Read More About: ,

Share This Post

I By Caroline Glick
The Jerusalem Post – Israel News

The foundations of American Jewish life are under assault today in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago. Academia is ground zero of the onslaught. The protest movements on campuses are first and foremost anti-Jewish movements.

For the past decade or so, Jewish communal leaders and activists have focused on just one aspect of this anti-Jewish campaign. Jewish leaders have devoted themselves to helping Jewish students combat the direct anti-Semitism inherent to the anti-Israel student movements.

Despite the substantial funds that have been devoted to fighting anti-Israel forces on campuses, they have not been diminished. To the contrary, with each passing year they have grown more powerful and menacing. Consider a sampling of the anti-Jewish incidents that took place over the past two weeks. Two weeks ago, Daniel Bernstein, a Jewish student at University of California Santa Cruz and a member of the university’s student government was ordered not to vote on a resolution calling for the university to divest from four companies which do business with Israel.

Bernstein represents UCSC’s Stevenson College at the university student government. He is also vice president of his college’s Jewish Student Union. Ahead of the anti-Israel vote, Bernstein received a message from a member of his college’s student council ordering him to abstain from the vote on Israel divestment. The student council, Bernstein was informed, had determined that he was motivated by “a Jewish agenda,” and therefore couldn’t be trusted to view the resolution fairly.

In the same message, Bernstein’s correspondent gave him a friendly “heads up” that his fellow students are considering removing him from office because he is a Jew supported by the Jewish community.

To his credit, Bernstein ignored his orders. He voted to oppose the anti-Israel resolution.

Following the incident Bernstein published a statement decrying the anti-Jewish discrimination and hatred now rampant on his campus. Among other things, he wrote, “I wish that [my] being subjected to anti-Semitism was a shocking new occurrence. But the truth is that I’m not shocked. I’m not shocked because this hatred and ignorance has followed me everywhere.

I’m not shocked because Jewish students have been targeted with this vile racism all over the [University of California] UC system for years, and especially since BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel) became a major issue of discussion. Anti-Semitism … has … become an inseparable part of campus politics right here at UC Santa Cruz and across the UC system.”

Then there is the growing movement of professional associations that boycott Israel:

Last week the National Women’s Studies Association passed a resolution to join the BDS movement. The resolution, written in turgid, incomprehensible prose, proclaimed that the only state in the Middle East that provides full and equal rights to women is so evil that it must be singled out and boycotted, sanctioned and divested from.

Whereas Bernstein was personally targeted, and the NWSA criminalizes Israel, at CUNY, on November 12, a group of protesters targeted the Jewish community as a whole. That day, as part of a national “million student march,” where students demanded free tuition, anti-Jewish students at CUNY rallied at Hunter college and introduced a new demand: the expulsion of all Israel supporters from campus. Congregating in the center of the campus, some 50 students chanted in unison, “Zionists out of CUNY!” Aside from an anodyne statement in favor of “freedom of expression,” CUNY administrators had nothing to say about the affair.

For their part, Hunter’s administrators issued a statement “condemning the anti-Semitic comments,” made by the rally participants. But no disciplinary measures were taken against any of them. Speaking to the Algemeiner, StandWithUs’s northeast regional director Shahar Azani said that the Hunter incident “is another example of the hijacking of various social causes by the anti-Israel movement.” In making this claim, Azani was merely repeating the position taken by Jewish communal leaders and activists involved in the fight to defend Jews and Israel on university campuses. Unfortunately, this position is incorrect.

According to the prevailing wisdom guiding Jewish communal responses to the onslaught against Jewish students on campuses, the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish movements are distinct from the wider anti-liberal forces now disrupting campus life throughout the US. As Jewish leaders see things, there is no inherent connection between the protesters embracing victimhood and demanding constraints on freedom of expression, inquiry and assembly (and free tuition), and those who seek to drive Jews out of the public sphere on college campuses.

In other words, they believe that Zionists can be cry bullies too. But they can’t. The cry bully movement, which demands that universities constrain freedom to cater to victim groups, is necessarily hostile to Jews. This is the reason that at the same time that “victims” from blacks to transgenders are coddled and caressed, Jews have emerged as the only group that is not protected. Indeed, the BDS movement requires universities to discriminate against Jewish students.

The inherent conflict between the tenets of the “progressive” movement and Jewish rights is exposed in a guide to racial “micro aggressions” published earlier this year by the University of California. Students and faculty must avoid committing these “micro agressions” if they want to stay on the right side of campus authorities and the law. The UC defines “micro agressions” as, “brief, subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating messages to the recipient because of his or her group membership (such as race, gender, age or socio-economic status).”

Transgressors can expect to be accused of engendering a “hostile learning environment,” an act that can get you expelled, fired and subjected to criminal probes.

As law professor Eugene Voloch reported in The Washington Post last June, among other things, the list of offenses includes embracing merit as a means of advancing in society! A statement along the lines of “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” can destroy a person’s academic career.

So too, statements rejecting race as a significant factor in judging a person’s competence are now deemed racist. For instance statements to the effect of, “There is only one race, the human race,” “America is a melting pot” or “I don’t believe in race” can land a student or instructor in hot water.

In a column last week, Dennis Prager noted that the list castigates as racism all the pillars of liberal society in America. The list, he wrote, shows that “the American university is now closer to fascism than to traditional liberty.”
Prager is right, of course. But the fascist takeover of American academia will not affect all Americans equally. Jews are the greatest victims of this state of affairs.

For the better part of the past hundred years, the upward mobility of American Jewry has been directly correlated with America’s embrace of meritocratic values. The more Americans have looked past race and ethnicity and judged people by their talents, characters and professional competence, the higher Jews have risen.

Conversely, where qualities other than competence, talent and professionalism have determined social and professional status, Jews have suffered. They have faced discrimination and their opportunities to advance have been limited.

Academia is but a small component of American society. But to earn a place in America’s middle, upper-middle and upper classes, you need at least an undergraduate degree. Moreover, university graduates go on to populate and head the state and federal governing bureaucracies, the business world, the entertainment sector and every other major area of human endeavor in American society.

Academia’s simultaneous rejection of core liberal principles and legitimization of anti-Semitic forces is not a coincidence. Jews are a constant reminder that human agency – rather than race and other group identities – has everything to do with a person’s ability to excel in academics and beyond. For fascist principles to hold, Jews must be demonized and hated.

The intrinsic link between anti-Semitism and fascism and their simultaneous embrace by a key American institution means that the equal rights and freedoms of Jews are far more threatened in America today than most Jewish leaders and activists have realized. The Jewish community’s failure to date to successfully defeat the anti-Semitic forces on campuses owes at least in part to its failure to recognize or contend with the dual nature of the problem.



II  Now What? Maybe you remember the following lament?

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

“First they came…” – The origins of this poem first have been traced to a speech given by Niemöller on January 6, 1946, to the representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt.


Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a Protestant pastor and social activist.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Thousands of political arrests, migrants flee, and Russia wants in. Sound familiar?

Wall Street Journal

Dec. 20, 2015

This month marks the first anniversary of President Obama’s unilateral rapprochement with Cuba. Upon making the Dec. 17 announcement, the Obama administration immediately moved to ease restrictions on American travel to the island and, by extension, boost revenues for the owners of its tourist industry: the Cuban military.

In May the U.S. removed Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, even though the dictator Gen. Raúl Castro harbors known terrorists, including the U.S. fugitive Joanne Chesimard, once a member of the now defunct Black Liberation Army and a convicted cop-killer.

In August the U.S. reopened an embassy in Havana. Last week it announced a bilateral agreement to restore direct flights between the U.S. and Cuba.

Cuba’s dissidents have been hard hit. Days after the new U.S. policy was announced, Danilo Maldonado, the Cuban performance artist known as El Sexto, was arrested for mocking the Castros. He spent 10 months in jail, and Amnesty International named him a prisoner of conscience.

The Havana-based Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation documented 7,686 political arrests in 2015 through Nov. 30. On that day Mr. Maldonado summarized the effects of the Obama détente: “There have been no positive changes. The U.S. has given away too much at the normalization talks, and that has let Cuba continue its repression.”

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, echoes those sentiments. “I was particularly shocked,” he said last week, “that a number of people, including members of the Ladies in White,” a dissident group, “were arrested on Human Rights Day, on 10 December. This shows an extraordinary disdain for the importance of human rights on the part of the Cuban authorities.”

In 2014 Cuba passed a new foreign-investment law to boost capital inflows. Yet the government retained the power to confiscate assets for “public” or “social” ends, and it has gained a reputation for arbitrarily jailing foreign businessmen. Writing in the fall 2015 issue of World Affairs, José Azel, a senior scholar at the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, noted that despite the investment law’s “vaulting language, more than a year later only a handful of investments have been approved.”

Perhaps capitalists are not all that important when Russia is itching to get back into Cuba in a big way. In 2014 Russian President Vladimir Putin forgave $32 billion in Cuban debt to the Soviet Union. Then he converted the remaining $3.5 billion due Moscow into a line of credit for energy and industrial projects on the island.

In return, among other things, the Kremlin gets to use Cuba to establish a station supporting Russia’s global navigation satellite system (Glonass), a rival to the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS). In a Nov. 17 website post for the Cuban Transition Project at the University of Miami, research associate Hans de Salas-del Valle observed that “the installation of a signals facility in Cuba is part of a broader strategy to integrate Cuba into Russia’s space program.” He added that “Moscow has publicly expressed interest in establishing a satellite launch site in Cuba.”

Mr. Obama agrees with Raúl that the U.S. should lift the embargo. But Cuba can already buy food and medicine from the U.S. and, practically speaking, there are few limits on American travel, though such travel is disguised as “cultural exchange.” What’s left of the embargo is a ban on access to bank credit, and legal claims for almost $8 billion in property stolen by the revolution.

The Castros have a solution to the latter. They claim the embargo cost Cuba over $100 billion since 1959, so the U.S. actually owes them.

That’s laughable. What’s not so funny is Cuba’s credit score. Even after the Russian write-down, Havana is still in arrears to the rest of the world—ex-U.S.—on some $85 billion of debt. Countries are not lining up to lend more. The Castros need a new mark. That’s where Mr. Obama comes in.

Cuba’s economy, heavily dependent on Venezuelan oil and China aid, is unable to support the nation. According to Mr. de Salas-del Valle, “the assumption that economic engagement with the Castro regime will spare the U.S. an immigration crisis across the Florida Straits appears to be the underlying if unstated motivation for the White House’s unprecedented courtship of Raúl Castro.” If so, it’s a gross miscalculation. The policy has emboldened the dictator.

Some 4,000 Cuban migrants trying to get to the U.S. are now trapped in Costa Rica because Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, a Castro pal, will not allow them to move north. They’re fleeing tyranny for sure. But they couldn’t have arrived there without, at a minimum, the tacit approval of the Castro regime.

Those refugees are being used as Castro pawns to create a humanitarian crisis and pressure the U.S. for credit and multilateral aid. Havana is betting Mr. Obama will deliver.

Write to O’

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Disorganized urban liberalism couldn’t compete with the politics of tribe—or Islamism.

Dec. 16, 2015

Thursday marks a bitter anniversary in the Arab world. On Dec. 17, 2010, a Tunisian fruit vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after the authorities confiscated his goods and beat him. The incident sparked an uprising that within weeks would topple Tunisia’s venal autocracy. Protests spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. Despots from Morocco to Mesopotamia felt the heat of popular anger. Many couldn’t withstand it.

Yet today the Middle East is less stable, and less hopeful, than it was before the Arab Spring. Five years ago, the denim-clad, smartphone-wielding Arab liberal became the region’s avatar. Now the knife-wielding jihadist and the refugee have risen to prominence instead.

Each Arab Spring country is unhappy in its own way. Tunisia is the only success story among the bunch, having adopted a secular constitution and completed several peaceful power transfers. As Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s moderate Islamic Ennahda party, recently told me, “We’ve remained on the bridge of democratic transition while others have fallen off.” True, but the birthplace of the Arab Spring is also the world’s top exporter of fighters for Islamic State, or ISIS.

The situation in Egypt is similarly mixed. The country is once more ruled by the officer corps and back to its pre-Revolutionary funk: repressive and paranoid, yes, but also stable and on the path of economic reform.

Things are far worse in Yemen and Libya, which have ceased to exist as unified states. Yemen has disintegrated into its sectarian constituent parts, forcing neighboring Sunni powers led by Saudi Arabia to intervene militarily to prevent the Iranian regime from turning the country into a Shiite satellite. Libya is a lawless playground of smugglers and ISIS. Then there is Syria, with its barrel bombs, 250,000 dead, and four million refugees.

At the height of the movement, I edited an anthology of essays by young Middle East dissidents. The essayists described an Arab world where men and women were equal, blasphemous cartoonists were tolerated and gay people could live openly, among other fantasies. The book’s now-cringe-inducing title: “Arab Spring Dreams.”

How did dreams turn into nightmares? The standard account has it that by crushing or co-opting opponents, secular autocrats like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak empowered Islamist outfits that were the only remaining channel for dissent. Once the dictators fell, the liberals were quickly sidelined as Islamists and remnants of the old order battled for dominance.

It’s a theory riddled with contradictions. For one thing, it underestimates political Islam. As early as the 19th century, Islamist intellectuals had called for restoring Islam’s lost glory and expelling Western pollutants. To say that the movement’s grip on the region is a reaction against secular dictatorship is to deny Islamists’ agency and inherent ideological drive.

Secular Arab nationalism had already exhausted its energies by the time Mr. Mubarak and colleagues were overthrown. But as the rise of ISIS shows, Islamism represents a longer historical wave only beginning to crest. Many in the West imagined removing the dictators would also diminish Islamism’s attraction. Events didn’t pan out that way.

Nor could Arab liberals forge a third way. The “Revolution 2.0” model of leaderless, social-media-driven protest was effective against unpopular regimes. But it proved insufficient for winning power, and the liberals failed to articulate a coherent ideological alternative with broad appeal. Had they spent half as much time learning from Israel how to plant democracy in Middle East soil as they did demonizing the Jewish state, today the liberals might be in a better position.

The biggest Western misstep was to treat the quest for freedom as somehow separate from the contest for geopolitical mastery. In Egypt, the Obama administration was likely powerless to prevent the pro-Western Mr. Mubarak’s downfall, but the White House in the subsequent months did little to shape the outcome of the revolution. Washington favored all actors equally, as though Egypt were Luxembourg and the Muslim Brotherhood just another center-right party.

In Libya, the U.S. removed Moammar Gadhafi under a legal abstraction—the responsibility to protect—then swiftly abandoned a country with few viable institutions to its tribal furies.

In Syria, President Obama declared that Bashar Assad “must go,” and then watched impassively as the Iran-backed tyrant continued to kill and gas his own people, triggering a refugee crisis that has overwhelmed Europe.

The slaughter has continued for nearly five years. In the long term, the most perilous consequence isn’t the birth of a terror state stretching across Syria and spilling into Iraq but the destruction of U.S. credibility. The Arabs know you can’t impose order without being present and engaged in their world.

As for ordered liberty, five years after Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated, the freest Arabs still are those who are citizens of Israel. Millions fleeing other parts of the region are rendering their own judgment about the state of Arab civilization. The intellectuals and activists don’t dare imagine another uprising because they know that, given an opening, large numbers of Arabs will demand Shariah law, repression of women, and ethnic and sectarian revenge.

Perhaps that’s an unfair judgment, but it follows from a political culture that prizes honor, tribe and piety above reason and compromise. Viewed in that light, it isn’t just the years since the Arab Spring that the region has wasted, but the whole century since it was freed from the Ottoman yoke.

Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial writer based in London.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Many, Many Thanks: Pope Francis and the Catholic Church

Many, Many Thanks: Pope Francis and the Catholic Church

Orthodox Rabbis: Christianity part of divine plan in which G-d would have Jews and Christians work together to redeem the world.
Thank you for the confirmation
Facebook does not allow us to outreach for new friends or post outside my present readers. If you like the postings we make, please become our friend at

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Pope Francis touches the stones of the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem’s Old City on May 26, 2014.

Catholics shouldn’t try to convert Jews, says new Vatican document

Rosie Scammell | December 10, 2015

VATICAN CITY (RNS) The Vatican has said that Catholics should witness to their faith but not undertake organized efforts to convert Jews, a significant step forward in the once tense relations between the two faiths.

The document released on Thursday (Dec. 10) by the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews also pushed for greater efforts to fight anti-Semitism.

In its most explicit commentary on evangelization regarding Jews, the document said Catholics should take a different approach to Judaism than to other religions.

“In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed toward the conversion of Jews,” said the document, titled “The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable.”

The Vatican commission produced the new text to mark the 50th anniversary of a groundbreaking document on Catholic-Jewish relations, “Nostra Aetate,” in which the church formally rejected the notion that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death.

Until reforms in the 1960s, prayers at Catholic Masses on Good Friday, the day commemorating the death of Jesus, described Jews as “perfidious” and called for their conversion — singling them out in ways that many historians and theologians say contributed to historic anti-Semitism and the persecution of Jews.

In the past half-century the Catholic Church has also downplayed the idea of targeting Jews for conversion and has rejected any form of proselytizing of any group.

But in response to requests from traditionalist Catholics, Francis’ predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in 2008 allowed some Catholics to use the old prayer.

Though Benedict tweaked the prayer slightly to refer to “the blindness of that people” — meaning the Jews — instead of using more pejorative language, many Jewish groups still found that offensive and the controversy contributed to a sense of crisis in Catholic-Jewish relations.

The latest Vatican document appears to be another step toward easing those tensions, and it comes just a week after a group of Orthodox rabbis issued a groundbreaking statement calling Christianity part of a divine plan in which God would have Jews and Christians work together to redeem the world.

Similarly, the new Vatican document, which follows decades of mainly positive relations between the two religions, referred to the continued importance of “joint engagement throughout the world for justice, peace, conservation of creation, and reconciliation.”

II  Pope Francis Is Good for the Jews – Wall Street Journal

By Francis X. Rocca

Vatican-Israeli ties were strained earlier this year when the Holy See signed a historic agreement recognizing the state of Palestine. “This hasty step damages the prospects for advancing a peace agreement, and harms the international effort to convince the PA (Palestinian Authority) to return to direct negotiations with Israel,” Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said at the time.

“History teaches us where even the slightest perceptible forms of anti-Semitism can lead: the human tragedy of the Shoah in which two-thirds of European Jewry were annihilated,” the document said, adding: “Pope Francis has repeatedly stressed that a Christian can never be an anti-Semite, especially because of the Jewish roots of Christianity.”

Speaking at the Vatican presentation of the document, Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee’s international director of inter-religious affairs, praised the text for advancing the recommendations made by Nostra Aetate.

“To appreciate and respect Jewish self-understanding; but also a deepening recognition of the place of Torah in the life of the Jewish people; and … an acknowledgment of the integrity of Jewish reading of the Bible that is different from the Christian one,” he said.

The document describes the Torah as “the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with God.”

Rosen, however, criticized the authors of the document for failing to “appreciate the centrality that the land of Israel plays in the historic and contemporary religious life of the Jewish people.”

Catholic-Jewish relations are expected to be further strengthened early next year, when Francis visits Rome’s Great Synagogue on Jan. 17. He will be the third pontiff to visit the site, after John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in what has been described by the Vatican as a personal encounter between the pontiff and the Jewish community.

(And … Let us say Amen to all of the above.)

Compiled from various sources  by Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Sarah Palin seconds Franklin Graham’s and Trump’s Motion

Rev. Franklin Graham, who heads the Samaritan’s Purse organization as well as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, has endorsed GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s idea of halting Muslim immigration into the United States, at least temporarily.

He warns there’s a good reason: some 144,000 Muslims already in the United States “who openly say without hesitation that violence in the name of Islam is justified!”

Graham’s comments have been posted over the last 24 hours on his Facebook page, where he noted the mantra from “political leaders and world experts” that “the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people.”

“Some have suggested that as many as 99 percent fall into this category. Well, we don’t have to guess or estimate; the Pew Research Center has released extensive research on how Muslims in the U.S. self-identify on questions of violence – and the conclusions are frightening.”

Graham cited the 1.8 million Muslim adults in the United States.

“Pew Research released that eight percent of adult Muslims in the U.S. said that suicide bombings and other forms of violence in the name of Islam are ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ justified. Think about it – that’s 144,000 Muslims who openly say without hesitation that violence in the name of Islam is justified!

“That’s not ‘peaceful’ and that’s not a small number – it’s about the size of the entire population of Syracuse, New York!” he wrote.

“House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World” conveys what the West needs to know about Islam and the violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government

“I’m 100 percent sure of this – our nation and our politicians need to realize the dangers of allowing people into this country that are not properly vetted.”

Earlier he wrote, in endorsing Trump’s idea, that the simple fact a part of America’s Muslim population believes the Constitution should be ruled by Shariah is a concern.

“For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over,” he wrote.

“Research shows that there are 2.75 million Muslims living in the U.S. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51 percent of Muslims living in America believe ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah’ [Islamic law] instead of the U.S. Constitution.”

He continued, “Twenty-nine percent agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable, and 25 percent agree that violence against America can be justified as part of global jihad. … This is frightening.”

Trump had called for a halt to Muslim immigration into the U.S. until those in Washington can figure out what to do regarding Islamist terror, especially that inside the U.S. His comments came in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attack in California where a radicalized husband and wife shot and killed 14 and wounded another 21 at a county Christmas party.

Trump has made it clear he is not insulting a religion, but addressing a security concern.

The result of Trump’s comments is that he’s gotten more popular in polls and the Washington Times reported now nearly two-thirds of “likely Republican primary voters support Donald Trump’s plan to bar Muslims from the United States.”

That report cited a Bloomberg Politics poll showed 65 percent of likely Republican voters approved of the Muslim ban, compared to 22 percent who opposed it and 13 percent who didn’t know.

WND had reported on the Pew results just this week. and the report explained that with only 1 percent of the nation’s population, Muslims managed to account for half of all the nation’s terror attacks following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Mark Krikorian, chief of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained, “That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.”

The Pew results also suggested a political reason for a Democrat White House to be pursuing hundreds of thousands of such immigrants to bring to the U.S.

Pew found that 70 percent of Muslims in the U.S. vote Democratic, while only 11 percent vote Republican.

“House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World” conveys what the West needs to know about Islam and the violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government

II  Sarah Palin seconds Franklin Graham’s and Trump’s Motion

Sarah Palin: Ex-Governor of Alaska Says She Supports Donald Trump’s Proposed Ban on Muslims
“Trump’s temporary ban proposal is in the context of doing all we can to force the Feds to acknowledge their lack of strategy to deal with terrorism,” Palin wrote on Facebook.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post…

By Joseph Klein

August 19, 2015

Editor’s note: Hillary Clinton is finally being investigated for her email server scandal and potential security breaches of sensitive information that may have occurred during her tenure as Secretary of State. During this investigation, will authorities finally look into the security threat at the Clinton State Department that involved Clinton’s longtime confidant and senior aide, Huma Abedin?

The question remains: How was an individual with such extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood allowed high-level access to the State Department? To understand the extreme menace to national security posed by the Abedin-Clinton partnership, read the in-depth DiscoverTheNetworks profile of Hillary’s right-hand woman below.

Huma Abedin was born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor at Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.

Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

When Huma was two, the Abedin family relocated from Michigan to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This move took place when Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who served as vice president of Abdulaziz University (AU), recruited his former AU colleague, Syed Abedin, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank that Naseef was preparing to launch.

A number of years later, Naseef would develop close ties to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al Qaeda. Naseef also spent time (beginning in the early 1980s) as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy points out, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

It is vital to note that IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

At age 18, Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working as an intern in the Bill Clinton White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Abedin was eventually hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through Clinton’s successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential bid in 2008.

From 1997 until sometime before early 1999, Abedin, while still interning at the White House, was an executive board member of George Washington University’s (GWU) Muslim Students Association (MSA), heading the organization’s “Social Committee.”

It is noteworthy that in 2001-02, soon after Abedin left that executive board, the chaplain and “spiritual guide” of GWU’s MSA was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda operative who ministered to some of the men who were among the 9/11 hijackers. Another chaplain at GWU’s MSA (from at least October 1999 through April 2002) was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’s brother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. Both Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.

From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs(IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence at IMMA. Abedin’s last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.

Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New York Observer profile of Abedin described her as “a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton associates.” “At meetings on the region,” continued the profile, “… Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out.”

When Mrs. Clinton was appointed as President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State in 2009, Abedin became her deputy chief of staff. At approximately that same point in time, Abedin’s name was removed from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’ masthead.

Apart from their working relationship, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton have also developed a close personal bond over their years together, as reflected in Clinton’s 2010 assertion that: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” In 2011, Secretary Clinton paid a friendly visit to Abedin’s mother, Saleha, in Saudi Arabia. On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton publicly described her aide’s position as “very important and sensitive.”

On July 10, 2010, Huma Abedin, a practicing Muslim, married then-congressman Anthony Weiner in a ceremony officiated by former president Bill Clinton. A number of analysts have noted that it is extremely rare for Islamic women—particularly those whose families have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—to marry non-Muslims like Weiner, who is Jewish.

Indeed, Dr. Anwar Shoeb, the highest-ranking faculty authority at the prestigious College of Sharia and Islamic Studies in Kuwait, formally declared that Abedin’s marriage to Weiner was “null and void” under the dictates of Sharia Law, which explicitly forbids matrimony between a Muslim woman and an “infidel”; in fact, Shoeb classified the Abedin-Weiner union as a form of “adultery.”  

(Interestingly, as we all know, Weiner has his own agenda in adultery. Dr. Shoeb may disown him as a Muslim but I disown him as a Jew. Let’s just be non-denominational and list him with the Perverse.) jsk

Abedin went on maternity leave after giving birth to a baby boy in early December 2011. (Somehow I doubt  he had a briss) When she returned to work in June 2012, the State Department granted her an arrangement that allowed her to do outside consulting work as a “special government employee,” even as she remained a top advisor in the Department. Abedin did not disclose on her financial report either the arrangement or the $135,000 she earned from it, in violation of a law mandating that public officials disclose significant sources of income.

Abedin’s outside clients included the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and Teneo (a firm co-founded by Doug Band, a former counselor for Bill Clinton). Good-government groups warned of the potential conflict-of-interest inherent in an arrangement where a government employee maintains private clients.

In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking that they investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence over U.S. government officials.

One letter, noting that Huma Abedin’s position with Hillary Clinton “affords her routine access to the secretary [of state] and to policymaking,” expressed concern over the fact that Abedin “has three family members—her late father, mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” Some other prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner disavowed the concerns articulated in the letters.

On February 1, 2013—Hillary Clinton’s final day as Secretary of State—Abedin resigned her post as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Yet she would continue to serve as a close aide to Clinton.

On March 1, 2013, Abedin was tapped to run Clinton’s post-State Department transition team, comprised of a six-person “transition office” located in Washington.

In early March 2015, it was reported that throughout her entire four-year tenure as Secretary of State (SOS), Hillary Clinton had never acquired or used a government email account, and instead had transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official government correspondences via a personal email account that was housed on a private server. In addition, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, also had email addresses on the secret server while employed at the State Department.

After Hillary Clinton announced in the spring of 2015 that she was running for president (2016), Abedin was named vice chair of the Clinton campaign.

Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center’s board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter’s departure.

(With all the above specific information, how can any American, no matter how dedicated to his Leftist views, vote for Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat that has allowed this abomination, this tragedy to enfold without challenge before our very eyes? Sick, Sick, Sick) jsk

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

“Spotlight” — New York Times Critics’ Pick

The Boston Globe Digs Up the Catholic Church Hierarchy’s Buried Dirt

December 5, 2015

Review by A. O. SCOTTNOV

“The city flourishes when its great institutions work together,” says the cardinal to the newspaper editor during a friendly chat in the rectory. The city in question is Boston. The cardinal is Bernard F. Law and the editor, newly arrived at The Boston Globe from The Miami Herald, is Martin Baron. He politely dissents from the cardinal’s vision of civic harmony, arguing that the paper should stand alone.

Their conversation, which takes place early in “Spotlight,” sets up the film’s central conflict. Encouraged by Baron, a small group of reporters at The Globe will spend the next eight months (and the next two hours) digging into the role of the Boston archdiocese in covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests.

But the image of two prominent men talking quietly behind closed doors — Law is played with orotund charm by Len Cariou, Baron with sphinx-like self-containment by Liev Schreiber — haunts this somber, thrilling movie and crystallizes its major concern, which is the way power operates in the absence of accountability. When institutions convinced of their own greatness work together, what usually happens is that the truth is buried and the innocent suffer. Breaking that pattern of collaboration is not easy. Challenging deeply entrenched, widely respected authority can be very scary.

Directed by Tom McCarthy from a script he wrote with Josh Singer and based closely on recent history, “Spotlight” is a gripping detective story and a superlative newsroom drama, a solid procedural that tries to confront evil without sensationalism. Taking its name from the investigative team that began pursuing the sex-abuse story in 2001, the film focuses on both the human particulars and the larger political contours of the scandal and its uncovering.

We spend most of our time with the Spotlight staff. Their supervising editor, Walter Robinson (known as Robby and played by an extra-flinty Michael Keaton), has a classically blunt, skeptical newsman style, but he’s also part of Boston’s mostly Roman Catholic establishment. He rubs shoulders with an unctuous church P.R. guy (Paul Guilfoyle) and plays golf with a well-connected lawyer (Jamey Sheridan) who handled some of the archdiocese’s unsavory business. The reporters working for Robby — Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams), Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo) and Matt Carroll (Brian d’Arcy James) — come from Catholic backgrounds, and have their own mixed feelings about what they’re doing.

Mr. McCarthy, who played a rotten reporter on the last season of “The Wire,” views journalists primarily through the lens of their work. He follows Pfeiffer as she interviews survivors, Rezendes as he wrangles a zealous lawyer (Stanley Tucci) and Carroll as he digs into long-hidden records, including articles buried in the newspaper’s archives.

Though the film, like the Spotlight articles, avoids euphemism in discussing the facts of child rape, it also avoids exploitative flashbacks, balancing attention to individual cases with a sense of pervasive, invisible corruption. Baron urges the reporters to focus on the systemic dimensions of the story, and “Spotlight” does the same. As the number of victims and predators increases, and as it becomes clear that Law and others knew what was happening and protected the guilty, shock and indignation are replaced by a deeper sense of moral horror.

The outcome of the story may be well known, but Mr. McCarthy and his superb cast generate plenty of suspense along the way, and the idiosyncratic humanity of the reporters keeps the audience engaged and aware of the stakes. During the climactic montage — the presses humming, the papers stacked and baled, the trucks rumbling out into the morning light — my heart swelled and my pulse quickened, and not only because I have printer’s ink running through my veins.

Journalists on film are usually portrayed as idealists or cynics, crusaders or parasites. The reality is much grayer, and more than just about any other film I can think of, “Spotlight” gets it right.

The Globe itself (owned by The New York Times Company when the film takes place) is shown to be an imperfect institution. The people who work inside it are decidedly fallible — as prone to laziness, confusion and compromise as anyone else. Before 2001 — with some exceptions, notably in the work of the columnist Eileen McNamara (played here in a few cursory scenes by Maureen Keiller) — the paper overlooked both the extent of the criminality in the local church and the evidence that the hierarchy knew what was going on.

The Spotlight reporters and editors are pursuing a big, potentially career-making scoop. At the same time, they are atoning for previous lapses and trying to overcome the bureaucratic inertia that is as integral to the functioning of a newspaper as the zealous pursuit of the truth. “What took you so long?” is a question they hear more than once.

Mr. McCarthy is a solid craftsman. The actors are disciplined and serious, forgoing the table-pounding and speechifying that might more readily win them prizes from their peers. Everything in this movie works, which is only fitting, since its vision of heroism involves showing up in the morning and — whether inspired by bosses or in spite of them — doing the job.

“Spotlight” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian).  Running time: 2 hours 7 minutes.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Video below:  Obama Unmasked. A Must See

America at Obama’s End

The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 3, 2015

We are near the end of the seventh year of Barack Obama’s presidency, and by any measure the United States is a fractured nation. Its people are more divided politically than any time in recent memory. Personally, many are anxious, angry or just down.

Whatever Mr. Obama promised in that famous first Inaugural Address, any sense of a nation united and raised up is gone. This isn’t normal second-term blues. It’s a sense of bust.

The formal measure of all this appeared last week with the release of the Pew Research poll, whose headline message is that trust in government is kaput. Forget the old joke about the government coming to “help.” There’s a darker version now: We’re the government, and we’re here to screw you.

In a normal presidential transition year, voters would be excited at the mere prospect of new leadership. Instead, the American people are grasping for straw men.

Donald Trump declared for the presidency in June. The New York City prankster travels from state to state opening the nation’s political fire hydrants, and no one seems able to stop the result: years of pent-up political and cultural contempt pouring into the streets.

Nearly one-third of Barack Obama’s Democratic Party has migrated to aging Socialist Bernie Sanders. Sen. Sanders is evoking press comparisons to the presidential candidacy of Eugene Debs. Today there would be campus riots if a professor’s test asked students to identify Eugene Debs, a famous starched-collar Socialist 115 years ago.

(Thanks to Obama) Black Americans, who expected better, live in urban neighborhoods with soaring murder rates, angry marchers and confused police who are utterly alienated from the people they are supposed to protect. Young black men have the worst job prospects of any group in the U.S. The New Republic magazine’s cover this week says: “Why Hillary Clinton will do more for black people than Obama.”

Our political vocabulary is now uniformly stark. Presidential candidates in both parties have built campaigns around income gaps, a struggling middle class, immigrant phobia and back again, the war on terror. One of Mr. Obama’s claimed legacies is he prevented an economic depression in 2009. But we’re still in a depression.

Hope and change was the promise. What happened?

Screens on Kindle readers will crack paging through books explaining what Mr. Obama could have, should have and would have done. For now, the short version is enough: America and the world failed because they didn’t do what Barack Obama told them to do. For seven years, he has been instructing everyone on the “right thing to do.” If Mr. Obama seems down these days, it is because so many—from John Boehner to Vladimir Putin to the man in the street—persisted in doing the wrong thing.

Iran’s ayatollahs got the Obama message, though, and that deal is his legacy.  (The loss of American supremacy and power.)

The other half of the non-domestic legacy is supposed to be climate change. His appearance in Paris this week was Mr. Obama’s last turn on the big global stage, barring a national crisis. Anyone watching the angular figure of the American president making nonstop pleas at the Paris climate summit this week had to be struck by a sense of what the French would call tristesse, a melancholy, even pathetic sadness.

He alone in Paris seemed to take seriously the notion that the climate windmills can be reset to less than 2 degrees Celsius above “preindustrial levels.” In the last of many public apologies for the U.S., Mr. Obama confessed that his own nation is a grievous “emitter.”

Liberals think the right is gloating at Mr. Obama’s end-of-term difficulties. No one is gloating. The nation is either furious (the right) or depressed (the left) at eight wasted, wheel-spinning years whose main achievement is ObamaCare—a morass.

Mr. Obama will go off to do something else, but he leaves behind a country littered with public and private institutions in disrepute. Whatever the cumulative causes for this, a president bears responsibility for maintaining some bedrock level of respect for institutions that are the necessary machinery of the nation’s daily life.

Instead, Mr. Obama spent much of his presidency vilifying the private sector—banks, insurers, energy producers and utilities.

The public’s low opinion of Congress is well known, but consider: The Pew study reports the favorable rating for the Department of Justice is just 46%. That not half the country respects something called the Justice Department is a travesty.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly mocked institutions he didn’t control and abused the powers of those he did. Almost always, the ridicule and condescension came in front of cheering audiences. It’s hardly a surprise that Donald Trump is exploiting and expanding the loss of public faith. Mr. Obama spent seven years softening up Mr. Trump’s audiences for him.

We may get a third Obama term after all.

(Not sure if this is a crack against Trump or not? But whatever, a huge portion of today’s electorate seem willing to take their chances.) jsk  

Dec. 5, 2015

PS ( I just took my vote from Trump. His recent statement saying that Israel has to make more “sacrifices for peace” and he will not support an “undivided Jerusalem” are beyond stupidity. He obviously knows nothing about the history of Israel and the endless sacrifices it has already made. Nor does he know anything about the countries that surround Israel and have attempted to annihilate it in several major wars plus a constant stream of lethal terrorism.

But, take the discussion a step further and legitimately surmise he does not know a damn thing about foreign policy anywhere and I don’t give a damn how much money he has stolen from other thieves. I would not have him run a used car lot let alone this once great country that so desperately needs repair from Obama’s expert onslaught.)

 Jerome S. Kaufman

II The stark truth re: Barack Hussein Obama

Obama Most Radical President ever – Anti-American, Anti-Israel, Anti-West

Subscribe Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Michael Mayo, Contact Reporter

Sun Sentinel Columnist

November 29, 2015

Obama Big lies – ‘Affordable care’ and ‘you can keep your doctor’

No matter how you get health insurance — through your employer, on your own or with the help of a federal subsidy through the marketplace — you’ll likely pay more next year and get less coverage.

Consumers face higher premiums, higher deductibles and copays, higher out-of-pocket maximums. And things that used to be fully covered, such as blood work  tests and scans, might trigger charges you’ve never been asked to pay before.

“Everyone’s getting squeezed,” said Shawn DeRosa, 41, of Dania Beach, a self-employed worker facing a 20 percent premium hike on his non-Obamacare policy. “We’re paying close to $12,000 a year between premiums and deductibles, and when you go to a doctor’s office or diagnostic center, you’re always asked for more.”

“I don’t feel like we got what [President Obama] said we were going to get,” said Pattie Chase, 64, a retiree from Fort Lauderdale. She has bounced around several different subsidized Obamacare plans since her previous insurer stopped offering a cheap plan that didn’t conform to new standards in 2014.

So here we are, heading into Year 3 of Obamacare enrollment and the final year of Obama’s presidency, and there seems to be as much distrust and disgust over health insurance as ever. Our system is still expensive, inefficient and inscrutable. The Affordable Care Act hasn’t necessarily made things more affordable.

Yet it has made insurance more accessible, certainly a positive. Around 1.2 million previously-uninsured Floridians have gotten health insurance in the last two years, including those with pre-existing conditions denied in the past.

For all the Democratic politicians touting the wonders and benefits of the law, some regular folks aren’t finding things so wonderful. Many are still smarting from this decade’s biggest political lie, Obama’s declaration that, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

“It certainly wasn’t true with any of my doctors,” Chase said.

Chase and DeRosa both told me of unwanted disruptions because of insurance switches and mid-year changes in plans’ doctor networks. When Chase switched to a subsidized Obamacare plan, she had to give up the primary care doctor she had for 20 years. DeRosa said his wife had two OB/GYNs abruptly drop from their plan, which he called stressful because she had a pre-cancerous condition being monitored.

DeRosa has had the same insurer for the last eight years, but a cheaper plan was discontinued because of new Obamacare rules. Even though he’s not on a federally-subsidized plan, he gets the sense that costs associated with expanded insurance are being spread across all plans, to consumers in all income brackets.

Last year, he said his wife’s specialized mammogram was fully covered. This year his insurer wants to charge $400 for the same test done at the same place. “I’m fighting it,” said DeRosa, a life insurance broker. He said women’s preventative screenings are supposed to have no out-of-pocket cost.

Some insurers are complaining about losses and higher-than-expected costs, with health giant United Healthcare recently saying it might pull out of the federal exchange in 2017. Yet most health insurance stocks are trading at prices two-to-three times higher than five years ago. Florida hospitals recorded record profits last year.

Chase said she paid $220 a month for insurance the year before Obamacare, but the plan was discontinued. In 2014, she paid $442 a month after her subsidy (the total cost was $712 monthly). She was surprised when she was hit with an $800 charge for a dermatologist visit to remove a cancerous skin cell.

“Go figure, on a $220-a-month plan pre-Obamacare everything is paid for, but on a $712-a-month plan you can have a big out-of-pocket expense,” she said. “Something is definitely wrong with this picture.”

DeRosa is angered by the system’s opaqueness. After he had two MRIs for a back problem, paying $300 each time, he said he pressed his insurer for negotiated rates and potential out-of-pocket costs at local imaging centers. “They wouldn’t provide it to me,” he said. “Insurance companies are the gatekeepers to all this information, and they’ve created all these uncertainties for their own customers.”

DeRosa is equally frustrated by government. He wrote a long letter to U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Weston), his congresswoman. When he followed up with a phone call to her office, he said he was told that because he wasn’t on a subsidized Obamacare plan, it was a state issue.

“She was a chief supporter of this law, and my original insurance plan was shut down because of the ACA and now she’s passing the buck,” DeRosa said. “As a constituent, I feel like she doesn’t care.”

For Democrats heading into an election year and Obama’s legacy, this could be a problem. The Affordable Care Act might go down as the Unaffordable We-Don’t-Care Act.
Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II  PS  My favorite political commentator on video below.

Gambling the World Economy on Climate


The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2015

The emission-cut pledges will cost $1 trillion a year and avert warming of less than one degree by 2100!

The United Nations climate conference in Paris starting Nov. 30 will get under way when most minds in the French capital will still understandably be on the recent terror attacks. But for many of the 40,000 attendees, the goal is to ensure that climate change stays on the global economic agenda for the next 15 years. (To promote their own self interest).

The Paris conference is the culmination of many such gatherings and is expected to produce agreements on combating climate change. President Obama and the dozens of other world leaders planning to be in Paris should think carefully about the economic impact—in particular the staggering costs—of the measures they are contemplating.

The U.N.’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, says openly that the aim of the talks is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” That outlook will be welcome among attendees like the delegation from Bolivia. That country’s official material submitted for the talks proposes a “lasting solution” for climate change: “We must destroy capitalism.”

Perhaps capitalism as “a system of death” is a minority view, but the agreements coming out of Paris are likely to see countries that have flourished with capitalism willingly compromising their future prosperity in the name of climate change. But before ditching that economic model, it’s worth considering how much progress it has brought.

  • For one, life expectancy in the past 150 years has more than doubled, to 71 years in 2013 from fewer than 30 years in 1870.
  • Meanwhile, billions of people have risen out of poverty. One and a half centuries ago, more than 75% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, consuming less than $1 a day, in 1985 money.
  • This year the World Bank expects extreme poverty to fall below 10% for the first time in history.

It is telling that U.N. officials provide no estimated costs for an economic transformation. But one can make an unofficial tally by adding up the costs of Paris promises for 2016-30 submitted by the U.S., European Union, Mexico and China, which together account for about 80% of the globe’s pledged emissions reductions.

There is no official cost estimate for Mr. Obama’s promise to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. However, the peer-reviewed Stanford Energy Modeling Forum has run more than a hundred scenarios for greenhouse-gas reductions and the costs to gross domestic product. Taking this data and performing a regression analysis across the reductions shows that hitting the 26%-28% target would reduce the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between $154 billion and $172 billion annually.

The EU says it will cut emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Again, there is no official estimate of the cost given, which is extraordinary. The data from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum suggests hitting that target would reduce the EU’s GDP by 1.6% in 2030, or €287 billion in 2010 money.

Mexico has put into place the strongest climate legislation of any developing country, conditionally promising to cut greenhouse-gas and black-carbon emissions by 40% below the current trend line by 2030. The Mexican government estimates that cutting emissions in half by 2050 will cost between $6 billion and $33 billion in 2005 money, but that is many times too low. Peer-reviewed literature, supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the EU, suggests that by 2030 the cost would already reach 4.5% of GDP, or $80 billion in 2005 money.

China has promised by 2030 to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions, per unit of GDP, to at least 60% below 2005. Using the data from the Asia Modeling Exercise we find that hitting this target will cost at least $200 billion a year.

So in total, the Paris promises of the EU, Mexico, U.S. and China will diminish the economy at least $730 billion a year by 2030—and that is in an ideal world, where politicians consistently reduce emissions in the most effective ways.

Experience tells us that won’t happen. For instance, policy makers could have chipped away at emissions efficiently with modest taxes on carbon, or by switching electrical generation to natural gas. Instead many countries, including the U.S. and those in the EU, have poured money into phenomenally inefficient subsidies for solar and biofuels, which politicians go for like catnip. The EU’s 20/20 climate policy—the goal, embarked upon in 2010, to cut emissions 20% from 1990 levels by 2020—is the clearest example of such gross inefficiency.

A 2009 study of the targets, published in Energy Economics, estimated that “inefficiencies in policy lead to a cost that is 100-125% too high.” It’s likely that in the future even more money will be wasted propping up green energy that is both unaffordable and inefficient.

Another 127 nations have made promises for Paris that increase the total emissions cuts by one-fourth. The cuts on the table in Paris, then, will leave the global economy, in rough terms, $1 trillion short every year for the rest of the century—and that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double.

All of these high-flown promises will fail to accomplish anything substantial to rein in climate change. At best, the emissions cuts pledged in Paris will prevent a total temperature rise by 2100 of only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a peer-reviewed study I recently published in Global Policy.

If nations formalize their planned carbon cuts in Paris and then stick to them, Ms. Figueres’s economic transformation will indeed happen: But it won’t be a transformation to be proud of.

Mr. Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” (Knopf, 2007).

II As soon as the theory of Global Warming was presented a huge group of distinguished scientists with absolutely no axe to grind, advised us that the whole concept of global warming  is nonsense,  promoted by people and nations who do have a political or financial axe to grind and the United States and the industrialized world are the targets of their greed, jealousy and animus.

S. Fred Singer a distinguished astrophysicist, in his book,  Hot Talk, Cold Science, took a hard, scientific look at the evidence. Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate.

Singer’s masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of any global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” (like “carbon” taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations. 

(Of course, none of the above will have any impact on Mr. Obama. He simply continues with his, now what should be painfully obvious, agenda to destroy this country.) jsk

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Published: 11/22/2001

By Joseph Farah, Publisher

WhistleBlower Magazine

There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the people responsible for the American Thanksgiving tradition. Contrary to popular opinion …

 The Pilgrims didn’t wear buckles on their shoes or hats. They weren’t teetotalers, either. They smoked tobacco and drank beer. And, most importantly, their first harvest festival and subsequent “thanksgivings” weren’t held to thank the local natives for saving their lives.

Do you know there are public schools in America today actually teaching that? Some textbooks, in their discomfort with open discussions of Christianity, say as much. I dare suggest most parents today know little more about this history than their children.

Yet, there is no way to divorce the spiritual from the celebration of Thanksgiving – at least not the way the Pilgrims envisioned it, a tradition dating back to the ancient Hebrews and their feasts of Succoth and Passover.

The Pilgrims came to America for one reason – to form a separate community in which they could worship God as they saw fit. They had fled England because King James I was persecuting those who did not recognize the Church of England’s absolute civil and spiritual authority.

On the two-month journey of 1620, William Bradford and the other elders wrote an extraordinary charter – the Mayflower Compact. Why was it extraordinary? Because it established just and equal laws for all members of their new community – believers and non-believers alike. Where did they get such revolutionary ideas? From the Bible, of course.

When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure – including Bradford’s wife.

Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don’t tell the story, but Bradford’s own journal does. The reason they didn’t succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism.

The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system.

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years … that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,” Bradford wrote. “For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense … that was thought injustice.”

What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result?

“This had very good success,” wrote Bradford, “for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London much faster than expected. The success of the Plymouth colony thus attracted more Europeans and set off what we call the “Great Puritan Migration.”

But it wasn’t just an economic system that allowed the Pilgrims to prosper. It was their devotion to God and His laws. And that’s what Thanksgiving is really all about. The Pilgrims recognized that everything we have is a gift from God – even our sorrows. Their Thanksgiving tradition was established to honor God and thank Him for His blessings and His grace.

Today we continue that tradition in my home – and I hope in yours. God bless you, God bless America, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,” now in its third edition and 14th printing.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


The war started in the 7th century and lasted through the 17th. I would contend it never stopped but historically the facts below are correct. This is why I choke when I hear someone say we will defeat or contain these Islamic terrorists in a few years or even 30 years as recently stated by Leon Panetta.

If the latest batch of murders, beheadings, and killing of innocent Christians has shocked you, maybe you should read this compilation of historical facts about the hatred of Muslims.


In 732 AD the Muslim Army which was moving on Paris was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.

In 1571 AD the Muslim Army/ Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lapanto.

In 1683 AD the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

…These deliberate, well planned attacks  have been going on for 1,400 years and half of the politicians don’t even know it.

If these battles had not been won we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non-existent; Judaism certainly would be… And let us not forget that Hitler was an admirer of Islam and that the Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler’s guest in Berlin and raised Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions: the 13th and 21st Waffen SS Divisions who killed Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and any other “subhumans”.


A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history. They really happened to us in America.  Do you remember?

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach. It was blown up shortly after landing by Muslim males.

4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.

15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by—you guessed it was a Muslim male.
(Plus two other American journalists were just beheaded)

16. In 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing 4 Innocent people including a child killed, 264 injured by Muslim males.

No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? Huh!

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

There must be no more profiling. Instead:

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old, Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males, alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Have the American people completely lost their minds or just their Power of Reason???

WAKE UP AMERICA! Wake up Canada…

Please send this to your entire mailing list unless you want to be one of those that are “politically correct” while going up in smoke. And, I never saw any claims that 70 virgins of any sexual variety were waiting for you whatever your own particular hopes and ambitions.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Bambi: A Zionist Allegory

By: Saul Jay Singer

The Jewish Press, October 23, 2015

In Twin Books Corp vs. Walt Disney (1966), a patent infringement case involving the rights to Bambi, the California court wasted no time in properly crediting authorship of the beloved children’s classic and shot down Walt Disney (A reputed anti-Semite, by the way).

It is a very common misconception that Bambi was the brainchild of the world’s foremost entertainer of children, Walt Disney. To the contrary, the young fawn named Bambi was brought to life in Austria by an Austrian citizen named Felix Salten, and was born in the wooded wilderness of Germany in 1923.

Indeed, Salten is today best remembered for Bambi: A Life in the Woods (1923), a classic coming-of-age story that realistically depicts the danger and harshness of nature and the cruelty of man as Hunter. Years before the movie was produced, however, he had sold the film rights for $1,000 and, as a result, he never saw a cent from the blockbuster film. In turn, the buyer, director Sidney Franklin, sold the film rights to Disney. As the appellate court noted.

Bambi learned very early in life that the meadow, where his mother took him to graze and play, was full of potential dangers everywhere he turned. Unfortunately, Bambi’s creator, Mr. Salten, could not know of the equally dangerous conditions lurking in the world of copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act of 1909, particularly as it pertained to Salten.

Upon publication, Bambi proved immediately popular in Austria and, when it arrived in the United States (1928) it quickly attained iconic status. In another one of those stunning coincidences that I love to feature as a hallmark of my Jewish Press articles, the official English translation of Bambi was written by Whittaker Chambers, who gained notoriety twenty years later as the chief accuser in the Alger Hiss case.

German novelist Thomas Mann brought the novel to the attention of Walt Disney who, while materially changing the original story, nonetheless produced a poignant animated film (1942) that effectively retained Salten’s focus on the primitive beauty of nature and the cruelty of man. However, significant differences between the Disney film and the original work remained such that, although he liked the film, Salten always referred to it as “Disney’s Bambi.”

What few people know is that Salten was a proud Jew who was a fervent critic of Jews who sought to separate themselves from their Jewish heritage; that he was an active Zionist who spoke out in support of Eretz Yisrael; and that Bambi is actually an adult political allegory that presents the author’s pre-sentiments of the Nazi persecution of European Jews and the Holocaust to come. (Wow! Who’d a thunk)

Born Siegmund Salzmann in Budapest, Salten (1869-1945) and his family moved to Vienna at the beginning of the Jewish renaissance after Vienna granted full citizenship to Jews in 1867. When his father went bankrupt, young Felix left school for a position with an insurance company, but he began submitting essays and stories to various publications, with great success.

He went on to write for newspapers and periodicals in both Vienna and Berlin, including the progressive Neue Frei Presse; served as editor of Berliner Morgenpost; and was a highly influential theater critic for Wiener Allgemeinen Zeitung as well as a prolific author of plays, novels, essays, screenplays, and operetta librettos.

Among his published works is The Hound of Florence (1923), a fantasy about a man who turns into a dog every other day, which Disney used as source material for “The Shaggy Dog” (1959).

Living in Austria until the Anschluss (1938) (Hitler’s invasion of Austria – much to the delight of the Austrians who turned upon their centuries-present Jewish citizens faster than you could say, “Heil Hitler”).  Salten was fortunate to escape the Holocaust by moving to Zurich.

Bambi is actually an inspired work of Zionist children’s literature. The Jews and the deer share a life of brutal persecution in their respective diasporas, and the wandering deer and the “Wandering Jew” both seek a permanent safe haven. The heartbreaking separation of Jewish children from their parents, and the end of the comfort and security of their pre-Holocaust lives, is symbolized by the death of Bambi’s mother, a traumatic event that marked the first exposure of many young readers (and, later, film watchers) to death.

Other characters are metaphors for other Holocaust figures and events. For example, one critic noted that the fox, “the Hitler of the forest,” also embodies the hatred and fury characteristic of Goebbels’s anti-Semitic ranting. And there is little difference between an elderly rabbi on Tisha B’Av tearfully looking to heaven and weeping over the centuries of persecution and murder against the Jewish people and the proclamation by Old Nettla, one of the most senior voices in the forest, bewailing that Humans “have given us no peace and have murdered us for as long as we’ve existed.”

Salten presents the Zionist message through Bambi’s cousin Gobo, an assimilationist who, rescued by a “good Human” and ultimately set free, believes that rapprochement with the Hunter, Salten’s metaphor for the Gentile world, is possible. When Gobo expresses pride at the bands that Humans have placed around his neck, the wise leader of the forest, “Royal Leader” (who, we later learn, is Bambi’s father) characterizes it as a badge of shame. Indeed, Royal Leader – Salten’s metaphor for Herzl – later emerges as the ultimate metaphor for a Zionist savior, as he leads Bambi to a secure little haven in the forest where deer who have been injured by the Hunters (including Bambi himself) can find escape from a world out to annihilate them, just as Herzl sought to provide a safe haven for Jews in Eretz Yisrael after centuries of persecution and murder.

Tellingly, Gobo is promptly murdered when he acts on his assimilationist beliefs. For Salten, a friend of Herzl’s from his Neue Frei Presse days, it is sheer fantasy to expect humans to accept animals as equals, and he presents a solemn warning against Jewish assimilation that would lead to the loss of Jewish identity. Thus, Bambi, which was officially banned and publicly burned by the Nazis (1936) because Hitler declared it to be “the work of an undesirable” and because of its “political allegory on the treatment of Jews in Europe,” was simply an expression of Salten’s lifelong dedication to Zionism.

Moreover, one of the most beautiful and endearing chapters of the book, where Salten famously describes a dialogue between two leaves clinging desperately to a branch in late autumn, seems, at first blush, to be wholly extraneous to the main Bambi narrative. However, I think there can be little doubt that the author is metaphorically discussing life in pre-Holocaust Europe; describing how it had dramatically changed under the Nazi regime and presenting the thoughts of the few remaining Jewish survivors regarding how much longer they can hold on, while they ruminate upon Olam Haba:

So many of us have fallen off tonight we’re almost the only ones left on our branch. You never know who’s going to go next…many leaves were torn off, though they were still young…. Why must we fall? What happens to us when we have fallen? Who knows? Not one of all those down there has ever come back to tell us about it…. Which of us will go first?… Let’s remember how beautiful it was, how wonderful…we thought we’d burst with life. And the morning dew, and the mild and splendid nights…. Now the nights are dreadful, and there is no end to them…. We shouldn’t complain, we’ve outlived many, many others…

Poor and without formal education, Salten had become part of the Viennese coffeehouse culture, a gathering of mostly Jewish artists who transformed the Austrian literary aesthetic. It was there that he met and befriended Herzl, who asked him to write a regular column in Die Welt, Herzl’s Zionist newspaper, and Salten became a spokesman for the Zionist movement.

He was a brilliant and popular speaker for Bar Kochba, a student organization centered in Prague that played an important role in shaping the Zionist movement in Czech lands before World War I.

Shortly after the publication of Bambi, he traveled to Eretz Yisrael (1924) and published a beautiful book describing his experiences there and lovingly portraying the land and its people.


About the Author: Saul Jay Singer, a nationally recognized legal ethicist, serves as senior legal ethics counsel with the District of Columbia Bar. He is a collector of extraordinary original Judaica documents and letters, and his column appears in The Jewish Press every other week. Mr. Singer welcomes comments at

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Map of Original British Mandate of Palestine which was to have been the home of the Jewish People following WWI


Wall Street Journal

Nov. 10, 2015

In the history of political clichés, has there ever been one quite so misjudged as the line—some version of which is attributed either to Israel’s martyred Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin or fabled Defense Minister Moshe Dayan—that “you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends”?

OK, “give peace a chance” and “nation building at home” are worse. But the Rabin-Dayan line is an expression of the higher mindlessness that passes for wisdom among people who think they are smart. After Monday’s make-nice session between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s time for a reconsideration.

To wit: You do not make peace with enemies. You make peace with former enemies—either because you have defeated them, as we defeated the Axis Powers in World War II; or because they collapse, as the Soviet Union did after the fall of the Berlin Wall; or because they have defeated you and you’re able to come to terms with the outcome from a safe distance. Witness Vietnam.

On rare precious occasions, both sides realize their interests are best served through a negotiated settlement they’re prepared to honor. That was the miracle of 1977, when Egypt’s Anwar Sadat flew to Israel to show he sincerely accepted the Jewish state’s right to exist. He paid for the gesture with his life.

Enemies, however, do not make peace. They may desist from open combat, as Pakistan and India have, even as Islamabad continues to support anti-Indian terrorist proxies. They may arrange a long-term armistice of the kind South Korea has with the North. But that’s a peace preserved by 700,000 active-duty South Korean and U.S. troops, plus a million land mines in the DMZ.

For the past 22 years—ever since Rabin signed the Oslo Accord with the PLO’s Yasser Arafat—Israel has been trying to achieve something historically unprecedented: To make peace with an enemy that shows no interest in becoming an ex-enemy.

Daniel Polisar, an Israeli political scientist, recently published a fascinating study in Mosaic magazine of Palestinian public opinion based on 330 polls conducted over many years. It makes for some bracing reading.

“When asked hypothetically if Israel’s use of chemical or biological weapons against Palestinians would constitute terror, 93 percent said yes,” notes Mr. Polisar. “But when the identical question was posed regarding the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Palestinians against Israelis, only 25 percent responded affirmatively.”

Other details: A 2011 poll found that 61% of Palestinians thought it was morally right to name Palestinian streets after suicide bombers. In December 2014, 78% of Palestinians expressed support for “attempts to stab or run over Israelis” in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Only 20% were opposed. Palestinians have also consistently supported terrorist attacks against Israelis within Israel’s original borders, “often by as much as six to one.”

Palestinians routinely blame Israel for problems over which it has no control, such as the bloody 2007 coup through which Hamas wrested power from Fatah in the Gaza Strip. Ninety-four percent of Palestinians report a “very unfavorable” opinion of Jews. A majority of Palestinians believe Israel will “destroy the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock mosques and build a synagogue in their place.”

As for the idea of sharing the land, only 12% of Palestinians agreed that “both Jews and Palestinians have rights to the land.” More than 80% felt “this is Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to it.” Most Palestinians also think Israel won’t be around in 30 or 40 years, either “because Arab or Muslim resistance will destroy it” or on account of its “internal contradictions.”

Where is the sense in agreeing to relinquish through negotiations what is yours by right today and will be yours in deed tomorrow?

None of this is helped by Palestinian leaders who, when not inciting violence or alleging Israeli conspiracies, are peddling the lie that Israel is creating an apartheid state. The only person standing in the way of Palestinian democracy is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who hasn’t held an election in a decade. The only force standing in the way of a Palestinian state are the Palestinian people, who think they can gain their rights by stabbing their neighbors.

Which brings us back to Monday’s Oval Office meeting. Along with the forced bonhomie, the administration has been sounding the usual two-minutes-to-midnight warnings about the supposed end of the two-state solution. “For Israel, the more there is settlement construction, the more it undermines the ability to achieve peace,” says Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, in an interview with Haaretz.

How sweet it would be if all Israel had to do to make peace was dismantle its settlements. How much sweeter if the American president would find less to fault with an Israeli government’s housing policies than a Palestinian political culture still so intent on killing Jews. If Mr. Obama wants to know why he’s so disliked by Israelis, there’s the reason.

II   Who Owns the “West Bank”?

From: FLAME   July, 2015

The ancient lands of Judea and Samaria, east of Jerusalem, have been part of the Jewish homeland for 3,000 years.

Today Arabs demand all of it.

Judea and Samaria, the land where Jewish ancestors Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rachel, David and Solomon created Biblical history, was renamed the “West Bank” during Jordan’s brief, illegal 19-year occupation. Today, some 380,000 Jews own land and live in the territory, yet their rights are denied by Palestinian Arabs.

What are the facts?

“Israel has an irrefutable legal claim to these territories backed by the 93-year-old Mandate for Palestine.”

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the Allied Powers, which were the only parties with the right or power to resolve ownership of vast tracts of the Middle East, allotted to the Jewish people the land west of the Jordan River, including Judea and Samaria.

This resolution, made at the San Remo Conference, was effected through the Mandate for Palestine, which was adopted by the League of Nations in 1922 and assumed by the United Nations in 1948. This document, based on “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” secured “the establishment of the Jewish national home.” Nothing since 1922 has changed the legal status of those internationally binding documents.

Much of the land allocated to the Jews, including most of Judea and Samaria, was taken from them by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria following Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, when the Jewish state was attacked by those Arab nations—the latter three of which were also established by the Mandate for Palestine. Jordan illegally seized the “West Bank” and east Jerusalem, and expelled all Jews from these Biblical homelands.

In fact, the territories of Judea and Samaria have never been part of any nation except the Jewish state. In 1967, when it was again attacked by Arab armies, Israel defeated the invaders and recovered the occupied “West Bank” from Jordan. It should be noted that during Jordan’s occupation of the “West Bank,” no Arab Palestinian movement emerged in favor of independence. Indeed, it wasn’t until Israel reclaimed the land and Jews returned to their ancestral home that claims of Jewish “occupation” were raised.

Today, most land in present-day Judea and Samaria is not privately owned, but rather is unsurveyed—without proven ownership. Israel claims about 30% of the public land in the territory. However, the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that unsurveyed land in Judea and Samaria can be acquired by Arabs who cultivate it consistently.

Arabs, through deed and cultivation rights, own about 95% of private land in the territory. Jews, however, are not granted similar rights, so Jewish farming on unsurveyed land does not entitle Jews to private ownership. Nonetheless, Jews own about 5% of all private land in Judea and Samaria.

Israel offers land for peace. Israel has a clear, millennia-old historical claim to Judea and Samaria, and it reacquired the territories defending itself against an aggressive war. In addition, Israel has an irrefutable legal claim to these territories backed by the 95-year-old San Remo Resolution. Nonetheless, recognizing that its claims are disputed by Arab neighbors, the Jewish state has shown uncommon willingness to share the land.

Starting in 1967, following the Six-Day War, Israel (In its own stupidity and desperation for peace) has offered to give up almost all the land it controls in the “West Bank”—plus a Palestinian capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem—in exchange for peace. Unfortunately, despite numerous such land-for-peace overtures by Israel, including two most recently in 2000 and 2008, the Arabs have consistently rejected them.

Not only do the Arabs reject any Jewish claims to land in Judea and Samaria, they have also insisted during peace negotiations that the territory be made judenrein—free of Jews. Worse, many Palestinian Arabs, such as the terror group Hamas, maintain that the entire land of Palestine—from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including all of Israel and the “West Bank”—belongs only to Arabs. Today, official Palestinian maps do not depict the state of Israel.

How will the dispute over Judea and Samaria be resolved? Over Israel’s 67 years, it has become a world-class cultural, economic and military power. Its standard of living is among the highest in the Middle East. Clearly the Jewish state is here to stay. Yet despite its strength, Israel has shown willingness to negotiate and exchange land for peace. Sadly, this willingness has not been matched by Palestinian leadership. Until such negotiations are consummated, the “West Bank” will remain in dispute—a no-man’s land in which claims of ownership remain cloudy and contested.

While Israel has clear rights to ownership of Judea and Samaria—also known as the “West Bank”—it has taken a practical position, offering to trade those rights and that land for peace with its Arab neighbors. As of yet, however, tragically, no Palestinian leader has been willing to compromise his people’s unrealistic expectation that all of Palestine—from the river to the sea—belongs only to Arabs.

FLAME is the only organization that defends Israel with paid editorial hasbarah messages placed in media nationwide every month: The dire threats from Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah, the injustice of BDS, Palestinian anti-Semitism and more.

If you support a bold voice that tells the truth about Israel in American media, please donate now.

Facts and Logic About the Middle East
PO Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Pertinent quotations from Mohammad’s Koran. “Allah Akhbar – Allah is Great”

By Dennis L. Greene

Israel Commentary consultant

The disease of the Middle East is Islam. All of Israel’s problems can be traced back to it and its sociopath prophet. All questions can be answered with a quote from Mohammad.

Why do Muslims attack Jews and Christians?

[at‑Taubah 9:29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax (Jizya) in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

(Jizya:  A per capita punitive tax levied upon all non-Muslims that elect to maintain residence in Muslim countries without converting to Islam.  The tax is a means of punishing and weakening the infidel to the point of being unable to continue resistance to conversion.  In other words, oppressive and impoverishing. Sharia Law also prescribes that it be administered with a beating.)

Why do they focus on Jews?

We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

[al‑Ma’idah 5:33] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

The Hadith (Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Why are they obsessed with Israel in particular?

[al‑Baqarah 2:191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Why do Arab Muslims turn on black fellow Muslims in places like Darfur?

Surah 3, verse 106: On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved.

The Arabic language has no word for Negro, only “abid” which literally means slave. Peter Jennings reported that the Arabs yelled “Death to the slaves!” as the slaughtered the blacks in Sudan. It actually translates more like “Kill the N—–‘s” What fools the blacks following Farakan are!

Why are they so willing to die?

Surah 8, verse 16: “If any do turn his back to them on such a day ‑ unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) ‑ he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell ‑ an evil refuge (indeed)!”

Why do they ignore the Oslo and other accords?

[al‑Baqarah 2:225] God will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft‑forgiving, Most Forbearing.

Why do the behead?

[Muhammad 47:4] Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (it is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that HE may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Why are they prone to massacres?

[8:67] It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but God looketh to the Hereafter: And God is Exalted in might, Wise.

This is a continuation of a religious war that began in the seventh century. Until we face this reality, any and all peace plans are doomed to fail.

Too many Americans treat the Constitution as if it came from Moses. We fail to appreciate the uniqueness of Islam as being more extreme and political than any other religion by a wide margin. For the future of the western civilization, not just Israel or the USA, we must face this reality and the threat it implies.

The radical Muslims are not ISIS but those who reject the literal readings. The danger is that so-called moderates teach their children that Mohammad was Allah’s prophet, so what is to prevent them from reading the above at face value and acting accordingly?

Netanyahu (and Obama) are just one link in an endless chain of fools who refuse to face the reality that Islam is at war to subjugate the world and exterminate the Jewish race. It is not a radical interpretation or hijacking. The above quotes couldn’t be more clear.

Mohammad was a preincarnation of Hitler. Both were sociopathic megalomaniacs dedicated to genocide of the Jews and subjugating the world. Islam, like a cancer, has destroyed every society it touched. It is metastasizing into America, and our local fools who treat the Constitution as religious dogma are welcoming the fifth column.

Because Muslims profess a god who superficially resembles ours, we seem paralyzed in dealing with them. It is a flow of our Christianized culture that believes good will can win them over despite the number of severed heads. They don’t understand the “Old Testament” and the lesson of the Amalkites. Islam has declared an unlimited fight to the death, and we have no choice.

Dennis L Greene. (

III  Marco Rubio Reacts to Paris Islamic Terrorism killings

November 15, 2015

The horrific attacks in Paris Friday night should be a reminder of the scale of the conflict we’re in, Marco said this morning. “What we’re involved in now is a civilizational conflict with radical Islam,” Marco said. “This is not a geopolitical issue where they want to conquer territory, and it’s two countries fighting against each other. They literally want to overthrow our society and replace it with their radical Sunni Islamic view of the future.”

What drives these Islamist radicals? Why have they set out to destroy the West?

“They do not hate us because we have military assets in the Middle East — they hate us because of our values,” Marco said. “They hate us because young girls here go to school. They hate us because women drive. They hate us because we have freedom of speech, because we have diversity in our religious beliefs. They hate us because we’re a tolerant society.

This is a clash of civilizations. And either they win, or we win.”

(To my mind, Marco Rubio is the man with this unadulterated, politically incorrect view that we must have in the White House in order to save our country and the world from the worst existential threat we have had since Nazi Germany WWII.) jsk

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment





Powered by Facebook Comments