Read More About: ,

Share This Post

By Jerome S. Kaufman

It was a well polished performance. The poise, demeanor, posture, delivery with game face intact were perfect — truly presidential.  Unfortunately, it was mostly a pack of lies and then worse — some Israel-weakening  plans she promised once in office. (Hashem forbid)

Hillary started out with a giant whopper that laid the groundwork for the rest of the whoppers that followed. She began with “Whatever our (meaning herself and the government of Barack Obama) differences, we have always shared an unwavering, unshakeable commitment to our alliance with Israel and to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people.” Good luck with that. She, as Secretary of State and Barack as President certainly had a bizarre way of insuring that alliance and security.

She continued, “The next President will sit down to make plans for the security of Israel and our friends around the world.”  Well, that will be a novel idea and quite a task to achieve after the deliberate destructive havoc that she and Barack Obama, with the enabling of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party have created in the Middle East and, in fact, in the rest of the world.

She then took a slam at Donald Trump’a previous position now vigorously and effectively reversed. “Unlike others in the race  although the turmoil in the Middle East presents enormous challenge and complexity, walking away is not an option.

What Hillary failed to mention was that “walking away,” ” leading from behind” was exactly the direction she, as Secretary of State and Barack Obama as President, had done, thus causing the awful state of affairs that now exists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya. “Out-sourcing the solution to dictators (as Obama and Hillary have done) is not an option.” Really! Your administration is a little late in arriving at that obvious conclusion.

She then advised that “Today US and Israel face momentous choices:”

First – “We are prepared to take the US/Israel alliance to the next level” – Whatever that means?

“We will never allow Israel’s enemies to think a wedge can be driven between us.” Huh, evidently she does not think the Ali Khameni, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, thinks that, after Obama  signed a lethal agreement with Israel’s mortal enemy giving them $150 billion in spending money plus a virtually unencumbered route to develop nuclear weapons and the unlimited launching of missile tests designed to carry them, there is a “wedge between Israel and the US.”

She then bragged of her own great diplomatic accomplishments:  Her negotiating in 2012 with PM Netanyahu that produced a cease fire in Gaza. Of course, these “cease fires” are always negotiated after Israel has roundly defeated its enemy and is ready to complete the mop up. At these times, the US and the world rush in to stop the final coup de gras, keep Israel’s enemies viable and repeatedly snatch an Israel defeat from an unequivocal Israeli victory. The worst part is that the Israelis buy into this charade and simply plant the seeds for their enemy’s next try. The Israelis have only themselves to blame for the survival of enemies that should  no longer exist or at least have no desire or will to do further battle. That is not the case.

Hillary continued with the usual boiler plate comments about guaranteeing Israel’s ” Military Qualitative Edge”, even more cooperation between the US Silicone Valley and Israel’s Technical Wunderkindt, stopping the PA glorification of terrorists, stop educating Arab  children to hate, inciting to riot. Of course, the cooperative AIPAC audience applauded, on cue, these meaningless promises as if they were some brand new grand scheme of things.

She then got into the subject of Iran and how we have been concerned with Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. She told the outrageous lie that she lead the policy of imposing “crippling” sanctions on Iran to force it to the negotiating table and she supported the agreement that has put a lid on its nuclear program! Huh! She went on to claim that Iran’s enriched uranium is all but gone, thousands of centrifuges have stopped spinning, Iran’s potential breakout time has been increased and new verification measures are in place to help us detect and deter any cheating. She concluded that she believed Israel, the United States and the world are safer as a result. But, surely she has got to be kidding! Maybe she did not hear Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment of the Iranian Nuclear deal. He and the Israelis consider it an unmitigated disaster.

She did admit that this deal must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, severe consequence for any violation and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region. She then made a laughable threat of force against Iran and more sanctions that the rest of the world will certainly ignore.

Then, we got a glimpse into the real Hillary and her plans for Israel. Unfortunately Hillary, the former Secretary of the State Department still believes US State Department nonsense and intrinsic anti-Semitism. The Department persists in the belief that the Israeli/PA conflict is at the heart  of all the problems of the Middle East!

Therefore, Israel must be strong enough to take bold actions for peace. “We will keep working for a negotiated peace or lose forever the goal of two states for two people. (For once there were no, on cue, AIPAC applause.) “Despite many set backs I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state.” (Maybe, some day, some one will explain this absolute non-sequitur)

“Inaction cannot be an option even though there is much doubt a peace partner even exists. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state in peace and dignity and only a negotiated two state agreement can provide those outcomes.”

Evidently, Hillary choses to ignore the fact that Israel has been there and done that — all its “bold actions for peace.” Giving up more Israeli land is not an option. Israelis no longer consider  A Two State Solution  an option. Maybe Hillary and the world has forgotten that Israel gave up all the Arab dominated population areas within Judea Samaria for Arab self government; they gave up the Lebanese Security Zone; they gave up all of Gaza and destroyed the beautiful agricultural  Jewish settlements of Gush Katif painfully developed there.

What has been the result? Terrorist regimes took over all these areas immediately – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria that has never stopped the preaching of Jew hatred and terrorism.

No, Hillary. This is not a plan the Israelis will or should ever try again. The cost in Israeli lives has been far too great and every land give away has made the situation only worse for Israel. So, please stop parading as Israel’s friend. That is a complete lie. Maybe a lie that you learned from your Arab friend, Huma Abedin but actually long before that. We do not want you to continue promoting a State Department illusion of “peace.” Don’t send back John Kerry, please. He is a bad joke — not even a reasonable facsimile of a diplomat.

Originally, I was writing this because I was really mad at the AIPAC audience for being so naive and applauding so much of Hillary’s boiler plate special.

But then, a short time later, Donald Trump walked into the room and much to my surprise, the audience practically tore down the roof  welcoming him with thunderous applause and spent most of the time standing up while they listened. It was as if they had been anticipating his arrival and a breath of fresh air and a breath of straight talk from the master.

And they were not disappointed. The guy has genuine star quality. He attracts people that want to forget the country club Republican. They want to forget the starry eyed liberal that has become nasty and lost sight of reality a long time ago.

And, they also would love to elect a guy whose daughter, Ivanka, married a Jew and voluntarily became Jewish herself,  of all things,  and  is about, momentarily, to have a Jewish baby. And the grandpa Donald is very proud and that grandpa brought tears of pride and joy to the eyes of this one.


Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher

Israel Commentary

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment









Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from article By BRET STEPHENS

Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2016


Barack Obama—do you remember him?—will remain in office for another 311 days. But not really. The president has left the presidency. The commander in chief is on sabbatical. He spends his time hanging out at a festival in Austin. And with the cast of “Hamilton,” the musical. And with Justin, the tween sensation from Canada.

(At the moment however, Obama has suddenly taken great interest in promoting his Supreme Court Justice nominee, who, whatever his previous record shows, is bound to vote dead Left exactly like Obama’s two previous appointees — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.  Do you really think Obama would make any other choice? What Republican or Democrat or informed American citizen would allow Obama still another appointment and pervert the Court even further to the Left for at least the next two generations? This would  virtually  guarantee our national demise (Obama’s lifelong ambition) as a world military and economic power and as a representative democracy.) jsk

In the place of the departed Obama, is an exact look-alike giving interviews to Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, interviews that are so gratuitously damaging to long-standing U.S. alliances, international security and Mr. Obama’s reputation as a serious steward of the American interest that the words could not possibly have sprung from the lips of the president himself.      (Or from “any” president of  the US).

I was a bit late in reading Mr. Goldberg’s long article, “The Obama Doctrine,” which appeared last week and is based on hours of conversation with the president, along with ancillary interviews with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Manuel Valls of France, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and other boldface names. Kudos to Mr. Goldberg for his level of access, the breadth of his reporting, the sheer volume of juicy quotes and revealing details.

Still, it’s a deep dive into a shallow mind. Mr. Obama’s recipe for Sunni-Shiite harmony in the Middle East? The two sides, says Mr. Obama, “need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood,” sounding like Mr. Rogers. The explanation for the “sh— show” (the president’s words) in Libya? “I had more faith in the Europeans,” he says, sounding like my 12-year-old blaming her 6-year-old sister for chores not done. The recipe for better global governance? “If only everyone could be like the Scandinavians, this would all be easy,” he says, sounding like—Barack Obama.

Then there’s Mr. Obama the political theorist. “Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence,” the president says in connection to Vladimir Putin’s gambles in Ukraine and Syria. That’s true, in a Yoda sort of way. But isn’t seizing foreign territory without anyone doing much to stop you also a form of “real power”? Is dictatorial power fake because it depends on the threat of force?

Elsewhere, Mr. Obama airily dismisses the concept of “credibility” in U.S. foreign policy, noting that Ronald Reagan’s decision to pull U.S. troops from Lebanon after the 1983 Marine barracks bombing didn’t affect U.S. credibility with China or Russia. That’s debatable. But the withdrawal affected our credibility with Iran, which was behind the bombing, and with a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

“Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983?” bin Laden asked in his 1996 declaration of war on the U.S., which also cited Bill Clinton’s abrupt withdrawal from Somalia after the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident. “You left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.”

As for current threats, Mr. Goldberg asks Mr. Obama what he would do if Mr. Putin made a move against Moldova, “another vulnerable post-Soviet state.” Mr. Obama’s answer—“if it’s really important to somebody, and it’s not that important to us, they know that, and we know that”—is of the April Glaspie school of diplomacy. So long, Moldova.

Mr. Goldberg also discloses that Mr. Kerry (another genius who has never had the brains to “check in” even if he had to) has begged the president to launch cruise missile strikes against the Assad regime in Syria, “for the sake of a little leverage in negotiations!” Mr. Obama has brushed the requests away. Mr. Assad can at last rest easy, if he isn’t already.

U.S. allies fare less well under Mr. Obama’s gaze. David Cameron comes in for a scolding on U.K. military spending, as well as for getting “distracted” on Libya. Nicolas Sarkozy, the former and possibly future president of France, is dismissed by Mr. Obama as a posturing braggart. Regarding the president’s commitment to Israel’s security, Mr. Goldberg reports, citing Mr. Panetta, that the president “has questioned why the U.S. should maintain Israel’s so-called qualitative military edge, which grants it access to more sophisticated weapons systems than America’s Arab allies.”

As for those allies, Mr. Obama treats the Saudis with such naked contempt that it prompted former intelligence minister Turki al-Faisal to denounce the president in an op-ed: “Could it be,” the prince asked, “that you are petulant about the Kingdom’s efforts to support the Egyptian people when they rose against the Muslim Brothers’ government and you supported it?”

Summing up the president’s worldview, Mr. Goldberg describes him as a “Hobbesian optimist”—which philosophically must be the equivalent of a Jew for Jesus. But Mr. Obama has shown that he lacks Hobbes’s understanding that Leviathan must fill the vacuums that will otherwise be filled by an ISIS or a Putin, or an optimist’s belief that American power can shape the world for the better.

(Thomas Hobbes – English materialist and political philosopher who advocated absolute sovereignty as the only kind of government that could resolve problems caused by the selfishness of human beings (1588-1679))

The French diplomat Charles de Talleyrand once said of the (restored) Bourbon dynasty that “they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” Given the mix of score-settling and delusion on display in this interview, that may well be the president’s foreign-policy epitaph, too.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Making the Socialist Grade

Redacted from an article by MARK PASTIN

The Weekly Standard Magazine

March 7, 2016

Young voters love Bernie Sanders. According to entrance and exit polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among voters under 30 by nearly six-to-one.

There are many explanations why Sanders is so popular with the young, not the least plausible of which is that his opponent is so singularly unlikable. There is his apparent directness (“authenticity”), his propensity to promise virtually anything (free college, free health care), and his avuncular demeanor. But the most compelling explanation is that young voters actually like the idea of a socialist revolution.

The lure of socialism to the young is nothing new—I’ve never found students to be particularly put off by the S-word. In fact, they’ve long been eager to embrace it.
Consider Arizona State University, a school not exactly known for campus radicalism. When I was teaching there in the 1980s, I would often start a new semester by asking the class who among them considered themselves to be socialists.

The hands would go up—including a majority in many cases. In 20 years of teaching, whether at Indiana, Michigan, or ASU, this never changed.

When I asked my students what they thought socialism meant, they would generally recite some version of the Marxist chestnut “from each according to ability and to each according to need.”

Many said that they were driven to socialism by the inequities of capitalism—and there were few on the faculty to disabuse them of the notion.

If there is a difference today, it is only that socialism is even more popular with the young than it used to be: It’s now as much a part of going off to school as getting a college-logo sweatshirt.

But I’ve always thought that socialism appealed to students because they have never not been on the receiving end of government largesse. And so I would provide an opportunity for my students—in terms they could understand and appreciate—to learn what socialism means and entails.
When the majority of a class would declare themselves to be socialist, I would offer to run the class along socialist principles, such as the mandate to take from the able and give to the needy.

Specifically, I offered to grade the class on a sort of reverse-curve: Those with the highest GPAs would receive the lowest grades and those with the lowest GPAs would be given the highest grades.

This would be one small step to level the playing field for those less endowed with academic ability or motivation. After all, those with less academic ability or motivation were surely the victims of a rigged system in which social factors including prior education and income inequality disadvantaged the many in favor of the privileged few.

This socialist grading scheme was invariably met with outrage, especially, if unsurprisingly, among high-performing students (who made up a disproportionate number of the self-declared socialists).

You get the same response among students if you offer them the prospect of taking the money that subsidizes their education and using it to feed people in developing nations.

Students are attracted to socialism because they have no skin in the game. To some extent, the same applies to other young people who do not yet have a significant stake in the system. Capitalist beliefs quickly come to the surface when the young are no longer playing with funny money.

We should learn from Bernie Sanders’s success that allowing the glib socialism of the young to go unchallenged has consequences. It does the young no favors to foster in them biases that will only be corrected through decades of hard life-lessons.

Mark Pastin is president of the Council of Ethical Organizations in Alexandria, Virginia. His most recent book is Make an Ethical Difference: Tools for Better Action.

II Don’t lower the bar to achieve diversity; raise others up

Redacted from an Op-Ed Palm Beach Post
March 14, 2016

Ever since we moved to North America — I from India, my wife from Japan — 42 years ago, we heard of the word that neither of us knew much about: diversity.

When we immigrated to the U.S. from Canada, 17 years ago, we began to hear a lot more about “diversity” than we ever did in our close-to-25 years in Canada.
We are now proud citizens of this great country, and belong to the so-called “Asian-American” ethnic group. By one definition — skin color, as postulated by the NAACP — we are part of diversity. But are we really? In fact, we have often wondered what exactly is “diversity”?

Is it our skin color; our gender (as postulated by some feminist groups); our sexual orientation (as defined by the LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender — group); our religious affiliation; our ethnicity?

Or is it something else — like the country of origin, our body weight, our height, our age, the color of our hair? You get the idea.

My point is that no two humans are exactly alike; therefore, by that definition, we are all different and would fit a plausible and defendable definition of “diversity.”

With that as the background: When my bosses at the company where I used to work — and I had quite a few people working for me — instructed me to fill open positions, keeping diversity in mind, I was confused.

I reflected on the fact that if you looked at the National Basketball Association, the majority of players were African-American. Same with the National Football League.
Golf, on the other hand, is primarily white; as is the National Hockey League. Now why would that be? The answer has to be because the best in their field were needed to get the best team — whether it was basketball, football, golf, hockey or anything else.

It did not matter what was the color of their skin or what was their sexual orientation, or religion, or anything else. We want simply the best — to give us a competitive edge in this very competitive world.

So why would we not want the same in our industries, in our universities, in our public and private institutions, in our governments — and, yes, in Oscars?

In my way of thinking, that is the only way we can give us the competitive advantage we need to keep this great nation where it rightly belongs: at the top.

Otherwise, we risk getting on a slippery slope of continuously lowering the bar, simply to meet some artificial and questionable definition of “diversity.” This is too high a price to pay and was unacceptable to me 42 years ago and even more so now, with the world becoming even more competitive.

The cost of this catering to the lowest common denominator, leads to a decline of our ability as a nation to remain competitive, and be the land of opportunity, and serve as a magnet for diverse people like myself from all over the world.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Harry & Bess

Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation’s history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952 his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an ‘allowance’ and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.”
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, “My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference!
I say dig him up and clone him!


II The Recognition Of The State Of Israel – May 14, 1948


Let me start by saying that Israel was not “created” in 1948, rather it was recreated, or regathered as the bible says, in accordance of the will of Almighty God. This is not a “work of man”, though God certainly used men to bring about His will. With that, let us look at the amazing stand that the United States president, Harry S. Truman, took in defense and support of God’s people, the Jews.

Of further note after this this United States experienced the greatest expansion of prosperity it has even known, and why? Because Genesis 12:3 promises a blessing to any one or any nation that would bless Israel, and after Truman and the US did what it did, God poured out His blessing on us and made the United States of America the richest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3

Subscribe Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I can’t even find a way to answer all those that want to cancel their subscriptions – mostly because of this crazy message response.

About the only thing I can offer now is to have you  block the site or label it Spam.  Or just hang in there and all the bad stuff will go away. I hope so.

Thank you for your past support.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Clinton Aides shouldn’t take the fall for her self-serving actions.

Wall Street Journal

March 4, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday victory gives her a clear path to the Democratic presidential nomination, but Bernie Sanders has never been her biggest obstacle to the White House. Her real liability is an email scandal that has put her in legal jeopardy.

Camp Clinton is arguing that the State Department’s Monday release of the final batch of emails ends the controversy over her private server. Yet that release is merely the end of one judicially mandated exercise overseen by a bureaucracy friendly to the former Secretary of State. The real action is in the courts, the FBI and Justice Department.

But even the friendly State Department review has been damaging. Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton turned over to State, we now know that 2,093 were classified as “confidential” or “secret.” Another 22 were classified “top secret”—and State withheld their contents from public release. Mrs. Clinton keeps claiming these were “retroactively” classified, but that’s been vigorously disputed by intelligence community members, who note that at least some of the top-secret emails refer to intelligence projects classified from the beginning.

The latest release provides fresh evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew her server held national secrets. In one email from April 2012, aide Jake Sullivan forwarded Mrs. Clinton a blog post from a jihadist group. Mrs. Clinton replied: “If not classified or otherwise inappropriate, can you send to the NYTimes reporters who interviewed me today?”

The fact that Mrs. Clinton had to ask if this one was classified suggests she knew that people were sending sensitive information to her unsecure server. The new email dump also shows then-Sen. John Kerry sending Mrs. Clinton intelligence he’d obtained from top Pakistani generals.

There’s more to come. Federal judges have spent the past year doing what the State Department wouldn’t—that is, upholding the Freedom of Information Act. Judge Emmet Sullivan recently granted Judicial Watch discovery into whether State and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA laws.

Judge Sullivan said from the bench: “Here you have Mrs. Clinton and [Clinton aide Huma] Abedin and their private counsel deciding, after neither Mrs. Clinton nor Ms. Abedin were government employees, what emails are federal records, and what emails are not. It just boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place.” Yes it does.

Discovery could lead to depositions, interrogatories and new documents that show who approved Mrs. Clinton’s unsecure email arrangement, and who tried to conceal it. Judge Sullivan said he may also issue a subpoena requiring Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to turn over the entire email system they used.

Many other lawsuits are also proceeding and could provide answers to the many questions that Mrs. Clinton has dodged. Did she turn over all her work email? How many did she edit before giving them to State? Who had access to the server containing confidential information? Was her email hacked by foreign governments or criminals?

All of this is presumably also part of the FBI’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Attorney General Loretta Lynch last week largely dodged Congressional questions about the Clinton probe, though she did divulge that “career” attorneys are working with the FBI. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Justice has granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department employee who set up the private server at Mrs. Clinton’s New York home in 2009. This suggests that a grand jury may be empaneled if it isn’t underway.

Now that Mrs. Clinton is the odds-on Democratic nominee, the political stakes of all this are enormous. One excuse we are likely to hear is that Mrs. Clinton shouldn’t be held responsible for others who sent her classified information, as California Senator Dianne Feinstein recently said. In other words, let Mrs. Clinton’s aides take the fall.

But those aides—and the country—wouldn’t be in this mess if Mrs. Clinton hadn’t set up an off-grid account to evade disclosure laws and protect her messages from public scrutiny when she ran for President. Her employees can hardly be blamed for using a system she designed, and Mrs. Clinton was responsible as the senior official for knowing the classification rules.

With Donald Trump emerging as the probable GOP nominee, the political and media temptation in Washington will be to protect Mrs. Clinton and legally excuse her behavior. But the law applies equally to everyone if it means anything. These investigations need to follow their honest course and hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her actions. The country can handle the political fallout.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Republicans are now among the Jewish state’s most important friends. This was not always so.

Redacted from an in-depth article in Commentary Magazine


The movement to isolate Israel may be in full swing on college campuses across the country, and Israel may be the subject of ever-louder international denunciations, but when it comes to a Republican Party riven by squabbles, the Jewish state has become a unifying glue.

Support for Israel is all but unanimous among the party’s politicians in Washington, and in the presidential race, candidates vie to outdo one another when it comes to expressing their commitment to it; even the isolationist presidential candidate Rand Paul had gone to great pains to attempt to establish his pro-Israel bona fides.

It was not ever thus. Indeed, the emergence of the GOP as the nation’s pro-Israel voice is an odd and fascinating element in the modern political history of the United States. For the first 45 years of Israel’s existence, the Republican Party was deeply divided when it came to the Middle East. Powerful forces inside the GOP had long been at best uncomfortable with Israel and at worst openly hostile. Those forces included big businessmen and oilmen with deep connections and interests in Arab lands and so-called foreign-policy realists who did not see why the U.S. should maintain a special relationship with a tiny, economically negligible country surrounded by 22 Arab nations that wished it would disappear.

As a practical political matter, there were few discernible electoral incentives for the GOP to support Israel, given that the Jewish community was so completely in the Democratic camp (save for many progressive Jews in the Northeast, such as Senator Jacob Javits of New York, who were members of the Republican Party because they loathed the role Southern segregationists played in the Democratic electoral coalition).

The first Republican to serve as president after Israel’s founding was Dwight David Eisenhower, elected in 1952. Eisenhower was put off by Israel’s democratic-socialist ideology. Additionally, its tiny size, martial weakness, and lack of strategic resources of any kind marked it as an irritant. Eisenhower believed that his predecessor, Harry Truman, had only supported the creation of the state because of political considerations—the 1948 Jewish vote—not strategic calculations.

His view was that the United States needed to preserve friendly relations with Arab states to maintain access to oil reserves and to keep the Arabs from forging stronger ties with the Soviet Union, which had begun to advocate for the Arab world against Israel in international forums such as the United Nations during Eisenhower’s first term. When Israel, France, and Britain invaded the Sinai to reestablish Western control of the Suez Canal after its seizure by Egypt, Eisenhower reacted with rage and forced the coalition to withdraw.

Richard Nixon served as Ike’s vice president and shared Eisenhower’s views on maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East. When he became president in 1969, he wanted his administration to serve as a corrective to what Nixon believed had been the Johnson administration’s tilt toward Israel.  On the one hand, he was the first president to appoint a Jewish national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, who would also become the first Jewish secretary of state. But the private Nixon spoke freely in bigoted terms about Jews and enjoyed poking at Kissinger’s origins. 

And yet, when Israel faced an existential crisis during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Nixon showed little ambivalence. He saved the Jewish state from a devastating defeat at the hands of the Egyptians, armed to the teeth with Soviet weaponry. Operation Nickel Grass provided Israel with more than 112,000 tons of supplies. Nixon knew he would be criticized over the airlift, and this understanding helped steel his resolve: “We are going to get blamed just as much for three planes as for three hundred.” When the airlift wasn’t moving fast enough, he ordered his generals to “use every [plane] we have—everything that will fly.”

Nixon’s decision to arm Israel in the 1973 war would have long-standing repercussions. One consequence was the oil embargo initiated by the Arab states in 1973, an economically devastating move—and one that convinced ordinary Americans who had to cope with the tripling of energy costs that the Arab states were hostile entities that deserved to be confronted rather than appeased, as the foreign-policy panjandrums of both parties had long asserted. Decades of American evenhandedness had failed to stay OPEC’s intimidation. Perhaps a different approach might prove more valid in the future.

The war further clarified for the American people where the various Middle East players stood when it came to the Cold War. The Soviet Union had made it unmistakably evident that it was Israel’s enemy just as it was the enemy of the United States. And the war marked a turning point in Israel’s relation with the United States at a strategic level as well. Israel not only proved proficient at destroying Soviet weaponry used against it by Egypt and Syria, it also shared captured Soviet weapons, including the T-62 battle tank, with the United States. This was an intelligence coup for the U.S. military, and it demonstrated that oil was not the only strategic asset available to the United States in the Middle East. Israel, too, was an asset.

There was also an emerging realization among some key foreign-policy thinkers that a coalition of Third World nations and Soviet allies was treating the U.S. as a punching bag at the United Nations. This was given full voice in Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal 1975 Commentary essay, “The United States in Opposition.” Moynihan’s response to the rhetorical onslaught against the United States was simple: America should fight back. The essay led to his appointment by President Gerald Ford as U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1975 and 1976. And the most notable moment of Moynihan’s tenure came when he joined with Israel against the UN’s Orwellian declaration of Zionism as racism.

The same would prove true about the influence of another hawkish Democrat, Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Many of his aides—including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz—shared his perspective, and it was in Jackson’s offices that the emerging “neoconservative” foreign policy was first laid out in Washington. Israel was not Jackson’s primary foreign-policy interest. Rather, his top priority was a strong U.S. stance against Soviet aggression. And because he believed the Nixon-Kissinger policy of détente was a capitulation, he pressed for increased involvement of Congress in international relations to counter the administration’s appeasement; his greatest success came with the passage of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which linked U.S-Soviet trade to Soviet human-rights policy, particularly as regarded oppressed Soviet Jews who wished to emigrate.

Outside of Washington, another important trend emerged in the 1970s that would have a far-reaching impact on the GOP’s realignment with Israel: the rise of the evangelical vote. Staunch evangelical support for Israel meant that it was no longer mainly Jewish voters who cared where politicians stood. As these voters moved in large numbers to the Republican Party, beginning with the election in 1980, these pro-Israel Christians started to emerge as the largest and most important segment of the GOP base. Republican politicians started to take notice.

Then–Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin also took notice, and took steps to encourage the burgeoning evangelical support of Israel. In 1981, Begin spoke to a gathering of 3,000 evangelical Christians in Jerusalem and issued a medal to Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell. After Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Begin even called Falwell to explain Israel’s reasoning.

It was not only conservative clergy who would be converted to the pro-Israel cause, but conservative legislators as well. The most important example was the evolution of North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. Helms was openly hostile to Israel for his first decade or so in the Senate, and was targeted for defeat by Jewish groups in a 1984 Senate reelection bid that he survived only by the skin of his teeth. The next year, AIPAC helped arrange a trip to Israel for Helms and his wife; Helms himself indicated that the trip was life-changing.  Helms would go on to chair from 1995 to 2001 the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, where he would actively legislate on Israel’s behalf.

Helms’s shift represented the confluence of forces that were remaking the Republican Party. The growing evangelical support for Israel had its greatest impact in the South, fast becoming the GOP’s stronghold. And it coincided with Ronald Reagan’s eloquence in support of the Jewish state. Reagan did not see eye to eye with the Israelis on every issue; he approved the sale of AWACS radar planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, criticized the Osirak attack, and was not supportive of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Reagan spoke and thought of Israel in a manner new to American presidents. He saw that Israel was a strategic asset to the United States in the struggle against totalitarianism. Reagan recognized the alignment not only of interests but foundational Judeo-Christian beliefs: “Israel represents the one stable democracy sharing values with us in that part of the world,” he said. He took the historic step of formalizing military cooperation between the United States and Israel. The Pentagon also began to recognize the strategic importance of maintaining its joint activities with Israel, which could field-test U.S. weapons, strengthen intelligence cooperation, and serve as a base for U.S. equipment in a hostile region.

Congressional GOP support for Israel became even more marked in the 1990s after the GOP took over both Houses of Congress. The outspokenly pro-Israel Speaker Newt Gingrich set up a contrast on the Israel issue between himself and the Clinton administration, which was pressing Israel for territorial concessions in the name of peace deals.

None of this was seamless. Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush, himself quite literally a Country Club Republican and oilman by birth and occupation and a foreign-policy realist by disposition. His secretary of state, James Baker, was even worse, earning the wrong kind of immortality with his line, “F— the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”

But Bush’s brand of hostility was not the only anti-Israel tendency within the rapidly evolving American right. Open anti-Semitism reared its head as well, in the personages of the writers Patrick J. Buchanan (a protest candidate for president in 1992 and 1996) and Joseph Sobran. When Buchanan called Congress “Israeli-occupied territory,” he was not only giving foul voice to a classic anti-Semitic theme but was accurately reflecting the fact that by this point, anti-Israel sentiment on Capitol Hill had become a mark of extremism in both parties. More important, both Sobran and Buchanan received a very public cold shoulder from the mainstream conservative movement. William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote a long indictment of his friend Sobran in National Review and consigned his and Buchanan’s brand of Jew-hatred to the margins of the conservative movement.

Congressional GOP support for Israel became even more marked in the 1990s after the GOP took over both Houses of Congress. Pro-Israel Speaker Newt Gingrich set up a contrast on the Israel issue between the GOP and the Clinton administration, which was pressing Israel for territorial concessions in the name of “peace” deals. In 1998, Gingrich visited Israel and was so expressive of his admiration and support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that journalist David Makovsky called the trip a “love fest.” Palestinians noticed as well, and grumbled about what the New York Times characterized as “the lopsided support for Israel shown by Mr. Gingrich and the Congress.”

Netanyahu would go on to play a key part in facilitating better relations between Israel and the GOP in another way as well. As prime minister in the 1990s and, more successfully, as finance minister from 2003 to 2005, Netanyahu embarked on a series of economic reforms that liberalized Israel’s previously socialistic and stagnant economy. Netanyahu made alterations in Israel’s welfare system, slashed government spending, privatized parts of the economy, and cut taxes. Unemployment and deficits went down, economic growth surged, and Israel developed its reputation as the high tech start-up nation. The reforms also opened the door to more support from the Republicans, as backing the Jewish state no longer meant having to apologize for propping up a socialist economy. Instead, Republicans could now tout a free-market Israeli economy, which was far more congruent with prevailing GOP economic theory.

When the GOP took over the White House after Bill Clinton, the days of strategic ambiguity by GOP presidents toward Israel were long gone. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush may have come from the same family, but they came from different Republican parties. The party that embraced the younger Bush was evangelically dominated, congressionally focused, and definitively pro-Israel. As Bush once told a Jewish leader: “The Saudis thought ‘this Texas oil guy was going to go against Israel’ and I told them you have the wrong guy.”

As the story goes, when Bush went to Israel, then–Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon went out of his way to welcome the visiting governor, and Arafat gave Bush the runaround—after which he denounced Bush for refusing to meet with him. Sharon’s foresight would be rewarded, and Arafat’s shortsightedness would come back to haunt him. This became obvious during the Second Intifada, with Israel suffering from a barrage of Arafat-encouraged suicide attacks. At the time, America itself was recovering from the shock of 9/11, and the televised footage of Palestinians celebrating the attacks by handing out candy clarified issues in the minds of many Americans.

In G.W. Bush’s view, and as a result of a generational shift in the GOP, Israel was our ally and was going to be treated as such. To be sure, Bush continued to push for the so-called peace process, especially in his second term. But Bush’s effort, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, featured none of the vitriol that would characterize the Obama administration’s push for a negotiated settlement.

Thus, the tale of the transformation of the GOP into an unambiguously, proudly, and solidly pro-Israel coalition, 80 percent of whose self-identified members now tell pollsters they support the Jewish state. In 2014, Joshua Muravchik wrote an important book, Making David into Goliath, an account of how Israel went from being a widely admired nation in 1967 to one of the most reviled. In Muravchik’s telling, this development was not accidental, but the result of strategic action by a number of actors—on the left, in the Arab world, and in Europe—to delegitimize and damage Israel. But while the Jewish state lost many allies during this period, it also gained an important and reliable friend. At the same time that the world was learning to hate Israel, the Republican Party was learning to love it.

Tevi D. Troy is the president of the American Health Policy Institute. He is also the author of the Washington Post best-seller What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched, and Obama Tweeted: 200 Years of Popular Culture in the White House. He served as Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and a senior White House aide in the George W. Bush administration.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment







Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Israel’s Options (or lack of thereof) in a Chaotic Middle East

By Yossi Klein Halevi

Faced with a new Palestinian uprising, Israelis have shelved the idea of a two-state solution—and have found surprising new allies in a disintegrating Middle East.


Israeli settlers recently protested outside their biblically-based settlement of Kiryat Arba in the southern Shomron (West Bank) after a Palestinian attacker stabbed a woman to death at her home in the Otniel settlement in January.


(The Shomron was an ancient city of biblical Palestine in the northern part of the present-day so called West Bank. It was founded in the ninth century BC as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, also known as Samaria.  The Northern 10 Tribes of Israel were conquered by Sargon II in 722 BC and the First Temple of Solomon  was destroyed.  In the second century BCE. the Second Temple was  rebuilt by Herod the Great and that too destroyed in the Roman Conquest.  The Jews were deliberately forced from their own  biblical land in a Diaspora from which, now over 2000 years later, they are still attempting to recover.) jsk


From: Review Section of the Wall Street Journal
Feb. 27-28,  2016

The almost daily attacks tend to blur together, though several have become emblematic—like the stabbing murder of a mother of six in her home while her teenage daughter ran to protect her siblings. Still, by Israeli standards, the violence so far has been manageable. Israelis recall that in the early 2000s, when suicide bombers were targeting buses and cafes, almost as many victims would die in a single attack as have been murdered in the current wave of terror.

Until the first intifada, Israelis had tended to regard control of the territories won by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War as benign, bringing prosperity to the occupied as well as to the occupiers. As the intifada took hold, Israeli anger turned not only against the Palestinians but against the ruling Likud. There were antigovernment riots, and Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was widely ridiculed for his passivity and lack of vision.


Today, too, there is widespread disaffection with a Likud government’s response to stabbings. Some 70% of Israelis say that the government has been ineffectual, and nearly as many say they feel personally unsafe. Yet, unlike 1992, there are no antigovernment demonstrations, and few calls for a resumption of the moribund peace process. Indeed, a private poll recently commissioned by one of the parties in the coalition government reveals that only 4% of Israelis consider the peace process their highest priority—the lowest percentage for any major issue.


Few Israelis believe that a Palestinian state would be a peaceful neighbor. In part that’s because the Palestinian national movement—in both its supposedly moderate nationalist wing and its radical Islamist branch—continues to deny the very legitimacy of Israel. The Palestinian media repeat an almost daily message: The Jews are not a real people, they have no roots in this land and their entire history is a lie, from biblical Israel to the Holocaust.


The current wave of stabbings has been lauded not only by the Islamist Hamas but by the Palestinian Authority. “We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem,” said Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas in September. “Every martyr will reach paradise.”
The result is profound disillusionment with the peace process across the Israeli political spectrum.

Most Israelis still support, at least in principle, a two-state solution. Many understand that the creation of a Palestinian state is an existential necessity for Israel, extricating it from a growing pariah status in the world at large, from the wrenching moral dilemmas of occupying another people, from a demographic threat that endangers Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state.

But a majority also regards a Palestinian state as an existential threat. They know that it would place Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport, the country’s main link with the world, in easy range of rocket attacks. A Palestinian state also could result in a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israelis sense that they have exhausted their political options toward the Palestinians. In the 1970s and ’80s, there was widespread enthusiasm for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the territories. Sooner or later, many Israelis believed, the Palestinians and the Arab world would accept this “Greater Israel”—a Jewish state including the West Bank and Gaza. But that dream was shattered in the first intifada of the late 1980s.

The violence followed Israeli offers to withdraw from most of the territories and to uproot dozens of settlements. Almost overnight, a once-vigorous Israeli left, which had assured the public that Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution would be reciprocated by Palestinian moderation, all but collapsed.

Finally, Israel tried a desperate third approach: unilateral withdrawal, dismantling Israel’s settlements and army bases from Gaza in 2005. Many Israelis saw that move as a test case for a future unilateral withdrawal in the West Bank. Ehud Olmert was elected prime minister in 2006 on the promise that he would do precisely that if there was no credible Palestinian partner.

But in the years following the withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas, which seized power there in 2007, fired thousands of rockets at Israeli communities along the southern border, all but destroying normal life there. Israel has since fought two wars in Gaza, trying to stop those attacks. The turmoil—and the vehement criticism around the world of Israel’s military actions, which Israelis overwhelmingly saw as self-defense—has convinced many unilateralists that repeating the process in the West Bank is simply too risky.

Today, Israelis have essentially embraced the status quo as the least terrifying option. The problem with the status quo, however, is that it isn’t static. The current terror campaign has, for the first time, included relatively large numbers of Palestinians from East Jerusalem who, unlike Palestinians in the West Bank, are able to freely travel in Israel. And radicalization is spreading even among Israel’s Arab citizens, a handful of whom have participated in terror attacks.

At the same time, settlement-building in the West Bank continues—though at a slower pace than in the past, according to the Peace Now Settlement Watch, an anti-occupation NGO. This did not deter the European Union from its recent decision to make a distinction in labeling between products made in settlements and those made in what it considers Israel proper—a move endorsed by the Obama administration.

Israel finds itself in perhaps the most frightening time since the weeks before the Six-Day War, when Arab armies massed on its borders and Arab leaders threatened to destroy the Jewish state. Terror enclaves now exist on most of Israel’s borders—Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Islamic State on the Golan Heights and in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza. Tens of thousands of missiles are aimed at Israeli cities and are capable of reaching any point in Israel. Iran is emerging as the region’s dominant power, even as it remains on the nuclear threshold. And a growing international movement to boycott the Jewish state has deepened Israelis’ sense of siege.

And yet—precisely because of the Iranian threat against the Sunni world and of regional instability generally—the Arab world is opening up to Israel in unprecedented ways. Even with the Palestinian issue festering, Saudi Arabia has all but acknowledged a security dialogue with Israel, and Israeli officials are now being interviewed in Saudi media, which not long ago referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity,” refusing even to name the Jewish state.

Beyond the Arab world, an increasingly embattled Turkey is negotiating a rapprochement with the Jewish state. Turkey’s rival, Greece, once among the most vociferous pro-Palestinian voices in the European Union, has become one of Israel’s leading European allies, deepening military and economic ties and opposing the EU’s decision to mark West Bank settlement products—and this under a left-wing government.

In this bewildering new world, Israelis sense not just unprecedented threats but also opportunity. Mr. Netanyahu has suggested the possibility of a regional agreement between Israel and Arab countries that would bypass a dysfunctional Palestinian leadership and create some form of Palestinian state, with security arrangements negotiated between Israel and Arab leaders. But that’s a scenario for an uncertain future at best.

Mr. Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, is the author of “Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation.” He is writing a book about the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Hillary Clinton’s Ups And Downs On Israel: A Timeline

By: Jacob Kamaras Alina Dain Sharon and Sean Savage
The Jewish Press, January 29th, 2016

Hillary Clinton has long been the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race, although her polling numbers have recently fallen significantly. If she’s elected, how would U.S.-Israel relations fare under her watch? The following timeline looks, in reverse chronological order, at her words, policies, and relationships as they relate to Israel over the course of the various stages of her political career.

Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential Candidate


Clinton disagrees with an assertion by Bernie Sanders, senator from Vermont and Clinton’s leading rival for the Democratic nomination, that “what we’ve got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran.” While Clinton expresses that she is “very proud” of the newly implemented nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, she cautions, “We’ve had one good day over 36 years, and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly – before more normalization.”


In November, Clinton appoints Earl F. Hilliard, a congressman who blamed an election defeat on “Jewish interests” and the “Jewish media,” to her presidential campaign’s Alabama leadership team. Hilliard was considered one of the most vocal opponents of Israel in Congress while he represented Alabama in the House from 1993-2003.

In July, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren comes out with his much-discussed memoir, Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide. Oren recalls being consistently rebuffed in his attempts to meet with Clinton during her time as secretary of state on the grounds that she “did not receive ambassadors.”

In an op-ed for the Forward, Clinton writes, “I am deeply committed to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state, and just as convinced that the only way to guarantee that outcome is through diplomacy. And while no solution can be imposed from outside, I believe the United States has a responsibility to help bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table and to encourage the difficult but necessary decisions that will lead to peace. As president I will never stop working to advance the goal of two states for two peoples living in peace, security, and dignity.”

In March, Clinton says in a phone conversation with Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, that “we need to all work together to return the special U.S.-Israel relationship to constructive footing.” The U.S. and Israel, she says, should “get back to basic shared concerns and interests, including a two-state solution pursued through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians…. We must ensure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue.”


In her new memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton characterizes Israel as an occupying force. “When we…visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted,” she writes, recounting a 1981 trip with her husband.

Clinton also writes in the memoir, “In retrospect, our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work,” arguing that the Obama administration’s stance against Israeli settlement construction hardened Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s position.


Speaking at the Saban Forum, Clinton says Israel lacks generosity and empathy in its approach to the Palestinian issue. “So, look, I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion,” she says. “So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.”
Responding to an e-mail containing a quote in which Netanyahu tells the Jerusalem Post, “We have two main enemies…. the New York Times and Haaretz,” Clinton sarcastically replies, “Further Bibi lore.”

In an article published two months after the Obama administration brokers a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, Jay Solomon and Laura Meckler write for the Wall Street Journal that three years earlier “Hillary Clinton, in her last months as secretary of state, helped open the door to…an acceptance that Tehran would maintain at least some capacity to produce nuclear fuel.”

In July 2012, according to the report, Hillary’s foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan “met in secret with Iranian diplomats in Oman, but made no progress in ending the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. In a string of high-level meetings here over the next six months, the secretary of state and White House concluded that they might have to let Iran continue to enrich uranium at small levels, if the diplomacy had any hope of succeeding.”


In an e-mail dated Dec. 18, 2011, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering, an adviser to Clinton, suggests that the U.S. covertly generate Palestinian unrest in an effort to push the Israeli government to jump-start stalled peace talks. “What will change the situation is a major effort to use nonviolent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering writes, adding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “cannot deliver anything the Palestinians can accept without our help.” It is unclear how Clinton reacts to Pickering’s idea.

Clinton expresses concern about the state of Israeli democracy, describing reports of gender segregation on buses operating in Jerusalem as “reminiscent of Rosa Parks,” the black civil rights icon who in 1955 refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus to white passengers.


In March, Clinton devotes a 45-minute phone conversation with Netanyahu to rebuking the prime minister for Israel’s decision to move ahead with 1,600 new housing units in eastern Jerusalem.


In May, Clinton tells Al Jazeera, “We want to see a stop to [Israeli] settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. That is what the president has called for.” Later that month, at a press conference with Egypt’s foreign minister, Clinton says Obama “wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.”

Michael Oren writes in Ally that the 2009 demand by the Obama administration for a complete Israeli settlement freeze marked the “first time in the history of the U.S.-Israel alliance” that the White House “denied the validity of a previous presidential commitment.” Oren was referring to the George W. Bush administration’s reported commitment to Israel that the Jewish state could build inside the construction lines of established settlements. But according to an e-mail made public by the State Department, Clinton in July 2009 writes to two aides that Bush-era secretary of state Condoleezza Rice “called to tell me I was on strong ground, saying what I did about there being no agreement [on settlements] between the Bush admin[istration] and Israel.”

U.S. Senator and 2008 Presidential Candidate


In an interview with the Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia, Clinton supports “limited talks” with the Hamas terrorist group if Israel deems such outreach to be in its best interests. She refuses to address the “hypothetical question” of what she would do if Iran gains nuclear capability.

In a statement, Clinton says, “I deplore and condemn the Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel…. Israel has the right to defend its citizens…. I call on Hamas to stop this irresponsible aggression immediately, which would enable Israeli and Palestinian civilians to return to normal life.” She adds that the Bush administration “should have been taking a much more active role in bringing international pressure on Hamas to stop its attacks.”
On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton asserts that if she were president, the U.S. could “totally obliterate” Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.


At a press conference with Palestinian Media Watch, Clinton says, regarding incitement to violence in Palestinian school textbooks, “We must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are being exposed. That must be a priority for all people who care about children, who care about the kind of peace, stability, safety, and security that Israel deserves to be guaranteed. And it should be a priority for everyone who cares about the future of the Palestinian people.”

Clinton sponsors S.Res. 92 (110th): “A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hizbullah.”

Hamas’s governance of Gaza should not be officially recognized until the terror group “renounces violence and terror and recognizes Israel’s right to exist,” Clinton tells the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Palestinian lobbyist Hani Masri, a close associate of Yasir Arafat, raises more than $100,000 for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.


At a rally near United Nations headquarters in New York City, Clinton supports taking “whatever steps are necessary” to defend Israel against Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, and Syria. She adds, “I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?”

Candidate for U.S. Senator from New York


Hillary accepts a campaign donation from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked American Muslim Alliance’s Massachusetts Chapter and tries to hide it by recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the “American Museum Alliance.” Eventually, she returns the funds four months after receiving them.

Hillary says it is incumbent on Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat to “do everything in his power to stop the violence and to maintain the cease-fire that was reached yesterday,” and to “make it clear that violence is not an acceptable political statement.”


In a letter to the Orthodox Union, Hillary writes that she considers Jerusalem the “eternal and indivisible capital of Israel,” and that if elected senator, she would advocate moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Arkansas Years and U.S. First Lady


During Hillary’s visit to Ramallah in 1999, Suha Arafat, wife of Yasir, openly accuses Israel of poisoning the West Bank’s water supply and land. Following those remarks, Hillary is photographed embracing Suha and kissing her on the cheek, a move Hillary described as following diplomatic protocol.


Hillary generates controversy by laying out her own vision for the Middle East, declaring, in a satellite address to Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian teens from the Seeds of Peace group, support for an independent Palestinian state.

During a visit to Israel and the disputed Palestinian territories, the New York Times describes Hillary as being “hailed here as a champion of Palestinian statehood.” During the same visit, Hillary praises “the leadership of Chairman Arafat” in the peace process and “hope for the future.”


While Bill Clinton is the governor of Arkansas, Hillary brings the Israeli literacy program Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) to her state after inviting the program’s founder, Hebrew University Professor Avima Lombard, to Arkansas as part of a major school reform push. The program has been a resounding success and now serves 15,000 families in 21 U.S. states. – JNS


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Video: Unbelievably clairvoyant Trump video with Oprah Winfrey 25 years ago withTrump predicted this entire scenario — his winning Presidential run — Almost word for word to today’s delivery. And, his hair was normal and he was one handsome, rich dude!





World Net Daily
It’s full-speed ahead for Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who steamrolled through the Nevada caucus Tuesday and was declared the winner immediately after the caucuses ended.

“You’re gonna be proud of your president, and you’re gonna be even prouder of your country,” Trump declared in his victory speech. “The people of this country are absolutely amazing.”

“We’re going to keep Gitmo open, and we’re going to load it up with bad dudes,” he said, referencing Obama’s push to close down the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“Mexico is going to pay for the wall. They know it. I know it. We all know it.”

Trump had a large following in Nevada, mostly due to his positions on illegal immigration and bringing jobs back during a stagnant U.S. economy.

The billionaire won the Hispanic vote in Nevada, according to Fox News exit polling, which showed 41 percent of Hispanic Republicans voted for Trump compared to 29 percent for Marco Rubio.

“I’m really happy about that,” Trump said, referencing his support among Hispanics.

He declared, “Now we’re gonna get greedy for the United States. We’re gonna grab so much money. This is an amazing night.”

According to CNN polling, Trump also came in first among voters of every education group, among independents and among evangelical Christians.

“I just don’t know how you stop the raw enthusiasm behind Trump,” John Kasich Nevada state director Zachary Moyle told the Los Angeles Times.

Nevada will send 30 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Delegates are awarded proportionally.

With 19 percent reporting, results Tuesday showed the following:

Donald Trump: 46.5 percent

Marco Rubio: 24.1 percent

Ted Cruz: 19.8 percent

Ben Carson: 5.4 percent

John Kasich: 3.9 percent

Rubio has been trying to attract Jeb Bush’s large pool of big-money donors since the former Florida governor exited the race Saturday. Rubio hoped a strong performance in Nevada would set him up to be the most viable mainstream alternative to Trump.

Both Cruz and Rubio hired top campaign consultants to launch robust get-out-the vote efforts in Nevada.

According to data from Kantar Media/CMAG, Rubio spent $920,000 to Cruz’s $790,000 in Nevada advertising. Trump spent about $490,000, and Carson spent about $330,000. Kasich has spent nothing.

The Silver State has a large base of conservatives. Eighty-three percent of GOP caucus-goers identified as conservative in 2012, and half of all caucus-goers were “very conservative.”

CBS News entrance polls Tuesday evening showed 58 percent of Republican voters say they are angry about the federal government. And two-thirds of GOP caucus-goers said they want the next president to “be outside politics.”

What’s next?

Republicans faced off in their next debate, hosted by CNN, Telemundo and Salem Radio on Feb. 25. The event, which will be broadcast in English and Spanish, will take place at the University of Houston. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer will moderate the debate. Telemundo’s Maria Celeste Arraras, Salem talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt and CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash will also ask the candidates questions.

PS  (Rubio said to have done best in this debate last night but not enough to divert Trump steam roll.)

The South Carolina primary – scheduled for Feb. 27 – is the next Democrat primary.

And both Republicans and Democrats will face off on Super Tuesday, a group of 12 primaries and caucuses held on March 1 that includes the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.

(And, may the best man win!  jsk)

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Do you know of Ed Mezvinsky?

MAY 19, 2015

Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937. Then you’ll probably say, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?”

Well, he is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.

He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.

He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.

He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.

In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.

Ed Mezvinsky embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams.

He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.

After serving less than five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008 and remains on federal probation.

To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, Marc and Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky are a happily married couple and Marc Mezvinsky is Ed Mezvinsky’s son and  Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.

Another interesting fact is that somehow, Marc and Chelsea, in their early thirties recently  purchased a 10.5 million dollar NYC apartment.

Has anyone heard mention of any of this in any of the media?

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in- law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.

And yet say there are no double standards in political reporting.

And people are already talking about Hillary as our next President!

And then there is possibly Chelsea for president in our future!

The cycle never ends!

Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular.

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“ America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
~ Abraham Lincoln

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

How many allies does President Obama think the U.S. can afford to squander?


The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 15, 2016


Talk to Israelis about the United States these days and you will provoke a physical reaction. Barack Obama is an eye roll. John Kerry is a grimace. The administration’s conduct of regional policy is a slow, sad shake of the head. The current state of the presidential race makes for a full-blown shudder. The Israeli rundown of the candidates goes roughly as follows: “Hillary—she doesn’t like us.” “Cruz—I don’t like him.” “Rubio—is he done for?” “Sanders—oy vey.” “Trump—omigod.”

As for Israel’s own troubles—a continuing Palestinian campaign of stabbings; evidence that Hamas is rebuilding its network of terror tunnels under the Gaza border and wants to restart the 2014 war; more than 100,000 rockets and guided missiles in the hands of Hezbollah—that’s just the Middle East being itself. It’s the U.S. not being itself that is the real novelty, and is forcing Israel to adjust.

I’ve spent the better part of a week talking to senior officials, journalists, intellectuals and politicians from across Israel’s political spectrum. None of it was on the record, but the consistent theme is that, while the Jewish state still needs the U.S., especially in the form of military aid, it also needs to diversify its strategic partnerships. This may yet turn out to be the historic achievement of Benjamin Netanyahu’s long reign as prime minister.

On Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon publicly shook hands with former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal at the Munich Security Conference.

In January, Israeli cabinet member Yuval Steinitz made a trip to Abu Dhabi, where Israel is opening an office at a renewable-energy association.

Turkey is patching up ties with Israel. In June, Jerusalem and Riyadh went public with the strategic talks between them.

In March, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi told the Washington Post that he speaks to Mr. Netanyahu “a lot.”

This de facto Sunni-Jewish alliance amounts to what might be called the coalition of the disenchanted; states that have lost faith in America’s promises. Israel is also reinventing its ties to the aspiring Startup Nations, countries that want to develop their own innovation cultures.

In October, Israel hosted Indian President Pranab Mukherjee for a three-day state visit; New Delhi, once a paragon of the nonaligned movement that didn’t have diplomatic ties to Israel for four decades, is about to spend $3 billion on Israeli arms.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is personally close to Mr. Netanyahu, sees Israel as a model for economic reinvention. Chinese investment in Israel hit $2.7 billion last year, up from $70 million in 2010. In 2014, Israel’s exports to the Far East for the first time exceeded those to the U.S.

Then there is Europe—at least the part of it that is starting to grasp that it can’t purchase its security in the coin of Israeli insecurity.

Greece’s left-wing Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras used to lead anti-Israel protests. But Greece needs Israeli gas, so he urges cooperation on terrorism and calls Jerusalem Israel’s “historic capital.”

In the U.K., Prime Minister David Cameron’s government is moving to prevent local councils from passing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) measures against Israel.

(Hey! Believe it or not – the overt enmity of Obama and his flunky Kerry, may be the best thing that ever happened to Israel foreign policy. Maybe Netanyahu has finally seen clear to shed the mantle of Israel as just another Banana Republic?) jsk

All this amounts to another Obama administration prediction proved wrong. “You see for Israel there’s an increasing delegitimization campaign that has been building up,” Mr. Kerry warned grimly in 2014. “There are talks of boycotts and other kinds of things. Today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100%, cannot be maintained.”

Except when the likely alternatives to the lousy status quo are worse. Over the weekend, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power came to Jerusalem to preach the virtues of a two-state solution. Her case would be unarguable if the Palestinian state to be created alongside Israel were modeled on Costa Rica—democratic, demilitarized, developing, friendly to outsiders.

But the likelier model is Gaza, or Syria. Why should Israelis be expected to live next to that? How would that help actual living Palestinians, as opposed to the perpetual martyrs of left-wing imagination? And why doesn’t the U.S. insist that Palestinian leaders prove they are capable of decently governing a state before being granted one?

Those are questions Mr. Obama has been incapable of asking himself, lest a recognition of facts intrude on the narrative of a redemptive presidency. But a great power that cannot recognize the dilemmas of its allies soon becomes useless as an ally, and it becomes intolerable if it then turns its strategic ignorance into a moral sermon.

More than one Israeli official I spoke with recalled that the country managed to survive the years before 1967 without America’s strategic backing, and if necessary it could do so again. Nations that must survive typically do. The more important question is how much credibility the U.S. can afford to squander before the loss becomes irrecoverable.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Bernie Sanders’s Jewishness – Hand Gestures And Not Much Else

By: Sara Lehmann

The Jewish Press,  February 12th, 2016

The morning after Bernie Sanders’s spectacular performance in the Iowa caucus, New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin, appearing on John Gambling’s radio show, commented on the Vermont senator’s liberal use of hand motions in his speeches. No surprise there, I immediately thought – he talks like an elderly Jew from Brooklyn, steeped in the use of pantomime. But that’s where the similarity ends.

The socialist challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination has been so reticent about his Jewish roots that the media have dubbed him the first “non-religious” contender for president. Leading up to the Iowa caucus, little mention was made of Sanders’s Judaism because of its almost non-existent role in his life.

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Sanders admitted to not believing in God in a traditional manner. He skirted the issue of belief by offering a vague definition of it. “To me,” he said, “it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.” Not a startling admission from a Jew married to a Catholic who spent last Rosh Hashanah campaigning at Liberty University, the evangelical Christian school in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Sanders is nothing if not consistent. His quiet avoidance of anything Jewish, cultural or otherwise, is matched by his avoidance of identification with Israel in the political arena. He was one of only 21 senators during the 2014 Gaza war who didn’t sign Senate Resolution 498, which expressed support for Israel defending itself against “unprovoked attacks” from Hamas. Sanders boycotted Benjamin Netanyahu’s congressional address against negotiations for a nuclear accord with Iran and then supported the Iran deal. In a January 17 debate, he went to so far as to call on the United States to “move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran.”

While it is still a stretch to envision Sanders as the Democratic nominee and even harder to envision him winning the general election, the frightening takeaway of his surge in popularity is his overwhelming support among young voters. True, idealism is typically found among the young, and even older Democrats are holding their noses while supporting an embattled and imploding Hillary. But enthusiasm for the agnostic Sanders is proving that religion is not dying in America after all – it has simply found a new home. Income inequality, the environment, LGBT rights, and the demonization of Zionism are all part of the new Ten Commandments.

After seven lean years of a president whose agenda indicates he believes in nothing but himself, a divided America is ready for a more robust expression of faith from its next president. And whether it takes the form of Bible-laced references by Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump’s securing of an endorsement by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Jr., or the deification of secularism by Sanders, the country seems ready to discard theological and political vagueness, if only because people are desperately focused on finding valid expression for their frustrations.

Separation of church and state notwithstanding, the Obama presidency has been a disastrous failure in the experiment of governing from a place far removed from the foundational values of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The steady retreat from divinely ordained rules that form the basis of this country has given us feel-good laws, politically correct madness, and dangerous forays into moral equivalency.

Without a moral compass rooted in faith, ten-percent tithing in Sanders’s world view becomes a ninety-percent tax rate, marriage between a man and a woman is just another option, and refusing to address by name the plague of Islamist extremism is an admirable example of inter-faith sensitivity. Years of pandering to those who proudly flout convention in media, government, and especially educational institutions have rendered America a society bereft of religious convictions and common sense. And it as left America polarized – a country deeply divided between those who drank the progressive Kool-Aid and those who rebel against it.

Though the push from the right is energizing the Republican Party back to the notion of a constitutionally based society, the danger from the left is the ever-accelerating push even further away from the country’s foundational ideals. The Sanders cult is testament to the power the radical left yields over young Americans, who want to out-radicalize Obama’s agenda.

To American Jews who truly care about both America and Israel, this phenomenon is frightening. More young Americans are becoming indoctrinated on college campuses and elsewhere against true Jewish/biblical values and the state of Israel, and it is becoming harder to undo the damage. These are the voters fueling the Sanders campaign.

The spectacle of a 74-year-old Vermont-by-way-of-Brooklyn Jewish Socialist resonating with young urbanites is not surprising, considering how he identifies more with supporting the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street movements than with protecting American interests at home and abroad. Sanders’s outrageous fiscal promises are shameful – and become dangerous when coupled with his policies that would undermine the security of Israel, America’s other allies, and America itself.

Sanders’s purposeful distancing of himself from his own heritage serves to underscore his estrangement from Israel and Jewish interests and encourages others to do the same. And the image of a Jewish socialist relic who hasn’t learned from history’s mistakes can never be a positive one for Jews, wherever they live.

Sanders’s road to the White House is still a long and doubtful one. Let’s hope that when all is said and done, the lasting image we have of the aforementioned hand movements will be the wringing of those hands in frustrated defeat.
About the Author: Sara Lehmann, a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, was formerly an editor at a major New York publishing house. 

II The Brilliant Rabbi Berl Wein weighs in on Bernie


There is a United States senator who represents a small state, Vermont. The people of this small state are different in outlook and temperament than most of the rest of America. They regularly elected to the House of Representatives and then to the Senate a Jew born in Brooklyn, a self-described socialist who is an independent who always votes with the Democratic Party.

To me the wonder is that no one comments upon the fact that this senator, who is running for President, is Jewish! And, add to that, he is a person born in World War II, raised as a secular socialist and throughout his political and legislative career has espoused very left-wing socialist views.

He was always regarded as a somewhat benevolent, quirky senator from a small state. Now he is surprisingly a possible – though he is still a very long shot – contender for the presidency of the United States. He is the first Jew in the history of the United States to win a presidential primary election, having crushed Hillary Clinton in the recent New Hampshire primary.

How ironic but tellingly true that the first Jew to get this far in a presidential race is a left-wing socialist with no real identity with the Jewish people and the Jewish faith!

The twentieth century has provided us with ample examples of such Jews who have risen high in politics and government. Leon Blum, Walter Rathenau, Leon Trotsky, Bela Kun, etc. were all Jews who rose to power but whose policies and beliefs eventually led to national and international disaster.

Much of the ideals of the Left are based on Torah values. Fairness to workers, non-exploitation of the defenseless and the lower class, compassion for others and helping the less fortunate are all Torah values. The problem lies not so much in the ideas, as it does in the implementation of those ideas. That is where secular socialism has wrecked societies and literally killed millions of otherwise innocent people.

Bernie is the unrepentant Jewish socialist whom I knew so well in my youth. They were convinced that they were the wave of the future and that the old-fashioned Jew – especially the observant religious Jew – was doomed to extinction. The old-fashioned socialist Jew has morphed into the modern, liberal, assimilationist American Jew. And those are the qualities to which the vast majority of American Jews subscribe.

The triumph of the Left in America is based on its triumph in capturing the hearts, minds, belief and pocketbooks of most of American Jewry. So then why does Bernie Sanders resonate less with American Jews than does his rival, Hillary Clinton?

Part of the reason for this is that Jews distrust other Jews being in power. This is a subconscious but very omnipresent lesson of centuries of exile and anti-Semitism. There are many in the Jewish community who feel that Jews in power inevitably exacerbate the latent anti-Semitism which exists.

In Israel governing is made very difficult simply because Jews have to govern over other Jews. After thousands of years of abject servitude, it is painful to have to make the necessary mindset adjustment to a Jewish government. So, I have little hope that Bernie will make it big with the American Jewish community while Hillary will certainly prove popular, no matter her past, her policies, her personality or any other qualities she may possess.

We are a strange people. When Senator Joseph Lieberman was the nominee of the Democratic Party for Vice-President I remember that many Jews who regularly voted Democratic were very hesitant that year to vote that way. They were deathly afraid of a Jewish Vice-President of the United States of America.

Of course Lieberman was and is a different type of Jew than is Bernie. But to the non-Jewish society, a Jew is a Jew, is a Jew.

Meanwhile, Bernie, thanks for the memories and the ride.        (But, I could hardly wish you good luck and lie while my G-d is listening) jsk

Shabbat shalom

Berl Wein

Berel Wein (born March 25, 1934) is an American-born Orthodox rabbi, lecturer and writer. He authored several books concerning Jewish history and popularized the subject through more than 1,000 audio tapes, newspaper articles and international lectures. Throughout his career, he has retained personal and ideological ties to both Modern Orthodox and Haredi Judaism. Rabbi Wein and his wife moved to Israel in 1997. In Israel, Wein established The Destiny Foundation, a forum for his CDs, audio tapes and many books.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By: Former Member of Knesset (MK) Moshe Feiglin

The Jewish Press

January 21st, 2016

The local police were basically apathetic toward the New Year’s gang-rape assaults in several Western European cities, perpetrated by thousands of Muslim immigrants targeting local women. The European media remained silent and the politicians shrugged their shoulders. Western Europe is on its knees and invites the noble Muslim wild-man to rape her.

What is the meaning of this phenomenon? Where were all the European men at the German train station?

Why did the Syrian refugees flee to frozen Germany, Sweden, or Finland? After all, there are countries much closer to Syria that speak their language. And if they opt to flee to Europe, why not to the closer European countries? What’s wrong with colorful Hungary? Green Poland? A refugee fleeing a war zone with just the clothes on his back is not choosy. He usually stops at the first place that he can safely rest his head.

The answer is that the motivation is not just economic. Something much deeper lies beneath the surface. Western Europe is the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in G-d. Most Americans are believers. Western Europe, on the other hand, is an oasis of heresy. It is a culture that removed G-d from its consciousness. It eliminated G-d from daily life and imprisoned Him in museums. The intense pressure in the religion of “Allah hu akbar” naturally bursts into this faithless vacuum. It is pure physics. Intercontinental masculinity and femininity.

Generations of exclusion of G-d gave rise to a hunger for authority and meaning. The police do not attempt to prevent the rape, just like they did not attempt to stop Kristallnacht. Because in truth, they want the refugees. The battered wife syndrome, the subconscious, Markel’s politically correctness, and those who invite the refugees – actually want them. Mein Kampf is also making a huge comeback and is selling out for the same reason. Because of the same hunger for absolute – violent – authority.

ISIS mesmerizes the West. Europeans are converting to Islam at an astounding rate. London is adorning the burka. Walk outdoors in groups, Europe’s leaders tell their female citizens. Get used to it.

We are coming full circle at breakneck speed. Women’s liberation is but a distant memory. The state will no longer protect you. Get used to it. Your G-dless culture has evaporated. Find yourself a man who will protect you. A Muslim, of course. There are no other real males around…

About the Author: Moshe Feiglin is the former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. He is the founder of Manhigut Yehudit and Zo Artzeinu and the author of two books: “Where There Are No Men” and “War of Dreams.” Feiglin served in the IDF as an officer in Combat Engineering and is a veteran of the Lebanon War. He lives in Ginot Shomron with his family.

II  (By the way, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America followed by Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism (the slowest — if growing at all). The Pew Research Center projects that the Muslim population, which now constitutes 1% of the US adult population, will surpass the Jewish population by 2040 and will grow to over 2.1% by 2050. Of course, Barack Obama is deliberately increasing  this rate exponentially by unfettered, unopposed, unilateral executive immigration by the hundreds of thousands while Congress sucks its thumb). jsk

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

By Michael Gray

January 17, 2016

When people use the term Great Recession, they are playing into the charade laid out by Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

The years 2008 through 2015 should be known as the Great Fleecing.

During that time, the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world occurred. Some $4.5 trillion was given to Wall Street banks through its Quantitative Easing program, with the American people picking up the IOU.

“If liberals are angry about inequality, they should look no further than President Obama.”


This is the primary reason the US economy has not been able to recovery from the bank implosion of 2008.

Surely if you inject $4.5 trillion into the economy, you will get economic growth. You will get a 4% to 5% increase in Gross Domestic Product for at least a year or two.

Yet the Obama administration is the first two-term presidency that has not posted a 3% GDP growth on an annualized basis for 8 years. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt posted 3% growth year during the Great Depression.

That’s because the $4.5 trillion was not given to any infrastructure program — it was given to banks, under the misguided notion that they needed the money to remain solvent. The banks promptly invested this money, which kept the stock market humming, but did nothing for jobs, wages or the GDP.

This was by design. The Fed could not allow the bank’s largesse to be circulated into the public for fear of rapid inflation.

The banks also funded company mergers, company debt offerings and stock buybacks. This activity kept the money sequestered and allowed a greater return for the banks. After all, they were getting free money to invest — there was no way to lose.

Who did this help? The 1%, and pretty much only the 1%.

These actions are the reasons the American middle class has been decimated and no longer makes up the majority of the population.

If liberals are angry about inequality, they should look no further than President Obama. He has done more to contribute to the gap between rich and poor than anyone.

The middle class has seen the wholesale export of good-paying jobs, while on the hook for crushing mortgages and higher taxes to pay down the growing US debt to fund the banks.

Is it any wonder that in all of the 3,007 US counties, parishes and territories just over 50% of the population in each county is on government assistance of some sort?

Now comes the punch line. After the Fed finally decided to stop the QE program, asset bubbles are growing weak and some say about to pop. The stock market is in correction mode — off more than 10% from its highs last year. After seven years of getting no interest on your savings, after little opportunity for job advancement and raises, now your 401(k) will take a hit anyway.

The US has “the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” Obama boasted. But only for the few.

(And, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wants to give us more Obama! I don’t think so …) jsk 

Michael Gray is the Sunday Business Editor of The Post. His blog where a version of this article appeared is Gray’s Economy on WordPress.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments