Read More About:

Share This Post

video – Dinesh D’Souza on the Islamic Terrorism in Paris

Islamic ideology driving terrorists to kill, Egypt’s president tells clerics

Redacted from an article by:
Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
January 13, 2015

The ruler of Egypt is alone among major world leaders in his willingness to go before an audience of senior Muslim clerics and tell them that parts of Islamic ideology are indeed driving terrorists to kill worldwide.

Just days before al Qaeda-linked terrorists unleashed a wave of murder in Paris, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi gave a blunt talk that some observers hope will be the beginning of a campaign within Islam to reform its preachings and exile its extremists.

Mr. el-Sissi’s message is at odds with President Obama’s view that Islam the religion has nothing to do with Muslim extremists.

On Dec. 28, Mr. el-Sissi, a former chief of the armed forces who ousted the elected Islamist president in 2013, went to Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, a leading intellectual center of Sunni Muslim thought. He stood before clerics and scholars and asserted that years of Islamic writings and sermons had created an ideology that justifies waves of violence. Now, he said, the imams have a duty to stop it.

“You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology,” he said in a speech televised to the Egyptian people. “You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion.”

Analysts cannot recall any other world leader taking such a bold public step since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda, which, like other organizations that want to unleash violence around the world, bases its doctrine on Sunni Muslim ideology.

When the smoke had cleared in Paris, French President Francois Hollande in effect broke with Mr. el-Sissi’s Dec. 28 message. He told citizens, “Those who carried out these attacks, the terrorists, the madmen, these fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”
(The poor French – led by another Obama)

At the same university and same audience makeup in 2009, Mr. Obama said, “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism. It is an important part of promoting peace.”

When the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, killed American Peter Kassig by beheading, Mr. Obama chose to refer to him by his Muslim name, apparently believing he freely became a Muslim after the violent group took him captive.

“ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith, which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own,” the president said.

Some analysts say Egypt’s Mr. el-Sissi, while not a model for democratic rule, should be applauded for his willingness to officially link parts of his religion’s ideology to violence.

U.S. political conservatives point out that there are clerics who preach violence. There are mosques used to raise terrorist money, recruit fighters and plan attacks. All are components of Islam, fringe or otherwise, they say.

“Western leaders often appear to be the great apologists for Islam,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst with the Gatestone Institute who writes on the “Islamization of France.” “How many times have I heard recently that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, or Islam is a religion of peace, or that jihadists are not true Muslims. Until the West gets over the political correctness, Islam is going to run roughshod over Western values of democracy and free speech.”

One frequent criticism from U.S. conservatives is that there is still no sustained public campaign by moderate Muslim leaders to condemn and root out extremists – 14 years after al Qaeda’s attacks on America.

“Sissi said something profound and, I think, correct,” said Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s top policy official under President George W. Bush. “The great question is whether he’ll be heeded.

Mr. el-Sissi’s pointed speech has received much more attention in the American conservative press than it has in the main liberal media, which are sensitive to charges of “Islamophobia.”

“We must take a long, hard look at the situation we are in,” Mr. el-Sissi said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world. It is inconceivable that this ideology – I am referring not to ‘religion,’ but to ‘ideology’ – the body of ideas and texts that we have sanctified in the course of centuries, to the point that challenging them has become very difficult.”

At one point, he spoke directly to Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand sheik of Al-Azhar University and its revered mosque.

“Honorable Imam,” he said, “you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”

Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian-American internist and nuclear cardiologist who has emerged in the U.S. as a major voice for countering Islamic extremism.

What Dr. Jasser said Muslim leaders are needed to declare a separation between mosque and state, in the place of Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. “When I hear a Muslim leader say that, then I will take a second look that they’re real about it,” he said. “But until then, what’s happening is these radicals are coming back to bite these oligarchs in the rear end.”

Mr. Obama’s June 2009 appearance at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University was part of his travels to majority Muslim nations. In Cairo, he portrayed Muslims as victims of colonialism, then the Cold War, then modern Western societies.

He compared women’s struggles in the male-dominated Muslim culture to a lack of rights today for American women. He said, “The struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.”

He praised Islam’s history.

“And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” he said. “And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. So let there be no doubt. Islam is a part of America.”

The president did urge the clerics to shun violence.

“The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer,” he said. “Among some Muslims, there’s a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of somebody else’s faith.”

In 2013, Mr. Obama appeared at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington to outline his strategy for combating terrorists.

He said he wanted Congress to repeal the law that in 2001 authorized war against al Qaeda and allied groups.

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he said. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Israel’s Minister Without Apologies
By Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal Jan 10-11, 2015

A rising conservative star says the old formulas for pursuing peace with the Palestinians are obsolete. The two-state solution? Not anytime soon. (The politically correct answer. The real answer is an Israeli would have to be out of his mind to allow a PA State guaranteed to be just another Arab terror state in his backyard. How about putting ISIS right next door? Would that satisfy the Jew Haters of the world? You betcha.)jsk

It’s election season in Israel, and so far the most talked-about campaign ad features an Orthodox politician in an unorthodox role. In a YouTube video that quickly went viral, Naftali Bennett plays a fashionably bearded Tel Aviv hipster with a compulsion to say sorry—especially when he’s the one being wronged.

A waitress spills coffee on him: He begs her forgiveness. His car gets rear-ended: He steps out to tell the offending driver how sorry he is. He sits on a park bench and reads an editorial in a left-wing newspaper calling on Israel to apologize to Turkey for the 2010 flotilla incident, in which nine pro-Palestinian militants were killed aboard a ship after violently assaulting Israeli naval commandos. “They’re right!” he says of the editorial.

At last the fake beard comes off and the clean-shaven Mr. Bennett, who in real life is Israel’s minister of economy and heads the nationalist Jewish Home Party (in Hebrew, Habayit Hayehudi), looks at the camera and says: “Starting today, we stop apologizing. Join Habayit Hayehudi today.”

“For many years we’ve sort of apologized for everything,” Mr. Bennett explains in his Tel Aviv office. “About the fact that we are here, about the fact that this has been our land for 3,800 years, about the fact that we defend ourselves against Hamas, against Hezbollah.” It’s time, he says, “we raise our heads and say, ‘We’re here to stay, we’re proud of it, and we’re no longer apologetic.’ ”

The message has proved a potent one for the 42-year-old newbie politician, who only became a member of the Israeli Knesset in 2013 and immediately took a major ministerial post. The next parliamentary election doesn’t take place until March 17, which is a double eternity in Israeli politics. But Jewish Home is polling well, and Mr. Bennett is being talked about as a likely foreign or finance minister in the next coalition government, assuming it’s still led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party.

Should a Likud-Jewish Home government form, it could represent a tectonic shift in Israeli politics. For 25 years, between Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip …

(This should read Israeli “re-captured” since that land should always have been Israel’s. Jordan captured it from 1948 to the 1967 War and had no legitimate claim to it.)

… in the 1967 Six Day War and the 1992 election of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, every Israeli government had categorically rejected the idea of a Palestinian state.

Then came the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, after which Israeli governments of both the left and right, including Mr. Netanyahu’s, effectively committed Israel to the two-state solution.(No! Committed Israel to self-destruction via the insidious plan of the narcissist, Shimon Peres)jsk

Now the wheel is turning again. “The latest conflict in Gaza was a real earthquake for Israelis,” says Mr. Bennett, referring to last summer’s war.

“For 50 days we were incurring missiles, and they just went on and on from the very place where we did pull back to the ’67 lines. We did expel all the Jews. We did everything according to the book. The expectation might have been, we’ll get applause from the world—‘you’re OK; it’s they who are attacking you’—but what happened was the opposite. The world got angry at us for defending ourselves.”

For decades, “land-for-peace” has been the diplomatically accepted equation for solving the Israeli-Arab conflict. Experience has shown Israelis that it doesn’t always work as anticipated. Peace with Egypt, achieved after Israel agreed to return the conquered Sinai Peninsula, has proved durable. But Israel also withdrew all of its forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and what it got was a haven for Hamas, which used it to fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Doing likewise in the West Bank seems to many Israelis a surefire way of achieving the same result over a larger territorial scale.

Mr. Bennett, however, is making a deeper point. It isn’t only the land-for-peace formula that has failed Israel. The other failure is what one might call land-for-love: the notion that, even if ceding territory doesn’t lead to peace, it will nonetheless help Israel gain the world’s goodwill, and therefore diplomatic and strategic leverage. Instead, after 20 years of seeking peace and giving up land, Israel’s diplomatic isolation has only deepened. And, as he points out, it has deepened over disputes connected to Gaza—from which Israel withdrew—and not the West Bank, where Israel largely remains.

“So why would I follow the bad model,” Mr. Bennett asks, “instead of strengthening the good model?”

The “good model,” in Mr. Bennett’s view, is some version of the current arrangement in the West Bank, or what he calls, per official Israeli (and ancient Biblical) usage, Judea and Samaria.

“Judea and Samaria is imperfect,” he allows, “but it’s working. More Israelis and Palestinians are shopping together. Driving on the same roads. Working together. It’s not ideal there. But it’s working. People get up, go to work in the morning, come home alive.”

That’s a depiction that critics of Israeli policy would furiously contest, claiming that current policy gives Jewish settlers privileged access to the land while consigning nearly two million Palestinians to Bantustan-like enclaves. That, they say, risks transforming Israel from a democracy into an ethnocracy and guaranteeing international pariah status.

Mr. Bennett’s answer is that it’s the Palestinians who bear the blame for proving themselves unworthy of statehood. “They had all the opportunity in the world to build the Singapore of Gaza, he says. “They chose to turn it into Afghanistan.”He also believes that it’s better to find ways to make the best of a difficult situation than try to reach for a solution that is destined for failure. He wants a “Marshall Plan” to improve the Palestinian economy, “autonomy on steroids” for Palestinian politics—but no more.

“The truth is that no one has a good solution for what’s going on,” he says. “We have to figure out what we do over the next several decades. Trying to apply a Western full-fledged solution to a problem that is not solvable right now will bring us from an OK situation to a disastrous situation. So the first rule is, do no harm, which is the opposite of the Oslo process.”

Worse, he adds, is that successive Israeli leaders have felt obliged to go along with a commitment to a two-state solution, even as few of them believe it’s possible to achieve, at least with the current generation of Palestinians. As a result, he suggests, Israeli leaders can fairly be accused of insincerity.

“We go along with this vision that is impractical, and then, we are surprised why the world is angry with us for not fulfilling that vision. You can’t say, ‘I support a Palestinian state’ and then not execute according to that. I think people appreciate honesty.”

The comment is a not-too-subtle dig at Mr. Netanyahu, who formally embraced the idea of a Palestinian state in a landmark 2009 speech. Mr. Bennett was once the prime minister’s protégé, and served as his chief-of-staff when Mr. Netanyahu was in the political opposition.

But the relationship soured as Mr. Bennett went on to become director-general of the Yesha Council, the umbrella group for Israeli settlers, and became even more embittered when Mr. Netanyahu agreed in 2010 to a 10-month settlement freeze. Over the past year relations between the two men have alternated between threats by the prime minister to fire Mr. Bennett and threats from Mr. Bennett to quit the coalition.

Ultimately, the two men are contesting for leadership of the Israeli right. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, given how much they have in common. Like Mr. Netanyahu, who spent much of his early life in the U.S., Mr. Bennett has strong American roots: Both his parents immigrated to Israel from California, and his English is fluent and all but unaccented. Like Mr. Netanyahu, too, who served in the Israeli special forces, Mr. Bennett was a commander in Maglan, a unit that specializes in going behind enemy lines.

And like Mr. Netanyahu, who worked as a management consultant in Boston in the 1970s, Mr. Bennett lived and worked in New York City, where he founded and ran a cybersecurity company called Cyota, which he sold for a neat profit in 2005. Today, he notes with evident pride, 70% of Americans who bank online use software developed by his company.

One difference, however, is that Mr. Netanyahu is a secular Jew, whereas Mr. Bennett, who wears the knitted kippa common to the religious-nationalist camp, is observant. His belief in the importance of holding on to land is therefore more than just a military or political consideration. It’s fundamental to his world view.

“If your vision is dividing Israel, then it makes no sense in building somewhere that’s not going to be part of Israel,” he says, again drawing an implicit contrast with Mr. Netanyahu. “If your vision is that you’re not going to divide Jerusalem, then it makes all the sense in the world to build there. Because anyway it’s yours.”

Mr. Bennett is equally critical of the government’s handling of last summer’s war with Gaza. The war, he says, took much too long, partly in a misbegotten effort to curry international favor. “I’ll just remind you, there was an endless series of cease-fires with Hamas,” he notes. “And I thought it was a profound mistake to talk to Hamas down in Egypt. You don’t talk to terror organizations! We go in, do what we want to do, get out; if we need to hit them hard we keep it short and keep it very intense. Why do we talk to them?”

Lest anyone mistake Mr. Bennett for an Israeli neoconservative, however, he’s quick to disabuse the impression.

“I don’t believe in regime change, certainly not in the Middle East,” he says. “When I look at the whole arena it’s always the law of unintended consequences works. Look at Syria, look at Egypt. If you ask me how to deal with everything, and it applies here also, it’s effectively deterrence—meaning don’t mess with Israel—it’s having a strong military with a tenfold edge on all of our enemies; it’s having a powerful economy; and strengthening our Jewish character. And not giving up land anymore. If we apply these principles we’ll be fine everywhere.”

So how should Israel—and for that matter the West—conduct a sober and realistic Mideast policy? I ask about Iran.

“Iran’s goal is not to acquire a nuclear weapon today,” he says. “Its goal is to acquire a nuclear weapon tomorrow. So to say that we are postponing the breakout is not the issue. The issue is, do they have a machine that can break out within a relatively short time frame. Roughly 20,000 centrifuges can produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within about four or five weeks. That’s not enough time for the West to identify a breakout. To create a coalition and act, you need about two years. What we need is for the whole machine to be dismantled, not for them to press the pause button.”

Mr. Bennett adds the standard Israeli refrain that the government is preparing for all contingencies and will not outsource its security, but he’s quick to underscore that a nuclear Iran—with the inevitable consequent chain of Mideast nuclear proliferation—is not Israel’s problem alone. “All this will flow over very quickly to the free world,” he warns.

The same goes for the broader problem of radical Islam.

“Anyone who thinks—and I’m talking especially about Europe—that if you sell Israel you buy peace and quiet in Madrid and Paris, they’ve got it all wrong. Israel is the bastion against radical Islam hitting Paris, Madrid and London.”

I interviewed Mr. Bennett on Tuesday night. The following day, jihadists stormed the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, massacring 12 people. There will surely be more such attacks, possibly quite soon. Whatever readers think about Mr. Bennett as an Israeli politician, they might do well to heed his warning to the West:

The biggest danger for any organism is to not identify that it’s being threatened, he says. “I want to hope that people realize that the source of danger and risk in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the deep radical Islamic vision of forming a global caliphate.”

Mr. Stephens writes the Journal’s Global View column and is on its editorial board



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From: Snapshots – A Camera blog

Attention US Protestant Establishment Churches – Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglicans. etc. hell-bent on destroying Israel through boycotting Israeli products and defaming Israel in their every publication. Thus their overt anti-Semitism using Israel as the fall guy outstrips their expected concern over their co-religionists.

How intense is this mindless hatred of the Jew? Aren’t they ashamed? In fact, they are planting the seeds of their own destruction, acting as an ally of Islamic fundamentalism. This is a relentless force (now in the form of ISIS) well into destroying our Western civilization fulfilling their centuries-old ambition to have one big Islamic Caliphate State under Sharia law.

I wonder how the above Protestant denominations will fare under Islam and Sharia law?

Father Gabriel Naddaf of Nazareth, Israel tells us, first hand, exactly what is awaiting them.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Father Gabriel Naddaf of Nazareth spoke before the ironically-named United Nations Human Rights Council on behalf of the watchdog group, UN Watch. He laid out the facts that many in the “international community” and the global media refuse to acknowledge:

Do you know that at the start of the 20th century, Christians comprised 20% of the population of the Middle East? Today they comprise only 4%.

Do you know that over the past years some 100,000 Christians have been killed annually? And why? Not for a crime they’ve committed, but only for believing in Christ.

In Iraq alone, more than 77% of the Christians have fled during the year 2000, in addition to thousands killed and expelled.

Some 2 million Christians lived in Syria, but today, they are less than 250,000. Christians in these countries are treated as second-class citizens; facing racial, religious, economic and social discrimination.

Why is this happening? Only due to their religion, a religion that advocates love and peace between mankind.

Christians in the Middle East are marginalized; their rights denied, their property stolen, their honor violated, their men killed, and their children displaced.

Where will they go? Who will defend them? And who will guard their property?

If we look at the Middle East, Mr. President, we realize there’s only one safe place where Christians are not persecuted. One place where they are protected, enjoying freedom of worship and expression, living in peace and not subjected to killing and genocide.

It is Israel, the country I live in. The Jewish State is the only safe place where the Christians of the Holy Land live in safety.

Does the world acknowledge Israel for protecting its Christians? No. Many in the international community have chosen instead to castigate Israel with Jews as their favorite fall guy

He went on:

I, Father Gabrial Naddaf of Nazareth, stand before you and plead: O world leaders and supporters of peace, stop those who want to destroy the only free Jewish State in the region.

It is the only refuge welcoming and protecting all of its citizens. It is the only place that does not attempt to push out Christians, forcing them to leave their land in search of security.

(Yet, have you read about this in the mainstream media? Have you seen it on the evening news? Where’s the coverage?)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

The U.N. Vote on Palestine Was a Rehearsal

An influx of new Security Council members means a likely ‘yes’ vote—and a veto dilemma for Obama.

Wall Street Journal
Jan. 2, 2015

Long-standing Palestinian efforts to use the United Nations to achieve internationally recognized statehood status nearly succeeded early Wednesday. Just after midnight, the Security Council narrowly rejected a Jordanian draft resolution fixing a one-year deadline for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, requiring Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, and declaring Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine.”

Because the U.N. Charter requires nine affirmative votes from among the Security Council’s 15 members (assuming no vetoes) to pass a resolution, Jordan’s proposal failed—by one vote. There were eight in favor, two against, and five abstentions. Nonetheless, a pro-Palestinian, U.N. Charter-compliant majority may soon exist.

And absent more-effective U.S. diplomacy, the Obama administration could soon face making a choice that it would dearly like to avoid: whether to veto a biased, anti-Israel resolution. The Palestinian Authority has already significantly upped the ante by moving, later on Wednesday, to join the treaty creating the International Criminal Court.

A firmer U.S. strategy might have prevented the dilemma from arising. The White House’s opening diplomatic error was in sending strong signals to the media and U.S. allies that Mr. Obama, wary of offending Arab countries, was reluctant to veto any resolution favoring a Palestinian State. Secretary of State John Kerry took pains not to offer a view of the resolution before it was taken up. Such equivocation was a mistake because even this administration asserts that a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict requires direct negotiations and agreements among the parties themselves.

No draft resolution contrary to these precepts should be acceptable to the U.S or worth wasting time on in the diplomatic pursuit of a more moderate version. This American view, advocated for years and backed by resolute threats to veto anything that contradicted it, has previously dissuaded the Palestinians from blue-smoke-and-mirror projects in the Security Council.

It is precisely the Obama administration’s audible heart palpitations about negative Arab reactions to a possible U.S. veto that encouraged the Palestinian Authority and its supporters to plunge ahead. Mr. Obama neither prevented the resolution from going forward nor prevailed decisively enough to discourage the Palestinians from trying again within months or even weeks.

Several factors support a swift Palestinian reprise. First, they obtained a majority of the Security Council’s votes, even if not the required supermajority of nine. In today’s U.N., the eight affirmative votes constitute a moral victory that virtually demand vindication, and sooner rather than later.

Second, the text of Jordan’s resolution was wildly unbalanced even by U.N. standards—for example, it demands a solution that, “brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967,” and calls for “security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine.” A few meaningless tweaks here and there, and several countries that abstained could switch to “yes.” Third, on Jan. 1 five of the Security Council’s 10 nonpermanent members stepped down (their two-year terms ended), replaced by five new members more likely to support the Palestinian effort.

Consider how Wednesday’s vote broke down, and what the future may hold. Three of the Security Council’s five permanent members (France, China and Russia) supported Jordan’s draft. France’s stance is particularly irksome, since it provides cover for other Europeans to vote “yes.” The U.K. timidly abstained, proving that David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher ; the abstention signals that a more “moderately” worded resolution might be enough to flip London to a “yes.”

Washington cast the only permanent member’s “no” vote, which is characterized as a veto only when nine or more Security Council members vote in a draft resolution’s favor. Will President Obama now have the stomach to cast a real veto against a U.N. Charter majority backing the Palestinians? Is this the point where the “liberated” Mr. Obama allows a harsh anti-Israel resolution to pass? Happy New Year, Jerusalem.

Among the nonpermanent members, the prospects are grim. Three “yes” votes came from Jordan, Chad and Chile, which all remain Security Council members in 2015. Two additional supporters, Argentina and Luxembourg, have been replaced, respectively, by Venezuela (no suspense there) and Spain. Spain narrowly won election in October, defeating Turkey after three ballots. Madrid might be expected to support Washington, but not necessarily, given recent EU hostility to Israel and the appeasers’ argument to soothe wounded Muslim feelings about Turkey’s loss by backing the Palestinians.

Only Australia joined the U.S. in voting “no.” Its successor, New Zealand, would either have abstained or voted affirmatively, according to Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

South Korea abstained, but its replacement, Malaysia, is a certain affirmative vote. Angola, taking Rwanda’s seat, is an abstention at best. While abstainers Lithuania and Nigeria remain, Nigeria’s Boko Haram problem could easily move it to “yes” as an olive branch to the Muslim world. And Lithuania, as a new member of the euro currency union, could well succumb to arguments for EU solidarity, especially if Britain also surrenders.

Finding nine affirmative votes, and likely even more, looks decidedly easy. The Obama administration can only prevent what it dreads by openly embracing a veto strategy, hoping thereby to dissuade pro-Palestinian states from directly confronting the U.S.

And if that fails, the veto should be cast firmly and resolutely, as we normally advocate our principles, not apologetically. As so often before on Middle Eastern issues, a veto would neither surprise nor offend most Arab governments. If the administration had courage enough to make clear that a veto was inevitable, it would minimize whatever collateral damage might ensue in Arab lands. But don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

The Druze Religion

The Druze community number close to 120,000 in Israel. They live primarily in the Galilee and the Golan Heights, and are classified as a separate religious group, with their own courts and their own jurisdiction in matters such as marriage, divorce, and adoption.

The Druze religion has its roots in Islam, but although some members consider themselves “Muslim,” they have been recognized as a separate religion. During the reign of the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, in the 10th and 11th centuries, the Druze religion was formed, combining tenets of Islam with the philosophy of the Greek and Hindus. The Druze do not accept converts. They believe that anyone who wanted to join the religion had a chance to do so in the first generation after it was started, and that everyone who is alive today is reincarnated from a previous generation.

The religion is heavily monotheistic, and has ties to the world’s three main religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Their prophets include Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mohammed. Their most revered religious figure is Jethro, father-in-law of Moses. A tomb built over his believed burial site, at the Horns of Hittin near the Kinneret, is a gathering place for members of the Druze faith, and every April, the Druze meet there to discuss matters pertaining to the community.

Despite a few holy sites which have become official gathering places for the Druze, the Druze generally spurn the concepts of ceremonies and rituals. There is no official liturgy or prayer book, no holy days or fast days, and no pilgrimages. They accept ‘The Seven Precepts’, which they believe are the essential components of the Pillars of Islam. The precepts, which form the core of Druze faith, include truthfulness in speech, belief in one God, protection of others, and the belief that every hour of every day is a time to reckon oneself before God. Druze believe that the various rituals and practices adopted by the three major faiths have turned those believers away from the “true faith.”

The first Druze began settling in modern-day Lebanon and northern Israel centuries ago, and the largest Druze community in the Galilee is called Daliyat el-Carmel, situated on the Carmel Mountains. During the British Mandate, the Druze purposely kept out of the Arab-Israeli conflict; when the 1948 War broke out, the Druze fought on the side of Israel. A minority of Druze who live in the Golan Heights protested when the Israelis annexed the land from Syria, following the Six Day War. Few of them have accepted full Israeli citizenship, and remain Syrian citizens.

The rest of the Druze, however, are full members of Israeli society. The Druze have mainly found employment in the fields of social work, security services, and prison personnel. A new program has been started to help the Druze gain entry into Israel’s lucrative high-tech sector. They have also become prominent members of the IDF and of the Knesset, where they hold a disproportionate number of seats relative to the size of their community. In addition to holding prominent military and political positions, the Druze are active in the realms of sports, media, the arts, and literature.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

ayala bat ruth

Dear beloved friend,

I pray that you are well-please pray for Ayala bat Rut and Avner ben Rachel who were injured Thursday from a fire bomb in the Shomron. Ayal is 11 years old and is critically injured from burns on the upper part of her body. She is the niece of our security officer from the northern Shomron


My personal *Kishinev by Vic Rosenthal
27 Dec 2014

…Do we, civilized people, understand what it means to be in a struggle with barbarians? Do we understand that the choices are victory or the end of our state, death and dispersal? But we seem to care more about Arab rights than our own right to exist. We are at a turning point. We need to choose between victory and destruction. There are no other alternatives.

You probably heard about the 11-year old girl who was critically burned on Thursday when the car she was riding in was struck by a firebomb thrown by an Arab terrorist. And you certainly know about the attack on the Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue in Jerusalem in which four worshipers and a policeman were brutally murdered. You probably know about the several incidents in which Arabs drove their vehicles into groups of Jews, including one in which a 3-month old baby and a tourist from Ecuador were murdered, and another in which the driver got out and ran back to his not-yet-dead victim and cut her throat.

If you follow these things, you may also know that Jews are aafraid to go to the historic Mount of Olives Cemetery in Jerusalem because of continued violent attacks on buses, cars and people. You may also have heard about the daily rock-throwing attacks on the light rail in Jerusalem, against Jewish-driven cars on the roads in Judea and Samaria, the acid thrown on a Jewish family, etc. I could go on. And on.

The horror of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom was a turning point for many Jews, including Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Jew-hatred was finally seen to be implacable and a permanent feature of Diaspora life, and only a complete separation from the haters by the establishment of a Jewish State and the relocation of the Jewish people to it could be a permanent solution.

I think the firebomb incident was my own personal Kishinev experience. Now there is a Jewish state, but the problem of hatred-spawned violence against Jews has not ended, even here.

There is a simple reason for that: we allow it.

The Palestinian Arab leadership and its official media as well as their legions of social media propagandists incite murder every day. They pay the salaries of incarcerated murderers, treat released terrorists as heroes, and call for violent action against Jews, sometimes in remarkably ugly ways. We don’t stop them. We could, but we don’t.

We could stop the terror on the roads of Judea and Samaria. When an Arab village harbors terrorists, we could destroy it. But because we are afraid of being accused of ‘collective punishment’ by the less-than-objective UN, EU and Obama Administration, we don’t.

We don’t believe that Arab populations can be forced to move when they breed and support terrorism. We take seriously the idea of removing Jews from their homes — and do it, in Gush Katif and Amona — but expelling an Arab would be a violation of his human rights, another nakba. We talk about destroying the homes of terrorists, but rarely do it.

We don’t have a death penalty for terrorist murder. Instead, we keep the murderers in jail until their supporters kidnap a Jew, and then we ransom the Jew by releasing them, sometimes in a ratio of 1027 terrorists to one Jew. The terrorists go home to a victory parade and then go back to trying to kill Jews.

The Zionist imperative is to preserve the Jewish State in order to preserve the Jewish people. That is our highest priority — not to try to live up to the hypocritical and cynical double standards set by people in Brussels or Washington who would just as soon see the Jewish people gone anyway.

We need to change the way we are fighting the long war that we are in, because today we are losing. We are losing Judea and Samaria, we are losing eastern Jerusalem, and we are losing the Galilee and the Negev. Soon it will be impossible for a Jew to drive even in Kfar Saba without an armored vehicle. And after that?

The solution is not to talk to them about ‘peace’. They have given us their answer with their firebombs and meat cleavers, their cars and their knives, as well as their words. How many times do they have to show us their intentions before we get it?

Do we, civilized people, understand what it means to be in a struggle with barbarians? Do we understand that the choices are victory or the end of our state, death and dispersal? But we seem to care more about Arab rights than our own right to exist.

We are at a turning point. We need to choose between victory and destruction. There are no other alternatives.

Published by: Love of the Land

*The Kishinev pogroms were an anti-Jewish riot that took place in Kishinev, then the capital of the province of Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, on April 19-20, 1903.

The most popular newspaper in Kishinev, the Russian-language anti-Semitic newspaper Бессарабец published by Pavel Krushevan regularly published articles with headlines such as “Death to the Jews!” and “Crusade against the Hated Race.” When a Christian Ukrainian boy, Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town of Dubossary, about 25 miles north of Kishinev, and a girl who committed suicide by poisoning herself was declared dead in a Jewish hospital, Bessarabetz insinuated that both children had been murdered by the Jewish community for the purpose of using their blood in the preparation of matzo for Passover now known as the blood libel against Jews. These allegations, and the prompting of the town’s Russian Orthodox bishop, sparked the pogrom.

There was a well laid-out plan for the general massacre of Jews on the day following the Russian Easter. The mob was led by priests, and the general cry, “Kill the Jews,” was taken-up all over the city. The Jews were taken wholly unaware and were slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120 and the injured about 500. The scenes of horror attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob. The local police made no attempt to check the reign of terror. At sunset the streets were piled with corpses and wounded.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Additional commentary – Jerome S. Kaufman

Nonstop Appeasement
Redacted from an article BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
The Weekly Standard
Dec. 29, 2014

We don’t expect much. It’s been nearly six years. We’re long past the point of hoping that Barack Obama will adopt policies that deserve our grudging approval, if not enthusiastic endorsement, particularly on foreign policy and national security. But we do expect something.

We believe that the president, whatever his ideological disposition, ought to be an unapologetic defender of America when the US is smeared or slandered. At a bare minimum, a president ought not lend credence to those who disparage the United States for imagined offenses.

This is apparently too high a standard for Barack Obama.

As Thomas Joscelyn reports elsewhere in these pages, two days before the United States transferred six Guantánamo detainees to Uruguay, President José Mujica released a statement denouncing the United States. “We have offered our hospitality for humans suffering a heinous kidnapping in Guantánamo,” it read. Because of their suffering, the detainees—all with direct ties to al Qaeda leadership—were accepted by Uruguay for “humanitarian” reasons and given refugee status.

A subsequent Defense Department statement about the transfer said nothing about these outrageous claims and simply thanked Uruguay for taking in the detainees. Did we miss the administration’s reaction to Mujica’s comments? Did the administration miss the comments? We asked the White House if the U.S. government had responded to Mujica’s statement or pushed back against it in any way. And if not, does the administration believe that Mujica’s comments are a fair characterization of how the al Qaeda members came to be detained at Guantánamo?

Patrick Ventrell, spokesman for the National Security Council, gave us this response:

We are grateful to President Mujica and Uruguay for providing to these individuals an opportunity to start anew their lives in Uruguay and to become contributing members of the Uruguayan society. However, we must refer you to the government of Uruguay for more information related to President Mujica’s comments.

There was nothing at all from the White House disputing Mujica’s calumny about a ‘heinous kidnapping’, no protest of the suggestion that al Qaeda operatives need ‘humanitarian’ relief from the United States, and not a word in defense of the U.S. military and intelligence officials who risked their lives to help bring these dangerous terrorists into U.S. custody.

It’s not just what the White House refused to say, but what it said. The administration went out of its way to articulate a belief that the freed al Qaeda terrorists—five of whom were classified as “high risk” detainees by Joint Task Force-Guantánamo—may well become productive members of society.

Critics have long complained that the Obama administration mistreats our allies and coddles our enemies. There are exceptions, of course, but does anyone seriously dispute that general tendency? In just the past few months:

The Obama administration released five senior Taliban operatives in exchange for an American soldier who walked away from his unit. The five Taliban commanders were transferred to Qatar despite warnings from top U.S. intelligence officials, including the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, that they are nearly certain to attack U.S. interests in the future. Among the stated objectives for the prisoner swap: restarting peace talks with the Taliban.

Top Obama officials promised to impose additional sanctions on Iran if the regime breached the terms of the interim deal on its nuclear program. Iran was caught violating that agreement, and the administration, rather than impose new sanctions, launched a full-scale effort to block them. As Iran’s leaders publicly mocked U.S. weakness, Obama officials insisted that negotiations must continue.

Israeli newspapers reported that the Obama administration was considering sanctions on Israel for its settlement activity. When reporters asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest about the reports, he repeatedly refused to deny them. He couldn’t. They were true.

And, of course, last week the president announced his intention to normalize relations with the despotic regime in Cuba. In exchange for two hostages whose release was sought by Washington, the Obama administration agreed to free three members of the “Cuban Five,” spies for the Castro regime who helped a Cuban Air Force MiG shoot down two small U.S. planes dropping anti-Castro leaflets, killing all four aboard. Raul Castro, who spoke to Obama at length the day before the announcement, objected to the imprisonment of the Cuban assets, admitting that they had been acting on his behalf. “I gave the order,” he told Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts who helped broker the deal, according to an account in Politico. “I’m the one responsible.”

This systematic pusillanimity is not a new phenomenon. Other examples: the refusal by the Obama administration to criticize the Iranian regime when it put down the “Green Revolution” in 2009; the administration’s eagerness to “reset” relations with an increasingly hostile Russia; its secret negotiations with the Taliban even as the group continued its attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan; the refusal to meet with any Egyptian opposition groups other than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama is hardly the first president to seek rapprochement with our adversaries and reconciliation with our enemies, of course. But his determination to make nice—even in the face of clear and repeated rejection from the other side—is unparalleled. For Obama and his team, diplomacy with rogue regimes is an end in itself, and any deal, however one-sided, is a win, especially one that the White House communications mavens think that friendly media will call a “breakthrough” or “historic.”

In that sense, Obama is America’s first postmodern president. If his predecessors tended to see the world in terms of good and evil, Obama sees the world in terms of victims and victimizers—with the United States often in the role of victimizer. In that view, long favored by the academic left that shaped a young Barack Obama, American foreign policy is one long train of abuses, marked by casual aggression and eager imperiousness.

So when a leftist leader like Mujica condemns the United States for the “heinous kidnapping” of al Qaeda operatives, Obama says nothing in protest. His silence is assent. And it’s a disgrace.

(Stephen F. Hayes expertly presents an accurate, shocking list of Obama’s misadventures and obviously detrimental moves that are hurting the US, demolishing our world standing and the deterrence factor the US always had in name along with the requisite international presence and might.

What is implied in the musings of Hayes and the entire menage of current media political commentators is that Obama is simply inept or misdirected or just a misguided ideologue or lazy or out of his job description. That is not remotely the case.

The stark awful truth is that Obama is a brilliant tactician, whose every move starting with his cleverly masked educational record and work history, from the time he sought political office, was to hurt and destroy the United States as a world power. His goal has been to diminish our great wealth, our military superiority our entire democratic political system our merit driven economy with resultant distribution of wealth, our status as a world power. This obvious truth does not seem to penetrate the commentators thinking or scribbling or, more likely, they are too politically correct or frightened to state the obvious.

The stark, awful truth is Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant, dedicated Destroyer. He knows exactly what he is doing and is master of his charge. When all these political pundits, the American public and the pathetic, inept politicians currently in office, understand this basic fact, maybe they will have the will and courage to wage war against this diabolical, pathological, arch-typical narcissistic man.

It is almost too late except he is hell bent on doing as much DESTRUCTION as he can get away with in the next two years — the balance of his term. What now! The ball is in our park and we have yet to get even a base on balls!

Jerome S. Kaufman


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from a review by Hillel Halkin of the book:

By Patrick Bishop
Harper, 299 pages, $26.99

Halkin’s review appeared in The Wall Street Journal
December 20-21, 2014

Freedom Fighter for Zion

Avraham Stern imagined (believed) the Jewish people compelling God to be the zealous warrior-deity of the Bible once again.

In 1942, ‘The Stern Gang’ (F.F.I. Freedom Fighters for Israel) were the most wanted men (by the colonialist-building British in Palestine). Hardly anyone talks anymore about “the Stern Gang.” In Israel, the militant group has not been known by this name for decades. It is called by the name it called itself, “The Lechi” (with the “ch” as in “Bach”), an acronym for Lochamei Cherut Yisra’el, or Freedom Fighters of Israel.

The smallest and most extreme of the three fully or partly underground Jewish military organizations that began in Palestine during the last years of the British Mandate. It accomplished little in reality but much in the realm of myth-making. To this day it lives in Israeli memory as a symbol of ardent patriotism, romantic self-sacrifice and the cult of idealistic violence—and also as a form of political lunacy that would reappear in a new guise long after the group’s demise. (again Halkin’s left wing evaluation.)

The F.F.I. was founded in 1940 when a splinter faction broke away from the Irgun, the right-wing militia affiliated with Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Party and the rival of the left-leaning Haganah. The leader of the breakaway was a young Polish-born Jew named Avraham Stern. A Hebrew poet of some talent, Stern had studied classics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and was active there in the Irgun until 1936, when he was put in charge of a military training and arms-purchasing program run by the group in Poland.

From there, he sniped at what he considered Jabotinsky’s insufficient militancy toward the British, (who had totally shut the gates of Palestine to Jewish immigration just when a haven from Hitler was most desperately needed,) Returning to Palestine in 1939, a year before Jabotinsky’s death, he led a small band of followers out of the Irgun.

From the time of this split until Stern was killed in early 1942 in a British police raid on the Tel Aviv apartment in which he was hiding, the Stern Gang, as the British labeled it, robbed a few banks, killed several British policemen and called for an anti-British uprising at a time when England was fighting a war with Nazi Germany (and allowing open Arab immigration to Palestinian while obstructing desperately needed Jewish immigration from Europe and Arab lands where they had lived for centuries)

Halkin minimizes the work of the Stern Gang as opposed to many historians present at the time, who credit the Gang with the final withdrawal of British forces who did not like their people summarily killed as the Brits did to the Jews of Palestine).

The F.F.I. also unsuccessfully attempted to make contact with Hitler’s Italian allies in the hope of enlisting their support. The group’s more intensive phase of activity, starting with the 1944 assassination in Cairo of Lord Moyne, the British minister of state in the Middle East, began only after Stern’s death and included the F.F.I.’s participation, in early 1948, in the conquest of the Arab village of Dir Yassin and the alleged massacre of some of its inhabitants. Later that year, after assassinating Count Bernadotte the first United Nations mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the organization was outlawed by the government of the new state of Israel and ceased to exist.

It is with Stern’s death, however, which the British claimed took place when he sought to flee and which his followers called an act of coldblooded murder, that Patrick Bishop’s new book, “The Reckoning” addresses. Mr. Bishop, a British military historian and novelist, has sought to determine what happened that winter day in Tel Aviv, and to relate the personal and historical events leading up to it, with the help of a tried literary technique.

Taking as his protagonists Stern and the man who shot him, British police officer Geoffrey Morton, he tells the story of each, starting with childhood and adolescence, Stern’s in the Polish-Lithuanian town of Suwalki, Morton’s in the South London neighborhood of Lambeth. “The Reckoning” shuttles back and forth between the two men and the radically different milieus that shaped them, tracing the paths that brought them to Palestine and that slowly converged there in the manhunt that ended in their fatal confrontation.

When Mr. Bishop writes about Morton he writes about someone to whose world, as a fellow Englishman, he has ready access. When he writes about Stern with no knowledge of Hebrew and little familiarity with Judaism, Eastern-European Jewish culture or the various strands of Zionist ideology, he is out of his depth.

Stern was a charismatic and driven leader who foolishly believed that Zionism could work with the Axis powers against the British colonial rulers of Palestine, and this side of him Mr. Bishop describes well. But he was also an intellectual and a poet, and while neither his thought nor his verse was of a high order, they were significant in ways Mr. Bishop overlooks.

Stern was an odd breed, a non-believing religious messianist. He rejected the Jewish God in whose faith he had been raised because this God was letting the Jews of Europe be annihilated. In a poem composed while the Holocaust was taking place, he wrote, alluding to the biblical condemnation of the futile worship of “other gods” than the God of Israel: “And you, God, are like all the others. / You have ears and You do not hear. / Eyes You have that see nothing, / A mouth that dares not speak for fear.”

But at the same time, by a bold inversion of the man/God relationship, Stern imagined the Jewish people not only taking up arms in conquest of its ancient homeland but compelling God to be the zealous warrior-deity of the Bible once again. Another poem from the same period has the stanza: “Crazed for the Kingdom, fighters for freedom, / To You, Lord of hosts and of sacred hate, / We pray while hope like leaves fallen lies faded, / With rifle, machine gun, and bomb.”

All of the discussion and total conjecture is Hillel Halkin using this opportunity to preach his anti-nationalistic Israel propaganda. Bishop’s book does not sound like much but, Halkin’s own comments are pure malice and have no business in a supposed “book review” of a book that does not truly involve politics, especially of Halkin’s variety.

The kingdom Stern had in mind was the kingdom promised by God to Israel, with a rebuilt Temple in its capital of Jerusalem. Crazed (?) this certainly was, and apart from a few eccentrics like himself, such as the far greater Hebrew poet Uri Tsvi Greenberg, by whom Stern was influenced, even the hyper-nationalists in the Zionist movement found it risible. (NOT TRUE!)

Yet within the F.F.I., which never numbered more than a few hundred active members, it had its adherents, and, seized upon by Arab propaganda, it was turned into the specter of a secret Zionist plan to seize the Temple Mount from Islam and establish a Jewish State from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates.

No such plan, of course, existed outside of Stern’s imagination. Then, however, came the Israeli conquest (not a “conquest” but a victory, in the Six Day War, over the occupying Jordanians that had seized the land from the virtually defenseless Jews coming off the boats from the concentration camps of Europe in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence.

In the later Six Day War of June 1967, The Jews simply regained Jewish land from Jordan that was supposed to have been part of the British Mandate in the first place.)

As a result, the Temple Mount came under Jewish control for the first time in thousands of years. Religious messianism returned to Israeli political life in the extreme wing of the settler movement. Lacking the poetic dialectic of Stern’s thought, it shared his belief in what is known in Jewish tradition as “forcing the end,” making God take action by setting in motion eschatological events that He cannot turn back.

Though it did not regard Stern as its prophet, he was in some ways just that, and the settler groups that plotted in the 1980s, among other things, to hasten the redemption by dynamiting the Temple Mount’s mosque could claim the largely secular Stern Gang as their forerunner. This is the part of the story that Mr. Bishop’s readable book misses.

(… and Halkin, wrongly chosen by the WSJ, also misses and instead falsely presents in this review. At least the WSJ did not ask King Hussein or Mahmoud Abbas or the British to give their interpretation of the Israeli history of those years).

For a differing view of the Stern Gang, please read:

A 2011 book by Zev Golan, “Stern: the Man and His Gang,” It brings fresh focus to the fight waged by the FFI against British policymakers and security personnel, beginning in 1940.

Halkin also, in his on-going pathetic feckless campaign of historical revisionism to discredit Israel’s nationalistic right wing, recently wrote a snide, malicious article on Israel’s greatest patriot and intellectual, Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

If you want an accurate in-depth biography of Jabotinsky, written long before Halkin’s screed on Jabotinsky, read:

“Lone Wolf: A Biography of Vladimir (Ze’Ev) Jabotinsky,” Two Volume magnificent record of the founding of the state Israel, written March 1, 1996 by Shmuel Katz, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s right hand man up until Jabotinsky’s death in 1940

Italicized commentary above by Jerome S. Kaufman


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

If this doesn’t send shivers through your body and put tears in your eyes as a proud American, I don’t know what will?

And, I don’t care whether you believe in Christmas or not!

It Starts With a Lone Cellist… And Grows to 120 Musicians!


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Zionist Organization of America
News Release

One Freed Cuban Murdered An American!

NEW YORK, December 18, 2014

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is strongly declaring that President Barack Obama, who has this week freed three convicted spies who spied for an enemy regime, Cuba, must free Jonathan Pollard, who spied for an American ally, Israel.

The ZOA further notes that one of the convicted spies freed by President Obama was responsible for the murder of an American citizen and that all three have served only 13 years for their crimes on behalf of an enemy state, whereas Jonathan Pollard has been imprisoned for 29 years for spying for an American ally.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is remarkable that President Obama, who has been repeatedly urged by U.S. officials who held responsibility at the time for national security and intelligence matters to free Jonathan Pollard, has refused to do so.”

“Conversely, he has shown himself, this week, to be willing to free three convicted men who spied for a long-term enemy state, Cuba, including one man who was responsible for death of an American national. Where is the logic and justice in that?

“Jonathan Pollard passed on classified information to Israel, a U.S. ally, not a U.S. enemy. There was, thus, no treason involved. Pollard pled guilty to the charges and apologized for his crimes. His crimes did not lead to the death of Americans, as was once claimed, but rather the espionage activities of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, whose actions came to light only after the Pollard sentencing, were shown to be responsible for those results.”

“Despite, having pled guilty as part of a plea bargain, Pollard was shown no leniency and was given the maximum sentence, comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe, who passed critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and was found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents!”

“A host of senior past high U.S. government officials with responsibility for relevant national security, international and legal affairs, such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Schultz, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former National Security Advisor Robert C. “Bud” McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary for Defense Lawrence J. Korb, former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman David Durenberger, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann; former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former Senate Judiciary Committee Member, Dennis DeConcini, and former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel Samuel Lewis and Thomas Pickering, have all publicly and in writing stated that Jonathan Pollard’s sentence has been disproportionate and urged President Obama to pardon him.”

“Jonathan Pollard has already served nearly three decades behind bars, which is by far the harshest sentence ever meted out for the offense he committed — the average term for which is a fine or two to four years’ imprisonment.”

“If President Obama can free three spies for a hostile state like Cuba, including a murderer, he can certainly pardon Jonathan Pollard. He should do so without further delay.”

II In the meantime the US has no problem with spying on Israel!

CIA Smuggles Agents Through Ben Gurion Airport
New light on United States spying on Israel

​Hamodia [NY] – December 22, 2014

Jerusalem (Hamodia Staff) – New light was thrown on United States spying on Israel by a WikiLeaks disclosure that CIA agents are taught how to circumvent security screening at Ben Gurion International Airport.

An internal CIA document contained detailed instructions to agents for avoiding intensive secondary screening when entering or leaving Israel, Haaretz reported on Monday.

The document, titled “CIA Assessment on Surviving Secondary Screening at Airports While Maintaining Cover,” dated September 2011, has a long list of guidelines for operatives using false identities.

“Secondary screening — a potentially lengthy and detailed look by airport officials at passengers not passing initial scrutiny — can significantly stress the identities of operational travelers,” it reads.

“Referral to secondary screening can occur if irregularities or questions arise during any stage of airport processing — immigration, customs, or security — and regardless of whether the traveler is arriving, in transit, or departing. Officials may also randomly select travelers.”

Ben Gurion was one of the airports cited as being particularly thorough.

The document offers reasons that could lead to a secondary screening:

“Israel’s security personnel focus on frequent travel to Islamic countries,” the document says. “Security personnel at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, commonly refer military-aged males traveling alone with backpacks to secondary screening, regardless of their nationality or skin color.See Also:
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Take your pick or charity of your choice, of course. But … what’s the bottom line for how much of the money actually goes to the cause you had intended?

A. Bad Guys

The American Red Cross
President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses

It is called the March of Dimes because only a dime for every 1 dollar is given to the needy.

The United Way
President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.

The United Nations Children’s Fund is a United Nations Program headquartered in New York City that (THEORETICALLY!) provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. It is one of the members of the United Nations Development Group and its Executive Committee.[2]

CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE.
Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.

CEO and owner Mark Curran profits $2.3 million a year.
Goodwill is a very catchy name for his business.You donate to his business and then he sells the items for PROFIT. He pays nothing for his products and pays his workers minimum wage! Nice Guy. $0.00 goes to help anyone! Stop giving to this man.

B. Good Guys


The Salvation Army
Commissioner,Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year(plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization.
96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.

The American Legion
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Disabled American Veterans
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Military Order of Purple Hearts
Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

The Vietnam Veterans Association
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

Make a Wish: For children’s last wishes.
100% goes to funding trips or special wishes for a dying child.

St. Jude Research Hospital
100% goes towards funding and helping Children with Cancer who have no insurance and cannot afford to pay.

Ronald McDonald Houses (Sponsor: McDonald Burger Corp)
All monies go to running the houses for parents who have critically ill children in the hospital. 100% goes to housing, and feeding the families.

Lions Club International
100% of donations go to help the blind with hearing aids, support medical missions and measles vaccinations.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Visit Jewish.TV for more Jewish videos.

Happy Chanukah Jerome S. Kaufman



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Shifting Sands Of Temple Mount ‘Status Quo’

Video: History of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem

By Hillel Fendel and Chaim Silberstein
The Jewish Press
December 5, 2014

Here’s a little-known fact: The Dome of the Rock – the magnificent structure that stands atop the site of the Holy of Holies – was originally built up not for Muslims; rather, it, or its precursor, was built for the Jewish people.

How do we know this? We rely on the late Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and on a Byzantine historian from the 7th century.

Rabbi Goren, in his classic work The Temple Mount, wrote that the silver-domed Al-Aksa Mosque, at the Mount’s southern end opposite the gold Dome of the Rock, points southward toward Mecca and was built as a Muslim house of prayer. “At the request of the Jews,” Rabbi Goren continues, “Omar built the Dome of the Rock sanctuary to serve as a house of prayer for the Jews. This was after the Jews showed him the site where the Holy Temple had stood – and it does not point to Mecca.”

Most certainly one of Rabbi Goren’s sources was the Byzantine historian Theophanes. Written in Greek and translated into English in 1839, the following relevant passage from Theophanes was cited by English historian Guy Le Strange in his 1890 work History of Jerusalem Under the Moslems (p.11):

“In this year [635 C.E.], Omar … (continued below Wikipedia entry)

(From Wikipedia): Umar (or Omar) was the second Rashidun Caliph and reigned during 634-644. Umar’s caliphate is notable for its vast conquests, aided by brilliant field commanders, he was able to incorporate present day Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and part of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and south western Pakistan into the empire of the Muslims. All of these were permanent conquests. The Byzantines lost more than three fourths of their territory and in Persia, the Sassanid empire ceased to exist.[1])

… began to restore the Temple at Jerusalem, for the building, in truth, no longer then stood firmly founded, but had fallen to ruin. Now when Omar inquired the cause, the Jews answered saying, ‘Unless thou throw down the Cross, which stands on the Mt. of Olives, the building of the Temple will never be firmly founded.’ Thereupon Omar threw down the Cross at that place, in order that the building [of the Temple] might be made firm…”

Thus we see that the Dome of the Rock, or its precursor by several decades, was built not for Muslims but for Jews, and was even supposed to be a “more firmly founded” version of the Holy Temple.

How ironic that this is the true background of the building that now symbolizes, throughout the world, Muslim control of Judaism’s holiest site – and the ban on Jewish prayer there.

Israelis officials have repeatedly promised of late, at the behest of pressure from without and within, not to change the “status quo” on the Temple Mount. Is it clear to all what exactly this means?

At the outset, it must be explained that the halachic aspects of visiting the Temple Mount are beyond the scope of this article. The issue is a matter of dispute among leading rabbis, and the opinions range from “forbidden because it leads to bloodshed,” “forbidden because we are impure,” “permitted if you know the halachic boundaries and precautions,” to “important to do so in order to retain the holy site for the Jewish people.”

When Israeli, American, and other diplomats speak of maintaining the status quo, they generally mean that Muslims must be allowed free entry for worship or playing soccer, while Jewish access must continue to be restricted.

However, some recent historical background is in order, showing that what people think is the “status quo” is actually not that at all. For one thing, how far back do we go when referring to the “status quo”?

There is much historical evidence that up until three centuries ago Jews historically prayed on the holy site relatively freely. Maimonides, for instance, wrote that he made an annual holiday to commemorate his visit to Jerusalem, on which occasion he “prayed in the Great and Holy House.” Many believe this is a clear reference to the site of the Holy Temple, and that he referred to it by the same phrase we recite in the beginning of the third blessing (Rachem) in the Grace After Meals. (The Rambam also held that nowadays, the site of the Temple is not absolutely forbidden for entry; rather (“Laws of the Chosen House 7:7), “No one may enter it except the places that one is permitted to enter.”

Thus, we must entertain the likelihood that Jews did pray on the Temple Mount at various times since the destruction. Certainly, however, since about the 1600s, Jewish prayer has not been held at the holy site. This was the “status quo” – until the Six-Day War of 1967.

This miraculous war brought about the unification of Jerusalem, our return to the Western Wall, and, for the first time since Bar Kochba, Jewish control over the site of the Holy Temple. One of the first things Israel did with this prize was, at the initiative of then-defense minister Moshe Dayan, to relinquish most of it, giving day-to-day control to the Muslim Waqf (religious trust).

Still, however, some Jewish visitation rights were ensured. In fact, Dayan instituted the following rules after the Six-Day War (based on research by Jerusalem expert and Keep Jerusalem Advisory Board member Nadav Shragai):

Jews are permitted to visit the Temple Mount, but forbidden to pray there.

Israel’s police maintain law and order in the sacred compound.

Israeli sovereignty and law is applied to the Temple Mount, as to the other parts of Jerusalem.

Other rules added later stipulated that Jews and other non-Muslims would enter the Mount only via the Mughrabi Gate, located at the center of the Western Wall, and that flags may not be unfurled on the Mount.

The situation today would be barely recognizable even to Dayan. For one thing, the “unrestricted Jewish visits” have been replaced by strict hours: Jews may ascend for three hours in the morning and one in the afternoon, only five days a week. Even these few hours are often removed from the Jewish itinerary when Arab incitement and unrest portends violence in the area.

In addition, religious Jews may not visit in large groups, and are often forced to wait for hours until those in front of them in line have completed their visits. Even then, they frequently are not allowed in.

Want to wave a flag? If it’s a Hamas or Palestinian Authority banner, no problem; the ban is enforced only in the case of Israeli flags.

Thus, when Israel is pressured to retain the “status quo” on the Temple Mount, it should respond, “Fine – we’ll take the ‘status quo’ as set by Moshe Dayan in 1967″ – restoring full Israeli sovereignty to the holy site, full authority to Israel’s police to act to maintain law and order, and the option of full Jewish accessibility.

This is crucial not only for the sake of emphasizing and actualizing the intrinsic and historical Jewish rights and bonds to the Mount, and not only in order to guarantee freedom of religion for all. Most essentially, it is a key step in guaranteeing the integrity of Jerusalem and strengthening it as the eternal capital of Israel and the Jewish people.

Please visit our website,, to keep apprised of developments in Jerusalem and to see how you can help preserve a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty forever.
About the Author: Chaim Silberstein is president of Keep Jerusalem-Im Eshkachech and the Jerusalem Capital Development Fund. He was formerly a senior adviser to Israel’s minister of tourism. Hillel Fendel, past senior editor at Israel National News/Arutz-7, is a veteran writer on Jerusalem affairs. Both have lived in Jerusalem and now reside in Beit El.

jsk (PS The reader will notice that I included two names for the Caliph – Umar and Omar, because that is the way I saw it spelled in different references and concluded it was really the same guy. Well, I just got a note from a very well respected Middle Eastern historian. It follows and clears up a lot of the historical and chronological discrepancies I have found in my own research. I love the professor’s remarks because now I don’t have to worry about a lot of that stuff. Here is his comment:) jsk

Dear Jerry,
Without reading the whole entry, there is much confusion between two Umars, both Calphs:


Things which the first Umar did are thought as have been done by the second and vice versa.
I am afraid that modern books fell in this trap following classic stories by Muslims.
This is not the only confusion regarding the early history of Islam.
Some modern researchers “gave up” and claim that in reality there is no reliable source for the early days of Islam. Everything written is based on rumors which one said to one who to another and another (Hadith, stories). There are Muslims who feel the same vis-a-vis the oral traditions, and relate only to the Koran, like our Karaiites.

Shabbat Shalom,



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Iranian IRGC Missile Unit Commanders: “We’ve Developed 2,000-km Range Missiles And Equipped Hizbullah With 300-km Range Missiles.”

Fars News Agency: Israel’s Illusions About Its Natural Gas Fields Will Be Buried In The Mediterranean

By: U. Kafash, Y. Mansharof and A. Savyon*

Two weeks before November 24, 2014, the end date of the Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1, websites close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) began reporting about the capabilities of the IRGC missile unit, and in particular about this unit’s capability to strike and destroy Israel.

At the same time, there has been a marked increase in threats by IRGC officials on behalf of Hizbullah about the latter’s readiness to strike any point in Israel. Furthermore, the IRGC-affiliated Fars news agency is touting the capability of Hizbullah’s Iranian missiles to damage Israel’s natural gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as Israeli naval vessels.

On November 24, IRGC commander Ali Jafari said at a conference at Shahid Modares University: “Today, the entire area of the occupied territories [Israel] is within range of the missiles of the resistance — meaning the fall of the Zionist regime. Of course, the matter does not end here, and certainly the final liberation [of Palestine] will come about.”[1]

Also in November, the Iranian news agency Fars published statements by IRGC Aerospace Force and missile unit commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh and his deputy Majid Mousavi, both of whom claimed that the missile unit had been established in order to attack Israel. They said that Hizbullah is in possession of Iranian missiles with a range of 300 km, covering Israeli territory as far south as Dimona. Hajizadeh added that the IRGC and Hizbullah were a single apparatus.

Hajizadeh explained in detail the history of the establishment of the missile unit, which originally copied Libyan missile systems and was based on knowhow provided by North Korea, and that training for it had been carried out in Syria. He noted that it was Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who had demanded that Iranian missiles be precise to within 10 meters. He also underlined the IRGC’s advanced missile capability against naval vessels.

In addition, just prior to the November 24 deadline, on November 17, the IRGC-affiliated posted a diagram showing the ranges of several Iranian missiles, up to 2,000 km, covering Greece, southern Italy, southeast Europe, Turkey, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. The diagram emphasized the Iranian missile threat to Israel and to U.S. military bases in the region.

On November 26, two days after Iran and the P5+1 agreed to extend the Joint Plan of Action to June 2015, Tasnimnews posted links to video clips of the launch of 2000-km range Sejil ballistic missiles (download the clip from here); of 1,350-km range Qadr F and Qadr H missiles (here) and of 1,350-km range Shahab 3 missiles; of 300-km range Hormuz 1 and 2 missiles (here), of 300-km range Zelzal missiles (here and here), of 300-km range Zelzal Raad 307 missiles (here); and of the simultaneous launch of several ballistic missiles (here).

This paper will review at length statements by IRGC officials on Iran’s missiles, on the missile unit, on the missile threat to Israel and to U.S. military bases in the region, and on the missile capabilities of Hizbullah and the Palestinian resistance, which are now armed with Iranian missile technology. It will also review statements by Hizbullah deputy secretary general Naim Qassem on Iran’s aid to Hizbullah to arm itself with missiles against Israel.

(All of the above while Obama/Kerry diddle away US/Israeli precious time and opportunity to destroy this awful, imminent world threat — shades of North Korea all over again only 100 times or more lethal and pertinent. Of course, this terrifying policy suits Barack Hussein Obama’s basic philosophy just fine – Eliminate the US as a world power and Israel altogether!) jsk

MEMRI – The Middle East Media Research Institute
December 4, 2014


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Video: The origins of the Jewish Nation
Professor Ruth Wisse, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and many other biblical experts

From the Hebrew Bible, First Book of Moses, Bereishis (Genesis)

The Haftorah of the Torah portion of the week, Vayishlach

(Ovadiah 1:1-21) The Vision of Ovadiah.

1 This is what Almighty God said about Edom (Eisav): We (the prophets) have heard a message from God, and a messenger has been sent among the nations, (saying): “Get up! Let’s wage war against her!”

2 “Look, (initially) I made you small among the notions (and; you were greatly despised.)

3 (But now that your kingdom is great), the wickedness of your heart has enticed you (to be overly proud). You (are like one) who dwell(s) in the (sheltered) clefts of a rock, (as secure as one) whose dwelling is lofty, who says to himself: ‘Who can (lower me from my lofty position, and) bring me down towards earth?’

4 (But even) if you lift (yourself) high like an eagle, and (even) if you place your nest between the stars, I will bring you down from there (to be conquered by the nations)!” says God.

5 “If thieves came upon you, or robbers at night, (they would not totally clean you out, so) how have you been (totally) wiped out? Don’t they only steal what they require? If grape-gatherers came upon you, do they not at least leave some gleanings? (Yet, You Edom, will be totally wiped out).”

6 How have the houses of Edom been searched (and all their belongings removed? How have his hidden places been sought out.)

7 All your allies accompanied you (only) to the border (but then turned back, and left you to fight alone). Those who are at peace with you induced you (to go to war) and prevailed over you. Those who eat your bread have (schemed against you, and have thereby) made a wound in your place. (Edom) has no understanding (to realize that this is happening to him).

8 Surely, on that day (when the punishment will arrive),” says God, “I will cause the wise men from Edom and wisdom from the mountain of Eisav to perish, (for they will not have the tactics at hand to save their lives).”

9 And you who live in the south, (since you too are from Edom), your mighty men will be broken, so that the slaughter will wipe out every last man from the mountain of Eisav.”

10 Because you oppressed your brother Ya’akov, you will be covered in shame, and you will be cut off forever.

11 (Yes, you oppressed your brother) when you stood aside on the day that strangers confiscated his possessions, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots over (dividing) Jerusalem (between themselves). You too are like one of them since you did nothing to help).

12 You should not have looked on at your brother’s anguish), on the day of his estrangement (from his land), and (all the more so) you should not have rejoiced at the Children of Yehudah when they were destroyed. Nor should you have spoken proudly on the day of his distress (and since you did these things, I consider them acts of oppression against your brother).

13 You should not have entered the gates of My people (to conquer their lands) on the day of their calamity (when the Temple was destroyed). Nor should you have gazed at his misfortune on the day of his downfall. You should not have stretched (your hand) out over his possessions (and looted them) on the day of his calamity.

14 You should not have stood at the dispersion to cut off his refugees, and you should not have arrested his survivors (throughout) the day(s) of his distress.

15 Because (you should have realized that) the day of God’s reckoning) on all the nations is near. As you have done, so will be done to you. Your recompense will come back on your head.

16 For just as you (Yehudah) have drunk on My Holy Mount, so too all the nations will constantly drink (from the cup of turmoil). They will drink and become confounded, and they will be (destroyed) as if they never were.

17 But on the Mount of Tziyon there will (still) be a remnant, and it will be holy. The House of Ya’akov will inherit those nations who inherited them previously.

18 The House of Ya’akov will be a consuming fire, the House of Yosef a consuming flame and the House of Eisav will be (like) straw. They will set them alight and consume them, and there will be no survivors from the House of Eisau — for God has spoken.

19 They will inherit the South, the Mountain of Eisav, and the lowlands, the (land of the) Philistines. And they will inherit the field of Efrayim and the field of Shomron. Binyamin (will inherit) the Land of Gilad.

20 The exiled army of the Children of Israel, (who lived) with the Cana’anites until Tzorfas, and the exiles of Yerushalayim until Seforad, will inherit the cities of the south (i.e. Edom).” And (when Moshiach and his ministers) the saviors of Mount Tziyon, will ascend Mount Se’ir to judge (the children of Eisav for all their wrongdoings to Israel), God will be King — all nations will recognize His sole authority.)

PS Correction. My original article presented Eisav as the progenitor of the Arab nations and I have been advised that Eisav was the progenitor of the nation of Edom which later helped the Romans in their destruction of the Second Hebrew Temple. It was Ishmael, brother to Isaac, who was progenitor of the Arab nations. Sorry for the confusion but in either case the Jews have had a very bad time. Only Hashem has guaranteed their continued success and existence. jsk

Further commentary by world renown Rabbi Berl Wein:

From: Rabbi Berel Wein
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:33 PM
To: The Destiny Foundation
Subject: Re: FW: Eisav vs. Ishmael

Traditionally, Eisav represents Christianity and Yishmael represents Islam. However, it is difficult to assign these designations to the prophets. We don’t quite know what and who their prophecy refers to.

All blessings,
Berel Wein


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments