American animation industry. His films, which are beloved worldwide, include “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), “Pinocchio” (1940), “Fantasia” (1940), “Dumbo” (1941), “Bambi” (1942), “Cinderella” (1950), and “Mary Poppins” (1964). He was nominated for 59 Academy Awards, winning 29 – both enduring records.

Even half a century after his death, Walt Disney’s iconic images, stories, and characters continue to leave an indelible mark on culture, and the multimedia conglomerate he built remains a formidable giant in the entertainment industry. His amusement parks, which began with Disneyland in 1955 and now include Disney World, EPCOT, and many others overseas, draw millions of visitors each year. Disney’s TV shows – including “The Wonderful World of Color” and “The Mickey Mouse Club” – are still favorites amongst children around the world.

Considerable evidence exists to support the proposition that Walt Disney was an anti-Semite, although, as we shall see, the record is decidedly muddled and, Neal Gabler, Walt Disney’s personal biographer, vehemently denies the charge. It is sometimes difficult to isolate fact from fiction; for example, the allegation that Walt had a private meeting with Hitler and developed a relationship with him is sheer nonsense, but it is true that he went out of his way to meet Mussolini.

Even Gabler concedes that Walt “willingly, even enthusiastically, embraced [anti-Semites] and cast his fate with them,” and The Walt Disney Family Museum acknowledges, as it must, that Disney included ethnic stereotypes in some of his early cartoons.

When Walt visited Munich in 1935, Nazi newspapers warmly welcomed him as a hero who stood up to the Jews of Hollywood. (Interestingly, the Sleeping Beauty Castle that Walt later built at Disneyland closely resembles the Neuschwanstein Castle he saw in Bavaria during his trip.)

Walt never met with Hitler, but it is beyond dispute that the Fuhrer adored Disney’s work. Goebbels is said to have presented 12 Disney short films to Hitler as a Christmas present in 1937, which the latter treasured. Hitler was determined – and ordered Goebbels – to create a Nazi animation studio and production company that would rival Disney, but the result was Deutsche Zeichenfilm GmbH, which ultimately produced only a few Nazi propaganda cartoons.

In 1938, just a few weeks after Kristallnacht, Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s personal filmmaker and propagandist, came to the United States seeking an American studio to work with her. Famous – or infamous – for glorifying the Nazis, and best known for “Triumph of the Will” (1935), a revolting propaganda film that chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress at Nuremberg, she was boycotted by all Hollywood studio leaders, except one – Walt – who expressed admiration for her work and gave her a personal tour of his studio.

According to Riefenstahl, Walt ultimately turned down her offer to work with him because he was afraid that doing so would tarnish his reputation. Returning to Germany, she publicly thanked Walt for having received her, declaring that it was “gratifying” to “learn how thoroughly proper Americans distance themselves from the smear campaigns of the Jews.”

In an infamous “Three Little Pigs” cartoon (1933), part of Disney’s “Silly Symphonies” series, the Big Bad Wolf is drawn with a Der Sturmer-like exaggerated depiction of a Jewish nose, a long scraggly black beard, and a Jewish hat. Dressed like a Jewish peddler, the Wolf speaks with a thick Yiddish accent as he tries to cheat the homeowner pig. (Pigs, of course, metaphorically represent everything repulsive to Jews, although it’s unclear if the producers specifically intended viewers to make this association.)

In “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), the evil witch’s hooked nose, hunched bearing, and general demeanor of seduction are wholly evocative of the anti-Semite stereotype prevalent at the time. In “Pinocchio” (1940), the cunning puppet-master who manifests a total lack of any moral imperative and is interested only in amassing great wealth is the unambiguous incarnation of the Jewish skinflint.

In “The Opry House,” Mickey Mouse dresses up and performs a caricature of a dancing chassidic Jew, comparable to a blackface portrayal of African Americans. And, in “The Wayward Canary” (1932), Minnie Mouse, for some inexplicable reason, owns a cigarette lighter bearing a swastika.

Not surprisingly, Walt respected auto-industry tycoon Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite and union-buster who reciprocated his esteem and said he admired him for being “a successful self-made protestant in a field dominated by Jews.” Peter Bart, the editor of Variety, reported that when he once asked Walt a question, he responded, “Let me check that with my Jew.”

Walt was known to have actively supported many Jewish charities, including the Hebrew Orphan Asylum of the City of New York, Yeshiva College, the Jewish Home for the Aged, and even the American League for a Free Palestine (the “Bergson Group”). The Beverly Hills Chapter of B’nai B’rith also named him its Man of the Year in 1955.

However, this argument is weakened by reports that Walt is reputed to have claimed that he had been forced by “that Jew” – i.e., Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury – to use Mickey Mouse to support the American war effort. Other commentators note that “Der Fuehrer’s Face” may address the topic of a “Master Race” but conspicuously fails to mention Germany’s systemic anti-Semitism.

When Jewish animator Dave Swift announced that he had accepted a new position at Columbia Pictures, Walt responded in a fake Yiddish accent: “Okay, Davy Boy, go work for those Jews. It’s where you belong.” Moreover, when Disney artists tried to unionize in 1941 (they were ultimately successful after a brutal and prolonged battle), Walt tried to ruin the careers of the union organizers, most of whom were Jewish; he often insisted that the unions, which he despised, were run and controlled by “the Jews.”

Even the earliest Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as vermin and parasites. The narrator in the infamous anti-Semitic propaganda film “The Eternal Jew,” explains, “Just as the rat is the lowest of animals, the Jew is the lowest of human beings.” A German newspaper article from the 1930s establishing a link between Jewish vermin and Mickey Mouse could not be clearer.

That the Nazis viewed Mickey Mouse as Jewish is also evident in their banning of “The Barnyard Battle” (1929), a cartoon in which Mickey and his fellow mice defend their farm against German cats. The Germans considered the cartoon “offensive to national dignity” because Jewish vermin, unambiguously represented by Mickey and his fellow mice, had dared defend themselves against the German military, represented by cats wearing German military helmets.

Palestinian children also grow up watching Mickey Mouse, but on PA national television, a Mickey Mouse clone may wear an explosive belt, encourage children to become suicide bombers, and sing “Death to America and death to the Jews.” While carrying grenades and an AK-47, “Farfur” has urged children to return the Islamic community to greatness by liberating Jerusalem with the blood of Jews (who, in one episode, are shown beating Farfur to death to silence him).

Saul Jay Singer serves as senior legal ethics counsel with the District of Columbia Bar and is a collector of extraordinary original Judaica documents and letters. He welcomes comments at saul.singer@verizon.net.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:  jkaufman253469@icloud.com   Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

 

 

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Newt Gingrich sums up the Mueller Report

WHO WROTE THE MUELLER REPORT?

By Newt Gingrich

The biggest conclusion I reached after watching Robert Mueller in front of Congress was that he clearly did not have a detailed knowledge of the report issued in his name.

He failed to answer nearly 200 questions.

www.israel-commentary.org

He frequently was not familiar with citations from his own report.

On several key points, he contradicted his own report and his own letters to Attorney General Barr.

When he said he never asked his team their political views I believe him.

It also signals that the most charitable conclusion you could reach was that Mueller had come of age in an era of professional responsibility and did not realize he now lived in an era of harsh, even vicious, partisanship.

My first reaction to his assertion that he did not ask the political opinions of his staff was that it was laughable that he could randomly assemble a hard line anti-Trump group of Democratic prosecutors without a single pro-Trump Republican lawyer in the room.

However, the more I watched him, the more I came to the conclusion that he had been a figure head. The tough, younger Trump-hating Democrats had networked with each other and assembled a legal team dedicated to destroying Trump and protecting the Clintons.

Seen from this perspective, it is a tribute to President Trump that despite their best efforts these deeply hostile prosecutors simply could not find any evidence of serious wrongdoing. 

They could write innuendo — and huff and puff — but in the end the Trump wall of obeying the law withstood the best these smart, tough, widely-experienced Democratic prosecutors could do.

Wednesday’s stunningly inadequate performance by a widely respected career civil servant (my own tweet on his appointment had been entirely positive and it was only while watching the team he assembled that I grew hostile to his project) raises its own new questions.

If Mueller has been as out of touch with his report over the last two years as he was yesterday, then who was driving the team and who was writing the report?

It is clear Mueller does not know the details of his own report or of the two years of investigations behind the report.

Who then does know all those details?

Who masterminded putting Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for months?

Who made the decision to not look into the Steele Dossier, the company that paid for it, or the links to the Clinton campaign?

After yesterday’s disastrous performance by the so-called leader of the Mueller investigation and report, the attorney general should ask for a thorough internal review of how that system worked, who made the decisions, and how internally hostile to the president they were.

There was no Mueller Report. There was a report signed by Mueller, but it was really someone else’s work. This was the biggest lesson from Wednesday’s hearings.

The author: Newton Leroy Gingrich is an American politician, author, and historian who served as the 50th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. A member of the Republican Party, he was the U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 6th congressional district from 1979 until his resignation in 1999.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

https://mailchi.mp/gingrich360/who-wrote-the-mueller-report?e=cf42830463

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

US Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar — A Suggested Itinerary for Her Trip to Israel

Redacted from an article by Elaine Rosenberg Miller
Times of Israel, JUL 19, 2019

Here are some suggestions for her itinerary:

 

Perhaps she can visit a Gaza school and check out the marching five years olds with mock knives and guns. Or,  maybe not. Terrorists hide their rockets and ammunition within  schools and hospitals.

 

 

A day trip to Ramallah is a good idea. She might find out that residents there don’t actually want the Israelis to withdraw and leave them to fall under the control of despots, both domestic and foreign.

 

A tour of Islamic archaeological sites is in order.  Huh!  What archeology of what? What history?

 

And in the afternoon she can go to the 120 member  Israeli legislative body, the Knesset,  where 12 Arabs and 3 Druze are full  members representing their constituency.

 

She could visit the Israeli Supreme Court and see the Arab legislators and jurists.

 

(PS  How many Jews are found in the Legislative body and Supreme Court of the 21 Arab nations surrounding Israel? What Jews? What Legislative body? What Supreme Court? The Jews were all driven out upon the re-birth of the State of Israel in 1948,  penniless, all their wealth and possessions seized after centuries of living there as second class citizens (dhimmi). jsk 

 

Not too far away are the Israeli medical centers where medical personnel of all backgrounds work side by side treating patient of all backgrounds and she will find most of the people waiting in the queue for treatment are Arabs paid for by the Israeli government 

 

Moving on … visit:

 

Tel Aviv! New high rises, Israel as global leader of start-ups. She just missed Tel Aviv Pride Day where 250,000 participants marched down the avenues celebrating their human rights for which death is ordered by Muhammed.

 

What is a trip to the Israel if incomplete without a stop at the Western Wall, the remaining remnant of the ancient Hebrew Temple dating back 3000 years

 

She will incidentally  run into Nigerians, Koreans, Russians reverently praying at that Wall.

 

A call at an African embassy is in order. There she might learn about how Israel is the leader in smart water management including advanced water technology and desalination and how it exports the technology to developing nations, especially in Africa.

 

When she leaves Israel she will be flying near the Leviathan natural gas fields and may learn that by “conservative estimates  the fields contain enough natural gas to meet Israel’s domestic needs for 40 years”.

 

Luckily, she will not fly over war-devastated Syria or Lebanon.

 

It would be a buzz-kill.

 

(You don’t really expect her to report her trip with the facts above. Israel is, at the moment,  in a bind feeling obligated to allow an elected American Congressperson to visit, despite her declared enmity.  And… there is no question she will return to the US loaded with malicious lies and propaganda right out of the mouth of her hero, Mahmoud Abbas.)  jsk

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 

Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including JUDISCHE RUNDSCHAU, THE BANGALORE REVIEW, THE FORWARD, THE HUFFINGTON POST and THE JEWISH PRESS. Her book. FISHING IN THE INTERCOASTAL AND OTHER SHORT STORIES will be published by Adelaide Books in 2019.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:

jkaufman253469@icloud.com Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

P.S. Netanyahu could block visit by anti-Israel lawmakers Omar and Tlaib

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Do you know what “dark money” is.  This article should help

By:  Adam Shaw 

FOX NEWS                                                                                        

An expansive network of “shadowy” dark money donors has grown to rival the influence of the conservative  Koch brothers — pumping millions into left-wing causes ranging from health care to climate change to abortion — aIl while flying weIl under the radar of public scrutiny,  according to an explosive new report obtained by Fox News.

www.israel-commentary.org

The report, by conservative watchdog Capital Research Center, describes a band of nonprofits operating under the banner of Washington based philanthropy company Arabella Advisors. Those pop up groups are   housed in four Arabella controlled  “sister”  nonprofits, according to the report: the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund and Windward Fund.        

“Together, these groups form an interlocking network of dark money pop-up groups and other fiscally sponsored projects “all afloat in a half-billion-dollar ocean of cash,” the report says. “The real puppeteer, though, is Arabella Advisors, which has managed to conceal largely its role in coordinating so much of the professional Left’s  infrastructure under a mask of  ‘philanthropy’.    

The report says the “hydra-like” network brought in $l.6 billion between 20l3 and 20l7 “to advance the political policies desired by wealthy left-wing interests,” as the network’s revenues grew by 392 percent. The four Arabella-Controlled  “sister”  groups brought in $582 million in 2017 alone, according to the report. If the four groups were a single entity, it would make them the 22nd largest pubIic charity in America, with higher revenues than the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU),  Planned Parenthood or the Clinton Foundation. 

Arabella’s website says the company was founded to  “provide strategic guidance for effective philanthropy”  and is “dedicated to helping clients make a difference on the issues that matter to them – from climate to women and girls, education, good food and more.” All told, the company represents clients with collective assets totaling more than $100 billion dollars.

The report claims the group runs a network of “astroturf’  activities including as many as 340 “pop up”  groups — which the report says are often little more than websites created to give the appearance of grassroots  campaigns. It cites the organization’s activities pushing  back against Republican efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare as an example of its political activism.     

At a glance, these groups — such as Save My Care  and Protect Our Care — appeared to be impassioned examples of citizen activists defending ObamaCare,” the  report says ” in reality neither ‘not-for-profit’ advocacy group appears to have paid staff, held board meetings, or  even owned so much as a pen.”

 Consequently, the report says, the groups can be used to run “short-term, high intensity media campaigns  targeting the news cycle” such as the Kavanaugh during  confirmation hearing. The report gave the example of  activists, led by Demand Justice, waving glossy “Stop  Kavanaugh” signs in protest of the conservative nominee’s  confirmation.                                                 

Demand Justice, led by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon, is very active on judicial  issues — and is more than just a website. But the report  described the organization as part of the broader network, specifically “a front for the Sixteen Thirty Fund.”         

The Sixteen Thirty Fund, according to a July 20l8 Politico report, was described as “among the most prolific  political advertisers of 20l8 and aired 6,88f broadcast TV ads between January and July while $4.6 spending millions on TV alone,”  Politico cited the group as an example of the Left embracing the “dark money” tactics it long accused the right of weaponizing. 

Politico identified 12 groups set up through the  Sixteen Thirty Fund on health care alone. By serving  as those groups’ “fiscal sponsor,” Sixteen Thirty Fund  manages the money and aggregates their financial activities in its tax filings — making it hard to work out how much money was spent by the different groups and where.

The new report says liberal mega-donor George Soros’ Democracy Alliance, for instance, used the Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund to host several projects ‘that didn’t disclose their original funders.”     

The Capital Research Center report says that Atabella’s nonprofit network allows  it to mask the “pop up” groups nature, making them seem like the work of “grassroots” activists rather than what it calls “front groups for million-dollar non-profits.”          

Democrats and left-wing activists — including   Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — have been  increasingly vocal in their calls to clamp down and  regulate “‘dark money” in U.S. political activities. But dark money has had bipartisan beneficiaries    

A January report from Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group, shows that liberal groups spent over 1/2 million of dark money in the latest election.    Conservative groups spent a third of the figure, while nonpartisan groups spent just 15 percent percent.

The CapitaI Research Center report warns: “Before left-of-center activists and politicians demand Iaws to  increase transparency in the funding of campaigns and  public policy advocacy, they may first wish to consider  voluntarily disclosing their own funding sources.”   

Please donate to the Capital Research Center Online below or call directly 1-202-483-6900

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com 

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org    “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

How does Ehud Barak, who should be in jail, have the chutzpa to aspire to be Prime Minister of Israel?

Below  is an article to which I contributed May 12, 2012

Jerome S. Kaufman   

www.israelcommentary.org

Why is Ehud Barak still Defense Minister of Israel?

Redacted from article in Israel Matzav

May 30, 2012

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=3697

Recently I received an email from Zechariah Baumol’s yeshiva announcing an event marking 30 years since his ‘disappearance’ in the battle of Sultan Yaqub. That battle was commanded by none other than the current Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who is rumored to have gone to sleep while the battle was raging. Baumol is one of five soldiers from that battle whose fate was unknown for many years. He is one of three from that battle who are still missing.

Barak – along with Shimon Peres – is a politician about whom it can be said that he has been through everything and learned nothing. It was Barak who fled a training accident at Tzehilim, leaving IDF soldiers to die as he left in his helicopter. 

It was Barak that tried unsuccessfully to reach a deal with Yasser Arafat at Camp David twelve summers ago and got a violent intifada in return for his flexibility (i.e. giving away virtually all of Judea and Samaria and at least 1/2 of Jerusalem and Arafat turned him down). 

It was Barak who left an IDF soldier to die while he sought ‘permission’ from Yasser Arafat to rescue the soldier on Rosh HaShanna twelve years ago. 

It was Barak who continued to try to give away the store to Arafat, while that intifada raged, in a bid to save his seat as Prime Minister. 

And, it was Barak who, as Defense Minister, passed on the opportunity to finish off Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

(In addition, it was Barak who unilaterally withdrew from the Lebanese Security Zone in the dead of night surrendering territory essential to Israel’s defense and abandoning our loyal Lebanese Christian allies to their fate. Some of these Lebanese were granted asylum in Israel but were, in the end, so poorly treated that they rather return to Lebanon to face dire consequences as “traitors” to the Hezbullah regime in the South. 

Now the consequences of Barak’s cowardly withdrawal are complete. There has been a complete take over of Lebanon by Hizbullah and hundreds of thousands of missiles are aimed directly at Israel from the exact area abandoned by Barak.

It is also Ehud Barak who has promoted the dubious defensive weapon, Iron Dome. At the time the program was initiated I wrote that somehow it reminded me of the shtetl Jews of Russia that had no choice but to hide in their secret cellars beneath the kitchen floor of their shabby dwellings in the hope that the Cossacks did not find them, rape their women and kill any males and children found.

So, once again, due much to Barak, Israelis are hiding in their cellars waiting for the enemy to strike and hoping somehow the thousands of missiles directed at them will all be intercepted by Barak’s magic Iron Dome weapon, which, of course, test after test have proven they will not the 100% that is essential. 

But, this time inexcusably, the Jews with a far superior military force, instead of taking the offensive against a pitifully weak enemy and wiping off the face of the earth their capabilities to hurt Jews, the Jews are once again hiding in their cellars.) 

I suppose we should not therefore, be surprised that Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “If it turns out that it is not possible to reach an agreement, (which, of course, it is dead certain it is not) we need to consider an interim arrangement or alternatively a unilateral step,” Barak said at the conference. “Israel cannot permit this to remain in deadlock.”

(Obviously Barak has not learned anything from his previous withdrawal from the Lebanese Security Zone and Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza that has simply created huge terrorist strongholds whose only goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.) 

Jerome S. Kaufman   May 12, 2012

But, here’s where it gets rich: The ‘Palestinians’ are unwilling to ‘accept’ a unilateral withdrawal. Presidential spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh already told WAFA that any Israeli unilateral measure leading to the establishment of a state with temporary borders is unacceptable. This Israeli policy leads to the continuation of the conflict; it does not lead to a solution, rather it ends the concept of the two-state solution, added Abu Rudeineh. 

He emphasized that the Palestinians are “committed to a just and comprehensive solution of a state within 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and without Jerusalem nothing will be accepted.”

In 2009, we were told that Prime Minister Netanyahu ‘needed’ Ehud Barak to show that his was not ‘just’ a rightist government. But, Barak now controls only five Knesset seats, and is the leader of a party that is unlikely to pass the threshold in the next Knesset election. And, unless he is taken into the Likud, he will not even be an MK after November 2013. 

In light of Barak’s continued argument for Leftist positions that most of the current government opposes, and in light of the presence in Netanyahu’s own party of Moshe ‘Boogie’ Yaalon, who is also a former IDF chief of staff and would be a far superior appointment, one has to wonder why Barak remains Defense Minister.

Unless, of course, Netanyahu himself is a closet Leftist.

PS –  Moshe Yaalon also turned out to be a useless Left wing dud, as unfortunately so many Israeli Generals seem to become?  jsk

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:

jkaufman253469@icloud.com  

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Hurray! Someone explained to me how Kamela Harris, by taking a desegregation bus to school, qualifies her to be President of the US!

The Bus Back to the Future

Democrats debate a discarded desegregation scheme decades later.

Redacted from a smashing article by Lance Morrow

Wall Street Journal July 8, 2019

In the second Democratic presidential debate, hosted by NBC News, Kamala Harris made judgments over the former Vice-President’s stance on busing. Biden called it a “mischaracterization of my position across the board.”

On a sunny day in May 1954 the Warren court handed down its 9-0 decision in the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. The 58-year-old Plessy doctrine of “separate but equal” was dead—though only on paper.

A lifetime later. Sixty-five years have elapsed. We are well into the never land of the 21st century. A black president has come and gone. On my flat-screen TV, I watch as a female U.S. senator of Jamaican and Indian descent stands and berates a white-haired white man—the black president’s former vice president—on the matter of his record concerning something that happened 40 or 50 years earlier. That something was busing, a policy that was designed to accomplish what the Warren court intended: to abolish racial segregation from the country’s public schools.

It seemed a little odd that Kamala Harris brought up the long-ago subject of busing during a 2019 Democratic debate. Presidential candidates usually wish to deal in new ideas. Busing is a period piece.

Ms. Harris spoke of it as having been an unambiguous good. It was not. Older Americans recall the busing days as contentious, complicated and divisive.

The idea was to try to solve the problem of de facto segregation by busing black children to public schools in white parts of town while transporting white children in the opposite direction. Almost no one was satisfied with the scheme, although it did succeed in some places, such as Charlotte, N.C.

Some blacks who rode the buses as children say now that they benefited from it. But in the worst light, it seemed a piece of brutalist social engineering that placed hard burdens on the kids (long rides twice a day to strange neighborhoods, away from friends and community). The policy offended many blacks with its implication that a black child cannot learn without sitting next to a white child.

No matter. Ms. Harris’s mind wasn’t on justice anyway. Busing was the McGuffin. She invoked it as a way of proving that she could take down the powerful white male front-runner, Joe Biden. She staged the scene in order to establish, early in the first round, that she was capable of ruthless and creative effrontery. She sucker-punched Mr. Biden. Next morning, she was the coming thing—the psychological front-runner. As she intended, people began to imagine her in the ring with President Trump, toe to toe.

One of the interesting things about Ms. Harris is her swagger—the sly and private half-smile, the dare in her eye, a hint of the reckless. On the night of the debate she showed off an instinct for the cynical uses of sentimentality. “That little girl was me,” she said, her body torqued poignantly toward Mr. Biden.

She conjured herself as a heroic but vulnerable child on her way to future glory despite the efforts of then-Sen. Biden and his Southern segregationist pals to stop her—a prequel glimpse of predestined greatness. She was Moses in the bulrushes.

Her childhood occurred, mind you, not in Mississippi or the Chicago projects but in Berkeley, Calif., where her father was a professor of economics. The Harris household was intellectual, accomplished and, at the very least, solidly middle-class.

There was so little spontaneity in her stunt that, just afterward, her campaign offered commemorative merchandise—T-shirts showing the image of “that little girl.” All this was unfair to Mr. Biden, but his complacency no doubt needed a jolt.

Besides that, the dangerous thing now is hate’s half-brother, sentimentality—and the cynicism with which it is manipulated for purposes of gaining or keeping power. Everything in the politics and policy-making of 2019 is processed (by both the woke and the Trumpists) in those idioms: raw emotions cynically manipulated, especially on social media. It is true on the issue of immigration, for example, and especially true on the related issue of race.

Sentimentality is the traditional style of American politics. At one time, it was endearing, in the antique Norman Rockwell way. But the dark side of sentimentality is shallow and thoughtless and volatile and dangerous. At its worst, it is the style of mobs and dictators.

Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org    

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

“If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.” By the brilliant retired Harvard Professor Ruth R. Wisse

From  archives of brilliant retired Harvard Professor Ruth R. Wisse

And …. more pertinent than ever

October 18, 1992

The New York Times Archives Book Review

“If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.”

By Ruth R. Wisse.  225 pp. New York: The Free Press. $22.95.

“WE fell victim to our faith in mankind, our belief that humanity had set limits to the degradation and persecution of one’s fellow men.” So wrote Alexander Donat, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Treblinka and the author of “The Holocaust Kingdom,” a book about the Jews of Europe at the time when the Nazis and their collaborators began herding them into cattle cars.

Mr. Donat’s words capture the thrust of Ruth Wisse’s new book, “If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.” It is her contention that liberalism, the very political ideology that would seem to provide shelter and promise for the Jews, was their undoing in the 1930’s and 40’s — and is in our day as well.

By liberalism, Ms. Wisse, who teaches English and Yiddish literature at McGill University in Montreal, means a belief in progress, rationality, freedom, cultural pluralism and the rule of law. “Liberals trust that all human problems are amenable to negotiated solutions, that all people are united in a spirit of brotherhood,” she writes.

“They detest the use of force, not only for the damage it causes but because in admitting the limits of reason it throws humankind back to a more primitive stage of civilization. The pure liberal spirit precludes the possibility of intractable hatred or intransigent political will.”

For this reason, she says, liberalism could not protect Jews from the Nazis. By necessity, she continues, liberals had to be unsympathetic to the fate of the Jews, “not because of any personal antipathy but because the national fate of the Jews contradicted their view of the world and called into question their deepest assumptions.” Because of the Jews’ political vulnerability, they had no allies in Europe, “not even in such opponents of anti-Semitism as the Marxists.”

In our day, Ms. Wisse writes, the Arabs, recognizing the remarkable political durability of repudiating the Jewish people and their religion, have joined the campaign. The Arab success in the world arena actually increased, she contends, when they “exchanged the language of the right for the language of the left, presenting Israel as the bloodthirsty exploiter of impoverished innocent Arab masses.”

“Since democratic society does not want to perceive itself as heartless or collaborationist,” she continues, “those who court favor with the Arabs have to deny the war against the Jewish state or else justify their betrayal of the Jews in a language of moral convenience. The tilt toward the Arabs has the code name of evenhandedness.”

According to Ms. Wisse, as long as Israel brought Jews outside Israel “the dowry of international good will,” the relationship was untroubled. But when those Jews were faced with Arab propaganda against Israel, they grew nervous, their insecurities blossomed and, as avowed liberals, they turned their backs on the Jewish homeland.

There are large holes in her argument. “In contending with so relentless an assault [ as the campaign mounted by the Arabs ] ,” she writes, “many Jews grow weary, and the very mention of anti-Semitism draws a yawn.”

This is an astonishing claim to make. The majority of Jewish institutions in America successfully continue to appeal to Jews for funds through no other issue than the threat of anti-Semitism.

Ms. Wisse also creates something of a straw man to bolster her thesis. She speaks of the nervous Jew “who feels his Jewishness to be a burden or knows very little about it, or who in marrying a non-Jewish wife and moving into higher business or banking circles gradually left his Jewishness behind, like an old skin.” 

 “It must be stressed that [ the ] split in the Israeli population is not between secular and religious Jews,” she writes, “since some of the most idealistic recruits for the defense forces come from the ranks of the modern Orthodox yeshivas.”

 “Despite the unparalleled success of anti-Semitism, few university departments of political science, sociology, history or philosophy bother to analyze the single European political ideal of the past century that nearly realized its ends.”

This book should be read not only for its potent indictment of liberalism’s failings. The work also stands as a warning to all Jews of a clear and ever-present danger.

Ruth R. Wisse is the retired Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University. She is the sister of David Roskies, professor of Yiddish and Jewish literature at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to israel_commentary@icloud.com

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org 

Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

A Kosher Fourth of July

The Fourth of July, American Independence and the Jews

Two hundred forty-three years ago, a new nation was inspired by the Old Testament.

By William McGurn

Wall Street Journal  July 1, 2019 

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik explains how Jonas Phillips was a religious Jew and an American patriot, and how his life is a testament to the Jewish significance of the uniquely American tradition of religious freedom. Image: The Tikvah Fund

Since that fateful July 4 when the Second Continental Congress invoked the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to declare independence from King George III, an argument has raged over the Christian roots of the American Founding. Now a group of scholars suggest that if we are looking only to the Gospels to understand the new American nation, we may be arguing over the wrong testament.

“The American Republic,” they write, “was born to the music of the Hebrew Bible.”

The book is called “Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land: The Hebrew Bible in the United States: A Sourcebook.

The title comes from Leviticus and is inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The book comes courtesy of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, where it was pulled together by Meir Soloveichik, Matthew Holbreich, Jonathan Silver and Stuart Halpern.

These men are not arguing that America was founded as a Jewish nation. Nor is their subject Jews in America, or the role of Jews in the American Founding. Their proposition is more supple and profound: that at key moments in the national story, Americans have looked to the ancient Israelites to understand themselves, their blessings and their challenges.

The evidence, they say, is all around us.

The American landscape is dotted with town names that reflect this understanding, from the Zions, Canaans and Shilohs to the Goshens, Salems and Rehoboths. And whether it is John Winthrop invoking a “covenant” to characterize the order the Puritans established with Massachusetts Bay Colony, or Martin Luther King more than three centuries later talking about having been to the mountaintop, Americans have long looked to the biblical Israelites for the “political and cultural vocabulary” to explain the American proposition.

Though this American affinity for the Israelites pre-dates the Revolution, the war for independence intensified the parallels. In their revolt against George III, the men of the 13 colonies saw themselves as modern Israelites escaping a latter-day Pharaoh. So when the Second Continental Congress created a committee to design a seal for the new United States, also on July 4, 1776, it was only natural that two of the committee members—Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin—turned to Exodus.

Jefferson proposed the seal feature the Israelites in the wilderness, led by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night. Franklin suggested Moses extending his hand over the Red Sea, causing the waters to overwhelm Pharaoh in his chariot. These days, you could call these examples of cultural appropriation.

As the subtitle indicates, this is a sourcebook and not a sustained argument. But it is no less compelling. As the authors note, all these American allusions to the Israelites didn’t come from Jews. They came from Christians, low-church Protestants in particular.

With the possible exception of Martin Luther King, no American leader integrated the imagery and language of the Hebrew bible into his own speech as seamlessly as Abraham Lincoln, who as president-elect in 1861 spoke of his fellow Americans as the Almighty’s “almost chosen people.”

From the cadence of Psalm 90 in the opening of his Gettysburg Address (“four score and seven years ago”) to his letter telling the mayor of Philadelphia “may my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I ever prove false” to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to his invocation of Psalm 19 in his Second Inaugural (e.g., “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous forever”), when Lincoln spoke the moral language of liberty, his words echoed the Hebrew Bible.

This was a double-edged sword when it came to slavery. Abolitionism found much to embrace: “I have heard their cry” (Exodus 3:7), “Let my people go” (Exodus 5:1), “Break every yoke” (Isaiah 58:6) and so forth.

But relying on Scripture for denunciations of slavery had its problems, beginning with Noah’s curse against the Canaanites in Genesis 9.

Jews describe Passover as zeman cheiruteinu, or “the time of our freedom.” Independence Day might thus be thought of as America’s Passover. And that magnificent second stanza of “America the Beautiful” ends with a line that could have been delivered by Moses: “Thy liberty in law.”

Across the land this July 4, American homes will play host to backyard barbecues, the company of family, friends and neighbors, maybe all topped off with fireworks. You might say it is the American version of what the Hebrew prophet Micah had in mind when he wrote that “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid.”

Which also happens to have been George Washington’s favorite way to describe the blessings of liberty we celebrate this and every Independence Day.

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

Appeared in the July 2, 2019, print edition.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:jkaufman253469@icloud.com 

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Take the Palestinians’ ‘No’ for an Answer.

They’ve rejected every peace initiative. Their no-show this
week in Bahrain should be the last.
 By Eugene Kontorovich

This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states—a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world.

Sunni Arab states are lending legitimacy to the Trump administration’s plan, making it all the more notable that the Palestinian Authority itself refuses to participate.

The conference’s only agenda is improving the Palestinian economy. It isn’t tied to any diplomatic package, and the plan’s 40-page overview contains nothing at odds with the Palestinian’s purported diplomatic goals.

Some aspects are even politically uncomfortable for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Given all that, the Palestinian Authority’s unwillingness to discuss economic opportunities for its own people, even with the Arab states, shows how far it is from discussing the concessions necessary for a diplomatic settlement. Instead it seeks to deepen Palestinian misfortune and use it as a cudgel against Israel in the theater of international opinion.

This isn’t the first time the Palestinians have said no. At a summit brokered by President Clinton in 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected that offer, leading Israel to up it to 97% of the West Bank in 2001.

Again, the answer was no. An even further-reaching offer in 2008 was rejected out of hand. And when President Obama pressured Israel into a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 to renew negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table.

After so many rejections, one might conclude that the Palestinian Authority’s leaders simply aren’t interested in peace. Had they accepted any of the peace offers, they would have immediately received the rarest of all geopolitical prizes: a new country, with full international recognition.

To be sure, in each proposal they found something not quite to their liking. But the Palestinians are perhaps the only national independence movement in the modern era that has ever rejected a genuine offer of internationally recognized statehood, even if it falls short of all the territory the movement had sought.

India and Pakistan didn’t reject independence because major territorial claims were left unaddressed. Ireland accepted independence without the island’s six northern counties. Morocco didn’t refuse statehood because Spain retained land on its northern coast.

 While there have been hundreds of national independence movements in modern times, few are fortunate enough to receive an offer of fully recognized sovereign statehood. Including 1947, the Palestinians have received four. From Tibet to Kurdistan, such opportunities remain a dream.

Several lessons must be drawn from the Palestinians’ serial rejection of statehood—and this week, even of economic development. First, the status quo is not Israeli “rule” or “domination.” The Palestinians can comfortably turn down once-in-a-lifetime opportunities because almost all Palestinians already live under Palestinian government. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, they’ve enjoyed many of statehood’s trappings, particularly in foreign relations. Israel undertakes regular antiterror operations, but that’s different from overall power. For instance, the U.S. doesn’t “rule” over Afghanistan.

Second, statehood and a resolution to the conflict is not what the Palestinians truly seek. This is what economists call a “revealed preference”: To know what consumers truly want, look at what they choose. The Palestinians have repeatedly chosen the status quo over sovereignty.

Finally, throw out the assumption that when Palestinians reject an offer, it stays on the table and accrues interest. If offers will only improve with time, the Palestinians have an incentive to keep saying no.

The Palestinian Authority cannot be forced to accept a peaceful settlement, and Israel doesn’t wish to return to its pre-Oslo control over the Palestinian population. But rejectionism, culminating this week in Bahrain, must have consequences.

For more than 50 years, the future of Jewish communities in the West Bank—and the nearly half a million Jews who now live there—has been held in limbo pending a diplomatic settlement. While the authority rejects improved hospitals, port arrangements and employment centers, many of the benefits for Palestinians could still be achieved by locating them in parts of the West Bank under Israeli jurisdiction.

But to do that, the question mark over these places, which include all of the Jews living in the West Bank and a much smaller number of Palestinians, must be lifted. Washington should support Israeli initiatives to replace military rule with civil law in these areas, normalizing their status. The Palestinians’ no-show in Bahrain should end their ability to hold development and growth hostage.

Mr. Kontorovich is director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East and a law professor at George Mason University, and a scholar at the Kohelet Policy Forum.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com 

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org, “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments