Read More About:

Share This Post

II  Zionist Org. of America – Commentary on impending  Netanyahu address

III   Obama – The Anti-Israel President – video with David Horowitz

From: David Horowitz

I Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, today (Tuesday, 10 February 2015), issued the following statement:

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10802

“First, on behalf of the people of Israel, I wish to send condolences to President Obama, the American people and the family of Kayla Mueller. We stand with you.

Israel’s survival is not a partisan issue, not in Israel nor in the United States.

This doesn’t mean that from time to time Israeli governments have not had serious disagreements with American administrations over the best way to achieve the security of Israel.

Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared Israel’s independence in the face of strong opposition from US Secretary of State George Marshall. Likewise, Prime Minister Eshkol’s decisions at the start of the Six Day War, Prime Minister Begin’s decision regarding the nuclear reactor in Iraq, and Prime Minister Sharon’s decisions to press ahead with Operation Defensive Shield; these were all strongly opposed at the time by American administrations.

Disagreements over Israel’s security have occurred between prime ministers in Israel from the left and from the right and American presidents from both parties.

None of these disagreements led to a rupture in the relationship between Israel and the United States.

In fact, over time, our relationship grew stronger.

But we do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran.

This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival.

This is a regime, Iran, that is openly committed to Israel’s destruction. It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.

This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields. Equally, I know that the President appreciates my responsibility, my foremost responsibility, to protect and defend the security of Israel.

I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.

I intend to speak about this issue before the March 24th deadline and I intend to speak in the US Congress because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran.

Thank you.”

II  Op-Ed: Netanyahu Must Absolutely Make that Speech

By Morton Klein and Daniel Mandel
February 6, 2015

Last week, 10 Senate Democrats who had persistently expressed concern over President Barack Obama’s concessionary policy to Iran over its nuclear weapons program, announced via a letter to the President that they would desist from seeking to pass new legislation to reimpose sanctions in the event of a failure in nuclear talks. Under reportedly enormous pressure from the White House, the senators said that they would await the March 24 deadline for a negotiated framework for an agreement with Tehran, despite their doubts that any such agreement would be forthcoming.

This delay is a serious mistake, because one of the few things that might induce Tehran to agree to terminating its nuclear weapons program would be the certainty of renewed tough sanctions if it didn’t. Now such pressure is absent and the chances of Iran agreeing correspondingly reduced.

But this is only the latest blow to diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear threshold power. The fact is that President Obama has a six year record of indulging and conceding to Iran, without having achieved anything to prevent it becoming a nuclear power, which he’s repeatedly and publicly proclaimed he would do “everything, everything” to prevent.

Obama has a disturbing record on Iran sanctions. For over a year after entering office, he prohibited a Congressional vote on new sanctions. Moreover, the 2010 UN Security Council sanctions regime he eventually supported included huge exemptions for numerous countries, like China, which has huge contracts in Iran’s energy sector developing oil refineries, and Russia, which supplies S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran.

In 2011, Obama sought to torpedo or weaken new and stronger Congressional sanctions on Iran, even after these had been softened at his request, leading Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to publicly and angrily criticize the Administration.

In 2013, Obama quietly lifted financial pressure on Tehran, stopping the blacklisting of entities and individuals assisting Iran’s evasion of international sanctions. He also damagingly publicized Israeli preparations to deal militarily with Iran, including Israeli use of Azerbaijan airfields.

Then came the biggest subversion of the cause of keeping Iran nuclear weapon-free: the Geneva Interim Agreement with Iran, which gave Tehran vital sanctions relief totaling some $20 billion (not the $6-7 billion originally conceded by the Administration) while permitting Iran to retain intact all the essential elements of its nuclear weapons program:

Continued construction of its Arak plutonium plant

Continued uranium enrichment to 5% (which, with 19,000 centrifuges, can enable swift enrichment to weapons-grade level, allowing Iran to become a break-out nuclear state in a matter of months)

Continued research and massive upgrading of centrifuges, enabling Iran to achieve a nuclear breakout in a mere two months

Continued nuclear research at military installations like Parchin, which remain off-limits to inspectors
Continued intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programs, whose only purpose is carrying nuclear warheads and which, according to U.S. intelligence, will enable Iran to strike the U.S. itself by 2015

Iranian aggression is also met with silence. Tehran’s Syrian ally, Bashar Assad, continues to murder and maim across Syria in a conflict that has already claimed 200,000 lives. Iran continues funding of the radical Islamic terror group, Hezbollah, which helps keep Assad in power. Iranian-supported rebels have just toppled Yemen’s pro-American government. Iran has increasing hold in large swathes of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Silence.

So, too, with Iranian threats to the U.S. and Israel. Statements continue to be made by Khamenei and other senior Iranian figures, publicly calling for destruction of U.S., the “Great Satan,” — like the Iranian Defense Ministry recently declaring that “the Iranian nation still sees the U.S. as the No. 1 enemy.”

Iran has been quietly expanding its reach in Latin America, courtesy of friendly regimes. Silence.

Instead, Obama fights proposed sanctions, which will only be imposed if there’s no nuclear deal, and is outraged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepts an invitation to address the Congress on the subject, a record which even led Senator Menendez to declare, “the more I hear from the Administration … the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Video:   Newt Gingrich reveals Radical Islam in the US

I  Militant Muslims run the White House

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10746

By  Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director
International Christian Zionist Center

3 February 2015

IS THIS A MUSLIM PRESIDENT?

Is it not incredibly ironic that President Barack Obama who was voted into office by – among others – a large majority of women voters, many of them feminists, may become a threat to the very liberties they have fought for because of his love for the world of ISLAM.

Nowhere in this sad world today are women as discriminated against by their leaders and governments as where they are still under the rule of ISLAM. Is it not strange and astonishing, then, how those liberal outlets and spokespersons in the United States most committed to the liberties and equality of women have been so pro an ISLAMIC-oriented President? What is the reason for this ISLAMIC love affair conducted by President Obama before our very eyes, not only refusing to personally call the many massacres and terrorism inspired by jihadi ISLAM, but even forbidding his administration officials from doing so?

We know Barack Hussein Obama was brought up as a Muslim in Indonesia and that in times of being interviewed even as president – especially during interviews with Muslims – has referred to himself as still being a Muslim.

His main, most influential and ever-present advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was born in Iran and apparently, like her boss, loves the ISLAMIC world, so much so she even opposed him going after Osama bin Laden, and fortunately was later overruled by Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates.

We know that among many in African American circles there are strong sympathies and flirtations with ISLAM, as seen with Louis Farrakhan and his mainly black Nation of ISLAM. Thus not only America’s more leftist leaning women, but many African Americans voted for this Muslim oriented president.

These trends came together in the Trinity Church in Chicago under the tutelage of Jeremy Wright, where for 20 years Obama chose to attend with his family. This pastor who was not only a revolutionary anti-American but also a Farrakhan sympathizer, so much so that Muslim- oriented people felt welcome in his congregation. No wonder, then, that Barack Hussein Obama felt he fit so well in the midst of this congregation. If anything, this shows that in the Trinity Church Obama chose to attend, the difference between what constituted being a Christian or Muslim was virtually nonexistent.

Which would all serve to explain why today’s Muslim (?) US President, named by some the most anti-Christian president in American history, seems more at ease with black or Muslim advisors and Muslim leaders like Erdogan and Morsi – to name just a few – than with those Americans who still base their values upon the Judeo-Christian foundation that made America unique and special!

Is it then any wonder that the majority of today’s American representatives, both in the Senate as well as in the US Congress, led today by John Boehner, want to invite and hear what the Prime Minister of Israel has to say concerning this vital matter of national security both for Israel and the United States rather than just blindly trust their Islam oriented President?

 II  Did you know that we now have a Muslim government?

America needs to wake up……or it will be your head that goes next

Its a shock to see the extent of this.

When you read this you will understand why Obama refuses to say the words “radical Islam .”..

I didn’t originate this, but it checked out with Google and Snopes … There are accompanying links corroborating each Muslim identity shown below.

John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia .

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/shock-claim-obama-picks-muslim-for-cia-chief/

Obama’s top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live .

http://www.teaparty.org/valerie-jarrett-obamas-heinrich-himmler-sites-american-patriots-finger-trigger-35412/

Hillary Clinton’s top advisor, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/5866/hillary-clintons-connection-muslim-brotherhood/

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dhs.asp

Homeland Security Advisor, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim .

http://unitedwithisrael.org/homeland-security-advisor-quits-after-inevitable-return-of-caliphate-tweet/

Obama advisor and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim

http://www.mpac.org/about/staff-board/salam-al-marayati.php

Obama’s Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid , of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim .

http://www.isna.net/mohamed-magid.html

Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim .

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2565

And last but not least, our closet Muslim himself, Barack Hussein Obama. He was raised as a Muslim .

http://downtrend.com/jrc410/a-look-inside-the-regime-advisers-of-our-first-islamic-president/

http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/obama-s-temper-tantrum

https://www.facebook.com/ingrahamangle/posts/10152733927044726

http://www.loadmastervideos.com/forums/forums/viewtopic.php?p=23232&sid=5874b3f5ce1273a14118ba92554c6ef8

It’s questionable if Obama ever officially took the oath of office when he was sworn in. He didn’t repeat the oath properly to defend our nation and our Constitution. Later the Democrats claimed he was given the oath again in private?

CIA director John Brennan took his oath on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/08/john-brennan-takes-oath-on-draft-constitution-without-the-bill-of-rights/

Congressman, Keith Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Qur’an.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/ellison.asp

Congresswoman Michele Bachman was vilified and almost tarred and feathered by Democrats when she voiced her concern about Muslims taking over our government.

Considering all these appointments, it would explain why Obama and his minions are systematically destroying our nation, supporting radical Muslim groups worldwide, opening our southern border, and turning a blind eye to the genocide being perpetrated on Christians all over Africa and the Middle East.

The more damage Obama does , the more arrogant he’s become!

Our nation and our government has been infiltrated by people who want to destroy us. It can only get worse!

Please pass this along. Most people still have no idea.

(PS  In deference to some legitimate complaints, I added the word “Militant” in the front of the Muslim title)  jsk

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From the Torah portion of the week

The Second Book of Moses (The Hebrew Bible), Shemos (Exodus)

Parsha (Chapter) Yisro (The Midianite, The Father-in-law of Moses)

GOD  CHOOSES  THE JEWISH  PEOPLE  AS  HIS  OWN

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10764

19.3   Moshe ascended to God (on the second day of the month, early in the morning). God called to him from the mountain, saying, “You should say the following to the house of Yaacov (i.e. the women) and tell the same thing in a more explicit manner, stressing the punishment and fine details) to the sons of Israel (i.e. the men):

4   ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I gathered you together in a short period of time, and I protected you through the angel of God, as if you were carried on eagles’ wings, and brought you to My service.

5  Now, if you listen to Me and keep My covenant (through observing Torah), you will be a precious treasure to me among all the peoples, for the whole earth is mine and  the other nations are like nothing to Me.

6  You shall be to Me a kingdom of ministers and a holy nation

“These are the words that you shall speak to the children of Israel, (no more and no less).” |

7  Moshe returned and summoned the elders of Israel and placed before them all these words that God had commanded him.

8  All the people replied in unison and said, “Everything that God has said we shall do!

(On the third day) Moshe (ascended the mountain once again and) conveyed the words of the people back to God

9  God said to Moshe, “Look!  I  am going to come (down) to you in a fog (within its deepest part) order that the people hear when I speak to you, and they will also believe in you (and the prophets will follow you) forever.”

Moshe returned to relay God’s words and, on the fourth day, he ascended to relay the people’s reply to God (that they did not wish merely to overhear God speaking to Moshe, but they wanted to hear God directly).

20:1      THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

God spoke all the Ten Commandments in one single utterance. He then went back and spoke each one individually.

The Jewish people responded  “Yes” to the positive commands and “No” to the prohibitions

2  “I am God, the God of everyone of you. Who took you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of bondage”

3  “You shall not possess an idol of other deities (so long as I exist).

4  “You shall not make to yourself a sculptured image or any picture of that which is in the heavens above, which is on earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth.”

5  “You shall not bow down nor worship them, for I, God, your God, am a God Who is zealous to enact punishment visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who continue in their fathers’ ways to hate Me.”

6  “But I act kindly to those who love those who keep My commandments for two thousand generations.”

7  “You shall not take the name of God, your God, in vain, for God will not absolve anyone who takes His name in vain.”

8  “Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it.”

9   “Six days may you work and perform all”

10  “But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God, your God. You shall perform no labor, nor your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your beast, nor your convert who is within your gates.”

11  For in six days God made the heaven, the earth and the sea and all that is within them — and he rested on the seventh day and sanctified it by not bringing the manna to fall on Friday.

12. “Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days will be lengthened on the land that God, your God, is giving you.

 13   “You shall not murder.”

“You shaft not commit adultery.”

“You shall not steal people  ( i.e. kidnap).”

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

14  “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,  his manservant,  his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor.”

15  All the people could see the sounds (which God spoke), the torches, the sound of the shofar and  the smoking mountain. The people saw and they trembled.

16  They said to Moshe, “You speak to us, and we will listen, but do not let God speak to us lest we die!”

17  Moshe said to the people, “Fear not for God has come in order to promote your reputation throughout the world and in order that having seen His awe, you will know there is no other than Him, so you will not sin.”

18  The people remained a long way off. Moshe drew near first through  the darkness then through  the clouds and deeper still to the fog where God was.

 

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Naftali Bennett

http://youtu.be/n1oFOEY_6lM

Is Annexation a Near Term Option?

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10749

By Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis). 5 February 2015

On February 3, 2015, Bayit Yehudit (Israeli political party)  distributed a short video describing Naftali Bennett’s plan to annex Area C, the area where Jewish communities are located, while leaving the remainder as a Palestinian autonomy with Israel making great efforts to facilitate improved conditions in the autonomy. Palestinians in Area C would each have the choice of full Israeli citizenship or permanent resident status.

Minister Bennett’s Facebook page introduced the video with the line “Give us 20 mandates”

The end of the video has the line ”Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria today”.

The clip didn’t get much media attention or discussion.

And Bayit Yehudi  itself doesn’t seem to have initiated any follow up (at least as of now).

I hope it does. Because annexation deserves serious consideration. And not just for some far off time.

First a technical note:

Ordinance Law and Administration, 1948
… 11B The law, jurisdiction and administration of the State shall apply to any area of the Land of Israel that the Government sets in an order. That’s right. All it takes is a vote of the Cabinet.

Why later?

1. We are in the process of shifting exports to markets that don’t mix business with politics. The longer we wait the less significant sanctions against Israel for annexing Area C will be.

2. The world will be more accepting if Israel can cite a “casus belli” for the move so we should wait for the Palestinians to do something that justifies annexation.
3. It is always better when facing a problem to kick the can down the road.

Why now?
1. The move now will not spur a war involving our neighbors. They are all involved in other pressing matters.

2. The outcome of the nuclear talks with Iran are being driven by considerations having absolutely nothing to do with Israeli-Palestinian matters.

3. Iran today doesn’t yet have nukes to threaten to use against us for the move.

4. Current oil prices are such that if they do respond for some unforeseen reason to the move its impact on the world will be marginal.

5. The Palestinian leadership is currently fractured with an exhausted street that could very well welcome the relief the program would provide.

6. While the Palestinian presence in Area C today is minuscule, the Palestinian leadership and their supporters around the world are focusing development efforts in Area C with the goal of increasing the number of Palestinian residents to the point that Israel would be deterred from annexing the area.

There are certainly other matters to consider as well.

The important thing is that the concept be considered. Not as something for implementing a decade from now but instead after the upcoming elections.

(I daresay that its basically a debate between the kick the can down-the-road frightened herd and those prepared to  face the obvious unpopular necessity of annexation that should have been completed immediately after the Six Day War in  1967) jsk

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

70% of Jewish Israelis do not trust Obama to safeguard their nation’s vital interests in negotiations with the Palestinians.

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10699

II Obama Approval Rating Dives In Israel (see below)

I  Netanyahu demands injunction against U.S.-linked group trying to swing Israeli election

Sunday, February 1, 2015

By AARON KLEIN

World Net Daily Exclusive

EILAT, Israel – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party hit back Sunday at a U.S.-linked organization staffed with former Obama campaigners now working to defeat Netanyahu in an upcoming general election. Victory 2015, or V15, attracted U.S. media attention after it hired 270 Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior leadership is comprised mostly of former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

During a press conference Sunday, the Likud Party officially accused V15 and other related nonprofits of being supported “through millions of dollars funneled from Europe, the U.S. and the New Israel Fund and international factors interested in bringing down Prime Minister Netanyahu” who think “that all means are appropriate.”

The Likud further called for Israel’s Central Elections Committee to outlaw V15′s activities to “ensure the integrity of the election.” The party today will be filing an official complaint with the Committee seeking an injunction against V15, Likud sources said.

Reacting to the developments, Uri Wollman, V15′s spokesman, told WND his organization will not stop its campaign to ensure a center-left coalition forms the next government in Israel. Wollman accused Netanyahu and the Likud of “fabricating” a relationship between V15 and the Obama administration. “We have no relation to any U.S. political party, the White House or the State Department,” Wollman told WND.

Confirming the official Likud complaint, the contents of which were shared with WND, Wollman conceded the V15 effort against Netanyahu is funded primarily by three private philanthropists, two of whom are American:

S. Daniel Abraham, the billionaire founder of the Slim Fast food line. Abraham is a major donor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation (And, as pathologically dead Left as it is possible to be)

Daniel Lubetzky, a social entrepreneur whose OneVoice Movement is partnered with V15

Alon Kastiel, a Tel Aviv-based businessman and owner of multiple local venues, including bars, clubs and hotels.

WND previously visited V15′s Tel Aviv headquarters and interviewed the group’s founder, Nimrod Dweck, who explained the ultimate goal of his campaign was to ensure “center and left parties will form the next coalition.”

V15′s headquarters is actually the offices of a U.S.-U.K. group calling itself OneVoice. OneVoice bills itself as an “international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians.” It has a clearly leftist tone.

OneVoice is reportedly sponsored by scores of nonprofits and received two grants in the past year from the U.S. State Department. The US State Department is also listed as a partner of OneVoice on the group’s website. (Huh?  Since when is the US State Department authorized to go into partnership with political organizations?)

OneVoice development and grants officer Christina Taler told the Washington Free Beacon that “no government funding” has gone toward the V15 voter mobilization effort. V15′s complete takeover of OneVoice’s Tel Aviv offices, however, may raise some questions not only about the grant usage, but also about the State Department’s current partnership with OneVoice.

Indeed, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has called for an investigation into the State Department’s ties to OneVoice and the group’s anti-Netanyahu effort.

Aside from the State Department, OneVoice is also openly partnered with Google, the U.K. Labour Party and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. For its anti-Netanyahu campaign, OneVoice and V15 recently hired 270 Strategies, whose founder is ex-Obama campaign staffer Jeremy Bird. Bird served as a data analyst and a deputy director for Obama’s 2008 campaign and was the national field director for the president’s massive re-election machine.

Dweck told WND that Bird’s organizing skills are central to designing the evolving V15 battle plan. “Israelis don’t know how to run field (operations) as Americans [do], and that was the major contribution of Jeremy’s team,” he said. Bird has provided “very professional help about how to organize, manage people, how to go door-to-door, how to talk to people on the street,” Dweck said.

270 Strategies’ team of 45 staffers includes 16 members who worked directly for Obama’s campaigns. Most of the former Obama staffers hold senior posts at the firm. Others worked for the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee or grassroots groups involved in progressive efforts, including a group to enroll Americans in Obamacare.

The involvement of Bird’s team has ignited reports in some conservative media outlets that Obama or his surrogate are attempting to influence the Israeli elections. Dweck dismissed those claims as “bullsh-t.” “It’s a matter of finding the right professionals,” he continued. “And if I need to pick the best professional in the world for the job, [Bird] knows what he is doing. 270 [Strategies] is a great company.” Besides the initial work to organize the group’s efforts, Dweck said he and V15 continue to consult with Bird and his firm on a regular basis.

The conservative blogosphere is largely focusing on the involvement of Bird in the V15 campaign.

A closer look at Bird’s consulting firm as well as its working relationship with the Israeli groups finds he is just one of scores of former senior Obama election campaign staffers now working on the anti-Netanyahu effort.

II  Obama Approval Rating Dives In Israel

By Karl Vick @karl_vick Feb. 7, 2014

WORLD ISRAEL

Less than a year after President Obama left Israel to the sound of loud cheering after he assured Israelis in Hebrew that they “are not alone,” a new poll has found that 70% of Jewish Israelis do not trust Obama to safeguard their nation’s vital interests in negotiations with the Palestinians.

The latest in a string of recent polls demonstrating a precipitous fall in the confidence Obama appeared to have restored during his three-day visit last March. On Jan. 26, a Times of Israel poll found only one in five Israelis trust Obama to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, as he has vowed to do. The same survey reported just one in three Israelis has a favorable opinion of Obama. Last May, in the afterglow of his state visit, 61 percent in a Pew poll expressed “confidence” in Obama.

What’s happened since? The answer is: two negotiations, and a lot of tart exchanges.

The first negotiation was with Iran: In November, the United States and five other world powers made an temporary pact with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decried as a “a historic mistake.” Some prominent Israelis were less critical about the pact, which merely froze for six months a nuclear program that Israel wants to see dismantled, but Netanyahu’s ministers echoed his rhetoric, casting Obama as a sucker for an Iranian charm offensive.

The other negotiation was the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians that Secretary of State John Kerry has relentlessly pursued. The talks, intended to last for nine months, showed so little progress around the half-way point that Kerry has begun assembling a “framework” that would justify an extension. The effort pushed the most contentious elements of any deal into public view as politicians were forced to float possible compromises.

It also made Kerry an object of increasing resentment. Last month Netanyahu’s Defense Minister, Moshe “Bugie” Ya’alon, was forced to apologize publicly after the State Department objected to his referring to Kerry as “obsessive and messianic.” Then Israeli officials lambasted Kerry for warning Feb. 1 of the downside for Israel if the talks fail, including “talk of boycotts.” The reference was to an incipient international movement aimed at pressuring Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories using the kind of economic pressure brought to bear on South Africa when it enforced apartheid.

But Netanyahu’s government seized on the warning as a threat. Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said Kerry’s remarks were “hurtful..unfair…intolerable” and amounted to asking Israel to negotiate “with a gun to its head.” Netanyahu said “attempts to impose a boycott on the state of Israel are immoral and unjust.” The State Department read Netanyahu’s statement as a conflation of Kerry with the hazard he was flagging, and issued a statement of its own admonishing “all parties to accurately portray his record and statements.” On Monday night National Security Advisor Susan Rice joined in, posting on Twitter: “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.”

But in Israel, at least, the damage was done. Friday’s Israel Hayom daily carried yet another poll, this one showing only 21% of Israeli Jews thought Kerry was speaking out of “concern for Israel.” Sixty percent, the survey said, took his warning as a threat.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10669

FORTUNE AND EQUALITY

By the brilliant Rabbi Berl Wein

Jerusalem, Israel

One of the more popular and populist social and electoral issues here in Israel and in the rest of the Western world as well, is rectifying the seeming inequality of the distribution of wealth. The upper five percent of the population, in terms of wealth worldwide, control close to eighty percent of the wealth of the societies that they inhabit.

In order to correct this seemingly unfair imbalance, government programs are introduced and legislative laws are passed to redistribute wealth – taking from the wealthy by substantially increasing their tax burden and giving to the less wealthy in the form of government subsidies and welfare programs. This is, in effect, a glorified Robin Hood philosophy that has always proved popular and even heroic.

In those countries and societies where this utopian scheme was actually tried and enforced, the net result seems to have been that the wealthy became poor and the poor remained poor. The Soviet Union, which for seventy-five years destroyed the pre-existing wealthy class, only succeeded in creating a new class of bureaucrats and apparatchniks and an economy that bred universal poverty, social dysfunction and eventually collapsed under the weight of its own misguided policies.

Here in Israel, the socialist founders of the state also addressed the problem of income inequality with enormous taxation and controls over various forms of private enterprise. This was the legacy of the Marxist mindset that was part of the belief system of the Eastern European Zionist founders of the state.

Only over the last few decades has this situation changed, with many more Israelis prospering. Now more than ever before in the history of the country, there is a larger and growing wealthy class. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a great gap between the wealthy and the less wealthy. And this gap is trumpeted, by all of the parties, as being an important electoral issue that needs determined correction and government action.

The Torah takes a more realistic and measured view of the human situation involved here. We are assured that there will always be a substantial number of people – if not even the vast majority of the population – that will be less wealthy than the rich people of the society. All human beings are created equal but they never are equal in talent, wealth, opportunity and accomplishment. That is simply a fact of human life.

The Talmud, in its usual pithy and accurate way, teaches us that success in raising children, achieving longevity of life and becoming wealthy in material terms are all dependent upon good fortune. Seemingly perfect parents and warm and loving households can also produce children that are rebellious and even monstrous.

One can rigorously follow the best of health, diet and exercise regimens and still not be guaranteed a long life. And one can work hard, be smart and intelligent, have great deal of knowledge and energy and still be a very poor wage earner. Apparently the Talmud takes for granted that income inequality will always be a part of human life. It encourages and demands that the wealthy constantly help the poor but it offers no magic bullet that will make everyone equally wealthy.

There exists an imaginary poverty line that is drawn by statisticians in every society. There will always be a substantial portion of the population that finds itself below that poverty line. The issue is how high that poverty line is drawn on the graph of wealth and income. There is no question that the poor in Israel today are much wealthier than the poor in Israel were a half-century ago. Yet we are constantly reminded of how many in Israel find themselves in the group that is below the poverty line.

I wish that there were no poor people in Israel or anywhere else in the world, but that is a hopeless wish. Those of us who find ourselves fortunate to have means and wealth are obligated to help our fellow citizens who need our help. But destroying the wealthy class, taxing them inordinately and attempting to redistribute wealth and income, only weakens the society and its economy.

We should not remain passive in the face of the economic and social troubles that confront so many of our neighbors here in Israel and throughout the world. It is interesting to note that people are more resistant to paying taxes to a government than they are to contributing towards charitable causes and helping other human beings.

As with everything in life there must be a balance between private wealth, government welfare, taxation policies and voluntary charitable behavior. Populist slogans rarely if ever contribute to achieving this most necessary balance. Lincoln famously once said: “The Lord must love the poor. He created so many of them”. We should attempt to diminish the numbers of the poor but at the same time realize that certain facts in the human condition and in general society are not given to easy and popular theoretical solution.

Shabbat shalom

Berel Wein

Rabbi Berel Wein is the founder and director of the Destiny Foundation. For over 20 years, he has been identified with the popularization of Jewish history through lectures, more than 1000 audiotapes, books, seminars, educational tours and, most recently documentary films. Rabbi Wein has authored five Jewish history books ― including Faith and Fate, the story of the Jews in the Twentieth Century ― all of which have received popular and critical acclaim. His newest book is The Oral Law of Sinai, an illustrated history of the Mishnah logic, legend & truth. Rabbi Wein, a member of the Illinois Bar Association, is the recipient of the Educator of the Year Award from the Covenant Foundation. Most recently, Rabbi Wein received the Torah Prize Award from Machon Harav Frank in Jerusalem for his achievements in teaching Torah and spreading Judaism around the world. Rabbi Wein lives and teaches in Jerusalem. Visit his site at http://www.rabbiwein.com

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith

France and the rest of Western Europe have never honestly confronted the issues raised by Muslim immigration

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10660

Redacted from article:
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
The Wall street Journal
Jan. 16,17, 2015

The terrorist assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7 may have been organized by al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. But the attack, along with another at a Paris kosher market days later, was carried out by French Muslims descended from recent waves of North African and West African immigration. Well before the attacks, which left 17 dead, the French were discussing the possibility that tensions with the country’s own Muslim community were leading France toward some kind of armed confrontation.

Consider Éric Zemmour, a slashing television debater and a gifted polemicist. His history of the collapse of France’s postwar political order, “Le suicide français,” was No. 1 on the best-seller lists for several weeks this fall. “Today, our elites think it’s France that needs to change to suit Islam, and not the other way around,” Mr. Zemmour said on a late-night talk show in October, “and I think that with this system, we’re headed toward civil war.”

France’s problem has elements of a military threat, a religious conflict and a violent civil-rights movement. It is not unique. Every country of Western Europe has a version. For a half-century, millions of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa have arrived, lured by work, welfare, marriage and a refuge from war. There are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France, according to the demographer Michèle Tribalat. That amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France, compared with about 5% of both the U.K. and Germany.

Europeans drew the wrong lessons from the American civil-rights movement. In the U.S., there was race and there was immigration. They were separate matters that could (at least until recently) be disentangled by people of good faith. In Europe, the two problems have long been inseparable. Voters who worried about immigration were widely accused of racism, or later of “Islamophobia.”

In France, antiracism set itself squarely against freedom of speech. The passage of the 1990 Gayssot Law, which punished denial of the Holocaust, was a watershed. Activist lobbies sought to expand such protections by limiting discussion of a variety of historical events—the slave trade, colonialism, foreign genocides. This was backed up by institutional muscle. In the 1980s, President François Mitterrand’s Socialist party created a nongovernmental organization called SOS Racisme to rally minority voters and to hound those who worked against their interests.

Older bodies such as the communist-inspired Movement against Racism and for Friendship Among the Peoples made a specialty of threatening (and sometimes carrying out) lawsuits against European intellectuals for the slightest trespasses against political correctness: (Sound familiar?) the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci for her post-9/11 lament “The Rage and the Pride,” the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut for doubting that the 2005 riots in France’s suburban ghettos were due to unemployment, the Russia scholar Hélène Carrère d’Encausse for speculating about the role of polygamy in the problems of West African immigrants.

Speech codes have done little to facilitate entry into the workforce for immigrants and their children or to reduce crime. But they have intimidated European voting publics, insulated politicians from criticism and turned certain crucial matters into taboos. Immigrant and ethnic issues have become tightly bound to the issue of building the multinational European Union, which has removed vast areas of policy from voter accountability. “Anti-European” sentiments continue to rise.

So impressed were the Europeans with their own generosity that they failed to notice that the population of second- and third-generation immigrants was growing bigger, stronger, more unified and less inclined to take moral instruction. This is partly a demographic problem. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Western Europe has had some of the lowest birthrates of any civilization on record. Without immigration, Europe’s population would fall by a hundred million by midcentury, according to U.N. estimates.

In a world that prized “identity,” Muslim immigrants were aristocrats. Those who became radicalized developed the most monstrous kind of self-regard. A chilling moment in the most recent terrorist drama came when the TV network RTL phoned the kosher supermarket where the Malian-French hostage-taker, Amedy Coulibaly, was holding his victims at gunpoint. He refused to talk but hung up the phone carelessly.

The Muslim community is not to be confused with the terrorists it produces. But left to its own, it probably lacks the means, the inclination and the courage to stand up to the faction, however small, that supports terrorism. In 1995, there were riots among French Muslims after the arrest of Khalid Kelkal of Lyon, who had planted several bombs—in a train station, near a Jewish school, on a high-speed rail track. In 2012, when Mohamed Merah of Toulouse was killed by police after having gunned down soldiers, a rabbi and three Jewish elementary-school children, his brother professed himself “proud,” and his father threatened to file a wrongful-death suit against the government.

And when Charlie Hebdo printed a memorial cover that had a picture of its controversial cartoon character “Muhammad” on it, it was as if the attacks had never happened: Muslim community spokesmen, even moderate ones, issued dire warnings about the insult to them and their coreligionists. To many Muslims in France and the rest of Europe, the new drawings were evidence not that the terrorists had failed to kill a magazine but that the French had failed to heed a warning.

It may seem harsh to criticize the French in their time of grief, but they are responding today with tools that have failed them in previous crises. They reflexively look at their own supposed bigotry as always, somehow, the ultimate cause of Islamist terrorism, and they limit their efforts to making minority communities feel more at home.

On religion: Mr. Hollande has insisted that the attacks have “nothing to do with Islam.” At the same time, Prime Minister Manuel Valls speaks of “moderate Islam” and rails against “conservatism and obscurantism”— as if the violence had everything to do with Islam, and even with religious devotion in general. (Huh?)

• On spying: Some in the French government blame intelligence failures, since the secret services tracked the Charlie Hebdo killers Said and Chérif Kouachi until last summer. But government officials boast of about their principled unwillingness to legislate a “Patriot Act a la française”—even as they draw daily on intelligence gathered by the U.S.

In France, it is the Front National, a party with antecedents on the far right, that has been the big beneficiary. In the last national election, for seats in the European Parliament, the FN, led by Marine Le Pen (daughter of the party’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen), topped the polls. But the ruling Socialists froze the Front National out of the recent national ceremonies of mourning, limiting participation in the Paris rally to those parties it deemed “republican.” This risks damaging the cause of republicanism more than the cause of Le Pen and her followers.

France, like Europe more broadly, has been careless for decades. It has not recognized that free countries are for peoples strong enough to defend them. A willingness to join hands and to march in solidarity is a good first response to the awful events of early January. It will not be enough.

Mr. Caldwell is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and the author of “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West.”

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10552

(Redacted from an in-depth must-read article in COMMENTARY February 2015)

The Existential Necessity of Zionism After the Paris Carnage

A COMMENTARY Editorial
By the Editors of COMMENTARY

The jihadist siege of a kosher grocery store in eastern Paris on January 9 was not the beginning of a new threat to French Jews and the Jews of Europe. Rather, it was the culmination of a decade of crisis. And it will not be the end.

The new era of deadly anti-Semitism in France began with the January 2006 murder of 23-year-old Ilan Halimi. Shortly after a Shabbat meal with his mother, he was lured to a Paris slum, where he was ambushed by a gang. They held him captive for 24 days, during which time he was beaten, stabbed, burned with acid, mutilated, lit on fire, and tortured to death. Halimi’s murderers were African and North African Muslim immigrants with ties to Islamic extremists. They called themselves the Gang of Barbarians. And they chose Halimi because he was a Jew.

France’s 5 million Muslims account for 10 to 12 percent of the country’s total population. It is the largest Muslim population in Europe; it is also the most problematic. Several factors contribute to this reality.

The first is radical Islam. Since the late-20th century, a Saudi-funded, anti-Semitic strain of Islamist radicalism has spread to all corners of the Muslim world. Many of France’s recent Muslim immigrants from North Africa have brought their Islamist and jihadist sympathies to Europe. Indeed, a 2013 poll found that a startling 27 percent of French Muslims younger than 24 support ISIS.

Second, nationalism is a foundational aspect of French life. Old nationalist allegiances have made it hard for well-meaning Muslim immigrants to integrate into society, as they have no direct ties to Metropolitan France. They live largely among themselves in banlieues, whose customs and norms closely resemble those of the inhabitants’ countries of origin—not those of their new home.

The doctrine of multiculturalism, the idée fixe of postwar Europe, has a strange relationship with French nationalism: Though it would seem nationalism’s ideological opposite, multiculturalism offers rosy-cheeked cover to France’s deep unwillingness to allow anyone without centuries-old roots to become “French.” And it allows some in France to entertain the belief that Jews, too, can never be French.

France is also home to Europe’s largest Jewish population. For decades after World War II, French Jewry thrived both as a vibrant community of co-religionists and as integral members of French society. While European anti-Semitism was far from extinguished, France seemed a living example of successful Jewish life in Europe after the Holocaust. Today, the Jewish population of France stands at approximately 478,000—the world’s second-largest population of Diaspora Jews (after America’s).

But France’s Jews are outnumbered by its Muslims 10 to 1. The unspeakable murder of Halimi in 2006 heralded a sharp turn back to Europe’s most notorious hatred, at the hands of its newest population. There have been thousands—thousands—of attacks on French Jews and Jewish sites in the years since Halimi was killed.

Muslim attacks on French Jews increased more significantly still in the summer of 2014, during and after Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. On July 13, dozens of North African immigrants stormed Paris’s Don Isaac Abravanel synagogue, chanting “Allahu Akbar” and “Death to the Jews.” The mob, wielding knives, clubs, and axes, tried for hours to get through the barricaded door to some 200 congregants on the other side. Police and representatives of France’s Jewish Community Protection Service eventually dispersed the attackers. In July and August, there were a total of eight attempts to destroy or burn various synagogues in Paris. And in Sarcelles, mobs set fire to Jewish-owned business. All told, anti-Semitic incidents in France shot up an estimated 90 percent in 2014.

From the Halimi murder to the attacks in January, the official French response has been one of sympathy for the victim and denial of the nature of the victimizer. On the afternoon of January 9, at the close of a week in which gunmen who claimed to be avenging the prophet Muhammad killed 17 French citizens, President François Hollande stood in front of television cameras and announced that the terrorists had “nothing to do with the Muslim religion.(Huh!)

The ineffectual response of Hollande and his predecessors to the Muslim problem in their midst has sent many French into the arms of the National Front (FN). This far-right party, founded in 1972 and led today by Marine Le Pen, scored its biggest victory ever in municipal elections in March 2014. Le Pen is an outspoken opponent of Muslim immigration, but the FN is ultra-nationalist in every respect, and neither the party nor its supporters can be considered friends of the Jews. Far from it. Le Pen, daughter of FN founder and unabashed anti-Semite Jean-Marie Le Pen, supports a ban on the wearing of yarmulkes in public. Working-class French are increasingly drawn to both the far right and far left, both of which have a propensity to lay blame on the Jew.

Caught between the deadly reality of radical Islam and the potential manifestation of a neo-fascist revival, what are French Jews to do? For ever greater numbers, the answer lies in Israel. Last year, a record-high 7,000 French Jews immigrated to the Jewish state—more than double the year before. The Jewish Agency, which oversees immigration of Jews to Israel, now estimates that some 15,000 French Jews will make aliyah in 2015.

II. Theodor Herzl

In 1894, the Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl was on the scene in Paris to cover the official public degradation of Alfred Dreyfus, a French officer who had been convicted of spying for Germany and sentenced to life on Devil’s Island.

Jews should “not delude ourselves,” Herzl wrote in his diary. The cause “is a lost one.” The cause of which he spoke was the effort to secure equal rights to life and liberty for Jews as a minority population living among non-Jews. For Herzl, the Dreyfus case marked the conclusion to years of rumination about the existential condition of his people.

Eighteen months later, Herzl published The Jewish State. This pamphlet, which changed the world in 23,000 words, is startling even today, not because of the power of its rhetoric but because of its unprecedented practicality. It does not advance uniquely powerful or memorably polemical arguments against anti-Semitism: “I do not wish to take up the cudgels for the Jews in this pamphlet,” Herzl wrote. “It would be useless. Everything rational and everything sentimental that can possibly be said in their defense has been said already. If one’s hearers are incapable of comprehending them, one is a preacher in a desert.

III. Vladimir Jabotinsky

Although he is now considered the founding father of the ideological right in Israel, the revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky was dedicated to a pragmatic, not a religious or historic, need for a Jewish national home in Palestine. He called it “humanitarian Zionism.” As the anti-Jewish storm clouds over Europe gathered strength once again, Jabotinsky aimed for a simple goal: the rescue of as many Jews as possible. Jabotinsky, the most literate and literary of the early Zionist leaders, grew to disdain the arguments about what a “good” Israel ought to look like—thus, he dismissively called the project of other Zionist leaders an “amusement park for Hebrew culture.” What Israel needed was not to become but to be.

The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism throughout the world continued proving the need after the state of Israel became a reality. Arab countries either expelled their Jews or made it impossible for them to survive without leaving. This resulted in an immediate refugee crisis: 850,000 Jews fled the Arab world in the years following Israel’s independence. Nearly 600,000 settled in Israel. The Jewish state’s absorption of those refugees was unprecedented; the immigrants nearly doubled Israel’s nascent population. Such a thing was only possible because of practical Zionism—the organizations and the banks and the bureaucratic systems originally envisioned in The Jewish State.

The influx from Arab lands was not the only astounding wave of immigration. Soviet Jews, desperate for relief from institutionalized totalitarian hatred in the 1970s, found a crucial ally in U.S. Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik, who successfully moved legislation restricting U.S. trade with countries, such as the Soviet Union, that did not permit oppressed minorities to emigrate. Jews began, slowly, to find their way to the other side of the Iron Curtain. The trickle became a flood with the Gorbachev government’s liberalization and finally the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Today, there are 1.2 million Jews from the former Soviet Union in Israel, the third-largest Russian-speaking Diaspora after the United States and Germany. The Jewish Agency is now led by Natan Sharansky, who spent nine years in the Gulag for the crime of wanting to live as a Jew. And it is the Jewish Agency that will be there to aid the Jews of Europe over the coming years.

IV. Zionism and Conditional Zionism

Zionism was not a utopian vision. It was a program, and remains a program—the means by which Jewry can and will survive into its fourth millennium. It is about providing Jews with a safe haven in the world and allowing them to exercise rights they have been denied almost everywhere on earth where they have been governed by others—save the astonishing exception of the United States. It is about letting Jews be. That is one of the many reasons Israel was established as a democratic state, and one that respects minority rights.

(And what is the alternative to Zionism for “Conditional” Jews who reject Israel by hiding behind unrealistic criticism that expects Israel and its citizens to be perfect?.)jsk

The conditional Zionists have a way of mistaking a lull in the waves for a permanent low tide. Consider this sentence Peter Beinart (a self hating deluded, to my mind, Jewish author) jsk wrote only three years ago: “For the most part, young American Jews don’t experience their campuses as hostile or anti-Semitic.” In fact, crude anti-Zionism is ruthlessly enforced both among the faculty and the student body across American higher education.

V. Dangerous (No, Ridiculous) Complacency

The conditions in France reveal the dangerous complacency of conditional Zionism. Israel was not established as a messianic project or a secular haven. It is not a socialist workers’ paradise. It is not a capitalist-imperialist outpost. It is, instead, a country, now 66 years of age, freer than most, fairer to minorities than most, in which 6.2 million Jews now live.

Alas, the promise Theodore Herzl offered at the conclusion of The Jewish State was dreadfully naive: “The Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies,” he wrote. In two months, Jews will gather for the Passover seder and sing: “In every generation they rise up against us to destroy us.” Anti-Semitism is a disease for which there is likely no cure.

The existential necessity of Zionism after Paris is not only a fact. It is a charge for the future.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment



Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Ambassador Yoram Ettinger

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10587

Published in the Israeli daily newspaper “Israel Hayom”
January 16, 2015

(And … Previewed by the audience at our synagogue delighted to have Ambassador Ettinger as our honored guest speaker, just the day before, Shabbat, January 17, 2015!)

The lecture:

In 539 BCE, Babylonian King Belshazzar ignored the writing on the wall – as interpreted by the Prophet Daniel – and was, therefore, annihilated by the Persians (Book of Daniel, Chapter 5).

In 2015, Western civilizations must read the writing on the wall, desist from ambiguity, denial and political correctness and embrace clarity, realism and political incorrectness, in order to survive and overcome the clear and present lethal threat of the Islamic takeover, which gathers momentum via demographic, political and terroristic means.

While medical ambiguity, and the failure to diagnose lethal disease, cause personal misfortune, policy-making ambiguity and denial could trigger national and international calamities.

History proves that Western ambiguity and the refusal to identify enemies – due to ignorance, gullibility, oversimplification, appeasement, delusion and wishful thinking – have taken root, yielding major strategic setbacks and painful economic and human loss.  When it comes to reading the writing on the wall, Western eyesight has been far from 20:20, dominated by modern day Belshazzars, ignoring modern day Prophet Daniels.

For example, during the 1930s, the writing was on the wall in glaring letters: Germany abrogated the Treaty of Versailles, which called for German disarmament, reparations and territorial concessions; German military spending skyrocketed, military conscription was reintroduced and the Rhineland was remilitarized; Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and annexed Austria. 

Still, on September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact, declaring “Peace for our time.” He refused to recognize Hitler’s strategic, global, supremacist goal, assuming that Hitler’s appetite could be satisfied with a tactical, limited gain in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland, thus signing a “peace accord” which triggered the “war of all wars.”

Hitler’s master plan was highlighted in 1925-26 by the two volumes of the supremacist, anti-Jewish Mein Kampf (My Struggle), which is currently a best seller in the Muslim world, particularly in Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

During 1977-79, President Carter did not read the writing on the wall, supporting Ayatollah Khomeini’s battle against the Shah of Iran, who was in fact the US Policeman of the Persian Gulf.  Overwhelmed by denial and wishful-thinking, and heavily influenced by the US foreign policy establishment, Carter ignored the litany of sermons delivered by Khomeini, which exposed the Iranian cleric as an enemy of Western civilization and civil liberties. He despised the US and aligned himself with the enemies of the US, while protected by a Palestinian-PLO praetorian guard.

Thus, the US betrayal of the Shah eliminated a most effective and loyal strategic partner of the US, gave rise to the most lethal, conventional and non-conventional threat to vital US interests in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and beyond and generated a robust tailwind to Islamic terrorism. 
 
In 1990, on the eve of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the US stated that an Iraq-Kuwait military clash would be an intra-Arab, rather than a US, concern.  The Bush/Baker Administration assumed that “the enemy of my enemy (Iran) is my friend (Iraq),” supplying Saddam with dual-use sensitive systems, providing him with $5bn loan guarantees and concluding a US-Iraq intelligence sharing agreement. The 1990 policy of denial triggered a conventional conflict, a $1.25 trillion cost to the US taxpayer, 4,500 US military fatalities, a surge of anti-US Islamic terrorism and a dramatic destabilization of the Persian Gulf.

Since the conclusion of the 1993 Oslo Accord, Western democracies have refrained from reading the writing on the Palestinian (Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas) wall: hate education in grades K-12; unprecedented terrorism; systematic non-compliance with agreements; naming squares, streets and tournaments after terrorists; monthly allowances for families of terrorists; responding to Israeli retreats with intensified terror.

In 2011, Western democracies denied the eruption of an Arab Tsunami, welcoming the violence on the Arab Street as an Arab Spring, transitioning the Arabs toward democracy. The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood (while turning a cold shoulder toward General Al-Sisi), refusing to recognize its well-documented intra-Arab terrorism, the offshoot of its motto: “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”

The 2015 failure to carefully read the Iranian writing on the wall could produce a nuclear conflict at a mega-trillion dollar cost to the US taxpayer, an unprecedented level of fatalities, a tidal wave of Islamic terrorism throughout the globe, including in the USA, decimation of the pro-US Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf and Jordan, an unprecedented disruption of the supply of Persian Gulf oil, further radicalization of the anti-US regime in Venezuela with ripple effects in Latin America, including Mexico, and additional tectonic eruptions of insanity throughout the globe.

At stake is not only freedom of expression and the safety of European Jewry, but the survival of Western democracies.

Solidarity demonstrations and eloquent speeches will not spare Western democracies the wrath of Islamic terrorism and domination, unless accompanied by clarity, realism and the willingness to take military, legislative and political action in order to thwart the writing on the walls of the mosques: submission of humanity to the Prophet Muhammad; submission of the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jewish Kuffar (“infidel”) to Muslims and to Sharia’ laws; Jihad – holy war on behalf of Islam – is the duty of Muslims; Waqf – Muslim land – is ordained by Allah; Dar al Salaam (the residence of the believers) must take over Dar al Harb (the residence of the Kuffar); and Islam-sanctioned Taqiyyah (dissimulation, deception and concealment of inconvenient data) aimed at shielding Islam and “believers” from “disbelievers.”

That was pretty much the excellent lecture Ambassador Ettinger gave at our synagogue. Then the usual question and answer question began and someone in the audience was brash enough to start some fireworks. The questioner contended that perhaps there was some other writing on the wall that the Ambassador failed to point out.

He stated that the writing on the wall had been placed there by the current President of the United States and that the President was, in fact, not some bungling, uninformed, ineffective, uninvolved, uninterested leader but knew exactly what he was doing and was a deliberate destroyer of the United States of America!

The dedicated Democrats and uninformed Left in the audience exploded, shouted down the questioner and he was unable to present the evidence for his claim. Obama’s writings are indeed on the wall spelled out very clearly in his book, Dreams from my Father, Random House 1995. It was later determined that the book was written, with Obama’s blessings, by domestic terrorist. revolutionary William Ayers.

This whole discussion by Dinesh D’Souza appears in the Israel Commentary article,

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=4

That article exposes Obama’s father, Obama Sr., as an anti-Colonialist – the dominant idea in the third world of the 20th Century. The simple core of this idea was that the world is divided into two – the colonizers or oppressors and the colonized or victims. The colonizers used to be Europe, Britain, France and now it is America according to this line of thought.

Furthermore, the rich got rich only by looting the colonized and even when they left, powerful economic forces remained in a position of exploitation. Banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and anyone else that happens to make money are simply now the economic wing of colonialism still into exploitation. And, who to Barack Obama, Jr. is the lead elephant and current exploiter? Why we are, of course.

This writing on the wall was what the synagogue questioner was trying to advise Ambassador Ettinger, that he had missed. But, of course, Ettinger is way too smart to have missed it or to present it and thus immediately alienate the Left wing members of the congregation.

But even politically correct speaker, Ettinger had just declared, “The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood (while turning a cold shoulder toward General Al-Sisi), refusing to recognize its well-documented intra-Arab terrorism, the offshoot of its motto: “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”

By fortuitous serendipidy, another list of facts was submitted to me just last night further supporting the concept that Americans and of course, the American media, have totally missed the writing on the wall proudly displayed by Obama in his book, Dreams from my Father. Here is the list.

Please read it below and my case rests.

“President Obama: It Was You”

This is why you did not go to France to march in the anti-Islamist Freedom Parade.

It was you who told an Islamic dinner – “I am one of you.”

It was you who on ABC News referenced – “My Muslim faith.”

It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.

It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -”I will stand with the Muslims.”

It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that – “I am a Muslim.”

It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.

It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.

It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.

It was you who purposefully omitted – “endowed by our Creator” – from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.

It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ’s Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the ‘HOLY’ Quran.

It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.

It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.

It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.

It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.

It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.

It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.

It was you who said that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim communities.” (And, in some bizarre personal fantasy bragged about the Muslim contribution to the Space program! Huh?)

It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.

It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree.

It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.

It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.

It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.

It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.

It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.

It was you who ordered the US Postal Service to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.

It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help “empower” the British Muslim community.

It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. (As per Ambassador Ettinger)

It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.

It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.

It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal White House religious events.

It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, formerly America’s strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.

It was you who appointed as your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood

Needless to say, this is only the tip of the iceberg of Obama’s perfidy against the United States of America. We have not even begun to list his lethal weakening of the US Armed Forces, Navy, coal industry, alienate our oldest and most reliable friends in the world, done everything he can to block the Canadian Keystone Pipe line, Uses the Environmental Protection Agency and his buddy Eric Holder in the Justice Dept to enhance and enforce his awful destructive polices, etc etc. The list is endless.

In fact, one would need the Great Wall of China, Mr. Ambassador Ettinger, to write down all the evidence proving Barack Obama a dedicated enemy of the United States of America. But, I have run out of paper and reader patience.

Have a good day.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10547

(A good friend of mine, conversant in Arabic, was kind enough to send me a summary, in English, of President el-Sissi’s speech, It is posted below and reads about what I have been told from other sourses. It is a bombshell, especially compared with what other Arab leaders have been willling to say. Kudos to Pres el-Sissi who has, without question, put his own life in danger.) jsk

By ISI LIEBLER

    January 12, 2015

    The ill winds that have been gathering over Europe descended with a tornado last week in Paris with the barbaric Charlie Hebdo massacre, followed by the horrific terror attack at a kosher supermarket – a total of 17 dead in three days. But alas, the horrors will in all likelihood soon recede and life will continue as usual until the next attack.

    Let me say at the outset that, while obviously condemning the murders and unequivocally defending freedom of expression, I do not associate myself with the “Je suis Charlie” movement. In condemning these barbaric acts, we are not obliged to identify with the racism and vulgarity of the victims. Charlie Hebdo was obscenely offensive to Christians and Muslims and promoted vulgar anti-Semitic satire. On the other hand, some Mormons were presumably outraged by the satirical musical “The Book of Mormon” but that did not grant them license to embark on a killing spree of the producers.

    Western governments have yet to internalize the reality that what happened in Paris was not merely another instance of “terrorism” but a classic manifestation of the “clash of civilizations.”

    Aside from murderous attacks primarily directed against Jews in Europe over recent months, there have been ongoing massacres and atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists throughout the world. To name a few: the butchering of 2,000 Nigerians this week in the wake of the Boko Haram enslavement of 300 schoolgirls; the murder of 130 schoolchildren in Peshawar, Pakistan by the Taliban; the barbaric videos broadcast of hostages being decapitated; ongoing mass murder in Syria and Iraq; oppression of women; and gruesome persecution, expulsion and murder of Christians in the Middle East.

    Today, as the global impact of Islamic fundamentalism with increasing manifestations of brutal terrorism grows exponentially, Western leaders lack the courage even to identify the enemy. It has ominous parallels to the struggle with Nazism. Then as now, Western governments initially sought to avoid conflict by appeasing the barbarians – which only served to embolden them.

    This originates in 9/11 when U.S. President George W. Bush, in his call for concerted military action against global Islamic terrorism, sought to placate his Arab allies by describing Islam as a “religion of peace.” This absurd mantra was repeatedly chanted whenever Islamic terror was mentioned and has become an overused term of the political lexicon.

    But it was President Barack Obama and his administration that, despite the dramatic mushrooming of Islamic terrorism, must be held accountable for systematically denying its existence, even avoiding the term “Islamic terrorism.”

    The same obstinate refusal to face reality and an effort to appease their increasingly radicalized Muslim communities motivated all European governments – in particular the French – to repeatedly state, despite all evidence to the contrary, that these acts of terrorism were unrelated to Islamic radicalism and were the actions of “lone wolves” or demented individuals.

    Even now, when the massacres were accompanied by calls of “Allahu akbar” and “We are avenging the Prophet Muhammad,” French President François Hollande refused to use the word “Islam,” merely referring to “obscurantist” forces. However, in stark contrast to Obama, Hollande at least condemned the kosher supermarket attack as a “dreadful anti-Semitic attack.”

    Throughout the world, jihadist mullahs and preachers promote hatred and extremism. In European cities, second-generation homegrown Muslims and converts are indoctrinated to endorse and in some cases participate in jihad and the murder of infidels. Those who convert are not necessarily from the underprivileged, but “ideologues,” many of whom belong to comfortable middle class families and are university graduates.

    But worse has been the unspoken acquiescence of most governments and the media, preventing any meaningful discussion of the threat from Islamic extremism. Apart from downplaying and often even denying the overriding Islamic element in acts of terror, governments and media have disgracefully branded as “Islamophobic” any serious effort to discuss and analyze the problem, even promoting “hate speech” legislation to stifle any such public discussion. The 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference has attempted to make blasphemy (i.e., criticism of Islam) a crime in international law.

    They have been further emboldened by the failure to immediately prosecute Islamic extremists who threaten violence against those who express criticism or dishonor Islam. What is truly ironic is that many of those on the Left who normally endorse the crudest outbursts against Christianity and Judaism, are the first to accuse any critics of Islam of Islamophobia and they display far greater concern for the sensitivities of Muslims.

    In many instances, Obama and European leaders have apologized and even groveled every time some crude outburst against Islam was expressed by individuals, many of whom were of marginal importance.

    Of course not all Muslims are terrorists. But the number of radicals is dramatically increasing and like al-Qaida in the previous decade, Islamic State is providing them with a sense of empowerment and imbuing them with a willingness to die in pursuit of their objectives. The Paris massacres exemplify what we can expect from the thousands of well-trained indigenous battle-hardened assassins imbued with a fanaticism to sacrifice their lives to promote Islam and terrorize infidels, especially Jews, after returning from Middle East conflict zones.

    While local Muslim leaders and heads of Islamic states condemned the massacres, it is chilling to witness the extent that popular public opinion, especially in the Arab world, supports terrorism. We should remind ourselves that it originated with the Iranian ayatollah’s fatwa to murder novelist Salman Rushdie, which was overwhelmingly endorsed in the Islamic world.

    Even if only 20 percent of the Muslims are considered pro-jihadist – and there are in all probability more than that – this would represent two or three hundred million potential terrorists. To persist in denying the existence of such a huge Islamic terrorist presence is utterly delusional.

    Above all, this undermines the moderate Islamic forces striving to stem or isolate this poisonous fanaticism that has arisen from within. Yet the Obama administration has mollycoddled the Muslim Brotherhood (a more nuanced but nevertheless direct extension of the terrorist network) and condemned the leader of the largest Muslim Middle Eastern country, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.

    Ironically, in a historic and critical New Year address, largely ignored by the mainstream press, Sissi publicly expressed what Obama and Western leaders have been denying. He stated explicitly that jihadism and terrorism were linked to “the corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries.” He warned that this was “antagonizing the entire world,” that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed … by our own hands,” and that “we are in need of a religious revolution.”

    Clearly, now that all parties engaged are no longer committed to democracy, this is a time to review our multicultural policies. Western governments must cease their groveling, impose draconian measures against Islamic extremists and intensify pressure on Muslim communities to purge themselves of these elements.

    Issues of civil liberties must be considered secondary when the safety of innocent civilians is at stake. If that requires special surveillance and interrogation of suspect Muslims, so be it. It is common sense, not bigotry, to racially profile and concentrate on those from whose midst 99 percent of terrorist outbreaks originate.

    It will require intensified penetration of mosques and Islamic community centers to identify and deal with those mullahs and fanatics promoting jihadism, including the Saudi financed Wahhabi outlets in the immigrant ghettoes. It will necessitate a rigorous monitoring of Muslim schools and Internet outlets to eradicate and prosecute the extremists who are transforming youngsters into beheaders.

    Failure to act will intensify the prevailing massive swing toward parties opposed to immigration and parties of the far Right like the National Front in France, whose leader, Marine Le Pen, is now the frontrunner in presidential polls.

    Jews have reassumed the role of the canary in the mine and are the first to be targeted, but the world would face the same threat if Jews did not exist. Israel has been at the frontlines confronting Islamic extremism but has received scant support. Indeed, until recently Western governments ignored the carnage in Syria, Iraq and other countries, preferring to concentrate on condemning Israeli housing construction in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and regarding Israel as the major lubricant to Islamic extremism. French support of the PA application to the U.N. Security Council on December 30, obviously designed to curry favor with local Muslims, did not deter terrorists from committing their massacres in Paris a week later.

    For Jews, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The virulence of the anti-Semitic hatred closing in on Jews in Europe (and elsewhere) is horrifying. Robert Wistrich, the world’s leading scholar on anti-Semitism, says that anti-Semitism in France is now in “an advanced stage of disease” that cannot be reversed. There were a series of anti-Semitic murders in France and Belgium preceding the Paris massacre but they failed to raise the same level of outrage as the Charlie Hebdo murders. There were no popular campaigns saying “Je suis Juif.” Indeed there seemed to be greater concern about “Islamophobia” than the targeted Jewish victims.

    Europe is today facing a crisis as serious as the confrontation with Nazism. If Western leaders continue behaving like Chamberlain and fail to stand up to this global threat, it could usher in a new Dark Age in which the Judeo-Christian culture is subsumed by primitive barbarism. The writing is on the wall.

    For Jews, the Zionist vision (The gathering of Jews into their own state of great power and dignity) has once again been tragically vindicated. If we must die with out boots on, so be it but our Hashem will protect us – of that there is no doubt)

    (Italicized notes by Jerome S. Kaufman)

    The relevant excerpt from Sisi’s speech follows (translation by Michele Antaki):

    “I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

    That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

    Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

    I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

    All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

    I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

    Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

    Twitter: @israelcomment

    Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.

    Comments

    comments

    Powered by Facebook Comments

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.”

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

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

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10531

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

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From: Snapshots – A Camera blog

www.israel-commentary.org

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?)

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

The U.N. Vote on Palestine Was a Rehearsal

www.israel-commentary.org

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

By JOHN BOLTON
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).

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

The Druze Religion

www.israel-commentary.org

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.

Subscribe: israel-commentary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments